Origen On The Anthropomorphic God

[johnny]

Sargon,

At least recognize that there existed very ancient Christians who did not believe as you.

Also recognize that Catholics have the continous divine revelation of the Apostolic Catholic Church to clarify these Early Christians writings.

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.

Correction, I said the following,

In order to articulate some doctrines the early Christians used certain notions of philosophical origin. In doing this they did not submit the faith to human wisdom.

[Bsix]

Okay johnny: Let's break this down to as simple as it can be. I think these can be answered as a simple yes or no.

1. Is Jesus currently and eternally anthropomorphic? (Does he have a body right now and forever?)

2. Does Jesus at any time seperate and reunite from his body?

3. Now that Jesus sits as God on the right hand of the Father, is he literally and physically next to God in anthropomorphic form?

4. When Jesus as God shows himself to people such as Paul the Apostle, is he anthropomorphic?

I'd be interested in your take on those questions?

(Also, I do see a very wide divide between claiming that an extra-biblical doctrinal thesis is consistent with the Bible...and what the bible actually says.)

Regards,

Six

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

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?

I don't. Jesus understood thatspirit is more refined material as the early church fathers did, whom I quoted. Why are you ignoring their ideas? Because they understand spirit as material while you don't? You still have not answered why the Biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew teach that spirit is material. Why do you ignore the plain meaning of the words of the Greek and Hebrew? We can play this silly game of why do you ignore this or that all we want. Christ is not teaching that spirit is opposite of matter, but that it is not a gross a matter as a human body, but it is still material as the Greek clearly and plainly means. Show me where the Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible for "spirit" mean "immaterial," and "incorporeal." Show me in the Bible.

[Sargon]

Cold Steel,

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

Shut down MAD, pack up and lets go home. Johnny's arguments are too amazing.

For a study on anthropomorphic God of antiquity, I recommend David L. Paulsen's "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives".

Sargon

[johnny]

Bsix,

1. Is Jesus currently and eternally anthropomorphic? (Does he have a body right now and forever?)

Yes

2. Does Jesus at any time seperate and reunite from his body?

Yes

3. Now that Jesus sits as God on the right hand of the Father, is he literally and physically next to God in anthropomorphic form?

(you word that "Jesus sits as God" is confussing ... Jesus is the Son of God)

4. When Jesus as God shows himself to people such as Paul the Apostle, is he anthropomorphic?

(you word that "Jesus as God" is confussing ... Jesus is the Son of God)

[johnny]

e=mc2,

Christ is not teaching that spirit is opposite of matter, but that it is not a gross a matter as a human body, but it is still material as the Greek clearly and plainly means.

Christ is teaching that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and that "God is a sprit".

[Sargon]

3. Now that Jesus sits as God on the right hand of the Father, is he literally and physically next to God in anthropomorphic form?

(you word that "Jesus sits as God" is confussing ... Jesus is the Son of God)

4. When Jesus as God shows himself to people such as Paul the Apostle, is he anthropomorphic?

(you word that "Jesus as God" is confussing ... Jesus is the Son of God)

How is that confusing to you of all people Johnny?

From the precious creed:

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

Sargon

[johnny]

Sargon,

How is that confusing to you of all people Johnny?

It is confusing to me because I am not clear how Bsix is using "God" ...

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

In this usage "God" refers to "divine nature" ...

[Sargon]

e=mc2,

Christ is teaching that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and that "God is a sprit".

Johnny,

As is often the case, we may all be talking past each other. You must understand that we see absolutely no contradiction in our understanding of spirit with the scriptures. To say that "God is a spirit" or "God is spirit" does not disqualify him from possessing a body of flesh and bones.

First of all, to Jesus and to the Jews he was among, a "spirit" was not an immaterial substance with no form. It was a purer matter, yet it was matter.

Second, Jesus could have equally said to the woman he was speaking to "You are spirit", and that would not have meant she would have had to cast aside her body of flesh and bones. A spirit really does not have flesh and bones, but that is the exact reason that is resides in a body of such!!

So when Jesus said to his terrified apostles that a spirit hath not flesh and bones, he was calming their fears by telling them it was him, physical and real, not some apparition. Just as he had a spirit housed in a body prior to his death, he had a spirit housed in a body afterwards. He was not just spirit when he appeared to them, but he was spirit with a body of flesh and bones.

That is our take.

Sargon

[e=mc2]

Johnny,

Tertullian also taught in the Resurrection of the Flesh, that the soul has a "corporeal nature." The editor footnotes says "Tertullian supposed that even the soul was in a certain sense of a corporeal essence." (ANF 3:570.) He further said "the soul is a corporeal substance." (ANF 3:587).

Here is an early Church Father who believes the SUBSTANCE is corporeal. I asked why you divide the substance of the Father and Son, and you accused me of not understanding the Trinity. But Tertullian appears to also understand the term "substance" as being corporeal.

Tertullian further notes in his Treatise on the Soul that "the soul is a spiritual essence (inasmuch as breath and spirit are in their very nature very near akin to each other) will yet have no difficulty in persuading (us) that the soul is a corporeal substance." He later concludes this chapter (chapter V) "when the body is deserted by the soul, it is overcome by death. The soul, therefore, is endued with a body; for if it were not corporeal, it could not desert the body." (ANF, 3: 184, 185)

Notice this, the soul is corporeal and it is due to its being corporeal that it CAN inhabit our physical bodies. So much for your theory that the Father cannot reside in Jesus if He has a body. Tertullian say something corporeal can and does reside in our corporeal bodies, namely a corporeal soul.

[Chris Smith]

I feel... neglected.

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

Christ is teaching that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and that "God is a sprit".

And Christ certainly knew that the Greek word Pneuma and the Hebrew word "ruach," both words for SPIRIT was not the opposite of material, but are corporeal themselves as Tertullian also noted. Why do you continue to ignore the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible? Again, the words Jesus used, namely pneuma and ruach are not incorporeal and immaterial opposite of bodies, but are also corporeal bodies, exactly as Tertullian taught which I posted in the above post.

[Jersey Girl]

Johnny,

As is often the case, we may all be talking past each other. You must understand that we see absolutely no contradiction in our understanding of spirit with the scriptures. To say that "God is a spirit" or "God is spirit" does not disqualify him from possessing a body of flesh and bones.

First of all, to Jesus and to the Jews he was among, a "spirit" was not an immaterial substance with no form. It was a purer matter, yet it was matter.

Second, Jesus could have equally said to the woman he was speaking to "You are spirit", and that would not have meant she would have had to cast aside her body of flesh and bones. A spirit really does not have flesh and bones, but that is the exact reason that is resides in a body of such!!

So when Jesus said to his terrified apostles that a spirit hath not flesh and bones, he was calming their fears by telling them it was him, physical and real, not some apparition. Just as he had a spirit housed in a body prior to his death, he had a spirit housed in a body afterwards. He was not just spirit when he appeared to them, but he was spirit with a body of flesh and bones.

That is our take.

Sargon

But he doesn't. Jesus doesn't say to woman that "You are spirit".

In the above partial quotes of scripture, Jesus says that God is a Spirit and then later declares that a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones. And you say that when Jesus says God is a Spirit, that doesn't disqualfiy him from having flesh and bones.

Are you reading the same lines that I am? What about the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit have a body of flesh and bones?

[johnny]

Sargon,

As is often the case, we may all be talking past each other. You must understand that we see absolutely no contradiction in our understanding of spirit with the scriptures. To say that "God is a spirit" or "God is spirit" does not disqualify him from possessing a body of flesh and bones.

For me and the early Christians like Clement it means that God is incorporeal.

Clement of Alexandria (Fragment from On Providence [A.D. 200])

"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. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself".

[e=mc2]

Sorry CK! I am meaning to get to yer stuff......it will have to be tomorrow though. It's already my bedtime.........please don't feel hurt.......we still luv ya bro!

[Jersey Girl]

I feel... neglected.

Hi CK!

While someone else is making up their mind to reply to whatever they're neglecting...what is your take on the words of Jesus when he says that God is a spirit and that a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones?

Does that rule out God having a body of flesh and bones? What's your take on that?

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

For me and the early Christians like Clement it means that God is incorporeal.

Clement of Alexandria (Fragment from On Providence [A.D. 200])

"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. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself".

And Tertullian taught a contradictory view. So who is correct, Clement or Tertullian? See my above post of many of his quotes about the corporeal soul.

[johnny]

e=mc2,

Tertullian also taught ...

Again I ask ... why are you quoting Tertullian ... ?

Are you quoting him because you believe his words are true?

... the words Jesus used ...

We have been over this before ... see my earlier posts ...

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

We have been over this before ... see my earlier posts

I know, that's why I kep having to go back to Jesus' words, since you ignore them....

[johnny]

e=mc2,

It's already my bedtime.........

My bedtime also ... since I am working tomorrow, I will reply tomorrow evening ...

[e=mc2]

Johnny:

Again I ask ... why are you quoting Tertullian ... ?

Are you quoting him because you believe his words are true?

Is that the only reason to use someone's ideas, because you believe them? I am showing you that not all the early church fathers say and mean the same unified thing. I quote lots of people who I do't necessarily accept as true, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't use their ideas to show what *they* think.

[Sargon]

But he doesn't. Jesus doesn't say to woman that "You are spirit".

In the above partial quotes of scripture, Jesus says that God is a Spirit and then later declares that a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones. And you say that when Jesus says God is a Spirit, that doesn't disqualfiy him from having flesh and bones.

Are you reading the same lines that I am? What about the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit have a body of flesh and bones?

From our perspective, Jesus could have said that anyone "is Spirit", including God, and that certainly not disqualify them from having a body of flesh and bones.

The spirit and the body are two separate things. The spirit is not flesh and bones, the body is flesh and bones. When the spirit is not inside of a body, it can be said that it does not have flesh and bones. When a spirit is inside of a body(as is the case with you, I, Johnny, and God), it can still be said that the spirit does not have flesh and bones. The body it is in has flesh and bones.

The Holy Ghost as far as we know is a spirit just like everyone else, including you, who does not dwell in a body of flesh and bones. Were he to acquire a body of flesh and bones, he would still be spirit without flesh and bones. The body he is in however, is flesh and bones.

We are spirits on a physical journey....one that will never end.

Sargon

[e=mc2]

Or as I like to say it, we are spirits having an "in-body" experience.........

[Bsix]

Six: 1. Is Jesus currently and eternally anthropomorphic? (Does he have a body right now and forever?)

Johnny: Yes

Six: Okay, then I think it is safe to say that to traditional Christians it is the eternal nature of Jesus Christ to have a body.

Six: 2. Does Jesus at any time seperate and reunite from his body?

Johnny: Yes

Six: Really...when...how...why? And what passage of the Bible explicitly decribe this?

Six: 3. Now that Jesus sits as God on the right hand of the Father, is he literally and physically next to God in anthropomorphic form?

Johnny: (you word that "Jesus sits as God" is confussing ... Jesus is the Son of God)

Six: Perhaps I am not wording that correctly. When Jesus (the Son of God) sits on the right hand of God the Father, I assume that he does so as God -- as a person in a triune God. My question is to ask that when he sits on the right hand of the Father if Jesus is physical? I just want to confirm if you consider Jesus to be God and that he as God (a person in the trinity) has a body.

4. Six: When Jesus as God shows himself to people such as Paul the Apostle, is he anthropomorphic?

Johnny: (you word that "Jesus as God" is confussing ... Jesus is the Son of God)

I am just trying to confirm that when Jesus appears to people like Paul, they are seeing God (Jesus as a person in the Trinity) and they can see him because he has a body. For example, when Thomas saw Jesus in the upper room, he literally saw a physical being -- Jesus. He fell down and declared that Jesus (whom he was touching) was his "Lord" and his "God." In that instance, did Thomas see God? If not, what was he touching and who was he calling God?

If you could clarify?

Thanks,

Six

[Sargon]

I gotta say, even though I think Johnny is dead wrong, you gotta admire(or loathe) his persistence. Where are all his evangelical Trinitarians at?

Sargon