The Biblical God as Literal Father

[johnny]

David Bokovoy,

It appears that you wish to view Old Testament statements regarding God as father metaphorically.

It appears you do not understand the Old Testament ... God is called Father because he created us, he is not called Father because he was married to a heavenly mother.

Malachi 2

[10] Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

[maklelan]

maklelan,

The Church Fathers loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple ("incomposite") natureâ??that is, a nature containing no parts. Since all bodies extend through space and thus can be divided into parts, it is clear that God cannot have a body.

Thank you for quoting Xenophanes (536 BC). You help to prove my point. None of this garbage was ever believed by any Christians until Martyr and the rest brought philosophy into the mix, changing the nature of God completely. God had a body in Jewish and Christian thought until middle-platonism took over. Allow me to show you just how well you preach pagan philosophy:

Xenophanes - "God is eternal and one, without parts, defined, spherical (equally distributed) and perceptive in all parts."

"God being one has no parts; he is all seeing, all hearing, all awareness. Otherwise his parts would be subject to a control outside of themselves, which is impossible--they would not then be God: he cannot be different in one part or respect from another part, but must be all the same."

What the fathers did was change the doctrine so it could be pawned off to the world as intellectual. They changed doctrine and you still buy it. You can continue to quote the fathers all you want, but they are not scripture, and the fact that they adopted greek philosophy wholesale is absolutely and 100% undeniable. You can say it was only nominal if you want, but you would be utterly wrong.

David Bokovoy,

It appears you do not understand the Old Testament ... God is called Father because he created us, he is not called Father because he was married to a heavenly mother.

Malachi 2

[10] Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

I only have one father, but I also have a mother. C'mon, dude this is a joke.

[johnny]

maklelan,

Since when is a God robbed of that opportunity?

God is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes.

>John 4:24 tells us that God is a spirit.

No, it tells us that is spirit

In John 4:24 Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit. Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, not that the Father has a spirit; this means that he lacks a body entirely.

If you look at John 3:6 you'll also find that that which is born of the Spirit (hopefully you and me) is spirit in the exact same way that God is spirit.

John 3:6 is saying those born again are divinized.

Does a person have a spirit before they are born again?

But God is not an incorporeal spirit, as I pointed out above.

God is a incorporeal spirit. The Early Church Christian Origen taught:

No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however, that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words "when" and "never" are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity.

Since our mind is in itself unable to behold God as he is, it knows the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and from the elegance of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind

[johnny]

maklelan,

No it's not.

Please explain Num 23:22 ... David says "Within the realm of creation by procreation [in the O.T.] are to be included the descriptions of YHWH as a mighty bull, as found for example in the ancient Balaam prophecy (Num. 23:22)"

[maklelan]

maklelan,

God is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes.

All three of these statements are unbiblical.

In John 4:24 Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being.

You've ignored my whole point. Please read John 3:6. You'll notice it says anyone born of the Spirit is spirit. The Greek is exactly the same as John 4:24.

As Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit. Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, not that the Father has a spirit; this means that he lacks a body entirely.

You're ignoring my whole point, and this time you're putting words in my mouth. I never said he had a spirit, I said he is spirit. It's called an adjective. It describes a noun. God is the noun, spirit is the adjective that describes him. Jesus says in John 3 that one who is born of the Spirit also carries the exact same adjective. I'll quote it for you: "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." I was born of the Spirit, as I imagine you were, and we both have bodies, so either the Bible is wrong or you are wrong.

John 3:6 is saying those born again are divinized.

That's not what the scripture says. It says "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The Greek is exactly the same as John 4:24.

Does a person have a spirit before they are born again?

I never said this. You're putting words in my mouth again.

God is a incorporeal spirit. The Early Church Christian Origen taught:

No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however, that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words "when" and "never" are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity.

Since our mind is in itself unable to behold God as he is, it knows the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and from the elegance of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind

And in my thread Catholicism v. Mormonism I show why this is not what the Bible means at all, but what the middle-platonists mean.

maklelan,

Please explain Num 23:22 ... David says "Within the realm of creation by procreation [in the O.T.] are to be included the descriptions of YHWH as a mighty bull, as found for example in the ancient Balaam prophecy (Num. 23:22)"

It says God has the strength of an ox. What does this show?

[johnny]

maklelan,

You can continue to quote the fathers all you want, but they are not scripture

Let's talk scripture ... do these scriptures reveal a corporeal God, if so please explain:

Eph 4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jeremiah 23

[24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

I only have one father, but I also have a mother. C'mon, dude this is a joke.

How many mother's did Adam and Eve have if they were formed?

1Tim 2

[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

Let's talk scripture ... do these scriptures reveal a corporeal God, if so please explain:

Eph 4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jeremiah 23

[24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

OK. If these are to be taken literally (while everything else allegorically), reconcile them with the following scriptures:

Genesis 3:8 - Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of God

Genesis 4:16 - Cain went out from the presenc of the Lord

Are we to believe that God is both omnipresent and not, or will you interpret the scriptures according to already established doctrine? That's called the hermeneutic circle, and you're wrapped up in it. Why not take your scriptures literally, as well as mine?

How many mother's did Adam and Eve have if they were formed?

1Tim 2

[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

One, as far as I know.

[johnny]

maklelan,

All three of these statements are unbiblical.

Looks like Eph 4:6 and Jer 23:24 reveals that the father is spirit ... sounds biblical to me.

Eph 4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jeremiah 23

[24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

You've ignored my whole point. Please read John 3:6. You'll notice it says anyone born of the Spirit is spirit. The Greek is exactly the same as John 4:24.

What is your point ... before you are "born of the Spirit" you are spirit and body, after you are "born of the Spirit" you are spirit and body.

John.3

[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

God is the noun, spirit is the adjective that describes him.

I would also describe God as spirit.

I'll quote it for you: "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." I was born of the Spirit, as I imagine you were, and we both have bodies, so either the Bible is wrong or you are wrong.

Man is body and spirit before they are "born of the Spirit" ... are you saying a person "born of Spirit" is a spirit like the Holy Ghost who is pure spirit?

And in my thread Catholicism v. Mormonism I show why this is not what the Bible means at all, but what the middle-platonists mean.

Please cut and paste from the other thread so we can see what you think the Bible means.

It says God has the strength of an ox. What does this show?

It reveals he has strength.

[johnny]

maklelan,

OK. If these are to be taken literally (while everything else allegorically), reconcile them with the following scriptures:

Why would you not take Eph 4:6 and Jer 23:24 literally?

Genesis 3:8 - Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of God

If God fills heaven and earth then they could not hid from the presence of God ...

Genesis 4:16 - Cain went out from the presenc of the Lord

If God fills heaven and earth then Cain was was still in the presence of God ...

Why not take your scriptures literally, as well as mine?

I am taking yours, scripture needs to be read as a whole.

One, as far as I know.

Which scripture reveals that Eve had a heavenly mother?

Scripture reveals that Adam was formed of the ground, Eve was taken from Adam (Gen 2:7,22). God was alone during creation and by himself during creation (Isa 44:24)

Gen 2

[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Isa 44

[24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

[Son]

mainer, God is frequently referred to as Father. How do men beocme fathers?

Is physical sex the only way to create children?

I believe that because of the sexual contact of Eve and the serpent, this is what brought about travailing at birth, and the shame of nakedness, why no shame before, just after?

It was not meant to be this way. Sex is a fallen nature way of procreating, there is a higher way. The one that the Father showed with the only begotten.

[mnn727]

In John 4:24 Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit. Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, not that the Father has a spirit; this means that he lacks a body entirely.

SO that means we must get out of our body to worship him - right?

Come on Johnny - you claim that the first instance of the word 'spirit' in that verse means 'having no body' then the 2nd occurance of that same exact word must mean 'without a body' also.

Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, not that the Father has a spirit

Actually Johnny, you are adding the word "a" to that verse which is not there.

[johnny]

SO that means we must get out of our body to worship him - right?

We don't get out of our body to worship him.

Check your lexicon "sprit" has different meanings:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=4151

2 ) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated

a ) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides

b ) the soul

3 ) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting

a ) a life giving spirit

b ) a human soul that has left the body

c ) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel

1 ) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men

2 ) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ

4 ) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one

a ) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.

Actually Johnny, you are adding the word "a" to that verse which is not there.

What is your point ... "God is Spirit" or "God is a Spirit"

[maklelan]

maklelan,

Looks like Eph 4:6 and Jer 23:24 reveals that the father is spirit ... sounds biblical to me.

Eph 4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jeremiah 23

[24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

I don't see the word spirit anywhere.

What is your point ... before you are "born of the Spirit" you are spirit and body, after you are "born of the Spirit" you are spirit and body.

So the proof text that inspires the doctrine that God cannot have a body is used exactly the same elsewhere, but it must mean the exact opposit in that example? Utter nonsense.

John.3

[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

I would also describe God as spirit.

So that doesn't mean he cannot have a body.

Man is body and spirit before they are "born of the Spirit" ... are you saying a person "born of Spirit" is a spirit like the Holy Ghost who is pure spirit?

But the question is why can't God be spirit and body if the scripture used to assert that he does not is exactly the same as the one that supports the fact that we do?

It reveals he has strength.

And that he is likened unto an ox (or bull). The term "strength of Israel" also means "bull of Israel."

[johnny]

maklelan,

I don't see the word spirit anywhere.

Eph 4:6 and Jer 23:24 are describing spirit ... spirit does not have form, spirit is not corporeal. Eph 4:6 reveals that the Father is spirit. Please explain how a corporeal body can be "above all" and "through all".

So the proof text that inspires the doctrine that God cannot have a body is used exactly the same elsewhere, but it must mean the exact opposit in that example? Utter nonsense.

Clearly you have not proved anything ... what you have proved is that you do not understand what it means to be "born of the spirit".

So that doesn't mean he cannot have a body.

It means that those who are "born of the Spirit" partake of the divine nature ... the divine nature "is spirit".

But the question is why can't God be spirit and body if the scripture used to assert that he does not is exactly the same as the one that supports the fact that we do?

The question is why do you ignore that obvious scriptures (see below) that reveal that God is spirit.

Eph 4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jeremiah 23

[24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

Eph 4:6 and Jer 23:24 are describing spirit ... spirit does not have form, spirit is not corporeal. Eph 4:6 reveals that the Father is spirit. Please explain how a corporeal body can be "above all" and "through all".

Clearly you have not proved anything ... what you have proved is that you do not understand what it means to be "born of the spirit".

It means that those who are "born of the Spirit" partake of the divine nature ... the divine nature "is spirit".

The question is why do you ignore that obvious scriptures (see below) that reveal that God is spirit.

Eph 4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jeremiah 23

[24] Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

You'v eshown yourself again to be utterly incapable of engagin another human in a coherent debate. You haven't addressed any of my initial points. I'm done with this thread. Thanks for turning this board into a huge exercise in redundancy and ignorance.

[johnny]

maklelan,

You haven't addressed any of my initial points.

Your points are not coherent with scripture.

I'm done with this thread.

Thanks for the exchange ... The early christians put it this way ...

"What is God? â??God,â?? as the Lord says, â??is a spirit.â?? Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth.

He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God"

God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things"

God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being,

[Cold Steel]

If presented with the question, Does God have sex?

[Deborah]

The vehemence with which some here deny we are literal children of a Heavenly Father would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic. My daughter-in-law and I were discussing this today and our beliefs before joining the church (We were both teenagers). We don't recall ever being taught or thinking that we were anything but children of a Heavenly Father. Many non-LDS I know would probably be surprised to know that the scholars of their churches do not believe we are literal children of God, because they certainly believe they are, and not just in the adoptive sense.

[Tarski]

The idea that the ancient semitic conception of God was quite anthropomorphic is not surprising but most theologians (and most people I think) would just say so much the worse for the ancient semitic conception of God. I think they would say that we are on a journey of discovering and growing in our understanding of deity.

I have heard more than once someone say that the Mormon idea of God is barbaric and regressive.

I don't know about that, but I do think that a a God who is actually and literally a mammal complete with teeth, testes and toenails is awefully incongruous in light of evolutionary biology. It undercuts the otherwise enlightening connection between morphology and historically conditioned adaptation to environment.

[ozemc]

I only read through a couple of pages here, but the main thing you seem to be missing is that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical! It's not true. Or do you really believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Of course the Bible is going to be written with God acting, looking, and feeling just like a man, including the sex part. The Bible was written by men. There are some truths in the Bible, but for a good bit of it, it's myth and embellished history.

C'mon, get real. God is no more a man than I am an ameoba.

Look at the night sky. See all those stars? That's not even 1% of what's out there.

How big is the universe? What's in the next galaxy? What's in the galaxy that's 100 million light years away? What's on the other side of our own galaxy? It's 26,000 light-years from here to the center. Our sun takes 250 million years to go around the center.

Read this: http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/MW.html

There are stars out there as big as our whole solar system.

We're going to base our whole existence on books written by men, the earliest of which was probably written down about 3000-4000 years ago? Maybe on the book of mormon, on the testimony of someone who said "God" told him to start a new religion? What about Mohammed, who wrote a book based on what "God" told him? What about L. Ron Hubbard? He wrote a book too. Who's right?

None of them.

Whoever, or whatever, God is, His majesty is far greater and far more powerful than anything that can be written in a book. Men can never know what God is really like. But, you can pretty much guarantee he's not in human form.

To use my analogy above, it's like an ameoba trying to understand humans. Can't be done.

[Son]

I only read through a couple of pages here, but the main thing you seem to be missing is that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical! It's not true. Or do you really believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Of course the Bible is going to be written with God acting, looking, and feeling just like a man, including the sex part. The Bible was written by men. There are some truths in the Bible, but for a good bit of it, it's myth and embellished history.

C'mon, get real. God is no more a man than I am an ameoba.

Look at the night sky. See all those stars? That's not even 1% of what's out there.

How big is the universe? What's in the next galaxy? What's in the galaxy that's 100 million light years away? What's on the other side of our own galaxy? It's 26,000 light-years from here to the center. Our sun takes 250 million years to go around the center.

Read this: http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/MW.html

There are stars out there as big as our whole solar system.

We're going to base our whole existence on books written by men, the earliest of which was probably written down about 3000-4000 years ago? Maybe on the book of mormon, on the testimony of someone who said "God" told him to start a new religion? What about Mohammed, who wrote a book based on what "God" told him? What about L. Ron Hubbard? He wrote a book too. Who's right?

None of them.

Whoever, or whatever, God is, His majesty is far greater and far more powerful than anything that can be written in a book. Men can never know what God is really like. But, you can pretty much guarantee he's not in human form.

To use my analogy above, it's like an ameoba trying to understand humans. Can't be done.

Actually 6000yrs approx. + 7000 yrs (6k creation 1k rest).= 13,000 yrs.

If you remember one thing, a day to the lord is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day to the lord.

[structurecop]

Whoever, or whatever, God is, His majesty is far greater and far more powerful than anything that can be written in a book. Men can never know what God is really like. But, you can pretty much guarantee he's not in human form.

To use my analogy above, it's like an ameoba trying to understand humans. Can't be done.

And you're basing these statements on what superior knowledge and/or experience?

[ozemc]

And you're basing these statements on what superior knowledge and/or experience?

I don't claim to have any superior knowledge. I just read, watch, and listen.

And I use the brain the the good Lord gave me to reason.

As I say, look at the stars.

Look, I have faith, but faith without reason becomes blind faith, and that, my friend, will lead you to drink the Kool-aid, or wait for the comet.

[maklelan]

I don't claim to have any superior knowledge. I just read, watch, and listen.

And I use the brain the the good Lord gave me to reason.

As I say, look at the stars.

Look, I have faith, but faith without reason becomes blind faith, and that, my friend, will lead you to drink the Kool-aid, or wait for the comet.

So your a priori conclusion is supposed to weigh heavier on our consciences than our years of actual experiences?

[ozemc]

Actually 6000yrs approx. + 7000 yrs (6k creation 1k rest).= 13,000 yrs.

If you remember one thing, a day to the lord is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day to the lord.

Sure, it is, as God is timeless (that's what the phrase means, it's not literal).

Tell me this, why would He create it this way, and then not have it work the way He created?

IOW, why create something just to have to suspend that creation to do something you wanted to do in the first place?

That just doesn't make sense.