God Is a Physical Being

[JAL]

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.

This is what I tell people. Exegesis is difficult. A verse can often be interpreted in many different ways. Therefore your best friend, in exegesis, is the law of non-contradiction. If a logical contradiction surfaces in your conclusions, you can be sure that you interpreted one of the verses incorrectly.

Please re-read my post. It identified a logical contradiction in your thinking. Resolve that first, and then come back to this passage, seeking a different extrapolation/interpretation of it than the one you currently espouse.

 

[Carl Emerson]

With respect I start with the Word of God first.

The scripture is the 'gold standard'.

I have suggested this passage clearly speaks of a timeless order...

These are the words of Jesus that you said you believed.

I will leave it at that.

 

[Noxot]

My logic is from heaven. Prove that your logic is from God. God's Logic is greater than man's logic. As near as we are to God shall our Logic be like Gods logic
And so those depending on heteronomy or autonomy have in some way already begun to reject *theonomy*. logic is only right in as much as there is a spiritual relation to God. your logic is nothing more than the collection of spirits that you have accepted as authorities.

 

[JAL]

With respect I start with the Word of God first.

The scripture is the 'gold standard'.

I have suggested this passage clearly speaks of a timeless order...

These are the words of Jesus that you said you believed.

I will leave it at that.

Um...we ARE starting at the Word of God. The written Word claims that God doesn't merely ASK for praise, He is actually WORTHY of praise, in a word, He MERITS praise. Any doctrine that deprives Him of merit insults Him and robs Him of the glory.

But it's your call. You're the one who will have to face up to it on judgement day.

 

[Saint Steven]

What material is God though? We dont know.

Right. We don't know.

Revelation 4:1-3
After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” 2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. 3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald encircled the throne.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You are threatening me with judgement for quoting the Scripture...

Let the readers decide...

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

Are you claiming that it was created that way?

Saint Steven said: ↑
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.

 

[Noxot]

Are you claiming that it was created that way?

Saint Steven said: ↑
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.

Matter that falls apart and degrades itself is due to going from a state of perfection to a lesser state. Sin is a spiritual condition of the spiritual world, it warps and disorganized perfect matter into imperfect matter. And so our universe is a bridge between Heaven and Hell. that is why there is such a profound Beauty in our world and yet at the same time torment.

 

[JAL]

You are threatening me with judgement for quoting the Scripture...

Wrong on both counts.

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

I don't want to get off topic, so I'll just ask, how does all this effect your view of whether God is physical, or not?

To be clear, I don't think the choices are between physical and spiritual. I think we can all agree that God is spiritual, the question is whether the spiritual realm has a physicality to it, or not.

 

[Saint Steven]

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

I was going to say something about the Apostle (when he was Saul) getting knocked off his horse. But the Bible-thumpers would have raked me over the coals, I suppose.

Saint Steven said: ↑
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

 

[JAL]

I have suggested this passage clearly speaks of a timeless order.

Here's the passage. I'm simply going to show you an alternative reading of it. Every verse has a context.

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.

See the words in bold? The context of his reference is the human lifespan. And thus 'beginning of days' most likely refers to the beginning of a human lifespan (natural birth). Whereas Melchizedek appears on the scene as a full-grown man. Had you asked him, "When's your birthday", He couldn't have named the year. There was no such year. The verse continues:


"...he remains a priest perpetually."

That's not atemporality. It's just perpetuity. Here was a singular priest - obviously very different than the run-of-the-mill Levitical priest. And he will remain a priest forever.

 

[Saint Steven]

Matter that falls apart and degrades itself is due to going from a state of perfection to a lesser state. Sin is a spiritual condition of the spiritual world, it warps and disorganized perfect matter into imperfect matter. And so our universe is a bridge between Heaven and Hell. that is why there is such a profound Beauty in our world and yet at the same time torment.

With all that in mind, what is your answer to the OP question?

 

[Saint Steven]

Here's the passage. I'm simply going to show you an alternative reading of it. Every verse has a context.

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.

See the words in bold? The context of his reference is the human lifespan. And thus 'beginning of days' most likely refers to the beginning of a human lifespan (natural birth). Whereas Melchizedek appears on the scene as a full-grown man. Had you asked him, "When's your birthday", He couldn't have named the year. There was no such year. The verse continues:


"...he remains a priest perpetually."

That's not atemporality. It's just perpetuity. Here was a singular priest - obviously very different than the run-of-the-mill Levitical priest. And he will remain a priest forever.

It seems to me that we get hung up on the biblical language that tends to include exaggerated statements that should not be taken so literally. It doesn't make sense to me that a priesthood would have preceded the man it was named after. Just sayin'

 

[ClementofA]

The church father Tertullian (200 AD) was rightly a staunch materialist who realized that all of the biblical data - not just some of it, literally all of it - favors a wholly physical God.

What does it matter?

Question: "Does God have a physical body?"

Answer: Both the Bible and good philosophy report that God is non-physical - spirit. In John 4:24 it is said that God is spirit (see also Luke 24:39; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). This is why no material thing was to be used to represent God (Exodus 20:4). But this can also be shown by reflecting on what God is. Philosophically the same truth comes through. All that is created is necessarily finite and limited. But the first cause (God) is uncreated, and therefore must be non-finite, or infinite. That which is beyond the finite must, by definition, be infinite, and the Bible states that God is beyond creation (1 Kings 8:27; Job 11:7-9; Isaiah 66:1-2; Colossians 1:17). That which is physical cannot be infinite - for you cannot add finite parts together until they reach infinity. Therefore God is spirit as opposed to physical/material in His Being. This does not mean He cannot localize a physical appearance. God is not composed of matter nor any other imaginable substance. He also cannot be measured, is not spatial, and has no true location (presence is a different concept).

Knowing this truth can help us understand the metaphorical speech often used to describe God or, more often, God’s actions in Scripture. In the case of God, once all finitude is negated from a statement, what is left is what is actually true. If nothing is left, then it is a pure metaphor. Some metaphors use attributes from creation itself (2 Samuel 22:3). Others use man’s attributes (anthropomorphism - Deuteronomy 33:27). In this way we can go from what we know by experience to what we know through the metaphors. For example, when Scripture describes God’s mighty arm we know that arms are by definition limited - but might is not. So God’s mighty arm is actually unlimited power to act (what we call omnipotence). When Scripture describes God’s mind, we know that minds are limited, but knowledge is not. God’s mind is actually His infinite knowledge (what we call omniscience).

There were times in the Bible when God appeared in a physical body in order to be seen by men in a form which they could perceive without danger to themselves. Because God said, “No man can see me and live” (Exodus 33:20), He chose at certain times to reveal Himself in human form. These occurrences are called theophanies (Genesis 12:7-9; 18:1-33; 32:22-30). Every theophany wherein God takes on human form foreshadows the incarnation, where God took the form of a man to live among us as Emmanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).

Does God have a physical body? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Noxot]

With all that in mind, what is your answer to the OP question?

This entire universe is like a tiny bubble in the entirety of all of reality. Matter is much more than just what we know of it in our experience of this world. I look forward to my Celestial body because this fleshly body is a burden. The fleshly body is but the outer coating shell of a seed that grows up into the spiritual body either for shame or for Glory. I see no difference between my soul and my celestial body. but to exist in this universe I must have some kind of form that is in this universe.

I don't really see a difference in between the resurrected body of Jesus and the things that the Angels could do. They obviously have a superior form of matter that does not give them the torments that this matter can torment us with. I find it good that we as Souls have bodies, but bodies are just information so Souls are more fundamental to reality, because they are the container of information. matter is due to information, mind, and God's thoughts. Change the laws of physics enough and matter will be so different as to be unrecognizable. The laws of physics are but a few words and equations of the total Word that makes all things through himself.

The Flesh is a container of information and a medium to experience this kind of world with. It is for the sake of more permanent realities. This universe cannot persist in it's Fallen State forever. since God is outside this universe, there is already the perfected form of this universe but it is somewhere in God just like everything is in God. Space and time is only but a state of being, there are many kinds of states of being. God is eternal and the fundamental reality that all things are in. Thrones and glorious streets of gold exist in heaven, because reality is better with all these forms that we get to play with and enjoy.

 

[JAL]

What does it matter?

Ultimately I want revival. I want to see the church restored to proper fruitfulness, I want the multitudes saved, the sick healed, and so on. The Platonic view of God has corrupted our thinking in ways suppressive of revival.
(1) As I mentioned a few posts back, we've deprived Him of the glory, for 2,000 years.
(2) Immaterialism blinds us to sanctification - the unsanctified consider themselves already sanctified. And this makes us even less likely to reform our doctrine and practice, because we assume that everything is copacetic. How does Platonism blind us to real sanctification? When we reduce God to an immaterial nothingness, then the definition of mature experience with God becomes - no experience at all! Nothing tangible! Here's what a mature experience with God looks and feels like:

"And the Lord spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend"

This is where the OT saints had a great advantage over us. Because they lived prior to Plato, they measured maturity only in tangible units, and sought God in tangible ways.

 

[Noxot]

At one point Paul said that his Spirit was with some people that his physical body was not with. I myself have experienced this other world, which is the spiritual world that has its own kind of matter with its own "laws of physics". The best I can make of the OP is that he is calling the spiritual World matter. In that regard I cannot say he is wrong. But my body and All saved souls are part of God's body. God says he is what he is. His infinite nature means I will infinitely know him. he is forever filling me with himself and I am becoming ever more like he is. so I cannot say that God is only but a body. Souls are ideas of God. I am a figment of God's imagination.

 

[ClementofA]

Ultimately I want revival. I want to see the church restored to proper fruitfulness, I want the multitudes saved, the sick healed, and so on. The Platonic view of God has corrupted our thinking in ways suppressive of revival.
(1) As I mentioned a few posts back, we've deprived Him of the glory, for 2,000 years.
(2) Immaterialism blinds us to sanctification - the unsanctified consider themselves already sanctified. And this makes us even less likely to reform our doctrine and practice, because we assume that everything is copacetic. How does Platonism blind us to real sanctification? When we reduce God to an immaterial nothingness, then the definition of mature experience with God becomes - no experience at all! Nothing tangible! Here's what a mature experience with God looks and feels like:

"And the Lord spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend"

This is where the OT saints had a great advantage over us. Because they lived prior to Plato, they measured maturity only in tangible units, and sought God in tangible ways.

I don't see how this particular thread subject point matters.

In itself is it not insignifiant. Like "how many angels can sit on a pin head?"

Is it going to affect any significant doctrine?

Does it affect how i should live my life?

Perhaps it would be better to focus on some points you think are significant re doctrine & Christian living?

 

[Dale]

The church father Tertullian (200 AD) was rightly a staunch materialist who realized that all of the biblical data - not just some of it, literally all of it - favors a wholly physical God. In fact the entire exegetical case for an immaterial God is predicated on the blatant, exegetically unsupportable mistranslation of the terms pneuma and ruach (breath/wind) as "spirit", due to the influence of a Platonic philosophy known as The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS). The term "spirit" is, in a nutshell, an English term unjustifiable exegetically. Moreover the human soul (i.e. the human pneuma) is truistically/tautologically material on an essentially empirical basis - for example Tertullian's tautological argument for the materiality of the human soul has never been refuted.

Understand that I'm a staunch Trinitarian, like Tertullian. In fact:
(1) Tertullian is the first person known to use the word Trinity.
(2) Phillip Schaff, one of the world's foremost experts on othodoxy, considered Tertullian to be one of the best defenders of orthodoxy in church history.

This discussion began on another thread closed at the request of the opening poster. I will copy some of that material, as it pertains to my posts, over to this thread.

Maybe this quote will show what I am trying to say when I cannot agree that Tertullian ascribes a material nature to God. This quote is found a few pages into a piece called The Flesh of Christ, a few pages into Chapter 1. It is addressed to several Gnostics.

Tertullian:
“You have sometimes read and believed that the Creator's angels
have been changed into human form, and have even borne about so veritable a body, that
Abraham even washed their feet ...

... the Gospel of John, when it declares that the Spirit descended in the body of a dove, and sat upon the Lord. Matthew 3:16 When the said Spirit was in this condition, He was as truly a dove as He was also a spirit; nor did He destroy His own proper substance by the assumption of an extraneous substance. But you ask what becomes of the dove's body, after the return of the Spirit back to heaven, and similarly in the case of the angels. Their withdrawal was effected in the same manner as their appearance had been. If you had seen how their production out of nothing had been effected, you would have known also the process of their return to nothing.”

Here Tertullian asserts his belief that angels do not have, and do not need, a material body when they are in heaven attending on God. Angels do sometimes assume a body when they visit the earth. This angelic body is created from “nothing” when it is needed and returns to “nothing” when the mission is over, by the will and power of God. Tertullian applies the same reasoning to the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus in the form of a dove. The body of the dove was created from “nothing” and returned to “nothing” when that manifestation of the Holy Spirit had accomplished God’s purpose.

Tertullian doesn’t see any need for this mysterious spirit-like-but-really-material substance that you talk about.