LDS Teaching that God has a Body & Hebrews i.3?

There's an excellent Discussion Board on CARM. I was recently involved in a discussion on the LDS doctrine of God having a body. LDS members were using Hebrews i.3, giving the argument that, "Because Jesus has a body, and Jesus is the express image of God's person (that wording based on the KJV translation), therefore God must have a body." I decided to post a thread which would prove usage of Heb. i.3 was faulty, that you could not find any support, explicitly or imlpicitly, for such a doctrine in that specific text. So, I got a thread going. In one of my posts I discussed the Greek, but for some reason, I originally saw language in the text that simply was not there. So, I made a correction. Below is the correction I posted yesterday.

I must confess I was wrong about something I posted in another thread, specifically some information I talked about in the thread I created on whether God has a body and the LDS (mis)use of Hebrews i.3.

To start, so there is no confusion or calls that I am trying to mislead people, this is a genuine messup I had and this correction I am posting does not help the LDS position, but confirms and affirms the right teaching and exposition of the passage.

Originally, for some reason, I saw in the Greek 3 kai's--translated "and" most all the time--connecting the three phrases "radiance of His glory," "express image of His nature" (BTW "person" is a horrible translation because it leads to people thinking about God having a physical body. If you knew the Greek word used, hupostasis, you would distinguish the difference.), and "upholds all things by the word of His power." I don't know where I got that idea.

Sorry.

Let me give you the literal, word for word translation so you see what the Greek really says. The reading would look like this: "Who being radiance of the glory and express image of the nature of Him, upholds and so all things by the word of the power of Him." There is only one kai in there, between glory and express image. And this is more significant than you think. But even more so is the first "of Him.

"The "of Him" is from the possessive pronoun, autou. Notice where you find that word: at the end of the first clause, following "radiance of the glory and express image of the nature." Possessive pronouns 99% of the time follow (in Greek) the object being possessed (this falls within the 99%). However, when you see two specific phrases, connected by the kai, followed by the possessive pronoun, then you find objects in both phrases being possessed by the one pronoun. That is why although "radiance of the glory" is not directly followed by the possessive pronoun, the autou still possesses "the glory." Hence, the English translation, "radiance of His glory and express image of His nature."

"So what?" you ask? Thanks for asking.

The fact that you have these two phrases connected by the shared possessive pronoun indicates Paul (I believe Paul wrote Hebrews) had one thought in mind when he talked about Christ being the radiance of God's glory and the express image of God's nature. Recall verse 2, when Paul said that God has soken to us by the Son, by Christ. Paul is talking about how God has spoken to His people: by Christ, "Who being the radiance of God's glory and the express image of God's nature..." Contrary to LDS teaching, these two phrases are talking about the same thing: how God is expressing outwardly or
visibly His glory and nature.

There is no mention explicitly or implicitly of God being a physical being, having a body. Despite LDS attempts to have the passage say, "Because Christ has a body and Christ is the express image of God, therefore God must have a body," the text simply does not say that. Paul said God used Christ to speak to His people and reveal visibly His glory and His nature.

Welcome to the Family, Bobby!

Well, yesterday morning my wife delivered our second child. I cannot say enough about how wonderful my wife is; and she went thru more than imaginable to bring this baby to us.

Thanks, babe. I love you.

Our son's name is Arthur Daniel. So, he'll go by A.D. or Bobby.

"Wha????? Bobby? How do you get that?" Don't worry; you weren't the first to ask. We are naming him after my wife's grandfather, who went to be with the Lord a couple of months before our first son was born. He was Arthur Daniel; everyone called him Bob, but no one really knows why. So, now we have Bobby!

Funniest thing is, Bobby looks exactly like our first son when he was born. Seriously, they could be passed as twins.

Statistics
Weight: 9 lbs 8 oz (don't adjust your monitor, that was 9 and a half pounds)
Length: 22 1/2 inches (wow)
Time: 9:24 AM on 24 March 2005
Place: Best Start Birth Center in San Diego, CA

Did my wife use any meds during labor? No
Did she get an episiotomy? No
Time it took to push that large boy out? Under 24 minutes
Is that the largest baby born at the Birth Center? No; their record is 12 lbs 2 oz
Was it a great experience? Yes
Is the Birth Center better than a hospital for labor and delivery (our first son was born in a hospital environment)? Not just better, but superior to the hospital experience.

I hope you will help pray for us and the new addition. We need it. My wife needs it. A sincere and heart felt thanks to those of you who prayed for us.

My Favorite Links

Below is a short list of some of my favorite links, ones I use most often for fun or research.
For Football (soccer):
ESPN Soccernet
UEFA
English Premier League
Nike Football
Soccer Eurosport

For matters of Bible Study, Church History, Theology and the Greek New Testament:
NT Gateway: Greek New Testament
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM)
Alpha and Omega Ministries
Monergism.com
Grace Online Library
Center For Reformed Theology and Apologetics
Crosswalk: Bible Study
Christian Classics Ethereal Library

A New Look at John iii.16

Here again is my translation:

For in this way God loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that all who believe in Him might not perish but have eternal life.

The first difference you see between mine translation and the popular translation is in the first clause: "For in this way God loved." Actually, this is the same as "For God so loved." The "so" is a perfect translation of the Greek outwV (pronounced houtos), but people have misunderstood how the word works in this passage. outwV is not conveying the idea that God loved the world so much; like me telling my wife I love her so much. That is not what Christ said, nor John penned. The thought was the manner in which God loved the world. The same word, outwV, was used two verses earlier, when Jesus said, "Just as Moses raised up the serpent in the desert, in the same way (outwV) must the Son of Man be raised up" (Jo. iii.14). We are not supposed to see that God loved the world so much, but how God loved.

The second difference is where I translate the Greek paV o pisteuwn as "all who believe" instead of "whosoever"--the phrase is also found in verse 15 and twice in verse 18. My translation is still short, however, because I am finding it difficult to properly convey the message of the Greek participle here. The thought and message of Christ here is of "all the believing ones" in Him, or "all the ones believing" in Him. When we see the word "whosoever" in this verse, we immediately get this idea of this open, indefinite amount of people--we picture Christ with His arms wide open to all the world (kosmon) saying and pleading, "Whosoever believes in Me," unlimited in number, with an opportunity for all people of all time to receive eternal life. Yet that is not what Christ said or intended at all. The phrase is very definite: all the believing ones. There is no invitation or open call in this verse; Christ is stating the fact that all the believing ones have eternal life.

Now let us move on to the theological implications. Some (would it be safe to say most?) fellow Christians believe "the world," kosmon, here refers to all people of all time: all people that God ever created. Some (again, most?) also believe that "gave" refers specifically to the substitutionary death of Christ; so when Christ said, "He gave His only begotten Son," He meant He was given to die for the world, though He had not yet been nailed to the cross. This undoutedly leads to a discussion of the atonement.

Those who say "the world" means all people of all time, and believe that Christ was given as a ransom on the world's behalf, fall into a dilemma in this passage. Here is what the text looks like if we insert those particular interpretations:

For God so loved all people of all time (the world) that He gave His only begotten Son to die for the world (all people of all time), that whosoever among the world (all people of all time) believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Here is the dilemma: you do not have a real, substitutionary (aka vicarious) atonement. What you have is universalism and provisional atonement mixed together, and you ultimately arrive at no real atonement at all. If Christ died for the whole world--all people of all time--then all people of all time have had the penalty for their sin paid in the person of Christ. If anyone among the world--all people of all time--can believe and receive eternal life, then Christ could not have died for the whole world. Had He died on someone's behalf, would that person not be atoned for? Or, was the death only a symbol, allowing merely for the possibility of atonement? Are we not left with the possibility that not one person would believe in Him, thereby rendering His death in vain? Certainly a possibility by this thinking, as unpopular an idea as that may be.

The Scriptures teach that Christ died on behalf of His sheep (Jo. x). This does not mean that He died metaphorically, not actually dying for them. He truly laid down His life for His sheep. His sheep know His voice, and they will go to Him.

**Blogging is difficult. Journaling is difficult for me. I am used to papers you write over days and weeks. But, this is good because you can get a lot of thoughts out at once and really deal with them. It would be great to get some comments on this.**

First Blog

This will be my first blog. May the Lord bless even this avenue of expression.

I am going thru John iii in Greek. My intention is to get a better understanding of the ever popular verse, John iii.16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." That is the popular translation most all of us have either heard or memorized.

Now, when I translate, I like to be very literal--word for word--to start, then I use the intended meaning of the Greek words to put the passage into English folks can understand. Here's what I've come up with: "For in this way God loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that all who believe in Him might not perish but may have eternal life." Seems similar to the "popular" translation, right? Not after close examination and getting a better understanding of the words being translated. In my next blog, I'll get into more details.

Blessings in Christ.