Christians: "In These Three I Believe"

[FerventGodSeeker]

FerventGodSeeker:

There's also no scripture that says we are all three one being.

What does that have to do with the issue at hand? We were discussing the explicit use and definition of a word is Scripture by examining Scriptures with that word, not the implicit Scriptural teaching on some other issue.

FGS

 

[Bishka]

That was the explanation. I was showing how the New Testament scripture clarifies the Old Testament scripture, by demonstrating how God's "image" in Genesis (the Greek word in the Septuagint is the same as in Colossians) is not necesarily physical.

FerventGodSeeker

But not necessary spiritual either. Besides, Hebrew words can mean a plethora of different things. I've been studying Old Testament Hebrew and one word could mean a bunch.

 

[Bishka]

What does that have to do with the issue at hand? We were discussing the explicit use and definition of a word is Scripture by examining Scriptures with that word, not the implicit Scriptural teaching on some other issue.

FGS

Your kidding me right? He was just saying how silly you sounded. You said there jello comment, and he reiterated it with a belief and no you are saying that it isn't necessary to the discussion?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

But not necessary spiritual either. Besides, Hebrew words can mean a plethora of different things. I've been studying Old Testament Hebrew and one word could mean a bunch.

Sure, it could have more than one meaning. However, if you're going to acknowledge that, you can't single out such a verse in an attempt to establish the idea that God has a body or that we are physically similar to God. You have no reason to assume that it is physical, while I have multiple New Testament reasons to assume that it is spiritual, as I have demonstrated.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Your kidding me right? He was just saying how silly you sounded. You said there jello comment, and he reiterated it with a belief and no you are saying that it isn't necessary to the discussion?

Becky, he should have been saying that to YOU....you were the one who attempted to use that limited reasoning to defend your position....my alien Jell-o comment simply illustrated how limited that reasoning is.

FGS

 

[FFH]

Genesis is the most messed up portion of the King James.

Here is how the the faulty King James version of Genesis 5: 1-2 should read.

The portions corresponding to the King James version of Genesis 5: 1-2, are highlighted in purple.

Pearl of Great Price
Moses 6: 8-9

8- Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

9- In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God.

Joseph Smith Inspired version
Genesis 6:9

And a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying, In the day that God created man,(in the likeness of God made he him,) in the image of his own body, male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created, and became living souls, in the land, upon the footstool of God.

Compare to:

King James version
Genesis 5: 1-2

1- This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2- Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

 

[FFH]

Not only were we made in the image of the Father's body, but also of the Son's.

Pearl of Great Price
Moses 2: 27

And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.

Joseph Smith Inspired version
Genesis 1:29

And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.

We are also created in the image of all other exalted Gods.

Pearl of Great Price
Abraham 4: 27

So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

Compare to:

King James version
Genesis 1: 27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

I certainly agree that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct beings, but with one purpose. I do, however, disagree with him when he says that God has a body just like humans. I don't know of any scripture that truly supports that.

God bless.

i don't know about you but jesus himself said that he has flesh and bones!!!

luke 24:39
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

 

[dawny0826]

I think many know my thoughts and feelings on the Trinity so, I won't go there...

...and I feel that "image" is NOT exclusive to physicality....

I know this doesn't really assist anyone in their arguments but this verse has really popped at me lately, especially what I've highlighted in red.

"And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifested in the flesh. Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the gentiles, Believed on in the the world, Received up in glory." 1 Timothy 3:16

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

i don't know about you but jesus himself said that he has flesh and bones!!!

luke 24:39
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Yes, you're absolutely right, Jesus' human body was made of flesh and bones. However, Christ had a fully human nature and a fully divine nature. We know that Jesus, as God, is Spirit (John 4:24), and as the verse you just quoted states, "a spirit hath not flesh and bones". Due to the fact that Christ is the only Member of the Godhead who was incarnated into a human body on earth, He is the only member of the Godhead with a physical body. As other Mormons on this thread already admitted, they do not believe Jesus, eternally God, had a physical form until He was incarnated on Earth.

FGS

 

[Polaris]

You have no reason to assume that it is physical, while I have multiple New Testament reasons to assume that it is spiritual, as I have demonstrated.

That's not true. Sure there may be times where the word "image" doesn't necessarily denote something physical. But you have to take into account the context in which it is used. Based on the context of Genesis 1, which is concerning the physical creation of the earth and plant and animal life, it makes perfect sense to assume "image" is meant to be physical in nature. It would be less resonable to assume that suddenly the context changed without any indications from physical to something firgurative or spirit-only.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

That's not true. Sure there may be times where the word "image" doesn't necessarily denote something physical. But you have to take into account the context in which it is used. Based on the context of Genesis 1, which is concerning the physical creation of the earth and plant and animal life, it makes perfect sense to assume "image" is meant to be physical in nature. It would be less resonable to assume that suddenly the context changed without any indications from physical to something firgurative or spirit-only.

Except in the creation of man, there was created far more than a physical body. A spirit, a soul, a personality, a mind, emotions, etc etc etc....all these things were created. You can't just say, "Well, it's a literal creation, so it must be referring to the physical", and leave it at that; humans are not just mindless animals who are nothing more than physical entities. I feel that being created in the image of God for us is far more than skin deep.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Polaris]

Except in the creation of man, there was created far more than a physical body. A spirit, a soul, a personality, a mind, emotions, etc etc etc....all these things were created. You can't just say, "Well, it's a literal creation, so it must be referring to the physical", and leave it at that; humans are not just mindless animals who are nothing more than physical entities. I feel that being created in the image of God for us is far more than skin deep.

I agree, I never indicated that it meant a physical only creation. But based on the context it seems quite reasonable to assume that its proper interpretation at least includes the physical.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I agree, I never indicated that it meant a physical only creation. But based on the context it seems quite reasonable to assume that its proper interpretation at least includes the physical.

Based on the cross-referencing of other Scriptures that we have seen in the thread, I think that the New Testament clarifies the admittedly ambiguous use of "image" there in Genesis, by demonstrating that we are conformed into God's image upon our conversion, in putting off the old man, etc.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Polaris]

Based on the cross-referencing of other Scriptures that we have seen in the thread, I think that the New Testament clarifies the admittedly ambiguous use of "image" there in Genesis, by demonstrating that we are conformed into God's image upon our conversion, in putting off the old man, etc.

How? "Image" means different things based on it's contextual usage. In the NT examples that you sited the context does call for a more spiritual connotation for "image". But that doesn't set blind precedence for how "image" is used in Genesis. Just because it means one thing in one context doesn't mean that it ALWAYS has to be used interpreted that way. You have to consider the context.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

How? "Image" means different things based on it's contextual usage. In the NT examples that you sited the context does call for a more spiritual connotation for "image". But that doesn't set blind precedence for how "image" is used in Genesis. Just because it means one thing in one context doesn't mean that it ALWAYS has to be used interpreted that way. You have to consider the context.

Of course, and I think I did consider the context there. It's certainly conceivable in Genesis that "image" means something more than physicality, don't you agree? Since the passage doesn't explicitly say what "image" is there, then we look to other places in Scripture. The New Testament, which clarifies the Old, repeatedly uses "image" and "likeness" in a spiritual context surrounding conversion and sanctification rather than a physical context. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Apostles' interpretation of Genesis was a spiritual one, since they repeatedly indicate that the "image" of God is something we develop and are continually conformed to in a spiritual sense, not a physical one.

 

[Polaris]

Of course, and I think I did consider the context there. It's certainly conceivable in Genesis that "image" means something more than physicality, don't you agree?

Right, it likely does mean something more than just physicality, but it reasonably includes physicality in its meaning.

Since the passage doesn't explicitly say what "image" is there, then we look to other places in Scripture. The New Testament, which clarifies the Old, repeatedly uses "image" and "likeness" in a spiritual context surrounding conversion and sanctification rather than a physical context. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Apostles' interpretation of Genesis was a spiritual one, since they repeatedly indicate that the "image" of God is something we develop and are continually conformed to in a spiritual sense, not a physical one.

In general that's a good idea, but you can't make some absolute assertion that two different usages of a common word MUST be interpreted in exactly the same way, especially if the contexts are different.

A much more relevant cross-reference would be Genesis 5:3 - "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth". Again this sure sounds to me like it encompasses the physical in its meaning.

 

[Katzpur]

Except in the creation of man, there was created far more than a physical body. A spirit, a soul, a personality, a mind, emotions, etc etc etc....all these things were created. You can't just say, "Well, it's a literal creation, so it must be referring to the physical", and leave it at that; humans are not just mindless animals who are nothing more than physical entities. I feel that being created in the image of God for us is far more than skin deep.

Of course it's more than physical, but why on earth would you assume that it excludes the physical?

Genesis 1: 24-27 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In speaking of all animal life which He created prior to creating Adam and Eve, He spoke of creating each of the species of animals "after his kind." In other words, every living creature would reproduce itself and beget others of its own kind. But God created man after His own image and in His own likeness and told them to also reproduce.

Just four chapters after reading that God created man "in [His] image, after [His] likeness," we read that Adam also begat a son "his own likeness, after his image." The statement in Genesis 5 is a clear reference to the perpetuation of the human race. It is saying that Adam's son, being in his likeness and image, resembled him. He had the physical form of a human being, not of some other form of animal life. We have exactly the same choice of words in Genesis 1 and 5. How much more clearly could God have stated that He is the Father of sons and daughters, his own offspring, who were in the same form as He?

What is it about this concept that makes people react so strongly to it and to deny that it simply means what it appears logically to say? Is it the whole "God is spirit" thing? God is also light and love. He is not exclusively light; He is not exclusively love; He is not exclusively spirit. None of these words are intended to be synonymns for God. They are merely some of His attributes and definitely do not preclude the fact that He is also more than any one of them.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

In general that's a good idea, but you can't make some absolute assertion that two different usages of a common word MUST be interpreted in exactly the same way, especially if the contexts are different.

But that's my whole point; it NOT two different usages, it's the same word, and in the context of referring to how we relate to God's image...the context is the same. It seems clear that the New Testament Apostles saw God's image as not something we relate to physically, but rather something we strive to attain spiritually. I would say that Adam was made automatically in God's image, while we have to attain it, due to sin (which is the only real difference between him and us at creation, aside form a bellybutton ). When we are conformed to God's image, which Adam had immediately at creation because he was innocent and without sin, we are not changed physically, but spiritually. Again, all this seems to clearly indicate that God's image is something spiritual, not material or physical. As a Mormon, you ASSUME that it is physical because you believe God has a body, but there's no actual reason that I can see from the Scriptural context that we would assume that it is physical.

A much more relevant cross-reference would be Genesis 5:3 - "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth". Again this sure sounds to me like it encompasses the physical in its meaning.

It sounds like it to you because you already assume the meaning from the earlier usage of it in Genesis referring to God's image...however, nothing in the verse indicates what the image is referring to there. It could be that they have similar personalities, minds, emotions, they relate similarly, etc etc etc. Any or all of those meanings could be implied, it doesn't necesitate a physical implication.

FGS

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

What is it about this concept that makes people react so strongly to it and to deny that it simply means what it appears logically to say? Is it the whole "God is spirit" thing? God is also light and love. He is not exclusively light; He is not exclusively love; He is not exclusively spirit. None of these words are intended to be synonymns for God. They are merely some of His attributes and definitely do not preclude the fact that He is also more than any one of them.

Sure, but you also have to remember that God cannot contradict Himself. One aspect of His divine nature cannot contradict another aspect. So, to say that God is Spirit, which Jesus explicitly defines as something without a body, and then to say that God has a physical form, is a blatant contradiction.

FGS