God Is a Physical Being

[Saint Steven]

Excellent point. I hadn't even thought of that. Thanks. Reminds me of the Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof, who stated in his Systematic Theology that Scripture unquestionably points our eyes geographically upwards to heaven and downwards to hell. A couple of examples:

"9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight" (Acts 1)

"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked intently into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7).

You're right. Based on exegesis, it's hard to claim that the Father has no spatial location.

I like how that last verse has "the glory of God". There was no need to say "The Father" because, in the OT, the glory of Yahweh was typically a human-shaped figure enshrouded in pillars of Fire and Cloud. I find it entertaining to detect possible instances of continuity between the two testaments.

All kinds of references to place.
The kingdom of heaven, the heavenly realms... (both spatial locations)
".. according to his riches in glory..." Where?

James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

 

[JAL]

@EVERYONE:

In the late 70's the scholar James Dunn wrote a highly influential anti-Pentecostal book named Baptism in the Spirit, albeit amply rebutted by Howard Ervin. It was also anti-sacramental. In addition to opposing a sacramental Eucharist, Dunn also opposed the multitudes of scholars who, on an exegetical basis, concluded that water baptism is literally the "washing of regeneration" (Tit 3:5).

And yet Dunn found himself stumbling at Romans 6. He admitted that a scholar - on the sheer force of that passage - would be warranted in deducing a sacramental water baptism.

Here's how I see it. In the early church, even as the divine Word was present as Bread and Wine, He was also present as Living Water. Thus even though a man was already saved by faith prior to water baptism, he received a (volumetrically) incremental sanctification/regeneration at the baptismal hands of the apostles. Thus in a very real sense, he arose from the waters unto new Life in Christ.

It's difficult to explain away all the seemingly sacramental NT references to water baptism. Fortunately, it's not a problem for a materialistic metaphysics.

 

[JAL]

@EVERYONE:

Also relevant is 1John 1:7:

"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin."

Please don't overlook the subtle distinction here. This verse does NOT say:

"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son atones for our sin."

Both statements are true - but they are not precisely the same message. The first attests to the literal sprinkling of the divine Blood upon every believer. As the NIV puts it:

[We] have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood (1Pet 1:2).

This is a perfectly valid description of the santification process, from the standpoint of a materialistic metaphysics.

 

[public hermit]

@EVERYONE:

Who are you talking to? EVERYONE hasn't been here since 2003. Maybe EVERYONE has now disintegrated into their constituent physical parts. Physical existence is so precarious and uncertain, as you know.

 

[JAL]

Who are you talking to? EVERYONE hasn't been here since 2003. Maybe EVERYONE has now disintegrated into their constituent physical parts. Physical existence is so precarious and uncertain, as you know.

Doesn't really matter. I felt I had pretty much responded to most of the posts but had some extra verses to share in defense of materialism. I just want to have one thread, for future reference, where I've discussed all the relevant materialistic verses. And I just remembered another verse worth mentioning. Paul cited Christ's words:

“This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1Cor 11).

Therefore:

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

The Corinthians were dying in judgment for profaning the Body and Blood! In the preceding chapter Paul sought to establish a parallel to Israel who, likewise, died in judgment for profaning the food and drink:

"For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness" (1Cor 10).

Don't read 'spiritual' here as immaterial. The word there is 'pneumatic' such as a pneumatic tool (a tool powered by material air/wind/breath). As Gordon Fee pointed out, Paul never used the word "spiritual" to convey "immaterial". Rather, said Fee, spiritual means Pneuma-powered (powered by the Third Person).

Anyway it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that Paul made clear references to sacramental food and drink.

 

[Saint Steven]

Doesn't really matter. I felt I had pretty much responded to most of the posts but had some extra verses to share in defense of materialism.

Oh, is that what this is called? Materialism.
I thought materialism was a life that revolved around getting a lot of stuff. - lol
Is it just too heretical to be a Materialist Universalist?
As far as I know, the two don't conflict.

 

[A_Thinker]

There seems to be something arrogant going on when we insist God conforms with our puny 'logic'.

It's pride.

Gods is who He is and His ways are past finding out.

Some of us are not content with this ...

 

[JAL]

Oh, is that what this is called? Materialism.
I thought materialism was a life that revolved around getting a lot of stuff. - lol
Is it just too heretical to be a Materialist Universalist?
As far as I know, the two don't conflict.

I can't think of any innate conflict there. I don't think universalism is necessarily a metaphysical claim, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[JAL]

I left some questions unanswered for fear that this thread might get shut down prematurely. Is there an unorthodox forum where I can supply those details safely?

 

[JAL]

Prior to today, I never paid attention to the non-Christian forums. But as I perused them over the last few minutes, I didn't find any evidence that a Christian is permitted to share unorthodox views. I conform quite well to the Nicene Creed taken at face-value, but sometimes moderators strictly enforce the position that one must extrapolate the Nicene Creed, at every juncture, in PRECISELY the exact traditional orthodox sense (no room for flexibility at all).

Anyway I've created another thread, to help fill in some of the unanswered questions. If it gets shut down, I suppose I will just have to live with that consequence.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

And let's keep some perspective here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no burden of proof on materialists because the existence of material object is not an extraordinary claim. Matter is something we see every day. Whereas immaterialism - the idea that some kind of magical, non-material substance exists - is a VERY extraordinary claim, and thus should be backed with extraordinary amounts of biblical evidence. Except - zero evidence exists!

What is light?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Several church fathers acknowledged that angels are physical - and yet God (normally) keeps them hidden from material instruments. Therefore I wouldn't expect material instruments to detect any change in weight when He extricates the human soul from the dead or dying body.

21 Grams Was the Weight of a Human Soul Determined to Be 21 Grams? remember my sense of humor

 

[Daniel Marsh]

[QUOTE="JAL, post: 75000974, member: 88229"]He didn't preexist space. He's a material being. How could He preexist space?[/QUOTE]

Where you there?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

[QUOTE="JAL, post: 75000974, member: 88229"]He didn't preexist space. He's a material being. How could He preexist space?

Where you there?[/QUOTE]

I know I was not there.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

After scrolling through this thread a major thing is missing, proof that
God Is a Physical Being, it is simply assumed.

"
You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

The Burden of Proof as presented below applies to claims that are cognitive and empirical. The principle applies to claims about what exists or does not exist.

The instances of circumstances that provide nuanced exceptions (see below) to the rule are so few and misleading to let it appear they nullify the rule that it is far better to just state that the burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X. What is improper is for a person to claim that "X exists" and when asked to prove it, then the person who made the claim uses as a defense of "X exists" the next claim that no one has proven that X does not exist.

If a person claims that X exists and is real then the burden is on that person to supply some support for that claim, some evidence or proof that others can and should examine before accepting it. It is incorrect to think that X exists and is real until someone can prove that there is no X. It is also wrong to think that just because you can not prove that X exists that does not mean that X does not exist and therefore X does exist."
The Burden of Proof

 

[Daniel Marsh]

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

So, where is the evidence of God in the fossil record?

God is physical, then there is evidence in the fossil record....

 

[Daniel Marsh]

"
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).

Recommended Resource: Knowing God by J.I. Packer"
Does God have a physical body? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Daniel Marsh]

What? Have you been reading any of my posts? I've already showed a series of biblical demonstrations of the divine physicality, as well as surfacing some of the unresolved problems of DDS.

And the irony is - I don't need to! Material substances clearly exist! The burden of proof falls on those who dream up magical immaterial substances!

I think what you're really saying here, "You haven't proven your position 100%". Look, I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. What I can say is that, given the fact that NONE of us can prove anything 100%, the rationally minded exegete will gravitate towards the theology with the most cogency, clarity, and harmony with the biblical data.

No, burden of proof rests on you. All you have done is quote non literal passages.

Psalm 36:7
How precious is your steadfast love, O God! The children of mankind take refuge in the shadow of your wings.

So, now God is big bird?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

@Carl Emerson,

Still waiting for you get past the big zero. You have zero evidence for magical immaterial substances.

Where does it say spirit is a substance?

 

[Saint Steven]

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

So, where is the evidence of God in the fossil record?

God is physical, then there is evidence in the fossil record....

Last time I checked... something has to die before it can appear in the fossil record.

And... not everything that existing has YET to be found in the fossil record.