Genesis 1:27

[Bini]

★☆

Another thread based on "speculation", and anyone can answer.

How literal do you take this scripture (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."? I don't doubt that we are made in God's image but what about all the body parts, bits and pieces, that sole use are for existence on earth in earthly bodies? I'm skeptical that a God would be designed in such an inferior way, as He is not burdened by bodily functions or carnal desires, nor would He be, as He does not live in a temporal world. But we do live in a temporal world, in earthly bodies that are imperfect, experiencing carnal wants and needs of the natural man. But what of the afterlife? What purpose would those body parts (bits and pieces) have? Why would they even further exist? I understand we will remain male and female, however and for example, why would a woman that's become a god (in LDS belief) remain with human breasts? I doubt she'll be breastfeeding.. It seems that breasts would be an inferior part to a superior being, as they would serve absolutely no function. And a step further in speculation, carnal desires will be lifted, so breasts would not only be non-lactating but there would be no need to attract the opposite gender in a natural man sense, either. Will sexual intercourse even be necessary or practiced in the afterlife? In this life sexual intercourse covers three things: procreation, intimacy, and carnal desire. In the next life, we will not need to procreate to bring spirits to bodies, nor will we be burdened by the carnal desires of our bodies. I assume spouses will continue to show love towards each other but I'm doubting it will be done in a natural man method. But maybe, I don't know. Could it be that we (mankind in general) have read and interpreted this scripture too literally? Could the scripture be referring to man resembling God in a cognitive sense (utilizing intelligence and emotions), unlike other animals on earth that do not reason in this way, and respond via natural instinct?

[Guest]

I hope and believe that marital sex is certainly a part of celestial living, and I dare say my eternal companion will be very disappointed if I am there devoid of breasts. I'll just be glad that they're where they're supposed to be again.

[Bini]

I hope and believe that marital sex is certainly a part of celestial living, and I dare say my eternal companion will be very disappointed if I am there devoid of breasts. I'll just be glad that they're where they're supposed to be again.

Eowyn, I had to log back in just to LOL at the last bit! Yes, if we do end up having breasts in the afterlife, let's hope they're in the right place..

On a serious note. Breasts are attractive to the opposite gender because that's how the natural man responds to them. Men and women are attracted to each other so ultimately, we will pair off and procreate. When this is no longer the case in the afterlife, will body parts (bits and pieces) still be necessary, that sole purpose is to fulfill carnal needs on earth? Have we interpreted this scripture too literally?

Edited September 4, 2012 by Bini
Screwy coding

[SteveVH]

★☆

Another thread based on "speculation", and anyone can answer.

How literal do you take this scripture (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."? I don't doubt that we are made in God's image but what about all the body parts, bits and pieces, that sole use are for existence on earth in earthly bodies? I'm skeptical that a God would be designed in such an inferior way, as He is not burdened by bodily functions or carnal desires, nor would He be, as He does not live in a temporal world. But we do live in a temporal world, in earthly bodies that are imperfect, experiencing carnal wants and needs of the natural man. But what of the afterlife? What purpose would those body parts (bits and pieces) have? Why would they even further exist? I understand we will remain male and female, however and for example, why would a woman that's become a god (in LDS belief) remain with human breasts? I doubt she'll be breastfeeding.. It seems that breasts would be an inferior part to a superior being, as they would serve absolutely no function. And a step further in speculation, carnal desires will be lifted, so breasts would not only be non-lactating but there would be no need to attract the opposite gender in a natural man sense, either. Will sexual intercourse even be necessary or practiced in the afterlife? In this life sexual intercourse covers three things: procreation, intimacy, and carnal desire. In the next life, we will not need to procreate to bring spirits to bodies, nor will we be burdened by the carnal desires of our bodies. I assume spouses will continue to show love towards each other but I'm doubting it will be done in a natural man method. But maybe, I don't know. Could it be that we (mankind in general) have read and interpreted this scripture too literally? Could the scripture be referring to man resembling God in a cognitive sense (utilizing intelligence and emotions), unlike other animals on earth that do not reason in this way, and respond via natural instinct?

You ask some very good questions. As a Catholic, of course, we would differ in that we do not believe in eternal procreation. We do believe that we do not loose our identity when we reach heaven, but what our glorified bodies will be like we don't know for certain. We do know that they are spiritual bodies. They will be supernatural (above nature) so they will not function as a "natural" body was designed. Christ said we will be "like the angels" who were not created male and female. That does not mean we will be angels, they are an entirely different species of life.

We believe that being make in the image and likeness of God does not mean that God is in the image and likeness of man. We are like him in that we are free beings. We are like him in our ability to love. One of the greatest ways in which we reflect God is the family; the two become one, so literally that nine months later we have to give it a name. We believe this is the nature and essence of God; a complete self-giving of the Father to the Son and from the Son to the Father and the resulting love is the Holy Spirit. They can be no more seperated than an infant's identity can be seperated between the father and the mother. In essence, the nature of God is a family; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Scripture tells us that God is invisible. Jesus became incarnate (he was not always), but the Father did not. Indeed, concerning Jesus, we are told that he is the " the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), which means that the Father has no body parts, but is pure Spirit. Christ, as well, at the time of creation did not possess a physical, human body, but rather was pure spirit. So, while the human form may in some way reflect God, it does not mean that God looks like us in a physical way. Anyway, that would be the Catholic perspective.

Edited September 4, 2012 by StephenVH

[rameumptom]

We and God and angels are all part of the same genetic family. Why should we suppose that God and gods cannot have attractions, sexual desire, etc? When we read the scriptures, do we not see God filled with love, mercy, anger, etc? Ancient Israel viewed Elohim as symbolized by a bull, a sign of fertility, and his wife Asherah as a tree - also a fertility sign.

Moses saw God's body parts: face, arms, legs, etc. While I do not suppose our mortal bodies are exactly like God's, they are in the same image. Joseph Smith taught that immortals have spirit flowing through their veins instead of blood, so we can suppose they have a circulatory system. The resurrected Christ ate fish with his disciples, so we can suppose there is a digestive system.

I think we do ourselves a disservice when we make God out to be something unlike us, when we do not know for certain, and the scriptures denote that we are in his image.

[Traveler]

We and God and angels are all part of the same genetic family. Why should we suppose that God and gods cannot have attractions, sexual desire, etc? When we read the scriptures, do we not see God filled with love, mercy, anger, etc? Ancient Israel viewed Elohim as symbolized by a bull, a sign of fertility, and his wife Asherah as a tree - also a fertility sign.

Moses saw God's body parts: face, arms, legs, etc. While I do not suppose our mortal bodies are exactly like God's, they are in the same image. Joseph Smith taught that immortals have spirit flowing through their veins instead of blood, so we can suppose they have a circulatory system. The resurrected Christ ate fish with his disciples, so we can suppose there is a digestive system.

I think we do ourselves a disservice when we make God out to be something unlike us, when we do not know for certain, and the scriptures denote that we are in his image.

Sorry - I had to put something here. I really do not like the broad extensions in meanings that are associated with the word and term sex and sexual desire. I would "feel" better with the understanding, desire and joy associated with the concept of engaging in the act that engenders reproduction and/or creation of life.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

★☆

Another thread based on "speculation", and anyone can answer.

How literal do you take this scripture (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."?...

In a conversation I had with a Jewish Rabbi and expert in ancient Hebrew - he talked to me about the particular Hebrew words that we translate into modern English as "image". The same word is use in association with idols and the images that are created by man. In essence he explained that the term meant physical model - similar to an airplane model or model ship. I thought it to be most interesting that he made reference to physical image.

I believe Jesus himself verifies this point when he expressed that seeing him (his physical being) that it was the same as seeing the Father.

Another point is that in general we understand death as the separating of the spirit form the physical shell - or as Jesus said the temple of G-d. The symbolism is very strong that there is a direct connection between the physical body of man and the physical tabernacle of G-d. Without question we see that the physical attributes of Jesus were indistinguishable with that of man in general and likewise as indistinguishable from the Father's.

I find it interesting that G-d commanded Moses (10 commandments) not to make any images (physical models) to represent G-d.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

Sorry - I had to put something here. I really do not like the broad extensions in meanings that are associated with the word and term sex and sexual desire. I would "feel" better with the understanding, desire and joy associated with the concept of engaging in the act that engenders reproduction and/or creation of life.

The Traveler

But those are modern conceptions you are dragging into this. I'm not saying that God is necessarily one thing or the other. But why should we delimit God, simply because our modern customs move us to do so?

[Traveler]

But those are modern conceptions you are dragging into this. I'm not saying that God is necessarily one thing or the other. But why should we delimit God, simply because our modern customs move us to do so?

I am very confused - Because there is a modern society of humans - I have believed that "the understanding, desire and joy associated with the concept of engaging in the act that engenders reproduction and/or creation of life" - is a rather old and ancient custom and tradition fostered in society.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

We and God and angels are all part of the same genetic family. Why should we suppose that God and gods cannot have attractions, sexual desire, etc? When we read the scriptures, do we not see God filled with love, mercy, anger, etc? Ancient Israel viewed Elohim as symbolized by a bull, a sign of fertility, and his wife Asherah as a tree - also a fertility sign.

Asherah was a mythical goddess that was never included in the sacred writings of the Jews. There is no mention of this goddess in Sacred Scripture. In fact, Sacred Scripture never mentions God as having a wife.

Moses saw God's body parts: face, arms, legs, etc.

I guess I have missed this. Can you please point me to the Biblical passage that says that Moses saw God's arms and legs, etc. To see the "face of God" is metaphorical language meaning to know God. Why does everyone here ignore the passage that states that " He is the image of the invisible God" (Collosian 1:15)?

I think we do ourselves a disservice when we make God out to be something unlike us, when we do not know for certain, and the scriptures denote that we are in his image.

On the contrary, I think we do God a disservice when we try to make him in the image of man. He is eternally above man in every way.

[annewandering]

Why would we not nurture our babies? Spiritual bodies need nourishment, surely, of some kind. Breasts are not there to attract male attention. There are many societies where they are not used the way they are in ours. Why would that be their only purpose in the hereafter?

Our physicial bodies are comparable to our spiritual bodies. When Joseph saw God and Jesus did they look like aliens with strange body parts? When people see spirits do they look like people or strange aliens? When people see female spirits, like their moms or wife, do they lack female body parts, like breasts or do they look like men? I would think by now someone would have noticed if they were androgynous.

[Bini]

Why would we not nurture our babies? Spiritual bodies need nourishment, surely, of some kind. Breasts are not there to attract male attention. There are many societies where they are not used the way they are in ours. Why would that be their only purpose in the hereafter?

Our physicial bodies are comparable to our spiritual bodies. When Joseph saw God and Jesus did they look like aliens with strange body parts? When people see spirits do they look like people or strange aliens? When people see female spirits, like their moms or wife, do they lack female body parts, like breasts or do they look like men? I would think by now someone would have noticed if they were androgynous.

I think it's safe to say that western culture is very sexualised in comparison to other cultures. That said, the human body is designed to be attractive to the opposite gender, that's ultimately what encourages mankind to reproduce. To put things in perspective, not all cultures see breasts as sexual objects, but in every culture there is a physical trait of the female body that is attractive to males (that could be feet, or necks). I just used "breasts" as one example but I don't want to limit it to that..

It just boggles my mind that a god would have an inferior body. The Catholic outlook makes a lot of sense to me but at this point, it's all interpretation and speculation.

[Windseeker]

D&C 130

When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.

And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.

The footnotes for sociality say Family, Love Within; Marriage, Continuing Courship in.

It just makes sense to me that our bodies are designed not just for life on earth but for the eternity that follows as well, where we will continue to enjoy intimacy and creation (birth).

[rameumptom]

I am very confused - Because there is a modern society of humans - I have believed that "the understanding, desire and joy associated with the concept of engaging in the act that engenders reproduction and/or creation of life" - is a rather old and ancient custom and tradition fostered in society.

The Traveler

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with viewing things from a modern perspective, as long as we realize that we may not be completely accurate.

For example, StephenVH argued with my assessments of ancient things. The claim that Asherah is not found in the Bible as God's wife is because later scribes removed it. Yet in the archaeological record, we find Yahweh and Asherah together frequently. Solomon's temple had a tree in it, representing Asherah, the Mother of Heaven. Jeremiah condemned the Jews in his day, because they began to worship Asherah rather than Yahweh. BTW, Asherah, aka Wisdom, was known in the Bible, and Solomon quotes her in Proverbs.

I would recommend to StephenVH to read "Did God have a Wife?" by William G Dever, or a handful of other books that discuss this and how we understand it from within the Bible.

StephenVH also does not believe man can see the face of God, or that God has body parts. This is a modern view based upon the Athanasius Creed, but was believed by early Jews and Christians: God has a physical body!

Exodus 33 notes that God placed his hand on Moses' face, so he would not see God in all his glory, but could see only his backside. We read there, "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

In Exodus 24, we read:

"9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness."

They saw God, they saw God's feet. Moses saw God's face. Any other way of reading this is to twist the scriptures into something it is not.

As it is, God IS above all others. But we are also of Him, and he has called us his sons, making us heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ of the divine nature.

So it is with the issue of sex and God. We can view what the scriptures state, or we can read into them modern ideas that were not there anciently.

[SteveVH]

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with viewing things from a modern perspective, as long as we realize that we may not be completely accurate.

For example, StephenVH argued with my assessments of ancient things. The claim that Asherah is not found in the Bible as God's wife is because later scribes removed it.

That Asherah was removed from the Bible is nothing but supposition. The Jews who believed in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob were absolutely opposed to any worship of this mythical goddess. Here's a little info about Asherah:

Asherah, or Ashtoreth, was the name of the chief female deity worshiped in ancient Syria, Phoenicia, and Canaan. The Phoenicians called her Astarte, the Assyrians worshiped her as Ishtar, and the Philistines had a temple of Asherah (1 Samuel 31:10). Because of Israel’s incomplete conquest of the land of Canaan, Asherah-worship survived and plagued Israel, starting as soon as Joshua was dead (Judges 2:13).

Asherah was represented by a limbless tree trunk planted in the ground. The trunk was usually carved into a symbolic representation of the goddess. Because of the association with carved trees, the places of Asherah worship were commonly called “groves,” and the Hebrew word “asherah” (plural, “asherim”) could refer either to the goddess or to a grove of trees. One of King Manasseh’s evil deeds was that he “took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple” (2 Kings 21:7). Another translation of “carved Asherah pole” is “graven image of the grove” (KJV).

Considered the moon-goddess, Asherah was often presented as a consort of Baal, the sun-god (Judges 3:7, 6:28, 10:6; 1 Samuel 7:4, 12:10). Asherah was also worshiped as the goddess of love and war and was sometimes linked with Anath, another Canaanite goddess. Worship of Asherah was noted for its sensuality and involved ritual prostitution. The priests and priestesses of Asherah also practiced divination and fortune-telling.

The Lord God, through Moses, forbade the worship of Asherah. The Law specified that a grove of trees was not to be near the altar of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 16:21). Despite God’s clear instructions, Asherah-worship was a perennial problem in Israel. As Solomon slipped into idolatry, one of the pagan deities he brought into the kingdom was Asherah, called “the goddess of the Sidonians” (1 Kings 11:5, 33). Later, Jezebel made Asherah-worship even more prevalent, with 400 prophets of Asherah on the royal payroll (1 Kings 18:19). At times, Israel experienced revival, and notable crusades against Asherah-worship were led by Gideon (Judges 6:25-30), King Asa (1 Kings 15:13), and King Josiah (2 Kings 23:1-7).

Yet in the archaeological record, we find Yahweh and Asherah together frequently.

Maybe in the pagan archeological record but nowhere else. Certainly not in post polytheistic Judaism or Christianity.

I would recommend to StephenVH to read "Did God have a Wife?" by William G Dever, or a handful of other books that discuss this and how we understand it from within the Bible.

God is a Creator, not a procreator. He does not require a "wife" in order to create.

StephenVH also does not believe man can see the face of God, or that God has body parts. This is a modern view based upon the Athanasius Creed, but was believed by early Jews and Christians: God has a physical body!

Exodus 33 notes that God placed his hand on Moses' face, so he would not see God in all his glory, but could see only his backside. We read there, "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

In Exodus 24, we read:

"9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness."

They saw God, they saw God's feet. Moses saw God's face. Any other way of reading this is to twist the scriptures into something it is not.

No, another way to read this would be to take into account the particular Hebrew styles of writing and word usage so that one might arrive at true interpretation of the meaning of these words. This does not translate across the board into modern language, in this time and culture. We are all subject to using human language to describe a divine being. When this is done in an ancient culture, in an ancient time, in an ancient language, many things must be taken into consideration. But it cannot be read in a linear fashion as we would a modern newspaper or book.

By the way, you still have not answered my question on what you think of Collossians 1:15 which speaks of the invisible God.

Edited September 5, 2012 by StephenVH

[AnthonyB]

ram,

I have often wonder about the LDS idea of God verses the traditional idea of theophany.

LDS maintain the phsyical is an intrinsic part of who God is.

Whereas a theophany is an manifestation or expression by a spiritual being into the physical world.

The Holy Spirit is neither intrinsically a dove or tongues of fire but expressed His presence through being perceived that way.

I have no doubts that God the Father and the God the Son can both express themselves as if they were physical beings and even eat etc. If I beleived Joseph Smith to have told the truth, why not maintain the First visions as theophanies of the persons of both the Father and Son.

I don't know if I expressed that very well.

[rameumptom]

Stephen, you need to read newer information regarding Asherah. What you quoted is only partially correct. Scholars have since found a lot regarding her as Yahweh's wife. We do not know whether God creates with or without a wife. Your assumption is baseless. The recent studies in archaeology shows that among the Israelites and early Hebrews (not just the pagans), Asherah was consort of both Elohim and Yahweh (depending on the period of Israel). Scholars such as William Dever, Margaret Barker and many others now accept this concept. Reading old archaeology research is like trying to understand the Grand Unification Theory without studying quantum mechanics or string theory.

The evidence is very clear that the Deuteronomists, including the priests of the temple in Josiah's day, cleaned many things out of the temple, as they changed the worship. They removed Aaron's budding rod (which also represents Asherah), the Tree of Life, the concept of angels, and the concept that man can see God's face. Again, I recommend you read Margaret Barker's work as a great beginning place for this info.

While Baal's version of Asherah as wife, is very different from Yahweh's Asherah in many respects.

Try this link for evidence: Asherah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this link:

Asherah and the God of the Early Israelites

And this:

Images of Asherah: Yahwehs Consort? | The BAS Library

There are many more articles by scholars that I could provide, but these should suffice for this discussion.

BTW, I am not reading the Bible as a modern newspaper. In fact, I'm the one telling everyone to take the ancient concepts into consideration. Margaret Barker and many other scholars agree that God is anthropomorphic, but was changed by the Deuteronomists. Jesus Christ returned to try and restore many of the ancient concepts, describing God as a "Father" and not just an unknowable spirit. The resurrected Jesus had a body, and showed his apostles that he was not just a spirit, as a spirit/ghost does not have flesh and bone as he had. What is more perfect: Christ with a body, or God the Father without a body? In John 17, Jesus stated that knowing God and Christ leads to eternal life, and then prays that his disciples may be one, even as the Father and Son are one, and that they may be one in Christ, as he is one with the Father.

Stephen, you can try and argue old archaeology and personal interpretations of the scriptures, and I'll argue from the standpoint of both archaeology and what the scriptures say, and we'll see who is more consistent.

It comes down to this: either the Bible's many mentions of God being anthropomorphic are true, or they are false. If true, then we need to be open to that idea. If false, then we must conclude that Abraham, Moses, Noah (who walked with God), Adam, and all the prophets were liars and we should discard the Bible. Do you believe the Bible is God breathed? If so, then why don't you believe what it says time and again? I believe the Bible is inspired, but not infallible, and yet believe its teachings more than you! And archaeology agrees with me as well.

[rameumptom]

ram,

I have often wonder about the LDS idea of God verses the traditional idea of theophany.

LDS maintain the phsyical is an intrinsic part of who God is.

Whereas a theophany is an manifestation or expression by a spiritual being into the physical world.

The Holy Spirit is neither intrinsically a dove or tongues of fire but expressed His presence through being perceived that way.

I have no doubts that God the Father and the God the Son can both express themselves as if they were physical beings and even eat etc. If I beleived Joseph Smith to have told the truth, why not maintain the First visions as theophanies of the persons of both the Father and Son.

I don't know if I expressed that very well.

Actually, a Theophany is where man experiences God's presence. God can represent himself in other forms, such as a burning bush. However, when discussing an actual theophany, it always has to do with one of two events: the person is carried up to the throne room of God, or God descends to the person.

So we find Isaiah in God's throne room, purified and invited to become part of the divine council of angels/seraphim. Moses sees God face to face. Stephen sees Christ standing (STANDING) on the right HAND of God, who is on his throne. Jacob sees a grand staircase, with God's throne at the top and the divine council of angels ascending and descending. He calls the place Beth-El, the House of God for he has seen God.

There are several early Jewish and Christian writings that show us more theophanies. In each case, God is anthropomorphic. In the Ascension of Isaiah text, the Trinity are three separate anthropomorphic beings, which the angels and Isaiah worship.

The Holy Spirit coming down as a dove and the burning bush are not the standard. They are the exceptions to the rule. The standard rule is: the Father and Son are anthropomorphic or human like.

[SteveVH]

Stephen, you need to read newer information regarding Asherah.

No, really I don't. My concept of God is so much different than yours. To even consider that God has a wife, or a sexual partner, is beyond imagination to me and I'll tell you why.

God is not human. God is divine. Jesus became human which means he was not always human. I believe that God created (not "organized") all of creation, including us. He created, he did not procreate. God has no sexuality; he is neither male nor female. Gender is a human charactaristic, not a divine charactaristic. Now I realize that there is a lot involved in what I am saying from a Mormon viewpoint. You believe that God was once human before he progressed to godhood. It would make sense that you believe the Father has physical body (though I would still argue that Biblical scritpure's reference to any body parts of the Father are purely metaphorical). If he has a physical body of a man then he would presumeably have all the parts. The ultimate reason we are created male and female is to procreate so it would make sense that God would need somone with which to procreate.

My idea of God is much different. God is divine. We are not. He is the Creator and we are his creatures. He is the only thing that is divine. There truly are no other gods. His ways are not our ways. When he speaks it is not sound waves that eminate from his mouth (metaphorically speaking) but reality. When he says let there be light, there is light. Something that was not, now is. That is how great God is. He spoke creation into existence. He is truly omnipotent and is dependent upon nothing; not intelligences or matter or anything else in order to create. In fact, to even speak of God from a human intellect and in human language is to dim his glory and majesty. He is above all nature (which he created) which means he is above procreation. Don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean procreation is not a wonderful and holy thing. But it is a human thing, not a divine thing. So I have absolutley no interest in spending any of my time researching a mythical, pagan goddess who some wish to claim is God's wife because to believe that God even has a wife is, in my opinion, making God in our image; a human image.

Stephen, you can try and argue old archaeology and personal interpretations of the scriptures, and I'll argue from the standpoint of both archaeology and what the scriptures say, and we'll see who is more consistent.

I have no doubt whatsoever that ancient peoples believed in Asherah. They believed in many gods just as some people do today. While Moses was on the mountain they made a golden calf, one of the gods of Egypt. The point is that Judaism and Christianity both rejected any other gods or godesses. So I am not here to argue any archeology, old or new. I simply don't care. God has revealed himself to us fully in the person of Jesus Christ. The only mother Jesus mentions is Mary, and she was human.

It comes down to this: either the Bible's many mentions of God being anthropomorphic are true, or they are false. If true, then we need to be open to that idea. If false, then we must conclude that Abraham, Moses, Noah (who walked with God), Adam, and all the prophets were liars and we should discard the Bible. Do you believe the Bible is God breathed? If so, then why don't you believe what it says time and again? I believe the Bible is inspired, but not infallible, and yet believe its teachings more than you! And archaeology agrees with me as well.

Yes I believe the Bible is God-breathed. Remember, it was my Church that gave you your Bible and that same Church that proclaimed it to be the inspired word of God. It is, in reality, a Catholic document. Therefore I do not follow my own interpretation of the Bible without consulting the teachings of the Church who I believe to be the only authentic interpreter of scripture. Abraham, Moses, Noah, Adam, and all the prophets were only liars if we first accept your premise that they were speaking literally; in other words if we accept your interpretation of scripture. I don't accept that premise nor your interpretation. In fact, among Christians for the last 2000 years your view would be in the extreme minority, if it existed at all.

Edited September 6, 2012 by StephenVH

[rameumptom]

I also believe God is divine. And I believe with Peter that we have a divine nature, with Paul that we are heirs of God, and with Jesus who called us the children of God.

To say that God created us in his image and of the same substance he is made of, does not reduce God in any way. Instead, it exalts God in that he has the power and ability to raise his children to be exactly like he is.

[Guest]

I believe that God has a body of flesh and bones as we have, but I also don't aspire to or assume that I will ever be on His level. He will always be my God and my Heavenly Father. For some reason I feel a need to clarify that. But I guess I also tend to think of sex like I do music. Music is a very important part of my life and speaks to my spirit like other things can't. I've always thought that music is a piece of Heaven that we are allowed to have here, to help us remember Home; thus music will be with us in Heaven because that is where it began, not that we will be able to take it with us. Same with sex. Used as Heavenly Father intended between eternal companions, it is a part of Heaven because it always has been, not because we'll be "allowed" to take it with us.

[SteveVH]

I also believe God is divine. And I believe with Peter that we have a divine nature, with Paul that we are heirs of God, and with Jesus who called us the children of God.

To say that God created us in his image and of the same substance he is made of, does not reduce God in any way. Instead, it exalts God in that he has the power and ability to raise his children to be exactly like he is.

In speaking of divine nature, I think it is important, so that we understand each other, to discuss the differences in how we view "divinity". As always, I am open to correction if I mis-state the Mormon position (and please do correct me). We both agree, I believe, that man will have a divine nature in heaven. How this is accompished is really the question that separates us and the answer is fundamental in understanding who we are in relation to God. Do we possess divinity as part of our human nature or does man lack divinity in his natural state, requiring divine transformation from the sole source of divintiy, God himself, the only one that possesses divinity as his nature?

The most common text that I have experienced from Mormons in defense of their theology of exaltation is John 10:34:

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (Jn 10:34-36)

This verse is used as evidence in an attempt to show that God and man belong to the same species. But I think Mormon apologists misunderstand the relationship of divine and human nature that is actually presupposed in the dialogue. What Christ is saying is that divinity, which is a different nature form humanity, transforms human nature to become like itself through the reception of the divine Word. The key detail in this passage is that Jesus says they are gods To whom the word was given. It is easy enough to read past this phrase, but it is absoutely necessary in order to understand what Christ was saying. Why does Jesus qualify his statment with "unto whom the word of God came"? It is because the term “god” does not apply to all mankind and therefore is not a statement about human nature, but only about those who receive the Word. Those to whom the word is not given are not gods. What this tells us is that the word of God is the cause of divinity in all other beings. This means that they are not gods by their own nature, but by their reception of the divine nature in the Word. Divinity is God's nature. Humanity is our nature. We are lifted up by God to share in his divinity as we do not possess it naturally.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

[Anddenex]

Why does everyone here ignore the passage that states that " He is the image of the invisible God" (Collosian 1:15)?

This is a very interesting question because rhetorically we can ask the same question by implanting another verse, Luke 24: 39 - 40,

" Behold my hands and my feet...handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.

"And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet." (emphasis added)

I have always found it interesting the reference of an invisible God, yet after Christ's resurrection, he appeared to be very visible to all, at least to all he revealed himself unto. With a spiritual body of flesh and bone.

[Anddenex]

Bini,

I believe this to be very literal, and should be taken very literally. We are in the image of God. We know that Jesus is in the image of his Father.

We also know The Family: A Proclamation to the World makes emphasis that gender is an essential characteristic to individual worth not only in this life, but in the next life.

When Joseph was visited by the Angel Moroni, and others, these Angels were in the image of a glorified man.

When the brother of Jared witnessed the whole spirit body of Christ, he was told,

"And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, all men were created in the beginning after mine own image."

We know that our Savior is in the image of his father.

Yes, this is to be taken very literally.

[Vort]

Stephen, I intend no disrespect, but your belief in what I call the "I Dream of Jeannie" God makes conversation difficult. I have dropped out of conversation with you because, after I carefully explained to you my line of reasoning, your response was essentially "nuh-uh". You refuse to, or perhaps are unable to, extend yourself past your own Catholic conditioning.

"Invisible" means we don't see him. It does not mean he cannot be seen. Your selective acceptance of verses, taking "invisible" to mean "he can never be seen, because THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE!!!", and ignoring other verses that clearly indicate a corporeal God, demonstrate that your intent is to win the debate by whatever means you see fit. Okay, so whatever. If we are forced to accept your terminology, your preconceptions, and your interpretations, it should come as no surprise that your gloss will reign supreme.

But even your religion teaches that God has (present tense) a body. That same Bible that you take full credit for preserving teaches unambiguously that Jesus rose physically from the dead, and even ate fish and honeycomb. It teaches that after Jesus rose into heaven, angels told his disciples that they would see him come again in the same way he left -- that is, incarnate.

I understand that you don't like this doctrine and that you don't want to accept it. That's fine with me; I have little interest in convincing you of doctrine you don't like. But don't think that your insistence on special definitions and ignoring Biblical evidence somehow proves your point. You are welcome to believe as you like, but you really ought to realize that others have different views which are (at least) as defensible as yours, and that do not include such unBiblical ideas as "the holy Trinity".