God Is a Physical Being

[JAL]

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.

At one point I had intended to faithfully respond to your posts, but I'm seeing too many unclear statements that I just don't have time to try to unravel right now. And I'm not going to ask you to clarify further because I fear it will derail this thread. Given time-constraints, I'm focusing mostly on engaging those who clearly buy into traditional thinking.

 

[JAL]

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?

I think I provided a pretty clear explanation of the relevance. Sounds like you ignored my explanation because you were already intent on charging me with irrelevance.

 

[JAL]

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.

Um...correct. Angels do not have an unconscious body. Again.
(1) Man is two parts. Conscious mind plus an unconscious body.
(2) Angels, like God, have no unconscious body. They are pure mind - tangible mind.

Minor point: personally I disagree with Tertullian's reading of the event. The divine Word descended as a tangible Dove:

"As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the [Pneuma] of God descending like a dove and alighting on him."

He didn't see a "dove". He saw God. After all, prophets frequently saw God face to face. This was supposed to be Christ's ordination to public prophetic ministry. And the climax of that event is - a regular dove? That's all? This was the same Christ who said:

"You will see greater things than that.” 51He then added, “Very truly I tell you, i you j will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ k the Son of Man.”

And then all He gets to see is - a mundane dove?

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

Is God a physical being?
(assuming spiritual beings can be physical)

 

[Carl Emerson]

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.

The only way we can define 'physical' is from our experience in our 'physical' realm.

The eternal heaven where He dwells is not physical in the same sense, but being in another dimension may appear to be so.

Actually the critical point of belief is Jesus being raised 'in the flesh' this is physical.

He clearly has the choice in His resurrected body to switch between the two.

 

[ClementofA]

I think I provided a pretty clear explanation of the relevance. Sounds like you ignored my explanation because you were already intent on charging me with irrelevance.

Here is what you said:

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.

That doesn't address the issue of the significance of the OP question of whether or not God is physical.

(1) As I mentioned a few posts back, we've deprived Him of the glory, for 2,000 years.

That doesn't address the issue of the significance of the OP question of whether or not God is physical.

(2) Immaterialism blinds us to sanctification - the unsanctified consider themselves already sanctified.

How does believing God is Spirit do that?

And this makes us even less likely to reform our doctrine and practice, because we assume that everything is copacetic.

How does believing God is Spirit do that?

How does Platonism blind us to real sanctification? When we reduce God to an immaterial nothingness,

No true Christian reduces God to "nothingness". And Him being a Spirit Being, Love Omnipotent, is not "nothingness".

then the definition of mature experience with God becomes - no experience at all! Nothing tangible!

Tell that to all the Christians who believe the God of Jesus Christ is Spirit & whose lives have been changed by Him.

Your argument is merely stated/assumed, & unsupported with any evidence.

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"

You cite OT Moses under law as a "mature experience"? That statement says nothing about a "mature experience".

Again, your argument is merely stated/assumed, & unsupported with any evidence.

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.

If you look at the NT saints, such as the apostles of Jesus, they were doing the works He did. You know, healing the sick, cleansing lepers, raising the dead, etc. Is that tangible enough for you? Paul spoke of having joy unspeakable & peace that passes understanding, etc.

 

[Noxot]

At one point I had intended to faithfully respond to your posts, but I'm seeing too many unclear statements that I just don't have time to try to unravel right now. And I'm not going to ask you to clarify further because I fear it will derail this thread. Given time-constraints, I'm focusing mostly on engaging those who clearly buy into traditional thinking.

Yes after a while of talking there is simply so much that I would not even know where to begin. At one point you listed 12 or more different points and so I just decided instead of trying to reflect on every single thing you say to instead express as best I can my own experiences and understanding. There has always been a pondering of whether we shall always have bodies or if we shall be pure immaterial beings at some point.

Information seems prior to the laws of physics. I see matter as information. Souls are complex mathematical equations that are higher Dimensions than this universe. God is among other things the brute force that causes all things. He is free and can do whatever he wants. Ultimately only God really exist. So to me matter is just equations and everything is made up in God's head and he can imagine himself however he wants.

 

[Noxot]

Is God a physical being?
(assuming spiritual beings can be physical)

God is a super-physical being. He is such a physical being that even I am part of him. But he is more than I am. I really think there should be a distinction between matter and Celestial matter. If God is a form then I would say God is the ultimate infinite perfect eternal form. All of heaven is his body, but he is more, which is one reason we shall infinitely and forever experience God.

 

[Carl Emerson]

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.

I will raise this issue on a fresh thread...

 

[Carl Emerson]

I really think there should be a distinction between matter and Celestial matter.

Agree...

 

[Saint Steven]

Actually the critical point of belief is Jesus being raised 'in the flesh' this is physical.

He clearly has the choice in His resurrected body to switch between the two.

This is an interesting point that should be explored more. We have an example of a spiritual body in Jesus resurrection form. He went to the realm of the dead and returned to earth.

 

[Lost4words]

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.

In other words, he was taken up in spirit and saw God, who was also in spirit!

Thanks

 

[Saint Steven]

God is a super-physical being.

This has been my contention all along. Well put.

 

[Saint Steven]

In other words, he was taken up in spirit and saw God, who was also in spirit!

Thanks

Right. But what did he see exactly? (something physical)

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.

 

[JAL]

If you look at the NT saints, such as the apostles of Jesus, they were doing the works He did. You know, healing the sick, cleansing lepers, raising the dead, etc. Is that tangible enough for you? Paul spoke of having joy unspeakable & peace that passes understanding, etc.

Good place to start. I don't see an abundance of healing right now. And how many dead have been raised lately? Maybe there's room for improvement? Or are you too infallible to consider that possibility?

So why exactly was Paul more effective than we are? For one thing, Paul held to two standards lost upon the church for the last 2,000 years - both pertaining to seeing God face to face, in a very tangible sense.
(1) Paul defined maturity as mature prophethood, climaxing, for example, in, "Then we shall see face to face" (1Cor 13). I have a thread on this, with relevant posts including Post 7, and Post 33, and Post 46, and Post 47, and post 52, and post 58.
(2) The appointment to be a Witness is first and foremost a prophetic anointing, but specifically entails seeing Christ face to face. This thesis is developed across two posts here: (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).

This thread is somewhat in that vein. Recognition that God is a physical figure helps opens our minds to the prospect and expectations of tangible, face-to-face encounters.

That doesn't address the issue of the significance of the OP question of whether or not God is physical.

Actually does. It's not a complete package because it doesn't need to be. Let me get this straight. Before I launch a thread, I first need to start another thread that somehow manages to produce sufficient volumes of apologetic material to indisputably prove to your satisfaction that it's a relevant topic? Only then I have your permission to start the real thread?

How does believing God is Spirit do that?

Asked and answered. I was speaking from my own experience - and what I've seen in others. I never had my heart set on tangible experiences until I believed that God was tangible. Bit of a tautology there, isn't it?

No true Christian reduces God to "nothingness". And Him being a Spirit Being, Love Omnipotent, is not "nothingness".

Nothingness in the sense of nothing tangible. The point was clear enough.

Tell that to all the Christians who believe the God of Jesus Christ is Spirit & whose lives have been changed by Him.

And no room for improvement? I take it you're one of those people would have said to Luther and Calvin: "Impossible! No chance that the church got something wrong for 1500 years straight! How dare you try to reform us!"

Your argument is merely stated/assumed, & unsupported with any evidence.

Sure. Let's play that game. Anytime someone advances an argument, dismiss it as irrelevant if he can't prove it 100%. I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. That's not the goal here - and certainly no theologian in history met that ridiculous standard either.

You cite OT Moses under law as a "mature experience"? That statement says nothing about a "mature experience".

Wow. I had assumed everyone was familiar with Num 12:6-8. Those face-to-face experiences were precisely the signposts of maturity.

And no. Moses was not "under law". I subscribe to a version of Covenant Theology, and certainly not dispensationalism. In my understanding of Galatians 3, there are no distinctions between OT and NT saints.

 

[Lost4words]

Right. But what did he see exactly? (something physical)

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.

How do you know that what he saw was indeed physical?

I might see Jesus standing in front of me (Please God, one day) and for all and intense purposes He could look 'physical' but actually be 'Spirit'.

 

[JAL]

How do you know that what he saw was indeed physical?

I might see Jesus standing in front of me (Please God, one day) and for all and intense purposes He could look 'physical' but actually be 'Spirit'.

Sitting and standing are physical terms. It all boils down to conceptual idolatry. God is supposed to be a wise instructor who conveys to us truth without needlessly steeping us into conceptual idolatry. Therefore instead of using terms like sitting and standing, He should have said something like this:

"I saw a ghost-like figure levitating in front of me".

Instead we get statements like this:

"Thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow;the hair of his head was white like wool.His throne was flaming with fire,and its wheels were all ablaze." (Dan 7)

Tell me, what part of that passage screams immaterial, intangible to you?

 

[Lost4words]

Sitting and standing are physical terms. It all boils down to conceptual idolatry. God is supposed to be a wise instructor who conveys to us truth without needlessly steeping us into conceptual idolatry. Therefore instead of using terms like sitting and standing, He should have said something like this:

"I saw a ghost-like figure levitating in front of me".

Instead we get statements like this:

"Thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow;the hair of his head was white like wool.His throne was flaming with fire,and its wheels were all ablaze." (Dan 7)

Tell me, what part of that passage screams immaterial, intangible to you?

Spirit can still look physical

 

[JAL]

Spirit can still look physical

So God is not matter, but He writes materialistic verses inclining us to worship a material idol? In the sense of conceptual idolatry?

Again, it's not a question of proving my position 100%. It's a question of demonstrating my exegesis to be a bit more plausible than the alternatives - and to point out that, if it weren't for Plato, you wouldn't likely be second-guessing the materiality of biblical phenomenology.

 

[Lost4words]

So God is not matter, but He writes materialistic verses inclining us to worship a material idol? In the sense of conceptual idolatry?

Again, it's not a question of proving my position 100%. It's a question of demonstrating my exegesis to be a bit more plausible than the alternatives - and to point out that, if it weren't for Plato, you wouldn't likely be second-guessing the materiality of biblical phenomenology.

You have your ideas and beliefs, i have mine..

God bless you my friend