1 God + 1 God + 1 God = 1 God, not 3 Gods?

[Peter1000]

How come no Christian denomination thinks God lives on a planet called Kolob? Kolob is not even in the Bible

Grasping again. Keep telling yourself things that are not true. The heart is wicked, it will ablige you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

God lives on a planet near the planet Kolob. He does not live on Kolob.

Where do you think God dwells?
Where do you think the throne of God is? Which is a biblical concept, right?
Where do you think the throne of Jesus is? The throne that we will share with Jesus if we overcome this world? This is a biblical concept, right?

So again, have you ever wondered where God lives? No, because you think God is an essence of wind, and where does the wind live (an absurd question).

Well, Mormons believe God is a Exalted Man, that sits on a throne, and next to His throne sits the throne of Jesus (another Exalted Man) and that is a throne we will sit in. This is biblical, all JS did was tell you where that throne is. Is that so wicked, or is it one of the most interesting things you have ever heard. The throne of God sits on a planet near the planet Kolob. So if that does not sit with you, it is unnecessary to call my heart wicked.

If it is not in the bible, it is because God is not restricted to a book in His dealings with man.

 

[Peter1000]

It depends on what is meant by the term. I think that there is a major problem within the thinking of many modern Christians which has deviated significantly from the historic orthodoxy of Christianity; which has largely replaced the historic teaching of the Church concerning the future resurrection of the body with a quasi-Gnostic belief in escaping the world by going to a place called "Heaven" and to exist there fore all eternity. The idea of "Heaven" as this place we go to after we die and spend eternity "there" is a problem, because that's a heterodox idea that has more in common with Gnosticism or Manichaeanism than orthodox Christianity.

If one is merely referring to the intermediate state--our presence with the Lord between death and resurrection--no I don't have a problem with that language. As long as it is understood that "Heaven" isn't some place where we go to live out our eternity, but as descriptive of the presence of God, and in an eschatological sense, our rest with God between the death of the body and the resurrection of the body.



So I've heard.



Molecules are combinations of atoms. God has no molecules.



Correct. That's what Scripture teaches; and so unsurprisingly since it's what all the three of the major Abrahamic religions believe: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is one of the few things we all can agree on--God's utter transcendent otherness.



Seeing as Scripture pretty consistently emphasizes that God is not like anything else, not like any creatures, isn't like you or me, etc and that is emphasized throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament; I'm going to go ahead and say that's a pretty large negative on that front.



One part blind conjecture and one part historical error.

Which emperor and his soldiers came up with a new definition of the Godhead, Constantine? You may want to do some homework on that one. You might also not want to try that one with someone who has done their homework and has a working knowledge of the theological and political goings on of the 4th century--better to save that for people who don't know any better.

-CryptoLutheran

You say: Seeing as Scripture pretty consistently emphasizes that God is not like anything else, not like any creatures, isn't like you or me, etc and that is emphasized throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament; I'm going to go ahead and say that's a pretty large negative on that front.

You must know that If God made man after His image and after His likeness, then it follows that God is also in our image and in our likeness. That's a pretty large positive for JS who is the only prophet since Peter, Paul and John that actually believes the bible. Since Jesus, who you say is God, has a body of flesh and bone and spirit, just like you or me, it seems to follow that what God told us in Genesis 1:26 must be true. The scriputres scream that we are like God and that we can be just like God.

I always have to make sure you realize when I say these things, that God is far, far advanced from mortal man. He has a perfect, resurrected, immortal, exalted body of flesh and bone and spirit, like man's, but far advanced than man's. But nonetheless flesh and bone and spirit. JS was right on spot.

 

[Peter1000]

Book of Abraham 3:2 (speaking of Kolob)
2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

Where do you think the throne of God and Jesus are?

 

[ViaCrucis]

You say: Seeing as Scripture pretty consistently emphasizes that God is not like anything else, not like any creatures, isn't like you or me, etc and that is emphasized throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament; I'm going to go ahead and say that's a pretty large negative on that front.

You must know that If God made man after His image and after His likeness, then it follows that God is also in our image and in our likeness. That's a pretty large positive for JS who is the only prophet since Peter, Paul and John that actually believes the bible. Since Jesus, who you say is God, has a body of flesh and bone and spirit, just like you or me, it seems to follow that what God told us in Genesis 1:26 must be true. The scriputres scream that we are like God and that we can be just like God.

I always have to make sure you realize when I say these things, that God is far, far advanced from mortal man. He has a perfect, resurrected, immortal, exalted body of flesh and bone and spirit, like man's, but far advanced than man's. But nonetheless flesh and bone and spirit. JS was right on spot.

Except the image and likeness has nothing to do with what we look like.

Or, if you prefer to think like that, does that mean God has both a penis and a vagina?

"So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:27

So God, both penis and vagina then?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JoeP222w]

3 God persons in One Godhead

This is a mischaracterization of the Trinity.

The Trinity is not 3 Gods.

 

[JoeP222w]

Is Heavenly Mother one of the Three? If not, isn't it odd that Heavenly Father is God and Heavenly Mother is not?

I find nowhere in the Bible that calls (or implies) Mary "Heavenly Mother".

No, Mary is not part of the Trinity. That is a heretical teaching.

 

[JoeP222w]

In the Old Testament She played a larger role, she was El Shaddai, God with breast. She would bless with blessings of the womb as in Gen 49
"25 Even by El of thy father, who shall help thee; and by El Shaddai, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:

The male chauvinist who translated the Bible wrote her out!

Clearly, Genesis 49:25 is metaphorical, poetical language. It not referring to a literal Heavenly Mother.

Or, if you are consistent, do you believe Jesus is a literal hen in Matthew 23:37?

 

[JoeP222w]

We believe in the following formula: 1 God + 1 God + 1 God = 3 Gods, in 1 Godhead, and They are so unified in Their purpose, it is as if They are 1 God.

And that is not Christianity, nor is it Monotheism, which shows that Mormonism is Polytheistic.

 

[ToBeLoved]

God lives on a planet near the planet Kolob. He does not live on Kolob.

Where do you think God dwells?
Where do you think the throne of God is? Which is a biblical concept, right?
Where do you think the throne of Jesus is? The throne that we will share with Jesus if we overcome this world? This is a biblical concept, right?

So again, have you ever wondered where God lives? No, because you think God is an essence of wind, and where does the wind live (an absurd question).

Well, Mormons believe God is a Exalted Man, that sits on a throne, and next to His throne sits the throne of Jesus (another Exalted Man) and that is a throne we will sit in. This is biblical, all JS did was tell you where that throne is. Is that so wicked, or is it one of the most interesting things you have ever heard. The throne of God sits on a planet near the planet Kolob. So if that does not sit with you, it is unnecessary to call my heart wicked.

If it is not in the bible, it is because God is not restricted to a book in His dealings with man.

Don't you think a God powerful enough to create the heavens and earth is much greater than an exhalted man?

The only reason mankind can create anything is because we have the resources of the earth, like minerals, plants, rock, ect. Man can't create anything that was not put on the earth by God.

 

[Ironhold]

I must have missed that discussion.

How do you feel that saying that Jesus was married is proven by science? You can point me to the answer in the other thread.

That should have been "argument from silence."

It was 2 AM when I was getting to your post.

 

[Ironhold]

We are not critics. It is your religion that works sex into every part of your faith. Polygamy, polyandry. Christian Bible verses tell us that it is ONLY one man and one woman.

We naturally wonder why your religion is so filled with sex that you think the Father impregnated Mary and Jesus had multiple wives. And their is a heavenly mother. That doctrine is as foreign to us as Hinduism.

Seriously - even in this post of yours, you're tilting at windmills.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Seriously - even in this post of yours, you're tilting at windmills.

Why bother responding then. There are others who want to be in this conversation.

 

[withwonderingawe]

And that is not Christianity, nor is it Monotheism, which shows that Mormonism is Polytheistic.

will it certainly is Biblical so why don't Christians believe it?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Clearly, Genesis 49:25 is metaphorical, poetical language. It not referring to a literal Heavenly Mother.

Or, if you are consistent, do you believe Jesus is a literal hen in Matthew 23:37?

I know a metaphor and a man's beliefs

This is a metaphor
" how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Matt 23

This is a belief
" Even by the El of thy father, who shall help thee; and by Shadday, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb" Gen 49

 

[ToBeLoved]

I know a metaphor and a man's beliefs

This is a metaphor
" how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Matt 23

This is a belief
" Even by the El of thy father, who shall help thee; and by Shadday, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb" Gen 49

Shadday does not mean woman.

Lexicon :: Strong's H7706 - Shadday
שַׁדַּי
Transliteration
Shadday
Pronunciation
shad·dah'·ē (Key)
Part of Speech
masculine noun with reference to deity
Root Word (Etymology)
From שָׁדַד (H7703)
Dictionary Aids
TWOT Reference: 2333

KJV Translation Count — Total: 48x
The KJV translates Strongs H7706 in the following manner: Almighty (48x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. almighty, most powerful
   
   1. Shaddai, the Almighty (of God)
      

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
שַׁדַּי Shadday, shad-dah'-ee; from H7703; the Almighty:—Almighty.


So it is a MASCULINE noun meaning almighty.

I think you are mistaken

 

[Peter1000]

Don't you think a God powerful enough to create the heavens and earth is much greater than an exhalted man?

The only reason mankind can create anything is because we have the resources of the earth, like minerals, plants, rock, ect. Man can't create anything that was not put on the earth by God.

An Exalted Man can exercise righteous power over the elements. It is the elements that combine to create things. It takes a perfect Exalted Man in order for the elements to be obedient. If they do obey, the universe comes into existence, spirit beings are brought forth, and Earth, with abundant life is ready to be populated by mortals, ready to progress toward immortality and eternal life with God their Father.

 

[ToBeLoved]

An Exalted Man can execise righteous power over the elements. It is the elements that combine to create things. It takes a perfect Exalted Man in order for the elements to be obedient. If they do obey, the universe comes into existence, spirit beings are brought forth, and Earth, with abundant life is ready to be populated by mortals, ready to progress toward immortality and eternal life with God their Father.

So who created the elements? Who created creation from the start, the Big Bang where nothing became something?

Why not explain how things happened then from the 'real' beginning where ever that is.

 

[fatboys]

Except the image and likeness has nothing to do with what we look like.

Or, if you prefer to think like that, does that mean God has both a penis and a vagina?

"So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:27

So God, both penis and vagina then?

-CryptoLutheran

It would make sense to me if man was in the likeness and image of the Father and the woman was after the likeness of our Mother.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It would make sense to me if man was in the likeness and image of the Father and the woman was after the likeness of our Mother.

Except that the text says both male and female were created in the image and likeness of God,

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם בְּצַלְמֹו בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתֹו זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָֽם׃

way·yiḇ·rā ’ĕ·lō·hîm ’eṯ- hā·’ā·ḏām bə·ṣal·mōw, bə·ṣe·lem ’ĕ·lō·hîm bā·rā ’ō·ṯōw; zā·ḵār ū·nə·qê·ḇāh bā·rā ’ō·ṯām.

Created God (them*) the-human[kind] [the]image, [the]image of God created (them*) male and female created (them*)

*is an untranslatable accusative particle, effectively rendered "them" here to indicate male and female are what is created and created in God's image.

Male and female are created in the image of elohim, God.

The Septuagint, therefore, renders this same passage,

καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς
kai epoiesen ho theos ton anthropon kat ekona theou epoisen auton arsen kai thelu apoisen autous

and created the God the humans of image God's created these male and female created these

There is no other thing whose image humans have other than God, Elohim, ho Theos, etc.

There is no "mother" here, there is only God, the God, the same as is mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

To read a "mother" into this text is an act of pure imaginative eisegesis--and at that point any claim (as was mentioned earlier) to being more faithful to the biblical text is reckoned forfeit. If one needs to insert their own ideas into the text in order for it to come out in one's favor then they have a problem on their hands.

What we have is simple: human beings, both male and female, are created in God's image. Not males in the image of one being, and females in the image of another; it is the same being here that created the heavens and the earth which has now created human beings (both male and female) in His image.

So the way I see it we have several options:

The divine image is not about shape, form, or appearance; but some other quality (I argue that the divine image is about purpose, it addresses what our place within creation is for)

Or the divine image is about shape, form, or appearance and God is basically a human being writ large, but then we run into what I brought up before: does God have both a penis and a vagina? If male and female are created in God's image, and if the divine image is about what God "looks like" and thus God has a human shape, and is even anatomically human, then God has genitals and therefore both male and female genitals.

If we are going to go by the text, and not insert alien ideas into the text, such as there being God and God's missus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fatboys]

Except that the text says both male and female were created in the image and likeness of God,

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם בְּצַלְמֹו בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתֹו זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָֽם׃

way·yiḇ·rā ’ĕ·lō·hîm ’eṯ- hā·’ā·ḏām bə·ṣal·mōw, bə·ṣe·lem ’ĕ·lō·hîm bā·rā ’ō·ṯōw; zā·ḵār ū·nə·qê·ḇāh bā·rā ’ō·ṯām.

Created God (them*) the-human[kind] [the]image, [the]image of God created (them*) male and female created (them*)

*is an untranslatable accusative particle, effectively rendered "them" here to indicate male and female are what is created and created in God's image.

Male and female are created in the image of elohim, God.

The Septuagint, therefore, renders this same passage,

καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς
kai epoiesen ho theos ton anthropon kat ekona theou epoisen auton arsen kai thelu apoisen autous

and created the God the humans of image God's created these male and female created these

There is no other thing whose image humans have other than God, Elohim, ho Theos, etc.

There is no "mother" here, there is only God, the God, the same as is mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

To read a "mother" into this text is an act of pure imaginative eisegesis--and at that point any claim (as was mentioned earlier) to being more faithful to the biblical text is reckoned forfeit. If one needs to insert their own ideas into the text in order for it to come out in one's favor then they have a problem on their hands.

What we have is simple: human beings, both male and female, are created in God's image. Not males in the image of one being, and females in the image of another; it is the same being here that created the heavens and the earth which has now created human beings (both male and female) in His image.

So the way I see it we have several options:

The divine image is not about shape, form, or appearance; but some other quality (I argue that the divine image is about purpose, it addresses what our place within creation is for)

Or the divine image is about shape, form, or appearance and God is basically a human being writ large, but then we run into what I brought up before: does God have both a penis and a vagina? If male and female are created in God's image, and if the divine image is about what God "looks like" and thus God has a human shape, and is even anatomically human, then God has genitals and therefore both male and female genitals.

If we are going to go by the text, and not insert alien ideas into the text, such as there being God and God's missus.

-CryptoLutheran

Well it could mean that both the man and the woman are in the image of God. I mean there are times when I see someone walking down the street I wonder if it was a boy or a girl. Maybe God made us different in a few areas and that was enough to describe mankind.