PD1 Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 Ignoring Hebrew idioms (or Greek, for that matter), figures of speech, metaphors, hyperboles, etc.,The problem with this is... in my experience... Christians say that every word in the Bible is metaphor escpecially when it goes against their pre-concieved notions of God.What about Gen 1:26 and Gen 5:1-3 is metaphorical or a figure of speach?Who decides what is and what isnt... a figure of speach? Well, Z, you're discussing this with one Christian who is not guilty of your assertion.As for your other passages and hermeneutical questions, they would probably be better answered in other thread, since they really don't pertain to the current subject, and plus, there have been several passages that do deal with the subject that still have not been fully addressed (i.e., Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:20; Hos. 11:9).
Zakuska Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 3) Misrepresentation. The Bible says that God is spirit, and that God is not a man. So, it according to the Bible that God does not have a body.And if anyone has misinterpreted the passages that you cite, again, it is those involved in polytheistic, heterodoxical, henotheistic type theologies that tend to do so. Mormon theology shares affinities with each of those theologies which are inconsistent with the Christian worldview and the person of God, as determined by biblical revelation. Huh? The Bible also says God is a flaming fire.So what makes that a "metaphor" and "God is not a liar like man" as Gospel truth?That would be your preconcieve notions.Because we also have verses that say... God is a man. That he appears as man in Form. That man is created in that shape and form.
Zakuska Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 As for your other passages and hermeneutical questions, they would probably be better answered in other thread, since they really don't pertain to the current subject, and plus, there have been several passages that do deal with the subject that still have not been fully addressed (i.e., Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:20; Hos. 11:9). Tell you what... You address mine and Ill Address yours. John 4:24Luke 24:39Gen 1:1Gen 1:26Gen 5:1-3Ex 15:3
PD1 Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 Big difference.Man is sinful... God is not.Man lies... God does not.But all of these are attributes of his Character. Not what kind of species of being he is.The notion that God doesnt have a body comes from the greek helenized doctrine that matter is some how inferior or sinful. Out of this need... the kind of being that God is was lost. And thus... Christians go back on the Hebrew Bible and edit out all the Anthropomorphisms. We have even caught the deuteronomists editing out the Anthropomorpghisms. Ask Margaret Barker.Man and God are of the same species. ( Acts 17:26; Luke 3:38)However... man is a fallen god and was tricked into death by the adversary. Christ released us from this. Yes, there is a big difference between God and man. Essentially, creatively v. eternally, aseity, etc.Agreed.Agreed.Essential attributes determine what kind of "species" we're talking about, though. And as noted before, the attributes that constitute the livng God are wholly other than that which comprises a human being. One relies on the other for his existence, while the other is fully satisfied aseity-wise, when it comes to his existence. In other words, man needs God to exist, while God needs no one, or anything, to exist. God is totally, perfectly, and wholly self-existent.As for the Hellenism charge, that argument started with the likes of F. C. Baur, Adolph Harnack, and the rest of the liberal sceptics of the Tubingen school of thought in Germany, and is essentially without merit. It doesn't mean that there was absolutely no Hellenistic influence upon early Christian thought, but to stretch it to the degree that those in that school took it, one is well-advised to be sceptical of them. As for accusations of text tampering, again, that is typical liberal non-sense that has been addressed time and again. For what they often fail to include in their attempts to sell books and keep their jobs at their secular institutions is that textual critics like Metzger, Black, and the Alands, et al, over the years, have helped to make the corrections when necessary. And if anyone needed to ask Margaret Barker or Bart (not Burt) Ehrman a question, it ought to be, just what have you contributed to the establishment of Christian doctrine and belief for the common layperson, and just how much damage have you caused by perpetuating the theories of your predecessors that have long since been discounted as factually in error?"Man is a fallen god and was tricked into death by the adversary?" Would you care to explain this? For if man was a god, then how could he have been tricked by someone who was not a god? And just what kind of god was man? True? False? And if there's only one true God (Jn. 17:3), then doesn't that kind of blow this who theory about man being a fallen god?
PD1 Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 Pd1,Where does scripture assert that the logos (Son of God) is a created being?Col 1:15Yes, there is distinction between the creature and Creator. One of them being that one has an eternal existence, and is perfect in his aseity, and brings the creature into being. Does a potter conjure a pot into existance. No he takes of pre-existant matter and forms it into a pot. And thus the pot has being.Just because spirits and men have "bodies," does not necessitate that God the Father have one like theirs. Remember, God is not a created being, they are, though.Did I say gods body was like ours? It looks like our only Glorious and bright and immortal. One day we will receive on like it.Just because God is qualitatively spirit does not necessitate that he have a physical body, as the LDS assert. In fact, given the grammatical structure of John 4:24, pneuma ho theos, with pneuma moved to the front of the sentence, John is stressing the spirit constitution of God. Not that he is "a" spirit, or that he merely possesses a spirit nature like angels and men, but that his very essence is spirit. And those truly desiring to worship him must do so in "spirit and in truth," denoting the qualitative type of worship acceptable to God.On the other hand.... theres nothing that says a Spirit Cant have a body either.There are different classes of "Spirits" ones that have bodies and ones that don't.So we must Go back to Gen 1:26 and Gen 5:1-3. What does it mean to be made in Gods image and likeness.As for Luke 24:39, Jesus was alleviating the fear of those who thought that they had seen "a ghost" (NET, NIV, NLT). He was merely sharing with them the fact that he was the same person whom they knew before, and not some kind of apparition, which does not have physical attributes.Completely agree 100%.And your last comment, I agree with. Which is why God cannot be compared to created beings who have spirit. For, above all, God is not a created being, and does not necessitate physicality in order to exist. Otherwise, verse like John 1:3 makes absolutely no sense when speaking of that which came into being by the word of God, that otherwise had no existence. The implication is that at one time nothing existed, except for God. Yet, if physicality is a necessity for God to exist, then there was time when he did not exist either, and that is logical absurdity.Partially agree... This is presuppossing that God "conjured" matter into existance "ex nihilo". Which the Hebrew Bible does not support.Matter can not be created nor destroyed... only change from one form to another.The logical absurdity is... God conjures things out of thin air. Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.First-born does not mean "first created." Sorry. Robertson states, "Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before "all creation" (angels and men). Like eik
Zakuska Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 Do you disagree...http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1998-November/002537.htmlPRWTOTOKOS (was col 1:15 greek help)Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 7 14:19:09 EST 1998 Previous message: Chiasm in Nonnos Next message: PRWTOTOKOS (was col 1:15 greek help) Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jonathan Robie
Zakuska Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 God has not potential to be that other than that which he isOk so you are placing limits on God. How is he all powerful then?
sidewinder Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 "Sorry, but you're not telling me what the Israelites believed, and the whole the OT is evidence of that."Actually, born again christians have no idea what the OT teaches. You listen to your ministers, and read into the Bible whatever you feel like. Any objective history puts Jehovah as a man of war, an anthropomorphic god. "The Jews believed in a Supreme Being named Elohim/Yahweh/Adonai, etc., who brought all things into being, and who was not a physical human being."I never said he was a physical human being. I said he was a man of war. He was an anthropomorphic man of war. I explicitly denied that this likely entailed him as having a physical body. I further pointed out superficial parallels to the Mormon interpretation, since Jehova would not have had a body at that time either. "The rest of your comments fail to answer my questions, or are of a nature better suited for another thread (i.e., Atheistic Evolution), which is as equally absurd as the idea that God is a man."The idea that there is a God is absurd, man or otherwise. Atheistic evolution is one of the most rational true theories of all time. You should bow down and worship science, rather than a non-existent god.
Tanyan Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Harvard Theological Review : Vol 55 1962 Pages 187-206, The Logic Of Biblical Anthropormorphism. By Edmond LaB Cherbbonnier. Book: Reflections on Mormonism, Judaeo Christian Parallels:Article- In Defense Of Anthropormorphism. Pages 155-173. By Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier.
PD1 Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 God has not potential to be that other than that which he isOk so you are placing limits on God. How is he all powerful then? Stating the God has no potential to be other than what he is, is not placing a limit on him. It is stating that he is perfect as he is, in need of not being more or less than what he always has been, or what he always will be.Now, stating that God is a man, that he evolved into what he supposedly is, yet confined through the limitations of physicality, that is placing limitations on God, which are totally inconsistent with what he has revealed about himself in scripture.
PD1 Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 "Sorry, but you're not telling me what the Israelites believed, and the whole the OT is evidence of that."Actually, born again christians have no idea what the OT teaches. You listen to your ministers, and read into the Bible whatever you feel like. Any objective history puts Jehovah as a man of war, an anthropomorphic god. "The Jews believed in a Supreme Being named Elohim/Yahweh/Adonai, etc., who brought all things into being, and who was not a physical human being."I never said he was a physical human being. I said he was a man of war. He was an anthropomorphic man of war. I explicitly denied that this likely entailed him as having a physical body. I further pointed out superficial parallels to the Mormon interpretation, since Jehova would not have had a body at that time either. "The rest of your comments fail to answer my questions, or are of a nature better suited for another thread (i.e., Atheistic Evolution), which is as equally absurd as the idea that God is a man."The idea that there is a God is absurd, man or otherwise. Atheistic evolution is one of the most rational true theories of all time. You should bow down and worship science, rather than a non-existent god. Again, your comments are better off in another thread.
Zakuska Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 PD1,Stating the God has no potential to be other than what he is, is not placing a limit on him. It is stating that he is perfect as he is, in need of not being more or less than what he always has been, or what he always will be.Now, stating that God is a man, that he evolved into what he supposedly is, yet confined through the limitations of physicality, that is placing limitations on God, which are totally inconsistent with what he has revealed about himself in scripture. Who says God is "confined" to his physical body? Again... Christ was God incarnate... if what you say is true then... "He was confined" and "still is confined" and "always will be confined to his physical body. Did he not walk on water? Did he not Walk through walls... All with a "physcial" body?
Tanyan Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Zakuska, PD1 as with all our critics take the gnostic middle platonic view regarding the nature/essence of the Father.
Paul Osborne Posted March 23, 2005 Author Posted March 23, 2005 PD1,I think it would be better to describe Mormonism as henotheistic rather than polytheistic because we only serve the Godhead which consists of three Persons. We don
MoseStoneProductions Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 God's prior existence holds no bearing for who he is now. He is My God and I will worship Him. He afforded me the opportunity to come to earth and make something out of myself, by following His rules. So sue me!
Paul Osborne Posted March 23, 2005 Author Posted March 23, 2005 I have a few history books that discuss the Israelite religion, they aren't religious. Without exception, it seems clear that Jehovah is in fact considered a "Man of War" just as Paul says. This is a fairly mundane point, and one that is sometimes made with some jest. I personally, think Jehovah is a complete retard. But, objectively, it's clear that the old testament teaches he is a man. I'd wager from the OT account, one couldn't go so far as to say he has a body of "flesh and bone" but, then again, the Mormon view is that Jehovah is the antemortal Jesus Christ, so he would have human form, but without flesh. Of course, I find it highly doubtful the OT Johava and 21st century God the Father or son really have much in common, but judging by superficial similarities, without a question the Mormo Jesus is closer to the OT Jehovah than the Christian trinity. If the OT teaches that God is nothing more than a man, then where was this "man" at when he created the heavens and the earth? And how did this mere "man" manage to put together the universe, and all that is in it, as well as, breathe life into a lump of dirt, if he is as you say? It would seem to me that after reading the OT a bit more objectively, one should conclude that God is something other than just a man. In fact, he is not a man at all, for a man could never do what God has done in just looking at the creation record. God is nothing more than a man? Shall we say Christ Jesus is nothing more than a man? God forbid. Your understanding of God is the furthest thing from my mind. I can
MoseStoneProductions Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Hey Paul, if I don't get into apolegetics, can I still be a faithful member of the church? I will testify, but you guys here discuss things that I take on faith and just go with it.
Paul Osborne Posted March 23, 2005 Author Posted March 23, 2005 God is a man, is he not? Yet, if God is a man, then where was this man living prior to the creation of all things? Mormonism has the answer. God has a Father.Now, you tell me what and where God was before he created his very first thing. Paul O
MoseStoneProductions Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Where can one get a hold of hebrew/greek dictionaries?
Paul Osborne Posted March 23, 2005 Author Posted March 23, 2005 Zakuska,Thanks for taking on the critics. You did a great job. Little wonder what our critics expect to see when they see God the Father standing next to his Beloved Son in the afterlife. We testified to them. They are not without excuse. We tried. That is all we can do. Most people don't want to know who God really is because their mortal existence shocked their spirit and they can't seem to get over the shock. Coming through the veil of mortality is the most fantastic experience anyone can have other than becoming like God himself. Paul O
Zakuska Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Where can one get a hold of hebrew/greek dictionaries? There online... Heres my Favorite one:http://www.blueletterbible.org/It does strongs concordance in the greek and hebrew.http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html#strongsPaul... you are too kind.
PD1 Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 PD1,Stating the God has no potential to be other than what he is, is not placing a limit on him. It is stating that he is perfect as he is, in need of not being more or less than what he always has been, or what he always will be.Now, stating that God is a man, that he evolved into what he supposedly is, yet confined through the limitations of physicality, that is placing limitations on God, which are totally inconsistent with what he has revealed about himself in scripture. Who says God is "confined" to his physical body? Again... Christ was God incarnate... if what you say is true then... "He was confined" and "still is confined" and "always will be confined to his physical body. Did he not walk on water? Did he not Walk through walls... All with a "physcial" body? Mormonism teaches that God has a body of flesh and bones (D&C 130:22). That he lives on a planet somewhere "nigh unto Kolob" (Abr. 3:9). In fact, James Talmage once wrote, "If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions and therefore of limited extension in space. It is impossible for Him to occupy at one time more than one space of such limits; and it is not surprising, therefore, to learn from the scriptures that He moves from place to place" (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1984), 39.). And before that Brigham Young stated, "Some would have us believe that God is everywhere. It is not so. He is no more every where present in person than the Father and Son are one in person" (Discourses of Brigham Young, compiled by John A. Widtsoe (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1979), 23-24; Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1997), 29). Now, if the LDS God is not confined through physical limitation, then what led these two LDS leaders to conclude what they did?As for your Jesus comments, once again, he necessarily took upon himself the physical body for the sake of redeeming humankind. And any limitation that he might have experienced on earth was, once again, for the working out of God's plan of redemption. After his sojourn on earth, though, Jesus has not, nor ever will again, limited himself for the sake of physicality/redemption. The same cannot be said of the LDS God, as pointed out above by Talmage and Young.So, once again, and back to the point about potential, God the Father cannot potentially be anything other than what he always was, or ever will be. To state otherwise is also to declare that God does not possess full aseity, and that he is in need of something other than himself to exist. And if he is in need of something other than himself to exist, then there is something over and above him that is more powerful, wise, intelligent, etc., than he is, and at any point God may potentially not exist. And that is absolutely contrary to what scripture has revealed about him. On the other hand, the LDS position is that God has the potential to be something other than what he is by stating that he is a man, evolved at that, with a body of flesh and bone. Often the LDS, as you have, try to draw parallels between God the Father and God the Son, particularly in reference to Jesus' physicality. But, such a parallel is unwarranted, all things considered. For Jesus' physicality is not based on a need to exist. Otherwise, the LDS need to answer the question, who or what is it that is above God that is fulfilling his need to exist, whether physically or spiritually? And since the God the LDS currently recognize has the potential to be something other than what he is, then how can they be sure that anything he has to say is true, right, or holy, given that he is reliant upon something other than himself as the standard for those virtues?It is dangerous thing to attribute creaturely characteristics to the Creator, which is why God told the Jews, "Don't" (Ex. 20:4). And the LDS would do well in heeding the same instructions.
PD1 Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Zakuska, PD1 as with all our critics take the gnostic middle platonic view regarding the nature/essence of the Father. Sorry, but I'm neither a Gnostic, nor a Platonist, nor a combination of either two.
urroner Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Well, according to Margaret Barker, a scholar/Methodist preacher, the pre-Exile/first temple Jews believed in a God with a body. In fact, many of their prophets, prophets like Moses and Isaiah, described a physical God. Only problem is, when the reformers or Deuteronomists got into power and had the maintenance of the scriptures, many of the references to the corporality of God was deleted from the scriptures.But then again, the revision of scriptures is nothing new, Justin Martyr complained about the Jews deleting several references about Christ out of the OT.
PD1 Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 PD1,I think it would be better to describe Mormonism as henotheistic rather than polytheistic because we only serve the Godhead which consists of three Persons. We don
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.