God Is a Physical Being

[Saint Steven]

Nothing physical can be perfect, or infinite, or eternal, all of which describe God.

Why not?
Was not the physical perfect before the Fall? God created it and said that it was "good".
Certainly seems that the physical "can be" perfect.

 

[Saint Steven]

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

There's a fine line between "explain" and "explain away".

 

[Lost4words]

Doesn't travel infer material? A thing that moves from one place to another.

Saint Steven said: ↑
John 3:8
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

Can you see the wind? Has it got form?

Again, God is spirit..

 

[Saint Steven]

What did John see? Books or no books? Can an immaterial book be opened?
Can your name be blotted out?

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

 

[Saint Steven]

Can you see the wind? Has it got form?

Again, God is spirit..

I'm not arguing that God is not spirit. I am arguing that spirit is material.
The form of the wind is seen in what it pushes. A furling flag responds to the form of the wind. And by it, a sail boat is propelled. Aerodynamics is a science.

 

[Lost4words]

I'm not arguing that God is not spirit. I am arguing that spirit is material.
The form of the wind is seen in what it pushes. A furling flag responds to the form of the wind. And by it, a sail boat is propelled. Aerodynamics is a science.

What material is God though? We dont know.

 

[Dale]

Here's my source. Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, insisted that angels are physical since:

"The term spirit…in both Hebrew and Greek is primarily a material term, indicating wind, air, or breath" (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Angelology Part 1, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 98:392 (1941), p. 401).

In that article Chafer named several church fathers who viewed angels as physical: Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Caesarius

Chafer is a Dispensationalist. He strongly believes in a "Rapture" separate from the Second Coming. He taught that the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply to Christians. Chafer's views are incoherent. I suggest that you disregard them.

 

[JAL]

Chafer is a Dispensationalist. He strongly believes in a "Rapture" separate from the Second Coming. He taught that the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply to Christians. Chafer's views are incoherent. I suggest that you disregard them.

Chafer's dispensationalism is hardly a commentary on his metaphysics. And though I am happy that Chafer and I share some metaphysical conclusions, I don't strictly need his corroboration to make my case. The biblical data, by itself, attests reasonably well to physical dynamics.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Addendum
​

In my last post I explained that a tangible soul spread throughout the body allows for the concept of evil members such as James' concept of the untameable evil tongue. So if God is going to sanctify you, where will He apply His sanctifying holy Fire? To an immaterial mind located - nowhere? Let's consider an example. When Isaiah went up to the temple and saw God's face, he suddenly became self-conscious of his evil lips and evil tongue. The obvious solution is to apply the divine Fire directly to his mouth:

"5“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

6Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal [of Fire] in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

Enough said. In terms of physical dynamics, the text speaks loud and clear.

If you wish to drag God down to the level of His creation, your choice. "Physical" is how He manifests Himself from time to time" God simply IS. He is not "made" of something. He is the maker, not the made.

 

[Aussie Pete]

By physical I basically mean tangible. The human soul is spread throughout the human body, in my view, and sufficiently tangible to impact it, but:
(1) God usually keeps it hidden from instruments of detection such as natural sight. Presumably this would preclude our ability to spray-paint it into visibiity.
(2) Unlike the natural body, the soul isn't a manufacturer of blood - no more so than an angelic soul. To claim that the soul bleeds is just as unlikely as claiming that an angel bleeds. Human blood can be replaced without altering your identity. Your soul IS your identity, and therefore God won't likely allow some of it to bleed away from the rest of you.

Here's what you need to know. For both exegetical and empirical reasons, the soul is almost certainly physical. All the data points utterly in that direction, when stacked up against the theory that the soul is immaterial. Let's start with the empirical data. Basically, I'm going to paraphrase Tertullian's argument that body and soul, in order to interact, must both be tangible. Indeed, thought is a physical, electrochemical process in the brain. That's a fact of both science and daily experience. That alone is enough to conclude a tangible soul. But let's look at some specifics.

Part I. The body impacts the mind. ​

Tangible impact is the ONLY way for me to influence your mind.
(1) For example suppose I want you to know what I'm thinking. How do I get my thoughts into your mind? Simple. I blow air at you - I speak to you. Suddenly YOU begin thinking on the same topics that I myself was thinking. If the mind were intangible, I would be unable to tangibly impact your mind.
(2) Suppose I want your mind to fail a math test. How do I accomplish that? Simple. I merely spike your food with alcohol or drugs, thereby tangibly impacting your mind.
(3) Suppose I want to reduce your cognition to a vegetative state. How to do it? Simple. I merely strike your brain with sufficient force to impart brain damage.
(4) As a toddler, your mind probably didn't squander much time dwelling on the opposite sex. Then at the age of puberty hormones kicked in, making a tangible impact on your mind. Suddenly it became difficult for you to STOP thinking about the opposite of sex. The proportions and distributions of your thought-content radically changed.
(5) A huge percentage of your thought-content consists of information physically imparted to your mind via all the five senses. This is a tangible process.

None of this makes ANY SENSE on the assumption of an intangible mind. That assertion appears to be incredibly stupid, incredibly self-contradictory, in light of the data. Before moving on to Part II, let me clarify the FUNCTION of the human body, with respect to the mind. After all, given that thought-currents self-propel by free will, why do we need the unconscious body? Technically we don't NEED it (angels certainly don't have one) but it serves a cognitive PURPOSE delightful to God. How so? The brain organizes the mind's thought-currents, helping to channel and route them in ways somewhat conducive to sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, sexuality, marriage, education, emotional balance, conscience, and so on. God takes pride in His creation! As He should!

Is a thought physical? It exists for a moment but it is real enough. What is a thought made of? I don't agree with your concept of physical.

 

[Noxot]

Why not?
Was not the physical perfect before the Fall? God created it and said that it was "good".
Certainly seems that the physical "can be" perfect.

Heavenly matter is so perfect that it cannot be compared to this fallen material that we call the physical. that things can harm each other and everything is always falling apart is proof of the inferior corruptibility of this flesh.

 

[JAL]

If you wish to drag God down to the level of His creation, your choice. "Physical" is how He manifests Himself from time to time" God simply IS. He is not "made" of something. He is the maker, not the made.

You're saying that God exists but is not actually a substance that exists. That claim is not a doctrine, not an assertion, not a real belief. You're making an incomprehensible statement (gibberish).

You can't have it both ways and still claim to be rational. You cannot say both...
(1) Your doctrines are wrong, mine are right.
(2) but all I speak is gibberish
and still claim to be a rational human being. Regardless of whether Plato did it, that nonsense doesn't wash here on MY thread.

 

[JAL]

Is a thought physical?

Category mistake. That's an invalid question. That's like asking whether my vocabulary is red in color? Neither Yes nor No is the appropriate answer because the whole question is invalid. I addressed this category-mistake at posts 137, 141, 142.

 

[JAL]

If you wish to drag God down to the level of His creation...

Skewed, erroneous set of values. The nature of our substance doesn't determine our merit. Take for example three entities differing somewhat in substance:
(1) A white male
(2) A black male
(3) A green martian

Which one is most worthy of honor and respect? It is precisely because the church has misunderstood God's value and merit, that they have (inadvertently) been insulting, disrespecting, and dishonoring Him for 2,000 years. That's one of the dangers of inaccurate doctrine.

Realize it or not, you're the one dragging God down - not to the level of His creation, but below it. Maybe I'll fill you in on the details later.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Wow. The 24 elders pre-existed the universe? The order of Melchizedek pre-existed the universe? The universe could not have come out of nothing then. Unless you can explain that.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Does that assume that the nothingness that God "used" to create the universe is the same "nothingness" of which he consists (consisted) of? There was nothing here before he created it, but most likely there was something where God was prior. Unless he first had to create himself. (not likely)

Different dimensions - the Heaven that the created angels occupy was created at the same time as earth and the known universe and is locked in chronology.

The Priestly order of Melchizedek is timeless, as is the trinity, and has always served at God's throne along with the 24 elders.

It is notable that Satan has no access to this eternal dimension given that he is a created being.

This is the beauty of our salvation - He has put eternity in the heart of man that we may never know the beginning from the end. Ecc:3

This is a timeless space in which only He can dwell. That is why a Christian cannot be possessed, because Satan can never cross the barrier and occupy that part of the human spirit reserved for Jesus.

When we are resurrected we become like Him, free from chronology and the created universe (that will be burned up and created anew.) finally sharing a timeless dimension with Him. That is what it means to be made in the image of God - the capacity to exist in eternity - this was never given to any other created being including the angels.

 

[JAL]

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not solid.

Thanks. Perfectly worded. I appreciate it.

I think what is being challenged here is the assumption that the spiritual realm is not material. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not solid. Like that car you didn't see coming, that put you in the ditch. - lol

And your sense of humor brightened my day. Thanks again.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Whoa there guy. One thing at a time. First, my understanding of how this "miracle" transpired. The divine Word is tangible substance distributed throughout the universe. The divine Word was already in the water when Peter stepped out. On every step, at the instant Peter's feet hit the water, the divine Word simply solidified Himself in that foot-sized region as firm footing.


Next, let's discuss the psychology of the event. In my understanding God often tests us by placing a demand on our conscience, in this case an admonition to make an effort, by free will, to self-sustain faith in God. Self-generated faith is easier when there's plenty of inspired Faith at hand. They work in tandem. Unfortunately in our spiritual immaturity (any lack of personal and/or corporate revival), we have precious little inspired Faith.

Anyway in Peter's conscience was an obligation to self-exert faith by free will. It was no easy task, especially in his immaturity, and he was finding himself in a losing battle. As his faith buckled, the divine Word chastised him by desolidifying the firm footing, perhaps gradually. Peter lost his firm footing, and began to sink.

Well the axehead that Elisha caused to float would have needed faith I guess...

 

[Carl Emerson]

'Solid'(physical) in the created order is not the same as 'solid'(physical) in the eternal timeless dimension in which God dwells.

 

[JAL]

'Solid'(physical) in the created order is not the same as 'solid'(physical) in the eternal timeless dimension in which God dwells.

Atemporality (timelessness) is one of those gibberish doctrines courtesy of Plato. Trust me, you do not want to think of God this way.

There is only one possible definition of merit - in fact virtually every sermon preached in the last 2,000 years has been predicated on that correct definition. Unfortunately theologians have failed to apply it to God, thereby depriving Him of merit. Here it is:

"Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause, over an (extended) period of time."

For example if the Father had numbed Christ's nerves such that the cross was only the appearance of sufffering - and thus not actual suffering - the cross would have no merit and thus merit no praise.

And while the intensity of the suffering is a huge factor, the duration of the suffering is an equally crucial factor as well in determining the total merit. This is a crucial topic but I can't spell out the full implications right now.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Atemporality (timelessness) is one of those gibberish doctrines courtesy of Plato. Trust me, you do not want to think of God this way.

Well I have a choice to trust you or His Word...

Heb 7

1For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.