The Transcendence of God and the Ontological Nose
“He who planted the ear, does he not hear?
He who formed the eye, does he not see?”
Psalm 94:9
“God is spirit”
Words of Jesus, John 4:24
Consider the nose. We are all familiar with its form and function. It is a part of our respiratory system. With it we can smell flowers. But it also serves another less apparent purpose. It is evidence that God does not have a body.
God is an eternal spirit. This is his essence. Not only does he exist but he is the source of all existence, of all being. He is the creator. So everything that is, he made. He has never not existed. He is timeless. Without beginning and without end. Let us assume, for the sake of a thought experiment, that he has always had a nose. Not an acquired or created nose but a nose that is a part of his essential eternal nature. A timeless nose. At some point (this is awkward to state because God created time and is not in time), he had to ask himself “Why do I have this bodily projection with two passages in it? Why does it do the things that it does? I’ve just always had it.” The nose is ontologically co-existent with God. It is a complex piece of equipment. It has contouring and turbinates and little filtering hairs and all manner of built in capabilities. But the cosmos had not been created yet. Atmospheric gases had not been created yet. Proteins to form mucous had not been created yet. Atoms and molecules, for that matter, had not been created yet. Nor flowers to smell. God is Spirit so he had no need for these physical things. So the nose had no purpose. It had just been always there.
So one day god decided to make a man. And he decided to give the man this same bodily projection, this nose, and also give it a purpose. So God created atoms and gases and proteins. He made the man so he would require atmospheric gases to live. And gravity and metabolism and all manner of forces and principles to make the nose functional and purposeful. One might say that the entire creation was made to accommodate this nose. And God said to himself, “Now, this thing has meaning.” God gave the nose purpose and meaning but he always wondered why he had the nose in the first place.
This same scenario can be applied to the idea that God supposedly had a body as a part of his essence. What this scenario does is simply get the cart before the horse. The nose existed before it had any purpose. It categorizes God as created instead of creator. Critics might quickly reply that God had the nose because there was a spirit atmosphere and spirit gases and God breathed these spirit gases to survive. This means that God was contingent on something external to himself to stay alive. This is not a description of a necessary eternal spirit but of a created being. This is a mapping of the human condition onto God. It is a lèse-majesté. The idea that God is not dependent on a nose does not mean that God cannot “smell.” His sensory capabilities are infinite. He created odors and he knows everything about them, including how they would smell to the human nose. He just does not need a human nose to do this.
But what about Psalm 94:9? This is the kind of scripture that led Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA) to believe that God had a body. But it is human talk for humans to understand. What is technical for us in the created realm is allegory for God in the essential eternal realm. God does not have ears for the same reason he does not have a nose. He is not limited by waves propagated through a gaseous atmosphere that would strike a tympanum and activate hammer and anvil and be converted into the sensation of sound. We can be thankful that he is not limited by hearing as we know it because he would not be able to sort out the myriad of prayers directed to him every day. Those prayers would not even be transmitted across the vacuum of space. David used the term “hear” in Psalm 94 because that was what David understood and what would communicate to his readers. It is just an allegory for God’s actual absolute capability to sense and know all things. His ability to know transcends all physics and physiology based human sensory systems – hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, seeing. Another way of saying this is that God is not dependent on his own creation.
I do not believe that Herbert W. Armstrong intended to diminish God by teaching erroneously that God has a body. I think he just took anthropomorphisms at face value and moved on. HWA has left us no carefully reasoned exegesis that deals with the issue of anthropomorphism. He never addressed the topic of why if God had a human-like body, it did not create crippling limitations for him as he sustained the cosmos. And the idea of an anthropomorphic God was never challenged by members of the WCG so as to lead to a review and revision of the topic. The idea just never received the attention that it deserved because of circumstance.
It is blatantly obvious that the human body was designed to function in an earthly environment - an environment that came into existence when God created the cosmos. Why would God possess in his eternal essence a body that is earth adapted before there was an earth? Was his body designed for some environment? Who then designed his body for that environment? And who designed the environment? Was there something external to God that was already in existence – an environment that required a nose? If that is true, then God is not the creator of all things. Someone else greater than God was in the picture. This line of argument is called reductio ad absurdum.
Submitted by Neo
39 comments:
God's nose DOES have a purpose. He uses it to distinguish praise from sin in humans.
Gen. 8:21 - "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake...."
Isa. 65:5 (NLT) - "Yet they say to each other, ‘Don’t come too close or you will defile me!
I am holier than you!’ These people are a stench in my nostrils, an acrid smell that never goes away."
Interesting article.
It reminds of for instance birds of prey, who see little red dots in a grey field where humans would never see the mice in the rolling green hills.
Or bats that "know" or "see" their environment through radar.
Whales who "hear" their mates in Canada while surveying fish in Norway.
What do earthly beings actually know as in data?
Nck
Primates can hear like half an octave higher than us; why did God dial back our hearing?
Loved the nose! Your choice of body parts was much more subtle and less offensive to some folks sensibilities than mine! As my final comment in the previous thread may have been overlooked by most of the folks who participated in that conversation, I will bring it forward and reprint it here:
While the scriptural basis for God and angels having "bodies" seems to cut both ways (sometimes they appear to have form and shape). NEO's original point about God's omnipresence has not been successfully challenged by anyone here. Is God omnipresent? Is God confined to a specific place and shape at any given time?
Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good.
1 Kings 8:27
“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!
Jeremiah 23:24
“Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?” declares the LORD “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the LORD.
Psalm 139:7-10
Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.
If I take the wings of the dawn,
If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea,
Even there Your hand will lead me,
And Your right hand will lay hold of me.
Matthew 18:20
“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
If God really is the Creator, then God created space, time, gravity, etc. Moreover, as Creator, God would not be subject to any of these things - God exists outside of the things which constrain/govern the physical realm. And, if God fashioned a body for himself, are we saying that God created himself? If God is omnipresent, why would he want to confine himself to a specific time, shape and place? Moreover, if God does have the ability to manifest itself in any number of guises (as scripture seems to suggest), why would he need a body?
Philosophizing for a Schnoz-less God is the modern upgrade to the Schnoz-specific Deity of the Old Testament. It's a pretty good argument for no actual God once all the imaginary superlatives and imaginations of our times are intellectually and cosmologically, along with a touch of transcending time and space, whatever that means, being applied.
I think that's the modern problem with this/these, 1/3 Gods. They are too far away in and beyond the heavens to be of any earthly good. IMHO
The W.A. (8:25)
You raise a good issue. If I may rephrase your point, maybe God had a nose but it was for a different purpose - like sniffing out sin. And so for man, God created a analog nose based on his own nose. But man's nose reacts to molecules in the gaseous atmosphere. So the principle of the nose is to process sensory inputs of a certain type and from external sources.
We must then ask ourselves, is anything external to God? Does he not know everything absolutely? What need would he have to process independent, external stimuli if there is no such thing? Possessing a nose does not comport with God's inherent nature. The scriptures you cite are a form of metaphor called anthropomorphism.
An example of a metaphor from the NT concerns The Lord's Supper. Jesus took bread and said, "This is my body..." Does this mean that the bread was an actual piece of his body? Are we to now think of Jesus as fully God, fully Man and fully Bread? Is Jesus, in form, really a piece of flat bread? I am sure you would say that is silly. So you know the use of metaphorical language in the Bible. The Biblical language that speaks of God's body is metaphor. And the reason why we know this is that to assume it is not metaphor leads to absurdity. And that is the struture of the argument in my little article.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Let’s just consider what the scriptures actually show about God.
Regardless of if you feel God has a body or not, we have examples of God manifesting himself on earth.
The three beings that ate with Abram prior to the destruction of Sodom – one claimed to be God. Clearly He manifested himself as a human (including a nose, no doubt).
There are other examples, but one I mentioned in a recent thread, the resurrected Christ. He manifested himself in the same image as he had been when he was physically alive, be it cooking fish on the beach, appearing in a locked room, or levitating off a mountainside.
So you could at least conclude that God is comfortable manifesting himself in that way. But that is with physical human beings, part of the reason no doubt so that the humans with Him felt more comfortable, but also practicable reasons – e.g. eating a meal.
How about in His ‘Home Base’ as it were, in heaven. Scripture shows, particularly Revelation, that the various spiritually created beings appear there with bodily shapes. And how about God Himself - well, again He appears to manifest Himself with a bodily shape. You could again say that this is to make the angelic host more comfortable, and again also for practicable reasons (e.g. The Wedding Feast of the Lamb, one assumes that food of some sort will be consumed?). To fit Neo’s theme, no doubt the spiritual plants of heaven overwhelm the physical one of earth, both in beauty and aroma, so a nose would be a useful accessory to enjoy this!
Remembering that the spiritual creation predates the physical creation of the universe by a substantial bit, it is reasonable to conclude that it would be God’s habit to appear in heaven in this form, both in ‘formal’ occasions, and on more informal ‘leisure’ times (I don’t think we need to assume that God is a ‘workaholic’ and never takes a break from His work, do we?).
So this would give meaning to what happened when God reformed the earth in Genesis. The statement that mankind would be created in ‘the image of God’. What image is that? The image that the spiritual creation were used to seeing God in heaven, a biped, with two arms and a head. (And a nose!).
Incidentally none of this, in my opinion, takes away from God’s omnipresence, although it may seem to for those that have constrained themselves with the belief of the Trinity. I may expand on that in a subsequent post, time permitting.
Dennis (7:00)
The issues of God's body and God's existence are two separate debates. Christianity believes that God exists without the limitations of a body. The Christian understanding that God is a Spirit does counter the idea of God as a demiurge. A demiurge "is an artisan-like figure responsible for fashioning and maintaining the physical universe. (Wikipedia)" Both atheism and Armstrongism circmscribe God in the same way. Armstrongists believe in a God that is immanent and contingent and atheists joust with a God that is immanent and contingent. In fact, one may step from Armstrongism to atheism without ever revising one's understanding of God. For the Armstrongists God is real and for the atheist God is not real but both are talking about the same category of being.
Armstrongists believe, for instance, that God lives inside of spacetime. God to them lives inside the universe somewhere in the "sides of the north." They have to my knowledge no exposition on where spacetime came from. Spacetime is part of the presumed baseline that permits God to exist. Similarly, atheists do not include the origin of existence or being in their criticism of God. Existence itself is part of the presumed baseline that permits the material universe to exist without God. But, alas, there is no baseline that can be presumed. All must be accounted for. And in that accounting you find God who creates all Ex Nihilo.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
This is not intended to be a repeat of my previous article titled "A Brief Meditation on the Transcendence of God." It is just that there was a theme among those who opposed what wrote that I was not presenting any evidence. I am not sure what they meant by evidence, so I cited some scriptures at that time. But in my previous article, the evidence is, other than scripture, logical and not demonstrable. And I assumed that everyone would work through the logic pretty much on their own. This did not seem to happen so I did this second article as a detailed "reductio ad absurdum" as the kind of reasoning evidence I was relying on.
There is scripture and there is logic but I cannot make God appear and show himself as having no form. There is no apophatic archaelogy to support that he has no form. On the other hand, Armstrongists have no evidence that God does have a form. They have neither logic nor scripture nor demonstrable phenomena on their side. They only have the anthropomorphic fallacy.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
To the new leader, Neo Therm, on Banned:
“There are two general schools of thought on how to point out a fallacy to your interlocutor. On the one hand, you can tactfully explain why your interlocutor’s reasoning is erroneous (1 smart-ass point), without mentioning the name of the fallacy. On the other hand, you can tell your interlocutor that his reasoning is fallacious (1 smart-ass point), tell him the name of the fallacy he committed (another smart-ass point), tell him why it is a fallacy (another smart-ass point), then extend his underwear over his head, and conclude with, “by the way, in Latin that fallacy is known as [insert Latin name here].”
Excerpt From
Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition)
Bo Bennett, PhD
As one writer mentioned, Logic was a game used by Greek children for the purpose of proving their opponent wrong, even if they were correct, by the use of labels like, (insert latin name here) reductio ad absurdum.
Dennis,
While I understand your rejection of faith as evidence, I have always been perplexed by your apparent hostility toward one of the tools which we all (scientists, architects, engineers, authors atheists, theists, etc.) employ in our respective fields, and some of us employ to explore the great questions of our existence here and purpose. I'm speaking, of course, about our ability to imagine things. And I've noticed that it only seems to provoke your ire/ridicule when it's mentioned in a spiritual/religious context.
Now, from your perspective, I can see how the imagining/hypothesizing/speculation of some folks would be superior to that of others (that's a rather subjective evaluation which we all engage in, isn't it?); but I hope that you aren't suggesting that the tool is useless in the hands of those who have reached different conclusions from your own? Moreover, on this whole question of God, I'm genuinely interested to know whether or not our ability to imagine things that don't actually exist ever troubles your thinking on the existence of a Creator?
I've said it before: The wholesale rejection of the imaginings of our "ignorant" forbearers on these topics seems a bit arrogant, childish and unwise to me. Yes, our fund of knowledge about ourselves, our universe, and our place in the grand scheme of things has greatly increased; but how much further do we have to go? And hasn't our progress in this realm ALWAYS been dependent on the thinking of the generations which preceded ours?
We all recognize that certain works of literature belong to the genre known as fiction; but, hopefully, most of us can also see that these works often provide us with very accurate portrayals of our reality and can supply some very profound truths. Finally, you may be right that this/these God(s) is/are too far away to be of an earthly good, but it is also possible that the theists are on to something when they imagine It/Them being all around us!
NEO,
Your major error is your continued use of the term “god”. Please define which “god” you are referring to. For clarity you should just use the term widget. It’s like the other meaningless word “church” which comes from the word for circle in German, and is a reference to the female womb…so when someone says church of god they are really saying vagina of widgets.
Instead try using the term “Elohim” and Father or Creator. The Angels are the Elohim and created Adam and Eve, according to Gen 1.
Neo says in a previous thread: “The verses you cite”…. (Judges 9:13; Ps 3:4, 14:2; Lev 26:31)…..”characterize God in human terms. This is anthropomorphic language”. Then Neo says in this thread: “On the other hand, Armstrongists have no evidence that God does have a form. They have neither logic nor scripture nor demonstrable phenomena on their side. They only have the anthropomorphic fallacy”.
Huh? The Bible is fallacious!? And Jesus really, really, really didn’t mean what He said when He said: ….You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor see His shape – John 5:37?
Hmmmm…..I smell …..anti-law rhetoric?
Anonymous 11:10
I use the term God to refer to the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Yahweh in the OT and Theos in the NT. The mystery is what god HWA is referring to? HWA used to say in meetings with world leaders that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all believed in the same God. My guess is that if we were to question HWA closely he would admit to believing in a totally different God than the Jews, Christians and Muslims. His statement may have had strategic diplomatic value but is theologically confusing.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 12:33
I will explain to you why this is not a paradox. First, I stated that the verses Armstrongists cite to support their position are anthropomorphic. I believe that. And since HWA and his followers have never mounted a defense against this criticism, they do not have those verses as support for their view in the context of the debate. I referred to this in the sixth paragraph of my post.
John 5:37 can be used to support the idea that God does not have a shape.
I believe in the Law of Christ which includes the ten commandments and other NT laws and principles. I believe that the Mosaic Law has been abrogated although the NT retains some of its priciples. The fact that Armstrongists have fallen victim to the fallacy of anthropomorphism has nothing to do with my position on obedience to law.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Can and will all this philosophical speculating strengthen or weaken one’s faith, if a believer? On the other hand, will it strengthen or weaken the atheist point of view?
Now, if you are stronger in your faith can you physically demonstrate it to others? Or, if you are an atheist can you physically demonstrate to others how your position is now stronger? And, without the use of words to say how much stronger you are?
The Bible has a few little secrets most have never seen, nor understood. For example, “when struck on the cheek,, turn the other cheek…” Do you see what it’s telling you? Or, have you missed an important lesson?
What does it mean, “stand still and see the salvation of…?”
Of course there’s more.
A few years ago I showed one of the wcg members what I was talking about. He got scared, immediately left the room, and I never saw him again.
So, can Neo show us physically how his human meditations can strengthen us in a very positive way, versus stirring up “in fighting?” Please elucidate us.
Neo, I’m always amazed and amused at how much you claim to know about hwa. So, for reference reasons, spill the beans! You spent hours and hours with him privately, and therefore you are now an expert on his inner beliefs, and understanding, right?
OR, are you not just part of the fake media presuming to tell everyone how informed your biased reasonings are? Sounds more like an old ladies gossip party and rumor mongering.
You said: John 5:37 can be used to support the idea that God does not have a shape.
Here is a simple truth for you to meditate on: Neo Therm is someone who doesn’t reveal his real name, and is flesh therefore since I have never heard his voice, nor seen his form, he must be invisible, etc., etc. Does that mean he doesn’t have a brain? Only a mind? How does he get his words on the computer so we can read them? Therefore, Neo Therm can’t have a shape. Hmmmmmm….. oh no, Neo Therm doesn’t have a nose either,… can he smell things? Or, is he a she since we can’t see his form/shape?
Wow, you don’t suppose Dennis and Neo are the same person, OooRrr maybe they are father and son playing with us. Is Gary in on this plot?
(Great Satire for a purpose by Me Too)
I think this topic has run its course. As far as I know nobody has found any new enlightenment. I am arguing from the point of view of orthodox Christian belief. That God does not have a body has been believed by millions of Christians over the centuries and is believed now. But such facts of church history have never given Armstrongists pause. I would like to mention one more thing.
The best argument I know of in support of God having a body relies on God's possession of attributes. Someone might say: "God can have attributes. He is eternal, for instance. Eternity is an attribute. Having a body is just another attribute of God." What this means is that God has a definition. And why should that definition include eternity and other characteristics but not include a body?
The problem with this argument is that it is a category error. The attribute of eternity and the attribute of having a body or form belong in two different categories. The attribute of eternity is compatible with God's spiritual and uncreated infinitude. The attribute of having a form is a spatial attribute. It is not compatible with God's infinitude but is a property of the created cosmos. A form is something that exists in 3-space, that is, the 3-space created by God. There is also the underlying fact that a form is held in place by something that can be shaped and can retain a shape. So a form is held in place by some kind of "substance." Form and substance exist within the finite and created realm and do not apply to God.
But I believe that HWA encountered this issue of form and substance. He used such terms as God is of "spirit composition." Or we will be "spirit-composed" sons of God one day. So far as I know he never provided a Biblical exegesis of any sort to support these terms based on the verb "to compose." On the other hand, maybe his intent was that the phrase "God is of spirit composition" simply meant the same thing as Jesus said: "God is spirit."
Now that HWA is gone, it will remain forever unknown what he precisely meant by the word "compose" in its various forms. (For extensive use of these terms see HWA's booklet "Just What do You Mean ... Born Again.) But in any case form and substance are attributes of the created realm and not the uncreated and infinite God.
Sidebar: Back in the Seventies, a Pasadena grad told me that in one of his classes the idea was taught that the physical realm paralleled the spirit realm. This included not only the idea of government and rank but that God made artifacts and objects out of spirit. They were "of spirit composition". This was based on the idea that the pattern of the Temple was based on things in heaven. So a spirit object in heaven would have a physical parallel on earth. This makes "spirit" a substance that can be used in fabrication. I never heard anything more about this. And it does not exist in any documentation that I can find. This idea of spirit as substance would not resolve the controversy over whether God has a form but it may have been a hermeneutic used by Armstrongists in doctrinal development.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NeoThermNovember 4, 2021 at 1:31 PM
Anonymous 11:10
I use the term God to refer to the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
There you go proving my point by still using the g word, which is meaningless. HWA understood g about as much as he understood orbital mechanics, much like the ACOgs.
Yahweh (YHVH) is the Proto-Hebrew term for the Messiah in the OT and means “I AM”.
Keep striving….
Miller asks: I'm speaking, of course, about our ability to imagine things. And I've noticed that it only seems to provoke your ire/ridicule when it's mentioned in a spiritual/religious context.
I'm genuinely interested to know whether or not our ability to imagine things that don't actually exist ever troubles your thinking on the existence of a Creator?
I've said it before: The wholesale rejection of the imaginings of our "ignorant" forbearers on these topics seems a bit arrogant, childish and unwise to me. Yes, our fund of knowledge about ourselves, our universe, and our place in the grand scheme of thing....ALWAYS been dependent on the thinking of the generations which preceded ours?"
=======================================
Just home from work. Thanks for asking. Perhaps I am "imagined" out as all the things others have asked me to imagine over the past decades was truly just imagination with no reality to it. From my Presbyterian background where we imagined heaven to imagining the Wonderful World Tomorrow. It was just an exercise in imagining. Now I can imagine as well as anyone, but I think at this point in life it is less satisfying than searching out a matter, best we can with what we actually know and not just imagine to be. I am not in the least irritated with anything or anyone. If sharing my perspective seems like ridicule, that is not the intent. I just seem to have grown weary of speculation and imagining all things religious which cannot be proved in the least. Only imagined and taken in faith, which is the way religious issues are to be approached according to the Book.
"He that comes to God MUST BELIEVE that he is and the rewarder.... simply does not work for me. I also have trouble with the concept of "NO man can come to Father but by me" as Gospel Jesus is said to have said and proclaimed. Seems bordering on mental illness to me and no ne today would take a modern day human seriously if they said such a thing.
con't
con't..I guess I like Thomas's approach. "Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Now I am not sure this really happened and is not just a story to preface the idea that seeing is believing is ok but not seeking and believing is better. The Gospels are written like that. Because forever more there would be no Jesus to prove he was so belief now was more a function of faith in that which is not seen. I guess I used to go with that when younger, but I have seen so much "just believe", "trust me" and "I lie not" in my time, which fueled my growing skepticism, "just have faith" simply does not inspire me or motivate. I'm also not afraid not to have faith over facts. I did not invent this way of thinking and being.
People through thousands of years of history, yeah tens of thousands, have explained their world best they could with what they had to do it with. They imagined a lot of things. Right for them. Wrong for us as we have grown in our knowing.
I do bristle emotionally when I hear the nature of God speculated about in grand terms that reflect our own scientific and cultural times as if this is the answer to "God is". I don't believe anyone can know such things. Imagine? Sure! Know? Not yet or not ever.
Dennis,
Thanks for answering. Your answer clarified for me why you bristle when spiritual speculation is engaged in here. I continue to respect your journey and have no desire to persuade/convert you. Moreover, as I've stated before, my faith does NOT encompass your destruction/damnation/punishment on account of your disbelief. I do, however, wish that you could see that the conclusions which you have reached on these topics are NOT the only rational/reasonable ones available to us. For me, this sounds like "I'm right and you're wrong," "I have the truth, and you are deceived" "This makes sense, but your stuff is superstitious nonsense!" Not trying to be mean, but that's how you come across at times (and those of us who have emerged from the train wreck of Armstrongism have unfortunately heard those lines before).
Anonymous 2:43
I have described a God that is far greater and more glorious than the smaller, superhuman god that Armstrongists believe in. I think that is obvious. Why would that not be encouraging?
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Thanks for this, NEO. Sadly, I believe it has gone over many readers' heads. Their loss, imo.
Dennis, you wrote "I don't believe anyone can know such things"
Human epistemology is limited, whether spiritual or material. My position on the incoporeality of God is derived from orthodox Christianity. And Christians understand that they only know as much about God as God reveals. The people who know things with certitude are all in cults or have not really been challenged about what they know.
The limitations of knowledge affect materialism, too. Materialism has no advantage in that realm over religion. There is the issue of dark matter. Something in the cosmos that generates gravity but is not detectable. It is around 95 percent of the "matter" in the universe. What is not stated is that it is really an error term in the scientific theories about the cosmos. The scientific theories do not work. But scientists never say that. Instead, they label the error term "dark matter." This makes it sound like they know what it is, at least to a small degree.
I would imagine it is an ultimate bore for an atheist to sit on the sidelines when religious people debate something like the incorporeality of God. But scientists debate, too. And sometimes their stories about how things may have happened seem like fantasy. And after you hear enough of them, it becomes boring.
My guess is that when our lives end, we will have more questions than we have now. At least we will continue to look and think. Which is better than being locked away in a know-it-all fantasy dreamed up in the public library in Des Moines.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
EARTHLY AND HEAVENLY COUNTERPARTS - part 1
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [exousiai]. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. For rulers [archoi] are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same" (Romans 13:1,3, AV).
"The first word (exousia) is not a specific or technical term; it simply means those who are over others... Beyond v.1... [Paul] ...shifts from the plural to the singular, which suggest that the plural is meant to refer to the emperor and subordinate rulers, whereas the singular indicates any official of the government which whom a believer might become involved... With respect to the second word (archon v.3), we find Josephus using it, as Paul does, with reference to Roman rulers, but specifically those who ruled in the name of Rome over the Jews in Palestine (Jewish War II, 350)..." (Everett F. Harrison, Romans, EBC, Vol.10, pp.137,140).
"It is striking that the terms in Romans 13:1,3 for the governmental rulers instituted by God for the good of society (Gk. archon and exousia) are used in Ephesian 6:12 for the satanic powers against whom the Christian must wage spiritual warfare..." (Fuller, "Satan", p.342).
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities [archoi], against powers [exousias], against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places ["heavenly realms", NIV]" (Ephesians 6:12, AV).
"Paul ... introduces us to the devil ... and to certain 'principalities and powers' at his command..." (Stott, Ephesians, p.261). Their realm of operation is in the "high places". The Greek of "high places" is elsewhere translated "heavenly places" in the AV.
"The phrase ... en tois epouraniois, "in the heavenly realms" ... is peculiar to this Epistle... As R. Martin Pope has argued, it is used uniformly in Ephesians with reference to the unseen world..." (A. Skevington Wood, Ephesians, EBC, Notes, p.27).
"The Greek, en tois epouraniois, means literally 'ln the heavenly things', but the other uses of the phrase show that it is much more than a synonym for spiritual, and that our translators are justified in their rendering..." (Foulkes, Ephesians, p.45).
"In some NT passages archai and exousiai refer to human political rulers (e.g. "rulers and authorities," Lk 12:11; Titus 3:1, following the normal Greek usage... Most frequently, however, archai and exousiai refer to personal, superhuman powers belonging to the angelic order... The NT writers do not distinguish between the archai, exousiai... the hymn in Col 1:16 states that the "principalities and authorities" (archai and exousiai), along with "thrones" (thronoi), "dominions" (kyriotetes), and all things visible and invisible in heaven and on earth, were created "through" (dia) and "unto" (eis) Christ. Originally, therefore, they were a part of God's good creation" (A.J. Bandstra, "Principalities and Powers", ISBE, Vol.3, pp.971-972)...
"The import of Ephesians 6:12 is that "our struggle is not with human beings but with cosmic intelligences; our enemies are not human but demonic... Whether 'principalities' and 'powers' refer to different ranks of evil spirits ... both titles draw attention to the power and authority they wield" (Stott, Ephesians, pp.263-264).
Part 2
"In his commentary on Ephesians ... Dr Caird seems to concede that Paul was referring to 'spiritual beings who preside over all the forms and structures of power operative in the corporate life of men'. Indeed, 'The real enemies are the spiritual forces that stand behind all institutions of government, and control the lives of men and nations'" (Stott, Ephesians, p.270).
"...That they were given the names and titles as human rulers need not surprise us, since they 'were thought of as having a political organization' and are 'rulers and functionaries of the spirit world'" (Stott, Ephesians, p.272).
"... Since the first day that you [Daniel] set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia" (Daniel 10:1, 12-13, NIV).
"There is a spiritual world unseen, which is closely connected with the world of sense that meets our eyes. This chapter draws aside the veil, and gives us a glimpse into the spirit world..." (Fausset, Daniel, JFB, Vol.2, p.443).
"... the Bible tells us that ... [demons] ... are organized into various provinces or domains, which are referred to in the NT as archai ("governments," "rulers"), exousiai ("authorities"), and enjoy the status of kosmokratores ("world rulers," "powers of this world"). Without flesh and blood, they are evil spirit-beings who occupy assigned superterrestrial regions (cp. Eph 6:12: "the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm")" (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Daniel, EBC, Vol.7, pp.126-127).
"The prince of the kingdom of Persia... a representative of Persia in the heavenlies is intended; Greece also has an angelic counterpart (20)..." (Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel, TOTC, p.181).
The prince of Persia is "the angel of darkness that represented the Persian world-power, to which Israel was then subject..." (Fausset, Daniel, p.441).
[This demon-prince] "apparently the satanic agent assigned to the sponsorship and control of the Persian realm - put up a determined opposition to the actual delivery of the divine answer.
"While God, can of course, override the united resistance of all the forces of hell if he chooses to do so, he accords to demons certain limited powers of obstruction and rebellion somewhat like those he allows humans. In both cases the exercise of free will of opposition to the Lord of heaven is permitted by him when he sees fit... Verse 13 shows that the angels of God have power to counteract and thwart the agents of the Devil" (Archer, Jr., Daniel, p.441).
"... Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come... No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince" (Daniel 10:20-21, NIV).
"... the interpreting angel indicated that he was still in combat for the Lord and would soon have to return to the battlefield and fight against renewed attacks from the demon assigned to Persia by the prince of hell ... This antagonist would be succeeded and perhaps aided by another satanic champion called the "prince of Greece" (sar-yawan)..." (Archer, Jr., Daniel, p.126).
"When the difficulties arising from Satanic influence acting through the Persian court against Israel had been counteracted by the ministry of angels sent from God, a new enemy started up in the person of the prince of Grecia, who also was a weapon in Satan's hand, wielded against the people of God" (Fausset, Daniel, p.443).
"The heavenly warfare is to be directed against first Persia and then Greece, because each of these in turn will have power over God's people" (Baldwin, Daniel, p.182)...
Part 3
"For we wrestle ... against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).
"... There is one word in the Greek (kosmokratoras) for the whole phrase rulers...of this world" (Foulkes, Ephesians, pp.172-173).
"KOSMOKRATOR ... denotes a ruler of this world... In Greek literature, in Orphic hymns ... and in Rabbinic writings ['of Nebuchadnezzar and pagan monarchs' (Stott, Ephesians, p.264)], it signifies a ruler of the whole world, a world-lord. In the N.T it is used in Eph 6:12... The context ("not against flesh and blood") shows that not earthly potentates are indicated, but spirit powers, who ... exercise Satanic and therefore antagonistic authority over the world in its present condition of darkness and alienation from God" (Vine, "Ruler", p.307).
"... All these usages exemplify the notion of a worldwide rule. When applied to the powers of evil they are reminiscent of the devil's claim to be able to give Jesus 'all the kingdoms of the world'..." (Stott, Ephesians, p.264).
"Paul shares with other New Testament writers, and with Jesus himself, the belief in the existence of a dark power to whom the human race, and the world, is subject because of sin - and the belief that, in Jesus Christ, God had defeated this power and is establishing his own kingdom in its place" (N.T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon, TNTC, p.62).
The "kingdom of the God", comprising Christ and the saints, is to replace the "kingdom of Satan", comprising Satan and the demons, in the 'heavenlies'. This is the "Good News" of the Kingdom of God. The kingdom of light is to replace the kingdom of darkness in the "heavenly places" during the Millennium.
Here's another deep truth: The two great commandments of the Lord? Love for God, Love for fellow man? They're interrelated. The way you love fellow man is the way you love, period. So, the way you love fellow man is the way in which you love God. It means that some of the ACOG leaders who are so abusive to members can't possibly flip a switch and magically transform to a deep, meaningful love for God!
NeoTherm said... (Regarding objects that were made in heaven):-
‘This included …..the idea …that God made artifacts and objects out of spirit. They were "of spirit composition". This was based on the idea that the pattern of the Temple was based on things in heaven.’
So Neo what would you consider the composition of objects made for buildings that are in heaven? Bricks and Mortar?
NEO noted: "I would imagine it is an ultimate bore for an atheist to sit on the sidelines when religious people debate something like the incorporeality of God. But scientists debate, too. And sometimes their stories about how things may have happened seem like fantasy. And after you hear enough of them, it becomes boring.
============================
I would agree. It seems like discussing and debating over just how the Gingerbread House of the wicked witch in Hansel and Gretel could actually survive, without falling apart, in a heavy rain. I'd last a lot longer in a scientific debate as the basis of the discussion would be already established and reproduceable facts and observable phenomenon. And anything gets boring.
I admit my counselor once told me "Dennis you outgrow your boxes very quickly. If you stay in the last box, (church and ministry) everyone will love and support you. You'll also be miserable. If you leave the box, and you have, ........you go alone" Well, that proved to be the only prophecy ever that actually rolled around! :)
I agree, I love the Portland downtown library, but the third floor haunts me!
PS NEO If you really want to kill me off, just make me sit through a political discussion!
I think perhaps some of these concepts are a bit easier to understand if rather than placing God ‘outside of time’, we realise that God didn’t need to create time, because time doesn’t exist.
I will amplify that slightly. Take the past. Past events have happened, and they are unchangeable. Where, anywhere in the Bible, did God change something by going back in time, and changing what has happened? There are zero of these events. Any miracles God did, are ‘fixing’ the results of something that had previously happened.
Why is that? Simply because there is no past to go back to, the past no longer exists, except as a memory, or a recording. It’s not a limitation on God; it just doesn’t exist to go back to!
How about the future? The future doesn't exist either. God might prophesise the future, and it will happen certainly, but that is based on two factors. God’s great knowledge, to see how things are heading, but secondly God has the power to ensure an event He wants to happen will happen.
So we live in time/space, and time can go at different speeds? Yes, but in all this, time is going forward. It may be at a different rate in different situations, but never backwards.
There is only the present. God isn’t somehow ‘sitting outside of time’ – there is no time to sit out of.
1058-1100:
Huh?
Questeruk 4:51
First, I do not advocate that theory. Nor do I oppose it. If God made matter has he made other kinds of "stuff" that can be shaped and formed? I can't answer that question. I do not think anything is withheld from him. I just do not believe that God is himself made out of some kind of malleable stuff. I don't even know if what the Pasadena guy told me was taught at AC Pasadena as theory or if it was an article of faith. And it was conceived in a theological context where God was believed to be "composed" of eternal substance called "spirit."
It would be nice if we had a history of these ideas and what influence they had on doctrinal formation within Armstrongism but we don't. We have only the recollections of people.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Questeruk 5:52
But time does exist. Time interacts with gravity and this has been demonstrated experimentally. It is a part of the material cosmos that God created. I admit that trying to understand time is a practically useless effort. Trying to understand how God is timeless just gives me thought overload. The Bible states "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." (This makes Calvin's predeterminism almost seem plausible.) God has foreknowledge. None of this fits into my reality.
You can find all kinds of views on time on the internet. Some believe that time is actually motion. If that were true, then when motion ceases, right down to the vibration of atoms, time would cease to pass. So if the universe were just empty 3-space with nothing that could move, would there be no time or just nothing to happen in time? A mystery.
I don't know what time is but if it is a part of the created realm, God is not subject to it and for him there is not past, present and future.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Man has created god in man's image.
In the ancient world, realities like atmosphere were not part of their mindset.
God lived up there - you could even use a special ladder (Jacob's ladder) to go up there.
Angels could sing - which requires sound waves. Sound needs a material medium for their propagation.
When you died, you went down below. Samuel was disturbed from his rest. The rich man in Lazarus and the rich man parable was in torment while the poor beggar was in Abraham's bosom - Jewish belief and expression at the time.
The devil and demons came later - by NT times they were prominent in NT mythology - not much mention in the OT.
Is there a supreme being? If there is, it is unlikely he looks like us, and somewhat unlikely he knows much about us - if at all.
Dennis 5:31 "If you really want to kill me off, just make me sit through a political discussion!"
So if we ever need to do away with you, we'll put you in a tiny room with CNN and Faux News going all the time at the same time. No snacks.
TLA 1:07
You have notice something that drives literalists crazy and is grist for the atheist mill.
The Bible is an enculturated document. It reflects the culture of its day. Genesis 1 describes the universe using the ancient Semitic comological model. It does not describe the universe using quantum mechanics or whatever will replace quantum mechanics yet in our future.
In that sense, the Bible is incarnational. Just as Jesus became a First Century Jew, the Bible reflects its time and place. It nevertheless conveys the intended principles.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Post a Comment