Dave Pack is now an authority on what his "jesus" supposedly looked. His "jesus" looked like god before he came down, then he looked like Mary. He could not look like Joseph since Joseph had no sperm in the divine mix. Jesus had to look like Mary...more like Mary and the Holy Spirit, but that is another discussion. That is why when Jesus came back from the dead that no one recognized him. He came back looking like his god presence and not like mother Mary.
Maybe we should turn over there and just look at one place. Luke 24 and verse 31 in Luke…in 13 to 19, they just didn’t know Who it was. They didn’t have Alzheimer’s or amnesia. They looked at Him, but they did not understand. So…how could it be…And I’m just not going to take the time. If you’re studying your Bible, you probably know the verses I’m referring to. They are people just walking and talking with Him, and didn’t recognize who He was. We ought to ask the question should we not? How could that be? How could they have spent 33-and-a-half years with Him—the disciples—intensely, every day, virtually, if not every day, much of every day besides, with Him and then not recognize Him?Well, it was a different Jesus than the one born of Mary. That Jesus had a human parent and He must have looked a lot like Mary. Christ didn’t look like Mary for thousands of years before He was born of her. He’s the Alpha and the Omega. He returned to what He looked like for eternity and what He will look like for eternity. Christ did not appear thousands of years earlier looking like a woman who was millennia away from ever being born. When He was born of Mary, He looked different. He certainly didn’t look like Joseph…and then the Father was His Father.
59 comments:
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have has been taken to mean Always give an answer to any question, even you have to make up something ridiculous. You may have to provide a made-up question as well.
This is why first-century Jesus looked like his human parent, and why End-Time Jesus (Dave Pack) looks like his human parents.
This is getting very creepy. What does Dave plan to do about the fact that he is Jesus?
Doesn't this joker ever stop?
Better question: Doesn't this joker ever talk about anything worthwhile, or relevant to the well-being of anyone else?
Still better question: why am I bothering to ask?
This kind of thinking is not all that far-fetched if one holds the far-fetched COG view of God -- the view that, in eternity, God has a body and a face, discernible by appearance, having shape and proportion and parts and dimensions just like physical creatures do, except for the difference that He is "made out of" spirit (as if spirit is another form of matter).
If God has parts -- with a top that is not the bottom or an inside that is not the outside, or has a body that's "here" as opposed to "there" -- then God is more of a superman with super powers than He is the source of all power, a necessary Being wholly outside of the material universe He brought into existence.
God can't have location or physical measurements, because these things are dependent on time and space, which came into existence. If God created out of nothing all the material universe, which includes time and space, then He cannot have been eternally living "somewhere" (location in relation to something else) with appearance (measurably distinct features that occupy a certain amount of space) for any amount of time (He's not "old" because time had a beginning, while He did not).
Making God into man's image is a big mistake that leads to absurdities. There is no room for Dave and others like him to ridicule historic Christian teaching about the nature of God. It is COG teachers, not Christian teachers, that literally believe God is an old bearded man living in the sky with a son nearby who resembles him but looks a lot younger. That's not Christian; that's polytheistic pagan make-believe.
Come on Banned! ---All the Jesus' that I know look like Mexicans, not Blacks!
Annon 1:30 said:
"This is why first-century Jesus looked like his human parent, and why End-Time Jesus (Dave Pack) looks like his human parents."
Don't you know fellow RCGites, that the First Dominion Jesus will be a MAN.
Don't be surprised if HE happens to look like someone with the initials DCP.
Puzzled Dave wonders: "How could they have spent 33-and-a-half years with Him—the disciples—intensely, every day, virtually, if not every day, much of every day besides, with Him and then not recognize Him?"
Well first of all no "disciple" knew any Jesus for 33 and a half years since birth.
Secondly, sometimes in Bible talk, to "see", or "not see" really means "understood" or "not understood" rather than a simple literal seeing.
In trying to promote his credentials as an Apostle, Paul says,
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? (1 Corinthians 9:1)
The NT shows no time, nor does Paul say he ever literally "saw the Lord" and it's not referring to any time he saw Jesus walk by when he was the Pharisee of the Pharisees in Jerusalem, which no Gospel remotely hints at. The Gospels never heard of this great Pharisee Paul though he lived right there evidently and his bros were supposed to be Jesus chief persecutors.
Paul simply qualifies himself as an apostle because he "has seen" or rather, "experienced" the Lord. He never knew him personally and of course, never quotes him since the Gospel stories were written long after Paul died. Paul "saw" or experienced Jesus in his head in his hallucinations with the Cosmic Christ speaking and revealing to him in visions.
Paul says he got the meaning and practice of the Lord's Supper from Jesus himself .
1 Corinthians 11:23
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
but not in person or literally. No human Jesus told him this. Paul "saw" or "experienced" this thru revelation or hallucination as was his custom and the way he knew Jesus.
So the boys on the road, in the tale, with Jesus may not have physically "recognized" or understood him. It is a story about understanding the meaning of the symbols of the bread and wine etc which they did when he gave it to them later at a home and then when they understood he disappeared. It's written by someone teaching the church what the program was going to be and how to understand it with a little NT politics thrown in
Luke 24 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread."
Dave doesn't recognize NT Jesus so I can understand his puzzlement.
"When He was born of Mary, He looked different. He certainly didn’t look like Joseph…and then the Father was His Father."
I recall a teen cornering me in Church once to ask, "Mr. D, Who was Mary's husband when Jesus was born?"
I said according the the story, she had none at the time.
"Correct he said"
(I knew what was coming)
"Who was Jesus Father?"
I said, according to the story it was God.
"Correct" he said.
Then he asked...
"Isn't that fornication?"
"Correct" I said, and told him the text also complicates things by saying Mary was with child, by the Holy Spirit , which in most churches is not just a force but a third "person".
He said, "Uh oh....."
He laughed as did I and he continued to ask his questions without fear of a lecture on not asking questions.
Dave must be running out of ideas for sermons of worth to practical daily living. Nothing of what Dave is currently spouting is remotely going to happen or true of course.
For the record. The fornication factor of a god with an under age single girl is not the point of the Birth stories of Jesus. The stories were written to fight the charge that Jesus was born of human fornication and a bastard by society standards. Miraculous adults must have had miraculous births was a common story telling approach in the day.
Just as old infertile women in the Bible give birth to human prophets and patriarchs. Young virgins give birth to gods.
Now..let's all rise and take our hymnals and sing....
Dave reminds me of so many members that I knew that always had to be the centre of attention. They were dummies, but had to do all the talking.
Darren notes:
Making God into man's image is a big mistake that leads to absurdities. There is no room for Dave and others like him to ridicule historic Christian teaching about the nature of God. It is COG teachers, not Christian teachers, that literally believe God is an old bearded man living in the sky with a son nearby who resembles him but looks a lot younger. That's not Christian; that's polytheistic pagan make-believe.
Yes it does. Excellent analysis. Yet the Bible does present God with parts in time and space as that's all one can do when writing a story. I do say that the old bearded man living in the sky with the son nearby who is the younger version is, however, the very common perception of the laity in most fundamentalist churches. God was portrayed that way in Sunday school a growing up so kids could at least picture something.
The OT starts out very Polytheistic with supreme God (EL) and His council of the gods, (the ELOHIM) This polytheisim evolves through scripture from El Eyon, to El (Originally the Canaanite Deity) and the Council, of which Satan is a member, to YHVH and on to Jesus etc. Then Jesus, in mainstream Christianity, evolves back to one of 3 gods , but one, but 3, fully man and fully god, sure fine whatever...and we're back to polytheism, but not really, but yes....nevermind.
I won't take time to defend trinitarianism here, but I do want to challenge the view that God "fornicated" with the mother of Jesus.
Fornication does not equal fertilization. Fornication is freely chosen sexual activity between two human beings who are not married to each other. God the Father is not human and neither he nor the Holy Spirit engaged in sexual intercourse.
I would never say, for example, that a woman who undergoes in vitro fertilization at a clinic is guilty of "fornication," even when the sperm comes from an anonymous donor. She only engages in fornication when she willingly has sexual relations with a person who is not her husband.
Attaching that f-word to God or Mary is an unfair label. It's a word game meant to discredit or demean rather than accurately describe what happened.
Most of the people whom I have always considered as truly intelligent had one thing in common: Every solid answer, every piece of verifiable information raised more questions for them.
In COGdom, there is pride in supposedly having all the answers, and apparently it is a disciplinary problem (translated rebellion) when one has additional questions because those answers are either far too simplistic, or others seem to have vastly superior answers.
This penchant of Dave's is all about control. His mind works in such a way that he's got to have everything in one nice neat little box. Life is quite often not like that.
BB
You mean Jesus was female?
Darren C
Study your bible before you come here with your postings.
In Ezekiel, God is shown as a human looking being sitting on a throne. When Christs disciples asked Christ to show them the father, He replied that if you have seen me, you have seen the Father, ie, the father looks similar to Christ. So God looks like a human. Unsurprising since we are made in His image.
This isn't a 'COG view of God,' but a bible view of God.
See, this is what I love about the churches of God, they use conjecture for doctrine.
Most of the sermons are conjecture and have lots of sentences beginning with "it could be that..." and "It seems as if".
Dave is just continuing with the church tradition of making stuff up in his head and spewing it out of his big mouth as he pleases.
Nothing new here.
Welcome to the Church of God where it is all made up out of their own heads.
The appearance of God in our reality and detectable to the human senses is referred to as a theophany. I believe that the OT appearance of God was a theophany. The theophany could have been a whirlwind, pillar of fire or a human form.
But Christ, through the incarnation, acquired a human body that was not a theophany but a new and inherent part of his being.
Armstrongites have long made the heretical mistake of believing that God has a bodily existence inherently from eternity. For Armstrongites both the Father and the Son are separate beings with separate human forms. This is polytheism. And they seek to align their polytheism with monotheism by asserting that the oneness of God is in the Family relationship - two separate beings in family unity, hence on god.
Christ in appearance looked like what god wanted him to look like. One half of Christ's genome came from Mary and the other half was created by God. The part created ad hoc by God can only be a matter of speculation. What we can surmise is that Christ looked like the average Jew of the time. There is nothing in the NT that refers to Christ as being remarkable in appearance in some way.
The average Palestinean Jew, we know from paleoanthropologists, was 5'1" and weighed about 110 pounds. He was olive-skinned with curly hair and brown eyes. This was prior to the admixture of Jews with Europeans that has given us the Ashkenazi. Isaiah states that Christ was not handsome. He must have had a face the would be unremarkable in the crowded market places of Jerusalem. He had no obvious outward signs of leadership that would set him apart - he had to be identified to others.
And if he wanted to conceal his identify from others for some purpose after the resurrection, he could have. We really cannot draw any conclusions about his appearance from the event where was not recognized.
Making God into man's image is a big mistake
Jewish liturgy contains the line He has no semblance of a body, nor is He corporeal;. The use of He is considered anthropomorphic, but it's the only appropriate personal pronoun available.
"Attaching that f-word to God or Mary is an unfair label."
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the longstanding trope in religious literature of how the gods copulate with humans to produce demi-god offspring. In the story of Heracles, Zeus seduces a mortal woman, Alcmene, and is raised by her and her husband, Amphitryon. In the Jesus story, just change the rest of the names to Yahweh, Mary, and Joseph and it's the same. Scholars have long noted many parallels between Jesus and Heracles, among other mythological figures. In the scheme of things, it's really not an unfair label at all, and ignorance of the scheme of things doesn't make it so.
"It's a word game meant to discredit or demean rather than accurately describe what happened."
It didn't happen, so "accurately" isn't even an appropriate modifier. If there's anyone playing games here, it's people playing the game that obvious myth is somehow literal history. Be careful to choose the right words to accurately describe how the gods really actually inseminate women to produce demi-gods? Puh-leez!
To my classical friend.
Happy Ides of March!
nck
Anon 8:20:
In the Jesus story, just change the rest of the names to Yahweh, Mary, and Joseph and it's the same.
When one does that, it is very much not the same. And what legend of Zeus and Hercules or others relies on eyewitness testimony and a line of martyrs who insisted that the events were historically true?
Your pagan detector is set to "full Armstrong." Your statement comes from the same mentality that thinks Jeremiah 10 is talking about Christmas trees -- considering the very superficial similarities while ignoring the overwhelming differences. You're reading a lot into the Gospels that isn't there and wasn't intended.
Why do you think the story is "obvious myth" rather than "literal history"? What determines the difference in your mind?
Byker Bob-- Did Mary contribute DNA or not is an interesting question. I would suggest that it might also be possible that she contributed no DNA , but rather perhaps acted as just a surrogate with no DNA contribution. All of this is raw and open speculation on any of our parts.
That is interesting speculation, Connie. Over the ages, people have assumed that "with child of the Holy Spirit" meant that God had fertilized one of Mary's eggs. A total surrogate situation is certainly possible. We would not know from the genealogy charts, because children who were adopted were treated by the Jews the same as if they were natural-born children of the ancestors.
Some Jews had a theory that Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier named Pantera. There are Jewish records and literature referring to a "Jesus ben Pantera". Obviously, this differs from the gospel accounts, and is a very repugnant and offensive theory to those of us who are Christian.
BB
"And what legend of Zeus and Hercules or others relies on eyewitness testimony and a line of martyrs who insisted that the events were historically true?"
LOL! The bible is, at best, 100% hearsay. Stories about eyewitnesses are not the same thing as eyewitnesses.
"The eyewitnesses would have been Aramaic speaking peasants almost entirely from rural Galilee. Mark was a highly educated, Greek speaking Christian living in an urban area outside of Palestine (Rome?), who never traveled, probably, to Galilee. So the existence of eyewitnesses would not have much if any effect on his Gospel. The same is true, even more so, with the later Gospels. Luke begins his Gospel by saying that eyewitnesses started passing along the oral traditions he had heard (Luke 1:1-4), but he never indicates that he had ever talked to one. He has simply heard stories that had been around from the days of the eyewitnesses. And if the standard dating of his Gospel – and Matthew’s – is correct, they were writing about 50 years or more after Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel was even later.
...
A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel according to Matthew." The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books "according to."
Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" — Jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what "we" — Jesus and the rest of us — were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.
With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple."
—Bart Ehrman
In the 7 Pauline books that were written by a single author, as opposed to the canonical forgeries written in the name of Paul that were included (another proof the bible is not "insprired"), "Paul" claims he wasn't an eyewitness either, basing all his theology on spectral evidence. "Paul" also wasn't who he claimed to be, because no self-respecting pharisee would derive his theology from the bastardized Greek Septuagint, rather than the original Hebrew, but apparently "Paul" never read a word of Hebrew in his life.
Any real historian will tell you that evidence matters. But believers cannot tell you this, for they say that faith is what matters. No serious historian, no one who isn't a christian apologist masquerading as a historian, thinks the bible, is a historical document, or a literal history, because the evidence isn't there for it being anything other literature, a compilation of various religious tracts whose purpose is to promulgate the mythology of a religion and communicate it's doctrines and ideology.
So what is the problem with a spirit having a spirit body – something on a completely different plane to a physical body?
The only problem is the baggage that people carry with them, the propaganda that a spirit by nature is an incorporeal being. If you buy into that, then of course it would follow that if God is a spirit, he lacks a body entirely.
But that is based on nothing, except complete speculation. Getting rid of that baggage and things can be much clearer.
The idea is certainly not based on the Bible, which looks at it from a different viewpoint. The viewpoint that a spiritual being, living in a spiritual universe, created a physical universe, following which mankind was created as physical beings in the same general shape as the shape of these eternal spiritual beings.
God, with a spiritual body, living in a spiritual universe, made physical man in His image, His general shape, living in a physical universe.
Surely that’s not so hard to understand?
Questeruk: "But that is based on nothing, except complete speculation."
Applies to everything you said as well. Surely that’s not so hard to understand?
Biker Bob So jesus's father was an ancestor of a current restaurant chain Meet Jesus whose descendants gave us Panera Bread!
The repulsive cult of the black Madonna goes back a long long way. It is real. Ignorant cowards deny it. Numerous statues of a Black Madonna exist in Europe. There is even a book called "The Cult of the Black Madonna". Deal with it. Get out of your denial and grow some neurons. Accept your victimization by the lie machine.
Bart Ehrman is on his game, Flurry is lame, Pack is the same, ROD Merry-Death is insane, the UCG is a pain, and the rest will wane.
http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com/church-of-god-info/Bart-Ehrman-Excerpts.htm
Why do people hate you if you ask them to stop spreading lies? Why? Why? Why? Why is their self-image tied in with these lies? Why are we not allowed to know the real reason? Why is truth repressed in the land of the 'free'? Why is it suppressed by the left and right media? Why do they lie about WWI and WWII? Why why why? Why are haters afraid to consider both sides? Why?
Google 'controlled media'.
If there can be 29.1893 gadzillon parallel MATERIAL universes--all UNDETECTABLE--ALL THEREFORE UNSCIENTIFIC--why the hell can't there be just ONE spiritual universe parallel to the material one? The reason is because Einstein LIED through his teeth. He was a product of the media. Grow some gonads and deal with it.
Read "Albert Einstein the INCORRIGIBLE PLAGIARIST"
Product of the "NWO" times ten!
Questernuk...Isn't it amazing how frequently speculation turns out to be reality and fact, rejecting speculation may also be rejecting truth.
8.53 PM
I read in a newspaper that a Italian book had the famous E=MCsquare equation, before Einstein came up with his theory if relativity. It said that they don't know whether Einstein had seen this book. So Einstein might has seen or heard of the book, and worked backwards to come up with his theory.
Only God and Einstein knows the truth.
Not sure where the Black Madonna sidebar came from.
Questernuk:
It's part of the definition of the word "spirit" -- that it is incorporeal.
I would say that to speak of a spirit body is like speaking of a thought that measures 5-1/2 cubic inches.
Not every reality occupies space. For example, thoughts don't have parts or corporeal boundaries limiting them. People with larger heads are not more capable than smaller-headed people of entertaining big thoughts. You can't divide a thought by two, because it does not have parts to be divided. And if it doesn't have parts, it doesn't occupy space, because space is that in which matter spreads out its parts. A thought exists in reality, but not bodily or in space.
If God had a "spirit body," having parts, he would be limited. One part of him would not be another part. He would be divided, subject to change and therefore subject to time and space -- things He created (time and space are not eternal). And if God is divisible and can change and is in time, then he cannot be the indivisible, changeless, timeless Being necessary to account for all other things coming into existence.
That's a hard concept to understand at first, but it makes sense if you think about it awhile.
It is conceivable (heh, heh) that the deity used technology from what was then the future to engender Jesus. He could have fertilized a miraculously created ovum in a glass vial (i.e. in vitro) and implanted the zygote in Mary's uterus. That could explain how Jesus proved to be so outlandishly precocious when quizzed at age twelve: he was a vial child.
Questeruk you ask the question what is the problem with a spirit having a spirit body, do you mean every spirit should logically to you have a spirit body ?
Retired Prof, you and James Malm are in agreement. (No doubt you are pleased about that!)
He claims that God would have implanted a fertilised ovum (zygote) into Mary, although he didn't explain it quite the same way that you did. So Mary would then be a surrogate mother.
Darren C. said...
‘It's part of the definition of the word "spirit" -- that it is incorporeal.’
In that case the definition of ‘spirit’ is in complete disagreement with dozens and dozens of Biblical scriptures, where in many places in both OT and NT spirit beings are described in heaven with actual (spiritual) bodies.
If we are discussing what the Bible is saying re God and other spirit beings, I think we have to use the Bible’s definitions. Clearly Bible writers were under the impression that spirit beings had spirit bodies, many in much different form to human form.
Darren C. also said...
‘If God had a "spirit body," having parts, he would be limited. One part of him would not be another part. He would be divided, subject to change and therefore subject to time and space -- things He created (time and space are not eternal). And if God is divisible and can change and is in time, then he cannot be the indivisible, changeless, timeless Being necessary to account for all other things coming into existence.’
Sorry Darren, but this whole paragraph doesn’t stand up.
‘If God had a "spirit body," having parts, he would be limited. One part of him would not be another part.’ Illogical concept – God’s body would be one unified body.
‘He would be divided,’ – No, as above, one unified body.
‘subject to change’ – Why? We are talking spirit here, something that is eternal.
‘and therefore subject to time and space’ – No, doesn’t follow, seeing spirit is NOT subject to change
‘And if God is divisible and can change and is in time, then he cannot be the indivisible, changeless, timeless Being necessary to account for all other things coming into existence.’ Obviously this sentence no longer applies, seeing the preceding sentences are incorrect (again, see above).
' Anonymous said...
Questeruk you ask the question what is the problem with a spirit having a spirit body, do you mean every spirit should logically to you have a spirit body ?'
If we are using the Bible as a reference to this (and this thread started as a discussion on D Pack’s strange reading of the Bible, so that is the context), from Genesis to Revelation the Bible refers to spirit beings as having spiritual, recognisable, bodies.
This is depicted in ‘spiritual realms’, such as heaven, which is outside of the physical.
Luke 1.33 does say that Christ will be given the throne of his FATHER David. Meaning, Marys DNA was part of Christs genetic makeup.
I like the Jewish tradition on God. Too much depth to define or quantify Him for human understanding. Any time we try, we automatically place limitations on Him. HWA was a poorly educated know-it-all. That's the example Armstrongites saw and learned, and some are still infected. If Jesus hadn't used it as a negative example, Armstrongites would be using math and numerology to determine how many angels could fit on a pin head.
BB
Dave Pack Is Full Of Sh*t Like A Christmas Turkey!
"I read in a newspaper that a Italian book had the famous E=MCsquare equation, before Einstein came up with his theory if relativity. It said that they don't know whether Einstein had seen this book. So Einstein might has seen or heard of the book, and worked backwards to come up with his theory. Only God and Einstein knows the truth."
Not 8:53, but I have read about that. Yes, a number of papers were published with E=MC^3/2 to E=MC^8. There were even one or two folks who managed to get the right answer, but apparently, did not derive it correctly. Einstein was, so this author reasoned, the first to derive it correctly. However, reading Einstein's actual paper, I don't see in there how he derived it at all! But then, more data might have been forthcoming to his scientific peers beyond the published article, so that still might be why his peers gave him the credit. I'm sure many people beyond just Einstein knew/know the truth about this. And none of the gods know anything because none of them exist.
Where does the bible refer to every spirit having a spiritual body. If you follow through your belief logically then gods holy spirit would have to consist of a spirit body too.
I dont mean to go popping balloons, but you all know that this business of "how much human did Jesus have in him" was debated for centuries after the man's death, right?
Questeruk:
Think about it this way. If God has a body, and if he moves his arms and legs in the spiritual realm, then would you say there was a time when he made his very first movement?
RSK
Many things have been debated for centuries, but that will not deter or put a ban on these issues being debated on Banned. This is the problem of HWA former inmates still not grasping freedom. We can think or say whatever we want, and there is no stalking daddy minister to tell us otherwise. We are free free free!
Thanks for your response Darren. A question in return.
If God does not have a body, would you say there was a time when he had his very first thought?
8.07 PM
Considering that human beings are gossip machines, I find it hard to believe that Einsteins scientific peers had more forthcoming information, yet never made it known. Your 'might' doesn't sound very scientific to qualify him for the credit.
Anonymous March 16, 2017 at 11:13 PM said...
'Where does the bible refer to every spirit having a spiritual body. If you follow through your belief logically then gods holy spirit would have to consist of a spirit body too.'
I didn’t say that ‘every spirit has a spiritual body’. However the Bible does give plenty of examples where this is the case.
I would contend that god’s holy spirit is not a spirit as such, but the resource that is used by god to be aware of all that is happening everywhere. As such it would seem self evident that it didn't have 'a body'.
It may well be that this power also sustains the actual existence of this physical universe – as it stands we have to bring in ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ to try and explain how the universe can exist in its present form.
"So what is the problem with a spirit having a spirit body – something on a completely different plane to a physical body?"
Just checking, but do you have a problem with a nenchurit, for example, having a nenchurit body on a different plane to either physical or spiritual bodies?
"The only problem is the baggage that people carry with them, the propaganda that a spirit by nature is an incorporeal being. If you buy into that, then of course it would follow that if God is a spirit, he lacks a body entirely. But that is based on nothing, except complete speculation. Getting rid of that baggage and things can be much clearer."
A supernatural being could be either spirit, nenchurit, tamaclon, or derimosor.
"The idea is certainly not based on the Bible, which looks at it from a different viewpoint. The viewpoint that a spiritual being, living in a spiritual universe, created a physical universe, following which mankind was created as physical beings in the same general shape as the shape of these eternal spiritual beings."
Sounds like you're carrying around the baggage/propaganda that the bible is the only right holy book.
"God, with a spiritual body, living in a spiritual universe, made physical man in His image, His general shape, living in a physical universe."
Actually, the creator of the physical universe has a nenchurit body and lives in a nenchurit universe.
Not what I mean. I'm suggesting that everyone interested in the question do a little reading. A lot of this discussion was already covered in the single digit centuries.
Questeruk:
I have to say no -- God did not have a first thought, and does not come up with brand-new ones, either. He must have all thoughts perfectly at once.
If God comes up with a thought that follows another thought, then we should be able to trace back to his very first thought. But if there's a succession of thoughts, then he is in time. And if he's in time, his successive thoughts cannot go back in infinity, because time is not infinite; it had a beginning. But God did not. Unlike time, God always was (or is).
Back to bodies: If God has a body, he has body parts. And if he has parts, he is in space. Space only exists where there is matter, and God created all matter. Therefore, as spirit, God has no body.
I am not a skeptic. I believe in the Bible as God's Word. But I don't believe the sacred writers were asserting that God has a body in eternity.
Man, what a profound discussion about the nature of the supernatural, all full of implications about how to lead a life full of joy and good deeds!
One important question you still need to take up, though: How many spirit beings can dance on the head of a pin?
I don't recall that one ever being definitively settled, but that's probably because no 21st century minds such as yours have wrestled with it. So have at it, guys. I am deaf to spiritual frequencies and blind to spiritual wavelengths myself, so I depend on people like you for understanding.
Bonus Question: Since metaphysists concern themselves with slippery-slope arguments, could you please tackle this one: If the head of that pin is round instead of flat, are the spirit dancers in danger of sliding off?
No spirit beings can dance on the head of a pin, because they don't have bodies.
Unless they are permitted to appear in a bodily form, in which case it could be every spirit being that exists, because they could appear as small as required. We would have the answer if we knew how many spirit beings existed.
Bonus: The roundness or flatness of a pin's head would have no bearing on how many could dance on it. The bodily forms could be made to dance on any surface in any gravitational situation.
RSK, I agree. That's why I'm Catholic now.
Thanks for your answer, Darren C.
Also, I mentioned this thread to a philosophy professor I am acquainted with at a major Catholic university. Here's what he had to say. Notice that he uses the standard form "metaphysicians" instead of my joke word "metaphysicists." I actually did know the standard word and had to override spell-check to put in the substitute. Honest.
"The metaphysicians of the 14th century complicated this discussion be [sic] asking not only how many angels could dance on the head of a pin but even what the maximum number of such dancers would be in any possible world. My understanding is that the 21st century metaphysicians have exposed that attempt to generalize the discussion as embarrassingly short-sighted, as they now demand that we consider not only the actual world and all other possibly worlds but also all the impossible worlds.
"Being historically inclined myself, I doubt this is the final frontier of the debate and look forward to the new perspective that 27th century metaphysicians offer."
Post a Comment