saemo Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Not at all. Jesus identified himself as the one who led the Israelites out of captivity, the God of Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob, the very same who spoke to Moses. The Greek phrase "Ego eimi", simply means "I am the one", or "I am He." However, please note that the Hebrew phrase can be translated the same way as the Greek OR it can be translated as "I Become". -StephenYes, and did so by using the name of God, that Moses was given. Why try to wriggle the text so that Jesus is removed from His rightful claim?
stephenpurdy Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Exodus 3:14 I will become / I will be / I become God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"“Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)” - Stephen
saemo Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Whoa, whoa, whoa.In Genesis 1:26, LDS interpret "image and likeness" to mean the same thing that it means elsewhere in the text. Again ...Previously Stephen wrote:Lets look at the phrase "image and likeness" as it is used in the Old Testament. Not only is it used to describe the son of Adam (his son looks like his father), but it is used often in the context of idol worship. Often in the Old Testament texts, we see people making an observation about something in the created Universe, whether it be in heaven or on earth. Perhaps they observed an Ox , an Eagle, a star (Sun), etc. They would then make a statue replica of that object , they would make an "image" or a "likeness" of that thing and begin to worship it. The root etymology of "image" is the SHADOW/SHAPE of the object. For example, the shadow/shape of a human would have a head, two arms, two legs, etc. If any of you have seen a statue of a human, then you have seen the image and likeness of that person. This is how the terms "image and likeness" are used EVERYWHERE in the Old Testament. So, LDS are entirely consistent with the entire Hebrew text when it comes to interpreting Gen 1:26. When they saw a bird, or a cow, or an ox in the created universe, they would reconstruct the same "shape" and physical appearance and it was an "image and likeness". They were not recreating its personality or some kind of spiritual characteristics. Thus LDS clearly have a very strong stance when it comes to the interpretation here.On the other hand, as danielwoods has so concisely demonstrated, Christians start with the presumption that God has no physical form, THEREFORE based on that preconceived notion, the "image and likeness" in Gen1:26 must mean something different than it means everywhere else in the text. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Now look at John chapter 17. Let me start by giving an interesting background note, way back in early Christianity:225 AD Origen wrote in defense against a critic:"In what follows, some may imagine that he (the critic) says something plausible against us (us the Christians). "If," says he, "these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant." To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying," I and My Father are one," and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, "As Thou and I are one, he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. "For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him." "For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him." And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul," that he may understand the meaning of the saying, "I and My Father are one."Origen argues that by giving praise to Jesus Christ, they are still worshiping the Supreme God, God the Father. Please note that he does NOT argue "because they are the same substance/being" as the later creeds argued. What example did Origen give for the kind of oneness that the Father and Son have? He quotes, “the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul”. So, we have a "multitude" of people (Acts 4:32). More than one person. More than one being, who are called "one". Please note that these believers are not literally "one substance". Many other examples are found in scripture, such as:Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soulRom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mindGal. 3:28 ye are all one in ChristPhilip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving togetherNow, Origen continues and it becomes quite clear:“We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. … We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person," has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself." (Origen Against Celsus, book 8, chapter 12, 225 AD) This is the LDS viewpoint. The seperate and distinct beings who are members of the Godhead are united in a harmony of will and purpose. In the October 2007 General Conference, Jeffrey R. Holland put it this way:"We believe these three [God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost] divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance,".... (bold added).This make sense from a New Testament standpoint, because in John 17 we find Jesus praying for the diciples to be "one" with him, in the same sense that Jesus is one with the Father (ie, NOT in the literal sense of being a single being/substance).John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."Again, the LDS interpretation is far, far more consistent with the Biblical text than the concepts defined in the creeds that developed later. -stephenYou bend Origen to your will and remove him from his Christian context. There is one Truth, not three. True God from True God. There is one God, three persons, not three Gods. The creeds developed sure, but the dogmas they describe did not. It is the Apostolic faith, handed on, once for all. Edited June 3, 2015 by saemo
stephenpurdy Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Yes, and did so by using the name of God, that Moses was given. Why try to wriggle the text so that Jesus is removed from His rightful claim? I never attempted to take from Jesus His rightful claim. LDS clearly proclaim that Jesus Christ IS Jehovah/Yahweh of the Old Testament. From LDS.ORG- - - - - - - - - - http://jesuschrist.lds.org/who-is-jesus-christ?lang=eng - - - - - - - Who is Jesus Christ?He was Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Messiah of the New Testament.
saemo Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) I never attempted to take from Jesus His rightful claim. LDS clearly proclaim that Jesus Christ IS Jehovah/Yahweh of the Old Testament. From LDS.ORG- - - - - - - - - - http://jesuschrist.lds.org/who-is-jesus-christ?lang=eng - - - - - - - Who is Jesus Christ?He was Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Messiah of the New Testament.Moses spoke with God. Jesus' rightful claim is that He is God. God told Moses, there is no other God before Him. So, your God the Father is below your God the Son? Or, is there One God above all other gods (so-called)?The Hebrews were worshipping Jesus? Praying to Jesus? Isn't that a no-no for LDS?Or, were they worshipping One God, whom had not yet revealed the Son to humanity? Edited June 3, 2015 by saemo
saemo Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Exodus 3:14I will become / I will be / I becomeGod said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"“Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)” - StephenSo, you believe Christianity has been playing a trick on people for over 2000 years?Or could it be that a transfer of meaning and a literal translation are not the same thing? Edited June 3, 2015 by saemo
stephenpurdy Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 You bend Origen to your will and remove him from his Christian context. There is one Truth, not three. True God from True God. There is one God, three persons, not three Gods. The creeds developed sure, but the dogmas they describe did not. It is the Apostolic faith, handed on, once for all. Sure, there is one Truth, there is one God. That isn't the question. In what sense are THEY one? Are They literally one single subsistence? Are They literally one single being? Are They literally one single substance? Hebrews 1 actually contradicts your view of a single substance God. Jesus Christ is the express image / copy / duplicate / stamped out replica of the Father's substance (see verse 3). That is not the same thing as saying that they are the same single substance. The imagery of that chapter, by the way, is the King who is passing the scepter of the Kingdom to his Son, the heir. He was "chosen" from amongst his "fellows" (ie the other sons of God) because of his preeminence and clear superiority over them. Christ was anointed and GIVEN the authority. This makes absolutely no sense if they are literally the same being, because a single being has no need to "choose itself" "give authority to itself", etc. -stephen
saemo Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Sure, there is one Truth, there is one God. That isn't the question. In what sense are THEY one?Are They literally one single subsistence? Are They literally one single being? Are They literally one single substance? Hebrews 1 actually contradicts your view of a single substance God.Jesus Christ is the express image / copy / duplicate / stamped out replica of the Father's substance (see verse 3). That is not the same thing as saying that they are the same single substance.The imagery of that chapter, by the way, is the King who is passing the scepter of the Kingdom to his Son, the heir. He was "chosen" from amongst his "fellows" (ie the other sons of God) because of his preeminence and clear superiority over them. Christ was anointed and GIVEN the authority. This makes absolutely no sense if they are literally the same being, because a single being has no need to "choose itself" "give authority to itself", etc.-stephenNo, Hebrews supports unequivocally the Holy Trinity. God from God. Undivided substance. The three Persons of the Trinity are distinct, but not divided. Of course it doesn't make sense when you have a heretical view that the Persons of the Trinity are not distinct. Edited June 3, 2015 by saemo
stephenpurdy Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 So, you believe Christianity has been playing a trick on people for over 2000 years?Or could it be that a transfer of meaning and a literal translation are not the same thing? I believe that people have been misinterpreting scripture for much longer than 2000 years. Jesus Christ himself said that even the Jews did not understand their own scriptures. That is why they rejected Him. The same is true for those who reject the prophet Joseph Smith. They lean on their own understanding rather than asking God. Moses spoke with God. Jesus' rightful claim is that He is God. God told Moses, there is no other God before Him. So, your God the Father is below your God the Son? Or, is there One God above all other gods (so-called)? Whoa, whoa, whoa. That is an ENTIRELY different context. Jesus Christ, for example, would NEVER, while standing on the right hand of the Father, say, "There is no god besides me". Your attempt to misuse the context is appalling. Jehovah when saying "there are no gods besides me" is using an old Hebrew idiom in comparison with the false gods/idols of other nations. The idiom means that He is superior to all others, as well as saying that there is no other source of salvation. "Besides me there is no Savior". In contrast, in the context of Jesus referring to God the Father, Jesus says "My Father is greater than I". He says that He had not yet ascended to His father and to His God. People ask me, "Are you saying that as Deity, Jesus Christ has a God. God has a God?" The answer is yes. Hebrews 1:9 reiterates it, "Thou (Jesus Christ) hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God (the Father), hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." God, the Son, was chosen/anointed above the other sons. Chosen and anointed by His God, the Father. Why, because he loved righteousness. He was superior/preeminent above the other sons of God. So, please spare me your misuse of context, where Jehovah is comparing himself to false idols/gods, and try to place those phrases in the context of Jesus comparing Himself to the Father. It is just another example of poor interpretation and misuse of the text. -stephen
stephenpurdy Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 No, Hebrews supports unequivocally the Holy Trinity. God from God. Undivided substance. The three Persons of the Trinity are distinct, but not divided. Of course it doesn't make sense when you have a heretical view that the Persons of the Trinity are not distinct. It does NOT say "undivided substance". It does NOT say "same substance". It says Jesus is the "χαρακτήρ" of the Fathers substance. It says the Jesus Christ is the express image / copy / duplicate / stamped out replica of the Father's substance (see verse 3). Allow me to provide you with the usage of that term. When making a replica or a copy in ancient times, an instrument was fashioned into the desired shape/character/figure. That shape was then used to make stamped out copies. That is the term used here: "χαρακτήρ" the instrument used for engraving or carving the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile If you have a stamped out copy, or a precise reproduction of something, it is NOT the same being as the original. It is ANOTHER. "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever." (John 14:16) What is the word for "another"? This Greek word transliterates to "allos". It means is "another of the same kind". It isn't the same single being. -stephen
halconero Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Is there anything about Genesis 1:26 that demands a literal interpretation? Yes. Historical context. Ancient Israelite religion was not the monolithic monotheism 2nd Temple Judaism and later Rabbinical Judaism. Archaeological, textual, and cultural evidence demands a literal interpretation of the monolatristic presentation of deity in Genesis. Same with the language. The idea that the plural rendering of the title of God refers to a plurality of virtues is a far later redaction. In fact, one of the most interesting problems faced by both 2nd Temple Jews and Early Christians was that the Genesis account in both Hebrew and Greek is quietly obviously two distinct stories intertwined with one another present significant divergences not present in English. While the modern chapters make it less jarring. If you read Genesis 1 and 2 together at once, there's a quiet jarring divide suddenly at Genesis 2:4, and the different accounts become quiet easy to spot in the ancient languages. Here are the four most striking differences are these: 1st story: - Creation occurs in consort with divine heavenly council, a common trope in pre 2nd temple Judaism. The pluralistic Eloheim presents a divine figure presiding over many other divine figures - Creation occurs in six days - Humanity is the last creation - BUT WAIT!!!! The creation of humanity and its respective genders occurs in one event. There is no "male first," female second. 2nd story: - Suddenly Eloheim is absent, and Jehovah is the one doing the creating. You can see this a bit in English when it goes from God to "LORD God" - Creation occurs in ONE day, both of the heavens and the earth - Humanity is the first of all creations - Male first, then female The accounts actually intertwine for a couple chapters, but the differences between them are linguistically clear. So much so that the issues raised by them caused a large amount of debate in both Jewish and Christian circles. Some were okay with the heavenly council present, others started downgrading gods to angels, or saying that Eloheim merely expressed a plurality of virtues. With regards to the creation of humanity, some proposed that the first Adam was androgynous and spirit, created by Eloheim who was also androgynous. It was only when the demiurge, the evil Yahweh created humanity that the sexes were divided. Some, such as Thomasine Christians or Therapeutae Jews near Alexandria tried to return to this androgynous state via prayer and study, and in some extreme cases via castration. That is all common academic biblical knowledge. Personally, I think there is a VERY interesting reconciliation of the two stories in the Pearl of Great Price, but that's a whole other topic. So that's the long answer to the short question. Yes. Anciently it was taken as literal. Interpretative redactions make it less so. 2
stephenpurdy Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 The creeds developed sure, but the dogmas they describe did not. It is the Apostolic faith, handed on, once for all. ....The three Persons of the Trinity are distinct, but not divided. Of course it doesn't make sense when you have a heretical view that the Persons of the Trinity are not distinct. The dogmas ABSOLUTELY developed. On one side, you had people arguing that Jesus Christ and God the Father were two separate beings, the Son was begotten/created by the Father. On the other side, you had essentially modalists, who said that it was a single being/substance. Emperor Constantine wanted to consolidate power at the head of this new Christian empire, so he ordered the ecclesiastic leaders to meet together at the council of Nicea and essentially forced them to hash it all out. In order to appease both sides of the argument, the Trinity dogma was born as a compromise. Instead of Jesus being "begotten" as normally understood, they claimed that he was "Eternally Begotten" , meaning that from eternity past to eternity future, the Son is being constantly emanated from or issued forth from the Father. This was an entirely new/novel concept. And oh, while yes they are separate and distinct "persons" (they redefined the meaning of "person"), they described that it really is a single being/substance after all (modeled after the well accepted Greek philosophical concept of Plato/Aristotle's "unmoved mover" god in order to make it more palatable to the Roman culture). It is word games and nonsense and unbiblical, and the ecclesiastical leaders claim to understand it, while the "uneducated masses" were/are too confused by this terminology in order to attempt to argue or think about it. "Oh, just accept it as a 'mystery'". -stephen 1
halconero Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 So, you believe Christianity has been playing a trick on people for over 2000 years?Or could it be that a transfer of meaning and a literal translation are not the same thing? Nah, I just believe that the proto-Cathodox church won out over the various, diverse, and numerous other sects and interpretations which existed due to Imperial recognition and support. Some of those beliefs were probably a little closer to the ancient belief, some of them even farther of than the cathodox view. 2
halconero Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 No, Hebrews supports unequivocally the Holy Trinity. Unequivocal is not the word I would use...not even close... 2
stephenpurdy Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Are you being purposefully obtuse?Why do we need a body at all? We don't. It is how God created us. Period. Not difficult to understand that He did.Why does Christ retain a body instead of returning to spirit? Our faith is rooted in reality, which is, God created us body and soul, Jesus does not need a body as Jesus is God and therefore has no need. He did so FOR OUR SAKE. He is the first fruit and our resurrection is tied to His,What is the purpose in having an eternal, perfect, physical body? It is as God created us. Again, our faith is rooted in reality, not musings of fantasies, such as, what would happen if God created us like the Angels, as spirit only. He didn't.Why bother resurrecting our bodies at all when our spirits are perfectly capable of dwelling with God and Christ? God is a God of the living, and desires to give us life, not leave us in death. God did not need to, and was not required, to restore us to life. It is His desire that we live! If you view that as rhetoric, then you don't understand Christianity at all. It is not about being "obtuse". You simply are not taking this to its logical conclusion. You say that Jesus did not "need" a physical body, but instead did it for our sake. However, do we "need" physical bodies? Leave us out of it for a moment ... Would Jesus be better off without a body? -stephen 2
stephenpurdy Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 The Hebrews were worshipping Jesus? Praying to Jesus? Isn't that a no-no for LDS?Or, were they worshipping One God, whom had not yet revealed the Son to humanity? We worship Jesus. However, when we pray, we do so exactly the way that Jesus asked us to. To the Father, in his name. They are "one God". Again, that isn't the issue. The issue is, in what sense are they one? -s
stephenpurdy Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Likeness and image taken so literally, as to believe if you look in a mirror that you see God looking back at you, defies what God has revealed about Himself. God is Spirit. We have a spirit. There is a difference between being and having. God is not seen. Image and likeness is based on terms like "shadow, shape". When the children of Israel were creating images/likenesses/statues, they were the same shape and of similar physical appearance. Two eyes, for example. Wings if it was an Eagle, etc. It really is that simple. And please stop misusing the verse that says "God is Spirit". This post was not addressed (489)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Might I add that when Christians try to use "God is spirit" as a phrase "from scripture" that supposedly precludes the idea of God having a body, it is a blatent misuse of scripture. Not only does it ignore the immediate context, but it ignores the context of the rest of the Biblical text, including John's own words in the very same book of the New Testament. Sure God is "spirit". So are you. So are angels. So is Jesus. We are all spirits.In 1 Corinthians 2:11, Paul wrote about "the spirit of man and the Spirit of God." Elsewhere he spoke of the resurrection of the body and then noted that it is a "spiritual" body (1 Corinthians 15:44-46). He also said things like, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you" (Romans 8:9).So, it is poor interpretation to throw in a phrase of a verse like John 4:24 in isolation and attempt to claim that it means what you want it to mean.We are all spirit:I already mentioned that God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 16:22) (Numbers 27:16)Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live? (Hebrews 12:9)1 Cor 6:17 "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him." Does that mean that Christians do not have physical bodies, but instead are literally one spirit substance with God and without a physical body?Also consider the words of Jesus: Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'…Tell me , does John 3:6 teach that when we are "born again" or "born of the Spirit", we no longer have a physical body? Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' Clearly, saying that someone is "spirit" does not mean they have ONLY a spirit. Like I said, to make such a claim is poor scriptural interpretation. -Stephen
Anakin7 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 LDS Kryptonian Saint/Christian Professor Scholar David Paulsen has done some awesome works in some past publication materials on this subject. 1 - Early Christian Veiws of a Corporae Diety, Augusrtine and Origen as Reluctant Witnesses/ 2 Must God Be Incorporeal along with other works on this subject. A google search for his name will produce these referenced works. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7
saemo Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Image and likeness is based on terms like "shadow, shape". When the children of Israel were creating images/likenesses/statues, they were the same shape and of similar physical appearance. Two eyes, for example. Wings if it was an Eagle, etc. It really is that simple. And please stop misusing the verse that says "God is Spirit". This post was not addressed (489)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Might I add that when Christians try to use "God is spirit" as a phrase "from scripture" that supposedly precludes the idea of God having a body, it is a blatent misuse of scripture. Not only does it ignore the immediate context, but it ignores the context of the rest of the Biblical text, including John's own words in the very same book of the New Testament. Sure God is "spirit". So are you. So are angels. So is Jesus. We are all spirits.In 1 Corinthians 2:11, Paul wrote about "the spirit of man and the Spirit of God." Elsewhere he spoke of the resurrection of the body and then noted that it is a "spiritual" body (1 Corinthians 15:44-46). He also said things like, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you" (Romans 8:9).So, it is poor interpretation to throw in a phrase of a verse like John 4:24 in isolation and attempt to claim that it means what you want it to mean.We are all spirit:I already mentioned that God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 16:22) (Numbers 27:16)Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live? (Hebrews 12:9)1 Cor 6:17 "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him." Does that mean that Christians do not have physical bodies, but instead are literally one spirit substance with God and without a physical body?Also consider the words of Jesus: Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'…Tell me , does John 3:6 teach that when we are "born again" or "born of the Spirit", we no longer have a physical body? Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' Clearly, saying that someone is "spirit" does not mean they have ONLY a spirit. Like I said, to make such a claim is poor scriptural interpretation. -StephenNone of the scriptures you quote here describe a corporeal Father. You are arguing from silence, what scripture does not say, and conjecturing. As for being born of the Spirit, Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be reborn from above, IN SPIRIT. How does this say to you that the Father is corporeal? BTW, "the Greek adverb anōthen means both “from above” and “again.” Jesus means “from above” (see Jn 3:31) but Nicodemus misunderstands it as “again.” This misunderstanding serves as a springboard for further instruction" (New American Bible). As for Paul, he uses flesh vs body numerous time, to teach a difference between how original sin affects our actions and views, as compared to living in the understanding that we are redeemed, and therefore we should live not in the flesh (as one not redeemed) but in the spirit (as one who is redeemed).
Anakin7 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) stephenpurdy my LDS Kryptonian Saint/Christian JEDI Master [This is for you as well saemo my Candorian friend] - This a great conversation read !. See http://promormon.blogspot.com/2004/10/genesis-126-27-and-gods-body.html In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited June 3, 2015 by Anakin7
danielwoods Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I want to ask the question in another way. Is it "superior" to have a spirit dwelling within a body OR is it superior to exist as ONLY a spirit? -stephen No. You just proved my point for me. Thanks. -stephen I see. Using non-biblical sources to interpret the bible isn't forcing your view on the bible, but just using the bible alone is. Got it.
danielwoods Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 On the other hand, as danielwoods has so concisely demonstrated, Christians start with the presumption that God has no physical form, THEREFORE based on that preconceived notion, the "image and likeness" in Gen1:26 must mean something different than it means everywhere else in the text. -stephen Actually that's false. We start with the assumption that the Bible is true, and if it states that God doesn't have a body but is Spirit, that is what we accept as true. You are welcome to quote where the Bible teaches that God the Father has a body. 1
saemo Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Image and likeness is based on terms like "shadow, shape". When the children of Israel were creating images/likenesses/statues, they were the same shape and of similar physical appearance. Two eyes, for example. Wings if it was an Eagle, etc. It really is that simple. When they made idols of other gods, they were making an image of the gods. They made no idols of the One God who they worshipped, certainly because they were commanded to not to. But this commandment didn't stop them from waywardly making idols of the gods in which they falsely believed were real. If they chose to make an image of God (not the gods), what would that image look like? A burning bush? A pillar of fire? A cloud? A man? There is no image to be made of the God who they worshipped because they understood that God cannot be seen. The belief regarding idols of the gods, is that the inanimate objects they fashioned were inhabited by the spirits of the gods in whose image they were made. What is to be believed of an idol fashioned in the shape of man and believed to be inhabited by the spirit of God? Wouldn't that be a human, falsely believing they are creating another human. A golem? Do not make yourself into an idol. You have a spirit, which God created for you. God is Spirit, created by none. The Spirit of God dwells in the faithful, but not in the form of making us an idol, fashioned by God. Edited June 3, 2015 by saemo 1
Gray Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Yes. Historical context. Ancient Israelite religion was not the monolithic monotheism 2nd Temple Judaism and later Rabbinical Judaism. Archaeological, textual, and cultural evidence demands a literal interpretation of the monolatristic presentation of deity in Genesis. Same with the language. The idea that the plural rendering of the title of God refers to a plurality of virtues is a far later redaction. In fact, one of the most interesting problems faced by both 2nd Temple Jews and Early Christians was that the Genesis account in both Hebrew and Greek is quietly obviously two distinct stories intertwined with one another present significant divergences not present in English. While the modern chapters make it less jarring. If you read Genesis 1 and 2 together at once, there's a quiet jarring divide suddenly at Genesis 2:4, and the different accounts become quiet easy to spot in the ancient languages. Here are the four most striking differences are these: 1st story: - Creation occurs in consort with divine heavenly council, a common trope in pre 2nd temple Judaism. The pluralistic Eloheim presents a divine figure presiding over many other divine figures - Creation occurs in six days - Humanity is the last creation - BUT WAIT!!!! The creation of humanity and its respective genders occurs in one event. There is no "male first," female second. 2nd story: - Suddenly Eloheim is absent, and Jehovah is the one doing the creating. You can see this a bit in English when it goes from God to "LORD God" - Creation occurs in ONE day, both of the heavens and the earth - Humanity is the first of all creations - Male first, then female The accounts actually intertwine for a couple chapters, but the differences between them are linguistically clear. So much so that the issues raised by them caused a large amount of debate in both Jewish and Christian circles. Some were okay with the heavenly council present, others started downgrading gods to angels, or saying that Eloheim merely expressed a plurality of virtues. With regards to the creation of humanity, some proposed that the first Adam was androgynous and spirit, created by Eloheim who was also androgynous. It was only when the demiurge, the evil Yahweh created humanity that the sexes were divided. Some, such as Thomasine Christians or Therapeutae Jews near Alexandria tried to return to this androgynous state via prayer and study, and in some extreme cases via castration. That is all common academic biblical knowledge. Personally, I think there is a VERY interesting reconciliation of the two stories in the Pearl of Great Price, but that's a whole other topic. So that's the long answer to the short question. Yes. Anciently it was taken as literal. Interpretative redactions make it less so. Yes, I can definitely see why ancient Hebrews would take it literally. But I don't see how we should feel obliged to do so, especially since most of us don't worship El or Yahweh as they were originally envisioned 1
JLHPROF Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Are you being purposefully obtuse?Why do we need a body at all? We don't. It is how God created us. Period. Not difficult to understand that He did.Why does Christ retain a body instead of returning to spirit? Our faith is rooted in reality, which is, God created us body and soul, Jesus does not need a body as Jesus is God and therefore has no need. He did so FOR OUR SAKE. He is the first fruit and our resurrection is tied to His,What is the purpose in having an eternal, perfect, physical body? It is as God created us. Again, our faith is rooted in reality, not musings of fantasies, such as, what would happen if God created us like the Angels, as spirit only. He didn't.Why bother resurrecting our bodies at all when our spirits are perfectly capable of dwelling with God and Christ? God is a God of the living, and desires to give us life, not leave us in death. God did not need to, and was not required, to restore us to life. It is His desire that we live! If you view that as rhetoric, then you don't understand Christianity at all. No, I'm not being obtuse, and thank you for finally providing a clear position on the purpose of the resurrection in your belief which takes into account your beliefs on the nature of God and Christ. And thank you for answering my questions directly. I appreciate it, although I'd have a hard time identifying some of these beliefs in Biblical text without doing some major interpretative reading.
Recommended Posts