The “Hand” of the Lord:
A Reflection on Communication by Analogy in Scripture
By Neo
“And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.” Exodus 3:20
I have written two short op-eds that appeared on this blog concerning whether God has a body. The titles are “A Brief Meditation on God’s Transcendence” and “The Transcendence of God and the Ontological Nose.” My position is that God in his essence does not have a body and the Old Testament language that suggests that is just a type of metaphor called anthropomorphism. But does this view excoriate God and the Bible in some way – perhaps raising the issue of misrepresentation? Some may think so and this third op-ed is a clarification of my view – a view which is really the mainstream Christian view.My viewpoint is that the verse cited above does not mean that God has a hand as a part of his essential nature. And my viewpoint requires some qualification. There are a couple of questions that should be asked as a beginning point for this reflection. If God says he has a hand and he actually has no hand, isn’t that lying? If the Bible states that God has a hand and he really has no hand, does that not make the Bible a non-literal document?First, if God says he has a hand and he actually has no hand, isn’t that lying? The answer is “No.” There are at least two conditions under which God may correctly use this reference to a hand. First, at the time he spoke the words in this verse, he may have been presenting himself as a theophany. A theophany is a form that God may use to appear to human eyes. In a theophany God may appear in a number of different forms including a human form, a pillar of fire, a burning bush or a whirlwind. If he were presenting himself in human form at the time he spoke these words then he could rightly be said to have a “literal” hand. But having a literal, yet theophantic hand is different from having an essential hand. (We could argue about the difference between the terms “literal” and “essential” but not now.) Second, God may have been using this reference to a hand as a metaphor. The hand is a symbol of his power and ability to act in the Cosmos. God can use metaphorical language to communicate. He used anthropomorphism regarding himself throughout the Old Testament. That is his prerogative. That is how he decided to communicate with human beings for optimal effectiveness. Metaphors create pictures in our minds that we can understand. It’s like if someone said “As soon as I heard the bell, I flew down here as fast as I could.” Everybody knows the person can’t fly but the image communicates, it depicts. In this case, the hand is not literal but literary. The communication is rhetorical but it aptly conveys truth.
Second, If the Bible states that God has a hand and he has no hand, does that not make the Bible a non-literal document? The answer is “Yes.” That should come as no surprise. The Bible is full of literary constructs. “The Lord is my shepherd” makes you into a sheep. But you are not really a sheep. That is only a metaphor. Otherwise, you might be just another hooved herd animal in God’s eyes.
And, in some cases, what was contemporary language to the ancients may now be literature to us. For instance, in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, God does not speak of String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Dark Matter and Black Holes. Instead we find a scenario that seems a lot like ancient Semitic cosmology. That is how God chose to communicate to ancient Semites – communication in context, communication encultured, communication humanized. The point is God can communicate to us as he wishes. Literalism implies that we have created a standard in the use of language and we are going to sit in judgment on the words of God using that humanly devised standard. Where do the proponents of literalism acquire that authority?
Herbert W. Armstrong did not recognize theophany or metaphor. He thought anthropomorphism was accurately describing the essence of God. Likely, he mistakenly thought literalism and truth were the same thing. So he converted God into an analog – an analog that was actually used only to enhance communication. HWA sought objective reality but found metaphor. (This statement may alarm some but everything we know about God we know through analogy.) And HWA’s belief that analogy is essence unintentionally demoted God to mere superhuman status. HWA’s theology did not measure up to his vision, I believe. He envisioned an awesome, great God but his theology pointed to a much smaller version of god that is both immanent and contingent. And his followers do not have a process of doctrinal review and revision so they are left to defend the indefensible.
A theophany or a metaphor does not make a statement about what God is in his essence. He is Spirit in his essence in the words of Jesus. The use of a theophany or metaphor does not make God a liar or the Bible a fraud. It rather makes the Bible communicate effectively to its human audience in a way that God chose.
49 comments:
The Bible, certainly the most astonishing book ever written. One that today still inspires and is equally mocked for its message of redemption and salvation. It has endured.
The Jews claimed they were witnesses to the ‘Divine’ and have being mercilessly persecuted for their claim and the ‘message’ they delivered, down through the ages.
This ‘Being’ spoke to this Semitic people in a way and within their culture that they would understand. They were a people submersed in a world awash in pagan symbolism and the occult. We should not be surprised that what they delivered to mankind drew from their understanding of the world they saw around them. That does not mean the message they proclaimed was incorrect or that of a downtrodden people yearning for deliverance, and they were; but their very existence today is witness to an event that is almost beyond comprehension to the modern mind. Am Yisrael Chal, Israel lives, and so does the eternal hope in the message they delivered to us from the ‘Divine’ who spoke thus. Remove the Jews and one removes the message, and that is the core of anti Semitic hate.
It is highly unlikely that a post like the above would ever find its way into reading material of any of the cog/Armstrong movement.
Jesus said to Philip ....he who has seen Me has seen the Father. God said to Moses....you can see my back parts but My face shall not be seen.
Neo,
It is nice to see your, and normal Christianity’s, view on what “God” is. And, it is basically another form of man’s philosophy. And, it is very much a kind of atheistic practice. That is, to take what someone says and tell them, no they didn’t say that, nor mean what they said. Then, the atheist tells them what he says they really said, and then the atheist attacks that.
In this case, one says, no the Bible didn’t mean that, but here’s what it really means, and then explains that as the real “gospel truth.”
For example, yes I believe the Bible is inspired, etc. and I believe “God” inspired it. Now, here’s the rub. I read that He describes having body parts, head, arms, hands, legs, feet, and even drinks wine. Then He says, let Us make man in our IMAGE and LIKENESS. And, He does. (But man critics say NO, man created “God” in man’s image and likeness. Why? Because carnal man must be in charge.) Here’s the rub again. I know the Bible writers were inspired BUT that can’t be right, I know better because the Bible says He is spirit.
So, here we have mankind, the readers of the Bible, telling the Author of the Bible He doesn’t know what He’s talking about. Why, don’t you know spirit has no FORM. Thus, now we have, in essence man remaking “God” into the NON- IMAGE and NON-likeness that man wants, and thinks he sees through his carnal mind. Now, that puts man back in charge.
Yet, we have all kinds of descriptions of spirit beings with body parts. Why? Just so man can mentally see something?
Or, maybe, just maybe, the Author of the Bible actually meant what He caused to be written. And, what man supersedes that and has the authority to rewrite it because they say “God” can’t be understood?
Vain philosophy is a vain thing coming from men creating a vocabulary that the Bible doesn’t use to tell others the Creator is unknowable but here’s how to know Him.
I don’t think so. And, with all his faults I don’t think HWA tried other than to believe what the REAL Authority and Author of the bible wanted us to know. The problem with most christians is they don’t accept the simple teachings of the Book, they must change the Book to show “who is really in charge.”
I remember the chaplain my Dad asked to try and explain to me how the Bible was full of contradictions. So he threw at me “he who is not for me is against me vs he who is against me is not for me” to show me. But, when I got through with him, (I was 17 at the time)he rushed down stairs and said to my Dad: He’s either wrong, or we should join him.
The beautiful teaching from the Bible that most all miss is I Cor. 15:22. Did you miss it too?
So, what is spirit? Nothingness, or something real the human eye just cannot see normally?
Another wonderful day for learning more spiritual material.
People on this blog are SOOOOOOOO UNGRATEFUL!!!!!!!!! because ALL of David C. Pack and Herbert W. Armstrong's prophecies START OFF AS TRUE, because GOD WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BRING THE PUNISHMENTS, but GOD CHANGED HIS MIND and GAVE US MORE TIME and INSTEAD of BEING THANKFUL that OUR MERCIFUL GOD GAVE US MORE TIME, I see UNGRATEFUL PEOPLE call GOD'S TWO GREAT END-TIME SERVANTS FALSE PROPHETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY in the WORLD would someone DARE TO BE SO FOOLISH to do SUCH A THING?????!!!!! GOD gave you a WONDERFUL GIFT (THE WONDERFUL AND MARVELOUS TRUTH) and you don't APPRECIATE the GIFT (THE TRUTH THAT'S MORE than ANYTHING ELSE in the WHOLE ENTIRE VAST UNIVERSE) and YOU TRAMPLE ON IT like how Pigs trample on MUD!!!!!!!!!! WHY IN THE WORLD would you DO ANYTHING FOOLISH LIKE THAT???????????!!!!!!!! God is TRYING TO give you a GIFT and YOU REFUSE IT and I WONDER WHY AND HOW IN THE WORLD could you PULL SUCH FOOLISHNESS!!!!!!!
Neo,
I have enjoyed all three of your posts about the nature of God, and I believe that your understanding of a God who transcends locus and corpus is correct. Like you, I also reject the literalist and fundamentalist views of Scripture. I believe that there is overwhelming internal and external evidence that those views are erroneous and unsustainable.
Even so, these concepts are so very foreign to the theology of Armstrong and his followers that there is virtually no chance that they will be entertained/considered by them. Subtlety is not their strong suit. These folks are black and white thinkers. Theophany and metaphor are so alien to these folks (just think about how they handle the symbolism of apocalyptic literature) as to make your posts unintelligible to them. Remember, these folks believe that they're going to be God one day - of course he looks like them! Nuance and complexity? The Bible is SIMPLE and straightforward to these folks! In other words, you would have a better chance of making a kindergarten student understand quantum mechanics than of getting some of these folks to imagine a God who cannot be contained!
And then we have the atheists/agnostics who see little or no value in thinking about these things. For them, the Bible is a superstitious and hopelessly flawed collection of writings that are the source of heartache and ignorance. Once again, we are faced with black and white thinking. It's all or nothing! Armstrongites swallow Scripture "hook, line and sinker" (humans didn't have anything to do with it). Atheists reject the same writings as confused and contradictory nonsense (humans are completely responsible for them). Hence, unfortunately, your posts will continue to draw the ire of both sides. Former Armstrongites almost never return to traditional Christian theology. It seems to me that most of them either become unaffiliated Sabbatarians or Atheists/Agnostics.
I know that sounds pessimistic, but I want to end on a hopeful note. If you reach even one person, your efforts here will have been worth it. I've been posting on my blog for seven years now and those posts average 50 views (in other words, I'm not reaching a big audience). Nevertheless, I am encouraged by some of the public and private comments I've received over the years - I know it has helped a few folks. So, keep up the good work!
Da 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool...
Da 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead.
While I am not necessarily against God not needing a ‘body’ the Bible does portray Him as having one.
In regard to the former, single adults have a certain amount of freedom to do what they want. When they get married they give up this ‘freedom’ for a greater good - children. I would suggest that when it came to the ‘human project’ God took on a ‘spiritual body’ - for a greater good.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
“By far the most graceful translation of verse 44, and the one that best conveys the meaning of Paul’s sentence, is found in the Jerusalem Bible: “When it is sown it embodies the soul, when it is raised it embodies the spirit. If a soul has its own embodiment, so does the spirit have its own embodiment.” That is Paul’s point: our mortal bodies embody the psyche (“soul”), the animating force of our present existence, but the resurrection body will embody the divinely given pneuma (“spirit”). It is to be a “spiritual body” not in the sense that is somehow made out of spirit and vapors, but in the sense that it is determined by the spirit and gives the spirit form and local habitation.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
“All of this is a bit hard to follow in translation, but the drift of Paul’s argument is clear in the Greek, where his use of psychikon in verse 44 is explained by the reference to psyche in the story of creation of Adam (v.45) Paul’s use of the difficult term psychikon soma is determined by the fact that he wants to cite Genesis 2:7 (LXX) in support of his position: “The first man, Adam, as Scripture says, became a living soul [pyche]; but the last Adam has become a life-giving Spirit” (v.45, JB). The psyche is linked with Adam, the initiator of decay and death, but Christ, by his resurrection, becomes “life-giving Spirit” (cf. v.22), the initiator of a new order of humanity” (Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, INT, p.272).
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
“The key theme that permeates verse 35-38 is the simultaneous continuity and discontinuity between believers’ earthly bodies and their resurrection bodies. Clearly, though, the stress remains on the latter. There is a molecular continuity between seed and plant, but who would have guessed it were it not for the recurring cause and effect relationship between a seed and seeing new life sprout in the very place the seed was planted? So one may speak of some kind of ongoing personal identity between natural and spiritual bodies but anticipate substantial physical change...
“Verses 44b-49 respond to competing views about the afterlife. They affirm three crucial truths that must be preserved. First, a new body is a necessity for experiencing the world to come. Escape into an eternally disembodied state is not an option. Second, that new form of existence does not come until Christ’s return... Third, this new heavenly body will be far more glorious than anything we currently experience of imagine” (Craig L. Bloomberg, 1 Corinthians, NIVAC, pp.317-19).
Continued next post.
Using the family metaphor, the earth may be considered a giant ‘womb'. Just as the unborn baby grows in the womb to where it may survive outside the womb, the unborn sons of God develops in the physical world to where they may dwell in the spiritual world.
I would be surprised that in the spiritual realm God would be in an "eternally disembodied state" while Christ and the Saints have "spiritual bodies" - it could then be compared to a father deserting his newborn child.
I would suggest that God wants a relationship with His spirit-born children and that requires a spiritual body.
Agree 7:13.
Trolling own blog now?
We are made in Gods image, both mentally and physically. Plus Ezekiel describes an awesome "spaceship throne" with God sitting on it. That's enough to convince me that God has a body.
Miller Jones noted:
"Even so, these concepts are so very foreign to the theology of Armstrong and his followers that there is virtually no chance that they will be entertained/considered by them. Subtlety is not their strong suit. These folks are black and white thinkers. Theophany and metaphor are so alien to these folks (just think about how they handle the symbolism of apocalyptic literature) as to make your posts unintelligible to them. Remember, these folks believe that they're going to be God one day - of course he looks like them! Nuance and complexity? The Bible is SIMPLE and straightforward to these folks! In other words, you would have a better chance of making a kindergarten student understand quantum mechanics than of getting some of these folks to imagine a God who cannot be contained!
===========================
I don't recall your background or know if you grew up in WCG or not, but you are describing the vast majority of Christians in all denominations on Earth. None of this is exclusive to "Armstrongists" It is how the vast majority of congregants think of God as presented in their own churches. Pastors in some may have a higher view, but would struggle and find a lot of rejection and grief from the congregation trying to explain it anyway but as the scriptures portray God and his attributes. "Let us make man in our image" will always run deeper in the Christian mind than "God really has no actual image to make man in".
It is why they would defer to "the simplicity that is in Christ" than to venture in "God is" territory to their peril.
And too, if humans looked like horses, so would their gods.
This is just like the WORLDLY churches focusing on the MESSENGER and NOT the MESSAGE!!! Gods ENDTIME APOSTLES HERBERT W ARMSTRONG and DAVID C PACK know better than this!! Get BACK ON TRACK!!!!!!
Back in the day, in the times of classic WCG, it even ran deeper. When visualizing God, members would basically see HWA on spititual steroids. An ancient white haired man with boomng, broadcast-quality voice, swooping down and correcting His subjects occasionally, but otherwise aloof. God was created in HWA's image!
Anonymous 8:13
You make some relevant observations.
Those denominations that maintain God has a body frequently invoke Genesis 1:26 which speaks of God's "image" and "likeness." These words in Hebrew can mean a form but can also mean just resemblance or similitude. So the broad scope of the meaning of these words is non-determiniative for our analysis. We must look for other scriptural support. We are immediately alerted to an interpretive issue regarding these two words in this passage because the intention of Elohim is to make man in his image but then he makes both man and woman - both in the image of God and yet both different in physical form. This means that the terms image and likeness do not refer to form.
Jesus stated in John's Gospel that God is a Spirit. He does not have a spirit. He is not made out of spirit (whatever that might mean). But that he is a Spirit. Jesus in John 3:8 describes the ethereal quality of Spirit. Elsewhere in the NT God is characterized as invisible.
And further, the NT states "... who being in the form of God ... made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." "Form" here is the Greek word "morphē". The former use of the word form is metaphorical and that latter use refers to physical form because of the nature of incarnation. If this were not parsed out logically in this way, this passage would read redundantly, "being in human form Jesus was then made in human form." But it is not redundant. And it also indicates that there was a time when Jesus came to acquire the human form. Prior to the milestone, he did not have a human form. This argument may not stand by itself but when added to the words of Jesus in the foregoing paragraph, the argument is persuasive.
Those are the, let us say, the compositional arguments. There are also the logical arguments. Why would God in his eternal essence have a human-like body that is designed to live in dependency on an environment - an environment that God himself would later create?
You can read my two other articles on this blog. If they are not informative to you, nothing I can say here will be useful.
This puts me in mind of something GTA said on th World Tomorrow Broadcast ages ago. He stated that if you had a rocket ship and enough time you could travel into the heavens and go to the presence of God. In other words, he conceived of a God that is immanent in spacetime. I believe that the ancient Semites who contributed the fragment known as Genesis I to the scripture thought that God had a body. But Jesus is himself the Logos and the Word of God. He himself encompasses and culminates The Law, The Prophets and The Writings. And he says that God is Spirit. And I don't think that Jesus is just a kibitzer.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 10:40 stated, "I would be surprised that in the spiritual realm God would be in an "eternally disembodied state" while Christ and the Saints have "spiritual bodies"
The idea that having a body is a superior state is a sub-theme present in some of the other comments. C.S. Lewis stated his belief that the spirit realm is more opaque and more real than our realm (see "The Great Divorce"). I am in accord with that. For Christ to take on human likeness was a condescension. In Phillipians it states:
“Jesus Christ: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross.”
This is the foundation of the doctrine of Kenosis - a doctrine well worth reading about. It is difficult for us to think outside the box but being in human form is not a step up for God. It is a limitation. Thinking that God improved himself by assuming a human-like form, either prior to the incarnation or at the incarnation, opens the door to something like "divine self-evolution." I don't believe you can improve on absolute perfection of the divine essence. No, when you understand, you will not feel sorry for God because he does not have a body like yours.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
7:05
Speak for yourself.
Miller 9:38
I appreciate your viewpoint. I, too, do not think Armstrongists are likely to budge on this. They have no motivation to do so. Their view of doctrine is that it is fixed even though they adopt a quite liberal view on the Law of Moses for instance. That liberal view is fixed by tradition. There is no Armstrongist doctrinal review committee engaging in midrash. There are other reasons. There is a really sinister reason. I believe that some Armstrongists cherish the idea that God is to them racially White. They have recruited an accommodating version, though fictitious, of God for their own personal political and racial agenda. For these people to admit God does not have a body, gender or race would tear a big piece out of their ego and self-image. I am not sure they could worship a god who was not a racial reflection of themselves. For those people it would be poetic justice if God always appeared to them using a theophany that presents the similitude of Red Foxx.
Good comment and I get the point.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
There are forms in the spirit world - see 2Kings 6:17. The young man saw horses and I'm believing he recognized them as horses. I wonder what you might see around you if God opened your eyes.
In reply to Neo Therm.
1. It’s not that The Father has a “body” that was designed to fit an environment which he created later. Implication is How could He survive with that kind of form if the environment didn’t exist yet?
He simply created the environment that would sustain a physical replica of His own form. Since He Himself IS spirit, and was so before deciding to make man, He simply figured out what was necessary for a PHYSICAL FLESHLY replica to survive. Remember He had an infinity of time to plan all this out. Just think, under that circumstance in our kind of reckoning He could have spent days to millions to billions of year to design a butterfly, and just as much “time” on every single kind of creature. When ready, He spoke and it was all brought into existence, with who knows how many angels helping.
2. Grammatically speaking it is incorrect to say the Creator is “a” spirit. Neither Hebrew nor Koine has an indefinite article. English, and other languages add them. So more accurately He IS SPRIT. As Wuest and others show this brings out the essence of the subject, and not just a mere one of other subjects. As a comparison he shows Paul IS apostle in essence and quality, not just a minor apostle among several. Greek does use occasionally the number one to indicate “a/an” subject.
3. Of course He is invisible. His level of Being far supersedes that of man. Yet, we know there are multiple things man cannot see or hear without special instruments to do so. Even then, we don’t see or hear those things, we see and hear what the instruments imitation is. And, beyond that we have no instruments which can penetrate the spirit realm.
4. If you recall, Eve was created after Adam when a mate could not be found for him. So, what to do? Why, just make some tweaks to Adam’s substance, and use the same overall form by using a part of his body to work with. Then Adam joyfully said when he first saw her “That’s IT.” (He didn’t know what to call her, yet.) Finally, Eve was labeled as Woman, that is, Womb Man. Now MANkind came to be. And, in image and likeness of Elohim, mentally, physically and with spirit, the spirit of man.
5 . Your constant ranting on Armstrong is really nonsense. Get over it. Many others do not believe the Samaritan gnostic material you espouse. Pentecostals, and other groups, as mentioned in many internet articles on this subject. However, many non-christian people and groups are quite at home in “God has no form, shape, etc.” misguided teaching.
By the way, words like anthropomorphism, metaphor, etc. doesn’t make a thing so. Simply saying trying to make gods into man’s image is sufficient. No one here wants to sound like academics with OETV. Over Educated Tunnel Vision.
Even Dennis mentioned this thing called “simplicity” and Paul wrote “I’d rather speak with words easy to understand, than in tongues needing translation.” My paraphrase.
ENJOY the day which Yah has made!
Anonymous 3:10
Thank you I am enjoying the day. Let me respond to some of the issues you have raised.
1. You are missing the point. Let me try again. The parts of a human body have purpose. God could not have had body parts in his essence before there was any purpose for them. Like he had two legs before he knew what walking was. He did not have to figure out why he looked the way he did. I know that is hard to understand because we are accustomed to mapping ourselves and our bodily functionality onto God. This is a reverse and illogical flow.
2. Saying "God is a Spirit" and "God is Spirit" is pretty much equivalent. You may be suggesting that God is made out of spirit by excluding the indefinite article. This is the Armstrongist viewpoint - spirit is a substance out of which beings and other things may be made. There is no convincing exegesis for this.
3. I believe you are saying that even though God is invisible he may have a form - like he exists bodily in some other dimension. While that is possible the proof against this is in point 1 above.
4. While you have an explanation, you have no exegesis.
5. The "samaritan gnostic" material you attribute to me actually comes out of the Bible. Speaking of Gnosticism, HWA's concept of God aligns closely with the idea of the Demiurge in Gnostic philosophy. I can sketch that out for you if need be.
It is an remarkable condescension that you do not people can understand terms like "anthropomorphism" and "metaphor." It's like you don't think people have a high school education. You are either a Splinterist minister or you have been hanging around with Splinterist ministers. Your use of "Yah" leads me to believe that you are one of the Judaism weenies that seem to have been drawn to Armstrongism since its inception.
I have a question for you. Why is it so important to you that God has a body?
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
And yet Jesus explained why He spoke in parables in Matt. 13:11-17, and also explained that He and the Father are one in John 10:27-30. Those two sets of verses imply in greater context how the entire Bible is in fact written. While Jesus was alive, (at that specific time in history) it was plain that those who believed in and followed Jesus were given special understanding. The problem is that over the 2,000 years since the life of Christ, human thinkers have processed, analyzed, and confused what He shared, rendering it impossible to know who really has the truth. Armstrongism claimed to be the truth, but never exhibited the fruits which are supposed to identify Christians. There was, however, rampant Phariseeism, along with the ego and vanity which always accompanies obsession with the law.
What about "use of the thing"? One can actually use the Bible to "prove" that the Bible is crap. One can use it to enhance one's own vanity. One can glean principles to govern a good, altruistic life. One can use it to invalidate or to put down fellow man. One can use it to create authority for one's self. One can use it to gain understanding. How we choose to use it, (or not), is entirely up to us. There are probably hundreds of ways to use it.
Dennis,
I disagree with your assertion that I am "describing the vast majority of Christians in all denominations on Earth." While I think that you could make a strong case for saying that many lay members of different denominations (who have a superficial understanding of what their particular group teaches on this subject) share some of Herbie's notions about the nature of God, it is wholly inaccurate to portray the Armstrongist view as representative of the Christian Church. A few examples will suffice to demonstrate this point:
From the Catholic Online Catholic Encyclopedia article on "The Nature and Attributes of God":
Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak of God as if He were a magnified creature -- more especially a magnified man -- and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions : and this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship. But whatever truth there may be in this charge as applied to Polytheistic religions, or even to the Theistic beliefs of rude and uncultured minds, it is untrue and unjust when directed against philosophical Theism. The same reasons that justify and recommend the use of metaphorical language in other connections justify and recommended it here, but no Theist of average intelligence ever thinks of understanding literally the metaphors he applies, or hears applied by others, to God, any more than he means to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a cunning one a fox.
--https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5220
From The Gospel Coalition article on Theophany by Vern Poythress:
To some extent, we can classify theophanies into different kinds. There are thunderstorm theophanies, such as Mount Sinai. There are court theophanies, in which God appears on his throne in the midst of angelic servants (Dan. 7:9–10). There are man theophanies, where God appears in human form (for example, to Manoah and his wife). There are warrior theophanies, where God is described as resembling a human warrior (Exod. 15:3; Isa. 49:17). There are chariot theophanies, where God is described as riding on a chariot (Ps. 18:10; sometimes with mention of wheels, Ezek. 1:15–21). There are glory and cloud theophanies, when God appears in a bright “glory” cloud, or sometimes in a dark cloud. God reflects his glory in the created world, so that we can see analogy between creation and theophany (Ps. 104:1–4).
Jesus Christ, as the climactic “theophany,” is the fulfillment of all the symbolic communications in theophanic forms.
--https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/theophany/
Miller Jones said...
Dennis,
I disagree with your assertion that I am "describing the vast majority of Christians in all denominations on Earth." While I think that you could make a strong case for saying that many lay members of different denominations (who have a superficial understanding of what their particular group teaches on this subject) share some of Herbie's notions about the nature of God, it is wholly inaccurate to portray the Armstrongist view as representative of the Christian Church. A few examples will suffice to demonstrate this point:
============================
U disagree with you believing that the higher thinkers of any denomination are what the laity believes. You are quoting the higher thinkers of the Catholic Church. Vern Sheridan Poythress (born 1946) is an American philosopher, theologian, New Testament scholar and mathematician, who is currently the New Testament chair of the ESV Oversight Committee. He is also the Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary and editor of Westminster Theological Journal.
My childhood Dutch Reformed Church was affiliated with Westminster Theological Seminary, our lifelong pastors were trained there and I had also considered going there into ministry. But I can assure you, the average congregant in my home church would only see God literally as the one who made them in his image, form and with all the human look literally. My childhood pastors also never bothered, whatever they thought they knew about the real nature of God, or imagined at a higher level of speculation than the average congregant would bother with, to teach above the standard model. Whatever the critical thinkers and scholars of the church come to believe rarely trickles down to the people nor would it promote peace if it did.
Any well educated theologian will tell you they know, or are told they are 50 years ahead of the common member and it is wise to remember that. It does not mean they are correct. It only means they think about such things because it is what they do.
I am talking about the average congregant/believer in most denominations.
"U disagree with you believing that the higher thinkers of any denomination are what the laity believes."
=============
Typo "I disagree..."
Sheer speculation due to neo's error that the bible is the word of some sky dweller.
Skeptic
Dennis,
Your view that an expansive view of the nature of God is confined to a small group of elite religious thinkers is not supported by Baylor's research into attitudes extant among the Great Unwashed of America. Indeed, their study demonstrated a wide range of beliefs out there about God's nature. Of course, we all recognize the limitations of polling and asking folks questions about their beliefs or who/what they support, but the results of this survey seem to suggest that folks aren't as wedded to anthropomorphic notions of God as your comments suggest. I'm including the links below, but notice a few of the very interesting results which apply to this conversation: If my math is correct, about 58% of folks agree/strongly agree with characterizing God as "a cosmic force in the universe." Likewise, it appears that almost as many folks are undecided/disagree/strongly disagree with the characterization of God as a "HE."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/godnature.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/beliefs-about-the-nature-of-god.htm
Skeptic,
The Deity that Neo is writing about is NOT a "sky dweller." Moreover, his "speculation" is based on the musings of humans about the nature of the Hebrew/Christian God over the last three thousand years. As for the Bible, you are guilty of the black/white thinking I referenced in my earlier remarks. Some of us believe that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are the work of flawed men influenced by God's Holy Spirit. Hence, the finished product reflects both human reasoning, the cultures of which the authors were a part and some Divine guidance.
Fine Miller, you win. I am going by my actual experience growing up in a Dutch reformed congregation and pastoring all over the East coast with contacts in the faith community on the local level with the average person in the pew.
825 noted: "Anonymous said...
Sheer speculation due to neo's error that the bible is the word of some sky dweller.
=================================
I agree, all 20th and 21st Century high theological speculation and not subject to any kind of actual proof in the real world. God, He/She is naturally going to come out the most spectacular result the human mind can imagine.
Miller Jones November 21, 2021 at 10:10 AM
It is as Dennis say. The christian religion is based on astrology. You are delusional thinking you have gods spirit. From the christian religion comes many spirits and the vast majority are unclean as they push lie after lie in order to avoid the harsh reality that they have lived a lie all these years.
Human reasoning is what keeps you in the jesus cult. You know nothing outside what is taught to you. You learn as you live your confirmation bias life.
Skeptic
Skeptic wrote, "Sheer speculation due to neo's error that the bible is the word of some sky dweller."
To echo Miller's words, I am not writing about a sky dweller. Atheism and Armstrongism share a major viewpoint on God. Both belief systems regard God to be a contingent and immanent being. This would be a "sky dweller." Christianity regards God to be a necessary and transcendant being. This latter is my view.
Armstrongists regard God to be a being that lives inside of the spacetime of the universe (somewhere in the sides of the north), has a body, has gender, has race and other human traits. For them God is the Great White Man that lives in the sky. This atavistic viewpoint diminishes God to something like the ancient tribal gods of primitive people.
Atheists are pre-occupied with materialism. They come up with arguments inside material boundaries like "if evolution is true, then God does not exist" or "if I cannot see God then there isn't a God" or "quantum fluctuations cause things to pop into existence." They assume a material cosmic system and look for God inside that system. So they never discuss questions of transcendence like "where does existence itself come from." There is no evolutionary process that will resolve that question. Existence doesn't evolve. It is either there or it is not. Without evolution they seem lost but evolution does not explain the origin of reality.
Both Armstrongism and Atheism seem to characterize God as the Demiurge of the Gnostic philosphy. The Demiurge is a being that does not engage in Creatio Ex Nihilo but fabricates material things in an already existing reality. Apparently, Armstrongists believe that God did not create spacetime since they assert that he lives inside it. This is odd because Jesus says God is a Spirit but spacetime is a physical attribute of the cosmos. But I must admit that I have never known of Armstrongists trying to ponder the question of the origin of spacetime. I am not sure what they would actually say about this.
Atheists seem to believe that existence itself is a part of some baseline that can merely be assumed. Go figure.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Well, yes! The creation week makes perfect sense if relativity is introduced into the mix, and the days are not literally 24 hours. I mean, the time keepers of the universe that mark 24 hour periods weren't introduced until later in creation week. We know that one of God's creative processes is evolution. That is evident from the fossil record.
Neo Therm wrote:
Both Armstrongism and Atheism seem to characterize God as the Demiurge of the Gnostic philosphy. The Demiurge is a being that does not engage in Creatio Ex Nihilo but fabricates material things in an already existing reality. Apparently, Armstrongists believe that God did not create spacetime since they assert that he lives inside it. This is odd because Jesus says God is a Spirit but spacetime is a physical attribute of the cosmos. But I must admit that I have never known of Armstrongists trying to ponder the question of the origin of spacetime. I am not sure what they would actually say about this.
===============================
It’s interesting that you are trying to tear Apart what you falsely call “Armstrongism.” Atheists are recorded of deliberately attacking the wwcg, Many christian groups did, and still do the same, and you and others here are still doing the same. First, it speaks volumes when two enemies join in attacking the same people. Atheists and christian teaching could not stand up against the wcg in a fair fight, and you have joined the same fray. Like a bunch of jackals who jump on a wounded animal. Nice, speaks volumes in wcg’s favor. Plus, prophecy is being fulfilled by every one of your posts. Thanks.
Your assumed presentation of what the wcg believed is warped by your own bias. Having some sixty years experience in and around them before being marked I never heard, or read anything that sounds like your and the atheist babbling, or the babbling of many other christian attack groups who all are so loaded down with love, concern, meekness, gentleness etc.
Unless you start laying down full chapter, verse, reference, etc. your comments are just your incorrect assumptions and you therefore do not know what you are talking about.
You should read the book The People History Forgot, and you will learn why I used the term “your Samaritan gnosticism.”
Please also read , The Bodily Composition of God, by Ernest Martin. Then you will have something solid to speak against.
For this is the love of God that we keep His commandments.
Looking forward to your unbiased, and honest, and factual reply. Real debate is good, I enjoy it, don’t you?
Skeptic,
From my perspective, you are the delusional one. You operate from the same confirmation bias that you accuse me of - you dismiss all that is positive and see only the negative. I see both and have ordered my belief system accordingly. And I could say the exact same thing about you - human reasoning keeps you out of the Jesus crowd. Like many atheists/agnostics, your commentary here drips with condescension and self-righteousness. You simplify and erect strawmen - not all Christians believe in a sky dweller and biblical inerrancy, and some of us embrace science and evolution. Hence, while it may be convenient to lump us all together as deluded and superstitious nincompoops, it hardly reflects the reality on the ground (and, yes, they call that delusion).
Anon 4:52 PM
‘ We know that one of God’s creative processes is evolution. That is evident from the fossil record.’.
Is there scripture affirmation that backs up your statement?
What also are ‘the keepers of the universe that mark 24 hour periods weren’t introduced until later in creation week’.
As some said to Paul, you are bringing new things to our ears.
Anonymous 7:13
I can't find anything on the internet about "The Bodily Composition of God" by Ernest Martin. Is it published? What is it? A book? An article? I would like to have a look at it.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I am not 7:13,
but here is the link:
askelm.com/doctrine/d080601.htm
Neo Therm
A simple google search should bring it up.
The Bodily Composition of God - askelm
By the way, it was written after he left wcg as far as I can tell.
Neo Therm, here is a quote from ask’s June 2008 newsletter:
Dear Associates, Students and Friends:
I confess that this month’s article by Dr. Ernest L. Martin, “The Bodily Composition of God” was a hard teaching for me to accept at first. 1 I suppose it was because of my Lutheran Missouri Synod religious upbringing that informed me that God did not have a body. The Lutheran Catechism taught that God was a trinity and the Holy “Ghost” (the third “person,” or “manifestation,” or whatever) of that so-called trinity was non-corporeal. However, I knew as a young person that a “ghost” did not have substance. After all, a multifaceted being like a trinity could not have one single body, although the 2nd “person,” Jesus, obviously had a body after His resurrection.
Anonymos 6:27
Thanks. I had a look at this article and another one that has similar content by Martin.
Martin relies on the idea, unique to Armstrongist as far as I know, that spirit is like a substance. I did not get an inkling of how this idea evolved in his mind but I would expect that first the anthropomorphisms of the Bible were misunderstood. Then if one first erroneously believes that God has a body, then one must deduce that the divine body must be made of something that is capable of holding shape and form.
At the risk of sounding like a Thomist, I am going to explain why I believe Martin's assertions are utterly wrong. God possesses the property of aseity - he is dependent on nothing for his existence and his attributes. He does exist. There is an ontological boundary between his being and the state of non-being. But that alone does require substance. If God is made of some kind of substance, even though it may be termed a "spirit" substance, it means the following:
1. If substance holds form, then God has locality. He is not omnipresent and he must run not only the universe but all of reality with only the access his substantive body will give him. He is here but not there. Actually, I believe he must necessarily transcend omnipresence. Omnipresence means he is present at every point in spacetime. But spacetime is a property of the material Cosmos. God is not limited to the loci of the physical universe. He is infinitely present throughout reality. He generates reality.
2. If we are created in his image physically, then we reflect the fact that God is dependent on the life-giving internal parts of his substantive body for existence. That is, his body is not just an aesthetic whim but has internal parts on which he is dependent for existence. This makes God not a necessary being but a contingent being. Ezekiel says that God has a heart. Maybe he could have a heart attack and die. See Aquinas' arguments on why God does not have parts but is a simple being.
One might then resort to the argument that spirit substance is not like material substance and it can hold form and shape yet not imply any limitations. At that point the entire analogy between "spirit substance" and "material substance" becomes meaningless and should be discarded. This then simplifies to the view that Jesus expressed when he said "pneuma ho theos."
What Martin posits is orthodox Armstrongism and pivots on the idea of a spiritual substance that is analogous to material substance. While this would transform all the anthropomorphisms in the OT into literal statements (it omits non-anthropomorphic theophanies such as the burning bush, whirlwind, pillar of fire), it has no exegetical and philosphical traction.
Note: I am receptive to the idea that God may have some durable substance from which he might fabricate things for his creatures. One day we are supposed to have new bodies that are eternal. There is supposed to be a new and eternal heavens and earth. But I do not believe this "substance" has the property of God's self-existence. This substance is not divine and co-equal to God. I believe this substance will be sustained in existence by God forever. For that matter, God could interdict entropy and sustain in existence forever matter as we know it.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I have not read this post and thread yet, but only skimmed it and noticed the following:
^^^^^^
NeoTherm said...
Anonymous 7:13
I can't find anything on the internet about "The Bodily Composition of God" by Ernest Martin. Is it published? What is it? A book? An article? I would like to have a look at it.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
November 21, 2021 at 9:12 PM
^^^^^^
And I noticed that
Anon, November 21, 2021 at 11:05 PM, said:
"...I am not 7:13,
but here is the link:
askelm.com/doctrine/d080601.htm
********************************************
I then skimmed the article in that link, and found it very interesting, but I am writing b/c I too have had a comment/question for a number of years now and it involved Earnest Martin.
I heard years ago that Earnest Martin proved that when the Israelites departed Egypt, that Earnest had proved by comparing the numbers of peoples in each of the tribes of Israel that approximately 10,000 of them had actually returned back into Egypt. I have never been able to locate that source, or proof.
So, like NeoTherm, I am asking can anyone cite a link to Earnest Martin that proves that some of the Israelites did indeed return to Egypt during the time of the Exodus?
Thanks, in advance, for any who provide the answer if such a link, or source, really exists.
John
Ok, Neo, give us the verses that support your human reasoning.
The main difference is, Martin based his reasoning on what the Bible actually says.
You base, it appears, your reasoning on what you want the book to mean.
The body is described in scripture as a human like body. Then you EXPAND that into something that is not said, as in, if it looks like a body with shape and form then it must need internal parts to survive. Which book, chapter and verse says that? You seem to use your own reasoning to substantiate your own view, and that of other men you believe are authorities. The Bible says He only has immortality, is spirit, and lives eternally. Ergo, His form and shape have nothing to do with that. Who He is, and being Spirit, is what has to do with that.
The Bible was preserved for us in two languages, Hebrew and Koine. Neither have true indirect objects. And, even if Greek did, it is still NOT preserved in the Koine text. If the mind of the Messiah is to be in us, then surely the languages used helps us understand how He and His Father think. To use a/an in that and other places where the language doesn’t have them is a minimization of the subject. Example, His eyes like A flame of fire vs like flame of fire, which is more powerful.
Plus, as one of your common christian scholars says:”Now, God is spirit (John 4:24) not a spirit. The indefinite article appears in the A.V., but should not be there. There is no indefinite article in the Greek language. The English indefinite article should only be included in the translation when the original in its context demands it. A spirit is a created intelligence. But God is not created. The absence of the definite article in Greek emphasizes character or quality.” Kenneth S. Wuest
Note: Like you in the next sentence Wuest gives a “Could be” translation and says that then it could mean “a Personality without a body.” why? That is not in the text, or implied, except in the human mind to justify a wrong doctrine that just has to be right, no matter what.
Be that as it may, the more correct translation, based on grammars from christian scholars who aren’t your false label, “armstrongites,” “IS spirit,” not “A spirit.”
You wrote: What Martin posits is orthodox Armstrongism …
What this says to me is you don’t read very much, and furthermore don’t have any real understanding of what those folk really believed. Secondly, you seem to have no clue that what you are espousing is taught by many non-christian religions and that is the source of the church fathers teaching on this matter. And, that others besides Martin and Armstrong see the errors in your stance.
Further, don’t you know the scriptures teach that all things were produced OUT OF Elohim? One might conclude from this that Elohim took of Himself and “downgraded” His Spirit substance into a lower substance called matter, and don’t forget flesh. He is Spirit, man is flesh, and Elohim’s plan is to turn human flesh into spirit. And in such a way we can recognize each other then, including the Father when we can see Him as He is and looks.
After 2,000 years of argument I’ll stick on the side of the book that describes these things easily vs the concoctions of men who think they are wise but became…
Now, for you: Why do you need to have a Deity with no substance, no form, and, well nothing to Him except undefined space? And, based on man’s speculations?
Anonymous 11:40
Martin has no foundation or exegesis for the idea that spirit behaves like a "substance". He snatched that concept out or blue sky. If he uses anthropomorphisms as his argument, he is simply begging the question.
If I say "If substance holds form, then God has locality" even though this is rational you will say no that is not true - it does not say that in the Bible. Why should I waste my time. So let me just repeat to cover all your objections now and future:
"One might then resort to the argument that spirit substance is not like material substance and it can hold form and shape yet not imply any limitations. At that point the entire analogy between "spirit substance" and "material substance" becomes meaningless and should be discarded."
And you never answered my question. Why is it so important to you that God be the Great White Man in the sky?
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
7:27: Gen. 1:14-19 Sun and moon were created on the fourth day.
Neo Therm wrote:
And you never answered my question. Why is it so important to you that God be the Great White Man in the sky?
===============================
Simple! I never said that, you said that. Another example of how you misinterpret things, and then try to make your case on that misinterpretation. You are very good at that, as are the a-theists. So, why should I answer a trick question not based in fact?
Please, try to form an honest question without the implications of your misunderstanding because of misinterpreting what you read.
Anonymous 9:14
Don't be disingenuous. HWA configured his god as the Great White Man in the sky. If you support his views, that is what you worship. I am simply asking why the worship of this particular god is so important to you. If you cannot answer this simple question or if you hide behind a misinterpretation of the Bible as you have been doing, I have no further interest interacting with you.
Bye.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Neo Therm wrote:
Don't be disingenuous. HWA configured his god as the Great White Man in the sky. If you support his views, that is what you worship. I am simply asking why the worship of this particular god is so important to you. If you cannot answer this simple question or if you hide behind a misinterpretation of the Bible as you have been doing, I have no further interest interacting with you.
==============================
You mean, don’t be like you don’t you?
NOTHING you said in the above statement has any truth in it. And, you know it. That’s why once again you pulled out your two step tap dance with “bye.” Usually it is a fact that the one on the wrong side of an argument can’t stand the heat when it comes back at them.
Your question was not simple. Frankly, it was/is just pure foolishness. It was based on YOUR biased thinking by saying what is not true. In fact, it was your nonsensical way of trying to play the “race card” game. That’s what people do when they can’t defend their stance and it starts falling apart.
Plus, the way you worded the question was typical of those who don’t like being stopped in their tracks. It’s the old lawyer’s trick, “Well, Mr. Jones, when did you stop beating your wife?”
I suspect you didn’t read the book, and only rapidly skimmed Doc Martin’s article. He didn’t mention any Great White Man.” You did.
You should like this quote from the wcg Systematic Theology paper:
“Doctrinal Statement
,God is the eternal, omnipresent, all-powerful, supreme Creator a Sustainer of the entire universe.God is one, composed of spirit and comprising a Family revealed as presently consisting of God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son. God is a loving, kind,merciful Being who wants to share His magnificent existence by reproducing Himself through man.” . . .
“For now, God rules the spiritual and material universe from His throne in heaven, although His mind and Spirit reach everywhere.”
Now, that should make you happy. Ok, please show us where your concoction of the Great White Man is presented or spoken of. You can’t because it is all a lie.
As Ike Clanton said to Wyatt Earp in the movie Tombstone, “I’ll see you soon, I’ll see you sooon…”
Anonymous 3:11
This is the third time I have asked you and you have dodged. Why is it so important to you to believe in the Great White Man in the sky? HwA said that he is 1) Great, 2) He's White, 3) He the spittin' image of a man and 4) He lives in the sky. Last chance.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Neo Therm said:
This is the third time I have asked you and you have dodged. Why is it so important to you to believe in the Great White Man in the sky? HwA said that he is 1) Great, 2) He's White, 3) He the spittin' image of a man and 4) He lives in the sky. Last chance.
=======================
Wow, what happened to “bye?” :)
You are good at “quoting” Neo.. What is your source, or video, etc.?
And, who do you think you are giving me a “last chance?” You sound worse than the wcg complaints now. STOP TRYING TO BE THE LOCAL KING.
I don’t recall hearing, or reading, what you claim HWA said. Please verify that with some proof versus your imagination.
I guess it really gets your goat that someone won’t answer your biased question. Nobody should stand up to you I guess.
I told you I’d see you soon, and, well, here you are. Pretty good discernment, don’t you think? I knew you couldn’t quit. Too much to lose??
Ego is a wonderful thing.
Post a Comment