God Is a Physical Being

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I never said Oden was a materialist. Of course he talks everywhere about Spirit. Nonetheless he wrote:

"Jesus himself chose the expression 'Holy Breath’ to designate the Comforter to follow Him (John 20:22)'" ( Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology Volume Three (Peabody: Prince Press, 2001, reprint), p. 16)


Page 16
THE HOLY SPIRIT
by Whom the Father is known and the Son is glorified. . . . Why make a long discourse of it? All that the Father has the Son has also, except the being Unbegotten; and all that the Son has the Spirit has also, except the Generation.
(Gregory Nazianzen, Oral. XLI.9, NPNF 2 VII, p. 382, amended)
The Worship ofGod the Spirit. The Spirit is called Lord (1 Cor. 12:4-6) because he is God, entitled to the same worship rightly offered up to the Father and the Son (Basil, On the Spirit VIII.44-XXI.52, NPNF 2 VIII, pp. 27-34). The Spirit’s name is placed on equal terms with the Lord in the apostolic benediction (2 Cor. 13:14). The Spirit’s equality with Father and Son is clear from the great commis- sion (Matt. 28:19), an equality that does not erase distinguishability (Athanasius, LCHS IV.3-4; cf. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit, NPNF 2 IV, p. 325). “The Spirit is jointly worshipped in God, when God is worshipped in the Spirit” (Ambrose, Ofthe Holy Spirit III.X.82, NPNF 2 X, p. 147). By diminishing the Spirit one does not exalt Father or Son: “If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not. If the One was from the beginning, then the Three were so too. If you throw down the One, I am bold to assert that you do not set up the other Two” (Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. XXXI.4, On the Holy Spirit, NPNF 2 VII, p. 319).
The Holy Spirit is supplicated as “perfecting all other things, but Himself lack- ing in nothing; living not as needing restoration, but as Supplier of life; not grow- ing by additions, but straightway full, the self-established, omnipresent, source of sanctification” (Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 1.9, NPNF 2 VIII, p. 15, amended). Daily prayer has begun for centuries in the Orthodox tradition with this prayer: “O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, who art everywhere and fillest all things, Treasury of blessings and Giver of Life, Come and abide in us, and cleanse us from every impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.”
The Many Names of the One Spirit. Though called by many names, the Spirit is one (Tho. Aq., ST I—I, Q36, I, pp. 182—85): Only the Spirit of life could be the Spirit of holiness. Only the Holy Spirit could be the one Spirit of the Church. Only the Spirit of love could be at once the sacramental and charismatic Spirit. Though any systematic discussion of the Holy Spirit must be divided into sequen- tial parts, God the Spirit remains undivided, and “we preach faith undivided to- wards Him” (Cyril ofJerusalem, Catech. Led. XVII.2, NPNF 2 VII, p. 124).
The work of the one Spirit is indicated by varied names ascribed in scripture. As compassionate Lord, the Spirit is Comforter (John 14:16), as reclaimer, the Spirit of adoption (Rom. 8:15), as regenerator, the Spirit of Life (Rom. 8:2), as life giver, the Spirit who awakens faith (2 Cor. 4:13), as merciful One, the Spirit of Grace (Heb. 10:29), as teacher, the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17), as counselor, the Spirit of Wisdom (Eph. 1:17), as sanctifier, the Spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:14; Cyril ofJerusalem, Catech. Led. XV.5, NPNF 2 VII, p. 125; Calvin, Inst. 3.1.3).
Jesus himself chose the expression “Holy Breath” to designate the comforter to follow him (John 20:22; M. Sheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, pp. 97 f.). “Christ breathed the Spirit in a corporeal fashion and thus showed that as from the mouth of a man comes the corporeal breath, so from the divine substance in a way that befits it comes the breath that proceeds from it” (Cyril of Alexandria,
THE PERSON OF THE HOEY SPIRIT
17
Comm, on John 14.16, tractate IX, MPG 74.258; cf. Letters 55.40—43, FC 77, pp. 34—36). “The Greeks have compared the Spirit to the breathing forth of an outer breath, the Latins to the breathing forth of an inner love” (Bonaventure, Comm., Book / of Lombard's Sentences, XI, Q1; Heron, HS, p. 87).
Faith’s privilege is not merely to believe that the Spirit is the third person of the Trinity but to “take him for Christ’s Agent or Advocate with our souls, and for our Guide, Sanctifier, and Comforter” (Baxter, Christian Directory 1.3.3). Holy Spirit is “the third name of divinity, the proclaimer of the one monarchy, and at the same time the interpreter of the economy. . . the ‘leader into all truth’” (Tertullian, Ag. Praxeas 30, ECF, p. 131). The Holy Spirit is “the Inspirer of the Faith, the Teacher of Knowledge, the Fount of Love, the Seal of Chastity, and the Cause of all Power” (Leo, Sermons LXXV, NPNF 2 XII, p. 191)."

And, ignoring the other quotes by him that I posted weakens your jump to conclusions.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Even when the Spirit-translation is exegetically impossible, as shown? And even when immaterialism faces, for example, 13 points of incoherence, as shown? And even though immaterialism seems to be a magical fairytale - it's an extraordinary claim - that, as such, requires EXTRAORDINARY amounts of supporting evidence? And instead of finding such evidence in the Bible, we find extraordinary amounts of materialistic passages? For example to read "Spirit" in passages where the context SCREAMS wind/breath? Are you expecting me to be a fool? To take the wisdom of men above the massive amount of evidence in Scripture?

Time and again, Jesus warned us that the Bible scholars are prone to error. Don't you believe in error-checking? Don't you believe that the Reformation was a good thing? Why not more reform today? You seem to be saying, "If the translators came to a conclusion, we should just accept it" - and my question to you is, based on WHAT EVIDENCE? What is the evidence and where does it really point?

You have not proven anything. Your problems with theology are only in your mind friend. Or maybe you have simply failed to communicate your positions in a way that makes sense to this big dummy.

Phil 2 makes perfect sense of of God the Son becoming a man.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And, ignoring the other quotes by him that I posted weakens your jump to conclusions.
Nope, I showed clearly that despite all the translations of John 20:22 as Holy Spirit, Oden revealed the most literal translation to be 'Holy Breath'. Sorry you don't like what he said.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You have not proven anything. Your problems with theology are only in your mind friend. Or maybe you have simply failed to communicate your positions in a way that makes sense to this big dummy.
Why then haven't you disproven my proofs? Obviously because you can't. Fact is, I don't need any proofs. The only one who needs proofs is someone who postulates fairytales about magical immaterial substance.
Phil 2 makes perfect sense of of God the Son becoming a man.
And where did I say otherwise? The Son of God became a man. What I objected to is an IMMUTABLE God mutating Himself into a man - that's a contradiction insoluble.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is his MO. It's a doctrine of one and engaging is an utter waste of time.
I'm seeing lots of ad hominem on this thread and precious little refutation of the actual arguments. That only boosts my confidence in the solidity of my position.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And, ignoring the other quotes by him that I posted weakens your jump to conclusions.
I think you missed the significance of Oden's statement that I cited. He wrote in our age and thus was well aware that all Bible translations show 'Holy Spirit'. And merely repeating that translation wouldn't have been very informative. Instead of repeating it, he EXPLAINED that what Jesus REALLY said was 'Holy Breath'.

All you've done is cite other places where Oden uses the popular translation 'Holy Spirit'. And guess what? So do I !!!! If you read my posts on other threads, I ALWAYS write 'Holy Spirit' - I've been writing this way for many years - because that's what people are used to seeing. I've used 'Holy Spirit' hundreds of times in my posts. The only time I switch to 'Holy Breath' is when I'm specifically trying to EXPLAIN what Jesus REALLY said. And that's the significance of what Oden did! He was EXPLAINING to us what Jesus REALLY said. So I don't care if you cite hundreds of places where Oden referred to the 'Holy Spirit' - I did the same in my own posts! It proves nothing.

Again, the significance is that all Oden's writings in that Systematic Theology attempt to reflect the consensus-position of professional theologians for the first 1,000 years of the church. Sorry but that consensus on John 20:22 is 'Holy Breath' (i.e. the consensus on what Jesus REALLY said, popular translations notwithstanding).

Look, imagine a Greek child living in the early church, say 8 years old. He gets hold of John's manuscript and reads the following at John 20:22:

"He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy [Breath]".

Based on the CONTEXT (the fact that Jesus was physically breathing upon them) even such a first-grader would see that the OBVIOUS meaning is 'Holy Breath'. Only someone brainwashed to believe in magical immaterial substances could possibly read it any other way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@Daniel Marsh,

I linked you to an earlier post indicating approximately 13 points of incoherence in mainstream immaterialism. Naturally you ignored those 13 points. The third one, in particular, is quite perplexing, regarding omnipresence.

Supposedly God created time and space. Huh? This would imply that space is not part of His definition, He never had any location, He was NOWHERE. The concept of location doesn't apply to such a God. (Doesn't make any sense of course, but that's the claim).


Then He creates the universe - and now suddenly He is EVERYWHERE - fully and equally present at all possible locations in space? Sorry, does not compute.

Immaterialism isn't a doctrine - it's just incoherent babbling. Materialism is a physical simplicity insusceptible to such charges of incoherence.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: topher694
Upvote 0

topher694

Go Turtle!
Jan 29, 2019
3,828
3,038
St. Cloud, MN
✟186,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How not to formulate an argument 101:

1) repeatedly and incoherently claim all arguments contrary to yours are incoherent.

2) when someone argues anything that disagrees with your argument ignore it and point to your previous incoherent claims of incoherance.

3) Although not a single person has been persuaded by your incoherent arguments, incoherently and smugly claim victory.

4) repeat
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How not to formulate an argument 101:

1) repeatedly and incoherently claim all arguments contrary to yours are incoherent.

2) when someone argues anything that disagrees with your argument ignore it and point to your previous incoherent claims of incoherance.

3) Although not a single person has been persuaded by your incoherent arguments, incoherently and smugly claim victory.

4) repeat
OR, the problem is that immaterialism doesn't have any coherent tenets.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How not to formulate an argument 101:

1) repeatedly and incoherently claim all arguments contrary to yours are incoherent.

2) when someone argues anything that disagrees with your argument ignore it and point to your previous incoherent claims of incoherance.

3) Although not a single person has been persuaded by your incoherent arguments, incoherently and smugly claim victory.

4) repeat
And as usual, pure ad hominem with nothing specific to the arguments made or points in debate. But thanks for boosting my confidence yet again.
 
Upvote 0

topher694

Go Turtle!
Jan 29, 2019
3,828
3,038
St. Cloud, MN
✟186,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Marking my posts as funny merely because you can't refute my arguments is a form of flaming and goading in violation of forum rules. I don't stoop to such cheap debating tactics. I stick to the arguments.
You are right I can't refute your arguments because they are utterly incoherent. It's like boxing the wind. Additionally I have zero desire to do so. You see, I'm not obsessed with being right about my homemade strange fire, I'm obsessed with Jesus and glorifying Him.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You are right I can't refute your arguments because they are utterly incoherent.
(Yawn). As usual, pure ad hominem, nothing specific, nothing demonstrated, nothing even argued.

You see, I'm not obsessed with being right about my homemade strange fire, I'm obsessed with Jesus and glorifying Him.
Oh I see. Anyone who posts a point of view on these forums is "obsessed" - except you of course.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

topher694

Go Turtle!
Jan 29, 2019
3,828
3,038
St. Cloud, MN
✟186,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
(Yawn). As usual, pure ad hominem, nothing specific, nothing demonstrated, nothing even argued.

Oh I see. Anyone who posts a point of view on these forums is "obsessed" - except you of course.
Oh, the irony
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@Daniel Marsh, @topher694

A short summary of immaterialism that I cited at post 274.

"God is spirit as opposed to physical/material in His Being....God is not composed of matter nor any other imaginable substance. He also cannot be measured, is not spatial, and has no true location..."
Does God have a physical body? | GotQuestions.org

No location in space? In other words, He has no size and shape and thus, from the beginning, was ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE, as I mentioned a couple of posts back.

Wow. That's a crystal clear world view. Makes perfect sense to me. (Not).

Someday, when you're standing on streets of gold, staring at a solid Figure seated on a solid throne, you'll kick yourself wondering, "How was it that I ever managed to fall for immaterial nonsense? How could I have been so completely duped?"

That's the power of hollow and deceptive philosophy. That's what it does to people.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. God IS spirit. You see it differently to me. You interpret scripture in your own way so that it ties in with your beliefs.

God bless you
Umm, everyone does this... All interpretation is eisegesis, we cannot go against our mindset, our mental filters, into a new interpretation without being led to believe our past decisions were wrong. Exegesis is the big flimflam unless GOD is speaking to you.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your thoughts proceed directionally as electrochemical impulses in your brain. All God needs to do is physically redirect those impulses toward saving faith in Christ! That's how the Third Person "convicted" (convinced) us. That's how we all got saved!
So HE converts us by hypnosis and also hypnotises us to fall in love with HIM and then to want to marry HIM???

Gedoudda here... GOD is NOT into a Stepford wife! Sounds more like a rape than a marriage to me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

topher694

Go Turtle!
Jan 29, 2019
3,828
3,038
St. Cloud, MN
✟186,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Let's try something
@Daniel Marsh, @topher694

A short summary of immaterialism that I cited at post 274.

"God is spirit as opposed to physical/material in His Being....God is not composed of matter nor any other imaginable substance. He also cannot be measured, is not spatial, and has no true location..."
Does God have a physical body? | GotQuestions.org

No location in space? In other words, He has no size and shape and thus, from the beginning, was ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE, as I mentioned a couple of posts back.

Wow. That's a crystal clear world view. Makes perfect sense to me. (Not).

Someday, when you're standing on streets of gold, staring at a solid Figure seated on a solid throne, you'll kick yourself wondering, "How was it that I ever managed to fall for immaterial nonsense? How could I have been so completely duped?"

That's the power of hollow and deceptive philosophy. That's what it does to people.

Jesus is greater!
 
Upvote 0