Creating Entangled Photons from a Helium Atom
Quantum Physics and the Incorporeality of God
Armstrongist Anthropomorphism in a Quantum Reality
By Scriptor
Theology must be informed by science. Otherwise, theology will be bound to an archaic world of unrealism. The Genesis creation account, for instance, is based on ancient Near Eastern cosmology. A cosmology in which the sky is an arcing vault made of some kind of solid material and it is blue because there is water stored behind it and it is close enough so that birds can fly up to it and stars are little tiny lights in this firmament and one might even build a tower to reach it and God lives just on the other side of the vault. My guess is that nobody reading this article believes this today even though it is written in the Bible. If you never had a science course in public school at least you watched Star Trek. The Bible content was written up during a certain period of time, by a certain people with a certain level of scientific development. That does not limit its efficacy as a literary presentation of moral principle. Science may change. Moral principle does not. This is the backdrop for this essay.
Quantum Entanglement and the Idea of Space
Our world is a world of big stuff – rocks, trees, water. But this world of big stuff emerges from another world of very, very tiny stuff – most of it particulate or resembling particles. Light is composed of photons, for instance. And this world, called the quantum world, behaves very differently than our world of large things. This may seem irrelevant but it has very high relevancy to theology.
Here is something that will be used in this essay that has an impact on theology but comes out of the quantum world. It is called quantum entanglement. Two photons can be entangled or, let us say, “connected.” These photons then may act as a pair. An effect on one, like maybe changing its direction of spin, will immediately, in the same segment of time, cause the spin of the other to change. They have identical, linked behavior. The really amazing thing, something that Einstein called ‘spooky behavior at a distance’, is that it does not make any difference how far away the two photons are from each other. One could be in your backyard and its twin could be 10 light years away and if you changed the spin of the one in your backyard, the spin on the one ten lights years away would also change identically. Scientists don’t really know what happens here but they know it happens. It is as if in the quantum realm the idea of space does not exist. And in this reality of the incredibly small, Physicist believe that distance does not exist (Not all of them, of course. You can never get agreement from all of them on most anything.)
If you have a level of reality that is fundamental to our level of reality and distance does not exist in that fundamental reality, it has implications for whether or not God has a bodily existence in his essence. This concern will be further developed below.
God is Incorporeal – The Scriptures
Before we proceed with quantum mechanics, an exegesis from the New Testament concerning God’s ontological nature will give us a necessary point of departure. Jesus is the culmination of the Law and the Prophets. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” So, Jesus can be consulted on all those places in the Law and the Prophets where it speaks about God because he is the culmination of the message. He knows what the text means because he personally is the fulfilment of the words of that message including all the words that describe God as having eyes, hands and other body parts. Jesus was semantics in being and action.
And Jesus said, “God is a Spirit (John 4:24).” God, in his essence, is Spirit. But to us Spirit is something like attitude or mood. How could a Being be nothing but that kind of Spirit? So, Jesus explained it further in another place by using an analogy to something we know from our created world. Jesus stated in John 3:8:
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit…The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”
From this we know that Spirit has the following properties:
1. It has existence.
2. It is not visible to humans.
3. It does not have form, as the wind does not have form.
4. It is of a totally different category from flesh.
This has to be a puzzle for Old Testament literalists. They must believe that God has a body and that Moses saw God. Yet, the New Testament tells us that God is pneuma. But humans also have pneuma. Humans are viewed in the New Testament as being composed of pneuma, psuche and sarx – spirit, animating principle, and flesh. In the verse above, when Jesus said “God is Spirit” the word recorded as Spirit is pneuma. When, 1 Corinthians 2:11, Paul speaks of the “spirit in man” the word he uses is pneuma. We then are beings with a pneuma where mind resides. But doctors, people who can be trusted to be careful, scientific observers, have never seen a visible, formed spirit emerge from the human body at death as the Old Testament literalists would believe. We have come to understand that Moses really just saw a theophany of God, a vision prepared by God for human discernment – like a metaphor in action. Jesus, who should know, said, “No one has seen God at any time…”
The Invention of the Idea that Spirit as Substance with Form
In spite of the words of Jesus, in John 3:8 and 4:24, some who have fallen under the influence of Semi-Arianism believe that there is a way to support the idea that God has a body. This is by defining spirit to be a substance that will hold form like matter in our realm. There are some difficulties with this idea. The first is, if God exists as a formable substance, who formed him? Is he not the only God? If he formed himself, does that not say that in his original essence, he had no form?
Some assert that any artifact that is in heaven, such as the heavenly Temple, is made of spirit. While there may be formable substances that angels and other spirit beings use to fabricate artifacts, this is not necessarily true. In the Book of Revelation, our only real window into the heavenly realm, John of Patmos saw objects made of gold and various precious and semi-precious stones (Rev 21:18-21). John’s inspired understanding of these building materials indicates that they were composed of matter as we know it.
Moreover, in the writings of those who support the idea of spirit as a formable substance, spirit is a single type of substance. This is a requirement because if you want to bridge the idea of spirit as formable substance from the artifacts of the heavenly Temple to God’s supposed body, it must all have the same properties. But that is an unproven and unprovable assertion. Nowhere in scripture does it refer to heavenly artifacts as pneuma, but God is pneuma. Some heavenly artifacts may be made out of some ever-enduring formable substance, something we might call “spirit” because we have don’t know what it is, but there is no exegesis that will show that God, who is pneuma, is made out of this same substance. The term “spirit” is bandied about indiscriminately.
God is Incorporeal – The Quantum Mechanics
Physicists speak of entangled particles, like the photons we discussed earlier, as having “non-locality.” The quantum particles are not really bound by location and distance. If God had a body he would be bound by location and distance. A bounded object in 3-space would model this idea. If God were at point A in 3-space, he would not be a point B. If God wanted to go to point B, he would have to cover some distance to get there. And when he arrives he will be at point B and no longer at point A. Yet, photons function as if space and distance do not exist. This means that God is constrained by distance but photons are not.
This creates a dilemma. Would God make particles with greater freedom than he himself has? Or more to the point, could he even make particles with more freedom that he himself has? Do you think he could make something that could do something that he himself could not do and yet be omnipotent? The rational conclusion is that God is not constrained by distance and the physics of large material objects moving in space, a characteristic of bodily existence, does not apply to him. So, the entire creation is present with him at once – something called omnipresence in orthodox Christianity.
Summation – God is Transcendental
While what I have written I believe is a better explanation than believing that anthropomorphisms are literal, I understand that God cannot be known; my views for me are just a placeholder until the real understanding comes.
A few months back, a contributor to this blog said God is comprehensible. I had just made statements about God being transcendental. His feeling was that if you could not understand God, what’s the point. I think he thought that God was a kind of Superman and maybe we are all Clark Kent and one day we would take off our human suit and put on Superman clothes – Superman who was really quite human except for a few super powers. This is the natural outcome of the idea that God has a body – and is like us. That God is not really transcendent – just a more powerful version of us. It makes the bumptious idea that one day we will be “God as God is God” seem like something within reach. But God says in Isaiah 65:18, “But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create…” If we will be equal to God, wouldn’t we be doing our own creating and rejoicing at our creations instead? It is clear that God expects this to be the eternal condition of our relationship with him – he creates and we rejoice. Yet, being a Creator is the principal part of what God is. If you are going to be God as God is God and you do not create, you are missing the principal part of being God. I am glad that God created quantum reality and scientists can barely understand it even though they can experiment with it. It informs my personal theology that God happily transcends all that we children of God know.
Forever.
God is Great!
People, most of whom understand neither physics, or the Bible, are always trying to combine the latest fads. It proves nothing about anything. Religion keeps reinventing itself. Buddhists love Einstein as they consider him almost one of their own. As they see it, he proved Buddhism is true.
ReplyDeleteIt has been my experience that folks like to say that they are literalists (I used to say it myself), but they don't really mean it. If you dig down into their assertion and ask them about some of the things we find in Scripture, that assertion tends to quickly evaporate. For example, was there actually a walking/talking snake in the Garden of Eden or was that Satan talking to the woman (Revelation 12:9)? Did God actually carry the Israelites on eagles' wings to Mount Sinai or did he march them across the desert (Exodus 19:4)? Are you REALLY a literalist?
ReplyDeleteIf God is confined to a particular time and place, how can He be wherever two or three are gathered together in his name (Matthew 18:20)? If God is confined to a particular place, how can he fill the heavens and the earth (Jeremiah 23:24)? How can the "eyes" of the Lord be in every place (Proverbs 15:3)? By the way, do those "eyes of the Lord" have lenses, irises, corneas, and retinas? Do those "eyes" need light to see? If God is confined to a particular place and time, then why is the Psalmist unable to escape Him wherever he decides to go (Psalm 139:7-10)?
Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines literalism as "adherence to the explicit substance of an idea or expression." I ask again: Are you REALLY a literalist?
You can find many articles which use the science of your choice to promote the religion of your choice. Buddhists love Einstein for that reason.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/einstein-and-buddha-convergence-between-science-and-eastern-philosophy/
Since people can (and will) rationalize nearly anything, it all just goes to prove the worthlessness of religion. Or science. Whatever. Take your pick.
Are you REALLY a literalist?
ReplyDeleteStupidest question I've ever heard. Everyone knows some things are literal and some are not.
Makes one ponder as to what "Made in the image of God" implies, and means ultimately.
ReplyDeleteI think it is possible to be a "literalist" in the basic fundamental truth conveyed and still understand how figures of speech are used for emphasis.
ReplyDeleteWas Adam and Eve real people? I think so.
Is Satan a literal being? Yes.
Did God literally take Israel out of Egypt? Yes. On eagle's wings? No, but the figure of speech used conveys a layer of truth the holy spirit has inspired for additional understanding (see Deuteronomy 32:11-12).
Ignorance of this distinction can cause great confusion and is caused by taking literally which is figurative and visa versa!
Blessed are those whom God gives eyes to see and ears to hear!
Can't read after the first three sentences. BS. The Bible has revelation of knowledge that science would never be able to ascertain, obtain, discern, get, acquire, sense, discover, find.
ReplyDeleteThey don't open up the Bible and read scripture. They don't encourage a personal relationship with Jesus.
ReplyDeleteRELIGiOUS SPIRIT Satan loves that.
They are role models for Satan's kingdom with no power and authority. The leadership has a PHD in division, deception, and distraction.
"God is great."
ReplyDeleteWho says? There is a case to be made that God is not great. The GREAT Christopher Hitchens Himself wrote a book all about it. Blows this silly little article out of the water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great
Quantum physics is above the pay grade of who ever wrote this or who ever reads it on this site.
ReplyDelete1:04
ReplyDeleteI believe that, too. The Bible has revelation that science could not discover but it is in the area of spiritual life and morality. The science of the Bible is the science of the ancient Near East. The history of the OT is the national history of a group of people that God chose for a specific purpose. The Bible contains contradictions and paradoxes because God let his children tell the story and curate it.
Nothing I have written is at odds with a careful interpretation of the Biblical text.
Scriptor
Tonto:
ReplyDeleteThe image of God and the likeness of God have many different interpretations. One of the most convincing that I have encountered is the history of ancient kings placing images, probably statues, of themselves in the distinat provinces of their kingdoms. This represented their authority. The statue represented the king to the people and reminded them that they were under the of the distant king. Notice in Genesis that right after the verse about the image, there is discussion about human authority on earth.
What image does not represent is that God has a body and humans are made to look like him. If God had a body and that were the case, Neanderthals and early Homo Sapiens in the Pleistocene (even Hoeh admitted there were "pre-Adamic" men) would have carried the image of God. Whereas, the image in Genesis seems to have been something that came about way later - in the Neolithic - at the time of Adam.
HWA's use of likeness in a biological sense also does not fly. He used it mean species and, therefore, we are of the God species. And we find this later to mean erroneously God as God is God. Species might be OK. But only in the sense that we will be "partakers of the divine nature" not in the sense of God as God is God. I have been intrigued by the word Elohim - it seems to mean the class of sentient beings that God, Angels and man all might belong to. My two cents...
Scriptor
Tonto, to the best of my understanding (and that of others in mainline Christian denominations) that refers to our spirits. Since God is spirit and noncorporeal, He says we must worship Him in spirit and truth. We are all born with a spirit within us that must be brought to life (i.e., quickened, born again). When we become believers in the finished work of Jesus on the cross, the Holy Spirit seals and indwells us. It is He who quickness our spirits so that we can worship God. That is what Jesus was trying to explain to Nicodemus. It is the Spirit who gives life. Our spirits having been born again can now worship God as He demands in a way that is not possible if we limit our uderstanding to the physical, or worse, deny the necessity of being born again now to belong to God. The understanding of HWA on this topic is heartbreaking. His teaching that Jesus was the first "born again" man is blasphemous. Jesus is the ONLY person who ever lived that DID NOT NEED to be born again, since He has ALWAYS had a spirit that IS ALIVE. Herbert totally confused and conflated this topic and did immeasurable harm to those who believed him.
ReplyDeleteGod says we must worship Him in spirit and truth and Jesus says unless we are born again we cannot enter the Kingdom of God. So we believe, and the Holy Spirit changes our dead spirits into living ones, we are saved and now can properly worship God and enter the Kingdom. It is at this point that we are in the image of God.
Adam and Eve really left us with two choices. Oblivious continuation of "life" with a dead spirit within us (and eternal damnation awaiting us) or receiving Jesus and having our dead spirit raised to life (and eternal life with God awaits us). Once born again, we are made in the image of God. It isn't about how we look or how He looks. It is about coming to life in Jesus. How beautiful is that!? I hope that helped!
Amen BP8. I agree with you! Context matters and it is that which determines the meaning. That and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteIf we are serious about using physics to determine what is reality, then we need to listen to a wide range of ideas about it. Why just pick and choose from a narrow perspective that some one person wants to argue? So why not this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzC92VJJnvg
I think the term "literalist" is just a word which was adapted to quantify a particular subset of stupid people. People have been known to become frustrated with the obtuse ones, you know!
ReplyDeleteEzekiel 1:26-27 describes God sitting on His travelling throne.
ReplyDeleteChrist stated in John 14:9 that "if have seen Me, you have seen the Father," ie, God the Father looks similar to Christ.
These articles by Scriptor contradict many simple scriptures.
If someone here calls you a literalist, you'd better take some introspection. It probably means you are perceived in the same light as Zerubbabel, Bob Thiel, Tony Roach, Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, or any of the other members of the COGlodyte version of the Insane Clown Posse! The terms "inerrantist" and "fundamentalist" are not quite so pejorative. But, hey. Check yer shorts.
ReplyDeleteYa know you may be right, 1:04. Problem is anyone who teaches the Bible pollutes it with their own crap. So, I guess we'll never know!
ReplyDeleteBP8 wrote, "I think it is possible to be a "literalist" in the basic fundamental truth conveyed and still understand how figures of speech are used for emphasis."
ReplyDeleteThis is a conundrum. Sometimes it is not easy to separate figures of speech from language that is to be taken literally. An allied question: Is there are certain threshhold of received knowledge we must exceed in order to be saved? Can someone who believes God is embodied receive salvation? I believe so. Prior to the writing of the New Testament there might have been early Christians living in the back country who retained the Hebrew idea that God had a body. I believe there is a required threshhold of knowledge but I have no idea where that line in the sand is. Maybe it is different for each person depending on the activity of the Holy Spirit in their lives and their personal circumstances.
Scriptor
Nothing I have written is at odds with a careful interpretation of the Biblical text.
ReplyDeleteYour interpretation.
5:07 My response below:
ReplyDeleteEzekiel 1:26-27 describes God sitting on His travelling throne.
This is a theophany. God is also described as a pillar of fire and a whirlwind and a rock. Because Ezekiel's metaphor is more human-like, this does not make it any less a metaphor.
Christ stated in John 14:9 that "if have seen Me, you have seen the Father," ie, God the Father looks similar to Christ.
Does this refer to his body or his activities? Armstrongists assume that Jesus is speaking of his body. From this they deduce that God and Jesus and Adam are all identical in the way they look. But the context of John 14 is the ministry Jesus is conducting. How odd it would be for Phillip to suddenly change the topic from Jesus' work to what the Father looks like. Jesus already explained to the disciples earlier in John that the Father is Spirit and explained the characteristics of the spirit. Phillip was asking for more information not an appearance.
These articles by Scriptor contradict many simple scriptures.
My articles contradict Armstrongism not the simple scriptures. Hundreds of millions of Christians understand these scriptures as I have portrayed them. Only a small number of denominations do not including the litte Semi-Arian Apocalyptic Millerite denominations that follow Armstrongism.
Scriptor
4:01 wrote, "Why just pick and choose from a narrow perspective that some one person wants to argue?"
ReplyDeleteI don't want to argue. Not my purpose. I would like to have some Armstrongists awaken to their condition and turn and pursue Christianity. Even if it were just one person.
But if you want to debate, I'm your huckleberry.
Scriptor
2:27 wrote, "Quantum physics is above the pay grade of who ever wrote this or who ever reads it on this site."
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't want to discourage the readers, would you? Quantum physics is above my pay grade and yours but it is not beyond the physicists whose research and writing I have relied on.
Scriptor
ReplyDeleteI am amazed that no one has picked up Scripter for his lack of Biblical proof that God has no body.
His sole proof is quoting John 3v8, which says no such thing! The verse likens Spirit to the wind in the sense that you can’t see it, so can’t tell where it comes from, or where it goes.
Scripter then makes four points from this verse,
1. It has existence.
2. It is not visible to humans.
3. It does not have form, as the wind does not have form.
4. It is of a totally different category from flesh.
Now three points are valid. The verse shows that Spirit exists, that it is not visible to humans, and that it is a different category from flesh. All fine, but none of these three points have any bearing on spirit having a form or not.
But his key point 3 ‘It does not have form, as the wind does not have form’ this verse is no way saying that. The verse is likening sprit to the wind in that you can’t tell where the wind comes from or where it goes (because you can’t see it) and says that ‘so is every one that is born of the Spirit’. In other words you can’t see them, and so can’t tell where they come from or go to.
Absolutely nothing to do with if they do or do not have a body. Scripter’s whole thesis is based on his erroneous reading of this verse, and the invalid point he contrives from it.
Revelation 19:11-16 describes Christ sitting on a white horse having a head etc.
ReplyDeleteOh wait, that's just "theophany" folks. Ha, ha, ha.
Quantum physics disproves the bible. Ha, ha, ha, ha.
As the Bible is ancient-Near Eastern literature it poses a problem in understanding the meaning of what is written. Therefore, a verse may be seen one way by an ancient-Near Eastern hearer/reader and a different way by a modern-Westerner reader.
ReplyDeleteJn 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
And even for a ancient-Near Easterner there was a difficulty in understand what Jesus’ words meant.
Jn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be BORN [gennao] AGAIN [anothen], he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Jn 3:3 Jesus replied to him, "Truly, I tell you emphatically, unless a person is BORN [gennao] FROM ABOVE [anothen] he cannot see the kingdom of God." (ISV).
Jn 3:31a He that cometh FROM ABOVE [anothen] is above all:
Jn 3:31b he that cometh from heaven is above all.
“The word translated again in 3:3 and also in 3:7 is anothen, which when used elsewhere in this Gospel means ‘from above’, that is, from heaven/from God (3:31; 19:11, 23). Elsewhere in the New Testament it also usually means ‘from above’ (Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38; Jas 1:17; 3:15, 17). Jesus was saying what the prologue foreshadows: that children of God (and therefore inheritors of the kingdom) are those who have been born of God, that is, from above. However, Nicodemus took Jesus to mean he had to be physically born ‘again,’ as the next verse indicates” (Colin G. Kruse, John Revised, TOTC, p.114.
What, then, does Jesus mean by being “born again”/"born from above”?
Jn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Jn 1:13 Which were born ... of God.
1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
1Jn 5:1a Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
“In vv.5-8 Jesus restates and expands his earlier statement that to see the kingdom of God one must undergo a second birth (v.3). The parallel nature of these two passages indicates that to be “born again” means to be “born of water and the Spirit... it is clear that John intends his readers to understand the expression as a reference to Christian baptism and the resulting gift of the Holy Spirit. The immediate background is the testimony of John the Baptist regarding baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Spirit (see 1:33). Water baptism by itself is inadequate; it must be accompanied by what it signifies - the cleansing wok of the Spirit. Far from teaching a doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the verse informs us that the initiatory rite of baptism is intended to lead to a life infused by the cleansing power of the Spirit” (Robert H. Mounce, John, EBC, Revised, Vol.10, p.396).
Jn 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Eze 36:25a Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean:
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
“A clear Old Testament reference to a birth associated with water and Spirit is Ezekiel 36:25-27, which refers to the new order of the messianic age in which there will be a new experience of cleansing... Jesus is therefore informing Nicodemus that this new day of cleansing and power anticipated by the prophet is now to hand, the long-awaited messianic age in now present. (By implication this is because the King, the Messiah - Jesus himself is now present)...” (Bruce Milne, The Message of John, BST, p.76).
Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image [tselem], after our likeness [demuth]:
ReplyDeleteGen 5:3a And Adam ... begat a son in his own likeness [demuth], after his image [tselem];
Ge 5:2 Male and female created he them ... and called [way-yig-ra] their name Adam,
Ge 5:3b and called [way-yig-ra] his name Seth:
"There is a similarity between the picture of the first parents and their sons and that of God and Adam. This is most readily seen in the fact that God's naming Adam appears here for the first time in Genesis... In other words, the effect of this prologue [Genesis 5:1-3] is to cast God in the role of a father who has named Adam as his son.
"... the role of God as a father is heightened even further by the parallel between his creating Adam "in the image of God" and Adam giving birth to a son "in his own likeness, in his own image" (v.3)" (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, EBC., Vol.2, p.70).
Eze 16:17 Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images [tselem] of men, and didst commit whoredom with them,
2 Ki 16:10 And King Ahaz goes to meet Tiglath-Pileser king of Asshur [at] Damascus, and sees the altar that [is] in Damascus, and King Ahaz sends to Urijah the priest the likeness [demuth] of the altar, and its pattern, according to all its work,
I am amazed that so many folks are being so obtuse on this point! Scriptor has described a God who cannot be contained or limited by a book or our notions about what that book reveals about him. Even so, there have been a number of posts and comments written on this subject which employ MANY Bible verses (I mentioned a few of them in my previous comment in this thread).
ReplyDeleteHowever, the passage quoted from John strongly implies that flesh is VERY different from spirit. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." - Verse 6 That sounds an awful lot to me like Jesus was distinguished between the two "substances" (our word).
While Scripture makes clear that God CAN manifest as a human, it also makes plain that He can manifest as a burning bush, cloud, pilar of fire, whisper, disembodied voice, angel, spirit, etc. In other words, God is NOT confined/limited to a particular space, shape, or time. God exceeds our reality (He created it, remember?)
Yes, God can sit on a throne, but He can also hover over the water! God can walk in a garden in the cool of the day or he can manifest as a still small voice!
Questeruk 9:40
ReplyDeleteJesus used wind as an analogy. You have started with the presumption that God has a body and then selected the three characteristics in Jesus' analogy that supported your idea. In logic this is called Begging the Question - you assumed what you were intended to prove.
First, you challenge Jesus by saying that his analogy is not correct and that HWA is really correct. Then you say Jesus' sole statement is not enough. Even though Jesus is God, for you, he apparently needs to provide a great volume of scripture, no doubt many coming out of the Old Testament.
In the above paragraph, do you see a disturbing pattern in your reasoning? Where could you have picked this pattern up? The fact is, if formlessness were inapt in describing spirit, Jesus would not have used the wind as an analogy thereby forcing you to pick and choose, as if you could, what is right and what is not.
Scriptor
12:02 Mr. Ha,Ha,Ha
ReplyDelete"Revelation 19:11-16 describes Christ sitting on a white horse having a head etc.
Oh wait, that's just "theophany" folks."
Jesus has a body and if he wants to sit on a white horse, of whatever origin, he can. This observation has nothing to do with the question of whether God in his essence has a body. And I did not assert that this is a theophany. It may not be. It may be a pre-vision of reality.
"Quantum physics disproves the bible."
No, quantum physics disproves the Semi-Arian doctrine of God maintained by Armstrongism. It is common for Armstrongists to claim that when one attacks Armstrongism, one is attacking God or the Bible, as if these are all compatible. This way, they can artfully dodge facing the issues.
My assertion is that the Armstrongist Semi-Arian doctrine of God (that came out of the Millerite Movement of the 19th century and was passed down through the Church of God Seventh Day to G.G. Rupert and then to HWA) is incompatible with the Bible and, in particular, the words of Jesus. The words of Moses do not offset the words of Jesus.
But to Armstrongists, by quoting Jesus, I am trying to disprove the Bible. Don't you think there is something odd about this approach?
Scriptor
8:03 "Your interpretation."
ReplyDeleteEveryone who reads the Bible interprets it. You do, I do and so did HWA. So it is a foregone conclusion, not a revelation, that this is my interpretation. My guess is that it will be surprising to you that your belief is also an interpretation.
In semantics, it is understood that we do not receive meaning from words but impart meaning to words. Different life experiences give different meanings to the words in our vocabulary and concept inventories. HWA imparted meaning to the Bible by drawing on his life experiences including the influences he received from the Semi-Arian (at one time, though I understand there are still Arians in their ministry) Church of God Seventh Day.
It is a struggle to find the truth of matters. Hence, the midrashic approach of the Jews - something that is totally absent from dogmatic Armstrongism.
Scriptor
"Die Wahrheit wird euch frei machen."
Questeruk, I also picked up on your point about the "wind" and I am in full agreement. Good post!
ReplyDeleteScriptor,
Another conundrum I see is, what does your orthodox version of the holy trinity look like post resurrection of Christ? You've skirted this before with no answer.
If God the Father has no body, form and shape, and the resurrected Christ possesses all 3, what does this do to trinitarian ontology? We have the Father (an essence), the Son (body, form and shape), and the HS (essence), supposedly comprising the one Godhead, all sharing one essence, substance, and nature. Other carnal questions one could ask:
-it has been alleged that a body cannot be omnipresent. Does this put Christ at a disadvantage to the Father and HS or is it just a matter of economy?
-we have Christ with a body described as sitting on the right of an essence (Heb.1:3, 13)? Strange picture!
-In John 17:5 it is Christ's desire to return to the glory he had previously shared with the Father. How does that work, and is that even possible now that they are different?
-if Christ, who has a body, and the Father, who doesn't, are to make their abode (John 14:23), with us, who have bodies, what kind of family dynamic is that?
I could go on but I'm speaking as a fool, for even with the things God has chosen to reveal about Himself, who can really KNOW HIM? At best, we can only speculate!
The Trinity offers a version of God as does Armstrong. I personally think Armstrong's version is as good as any! Is either required for salvation? NO!!!
Mortal:Tell me, since we mortals seem to have such erroneous views about your real nature, why don't you enlighten us? Why don't you guide us the right way?
ReplyDeleteGod:What makes you think I'm not?
Mortal:I mean, why don't you appear to our very senses and simply tell us that we are wrong?
GOD:Are you really so naive as to believe that I am the sort of being which can appear to your senses? It would be more correct to say that I am your senses.
Mortal (astonished):You are my senses?
God:Not quite, I am more than that. But it comes closer to the truth than the idea that I am perceivable by the senses. I am not an object; like you, I am a subject, and a subject can perceive, but cannot be perceived. You can no more see me than you can see your own thoughts. You can see an apple, but the event of your seeing an apple is itself not seeable. And I am far more like the seeing of an apple than the apple itself.
--------------------
As to the mysteries of quantum gravity, there is, incidentally, more analogy than you realize between a physical object exerting gravitational attraction and a sentient being exerting free will on said matter which leads to the collapse of the wave-function and all that mysterious technical jazz!
"It from Bit" as John Archibald Wheeler would say.
DBP
BP8 wrote, "At best, we can only speculate"
ReplyDeleteRight. I don't know the answers to you questions. I don't think anybody does. All center on how Jesus, as fully God and fully man, is now inherent in the Trinity. I have theories but they are just theories. Whoever comes up with a theory must incorporate that fact that the Persons of the Holy Spirit are different in economy but co-equal in ontology and the fact that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
Scriptor
It is important to remember that William Miller was NEVER a Sabbatarian, never associated with the COG 7, and was in fact a Baptist Minister until his death.
ReplyDeleteWe can't really discern from the sparse and picturesque language of the Old Testament with its periodic revisions and translations, but it is possible that God even used Balaam's donkey as His personal puppet for one of his theophanies. What I think is really cool about that is that using a donkey totally sidesteps the sins and bad traits of a human messenger. We know that God hates sin, and we humans tend to really look down those who commit the worst of sins. God will use a sinless donkey to get His message out when the message is that important.
ReplyDeleteI tell you what. I'd much rather get my messages from a donkey than from the cast of ACOG clown-ministers we hold accountable here. As far as I'm concerned, Bob Thiel, Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, and some of these other guys ought to go out and buy themselves a Donkey!
Quantum physics is above my pay grade and yours but it is not beyond the physicists whose research and writing I have relied on.
ReplyDeleteThat's not what Feynman said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html
* 5:57 writes:
ReplyDelete"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." - Verse 6 That sounds an awful lot to me like Jesus was distinguished between the two "substances" (our word).
This illustrates the point of the difficulty of reading ancient Near-Eastern literature. You see 3:6 one way, if I understand your comment correctly, others see it another way:
Ro 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, EVEN SO IT IS NOW.
“... The full sentence represented by this elliptic one is: "even so now does he that is born after the flesh persecute him that is born after the Spirit." This was a fact with which the apostle’s experience was but too familiar” (Galatians, Pulpit Commentary).
“While John does not use the term “flesh” in the same way as does Paul, to denote mankind’s nature, he yet uses it in such a way as to make clear that it is, so to speak the earth earthly” (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, p.194).
“Jesus continues by reminding Nicodemus of the principle that like produces like... His point is simply that “flesh” and “spirit” are different spheres of reality, each producing offspring like itself... “Flesh is human nature ... it produces only that which is mortal like itself. “Spirit” differs from “flesh: not in being immaterial as opposed to material, but in being immortal as opposed to mortal. “Flesh” is subject to death, “spirit” is not... This verse, with what precedes it, affords a basis in the Jesus tradition for Paul’s pronouncement that “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Cor 15:50). The latent implication of Jesus’ word is those “born of the Spirit” are no longer “flesh” but are themselves “spirit” (see v.8) - not that they are no longer human or no longer in the body, but they “have eternal life” (compare vv.15-16) and are consequently no longer mortal (compare 8:51; 11:26)” (J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT, pp.185-186).
Scriptor 6.22am
ReplyDeleteI am replying to your comments on my posting, as you are deliberately or innocently misrepresenting my comments!
Your para 1:-
’Jesus used wind as an analogy. You have started with the presumption that God has a body and then selected the three characteristics in Jesus' analogy that supported your idea. In logic this is called Begging the Question - you assumed what you were intended to prove.’
Yes, this is an analogy – I have actually started with zero presumptions – just let the verse speak for itself. I agree that three of your four points are reasonable conclusions from the content of the verse. However it’s your point 3 that I am questioning, as it is you, Scripter that is shoehorning in meaning to match your presumption that God has no body. You are condemned by your own words – ‘you assumed what you were intended to prove’
Your para 2
’First, you challenge Jesus by saying that his analogy is not correct and that HWA is really correct. Then you say Jesus' sole statement is not enough. Even though Jesus is God, for you, he apparently needs to provide a great volume of scripture, no doubt many coming out of the Old Testament’
I neither challenge Jesus, nor even mention HWA! I am reading what the analogy actually says! I am however suggesting that you (not Jesus!) are using one single verse to try to extract a meaning that is not there, and then claim that this overrides dozens of other verses in the scriptures, many of which are actually in the New Testament!
Your Para 3
In the above paragraph, do you see a disturbing pattern in your reasoning? Where could you have picked this pattern up? The fact is, if formlessness were inapt in describing spirit, Jesus would not have used the wind as an analogy thereby forcing you to pick and choose, as if you could, what is right and what is not.
The disturbing pattern is in your reasoning. Jesus is not discussing formlessness – he is discussing visible and invisible. Jesus is making the point that although spirit is invisible to human eyes, you can see the effects of the spirit.
Questeruk 12:33
ReplyDeleteI don't see any logical development behind your conclusions about my comments. I took the full extent of Jesus' meaning into consideration. You ommitted the meaning that did not align with your belief. You did not actually let the verse speak for itself. Somehow I do not believe invoking HWA was inappropriate. My guess is that your belief in a god with a body is related to some history that you have with Armstrongism. Maybe you developed the idea yourself - but my guess is that you did not. All you have done here is double down on the error of Begging the Question. Jesus' words are about spirit being not only invisible but formless. If the wind had form, it would be visible. These two attributes are inseparable in our realm of matter ane energy. If you accept the invisibility part of his meaning, you must accept the necessary formlessness part of his meaning as well. That is an unavoidable conclusion.
Jesus could have constructed an analogy for Nicodemus that portrayed invisibility yet with form. He could have said that spirit is like a man behind a wall. You cannot see him and you cannot know his movements, but he is yet there. This would have preserved the idea of form. But, instead, he used the analogy of the wind which has neither invisibility or form.
It is worthwhile pointing out that the word "wind" in John 3:8 is the word pneuma. Pneuma can mean either "breath" or "wind" and is used to represent spirit. In John 3:8 most translators have used the term "wind" but a few use the term "spirit" instead of wind. But I believe the use of the word pneuma, whether breath or wind, still supports the idea that spirit is without form.
Scriptor
Scriptor
ReplyDeleteThis thread is reaching its end, so I will make this my final comment on the subject.
You are acting and writing as if you have some belief in the scriptures. If this is the case, it puzzles me that you choose to ignore literally hundreds of scriptures, many of them in the New Testament, that refer to God as having a body.
You then desperately cling to just one single scripture that you seem to feel might perhaps hint at the belief that you want to get over.
In effect you are ridiculing all these myriad of other scriptures, saying they don’t mean what they say, but this one scripture says what you want others to believe it says.
You seem to get desperate when you suggest that if God had a body then Jesus would have used an illustration of spirit being like a man hiding behind a wall! That illustration fails in so many ways!
You are of course incorrect to say that if wind had form it would be visible! Wind, as you well know, is very physical. It is air that is moving, maybe fast, maybe very slowly. Regardless of speed, it is made up of substance! Its real – it’s solid enough to hold up an aeroplane as the plane powers through the air.
The tyres on you car are held off the road by air that has been compressed within that tyre. If you get a blow out and the air flows out, you don’t see its form, but you soon find you have a flat tyre!
Just try clearing your mind, and read this verse without the thought of trying to fit your specific idea into it. And then maybe also read some of the hundreds of other verses that don’t back up your non-scriptural idea.
“Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb [actually, plagiarized from Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincaire, Hilbert, and others] which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”
ReplyDeleteAttributed to Nicola Tesla.
As I understand it, Tesla had a Nobel prize in physics.
Questeruk 2:17
ReplyDelete"you choose to ignore literally hundreds of scriptures"
The volume of scriptures is not the determing factor. A million metaphors does not offset a single statement of the reality.
"you seem to feel might perhaps hint at the belief"
No, it screams the belief in your face.
"You seem to get desperate when you suggest that if God had a body then Jesus would have used an illustration of spirit being like a man hiding behind a wall!"
Very wrong impression on your part. I am just trying to educate you to the fact that Jesus did not have to use the wind in his statement. There are ways he can preserve the idea of a form. The fact is that he did not use such an analogy and you have no explanation why.
"You are of course incorrect to say that if wind had form it would be visible!"
Wind is the atmospheric movement of gas. The mixture of oxygen and nitrogen we breathe is not visible as a gas. It is dispersed matter and has no form. There is no way you can make it visible. If you freeze it solid, it is not longer a gas. If wind had form, it would be a solid. If it is a sold it no longer moves like wind. Etc.
Wind does not hold up an airplane because it is solid. It holds up an airplane because there is a differing velocity of the gas passing over a special curvature of the wing. Look it up. Gas has force. You may inflate a balloon with it. That does not make it solid. and it does not make it visible.
Any matter we are familar with, if it holds form, is visible. The only thing that might be an exception is "dark matter." Very little is known about "dark matter" and what it is. Jesus would not have used dark matter in a parable but it is the only thing that would give the Semi-Arian ideas of HWA a chance of being right. Jesus could have said it Nicodemus, "Spirit is like dark matter. You can't see it but it has form." And Nicodemus would not have known what he was talking about, or anybody else until the last few decades. Obviously he would not use that special case to educate Nicodemus.
You are simply barking up the wrong tree.
Scriptor
2:30
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what we are supposed to receive from your statement. Bohr and Planck inaugarated Quantum Mechanics. In the spirit of Tesla, the effects of photon entanglement have been defined through scientific method rather than theory. The theory is still a little elusive.
Scriptor
All this and John 5:37 was missed ??!!!!! "And the Father who sent Me, He has testified about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His FORM."
ReplyDelete3:36
ReplyDeleteGood point. The word eidos (translated in the KJV and many other translations as "form") is derived from the Greek word eido which means to see. Technically, it does not contain the idea of form or shape. It means something like "sight." Like, if someone said, "You did not see (eido) the great sight (eidos)." But there are alternate definitions that include the idea of "shape." As you know, we do not have a Greek Lexicon from the First Century. Scholars form definitions by surveying how a word is used in context and deriving a definition that way. So definition alonoe does not resolve the question of whether Jesus meant "sight" or "shape".
Which of the following did Jesus mean?:
1. You have never seen his shape because he does not have one.
OR
2. You have never seen his shape because he has one and you just have not seen it.
OR
3. Moses saw "his shape" but that was a theophany.
The ambiguity here is complex. The Jews he was speaking to believed that God had a shape and that Moses had seen it. Jesus' denial of this incident indicates that what Moses saw was a theophany - not God in his essence. Here again this can be a denial that God has a body or it can be that he has a body but nobody has seen it.
The ambiguity is such that we must to to John 3:8 to find the characteristics of a being who is spirit.
Scriptor
Part 1
ReplyDelete"Born Again or Begotten?
It was mentioned in a previous article that John Ritenbaugh passed away this year. In 2010 he wrote a three part Personal entitled "Born Again or Begotten?" which may be interest to this thread. Below are a couple of quotes from his post:
"For fifty years, I believed what I had originally been taught in preparation for baptism regarding the "Born Again" doctrine. What I learned then had been reshaped somewhat from what was normally taught in most churches, and it had been renamed as "Begotten Again" because church doctrine insisted that "Born Again" was a false title and teaching. Through the years, I was constantly exposed to this teaching, and on becoming a minister, taught it repeatedly to others. I never really considered that it might be wrong; thus, I never sought to correct my own misunderstanding of it...
"There is not a single verse that shows us to be begotten but not yet born...
"All that these three articles have attempted to do is to clarify the terms used in Jesus' instruction on born again, as gleaned from God's Word. In the end, the begotten-again analogy is found completely lacking in describing what happens to begin our spiritual life" (John W. Ritenbaugh, Born Again or Begotten? "Personal," May-June 2010).
"One of the greatest obstacles we face in trying to interpret the Bible is that we are inclined to think in our own cultural and linguistic categories. This is no surprise since our categories are often all that we have, but it is a problem because our own categories often do not suffice and sometimes mislead" (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.67-68).
Jn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
I would suggest that thinking in modern-western ‘categories' when trying to understand ancient-Near Eastern literature may mislead on what Jesus means by being "born again."
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
"Together with Titus 3:5 and 1 Peter 1:3, 23, John 3:3, 7 indicates a widespread early Christian usage of "new birth" language to describe what takes place at conversion. John 3:5-8 associates this new birth with the activity of the Spirit...
“In the Gospels, the new birth, within the larger framework of the theme of the "new creation," has both a personal/spiritual and a cosmic/eschatological dimension... Thus, the individual believer's new birth is set within the larger context of the (inaugurated, but yet to be consummated) renewal of all things at the end of time" (A. J. Kostenberger, "New Birth," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, pp.627-28).
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Jn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
The analogy of the wind, in the context of Jn 3:1-21, does not apply to a "being who is spirit," that is a being who has "changed" from a natural body to a spiritual body, but to the present reality of a human-being "born of God," yet still mortal.
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Below are a few comments of what was the implication of the analogy of the wind for "born again" Christians (or those "born again" by the reception of the Spirit of Jesus):
Part 2
ReplyDelete"The meaning then is that the familiar wind has its mysteries. It can be heard (did Nicodemus and Jesus hear a gust of wind at this point?). Yet people know neither its origin nor its destination. With no knowledge of scientific meteorology as we understand it, the wind, for the ancients, had something mysterious and unpredictable about it. As is the wind, so is anyone who has been born of he Spirit. The person who lacks spiritual life may have contact with such people, but, knows neither the origin of their life nor their final destiny..." (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, p.195).
"Just as people cannot see where the wind comes from or where it is going but can hear its sound, so too, people cannot understand how they are born of the Spirit but nevertheless experience its reality in their lives" (Colin G. Kruse, John, Revised, TOTC, p.117).
"Jesus is here pointing to the dawning of a new eschatological era... But above all, Nicodemus must understand that this era will be era when the Spirit of God moves among humanity. Jesus compares this with the "wind,"... Its origin and movements are mysterious, and they cannot be contained by the human religious systems Jesus has already challenged" (Gary M. Burge, John, NIVAV, p.116).
“As the wind is “invisible and mysterious, yet know in experience” (Beasley-Murray, 49, so also are those born of the Spirit - their identity, source, and destination are mysterious and beyond the ken of earthly knowledge” (Robert H. Mounce, John, EBC, Revised, Vol.10, p.396).
“The origin and the destination of the wind are unknown to the one who feels it and acknowledges its reality. Just so, the new life of one born of the Spirit is unexplained by ordinary reasoning; and its outcome is unpredictable, though its actuality in undeniable” (Merrill C. Tenney, John, EBC, p.47).
When looking at the context of John 3:1-21, with the understanding that the "kingdom" is both a present and future reality, it is suggested that the analogy of John 3:8 does not apply to immortal beings who are spirit.
Note:
“John’s teaching on the new birth is part of a larger “new creation” theme in his Gospel. From the very outset, John links Jesus’ coming to God’s creation “in the beginning” (Jn 1:1; cf. Gen 1:1). He proceeds to develop the significance of Jesus coming in terms of “life” and “light” (Jn 1:3-5, 7-9), both of which are part of OT creation terminology (see esp. Gen 1:3-5, 14-18). In place of the Synoptic teaching on the kingdom of heaven, John focuses on Jesus bringing “eternal life” to those who believe in him (e.g., Jn 3:16; 20:31. In this context John also speaks of the necessity of a new, spiritual birth for believers (Jn 1:12-13; cf. Jn 3:3,5. Even the first week of Jesus’ ministry is presented in a fashion analogous to the week of creation (Jn 1:19-2:11)... and Jesus breathes on his disciples and gives the Spirit in the final commissioning scene (Jn 20:22), invoking the creation of Adam (Gen 2:7; cf. Ezek 37:9)” A. J. Kostenberger, "New Birth," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, pp.627-28).
Scriptor.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t intend to post any more on this thread, but I am for two reasons.
Firstly maybe the thread isn’t quite dead – there have been five more posts since my last one, and secondly I didn’t want to leave it with some sort of feeling of aggression between us, as in reality you usually come over as reasonably fair minded, even if I often don’t agree with what you say!
It’s your fair-mindedness that seems to have gone missing a bit on this point! I take it that you emerged from the chaos of WCG at some point, so I assume that this particular point is something that you are suffering baggage from the past!
On what we were discussing, why not turn the mirror on yourself. If you had some doctrinal point that you know the Bible fully supports, because you can quote dozens of scriptures in support of it, from Genesis to Revelation, and then I come along, and show you one verse which maybe isn’t completely clear what it means, maybe it does go against all these other verses, although its not that clear.
What would you do? I suggest you would say – there are two possible meanings here, but, there is not a single verse in the Bible that supports one view, but dozens that support the other view. Where would you go on that? Would you go with the Biblically supported view, or decide to take the alternative view that could be read into this verse, but is completely unsupported by the Bible?
You know what you would do in reality don’t you!
And your fair-mindedness is show with the comment about John 5v37 about not seeing God’s form, where you make the reasonable point that this could be God’s shape has not been seen because he doesn’t have one, OR that he has one, but you haven’t seen it.
You also quote Moses seeing the back parts of God. If you read the account of this incident you can actually see that God pointed out to Moses that he couldn’t look on God and live – that’s why God made special arrangements so Moses could at least get a glimpse of God from behind, apparently in a way which would not kill Moses. (This is God in His glory, showing He has a body incidentally!).
However you should include a fourth possibility. Was this God the Father that Moses was viewing anyway? Or was it the Word of God who was later born as Jesus Christ? A whole new theme, so I am not going to go into it, but if it was the Word it keeps the veracity of John 5v37 without having to bring in special conditions to explain it.
Questeruk
ReplyDeleteI'm your huckleberry. I will grant the scriptures which portray God as having a body are many. The scriptures that oppose this idea are few. But the number of times a figure or speech is used does not increase its validity. It always remains a metaphor. If we had only metaphors based on body and no other data to draw on, I still would not believe that God has a body. It does not make sense rationally. If you are really interested in this topic, read this:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
A big number of scriptures used in the OT does not offset the words of Jesus, no matter how few.
You wrote, "This is God in His glory, showing He has a body incidentally!"
I am glad you mentioned the Moses incident. Let us link a couple of statements together:
1. "And I will take a way mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. (Ex 33:23)"
2. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18)"
Statement 1 indicates that Moses was seeing a bodily representation of God as a human being. Statement 2 indicates that nobody has seen God - testimony from John. This means that what was seen visibly in Statement 1 was not God in essence. It was something called a Theophany. In fact, it clearly demonstrates that the representation of God in the form of a human is a presentation or display - not something that is actual. This means that all the language in the OT that portrays God as having human features is metaphor.
God can appear in the OT as a whirlwind, a pillar of fire or a human. All of these are Theophanies. The fact that he appears as a human does not make the human format any less a presentation for him than a whirlwind or a pillar of fire. It just happens to be our format so we baselessly attach greater importance to that format.
But this, so far, asssumes a Trinitarian view. What if you are a Semi-Arian? Armstrongists make the argument that Statement 1 is actually an appearance of Jesus Christ. So, this makes Statement 2 true - everybody in the OT was seeing the Logos who would become Jesus. But there is a problem with this. When Jesus said, “…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father”, Armstrongists claim that this refers to the outward appearance of Jesus and the Father. They then deduce that God the Father and Jesus have the same visible image – they are clones in apperance. They look just alike. So, if Jesus’ statement that who has seen him has seen the Father is true, then Moses really did see the Father, if we are talking about bodily appearance. Moses saw God by means of seeing Jesus, the God of the OT according to Armstrongists, and the fact that Jesus is a clone of the Father in appearance. But Jesus also said that nobody has seen the Father. So, whatever Moses saw was not God the Father or God the Son in their essence. This collection of facts, even for Armstrongists, leads to the conclusion that what Moses saw was a theophany and not a view of God in his essence. This also means that all the language of the OT that refers to God as a human form is metaphor.
You may be able to disprove the Armstrongist piece in the last paragraph. You'll be a daisy if do.
Scriptor
Scripter,
ReplyDeleteYou said ‘You may be able to disprove the Armstrongist piece in the last paragraph. You'll be a daisy if do.’
I don’t know if that was a challenge, but it is very easy to disprove, as you have a major logic flaw in the scenario you have given. While I may not agree with all the details you give, that’s not the point, because your argument fails in its logic.
John 1v18 says no man has seen God at any time, except for Jesus. So it’s God the Father that no man has seen.
Exodus 33v23 shows that Moses was able to see the back parts of the being that had spoken to him.
John 14v9 says that if you have seen me you have seen the father. So they look similar.
So in your scenario the being that Moses sees is the Word who became Jesus Christ. Now He may look very similar to God the Father, but He is a different being. So while Moses may have seen a being very similar to God the Father, it wasn’t Him. So John 1v18 is correct, as is John 14v9.
You say 'So, if Jesus’ statement that who has seen him has seen the Father is true, then Moses really did see the Father, if we are talking about bodily appearance’.
That is true with your added phrase of ‘if we are talking about bodily appearance’. But that’s not what we are talking about is it? That is where your logic falls over. Moses may have seen the back parts of a being that looked similar to God the Father, but He didn’t see God the Father did he?
A quick physical example. Two identical twins Twin A and Twin B.
Twin B spends the afternoon at a bar-b-q with friends. At the same time twin A robs a bank.
Who did the bank staff see rob the bank? They may think it was twin B but it wasn’t was it, it was twin A. So it would be a true statement to say that none of the staff in the bank that afternoon saw twin B. They may have seen someone that looked like twin B, but it wasn’t twin B. He was at the Bar-b-q, and was not present at the bank robbery, that was twin A.
If twin B was convicted of the crime it would be a miscarriage of justice, because he was never at the bank that afternoon. In the same way the scriptures are correct in stating that no man has seen the Father. The fact that Jesus may look like God the Father really has nothing to do with that statement.
Scriptor, seems you may have watched too much Tombstone. Your quotes seem to be a reflection of Doc. Are you here trying to do in Ringo?
ReplyDeleteOh, I like what Henny Youngman had to say relative to this thread: “never have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.”
Follower of the Way
The bottom line, so far as I'm concerned, is that the dude we called "God's Apostle" was just making semi-educated guesses about all of these matters, just like everyone else. Armstrongism as a group claimed to have all the answers, and collectively called that particular set of gnosticism "the truth". Reality, as this post has proven, is that there were huge gaping holes in HWA's teachings. In an authoritarian system, where one is not permitted to question the leaders or to hold them accountable, members are conditioned to believe that it does not matter; that questioning is not our prerogative. Except that it does, and is. In fact, questioning it all is our responsibility! Authoritarianism becomes destructive when it is used to repress facts!
ReplyDeleteQuersteruk wrote, "John 1v18 says no man has seen God at any time, except for Jesus. So it’s God the Father that no man has seen."
ReplyDeleteYour quite a daisy. You found the flaw. Good show. Somebody actually reads the stuff I write. I tried to find an elegant way to show that what Moses saw was a theophany using nothing but Armstrongist beliefs. This, of course, would be without resorting to the Trinity. Bringing the Trinity into the picture, these scriptures can be assembled to demonstrate that Moses saw a Theophany rather than God in his essence. You might say my attempt was extra-curricular.
The literal interpretation rather than the theophany works for Armstrongists because Armstrongists believe in the heresy of Bitheism where God and Jesus are two separate beings. The two Gods possess no unity other than a family connection. Binitarians, like the Church of God Seventh Day, believe there are two Gods but they a con-substantial like the Trinity - they sort of believe in the Trinity Lite. So, Armstrongists believe that when Jesus says he who has seen me has seen the Father, this does not refer to the con-substantiality of the two Persons but to their visible appearance. If Armstrongists believed in con-substantiality or co-inherence my argument would work. But the don't.
The place where I could not shore up my argument is at the statement “No man hath seen God at any time”. The argument becomes lost in ambiguity because we might point out two meanings:
1. No man hath seen God because Moses saw a theophany(orthodox Christianity).
OR
2. No man has seen God because the Logos was the God of the OT (Armstrongism).
The statement Jesus made could accomodate both. At this point one must quit the field of battle land go back to the doctrine of the Trinity to show that 1 above is true and 2 above is false. But with that, I would have to abandond the search for elegance.
The issue that Armstrongism doesn't address is why God is clearly described in the NT as invisible yet Moses saw God's human-like back. And, of course, Armstrongists believe that Jesus is the God of the OT. Does this mean that God the Father is invisible yet the Logos was visible, yet both are God? And Jesus says "I and the Father are one." This is actually a better support for theophany.
Sciptor
8:11 Follower of the Way
ReplyDeleteDoc Holliday : Well, an enchanted moment.
Doc Holliday : Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread, / For he on honey-dew hath fed, / And drunk the milk of Paradise. (quoted from Coleridge)
Scriptor
Scriptor: “Are you retired too?”
ReplyDeleteFollower of the Way: “Not me, I’m in my prime.”
Follower of the Way: “Look Darlin’, Johnny Scriptor, deadliest pistoleer since Wild Bill they say, should I hate him?”
Darlin’s response: “You don’t even know him.”
Follower…: “He reminds me of…………ME.”
“Evidently Johnny Scriptor is an educated man, now I really ‘hate’ him.”
Adapted from Tombstone, the movie.
Johnny Scripto, “I was just foolin’ Doc.
Doc: “I wasn’t.”
Johnny Scriptor: ”Ok, lunger, let’s do it.”
Follower of the Way
My friend Follower, you're trying to make a point. You'll be a daisy if you do.
ReplyDeleteScriptor aka Huckleberry
To Scriptor, the wanna be Huckleberry, “What eva’ do you mean?”
ReplyDeleteAre you still looking for “room service?”
Oh, others have already made the point, you just can’t get it. As Doc said to Wyatt after he had just taken care of Johnny Scripto, and showed the marshal’s badge on Johnny,s chest, “My hypocrisy only goes so far.”
Hiding behind man’s “theophanies” versus actual words of Scripture, can only go so far. The stress can become “more than he can bare.” Try some real Scripture proof for a change.
Follower of the Way
To “Johnny Scriptor, my friend:
ReplyDeleteScriptor, I wonder, have you ever read The Wisdom Goddess, Feminine Motifs in Eight Nag Hammadi Documents? If not, I suggest you find a copy and read it.
Have you ever read the Hilton Hotema, writings? If not, you should.
Have you ever read Talisman by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval?
If not, you should.
Have you ever read Bullinger’s works? If not, you should. Otherwise you are miles behind what is now happening in the news.
Did you know that HWA did NOT create the 120 years lost century of Christianity. A Protestant respected scholar did. HWA just quoted him. Then Christians claimed this scholar was not a good one because they could not refute him. Just as they did to Bullinger after they found out he actually taught against some of their doctrines. But, they originally supported those two. Why?
Your “pagan” religious idea of The Creator not having form and/or shape comes from those ancient religions NOT the Bible.
It appears you need to do some real and intense research my friend!!!
Sad to say knowingly or unknowingly you are teaching false human philosophy, just as the scriptures predicted.
HWA did not come up with what you accuse him of. He only gave what he found in various Christian scholars and writings. Therefore you are also accusing many Christians who HWA used as sources.
Because of those things, and more, I believe you are one of the Cowboys Wyatt and Doc fought against. Certainly not a Huckleberry which was Doc Holiday’s role.
Would be gad to begin presenting some of the material, and more, that I mentioned above, if Gary agreed, and others wanted to see it. Otherwise, I just suggest that if anyone here hasn’t seen Tombstone, they migh find a nice evening watching it. My favorite movie.
Follower of the Way
ReplyDeleteSciptor,
Thank you first for your fair mindedness! You said ‘You found the flaw. Good show. Somebody actually reads the stuff I write’. Yes, I do read any stuff that I am going to make comments on!
I think it’s interesting that it would seem that only ‘Armstrongism’ as you like to call it, allows these three verses (Exodus 33v23, John 1v18 and John 14v9) to be taken at face value, and all agree. Otherwise the invention of a ‘theophany is required. - Interesting!
Just a few jottings on these three verses.
John 1v18 says that no man, except Jesus has seen God. If Jesus has seen God, there must be something to see! Could that possibly imply that God has a body!
Exodus 33v23 you ask ‘Does this mean that God the Father is invisible yet the Logos was visible, yet both are God?’ Well, no it doesn’t, because John 14v9 says that basically the two beings are very similar in form. What I think you would agree is that human beings cannot see a spirit being, unless that spirit being chooses to manifest itself. I am referring here to the whole spirit world. There are a number of examples of this in scripture. In Exodus 33v23 God chose to show Himself, and set things up so Moses could survive the experience!
You suggest that in ‘Armstrongism’ ‘the two Gods possess no unity other than a family connection.’ I would suggest that the link is vastly closer than that. The example of a close marriage union has often been used. Two people unified but one common outlook. God the Father and Jesus are absolutely linked together in purpose, and unified in all that they plan and do. This is, I suggest, the real intent of Jesus statement that ‘I and the Father are one’.
I could say more, but I will leave it there! Anyway been interesting debating with you Scripter.
Ultimate perfect knowledge and omnipresence automatically makes Father God and Jesus Christ one and the same. They're not going to essence around with a differerence in opinion as to whether it is alright for a husband and his wife to give each other oral sex.
DeleteThe five human senses are a construct restricting us to perceive only what we are permitted to perceive. Beings with enhanced or hyper senses have greater perception than we do. It appears from scripture that members of the deity can modify their appearances or certain select individuals' senses.
I've often wondered if the best human description of God might just be E=MCsquared. Also, were God's building materials Himself? Did God create everything we perceive using elements of Himself?
Scriptor's position is more common than people realize. Even in the church many hold these views. They believe that spiritual beings are just amorphous and that the Bible is full of metaphors and allegories that have no basis in reality. People of this sort spiritualize the scriptures away because they have no understanding and want to push their ignorant agenda far enough to make it sound legitimately intelligent. But God confounds the wise. Far from the truth they are, trying to know God but being held back by their sins.
ReplyDeleteScriptor obviously doesn't know that it wasn't the Father who manifested Himself to Moses but Christ. If you hold to the 3-in-1 philosophy you'll have trouble with this proof.
Spirit beings don't have bodies? Contrary to what Paul asserted when he said that "THERE IS A SPIRITUAL BODY." (1 Cor 15:44) This scripture alone overthrows your argument as does the reference in Gen 1 to man being made in God's image and likeness. Two different Heb words are used here so that you won't get any fishy ideas of the spirit world.
I'm surprised no one has commented on all the UFO sightings around the world. Many of those manifestations are angels, people. They travel at high speeds and have bodies. Think of the USS Nimitz case. And what about the angels that flew down to the tomb to open the tomb? If God can create a spiritual body it is not hard to imagine Him possessing one.
Moreover Is 42:1 speaks of the Lord possessing a soul, a nephesh, one that cannot die of course, unlike man's soul that can be destroyed (Mt 10:28). In Mt 10:28 the soul is spoken of in terms of a configuration that can be dissolved when separated from the body. If God has a soul, should it not be contained in a body of spirit?
All signs point to HWA being right again (although he was wrong about the born again doctrine), yet we must allow for the fact that as the first cause God can manifest Himself in any manner He chooses. His beginning may have been amorphous but in time Scripture reveals Him as a possessor of an image. This poses a kind of dilemma: manifest your image in bodily form (with the risk of subjecting foolish souls to idolatry) or risk not being understood at all. But God always wins.
(Speaking of bodily forms, eidos is used in Lk 3:22 by the doctor, which confirms that it refers to shape or form and not "seeing", as proposed wrongly by Scriptor again. What do we say here? That the holy Spirit (pneuma) has shape or not? That John needed it to confirm his faith that it exists?)
* 11:23 writes:
ReplyDelete“His beginning may have been amorphous but in time Scripture reveals Him as a possessor of an image.”
Ge 1:26a And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Ge 5:3 And Adam ... begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
My thoughts align with 11:23. Human typology suggests a parallel:
A young adult male has a certain amount of freedom to do what he wants. But there comes a time when he give up that freedom when he meets a woman that he wants to marry and have children with. He therefore gives up the freedom of his single life for a greater good - a freedom he willing gives up.
2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
The type (vertical typology) suggests that when God decided to enter a new stage in his existence, he gave up his “amorphous” state, if that was the reality, so that he could have a relationship with sons and daughters - a greater good. Long before Adam, God took on a spiritual body and set in motion the creation of the heavens and the earth.
Typology also suggests that as Eve came from Adam, the Word came from God, creating the “us” of 1:26a.
The relationship between God and the Word provides the type for a husband and wife relationship. When the Word became the Son it provided the type for the parent-child relationship. The relationships of God and the Word/Jesus Christ provides the human family antitypes.