Origen On The Anthropomorphic God

[Bsix]

I'm not sure where the confusion started following death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is clear from the Bible, that Jesus -- God -- has anthropomorphic form. It is very biblical. In his resurrected and apparenlty ascended form permitted people to touch him and witness him eating food. He went out of his way to declare and prove that he is anthropomorphic.

It seems that creedalism that denies that Jesus has a body is denying the Bible.

I think such teachings are symptoms of the apostacy.

Regards,

Six

[johnny]

e=mc2,

And that is precisely why he is problematic. He was trying to convince his fellow Christians against their own anthropomorphic beliefs concerning God. The Christian belief of his own day was God as physical.

How could the Christian belief of his own day be that was God as physical ... Irenaeus was an ordained Christian bishop ... the Christian Irenaeus taught that God was a Spirit just like Jesus taught ... you are not making sense ...

Since he had adopted Greek philosophy, a poor substitute for revelation, he taught opposite of what Christianity stood for.

Irenaeus adopted what Jesus taught, Jesus taught that is God is a spirit and a spirit has not flesh and bones.

Even Augustine was areluctant witness to the fact that the Christians of HIS later day still believed God was physical, and it was this idea that kept him from being baptized! It wasn't until Bishop Ambrose who taight Augustine that that belief was unnecessary to be a Christian that Augustine went ahead with his own baptism in his later 30's.

Ordained bishops like Irenaus did not believe God was physcial ... Bishop Ambrose was correct, the faith needed for baptism does not include the belief that God is corporeal or incorporeal ... Augustine should have talked with a ordained bishop instead of the those other "Christians".

And I will absolutely without question unhesitatingly follow what CHRIST taught about God having a shape, rather than a later philosopher who adopted pagan Greek philosophy as the basis for his meager understanding of God.

Christ did not teach that God had a shape ... he told those Jews that have not seen a shape.

That is interpretation based on pagan Greek philosophy which I do't feel a particular need to believe in. Thanks for playing me no gottem clue about what the Greek word "pneuma" and the Hebrew word "ruach" REALLY means to these people.

That interpretation is based on the words of Jesus. Jesus taught that is God is a spirit and a spirit has not flesh and bones.

I'll take Christ's teachings anyday over mere fallible, weak humans.

Christ did not teach that God is a man with a body of flesh and bones like the Mormon Church teaches. Christ taught the exact opposite of what the Mormon Church teaches.

[johnny]

Bsix,

It seems that creedalism that denies that Jesus has a body is denying the Bible.

"creedalism" does NOT deny that Jesus has a body ...

[Bsix]

Christ did not teach that God is a man with a body of flesh and bones like the Mormon Church teaches. Christ taught the exact opposite of what the Mormon Church teaches.

Six: An interesting misrepresentation of what Jesus taught. Jesus taught that he is God...the apostles and the Bible teach that he is God.

Jesus, the apostles, and the Bible teach that Jesus has a very real body.

Regards,

Six

[johnny]

Bsix,

Six: An interesting misrepresentation of what Jesus taught. Jesus taught that he is God...the apostles and the Bible teach that he is God.

Jesus taught that he was "the Son of God" ... Jesus is God(divine), Jesus is not the Father(God).

The Son is body and spirit.

The Father is spirit only, a spirit has not flesh and bones.

Jesus, the apostles, and the Bible teach that Jesus has a very real body.

Today's Apostolic Church teaches that Jesus has a very real body after his resurrection, (see link below)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a6.htm

659 - "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God" [Mk 16:19]. Christ's body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys [Lk 24:31; Jn 20:19, 26]. But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familiarly with his disciples and teaches them about the kingdom, his glory remains veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity [Acts 1:3; 10:41; Mk 16:12; Lk 24:15; Jn 20:14-15; 21:4]. Jesus' final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven, where he is seated from that time forward at God's right hand [Acts 1:9; 2:33; 7:56; Lk 9:34-35; 24:51; Ex 13:22; Mk 16:19; Ps 110:1]. Only in a wholly exceptional and unique way would Jesus show himself to Paul "as to one untimely born", in a last apparition that established him as an apostle [1 Cor 15:8; 9:1; Gal 1:16]

[Chris Smith]

Dear Kerry,

John 5:37-38 says, "You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent."

The voice, form, and word of God are all tied to Jesus. Jesus is the form (image), voice, and word of the invisible God. In closing their eyes, ears, and hearts to Jesus' work and message, they have closed themselves to the form and voice of the Father.

Eidos, by the way, refers in Platonism to "essence" rather than to a physical shape. John here is probably using it in its conventional sense, but could be using it Platonically.

In any case, I am curious what you think of the T.H. Tobin essay I quoted and commented on above.

-CK

[Bsix]

Bsix,

Jesus taught that he was "the Son of God" ... Jesus is God(divine), Jesus is not the Father(God).

The Son is body and spirit.

The Father is spirit only, a spirit has not flesh and bones.

Today's Apostolic Church teaches that Jesus has a very real body after his resurrection, (see link below)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a6.htm

659 - "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God" [Mk 16:19]. Christ's body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys [Lk 24:31; Jn 20:19, 26]. But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familiarly with his disciples and teaches them about the kingdom, his glory remains veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity [Acts 1:3; 10:41; Mk 16:12; Lk 24:15; Jn 20:14-15; 21:4]. Jesus' final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven, where he is seated from that time forward at God's right hand [Acts 1:9; 2:33; 7:56; Lk 9:34-35; 24:51; Ex 13:22; Mk 16:19; Ps 110:1]. Only in a wholly exceptional and unique way would Jesus show himself to Paul "as to one untimely born", in a last apparition that established him as an apostle [1 Cor 15:8; 9:1; Gal 1:16]

Six: And there you have it. The great creedal rationalization. The resurrection of Jesus Christ with an eternal body is core to the mission of the Savior. To deny the resurrection is to deny Jesus Christ.

The teaching that Jesus somehow gave up his body after he visited his believers is completely and totally unbiblical. The Bible simply does not teach that doctrine. Jesus discarding his body...or materializing in a body whenever the need arises is a creedal falsehood.

Another example of self-serving rationalizations is how Jesus is decribed as distinct from the Father when it comes to describing the nature of God. When you aks a trinitarian who is God, they will tell you that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God. Whey you discuss the physical attribute of God through Jesus Chrst...all the sudden they are two completely different indivuals with seperate natures of which do not apply to God as a whole.

If Jesus -- God-- has a body...then God has a body. (If you accept trintiarian logic.)

Regards,

Six

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

The Son is body and spirit.

The Father is spirit only, a spirit has not flesh and bones.

The Athanasian Creed teaches that we are not to divide the substance of the Father and the Son. You are dividing the substance. If they *BOTH* have the same substance, and Jesus has a body, a physical substance, pray tell why do you divide the substance by denying His Father having a physical body like Jesus?

[johnny]

Bsix,

Six: And there you have it. The great creedal rationalization. The resurrection of Jesus Christ with an eternal body is core to the mission of the Savior. To deny the resurrection is to deny Jesus Christ.

The "great creedal rationalization" is consistent with the Bible.

The teaching that Jesus somehow gave up his body after he visited his believers is completely and totally unbiblical. The Bible simply does not teach that doctrine. Jesus discarding his body...or materializing in a body whenever the need arises is a creedal falsehood.

The Apostolic Christians do NOT teach that "Jesus somehow gave up his body after he visited his believers".

Another example of self-serving rationalizations is how Jesus is decribed as distinct from the Father when it comes to describing the nature of God. When you aks a trinitarian who is God, they will tell you that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God. Whey you discuss the physical attribute of God through Jesus Chrst...all the sudden they are two completely different indivuals with seperate natures of which do not apply to God as a whole.

The Father and the Son are distinct. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God(divine nature). The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are NOT one person. The Son has two natures, body and spirit. The Father has one nature, spirit.

If Jesus -- God-- has a body...then God has a body. (If you accept trintiarian logic.)

If you accept trintaian logic then you accept the logic of the Bible. The Bible reveals that the Father dwelt in the Son, God was in Christ. Jesus taught that "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24) and that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

The Athanasian Creed teaches that we are not to divide the substance of the Father and the Son. You are dividing the substance.

How could I be diving the substance, both are God(divine nature). The Father dwelt in the Son. God was in Christ.

If they *BOTH* have the same substance, and Jesus has a body, a physical substance, pray tell why do you divide the substance by denying His Father having a physical body like Jesus?

The term "substance" in the creed is not a reference to "physical substance", it is a reference to "divine nature". I would suggest you learn more about the creeds and the Trinity.

[Jersey Girl]

Been following this thread and trying to withhold comment. But here's a question for clarity. Kerry, when you said this:

He was a mere child compared to Christ the Lord, who actually ***created*** him along with all the other apostates who adopted pagan Greek philosophy. I'll take Christ's teachings anyday over mere fallible, weak humans.

Were you referring to Irenaeus or Polycarp?

[Cold Steel]

Origen (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225])

"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word, 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 â??whenâ?? and â??neverâ?? 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."

Hey, Johnny, I'm sure glad none of the apostles and prophets wrote like that. Promise me this, I want to see your face when you finally see God. If you get there before me, don't go in until I get there, okay?

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

Irenaeus is consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught that "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24) and that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). Jesus says that the Father is a spirit; this means that he lacks a body of flesh and bones.

No it doesn't. Spirit is not opposite a body of flesh and bones. Spirit, as I have shown in the Biblical Greek and Hebrew is corporeal. Spirit does not have *gross* material, it is finer stuff, as the Lexicon of Greek I showed you and you ignored teaches. Your interpretation that spirit and body are opposites is based on pagan Greek philosophy, not Christian revelation.

Jersey Girl:

Were you referring to Irenaeus or Polycarp?

Since Christ created both and is vastly superior, it doesn't matter.

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

The Son has two natures, body and spirit. The Father has one nature, spirit.

So the Son is superior to the Father in respect to the flesh. The Son has something the Father doesn't.

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

The term "substance" in the creed is not a reference to "physical substance", it is a reference to "divine nature". I would suggest you learn more about the creeds and the Trinity.

They aren't scripture, so I will stick with learning most about the scriptures since they are true and not mingled with the philosophy of men.

[johnny]

Cold Steel,

Hey, Johnny, I'm sure glad none of the apostles and prophets wrote like that.

I am glad that Origen was consistent with Holy Scripture ... I would be concerned if he wrote stuff like the Mormon Church teaches. Origen wrote that "we hold that the Word, the Wisdom, was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God" which is consistent with the Bible. The Mormon Church teaches that the Son was born of heavenly parents which is not consistent with the Bible.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

No it doesn't. Spirit is not opposite a body of flesh and bones. Spirit, as I have shown in the Biblical Greek and Hebrew is corporeal. Spirit does not have *gross* material, it is finer stuff, as the Lexicon of Greek I showed you and you ignored teaches. Your interpretation that spirit and body are opposites is based on pagan Greek philosophy, not Christian revelation.

Why do you ignore Jesus usage of spirit, he says:

John.4

[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24

[39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

So the Son is superior to the Father in respect to the flesh. The Son has something the Father doesn't.

The Son has a body of flesh and bones, I would not necessarily call that "superior".

They aren't scripture, so I will stick with learning most about the scriptures since they are true and not mingled with the philosophy of men.

"divine nature" is scriptural, check 2Pet 1:4.

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

The term "substance" in the creed is not a reference to "physical substance", it is a reference to "divine nature". I would suggest you learn more about the creeds and the Trinity.

Then what am I to make of Tertullian's teacing that even God must be material? "For who will deny that God is a body, although God is a spirit? For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 7 in ANF 3:602. You notice they are not placing spirit in opposition to material, but it is a finer type of material, but it certainly is not immaterial.

And what of Origen's teaching that there are those in Christianity who teach that God has a body because John 4:24 says God is a Spirit! Origen says fire and spirit according to them are to be regarded as nothing else than a body. (Origen, De Principiis 1:1:1, in ANF 4:242. See also Barry Bickmore's discussion for further evidences that Origen taught God had a body in his book Restoring the Ancient Church, FAIR, 1999: 95-96.

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

Why do you ignore Jesus usage of spirit, he says:

John.4

[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24

[39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Why do you ignore that this is pagan Greek philosophy interpretation that spirit is the opposite of material? Why do you ignore the Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew, "Pneuma," and "Ruach," respectively which do not mean immaterial and incorporeal, but are material? Spirit is not the opposite of material according to the Biblical Greek and Hebrew. Why do you ignore this?

Johnny:

The Son has a body of flesh and bones, I would not necessarily call that "superior".

He can walk on the water miraculously, the Father can't. He can speak with his mouth, the Father can't. He can be a carpenter using hammers and nails, the Father has no hands which to do this with. He can walk, run, jump, love, while the Father can't. These are things, following your silly philosophy, that are superior to the Father.

[Sargon]

I no longer have time to keep up with this thread, but I will at least point out again that Johnny, our beloved authority on all truth, has agreed that Origen succumbed to the "philosophical notions" of the Greek intellectual world in which he lived, as was the topic of the OP.

"The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions."44

Sargon

[Cold Steel]

I am glad that Origen was consistent with Holy Scripture ... I would be concerned if he wrote stuff like the Mormon Church teaches. Origen wrote that "we hold that the Word, the Wisdom, was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God" which is consistent with the Bible. The Mormon Church teaches that the Son was born of heavenly parents which is not consistent with the Bible.

Okay, but did Origen ever have a revelation? Had he ever seen God? (Oh, I forgot, God is "invisible and incorporeal.") Well, then I'll settle for him seeing an angel. The problem is, you've got people who aren't receiving revelation frantically trying to comprehend what they view as incomprehensible. But Jesus didn't teach such a God and Origen can't accept it.

Someone once said, and this is golden: "If you can comprehend what Jesus was following His resurrection, you can comprehend what the Father is." It's just that simple, regardless what anyone else says. That's what Origen and the other great minds of his day failed to understand. If angels had arms, legs, noses and earsâ??if they appeared human, and if man was created in that same form, and if that form was in the very "image and likeness" of God, and if God became as we are and is remaining that way (you will concede that, I trust), then it's fairly simple to comprehend the fact that the Son is like the Father and we will become like the Son. The apostle John (who did receive revelation) said that when we "see" God, we would be "like" him, right? And if we're like Christ, what does that imply?

Christ will always have his physical body. When all men are resurrected they, too, will have their physical bodies permanently. What possible relationship could Jesus have with an invisible incorporeal God now that He's a physical being? Those are the questions Origen didn't address.

[Sargon]

I can't help myself, and I thought this would be useful...

Tertullian: "For who will deny that God is a body, although 'God is a Spirit?' For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form."

Origen defending criticism from those who hold that spirit is corporeal:

I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declarations of our own Scriptures, God is a body, because in the writings of Moses they find it said, that "our God is a consuming fire;" and in the Gospel according to John, that "God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." Fire and spirit, according to them, are to be regarded as nothing else than a body.

Thus we see, Johnny, that there existed Early Christians, one of which was Tertullian, and others whom Origen fought against, who did not interpret "spirit" as you do. They understood spirit to be...oh...how should we put it...refined or purer matter?....

Now, what you are most likely going to do is scan your Catholic site for quotes from other ECF that contradict these. That is fine. At least recognize that there existed very ancient Christians who did not believe as you.

Sargon

[johnny]

e=mc2,

... Tertullian's teacing ... Origen's teaching ..

I am curious do you view the teaching of Tertullian and Origen as problematic ... if so why are you quoting them?

Are you quoting them because you believe their words are true?

Spirit is not the opposite of material according to the Biblical Greek and Hebrew.

Jesus clearly says "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" ... it doesn't get much clearer than that.

Why do you ignore the plain words of Jesus?

These are things, following your silly philosophy, that are superior to the Father.

Since the Father is pure spirit he can be transcendent (Eph 4:6)

Eph.4

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

[Sargon]

Jesus clearly says "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" ... it doesn't get much clearer than that.

"A man hath not wood and stone.....therefore he cannot dwell in a house made of wood and stone?"

Sargon

[johnny]

Cold Steel,

Okay, but did Origen ever have a revelation? Had he ever seen God? (Oh, I forgot, God is "invisible and incorporeal.") Well, then I'll settle for him seeing an angel. The problem is, you've got people who aren't receiving revelation frantically trying to comprehend what they view as incomprehensible. But Jesus didn't teach such a God and Origen can't accept it.

The problem still remains, Mormon teachings are not consistent with the Word of God. Origen words are consistent with the Word of God.

The apostle John (who did receive revelation) said that when we "see" God, we would be "like" him, right? And if we're like Christ, what does that imply?

It means that we will be perfect and holy like Christ.

What possible relationship could Jesus have with an invisible incorporeal God now that He's a physical being?

Their relationship remains the same.