https://www.quora.com/What-do-Protestants-and-Catholics-think-of-Mormons/answer/James-Hough-1

[SunshineGrandma]

So I am no expert, but do you have even one pre-Christian Jew who claimed the Biblical teaching that we are created in God’s image DOES NOT mean that God is embodied in some way.

That’s the point. The articles:

1). made reference to earlier Jewish teaching, though did not quote primary sources

2). Illustrate that the Jewish people are/were very comfortable debating whether or not God literally had fingers and hands.

3). Illuminate the fact that debate and discussion among Jewish teachers is common throughout their history

• they take great pride in asking questions and even disagreement
• the fact is, there was disagreement between them as to whether or not God was incorporeal
• that disagreement does not equal consensus or majority, as you keep claiming

4). Show an ongoing debate that appears to have been put to an end with Maimonides.
-After hundreds of years of discussion, the belief that God was incorporeal became part of the Jewish creed

5). Illustrate that Jews and Christians evolve in their understanding of God

Humans do not exist in a vacuum. We have ideas and emotions that continue to mold our ideas as we age.
That is what the Jewish writers and teachers are telling us.

 

[Stephen168]

I was suggesting that @Stephen168 and I agree that the Christian ECF taught that the ancient Jews believed in an embodied God.

You would be wrong as I have said previously in this thread.

Where did you say something that should have caused me to know that you do not believe the ECF taught that Jews believe in a corporeal/embodied God?

When I said you are wrong.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Can you acknowledge that there is a lot of evidence pre-Christian Jews embraced an embodied/corporeal God and virtually (or completely) zero evidence that pre-Christian Jews rejected an embodied/corporeal God?
This is your apologetic, I am just claiming it evidences precisely the OPPOSITE of what you told @lokisuperfan.

Yes, I already did provide the evidence that:

There was disagreement and debate over the corporeal vs incorporeal nature of God that persisted for hundreds of years (according to Jewish sources) which

culminated in a final decision by Maimonides to declare that God is incorporeal.

That declaration was accepted and has been a foundation for Jewish teaching and belief for 800 years.

Obviously there was support for Maimonides viewpoint or we would not be sitting here today discussing his teaching about the nature of God.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I was suggesting that @Stephen168 and I agree that the Christian ECF taught that the ancient Jews believed in an embodied God.

You would be wrong as I have said previously in this thread.

Where did you say something that should have caused me to know that you do not believe the ECF taught that Jews believe in a corporeal/embodied God?

When I said you are wrong.

What a game!!!
You said I was wrong as you previously said.
When did you previously say that you do not believe the ECF taught that Jews believe in a corporeal/embodied God?
Charity, TOm

 

[Mi_Rose]

This teminds me of a dog chasing his tail.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Can you acknowledge that there is a lot of evidence pre-Christian Jews embraced an embodied/corporeal God and virtually (or completely) zero evidence that pre-Christian Jews rejected an embodied/corporeal God?
This is your apologetic, I am just claiming it evidences precisely the OPPOSITE of what you told @lokisuperfan.

Yes, I already did provide the evidence that:

There was disagreement and debate over the corporeal vs incorporeal nature of God that persisted for hundreds of years (according to Jewish sources) which

culminated in a final decision by Maimonides to declare that God is incorporeal.

That declaration was accepted and has been a foundation for Jewish teaching and belief for 800 years.

Obviously there was support for Maimonides viewpoint or we would not be sitting here today discussing his teaching about the nature of God.

The disagreements and debates were VERY late.
I looked and saw no evidence of any pre-500AD.
Contrast this with the fact that the link I offered had pre-500AD comments AND the ECF claimed that Jews believed in an embodied God pre-400AD and pre-200AD and …

I have presented evidence that pre-Christian Judaism believed in an embodied/corporeal God. You have only produced evidence that in the 13th century there was a debate that started sometime after 500AD and continued. Your evidence is consistent with my claim, but you have done nothing to address my claim.

Furthermore, it was you who claimed that Catholicism was true because it embraced a noncorporeal God like Judaism, but unless you mean that DEVELOPMENT happened divinely guided under Jewish authority and divinely guided under Catholic authority, then you have no apologetic at all.
Charity, TOm

 

[SunshineGrandma]

The disagreements and debates were VERY late.
I looked and saw no evidence of any pre-500AD.
Contrast this with the fact that the link I offered had pre-500AD comments AND the ECF claimed that Jews believed in an embodied God pre-400AD and pre-200AD and …

No, the scholars state that there was always disagreement. Always for the Jewish people goes back several thousand years.

Apparently, ancient Jews did not write their disagreements down for you and I to read. However, later they often refer to the history of debate about God’s incorporeal nature.

Now to further advance the conversation, it appears that the Jewish teachers referred to God in an anthromorphic way - not that God was ever a man.

… “According to Marmorstein, the schools of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael were divided on the question of the literality of the understanding of the biblical text. Rabbi Akiva’s literal reading gave rise to an anthropomorphic understanding of God. Rabbi Ishmael’s nonliteral, or allegorical, reading brought about an opposition to anthropomorphism. This description of rabbinic anthropomorphism has informed the discussions of many scholars, including those who have dealt with our present topic—the image of God. I would, therefore, state my differences with this presentation”…

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...c-literature/854AF4883B0464149B26D107679643C6

So, now we are talking about the idea that some of the Jewish teachers used human terminology to describe God to make him seem more relatable but does not suggest that the Jews ever taught God was corporeal.

There is no evidence to support that Early Christians or Jews ever taught or believed that God was an actual man in the way LDS teach and believe.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

anthropomorphic​

or an·thro·po·mor·phous​

[an-thruh-puh-mawr-fik]

EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN

adjective​

ascribing human form or attributes to a beingor thing not human, especially to a deity.

 

[Stephen168]

What a game!!!
You said I was wrong as you previously said.
When did you previously say that you do not believe the ECF taught that Jews believe in a corporeal/embodied God?

You are in the habit of making claims and never having to prove them; like claiming I believe something I don’t. Prove I believe what you claim I do!

And you want us to believe your claim about the first century Jews when you don’t understand the writings of a 21st century American.

Hugh Nibley was known to find what he wanted on any page whether it was there or not. This seems to have become common in Mormon apologetics.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Furthermore, it was you who claimed that Catholicism was true because it embraced a noncorporeal God like Judaism, but unless you mean that DEVELOPMENT happened divinely guided under Jewish authority and divinely guided under Catholic authority, then you have no apologetic at all

I stated that in order for a religion to proclaim to be Christian it must be the fulfillment of Judaism.

The Christian God is the God of Judaism.

The God of Judaism is incorporeal.

The Christian God is incorporeal.

The Mormon God was corporeal, was once a man like you and me, and he had a father, and his father had a father and so on.

The LDS God is not the God of Judaism or Christianity.

 

[lokisuperfan]

The God of Judaism is incorporeal

Wait but didn’t you just say there was debate, and that there were different views on this within Judaism? I thought I remembered you saying that…

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Wait but didn’t you just say there was debate, and that there were different views on this within Judaism? I thought I remembered you saying that…

Before I answer-Have you been following the conversation?

There’s a lot to repeat and I want to know where to start.

 

[lokisuperfan]

I have, but I don’t understand the half of it to be completely honest.

 

[TOmNossor]

SunshineGrandma:

The God of Judaism is incorporeal

Wait but didn’t you just say there was debate, and that there were different views on this within Judaism? I thought I remembered you saying that…

It is my position that SunshineGrandma has shown ZERO evidence that pre-Christian Jews believed in an incorporeal God, despite the fact that she claimed that this belief proves that Catholicism is the proper successor of Judaism.

All I have seen is a 13th century debate where folks pointed to conflicts that seem to have cropped up AFTER 500AD.
The Christian ECF in the 3rd and 4th centuries claimed that Jews believed in a corporeal God.
Origin specifically said:

The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions. (Origen, Homilies on Genesis 3:1)

All this means IMO is that SunshineGrandma’s original apologetic to you was radically flawed. The Jews followed the Christians in rejection an embodied God and this was done for philosophical reasons not due to revelation or scripture.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Furthermore, it was you who claimed that Catholicism was true because it embraced a noncorporeal God like Judaism, but unless you mean that DEVELOPMENT happened divinely guided under Jewish authority and divinely guided under Catholic authority, then you have no apologetic at all

I stated that in order for a religion to proclaim to be Christian it must be the fulfillment of Judaism.

The Christian God is the God of Judaism.

The God of Judaism is incorporeal.

The Christian God is incorporeal.

The Mormon God was corporeal, was once a man like you and me, and he had a father, and his father had a father and so on.

The LDS God is not the God of Judaism or Christianity.

The LDS embrace a corporeal/embodied God just like ancient Jews and original Christians.

Modern Jews and modern non-LDS Christians (at different times with Christians completing their transition MUCH earlier) now agree for philosophical reasons (thought not due to revelation or Old or New Testament Scripture as evidenced by the crux of the arguments made during these transitions).

Now, Stephen168 likes to explain that LDS believe that God the Father was once a man (and by this he mean a man like TOm not a man like Jesus Christ). This is a common LDS belief, but I reject it.
I believe that God the Son witnessed in the Bible that He like His Father became incarnate by choice. This is what Joseph Smith taught. But among those LDS who have thought a little about this my view is not the most common (of course LDS never say God the Father was once a sinful man so reflecting upon this might bring more folks towards my view).

Anyway, I have provide ancient Jewish sources (concerning God’s hands and fingers). You have provided 12th century debates that suggest there was probably arguments about this long before, but they can only site sources from later than 500AD. I do not think there was much argument about this anciently because Jews and the earliest Christians agreed that God was embodied.

I will read to see if you can provide ancient Jews who argued that even those we are “made in the image of God,” God is incorporeal (not just invisible to NORMAL eyes which is a view LDS and ancient Jews shared). But, I hope to post MUCH less as I think I have made points that you and Stephen can ignore and mock.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Which proves Christianity has never believed that God has a body of flesh and bone.

 

[ColorMomma]

You are not alone .

 

[SunshineGrandma]

TOm - please post Augustine’s quote on the corporeal nature of God and a link to the source.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Origen himself believed God to be incorporeal:

I. Anthropomorphites : They take literally the anthropomorphism that the Bible attributes to God and to the soul and consequently picture God as corporeal: against these Origen clearly affirms the absolute incorporeality of the three Persons and of the soul.

Against the Anthropomorphites Origen explains that God is Spirit, and He alone is without body .

But the substance of the Trinity, which is the beginning and cause of all things, ‘of which are all things and through which are all things and in which are all things’, must not be believed either to be a body or to exist in a body, but to be wholly incorporeal… ( Princ . 1.1.1)

So, Origen does not support the LDS teaching that God is corporeal.

———————-

Regarding Origen stating that Jews believed God had a body:

Here is an excellent paper explaining Jewish and Christian belief about the corporeal vs incorporeal nature of God. It discusses the use of anthromorphic language among Jews.
This language attributes human-like qualities to God.
That still does not equate to the LDS belief that God is an actual man.
Also, Origen’s opinion about the Jews believing God had a body, as stated by TOm, is discredited. See:
http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~kazhdan/S... and Christ (ocr) HTR 76,3 (1983) 269-288.pdf

(Unfortunately, it will not allow me to copy and paste the parts that pertain specifically to our discussion so reading the paper is necessary. It’s very academic but also very interesting!!)

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello SunshineGrandma,
As I claimed, I would read things that showed that pre-Christian Jews did not embrace corporeal/embodied interpretation of God. What you offered did not.
From your paper:

In Christian as well as in pagan thought, however, the pervasive influence of Platonism—with its insistence on the total immateriality of God—permitted the development of a theology free from anthropo-morphic representations.

This is precisely my point. There was a theology that ascribed to God a body (and emotions). This theology was changed in Christianity (and Judaism) not because of a close reading of scripture or revelation, but because of the “pervasive influence of Platonism.” As Origen and other ECF made clear it was too simple minded to believe in this. As the long Cardinal Newman quote I offered but was deleted claimed, being criticized by the learned men was/is a mark of true Christianity as it came forth in the beginning.
I consider the move from anthropomorphic representation to totally incorporeal immaterial representation a move from truth to error and I think St. Peter would agree with me.
The article you link claims that Origen’s assessment of the corporeal understanding of God in Jewish thought “reflects rabbinic conceptions known to him” and suggests that “the value of this testimony (what Jews believed according to Origen) has been unduly belittled in recent research.”
Now I ask that you go through and DATE the points made by your author. NONE of them that I have found are pre-Christian. ALL of them exist in the Greek thought world influenced by Platonism.
Many of the gnostic, Jewish, and Christian texts used by the author do refer to the creation as a product of the visible God at the behest of the invisible God. This is solidly Biblical and what LDS teach too. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long taught that the divine work of the Old Testament is Christ’s work AND that God the Father cannot be seen by normal eyes. This did not mean for the Biblical author, the ancient Jews, the ancient Christians, or today’s LDS that God the Father was incorporeal.
The author THEORIZES that the radical insistence upon an embodied God within Jewish thought (again post Christian thought – and post Gnostic thought) is in response to the Christian use of ancient texts to point to Christ and Gnostic use of ancient texts to point to the demiurge/god. The Jews responded with “no God the Father is embodied.” But, the pre-Christian view was not that God the Father was not embodied, only that He was HOLY and distinct from the world. Some pre-Christian texts suggest this HOLY existence necessitated a companion to work within the world. Christians often called this companion, the pre-incarnate Christ. Gnostic had a different idea. Jews demanded that it was not Christ and that God the Father though HOLY was embodied. But, the pre-Christian “most high God” was not incorporeal and the author doesn’t provide anything to suggest otherwise. The author ONLY describes why Judaism became radically anthropomorphic, not that it was not anthropomorphic before Christianity and Gnosticism.
Charity, TOm