When does the resurrection of the dead take place?

[JohnRabbit]

Oh c'mon man. That is clearly metaphor - do you really believe God has a sword coming out of his mouth?

it's symbolic!

Hebrews 4:12-13(NKJV)
12For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

the sword is symbolic for the truth from the bible.

He will speak the truth from the bible and convict many!

I think I am safe ground in asserting that I have never heard anyone assert that God (The Father) has a "body". Again, the fact that almost no one believes what you believe does not prove you are mistaken. But, again, it seems mighty suspicious to suggest that you are right about this and the legions of Christians over the centuries are mistaken.

that's why the bible is the arbiter of all!

and why we have to study and show ourselves approved.

be able to prove all things!

 

[JohnRabbit]

Could you clarify that - as in both sharing one body, or two separate bodies? It gets tricky considering that they are One. [emoji846]

i'd better stop there and say no more.

 

[All4Christ]

i'd better stop there and say no more.

Ok, no worries either way. I wasn't trying to shut down the conversation [emoji846] just wasn't sure exactly what you meant.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Ok, no worries either way. I wasn't trying to shut down the conversation [emoji846] just wasn't sure exactly what you meant.

gotcha!

 

[ewq1938]

you have been shown through scripture how that couldn't be the case!

No, I have shown that it is the case and no one has even tried to dispute that evidence.

 

[ewq1938]

I think you are over-reaching. If you are suggesting that God has a body (i.e. with arms and legs), I will point out that I believe this is a position that has never really been embraced in the church. That does not mean you are mistaken, but it does raise a red flag.

In short, for the writer of Genesis 1 to say that man is created "in the image" of God is too vague a characterization to allow us to conclude that God has a body, especially in light of the following:

1. God created all of the physical universe;
2. Therefore, God created the "dust of the earth";
3. God made the body of man from that dust;
4. Therefore man's body is a "created" things;
5. But God is surely not a created thing;
6. Therefore, it seems implausible that God has a body.

Just because man's body is created doesn't equal that God's body would also have to be created. That's terrible reasoning. The Father is always described having a body, whether in heaven or upon the Earth. No part of him is created.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think you are over-reaching. If you are suggesting that God has a body (i.e. with arms and legs), I will point out that I believe this is a position that has never really been embraced in the church. That does not mean you are mistaken, but it does raise a red flag.

In short, for the writer of Genesis 1 to say that man is created "in the image" of God is too vague a characterization to allow us to conclude that God has a body, especially in light of the following:

1. God created all of the physical universe;
2. Therefore, God created the "dust of the earth";
3. God made the body of man from that dust;
4. Therefore man's body is a "created" things;
5. But God is surely not a created thing;
6. Therefore, it seems implausible that God has a body.

Traditionally, it was assumed that God is without body, parts, passions, wholly immutable, as the Westminster Confession states. However, I and other cont3emporary theologians are seriously questioning this classical picture of God. Anything that I know to be real has a physical dimension,. a body. A wholly immaterial being seems too unrealistic for me to buy. Plus, I don't see how a wholly immaterial being could do anything. Look, it's like saying I can beat God hands down. How? In a bicycle race. I am guaranteed to win. Why? It takes a body, a physical dimension, to work the pedals. But God has no such physical dimension. Hence., God can't peddle the bike. Also, the Bible attributes just about every body part to God, which suggests the ancient Hebrews believed God has a body of some sort. I like to think of teh universe as the body of God. I don't know any other model that would do justice to God's great intimacy with all things.

 

[Commander]

They arose after the crucifixion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! Study to show thyself approved.

 

[dqhall]

Traditionally, it was assumed that God is without body, parts, passions, wholly immutable, as the Westminster Confession states. However, I and other cont3emporary theologians are seriously questioning this classical picture of God. Anything that I know to be real has a physical dimension,. a body. A wholly immaterial being seems too unrealistic for me to buy. Plus, I don't see how a wholly immaterial being could do anything. Look, it's like saying I can beat God hands down. How? In a bicycle race. I am guaranteed to win. Why? It takes a body, a physical dimension, to work the pedals. But God has no such physical dimension. Hence., God can't peddle the bike. Also, the Bible attributes just about every body part to God, which suggests the ancient Hebrews believed God has a body of some sort. I like to think of teh universe as the body of God. I don't know any other model that would do justice to God's great intimacy with all things.

How is it that believers are the body of Christ? They carry on his work in this world. John 12:24 (KJV) - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." John 3:13 (WEB) - "No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven."
Luke 17:20 (KJV) - "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation."

 

[expos4ever]

The Father is always described having a body, whether in heaven or upon the Earth. No part of him is created.

Please support this statement with scripture.

 

[OzSpen]

Just because man's body is created doesn't equal that God's body would also have to be created. That's terrible reasoning. The Father is always described having a body, whether in heaven or upon the Earth. No part of him is created.

This is not supported by the biblical evidence. God is spirit and does not have a physical body. I have addressed these matters, with references to Scripture, in my article: Does God have a physical body?

Oz

 

[expos4ever]

Just because man's body is created doesn't equal that God's body would also have to be created. That's terrible reasoning.

I agree, my argument was incorrect. However, I am still exceedingly skeptical that a Biblical case can be made that God has a "body".

 

[expos4ever]

This is not supported by the biblical evidence. God is spirit and does not have a physical body. I have addressed these matters, with references to Scripture, in my article: Does God have a physical body?

Oz

I agree with you that God does not have a body, but I think at least certain elements of your argument are vulnerable. Consider this from the link you provided:

The verses you use to try to prove that God has a body do not prove that at all. Let us look at the first two verses you gave to try to support your view:

Gen 1:26-27 (ESV) and man being made in God’s image. There is little in that text to tell us exactly what it means for the first man to be made in God’s image. There is nothing here to demonstrate that it means that human beings have a body, just like God has a body. That is not stated here. It can’t be, because ‘God is spirit’ (John 4:24).

Aren't you presuming that "to be spirit" entails not having a body? But that presumption is on shaky ground since we know that Paul, at least, uses the term "spiritual" to describe a body (1 Corinthians 15). It is all too easy for we 21st century westerners to read "spirit" and think "non-physical" because the concept of spirit, in our culture at least, really means non-physical (it means other things as well, but those are not relevant to the issue at hand). However, we have strong reasons to doubt that for the 1st century Hebrew mind, the term "spirit" entails non-physicality.

 

[expos4ever]

This is not supported by the biblical evidence. God is spirit and does not have a physical body. I have addressed these matters, with references to Scripture, in my article: Does God have a physical body?

Oz

I think I know where you are going with this:

HOWEVER, verse 27 affirms that ‘man’ made in the image of God included ‘male and female’. To require that human features be attributed to God, which will they be, male or female? Is God a hermaphrodite, having both male and female sex organs (Oxford dictionaries)? This is a ridiculous and blasphemous conclusion.

This argument has some vulnerability too; an objector could claim that you are exaggerating the degree of "fidelity" implied in the notion of creating man and woman in God's image. The objector could say that the intent of this "created in His image" statement was to say that just as God has a body, so will men and women and have bodies, notwithstanding the gender differences manifested between male and female.

On the other hand, I think that to take the statement "created in God's image" as grounds for concluding that God has a body is on equally shaky ground - it is plausible to think of humans bearing God's image in many other important ways than in respect to embodiment.

Again, I share your view that God does not have a body, and I have yet to finish your post.

 

[expos4ever]

This is not supported by the biblical evidence. God is spirit and does not have a physical body. I have addressed these matters, with references to Scripture, in my article: Does God have a physical body?

Oz

I certainly think the following is a compelling argument:

We get some further insight into what they mean in Eph 4:24 (ESV): ‘Put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness’. Ah, there we have a glimpse of what the ‘likeness of God’ means. It refers to righteousness and holiness. Col 3:10 (ESV) explains further: ‘And have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator’. So the image of the Creator includes knowledge, renewed knowledge.

I also agree that if, repeat if, people use texts that refer to things like "seeing God's face" to support the notion that God has a body, this can be countered, as you point out, by the rather definitive statement "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known".

 

[JohnRabbit]

No, I have shown that it is the case and no one has even tried to dispute that evidence.

i have!

i used indisputable evidence!

 

[All4Christ]

I think I know where you are going with this:


This argument has some vulnerability too; an objector could claim that you are exaggerating the degree of "fidelity" implied in the notion of creating man and woman in God's image. The objector could say that the intent of this "created in His image" statement was to say that just as God has a body, so will men and women and have bodies, notwithstanding the gender differences manifested between male and female.

On the other hand, I think that to take the statement "created in God's image" as grounds for concluding that God has a body is on equally shaky ground - it is plausible to think of humans bearing God's image in many other important ways than in respect to embodiment.

Again, I share your view that God does not have a body, and I have yet to finish your post.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to clarify whether we are speaking of God the Father or God the Son? Or are you referring to the Trinity as a whole, implying that Jesus no longer has a body after His resurrection and Ascension?

 

[JohnRabbit]

I agree with you that God does not have a body, but I think at least certain elements of your argument are vulnerable. Consider this from the link you provided:



Aren't you presuming that "to be spirit" entails not having a body? But that presumption is on shaky ground since we know that Paul, at least, uses the term "spiritual" to describe a body (1 Corinthians 15). It is all too easy for we 21st century westerners to read "spirit" and think "non-physical" because the concept of spirit, in our culture at least, really means non-physical (it means other things as well, but those are not relevant to the issue at hand). However, we have strong reasons to doubt that for the 1st century Hebrew mind, the term "spirit" entails non-physicality.

why do you think that a spirit being like God doesn't have a body?

 

[expos4ever]

Perhaps it would be beneficial to clarify whether we are speaking of God the Father or God the Son? Or are you referring to the Trinity as a whole, implying that Jesus no longer has a body after His resurrection and Ascension?

I am speaking of God the Father. I confess that I have no sense of what the Scriptures teach about the "embodiment" of Jesus after His ascension. I would bet that Jesus remains embodied precisely because I think that to claim otherwise would be to buy into the gnostic notion that the domain of the physical is somehow just inferior window-dressing to the more noble domain of the incorporeal. However, I would bet that even learned theologians cannot make a strong Biblical case on the present status of Jesus (in terms of His resurrection body).

 

[All4Christ]

why do you think that a spirit being like God doesn't have a body?

Luke 24:39

39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

EDIT: This is not conclusive if you do not consider a body to be flesh and bones, but it does clarify some things about what a spirit is and what a spirit is not.

However, the definition of body in regards to arms, legs, etc is similar to the following definition:

the physical structure of a person or an animal, including the bones, flesh, and organs.

The LDS do promote a "spirit body": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_body

Perhaps that is more in line with the definition you are suggesting?

A few more related, albeit not conclusive verses (one could argue that He has an invisible spirit body):

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation (Colossians 1:15).

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen (1 Timothy 1:17).

For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20)

Some conclusive results:

God is Spirit and does not have a body in the typical definition of body

God the Father is invisible

God the Father is not limited by a body (He is everywhere, not contained in a body, etc.)

No man can see the Father

It is very rare to have a reference to God the Father in bodily form - and it is easily attributed to an angel representing God in the few times it is referenced, or is in a vision, not in reality.