The Trinity Questions – For Traditional Christians

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Snow

"Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of G-d, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that G-d is incorporeal and has no physical appearance."

Ah - but what the Jews think today is hardly relevant. Much more to the point - what did the ancient Jews think?

While there was no such thing as a complete and universal consensus, the ancient Jews believed in a corporeal, embodied, physical God.

Thank Snow:

Very strong point. In fact, some of the late 2nd and early 3rd century Christians begin to resist doctrine that was clearly prevalent early on like the second coming, the nature of Christ and the Godhead. Even the possibility that John the Beloved lived to be so old as to deliver the Apocalypse was question in the 3rd century. Arguments against the 3rd epistle of Peter and even James were raised at the same time.

The longer the time elapsed from the original doctrine the more dissenters and arguments against it we see. Early Jews (and Muslims, by the way) believe that G-D had a physical/corporeal appearance. There are many references to the "train of God" (clothing/robe), "the hands of God" and His "arm" all over the Torah and the Talmud. Itis not clear if they attributed "human-like" physical attributes but corporeal; yes.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm doubtful that the early church embraced universally the doctrine that God the Father has a physical body. It's rather ironic, if that were so, that Jesus would suggest that his leaving (returning to the Father) was good, because then the Holy Spirit could come. Far better to have the Spirit, who can bless many, in different locales, simultaneously.

My question, though...is it LDS teaching that the Heavenly Father is not omni-present? Or, is it that he has a body, and yet his Spirit is omnipresent? Or something else?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

I'm doubtful that the early church embraced universally the doctrine that God the Father has a physical body. It's rather ironic, if that were so, that Jesus would suggest that his leaving (returning to the Father) was good, because then the Holy Spirit could come. Far better to have the Spirit, who can bless many, in different locales, simultaneously.

My question, though...is it LDS teaching that the Heavenly Father is not omni-present? Or, is it that he has a body, and yet his Spirit is omnipresent? Or something else?

PC:

I am surprised you had not researched this in LDS doctrine already. We believe that God is Omni-present, all-knowing, all-powerful and we say this with absolute confidence and certainty. As far as corporeal form check out Isa 6:1, 2 Chr 18:18, Rev 7. I think we should take the Savior at His word. If we have seen Him, we have seen The Father, for they are one.

John 14 clearly describes the coming forth of the Holy Ghost as a Comforter for the faithful. The Savior explains that once He is gone to the house of His Father to prepare a mansion for them, they WILL know the way of ALL things thru the Holy Ghost which will be sent to aid them. He was not referring to His own ability to be/help people at multiple locations. His role and mission in human form was limited purposefully by his corporeal presence in a three dimensional sphere.

After the resurrection we see the Savior appearing thru walls and closed doors or out of thin air, so to speak, onto the disciples.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

I'm doubtful that the early church embraced universally the doctrine that God the Father has a physical body.

There is no such thing as "universally" either in antiquity or today but.... here are some of my saved notes on the topic:


Noted church historian Adolph Hananck notes that the earliest Christians believed God to be embodied - though he buries it in the footnotes of his seven volume History of Dogma: “God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as later controversies prove (e.g. Orig, contra Melito, see also Tertull. Ed anima). In the case of the cultured the idea of corporeality of God may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured, popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament literally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images.” He continues saying: “ In the 2nd century... realistic eschatological ideas no doubt continued to foster in wide circles the popular idea that God had a form and a kind of corporeal existence.” Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma (New Youk: Dover 1961) 1:180 n1, 2:255 n5.

Harnack says that possible source of the early Christian belief in a embodied God include a literally understood Old Testament.

The historian J.N.D. Kelly says that for the first hundred years of Christian history there was no the churches scriptures consisted just of the Old Testament which Harnack reminds us describes God in anthropomorphic terms. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 31.

Edmond La Beaume Cherbonnier showed that the God of biblical revelation, in contrast to the god of Platonist metaphysics was personal, not abstract, was invisible by choice, not because of His inherrent nature, everlasting and enduring through time, not timeless. Cherbonnier, The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism, Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962)

In his paper, In Defense of Anthropomorhism, Cherbonnier argues that the Mormon and biblical understanding of God are indistinguishable. Cherbonnier is (or was) chairman of the Religion Department at Trinity College, in Hartford Conn. He studied at and took degrees from Cambridge University, the universities of Strasburg and Zurich, Columbia University and the Union Theological Seminary. He taught at Vassar and Benard and served as Deacon for the Cathedral of St. John in NYC. In this paper, Cherbonnier details how the biblical God later was replaced in Christianity by the Platonist metaphysical God/

Genesis 1:26 says: ”And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Even more to the point are verses that reference God’s body parts: “I [Jacob} have seen God face to face” (Gen 32:30); “they saw the God Israel; and there was under his feet...” (Ex 33:11); and “I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not been seen.” (Gen 33:32). Of course a being wouldn’t have a face, feet, hands and back parts but no body.

Additionally, in Acts 7:56 Stephen tells of seeing the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Hebrews 1:3 tells us that Jesus Christ, a gloriously embodies being, humanlike in form, is in “the brightness of [the Father’s] glory, and the express image of his person.” Beyond that, Christ, who is God, after his mortal life, death, and resurrection was seen by many with a physical body and was even touched, verify that his body of flesh and bone.

There was a great diversity of belief in ancient Jews but it was a traditional Jewish belief that God was anthropomorphic - or humans And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. While there are Jewish theologians who are committed incorporealists, there has never been a general and unambiguous rejection of the anthropomorphism that characterizes so much of the Torah and classical Jewish literature. Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).

Philo Judaeus (20BC - 40AD), a Jewish Platonist educated in Alexandria appear to be the first thinker who applied allegorical interpretations to the anthropomorphic passages of the Old Testament. Philos views were not generally accepted by his mainstream Jewish contemporaries but Albinus, a 2nd Century Middle-Platonist followed Philo’s lead and in turn greatly influenced Origen and other Christian thinkers. For a full discussion of why church fathers turned from the ancient view of a corporeal diety and turned to the Platonist view, see Grace M. Jantzen, Theological Tradition and Divine Incorporeality, God’s Word, God’s Body (London: Darton, Longman and Todd 1984) 21-35.

Nowhere is the Jewish understanding of God physical body more evident than in the teachings of the classical rabbis. In a recently published study, Alon Goshen Gottstein says: “In all rabbinic literature (cover both the tannitic (70-200AD) and amoraic (220=500AD) periods there is not a single statement that categorically denies that God has body or form. In my understanding, the question of whether the rabbis believed in a God who has form is one that needs little discussion... Instead of asking, “Does God have a body?” we should inquire, “What kind of body does God have?”” Gottstein, The Body as Image of God in Rabbnic Lierature, Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) - see also Arthur Marmostein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God (1937) reprint, New York: Ktav, 1968)

[AnthonyB]

What if (hopefully I can get my ideas across, although it sort of sounds like bad Sci-Fi and is very speculative).....

There are dimensions outside the four dimensional universe (3 space/1 time) within which we live. Some of the latest physics theories have that there are another 7 dimensions that in our universe are wrapped up inside themselves and hence not accessible to us within this universe. However this universe came about because of the interactions of thois higher dimensions.

Adam and Eve as being created in the image of a higher dimensional being, had access to those dimensions. However the fall cut them of from the dimensions that God exists in and trapped them within the 4 dimensions that currently now exist for us. That was death because the were cut off from the eternal time dimension and had to abide within our time dimension.

Jesus through his ressurection reopened the way for us to have access to the higher dimensions. When he returns he will fully reopen all the dimensions and we will then be able to live with God within the dimension in which He lives.

If God is a truly higher dimensional being then our bodies are something akin to a 2D shadow of a 3D object. Only at the resurrection will we return to being all that we should be.

What would it mean to perceive God as a higher dimensional being that is corporeal (in some sense) in those higher dimensions. He would be simulataneously corpereal but very different in his corporeality to us. Such a being could be locationally present in the higher dimensions but omnipresent through our dimensions. (PC, I too don't fully understand how the LDS have an omnipresent God and a spatially located one. This is my attempt to try to see how they could do it. But if any LDS have a better explanation I'd love to here it. Along the lines, if God is physcially abiding near Kolob how does he hear millions of prayers from billions of light years away? How does he hear our very thoughts to Him?)

God could be the creator of our entire 4D universe and of everything in which we live and experience as humans but at the same time just be the reshaper of a small part of higher dimensional space.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

I love God, and his Son, and the Holy Spirit that dwells with me.

Thank you and Good night.

[brother01]

The issue of whether God has a physical body is perhaps small in comparison to the view of how LDS see their relationship to God and Jesus Christ. Christians I know believe that Jesus is the Creator, not of the created - a mere elder brother of mankind as Satan is.

So to ponder over reasons to believe God has a physical or Spiritual body is a relatively mute matter to discuss. Either God is the only God ever or God was a man who became God as you think you also can become is the greater issue in my mind.

[prisonchaplain]

Brother01 is spot on in his observation. If it turns out that God the Father has a physical body, but that his spirit is omni-present, and he is omnipotent and omniscience, I'm not sure we'd be too concerned. On the other hand, if our Father in Heaven, had a father in heaven, and we shall one day be fathers and mothers in heaven (Gods)...well such is a huge paradigm shift for TCs (our new word--Traditional Christians). And, again, such challenges our thorough-going monotheism).

[Islander]

The question about the anthropomorphic (or not) nature of God will continue. It was an issue for the early Christians (some claimed Christ was not physically on the cross) and some believed He was indeed crucified. Some believed that after the resurrection a specter of sort appeared to the brethren, others that was indeed the Lord in the body. We are not that different from them.

Even when the Apostle John was still alive certain congregations began to break away from the main body of the established Church. The divergent views we see today are nothing but an extension of the ideological divide that has existed within Christianity for nearly 2000 years. Even the views of James, the brother of the Lord, about faith and works were seen as erroneous by the like of Irenaeus and later Luther not to mentionm many Christians today.

[RONALD]

[QUOTE=prisonchaplain;267458]

To be made in the image of God is different from being his literal children.

Your comment above is food for thought - we agree that we are in the image of God.
I then read Heb 12:9 and I get the distinct impression that He is literally the father of our spirits
Heb 12:9
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Then for good measure lets add Rom 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Then we can look at Job 38:4-7 and the question is asked where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth :5 surely you know! :7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
We have to then ask ourselves which sons are these if they are not us ?
I therefore submit to you that we are the literal sons of the Father and that we were with Him when the foundations of this earth were laid.