Faith Vs. Works Vs. Faith & Works

[prisonchaplain]

I don't often post my Bible studies, but sometimes approaching an old debate from a new angel brings fresh insight to all.  Most Christians of most stripes, and indeed most religious people of good will believe that works and faith are both good.  Yet, we agonize over how these fit in our religious doctrine flow charts.  As I looked back at this study on the image of God within us, the whole issue seemed to come into harmony.  See if you agree.

THE IMAGE OF GOD IN US

Tony Compalo is a Christian sociology professor. He is also an ordained Baptist minister. One day he takes a late-night flight, and the passenger next to him wants to talk. He brags about how important he is, and goes on for what seems to be an eternity. Finally, the passenger asks Compalo, “So, who are you?”

“Oh, I am someone very important.”

“Really, what’s your name?”

“My name is Tony Compalo.”

“Huh...never heard of you.”

“Oh, it’s not me that’s really well-known. It’s my father.”

“Yeah...well, who’s your father?”

“Mister, I am the son of God!”

The man looks at him as if he had just escaped from an asylum, and asks, “Are you okay?”

Compalo explains that as a Christian, he is a brother of Jesus and a son of Almighty God. Likewise, brothers, we too bare the image of God in us.

Genesis 1:26-27 tells us: Then God said, ‘let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air; over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

We are made in god’s image and likeness. God made us. He loves us. We are his masterpiece. Therefore, we should not worry–God will take care of us. In Matthew 6:25-27 Jesus says: Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air. They do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly father feeds them. Are you not much ore valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

Not only will God take care of us. He will redeem–or pay the price for–our wrongdoings. No matter what evil we have done, we are still creations of God. We still have hope and worth. Consider the story of Cain. Genesis 4:15-17 says: But the lord said to him, “not so; if anyone kills Cain he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the lord put a mark on cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the lord’s presence and lived in the land of nod east of eden. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

Even though Cain murdered his own brother, God spared his life and commanded others to do likewise. There was still worth in him–still hope. That hope eventually bares fruit in his son, Enoch. From the beginning of time until now parents have tried to justify their difficult and seemingly failed lives by looking to the successes of their children. Indeed, if we look at the genealogical line of Cain we find that his descendants became raisers of livestock, musicians who played harps and flutes, and forgers of tools made out of bronze and iron. Perhaps they were not the most glamorous figures in history. Yet, most seemed to make contributions to their communities.

It is wonderful to know that I can redeem my life through my children, and through God’s mercy. How do I go about obtaining God’s forgiveness? The answer is found in the Good News. The image of God is restored within us when we are saved. Ephesians 4:24 says, “And to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” When we become part of the kingdom of God, through belief in Christ and repentance, we put on a new self–which is the image of God! Our original godly images were distorted by the poison of sin that entered humanity when Satan deceived Adam and Eve. Thank God for his pronouncement against the Devil in Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heal.” Jesus has crushed Satan, and his curses. This means that sin and death are no longer our nature. We can once again bare the unblemished image of God in us!

Leaving the theological language and imagery behind, what we have just learned is that we can succeed at being righteous–or, simpler yet, we can be good. Galations 5:22-23 lists the good characteristics we are capable of if we wear the full of the image of God: But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. The key here is that these are fruits of the Spirit, not of our labor or will power. Zecharia 4:6 says that our victories are, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit says the lord.” My prayer is that God will fill us with his Spirit, that we might live the fruits of the Spirit. Amen? Amen!

Not only can we succeed in being good. We can also overcome the evil temptations that still endeavor to entice us. Romans 6:15-16 says: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

While will power will not produce holiness, we must determine in our hearts that we want to live in obedience to God, rather than to sin. Then we can pray with confidence, “God, help me to be, say and do all that you want of me.” We can also pray as Jesus taught us to, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

If you are not a Christian, do you not want to have the image of God restored in your life? Ask Jesus to help you today. If you are a Christian, thank God for such a great salvation. You can be good and pure before God. Ask Jesus to help you today.

[Traveler]

It is not my purpose to distract from the intent of your post. I agree one should always make an effort (covenant) to serve G-d and keep his commandments. However, I think there are some fine points concerning the scriptures that might prove to be interesting if discussed openly and may add to your points.

In Genesis when G-d is outlining the physical form for the creation of humans, the English version of this design is translated as “lets us make man in our IMAGE and LIKENESS”. I have used all caps to emphasize the English interpretation, in particular the word image that caries strong connotations to a physical modeling. The ancient Hebrew text from which the English version comes has even stronger connotations to a physical model and replica. The two Hebrew words from which image and likeness are rendered in English form a stronger notion denoting a precise detailed model or exact replica. Might I suggest that in our modern terms the idea of a CLONE could easily fit within the intent of this description? Perhaps even, let us make man a clone of us?

I think something has been lost in the translation when we attempt to modify the meaning of Genesis and say the image of G-d “within” us. This creates an unnecessary abstraction and ambiguity to which the reader is open to all kinds of interpretations. I believe the concept would be better served to say that we are that image of G-d. This concept indicates that there is nothing – absolutely nothing about us and how we are, what we are and what we think and do that cannot be subjected to and therefore understood as divine. May I add here that this even includes gender?

Corresponding to this notion of man’s divine intent consider the parable of the sewer given to us by Christ. Here we learn of a seed that is planted among all mankind. The seed often fails to mature – why? This parable is clear to indicate that the reason for the failure in the seed growing is not with the seed but with the soil. The soil represents various conditions of human preparation to receive the seed and therefore the soil is either too hard, too rocky or overcome with weeds. What I believe is clear in this parable is that the failure of the seed growing is not with G-d or anything to do with G-d but 100% with man.

This notion is also reiterated in the parable of 10 virgins but at a more telling level. The virgins represent believers in Christ striving and preparing to receive the Christ in his glory. But 5 of the believing Christians are foolish and do not prepare sufficiently in that they lacked oil for their lamps. The meaning of the oil is often given to wild differences in interpretations. Can we at least agree that 5 of the believers waiting on the glory of G-d did so in error because they were not prepared in that there was something they lacked? I would also point out that in the parable it was not that the 5 virgins did not know what was needed for their lamps – they had somehow became convinced that what they ought to have really was not entirely necessary.

If one was to listen to discussions among believers in Christ – What is most often argued concerning that which a Christian “ought to do” yet it is most often considered not entirely necessary? I would also point out it was not the obligation of G-d to provide the oil but it is the believer that is responsible for the oil. So I ask – are the teaching of Christ and the ancient scriptures needed and applicable in our day and time?

The Traveler

[Ray]

So I ask – are the teaching of Christ and the ancient scriptures needed and applicable in our day and time

To someone who believes we now have the teachings of Christ only in the Bible, it is no problem to accept only "ancient scriptures", so perhaps we [LDS] should now ask whether or not the modern teachings of Christ are also needed in our day and time.

[prisonchaplain]

In Genesis when G-d is outlining the physical form for the creation of humans, the English version of this design is translated as “lets us make man in our IMAGE and LIKENESS”.  I have used all caps to emphasize the English interpretation, in particular the word image that caries strong connotations to a physical modeling.  The ancient Hebrew text from which the English version comes has even stronger connotations to a physical model and replica.  The two Hebrew words from which image and likeness are rendered in English form a stronger notion denoting a precise detailed model or exact replica.  Might I suggest that in our modern terms the idea of a CLONE could easily fit within the intent of this description?  Perhaps even, let us make man a clone of us?

Two thoughts on this. First, since Genesis is originally part of the Torah, and since you've chosen to write the title of G-d with Judaic sensitivities, I would be curious to know if any Jewish scholars have considered the possibility that the Almighty has a physical body?

Second, John seems pretty specific in stating that G-d is spirit:

John 4:24 (King James Version): 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The very thing that causes many non-LDS Christians to hyperventilate about the notion that G-d has a body, is that this could lead to the idea that we're really the seed of some highly advanced alien race, of which G-d is simply one being. I am not saying that you are going there, but that many could take the God as physical being concept in run in some pretty sci-fi directions with it.

I think something has been lost in the translation when we attempt to modify the meaning of Genesis and say the image of G-d “within” us.  This creates an unnecessary abstraction and ambiguity to which the reader is open to all kinds of interpretations.  I believe the concept would be better served to say that we are that image of G-d.  This concept indicates that there is nothing – absolutely nothing about us and how we are, what we are and what we think and do that cannot be subjected to and therefore understood as divine.  May I add here that this even includes gender?

If G-d has a body, and He is our Father, then I would reach the opposite conclusion. By seeing the "image of God" as relating to our character, personality, and spirits, it seems much easier for us to be inclusive. Indeed, we do believe that Eve also was made in the image of God.

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

This notion is also reiterated in the parable of 10 virgins but at a more telling level.  The virgins represent believers in Christ striving and preparing to receive the Christ in his glory.  But 5 of the believing Christians are foolish and do not prepare sufficiently in that they lacked oil for their lamps.  The meaning of the oil is often given to wild differences in interpretations.  Can we at least agree that 5 of the believers waiting on the glory of G-d did so in error because they were not prepared in that there was something they lacked?  I would also point out that in the parable it was not that the 5 virgins did not know what was needed for their lamps – they had somehow became convinced that what they ought to have really was not entirely necessary.

In the context of the parables Jesus told surrounding the parable of the virgins, the warning is that the 5 virgins represent believers who were not ready for Jesus' return. Yes, they knew what they needed, but they were not ready. They had gotten spiritually lazy.

The most common understanding of the oil that I have heard, is that it represents the Holy Ghost. These five virgins may have gone to regular church meetings, kept up appearances, but they were not hungry for G-d, his Spirit, or the return of his Son.

I would also point out it was not the obligation of G-d to provide the oil but it is the believer that is responsible for the oil.

You make a good argument for what we Pentecostals call "tarrying" for the Holy Ghost. Yes, G-d is ready to pour out his Spirit, but are we willing vessels, ready to receive, not only salvation, but fresh vision, fresh anointing, greater power to be, do, and say all that he's called us to? This is not a specific word to any group of believers, but to all who call themselves Christians.

See, you got me to preachin'

[Ray]

…since Genesis is originally part of the Torah, and since you've chosen to write the title of G-d with Judaic sensitivities, I would be curious to know if any Jewish scholars have considered the possibility that the Almighty has a physical body?

Really? How curious would you be? Enough to ask some Jewish people, perhaps?

Many Jews continue to accept the idea that God has a physical body, and I think most "early" Christians developed a different perception of God from the influence of "Greek" ideas.

Second, John seems pretty specific in stating that G-d is spirit:

John 4:24 (King James Version): 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

God is a Spirit within His body, just as our Lord is also a Spirit within His body, and just as we are also a Spirit within our body. Only God is more glorious than we are.

Or in other words, God is not a body, and neither are we.

The very thing that causes many non-LDS Christians to hyperventilate about the notion that G-d has a body, is that this could lead to the idea that we're really the seed of some highly advanced alien race, of which G-d is simply one being. I am not saying that you are going there, but that many could take the God as physical being concept in run in some pretty sci-fi directions with it.

Heh, I think people could “run in some pretty sci-fi directions” with the amorphous concept of God too, with more ideas which make much less sense to me.

If G-d has a body, and He is our Father, then I would reach the opposite conclusion. By seeing the "image of God" as relating to our character, personality, and spirits, it seems much easier for us to be inclusive. Indeed, we do believe that Eve also was made in the image of God.

But if you do not recognize the fact that God has a body just as we do, then you do not see how much more like God we are, both male and female.

Yes, G-d is ready to pour out his Spirit, but are we willing vessels, ready to receive, not only salvation, but fresh vision, fresh anointing, greater power to be, do, and say all that he's called us to? This is not a specific word to any group of believers, but to all who call themselves Christians.

“pour out His Spirit”???

What are you really talking about?

I believe we can come close to God by communing with Him in spirit and in truth, but I also believe God is a distinct person who we can actually come close to.

And btw, although we often use the word God to refer only to our heavenly Father, try to remember that we also use that word to refer to other persons who are God.

[prisonchaplain]

After I wondered aloud whether Jewish theologians believe God has a body, Ray responded thus:  Really?  How curious would you be?  Enough to ask some Jewish people, perhaps?

Many Jews continue to accept the idea that God has a physical body, and I think most "early" Christians developed a different perception of God from the influence of "Greek" ideas.

I took Ray's challenge, and did a simple google. Here's what I found:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/g-d.html

G-d is Incorporeal

1. Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.

[prisonchaplain]

Second, John seems pretty specific in stating that G-d is spirit:

John 4:24 (King James Version): 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Ray responds:  God is a Spirit within His body, just as our Lord is also a Spirit within His body, and just as we are also a Spirit within our body.  Only God is more glorious than we are.

Or in other words, God is not a body, and neither are we.

You can argue this way. However, understand that LDS theology here runs counter to, not just 2000 years of church teaching, but 3400 years of Judeo-Christian teaching. Whatever linguistic rendoring of "image of God" you can come up with, the notion that G-d has a body is only true if the LDS are truly the restored people of God (not just church, but people, since the Jews would have gotten this wrong, also).

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 13 2005, 11:17 AM

So I ask – are the teaching of Christ and the ancient scriptures needed and applicable in our day and time

To someone who believes we now have the teachings of Christ only in the Bible, it is no problem to accept only "ancient scriptures", so perhaps we [LDS] should now ask whether or not the modern teachings of Christ are also needed in our day and time.

←

Once an accounting is made for differences between language and culture I see no difference between what was taught in ancient scripture from that which is taught in modern scripture. It is my personal belief that the confusion about doctrine among the vast sects of Christianity is the inability or refusal to realize, let alone bridge, the language and culture gap of thousands of years technological and social advancements and vast climatic differences.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Ray says:  Heh, I think people could “run in some pretty sci-fi directions” with the amorphous concept of God too, with more ideas which make much less sense to me.

You don't have to guess, Ray. You have 3400 years of history to troll through. Did people come up with sci-fi directions based on the Judeo-Christian teaching that G-d is incorporeal?

But if you do not recognize the fact that God has a body just as we do, then you do not see how much more like God we are, both male and female.

If the teaching is true, then it's true. But, if you are asking me to speculate, then, if I were a female, and I knew that God had a male body, I would feel that I was less in the image of God than my male counterparts.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 13 2005, 04:12 PM

You don't have to guess, Ray.  You have 3400 years of history to troll through.  Did people come up with sci-fi directions based on the Judeo-Christian teaching that G-d is incorporeal?

Although some Jews and Christians teach that God is incorporeal, there are other Jews and Christians who teach that God is in fact corporeal.

The challenge is in properly interpreting and understanding what has been and can be revealed through the power of the Holy Ghost.

...if I were a female, and I knew that God had a male body, I would feel that I was less in the image of God than my male counterparts.

...unless you could understand what the word "God" refers to, as I have already explained.

And btw, if you truly believed that we will all be literally resurrected, with our spirits reuniting with our bodies and our bodies becoming glorified to never again be subject to death, then you wouldn't have so much trouble accepting the idea that there will be both males and females living in heaven together forever.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 13 2005, 02:34 PM

If G-d has a body, and He is our Father, then I would reach the opposite conclusion.  By seeing the "image of God" as relating to our character, personality, and spirits, it seems much easier for us to be inclusive.  Indeed, we do believe that Eve also was made in the image of God. 

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

The most common understanding of the oil that I have heard, is that it represents the Holy Ghost.  These five virgins may have gone to regular church meetings, kept up appearances, but they were not hungry for G-d, his Spirit, or the return of his Son.

You make a good argument for what we Pentecostals call "tarrying" for the Holy Ghost.  Yes, G-d is ready to pour out his Spirit, but are we willing vessels, ready to receive, not only salvation, but fresh vision, fresh anointing, greater power to be, do, and say all that he's called us to?  This is not a specific word to any group of believers, but to all who call themselves Christians. 

See, you got me to preachin'  

←

It was my purpose to point out the meaning of ancient Hebrew text that was the original language and text of that scripture as Moses received that knowledge from G-d. The modern Jewish religious thought is heavily influenced by what is called the rabbinical era that dates back to about 175 BC. The modern rabbis are directly descended from the Pharisees and Scribes that interpreted the scriptures quite differently than the Jewish rabbi and master called Jesus of Nazareth.

What I do not understand and perhaps you can explain, is why Christians such as yourself reference the creation in Genesis as physical – Adam from clay (or dust) as the physical explanation, as apposed to evolution as the physical means. Then as soon as the reference to image and likeness is made; imply that the account of the creation of man does not address the physical but only that which is not physical. Perhaps if you could give some ancient account (from scripture or otherwise) in which the Hebrew text that is used in Genesis is ever used in the manner you suggest I could have a reference to believe your interpretation has merit.

As for me, how you go about interpreting scripture is your affair – I intended to make as clear as possible what the scriptures do tell us.

As to the interpretation of the 10 virgins, I do not believe the scripture gives an exact interpretation; that is an exercise left to the reader. An exercise that must be difficult for those that believe scripture is the only authority on doctrine (I added this because this notion always confuses me). I do find it interesting that 1) When the 5 discovered they did not have enough they tried to get the other to share. 2) The other five could not share what they had. 3) That the five has some – just not enough. 4) They were not sent to a divine source for oil they were sent to a “worldly” source to buy it. Personally I do not understand how a person can receive an unusable portion of the Holy Spirit or how it can be traded except through covenant. I have a good understanding (that includes experience) how a person can be less than “perfect” (not complete but picking and choosing what suits them) in accepting and keeping the covenants of G-d. (Anciently perfect meant complete not necessarily without flaw.) I do agree with you that they were lazy - it is just that in extending that thought, it seem logical to me that they neglected to do something they should have (which is my understanding of lazy).

Well at least I have help generate some interest in this topic.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Rays says: Although some Jews and Christians teach that God is incorporeal, there are other Jews and Christians who teach that God is in fact corporeal.

Ray, who are these Jews who teach that God has a body? The source I cited was pretty adamant that in Judaism, to say God has a body is idolatry. You may find some individuals with Jewish blood who would agree with you, but you'll need to find an observant religious Jew with some authority, before I can accept your declaration about Judaic theology.

And btw, if you truly believed that we will all be literally resurrected, with our spirits reuniting with our bodies and our bodies becoming glorified to never again be subject to death, then you wouldn't have so much trouble accepting the idea that there will be both males and females living in heaven together forever.

Of course there will be men and women in heaven. However, I believe Jesus said they will not be married. The Saducees had challenged him by asking if a man had several wives, who would he be married to in heaven. Jesus scolded them for not knowing teaching so basic--that there would be no marriage in heaven.

Also, I do not see that our belief about resurrection bodies for believers is necessarily interrelated with whether or not God the Father has a body.

[Ray]

Of course there will be men and women in heaven. However, I believe Jesus said they will not be married. The Sadducees had challenged him by asking if a man had several wives, who would he be married to in heaven. Jesus scolded them for not knowing teaching so basic--that there would be no marriage in heaven.

Jesus did not say that there would be no marriage in heaven. And instead of rehashing an old argument, I’ll simply attach a document showing the research I’ve already done on this issue.

Also, I do not see that our belief about resurrection bodies for believers is necessarily interrelated with whether or not God the Father has a body.

So do you think everybody in heaven will have physical bodies except for God, our heavenly “Father”, and the Holy Spirit?

And btw, I didn’t include Jesus, or God the Son, because I believe we both know that He still has His body that He received in the resurrection.

[prisonchaplain]

So do you think everybody in heaven will have physical bodies except for God, our heavenly “Father”, and the Holy Spirit?

YES.

He is, and will always be, God. We are, and will forever remain, his creation.

[prisonchaplain]

Rays says:  Jesus did not say that there would be no marriage in heaven.  And instead of rehashing an old argument, I’ll simply attach a document showing the research I’ve already done on this issue.

I've read your attachment, and draw the following conclusions:

1. If the Church of LDS is the restored Christian church, and if the Standard Works do indeed summarize the canon of God's written word to this point, then your conclusions make absolute sense.

2. If I do not assume that the Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and Book of Mormon, are holy Scripture, then the writings of the Bible alone would not lead me to believe that marriages on earth will continue in heaven.

In other words, if I did not have a need to harmonize Jesus' teachings in Matthew and Luke with Smith's revelations, the simplest reading would still be that marriages do not exist in heaven.

Conclusion: Eternal marriage stands as a sound doctrine, within the greater package of Mormonism, but would face much scrutiny if argued only from non-LDS Scripture.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 13 2005, 07:05 PM

So do you think everybody in heaven will have physical bodies except for God, our heavenly “Father”, and the Holy Spirit?

YES.

He is, and will always be, God. We are, and will forever remain, his creation.

←

The original Hebrew words for image and likeness in Genesis are "pesel" and "temuna" These words are always (without any exception) used, especially together, to indicate a physical model. As I have said before - you may believe as you will - that is your privilege. But if you are ever in a discussion when someone says that the LDS view of G-d, as a being with physical appointments, as that of man that is the physical image of that G-d, that you would remember that such a notion is not contrary to scripture but only contrary to the manner some interpret scripture.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler says:  The original Hebrew words for image and likeness in Genesis are "pesel" and "temuna"  These words are always (without any exception) used, especially together, to indicate a physical model.  As I have said before - you may believe as you will - that is your privilege.  But if you are ever in a discussion when someone says that the LDS view of G-d, as a being with physical appointments, as that of man that is the physical image of that G-d, that you would remember that such a notion is not contrary to scripture but only contrary to the manner some interpret scripture.

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing you are not a Hebrew scholar. I know I'm not, so I'll not be debating linguistics, to see who can dig up better secondary sources. Rather I'd point out that Jewish scholars, who by definition are Hebrew scholars, have never believed G-d the Father is coporeal. Again, to the Orthodox such teaching is idolatry. Nor has Christianity, prior to Joseph Smith's revelations, come up with such an interpretation. 3400 years of Hebrew scholarship and Scripture study has never given us an inkling that God the Father might have a physical body. Now, Joseph Smith says he does. If he was a prophet of God, then we have new light. With this presupposition, you then go back to the Hebrew and find word definitions that fit the revelation, and say the Scripture is in harmony. So, I'll not say your interpretation is impossible. However, it is a unique interpretation of Scripture.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 14 2005, 12:03 AM

Traveler says:  The original Hebrew words for image and likeness in Genesis are "pesel" and "temuna"  These words are always (without any exception) used, especially together, to indicate a physical model.  As I have said before - you may believe as you will - that is your privilege.  But if you are ever in a discussion when someone says that the LDS view of G-d, as a being with physical appointments, as that of man that is the physical image of that G-d, that you would remember that such a notion is not contrary to scripture but only contrary to the manner some interpret scripture.

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing you are not a Hebrew scholar. I know I'm not, so I'll not be debating linguistics, to see who can dig up better secondary sources. Rather I'd point out that Jewish scholars, who by definition are Hebrew scholars, have never believed G-d the Father is coporeal. Again, to the Orthodox such teaching is idolatry. Nor has Christianity, prior to Joseph Smith's revelations, come up with such an interpretation. 3400 years of Hebrew scholarship and Scripture study has never given us an inkling that God the Father might have a physical body. Now, Joseph Smith says he does. If he was a prophet of God, then we have new light. With this presupposition, you then go back to the Hebrew and find word definitions that fit the revelation, and say the Scripture is in harmony. So, I'll not say your interpretation is impossible. However, it is a unique interpretation of Scripture.

←

Interesting the point you bring up concerning the Hebrew scholars. Was it not the Hebrew scholars and the Orthodox teachings that were used to denounced Jesus and accused him of idolatry? What you believe is fine, but let us be clear on what the scriptures do say. This is the same thing Jesus asked of the Hebrew scholars of his day. Even the word "Image". If you do not like the meaning of that word then admit it and please use another. This is the exact same word that is used in Exodus when it says we should not make any image or likeness to worship. I do not think one should apply one meaning to a word in one place and a different meaning in another. One does not have to be a scholar or expert to know that such method is hypocrisy. Anyway that is my opinion that one should be consistant.

Do you think such an expectation is too much to ask of someone that respects the scriptures? What do you suggest a student use to care more importance that the scriptures?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Interesting the point you bring up concerning the Hebrew scholars.  Was it not the Hebrew scholars and the Orthodox teachings that were used to denounced Jesus and accused him of idolatry?

Actually, Jesus was accused by the teachers of the Law, not by scholars of the Hebrew language. Furthermore, he was accused of blasphemy, not idolatry. They asked how he, a mere man, could claim to be God.

What you believe is fine, but let us be clear on what the scriptures do say.  This is the same thing Jesus asked of the Hebrew scholars of his day.  Even the word "Image".  If you do not like the meaning of that word then admit it and please use another.  This is the exact same word that is used in Exodus when it says we should not make any image or likeness to worship.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...86375-9495.html

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...86621-9626.html

If you check the links, the usage in Genesis is different from that of Exodus.

I'd also suggest that to read Genesis 1:26-27 as meaning that the Father created men and women in his physical image would seem to run counter to the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

Jesus Christ stated quite clearly that God the Father is a Spirit:

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24) . . .

The objection is that the Father has a body, and his spirit dwells within it. However, Jesus contrasts himself with a spirit, thus:

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. (Luke 24:39)

So, if he says clearly that his Father is Spirit, and then differentiates himself from being a spirit, because he has hands and feet, flesh and bones, it’s reasonable to assume that the Father does not have flesh and bones.

Paul also says that the Father is invisible, and that only Jesus physically represents him

...Christ... Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15)

I do not think one should apply one meaning to a word in one place and a different meaning in another.  One does not have to be a scholar or expert to know that such method is hypocrisy.  Anyway that is my opinion that one should be consistant.

In seminary we used to say there is nothing more dangerous than a student with one year of Greek study. The first year we learn all the rules. The second year we learn how they are broken.

Do you remember that in middle and high school they sometimes called English "Language Arts?" It is art, not science. Neither you or I have the Hebrew knowledge necessary to carry on an intelligent conversation over how specific words are used in context, and how they should be interpreted.

Do you think such an expectation is too much to ask of someone that respects the scriptures?  What do you suggest a student use to care more importance that the scriptures?

I think it takes a good deal of hubris for either you or I, who are not even serious Hebrew language students (I'm assuming, but you made no claims to the contrary), to ACCUSE all the Hebrew language scholars of the past 3400 years of being HYPOCRITICAL.

Again, I'll grant that interpreting Genesis 1:26-27 in the LDS manner is not impossible. Such a reading does stand alone in 3400 years of biblical study, however. On the other hand, if I accepted the Standard Works as all representing God's written word, I would have no choice but to go with the rendoring you propose.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 13 2005, 07:27 PM

If I do not assume that the Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and Book of Mormon, are holy Scripture, then the writings of the Bible alone would not lead me to believe that marriages on earth will continue in heaven.

I can see how no belief in scriptures other than the Bible would give you less information to work with, but the fact that the writings in the Bible alone would not lead you to believe that marriages on earth will continue in heaven isn't the same as saying that the writings in the Bible alone would not lead you to believe that marriages on earth will NOT continue in heaven.

Or in other words, it seems to me that you would simply not be sure either way, because the Bible alone would not give you enough information to form a conclusion either way.

In other words, if I did not have a need to harmonize Jesus' teachings in Matthew and Luke with Smith's revelations, the simplest reading would still be that marriages do not exist in heaven.

As I tried to explain above, there is nothing in the Bible alone which would lead me to believe that marriages do NOT exist in heaven.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 13 2005, 07:05 PM

So do you think everybody in heaven will have physical bodies except for God, our heavenly “Father”, and the Holy Spirit?

YES.

He is, and will always be, God. We are, and will forever remain, his creation.

←

Heh, I know God will always be God. We're simply discussing our beliefs concerning whether or not God has a body.

And since you've shown a willingness to read more than a few paragraphs in a post, I'm attaching an article which I believe explains our beliefs on this issue rather well.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 14 2005, 12:03 AM

3400 years of Hebrew scholarship and Scripture study has never given us an inkling that God the Father might have a physical body.

FYI, I believed God had a physical body from studying the Bible only, while I was still a member of the "Church of Christ", and I know and have known other people, including some non-LDS people, who also believe God has a physical body.

Or in other words, if you are suggesting that LDS are the only people among those who study the scriptures who believe that God has a physical body, by suggesting that nobody but LDS has had this belief in over 3400 years of scripture study, I am now standing as a personal witness to testify that what you are suggesting is wrong.

[prisonchaplain]

I can see how no belief in scriptures other than the Bible would give you less information to work with, but the fact that the writings in the Bible alone would not lead you to believe that marriages on earth will continue in heaven isn't the same as saying that the writings in the Bible alone would not lead you to believe that marriages on earth will NOT continue in heaven.

Jesus is asked what will happen to a woman who's had several husbands (legitimately), once she's in heaven. He answers that even novice Scripture students no that there is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven.

Ray, put yourself in the head of a non-LDS Christian for a minute. Why would I think information is missing? The Bible, as far as I know, is complete. With that in mind, Jesus seems to settle the matter--no marriages in heaven. Thus, marriage vows have traditionally been rendored "'til death do us part."

Or in other words, it seems to me that you would simply not be sure either way, because the Bible alone would not give you enough information to form a conclusion either way.

Except that we believe the Bible is sufficient. So, when Jesus says "No marriages in heaven," non-LDS Christians figure, "Okay. That's it." We have no need to haromonize Jesus' confrontation with other writings that suggest eternal marriages.

As I tried to explain above, there is nothing in the Bible alone which would lead me to believe that marriages do NOT exist in heaven.

Jesus confrontation with the Sadduccees, minus Joseph Smith's revelations, most easily reads as saying there will be no marriages in heaven. Saying merely that there will be no NEW marriages, or no CEREMONIES, means (again, minus JS' revelations) that Jesus did not clearly answer the Sadduccee's question.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 14 2005, 01:36 PM

I can see how no belief in scriptures other than the Bible would give you less information to work with, but the fact that the writings in the Bible alone would not lead you to believe that marriages on earth will continue in heaven isn't the same as saying that the writings in the Bible alone would not lead you to believe that marriages on earth will NOT continue in heaven.

Jesus is asked what will happen to a woman who's had several husbands (legitimately), once she's in heaven. He answers that even novice Scripture students no that there is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven.

Ray, put yourself in the head of a non-LDS Christian for a minute. Why would I think information is missing? The Bible, as far as I know, is complete. With that in mind, Jesus seems to settle the matter--no marriages in heaven. Thus, marriage vows have traditionally been rendored "'til death do us part."

Or in other words, it seems to me that you would simply not be sure either way, because the Bible alone would not give you enough information to form a conclusion either way.

Except that we believe the Bible is sufficient. So, when Jesus says "No marriages in heaven," non-LDS Christians figure, "Okay. That's it." We have no need to haromonize Jesus' confrontation with other writings that suggest eternal marriages.

As I tried to explain above, there is nothing in the Bible alone which would lead me to believe that marriages do NOT exist in heaven.

Jesus confrontation with the Sadduccees, minus Joseph Smith's revelations, most easily reads as saying there will be no marriages in heaven. Saying merely that there will be no NEW marriages, or no CEREMONIES, means (again, minus JS' revelations) that Jesus did not clearly answer the Sadduccee's question.

←

As I said before, Jesus never said there will be no marriage "in heaven". And even though you said you read my attachment, concerning "eternal marriage", you seem to have somehow missed the part where I explained that He did not say that.

I'll attach that document again to make it easier for you to Find, and I suggest that you pay particular attention to notes 4 and 5, which I have edited for clarification.

[prisonchaplain]

Ray says:  And even though you said you read my attachment, concerning "eternal marriage", you seem to have somehow missed the part where I explained that He did not say that.

Actually, as of this post, I have not read your attachment yet. Nor did I say I had. I will though, and will offer any added comments I have, afterwards.