SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=90 BGCOLOR="#CC9900" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="043005a0dwnjzk.gif"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="EDWARD WATSONS WEBWORLD"><U><B>home</B></U></A><B> | </B><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>EDWARD WATS</B><B>ON'S WEBWORLD</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION</B><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id62.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="1"><U><B>1</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id66.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="2"><U><B>2</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id67.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="3"><U><B>3</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id68.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4"><U><B>4</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id55.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="5"><U><B>5</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="6"><U><B>6</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id59.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="7"><U><B>7</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id71.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="8"><U><B>8</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="9"><U><B>9</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id60.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="10"><U><B>10</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id73.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="11"><U><B>11</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id74.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="12"><U><B>12</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id75.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="13"><U><B>13</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id76.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="14"><U><B>14</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="15"><U><B>15</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id78.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="16"><U><B>16</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id79.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="17"><U><B>17</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id80.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="18"><U><B>18</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id81.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="APPENDIX"><U><B>APPENDIX</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id82.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 1: CONCLUSION"><U><B>SECTION 1: CONCLUSION</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ABBREVIATIONS"><U><B>ABBREVIATIONS</B></U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Volume 1. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 1998 Edward K. Watson.) pp. 3-9. MORMONISM: Section 1, Introduction. All rights reserved.]</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>INTRODUCTION</B></div> <bR> <div>      Man has always wondered about God. What is he made of? What does he look like? Who is he? Is he a nonmaterial, incorporeal spirit or does he have an immortal physical body? Is he a spirit that is everywhere, without form, without body, parts or passions? Is the Godhead, the great mystery of the  Trinity, three-in-one incomprehensible?</div> <div>      Is he something more? Could it be that he is our l iteral Father who is in heaven and are we his children, literally made in his  image?</div> <bR> <div>   Does God the Father have an immortal  body or is he a nonmaterial, formless omnipresent being? </div> <bR> <div>      The prime difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and all other non-LDS Christian churches on the nature of God is we are the only ones who believe God (in this particular case, Heavenly Father) is a male<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >1</FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>    Based upon the Scriptures as a whole, with its teaching of God being in a male form (cf. 1 Cor  11:7), the female form has to be modeled after a female pattern. (We would say, Heavenly Mother, [Sir 40:1 cf. Gen  3:20 -person instead of earth?] but we really don’t have any proof since the Scriptures are silent about who the female form is patterned from [the idea of having a Heavenly Mother wouldn’t be foreign to the early Israelites who envisioned YHWH or El as having a wife or consort who is frequently identified as Asherah or Anat-Yahu. See TE. pp. 19,33-34,54,57-59; HG. pp. 47,52; EHG.). Generally speaking, the female form is patterned after the form of God, but specifically, we simply don’t know. spirit being housed within a  physical glorified immortal body (just like we [who are also spirits], are housed within mortal physical bodies which we leave at death) instead of being a nonmaterial  omnipresent being, without form or passions.</div> <bR> <div>  D&C <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>130:22 <I>The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,</I> the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. </div> <bR> <div>      The Mormon view of God has often been described as  anthropomorphic, of God having human characteristics. This is normally used in the sense of a physical appearance (having a physical body with a face, torso, limbs, eyes, nose, fingers, etc.) but anthropomorphism also extends to human qualities and emotion such as being righteous, evil, having joy, anger, sorrow, which poses a dilemma to Traditional Christians since a true non-anthropomorphic God should be devoid of any emotion or quality. This means a true non-anthropomorphic God couldn’t be loving, angry, kind, generous, or have<I> any</I> human attribute similar to Plotinus’ “the One.” We believe God should be understood as  a personal anthropomorphic God,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >2</FONT> and not an abstract entity imperfectly discernable with the mind.</div> <div>      The oldest portions of the Bible describes an anthropomorphic God:<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >3</FONT> </div> <bR> <div>   “[God in the OT] is virtually always referred to in the earlier sources in a way which suggests His human form though His body was usually hidden in a refulgent envelope called His Glory (<I>kabhôdh</I>).”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >4</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Viewing God as being in  anthropomorphic form has been condemned as “naive,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >5</FONT> childish,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >6</FONT> and simplistic,”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >7</FONT> for two thousand years simply because of Greek philosophy’s dominance of formal education. Now that modern science has replaced the stranglehold Greek philosophy had over the educated mind, all contemporary belief systems built upon the foundation of Greek philosophy (such as Judaism, non-Mormon Christianity and Islam) will have to justify their theology in accordance with the conceptions of modern science. Mormonism wholeheartedly subjects itself to the judgements of modern science since our theology is the only one which adheres to scientific rigorism. There isn’t any incompatibility between Mormon theology and provable modern science.</div> <div>      A  physical <B>anthropomorphic</B> God, of God being in man’s image (a humanoid) is actually wrong since God is not made in man’s image but man is made in God’s image.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >8</FONT> The correct LDS view is actually called the <B>theomorphic</B> conception of man, prominently, the characteristics of  man (noticeably, physical appearance) are made <I>after</I> God’s image. However, for the sake of physical comparison in this book, I will be using the word “anthropomorphic” instead of “theomorphic” since I will be using a fact that is beyond question: humans have physical bodies and Jesus has a physical human body. Since these are what’s known and Heavenly Father’s status is the unknown,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >9</FONT> I will be referring to God being in anthropomorphic form, <I>for the sake of comparison</I>, not as us being the template for his appearance. </div> <div>       I specifically use the term “nonmaterial” in reference to “spirit” instead of  “immaterial” or “ incorporeal.” “<B>Nonmaterial</B>” has specific reference to “without matter” whereas “<B>immaterial</B>” can be used to mean “without matter” or “matter in a tenuous state”such as gas, air, the wind, aerogels, spider webs, etc. “<B>Incorporeal</B>” simply means without a physical body and doesn’t describe the essence of what a spirit is. To avoid confusion, I’ll use “nonmaterial” in describing the traditional view of the nature of “spirit” and will use “incorporeal” to refer to a material spirit not having a physical body. I also frequently use the word  “<I>ousia</I>” (3776/4045) which basically means substance, goods, property, wealth, estate,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >10</FONT> and is only found twice in the NT (Luke  15:12-13) in reference to material property. This is an extremely important word since the Greek philosophical definition of “<I>ousia</I>” is the bedrock of the Traditional concept of God and is purportedly the accurate description of God’s being/  essence which causes him to be omnipresent. Since the word isn’t used consistently by philosophers and theologians, I will be using it in the Nicene sense of “essence /substance” and not in the sense of “ reality/real existence” since this Section is an examination of God’s essence, not his real existence. “Ousia” is examined thoroughly in MORMONISM: Section 4 concerning the Godhead.</div> <div>      The OT <I>always</I> attributes human traits to God,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >11</FONT> but its concept of God being in anthropomorphic <I>form</I> gradually reduced over the centuries,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >12</FONT> (but this is probably due to the  removal of God from visible involvement and management of the world and humanity)<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >13</FONT> which caused the later biblical writers to view God abstractly, despite still having some human characteristics.</div> <div>      On the onset, I must point out the importance of not having any pre-conceived notions about God and insisting the Scriptures must conform to our belief.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >14</FONT> It is sad to read biblical commentaries,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >15</FONT> and dictionaries<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >16</FONT> twisting the plain meaning of various passages to conform with their own pre-conceived ideas about God, namely, the idea of the  nonmaterial formlessness of “spirit” and most significantly, the idea of God being “an omnipresent, nonmaterial, formless, essence (<I>ousia</I>).” </div> <div>      These two concepts are so deeply rooted in our worldview that they are unconditionally believed by most religious people who never take the time to inquire of its history or question its validity. We have been indoctrinated into this belief from an early age with the assumption that they are based upon the Bible. Most people when asked what a  spirit is will describe it to mean a nonmaterial, formless energy which is the opposite of matter. When they’re asked what is God, they will say he’s a nonmaterial formless spirit who is everywhere (omnipresent). It is indubitably shocking for people to learn these beliefs aren’t from the Bible but are actually derived from Greek Philosophy, which has supplanted the real teaching of the Bible concerning God in the theologies of Traditional Theism.</div> <div>      Those who believe in the Traditional  Trinity interpret the passages which describe God as a non-omnipresent anthropomorphic form as theophanies, where God assumes human form to relate to man and to enable man to comprehend him. A <B> theophany </B>is simply God appearing to man, which we believe whole-heartedly. Where we diverge is when we believe Heavenly Father is ontologically in  anthropomorphic form. We believe his natural (proper) form<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >17</FONT> is a gloriously humanoid form, which is filtered when he appears to man. Traditional Christian theology on the other hand views God as being ontologically an omnipresent, formless, nonmaterial essence (<I>ousia</I>) who assumes anthropomorphic form for humans to comprehend and relate to him. </div> <bR> <div> Mormon view of God in relation to his theophanies = indescribable glorious humanoid to filtered humanly discernable humanoid. </div> <bR> <div> Traditional Christian theology’s view of God in relation to his theophanies = omnipresent, formless, nonmaterial essence (<I>ousia</I>) to filtered discernable humanoid.</div> <bR> <div>      The problem of Traditional Christians is their unquestioned assumption their idea of God being an omnipresent, formless nonmaterial entity is true. <I>How do they know?</I> Where is this kind of God taught in the Bible? All of the biblical justifications they use are examined in depth within this Section. </div> <div>      An interesting observation is the Bible never describes  theophanies of God to be in any form other than human.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >18</FONT> Yahweh (YHWH or Jehovah)<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >19</FONT> of the OT was, for the most part, the pre-mortal  Jesus who didn’t have a physical body during that period and was the one who appeared in the burning bush to Moses (Ex  3:2-6). </div> <div>      Saying God <I>can’t</I> have a body places a limitation on his power. Saying God <I>can’t exist</I> without a physical body puts a limitation on his power as well. The issue isn’t on the limitation of his power but on the normal ontological <I>state</I> of God. </div> <div>      The problem of the  Greek Philosophers’ view of God are:</div> <bR> <div> 1) It was developed through intellectual formulation.</div> <bR> <div>      The Bible on the other hand repeatedly stresses man’s intellect will never be able to learn the Truth about God. Only the  Holy Ghost reveals the Truth of God to those who are faithful (Prov  3:5-7; Jer  17:5; Matt  16:13-17; John  14:26;  15:26;  16:13; Rom  8:4-14; 1 Cor  1:19-27;  2:4-14;  3:18-19; Gal  1:12; Eph  3:5; Jas  1:5; etc.). The wise men’s knowledge are foolishness (Isa  44:25).</div> <bR> <div> 2) It came from the pagan<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >20</FONT> Greeks; not the OT Jews nor from the NT Christians. </div> <bR> <div>       The NT clearly states the wisdom of the Greeks (the different branches of Philosophy) doesn’t know the Truth about God and must be shunned (Col  2:8-9; Acts  17:18-20,32; 1 Cor  1:19-27;  2:10-14;  3:18-21).</div> <div>      Greek (Pagan) Philosophy, the actual philosophy biblical writers condemned for not knowing the Truth about God is the source of the idea of God’s [alleged] omnipresence, essence (<I>ousia</I>), nonmateriality, transcendence and infinity. It is also the source of man’s  spirit being a formless nonmaterial essence. God never gave mankind any revelations that these ideas were true. They were simply formulated by the thinking of men, the same methodology biblical writers repeatedly claimed would never learn the Truth of God, which will only come via divine revelation. </div> <bR> <div>   Greek Philosophy; not the Bible. Intellectual development; not Divine Revelation. Both condemned by the Bible as never being able to come to the Truth about God.</div> <bR> <div>      There has never been a more successful belief system in the history of the world than Greek Philosophy. It took over Jewish Theology primarily through  Philo of Alexandria<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >21</FONT> (but its influence began centuries earlier with the Hellenic expansion).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >22</FONT> It caused Judaism to abandon its traditional view of  a personal God in human form<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >23</FONT> and embrace their current belief in the “absolute conception of the incorporeality of God,”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >24</FONT> and viewing God in human form as blasphemous.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >25</FONT></div> <div>      It was combined with NT theology beginning with the  Apologists in the second century resulting in what is now known as Christian Theology. It is the primary source of Islamic Theology and has influenced the theology of other religions when they came in contact with Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The conception of God that the three major monotheistic faiths have is derived from the Greek philosophers, especially  Plato and  Plotinus, and is foreign to the God of the Bible.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >26</FONT> </div> <div>      This intellectual development of only a handful of Greeks directly influences the religious beliefs of the majority of people in the world today. </div> <div>      The question everyone should be asking is: </div> <bR> <div> “Are these conceptions of God and spirit <I>true</I>?”</div> <bR> <div>      As one who believes in the inspired nature of the Bible, and also believes what its writers said about Greek Philosophy’s ideas about God and the methodology they employed, I would say no. <I>I reject </I> <I>Greek Philosophy’s view on what God and spirit are and limit myself to what the Scriptures actually say on the subjects</I>. All of the biblical justification used by those who believe in these Greek philosophical ideas are examined in MORMONISM: Section 4 which demonstrates those who believe these Greek Philosophical ideas <I>read into </I>the Bible these doctrines instead of deriving them <I>from </I>the Bible. (e. g., “God is spirit” [John  4:24] - “O.K. what is ‘spirit’ or a ‘spirit’? Where in the Bible is it defined to   mean a formless, nonmaterial, omnipresent essence [<I>ousia</I>]?” Or, “God is omnipresent. He fills all of the universe” [Jer  23:24] - “O.K. what does he fill the universe<I> with</I>? His knowledge? His power? His ability? His love? His creation? His being/essence [<I>ousia</I>]? His ‘light’? What? The passage doesn’t say his ‘<I>ousia</I>’ or essence.”)</div> <div>      Scriptural proof of  Heavenly Father having a glorified, three-dimensional, discernable, non-omnipresent physical body will be furnished below and approached from three angles.</div> <div>      The problem facing the correct interpretation of the Scriptures on the topic of God having a physical body, is the insistence of those influenced by the Greek philosophical concept of God to interpret particular passages to conform with what they’ve been taught concerning God. They should instead interpret the particular Greek words to reflect how the other passages use them in areas where they aren’t relating to God’s nature. This foreign imposition is why the same Greek word is miraculously understood differently in passages about God’s nature than in places that aren’t in conflict with modern “Christian Theology.” This is why I say to correctly understand the true biblical teaching about God, we must not have any preconceptions about God and demand the passages must conform with our view. <I>We must conform our beliefs to what the Scriptures say and accept what they say.</I></div> <div>      In determining if what I’m saying is true and if my interpretation of these passages are correct, we have to examine the particular Greek words that are translated by the AV in the passages referenced, and compare these passages with others containing these particular Greek words with some synonyms and related words to determine their usage. There will naturally be differences in usage based upon the context the word is in, but as a rule, identical patterns and contents normally use a word the same way. </div> <div>      I’ve placed all these Greek words (divided into two groups) in the Appendix, to avoid redundancy since many passages examined contain identical Greek words. I’ve identified important words, both derived from referenced passages and some related words, to correctly understand the meaning of the referenced passages.</div> <div>      It is important to point out that  Jehovah (YHWH) found in the OT was, in nearly all cases, the pre-mortal Jesus who was a spirit in anthropomorphic form (Eth  3:14-16). He did <I>not</I> have a physical body which explains why I never use OT passages which mention God’s face, hands, fingers, etc., (such as Gen  3:8;   11:5;  18:1-3,13-14,16,21-33;  28:12-13;  32:30; Ex  17:6;  24:9-11;  31:18;  33:10-11,18-23; Num  12:8; Isa  6:1; Ezek  1:26; Amos  7:7;  9:1; etc.) since <I>they don’t prove God has a physical body but do show </I> <I>God is in humanoid form</I>. He isn’t ontologically a formless omnipresent being.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >27</FONT></div> <div>      This is why I predominantly use NT passages and will only refer to OT passages to show God is in a non-omnipresent anthropomorphic form instead of possessing a physical body. <I>My contention is God has a discernable three-dimensional material human shape</I>,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >28</FONT> and consequently can’t be a  nonmaterial spiritual essence (<I>ousia</I>) that fills the universe. God doesn’t <I>want</I> to be seen by men instead of him being in a state permanently invisible to men (Deut  31:17-18; Ezek  39:23-29). (The detailed examination of the pertinent Greek words is found in the Appendix).</div> <bR> <div> <B>[ENDNOTES]:</B></div> <bR> <div> GO TO ABBREVIATIONS PAGE</div> <bR> <div> 1.There is no doubt the writers of the Bible viewed God as a male deity. THE TRIUMPH OF ELOHIM (Edelman). p. 23; A HISTORY OF GOD (Armstrong). Intro. xxii; pp. 50-51; THE EARLY HISTORY OF GOD (Smith). p. 103 (although female attributes are sometimes identified with him); THE HIDDEN FACE OF GOD (Friedman). Author’s Note ix. Endnote #1: “God’s name in the Bible, Yahweh is as masculine a name as Ralph or Richard. (The feminine would have been Tahweh.) The biblical authors regularly identify God with masculine verbs and adjectives. Yahweh is pictured as a father, not a mother; as a husband, not a wife; as a king, not a queen; as a Lord, not a lady.”</div> <div>         The idea of the sexlessness of God isn’t from the Bible but from Greek philosophy. God having a humanoid form necessitates being a particular gender. This possession of gender also explains how the “sons of God” [the gods] can have sexual relations with human women (Gen 6:2).</div> <div>         When God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ... So God created man in his own image, in </div> <div> the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.” (Gen1:26-27). “Man” (i.e. humans) were created after the image of God, but the pattern humankind’s bodies are modeled after are plural (“in our image”). God was speaking to someone. Who? The Bible doesn’t say but many other passages mention the existence of other beings comprising the ancient Israelite belief of theDivine Council comprised of male and female deities (JBC. 77:7). </div> <div> 2.TDOT. 1:284; DB. p. 35.</div> <div> 3.MDB. p. 33; JBC. 77:21-22; EHG. p. 10; DB. p. 35; TEBD. p. 59; FSAC. pp. 264-265; IOTS. p. 99; TOT. p. 306; ROT. pp. 72, 76, 142; NSBD. pp. 304, 824 [from 304] “... the Israelites long retained the habit of thinking of their God as if He were a human being (anthropomorphism), not only as to the possession of moral and intellectual characteristics (e.g., </div> <div> mercy, grace, patience, long-suffering, loving-kindness) and limitations (e.g., His fury, jealousy, hate, vengeance, wrath) but even of physical organs (e.g., His back, face, finger, foot, form, hand, heart, mouth, and voice).”</div> <div> 4.FSAC. p. 264.</div> <div> 5.IBOT. pp. 26, 31.</div> <div> 6.HFG. p. 282.</div> <div> 7.NIDOTTE. 4:644.</div> <div> 8.EHG. p. 102.</div> <div> 9.HFG. p. 117.</div> <div> 10.BAGD. p. 596; VEDBW-NT. p. 607; SECB-G. p. 53b; GELNT-SD. 59.19; FALGNT. 3842; CGEDNT. 4449; </div> <div> ISBE. Goods; NAGL. 3776.</div> <div> 11.JBC. 77:21.</div> <div> 12.EHG. pp. 100-103,114 f.. #138, 156, 162, 164-166; NSBD. p. 304.</div> <div> 13.See HFG.</div> <div> 14.IBC. p. 65 “... the OT must always be allowed to speak for itself, for it is a revelation of God ...”</div> <div> 15.e.g. TEBC. p. 27; IBC. p. 60 & NLBC. p. 78“Nor is it suggested that God by nature has a form similar to </div> <div> man. Anything that might suggest that is merely an accommodation to human limitations (anthropomorphisms).</div> <div> 16.e.g. NIDB. p. 393. It admits “The Bible does not contain a formal definition of the word “God” but in the very next </div> <div> paragraph violates such a stance by defining “God is a Spirit” to mean “God is a nonmaterial personal being.” How do they know if the Bible never defines the term? Another conflict occurs when it defines the infinity of God to mean an ontological omnipresence.cf NCBD. pp. 201-202. Also see NCBD. p. 240 and NBD. p. 475 which go farther and define God by the purely philosophical “supreme Mind.”</div> <div> 17.HGR. p. 337.</div> <div> 18.TEBD. p. 997. God was within the burning bush, not the bush itself (Ex3:4). God was within the cloud and pillar of fire, not the cloud and pillar of fire themselves (Ex 13:21). God was within the darkness and fire on top of the mount, not the cloud of darkness and fire themselves (Ex 19:16-18; 24:15-18). Regardless, YHWH of the OT was the pre-mortal Christ.</div> <div> 19.I will be using “Jehovah” throughout this work instead of the scholastically accepted “Yahweh” since most of the </div> <div> readers will be familiar with the less-accurate “Jehovah” and will also use “YHWH” as a reminder the Tetragrammaton is not spelled “Jehovah.” </div> <div> 20.I use the word “pagan” in the sense of the Greek and Roman worldview, which is contrasted with that of the </div> <div> Israelites and the Christians. I don’t use it to mean something that is satanic or inherently evil.</div> <div> 21.See Philo. De Op. Mun. 151; De Mut. Nom. 54; De Con. Qua. 115; De Conf. 135; TLNT. 2:521,f.2; WP. pp. 21, 246, 314, 345; NTS. p. 83.</div> <div> 22.It actually began prior to Alexander the Great’s conquest of Palestine. JH. pp. 1-3,32-35.</div> <div> 23.TDNT-A. p. 329; NTS. p. 83; TEBD. p. 426; MSG. p. 38 “Medieval theology had already forgotten the original </div> <div> significance of the Shicur Komah vision, and was hard set on abolishing any view that attributed to God any human attributes whatever. These philosophers sought to push the biblical concept of monotheism to its utmost extreme, and even outdid the Bible itself in removing any vestiges therein of mythical or anthropomorphic parlance.”</div> <div> 24.HGR. p. 337.</div> <div> 25.HG. p. 15; MSG. p. 19.</div> <div> 26.HG. pp. 35-36,92,101.</div> <div> 27.Despite YHWH was an incorporeal spirit in anthropomorphic form during the OT era, he would’ve had </div> <div> the power to temporarily take upon himself a physical body and allow various companions the same privilege, as was the case with him visiting and dining with Abraham (Gen 18) and wrestling with Jacob (Gen 32:24-32) [However, I think this person was a prophet. I just can’t see God being unable to defeat Jacob in wrestling]. Who am I to tell God he can’t do it if he wishes? Neither can the anti-Mormons claim beings who are incorporeal spirits are superior to beings </div> <div> who have physical bodies. Jesus has a physical body and no one can say incorporeal beings like (they think) God, angels and demons are superior to him simply because they are (allegedly) incorporeal. </div> <div> 28.OM. p. 150 ‘... God must have had something like an “image” or “likeness” of his own, as Scholem also said. God, </div> <div> however transcendent, is also someone who, in some sense, has the form of a man, an image in three dimensions, material yet an other.’ (Italics in original).</div> <bR> <div> <B>OTHER SECTIONS</B></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id139.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="WARNING TO MORMONS"><U><U>WARNING TO MORMONS</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id140.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="WARNING TO NONMORMONS"><U><U>WARNING TO NON-MORMONS</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id141.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS"><U><U>ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id144.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="DEDICATION"><U><U>DEDICATION</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id145.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="LEHIS DREAM"><U><U>LEHI'S DREAM</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id146.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ABBREVIATIONS"><U><U>ABBREVIATIONS</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id142.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="DEFINITIONS"><U><U>DEFINITIONS</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id118.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="INTRO"><U><U>INTRODUCTION</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id26.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="HEAVENLY FATHER"><U><U>SECTION 1: HEAVENLY FATHER</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id27.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="JESUS CHRIST"><U><U>SECTION 2: JESUS CHRIST</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id28.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="HOLY GHOST"><U><U>SECTION 3: HOLY GHOST</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id134.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="CONCLUSION"><U><U>CONCLUSION</U></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca"><U>e-mail me!</U></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>