enummaelish Posted January 17, 2005 Author Posted January 17, 2005 I don't mean to be controversial, I simply think that this is a fascinating topic, and would love to read your views. Is the image of God physical and if so, how do you understand the fifth lecture on Faith:
Paul Osborne Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 I gotta go, but the Father is a Personage of Spirit having a body of flesh and bones. The doctrine is not off in left field as far as LDS theology is concerned.I also am a personage of spirit having a body of flesh and bones. Paul O
King Folly Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 how do you understand the fifth lecture on FaithI think the preferred way among apologists is to (1) claim that it really means something else, (2) try to limit Joseph Smith's involvement in the writing of the 5th lecture on faith, and of course (3) say it's nondoctrinal.My own opinion is that Joseph's theological view of the Godhead simply changed over time and that the Lectures on Faith is just another evidence of that (as are the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the D&C, and the various First Vision accounts). But that's just me.--KY
1dc Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 Is the image of God physical and if so, how do you understand the fifth lecture on Faith:
Paul Osborne Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 Is the image of God physical and if so, how do you understand the fifth lecture on Faith:
BCSpace Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 The Image of God. Is it physical? Depends on what you mean by "image". To a trinitarian, the image of God as it relates to the creation of man is analogous to a blurry reflection in a mirror. And of course a reflection in a mirror is not physical (unless you want to get down to how light behaves, as waves or particles etc.).To an LDS person, while the image of God means we look like God (as per a perfectly clear reflection), it also means we are the same type of being, the exact same species, as God.
johnny Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 enummaelish writes,I don't mean to be controversial, I simply think that this is a fascinating topic, and would love to read your views. Is the image of God physical and if so, how do you understand the fifth lecture on Faith:
johnny Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 Paul Osborne writes,All of this power is contained in the glory of his own personal spirit being housed in a body of flesh and bone
truth dancer Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 I thought GBH said we don't really know too much about it?For the life of me I just can't image God as a man. For one thing, humans have really evolved over the last, say, four million years... why do some people think that Good looks just like us at this very moment in the history of the universe. What will humankind look like in another few million years? Evolution didn't just stop in the year 2,000 or something.Another thing... we are so very new. I just don't think we can even begin to comprehend the reality of eternity, the universe, existence, God, etc. etc. etc. I dont understand why people don't think that in another few million (or a few billion)years we will know so much more, be able to experience things we can't begin to image, and understand life in ways we are incapable of comprehending today. I just doesn't make sense to me that God is in the form of a man existing in this particular moment... sounds sort of arrogant to me. Like our little species residing in the universe at this little speck of a moment in history is the ultimate life form that could ever exist. I just don't see it personally!Just my opinion... for today! ~dancer~
King Folly Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 Yes, there is one Father. He is a Man, infinite and all powerful.This reminds me of a conversation I recently had with a family member who expressed concern over my disbelief in the changing of skin color as presented in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham. My comment was that I didn't see that as something God would do. His response was that I was trying to create God in my own image.Y'know, I cannot think of a religion organization that has more brazenly attempted to create God in its own image than the Mormon Church. The idea that the supreme being of the universe looks just like a man and, in fact, once was a man is the absolute ultimate anthropomorphism.--KY
Bodon Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 Paul O wrote:Right. If you have seen the Son you have seen the Father. Jesus wanted us to know that he was in like fashion as his Father and reminded his people that the God of Israel was a Man who had a divine Son.I love Christianity. It is so plain.Jesus is saying that He and the Father are one. You know the whole trinity thing.As for God being a man....Jesus states in John 4:24 that God is SpiritHe further states in Luke 24:39 that a Spirit does not have flesh and bones.Yes Christianity is so plain
Kevin W. Graham Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 Johnny just nailed it. The Trinitarian God is Pantheistic. Another paradox I suppose, since Patheism was deemed heresy by the early Church.Pantheism teaches that God is literally EVERYWHERE. He is in the dirt, the tree, the sky, in your corn flakes, etc.
johnny Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 Kevin W. Graham writes,Johnny just nailed it. The Trinitarian God is Pantheistic. Another paradox I suppose, since Patheism was deemed heresy by the early Church.So would you consider the Holy Ghost "pantheistic" since it is spirit and the Mormon Church teaches that "his influence can be everywhere at the same time."Would you give us your interpretation of Jer 23:23,24 and Eph 4:6.Jeremiah 2323 Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.Ephesians 46 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
johnny Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 enummaelish writes,There is no question that the
enummaelish Posted January 17, 2005 Author Posted January 17, 2005 Does the follow usage of "image" denote a physical correspondence?I believe so, yet am willing to be corrected if necessary by someone with more knowledge than I. Since I spend most of my time in the Hebrew Bible, on occasion, I unintentionally slip into employing the term
The Traveler Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 Is it physical? If you believe the text written in Hebrew - the only possible meaning is physical. That is a physical model of a physical thing. It says that man is a physical model of a physical G-d. But if you do not believe that G-d spoke the truth to Moses and would rather rely on interpertations of man then you can make this to mean anything you want.The Traveler
The Traveler Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 enummaelish writes,There is no question that the
johnny Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 enummaelish writes,I believe so, yet am willing to be corrected if necessary by someone with more knowledge than I. IMO I would not interpret "image" 2Cor 3:18 as a "physical correspondence" since the context is glory and it is speaking of "changed into the same image".Since I spend most of my time in the Hebrew Bible, on occasion, I unintentionally slip into employing the term
xerego Posted January 17, 2005 Posted January 17, 2005 how do you understand the fifth lecture on Faith:
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.