Origen On The Anthropomorphic God

[Chris Smith]

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?

Dear JG,

As I explained earlier in the thread, I think that the author of John's gospel and also the author(s) of Ephesians and Colossians pictured God as an incorporeal entity. This actually has more to do with the term pleroma (translated "fulness"-- but here, I think, a technical term for the realm of divine light that constitutes God's being) than with the word pneuma. The verse you're asking about, though, is of course the classic prooftext for incorporeality. And I think that its reputation is not unjustified.

I haven't been following the discussion very closely, so I don't know how much of this has already been addressed, but most translators of this passage reject the rendering "God is a spirit," preferring to omit the indefinite article: "God is spirit." There is some technical linguistic reason for doing this, if I recall correctly (though it's been a while since I looked at this verse in particular). In context, Jesus has just finished negating the need for a temple, mountain, or other special place of worship. His reason for doing this is that "God is spirit, and true worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." Presumably, the logic is that since God is not a corporeal being and is not limited to a single locale, the single-locale worship requirement is unnecessary. True worshippers worship God anywhere, because God is everywhere.

This does not necessarily mean that God is not made up of matter, since for Greeks even pneuma was a kind of matter. But I do think it means that God is not localized in a physical body of flesh and bones.

That's just my take on it. I'm certain others here will disagree.

-CK

[Zakuska]

True worshippers worship God anywhere, because God is everywhere.

On the flip side... It's also true to say...

God's worshippers are everywhere and so they can worship God anywhere.

And thus God can have corporality, and still be limited to one place.

[valkator]

Again, even within the context of the New Testement, we are facing two identification issues: one being the 'Father in Heaven' that is an actual, manifested being within a form and is the manifested 'Father of Adam' -- and the 'God that is Eternal Spirit', the 'Pleroma', or the 'Invisible Father of All' -- that would be equated with the 'unbegotten, uncreated intelligence'. Many gnostic sects, because of their inclination to reject the 'Manifested Father or Demiurge' as 'evil' - only sought identification with the 'unbegotten, Invisible Father' which all of us ultimately are when we awaken to that. It's like denying our Earthly parents and ONLY identifying with our Heavenly ones .. except many gnostics seemed to deny or reject the Heavenly ones and only wanted to see themselves in an 'unbegotten' and 'unmanifested' state not dependent on any other for 'existence'. This is, in a sense, true -- and very false, as well.

I believe one of the reasons that the Gospel of John can be confusing is because the writer was attempting to reconcile both of these realities in a way that harmonized them. Remember, that the gospels are not, simply, linear narratives but composite, archetypal works detailing both of these realities that Christ taught at different times. So what may appear to be a contradiction isn't necessarily so. Also, they were written by fellow human beings of various communication abilities.

[Sargon]

Hi CK,

I definantly don't consider myself an authority on this issue, but I will share some of the thoughts I had while reading the article you quoted from, and your subsequent thoughts.

First, what I found very interesting was this small phrase by you:

Perhaps, one author suggests, the hymn in the prologue of John's gospel was first sang to John the Baptist.

What author is this? I am interested because we find a similar teaching in the D&C 93.

For Philo the logos was the intermediate reality between God, who was essentially transcendent, and the

universe.

...

The logos was the image of God, the highest of all beings

who were intellectually perceived, the one closest to God, the only truly existent

...

Both Philo and the hymn

think of the logos as the intermediary reality through which (di'hou) the world was made.

These are some of the highlighted portions of the article you cited. Although the terminology is not very LDS, the concepts don't seem very different.

"Behold a man

(anthropos) whose name is the rising (anatole)" (Zech 6:12), strangest of titles, surely, if you suppose that

a being composed of soul and body is here described. But if you suppose that it is that Incorporeal One

(ton asomaton ekeinon), who differs not a whit from the divine image (thetas eikonos), you will agree that

the name of "rising" assigned to him quite truly describes him. For that man is the eldest son, whom the

Father of all raised up (aneteile), and elsewhere calls his first-born (protogonon), and indeed the son thus

begotten followed the ways of his Father, and shaped the different kinds, looking to the archetypal

patterns which that Father supplied (Conf. 62-63).

What did it mean to be incorporeal to Philo? And if it meant to be immaterial, how can we reconcile John's description of a very material and corporeal logos? The problem is addressed here:

Rather than finding a way to understand the discrepancy, the author of the article simply admits that Philo's theology was very complex:

There is no doubt that the logos functions in a very complex way in Philo's thought and that the

complexity makes it difficult to understand precisely what he means in his interpretations.

So is it possible that John could have borrowed Philo's idea of a logos, a theme familiar to his audience, but did not include the immaterial characteristics that Philo gives to his logos? John clearly says that "the word became flesh", which would seems to contradict Philo's understanding of a metaphysical logos.

What I am trying to point out is that while John may have borrowed the logos theme from Philo, he certainly was not consistent in using it in many respects. John's logos was corporeal and physical, while Philo's logos was metaphysical, and quasi-transcendant. The author attempts to find place in Philo's theology for such a discrepancy, but to me at least the explanation is weak.

While the logos in Philo remains primarily an intermediate metaphysical reality, there are several

elements in Philo which are helpful in seeing how such an otherwise metaphysical reality could eventually

be identified with an individual human being, Jesus of Nazareth. These hints are found in the three

passages in Philo's De Confusione Linguarum treated earlier (Conf. 40-41, 62-63, 146-47).

...

More importantly, however, for our purposes, the logos has been identified with the "man after His

image" (ConJ: 146). This refers to the man created in Gen 1:27. As Conf. 62 indicates, this man is to be

distinguished from the man created in Gen 2:7, that is the man who is composed of body and soul. The

man created after the image of God in Gen I :27 is a heavenly man who is not composed of body and

soul but is incorporeal and is the paradigm for the creation of the earthly man created in Gen 2:7.[36] The

logos has been identified with the figure of the "heavenly man" in Gen 1:27.

To use Gen 1:27 as justification for a meta-physical incorporeal logos man seems at first not only a bad interpretation, but even the interpretation does not solve the problem.

The interpretation seems strange because within the same verse woman is also mentioned, which simply doesn't fit into the concept of the logos. The woman couldn't be "wisdom", unless the ancient belief is radically reformed.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Furthermore, as stated, how does this solve the problem? Gen 1:27 desccribes a man being created in the image of God. The keyword is of course "created". Philo certainly would not appreciate that description.

The author concludes by admitting such.

This assimilation in Hellenistic Judaism of the logos to the figure of the heavenly man may have served as

an important step in the kind of reflection that led to the identification of the logos with a particular human

being, Jesus of Nazareth, in the hymn in the Prologue of John. Philo and Hellenistic Jewish exegetes of

like mind would certainly have found such an identification impossible. Nevertheless, a tradition of

interpretation in which the logos was identified with the figure of the heavenly man does make the

identification of the logos with a particular man more understandable within such a tradition of

interpretation. The identification of the logos with the heavenly man of Gen 1:27 provides the middle term,

if you will, between the logos and Jesus of Nazareth: logos--heavenly man--particular man (Jesus of

Nazareth).

So it seems obviously possible and perhaps likely that John borrowed the philosophy of Philo in his description of Christ as the Logos. But because he did that we cannot suppose that he meant Christ to be the Logos envisioned by Philo. There are obvious and problematic differences between the two.

My other question is pertaining to the likelihood of John having a firm grasp if any knowledge at all about Philo's philosophy. Philo lived and died between 20-50 AD, and was from the region of Alexandria. John's Gospel is usually dated from around 90-100 AD. While it is possible, what is the likelihood? John was a poor fisherman with no training and probably little interest in philosophy.

These were just some of my thoughts, since you were feeling left out. In fact, I find this topic more interesting that Johnny's broken record.

Sargon

[Chris Smith]

Sargon,

Thanks for the post. I will reply later as I'm off to see the dentist and ride some waterslides.

JG:

Here's a thread on the "God is spirit" verse that might prove useful.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...20417&st=20

More later,

-CK

[Tanyan]

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookscha...&chapid=208

[Chris Smith]

First, what I found very interesting was this small phrase by you:

Perhaps, one author suggests, the hymn in the prologue of John's gospel was first sung to John the Baptist.

What author is this? I am interested because we find a similar teaching in the D&C 93.

I believe it was Jack T. Sanders. However, I don't think the record of John in D&C 93 says that the hymn was sung to John the Baptist. Rather, it has "John" (this could be John the Baptist or John the apostle, though a couple GA's have decided in favor of the former) writing a sort of modified version of the Johannine Prologue.

It's interesting you should mention D&C 93. Actually, part of the reason I know so much about this subject is that I wrote a research paper on that section, which I hope to have published in Dialogue eventually. (They rejected it the first time around, but said if I revamped it I could resubmit.)

For Philo the logos was the intermediate reality between God, who was essentially transcendent, and the

universe.

...

The logos was the image of God, the highest of all beings

who were intellectually perceived, the one closest to God, the only truly existent

...

Both Philo and the hymn

think of the logos as the intermediary reality through which (di'hou) the world was made.

These are some of the highlighted portions of the article you cited. Although the terminology is not very LDS, the concepts don't seem very different.

To the contrary, "transcendent" means something very different to Tobin and Philo than it might for LDS. Philo's God was essentially the impassible, immutable, incorporeal God of Plato. The logos is his emanation, an intermediary reality that serves as an interface for the material world to interact with the impassive God.

What did it mean to be incorporeal to Philo? And if it meant to be immaterial, how can we reconcile John's description of a very material and corporeal logos? The problem is addressed here:

Rather than finding a way to understand the discrepancy, the author of the article simply admits that Philo's theology was very complex:

No, I think you misunderstood. Tobin admits that for Philo, it would be impossible for the Logos to be incarnate. But he holds that Philo's Hellenized theology represents a "middle term" between Judaism and Christianity. Tobin doesn't seem to be aware of the proto-gnostic connection, but I'd say that the proto-gnostic baptismal sects were still another "middle term"-- this time between Philo and Christianity.

What I am trying to point out is that while John may have borrowed the logos theme from Philo, he certainly was not consistent in using it in many respects. John's logos was corporeal and physical, while Philo's logos was metaphysical, and quasi-transcendant.

This is true. John's logos was decidedly more "personal" than Philo's. However, corporeality is a trait that John's logos assumed, not one that was inherent to it. I see no reason to assume that John conceived the origin and nature of his logos in as dramatically different a way from Philo as the Mormon paradigm requires.

To use Gen 1:27 as justification for a meta-physical incorporeal logos man seems at first not only a bad interpretation, but even the interpretation does not solve the problem.

The interpretation seems strange because within the same verse woman is also mentioned, which simply doesn't fit into the concept of the logos. The woman couldn't be "wisdom", unless the ancient belief is radically reformed.

Tobin's point is not to advocate such an interpretation, but to explain how Philo's abstract logos came to be identified with a "heavenly man". Hellenistic Jewish interpreters read Genesis 1:27 as referring to the creation of a sort of Platonic form, a heavenly archetype of mankind: the heavenly man, if you will. Joseph Smith did something similar in the Book of Moses when he read Genesis 1 as a spiritual creation and Genesis 2 as a physical creation. For Philo this "heavenly man" is more metphorical than personal. For the proto-gnostics, on the other hand, the "heavenly man" was very personal: a redeemer figure who comes down from heaven to lead our souls back to unity with the pleroma.

So it seems obviously possible and perhaps likely that John borrowed the philosophy of Philo in his description of Christ as the Logos. But because he did that we cannot suppose that he meant Christ to be the Logos envisioned by Philo. There are obvious and problematic differences between the two.

My other question is pertaining to the likelihood of John having a firm grasp if any knowledge at all about Philo's philosophy. Philo lived and died between 20-50 AD, and was from the region of Alexandria. John's Gospel is usually dated from around 90-100 AD. While it is possible, what is the likelihood? John was a poor fisherman with no training and probably little interest in philosophy.

Tobin does not argue that John was familiar with Philo in particular, but rather that he was familiar with the Hellenistic Jewish tradition of interpretation in which Philo stood. I am inclined to agree; Pheme Perkins offers some pretty solid reasons to believe that Christianity had proto-gnostic roots. The proto-gnostics shared Philo's view that the logos was an intermediate figure that emanated from a heavenly pleroma.

As far as the pleroma is concerned, here are a couple short excerpts from my paper on section 93:

For the Valentinian Gnostics, the pleroma (tr. "fulness") was the totality of Godâ??s being from which all our spirits are derived and with which we hope ultimately to be reunited. Our souls are divine sparks that would remain hopelessly separated from God were it not for Jesus, the intermediary aeon who emanates from the pleroma in order to bring us back into unity with it. Furthermore, the Gnostics appear to have treated the phrase "light of truth" as a synonym for the pleroma to which we all hope to ascend.

...

Philo of Alexandria wrote in the mid first century BCE that â??the model or pattern was the Word which contained all His (Godâ??s) pleromaâ??light, in fact.â? Philo, like the Gnostics and to a certain degree the Essenes, envisioned God in transcendent, Platonic terms.

...

Godâ??s pleroma was the divine spirit realm with which we hope to be united by coming to a knowledge of his logos, which is a necessary intermediary because God is too transcendent to interact with the material world.

Compare this Philo quote to Colossians 1:19: "For God was pleased to have all his pleroma dwell in [Jesus]." John 1, too, offers some very striking parallels, including reference to believers receiving light from the pleroma through the logos (John 1:16). We are told that while Jesus is not the light, he has come to testify of the light. There is no question that John differs from Philo in some important ways, but I don't think his view of God's incorporeality is one of those ways.

Blessings,

-CK

[valkator]

In LDS theological thinking, is the pleroma equated with being the 'uncreated, unbegotten intelligence' or with the Heavenly Father - or with both? If man and God's (Heavenly Father's) fundamental, eternal nature is due to the 'uncreated and unbegotten intelligence' - which both ARE in the ultimate sense of SELF according to LDS theology - then would Christ be, at once, the logos/word of this 'unseen, invisible, unbegotten, Father/intelligence' - revealing man's true nature to him as not only and simply the offspring of Heavenly Parents - but also showing man that he is from and IS the 'intelligence' itself - being 'one with the Father and so forth? There seem to be two realities being dealt with in this thread and I haven't seen anyone really address it. The 'anthropomorphic' God versus the 'invisible God' seems like a false battle if we bring in the fullness of LDS material that resolves the issue quite nicely.

[Tanyan]

What Hath Athens to do with Jerusalem ?.

[e=mc2]

Plenty after 400 A.D. lol............. I am drive by shooting whilst I enjoy a homemade sandwich for lunch.

[Chris Smith]

Plenty after 400 A.D. lol............. I am drive by shooting whilst I enjoy a homemade sandwich for lunch.

More like 334 B.C.

[Paul Ray]

The 'anthropomorphic' God versus the 'invisible God' seems like a false battle if we bring in the fullness of LDS material that resolves the issue quite nicely.

Now you've done it.

So what else would you like to talk about now?

[valkator]

Paul -- I was trying to get others' input on the LDS material itself - particularly the 'intelligence(s)' - as this relates to the issues everyone is, um, 'discussing' in this thread. lol

[Sargon]

I don't have much to add to CK's post. I am still learning about Philo and the logos issue, and CK has the upper hand as far as simply understanding the issue is concerned. I had and have a few thoughts about his post, but I am more interested to hear what someone has to say. Perhaps Kerry has something to say on this topic.

Sargon

[e=mc2]

Sargon:

Perhaps Kerry has something to say on this topic.

On Philo? I think Margaret Barker has ripped my anchor of understanding out from under my feet on him. In a most fascinating way also........... if anyone is still interested I can keep this thread gtoing.......

[solomarineris]

Sargon,

I know that the Mormon belief of a Anthropomorphic God is not consistent with Scripture.

I recognize that Origen words of a "incorporeal God" and that "God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body" is consistent with the Bible.

I recognize that the stories that God is a man with human members are "in the likeness of poetic fictions".

I recgonize that Moses did not see God as a man with human members but Moses saw the glory of God.

Isn't this God you describe amounts to a Great spirit that no one saw? Moses saw nothing, compared to Joseph Smith.Glory of God amounts to a mashroom, LSD trip compaered to what Joseph Smith describes of seeing a literal God with a tangible body. I'd be mad and jaleous too if I was a traditional christian, it makes sense, in real life nobody deals with spirits, intangible bodies. I think christians were incredibly jaleous JS inventing a God with body and parts, it was an instant success. And still makes far more sense than christian trinity.

After all, if you are christian you do recognize Jesus as God and he had a body like yours and mine.

[e=mc2]

Solmarenus:

Glory of God amounts to a mashroom,

Actually, The Jewish scholar Alan F. Segal, in his book Paul the Convert, is showing that Paul's understanding of the Glory, is situated in cross use with Ezekiel's "Glory" which he said was in human likeness! The whole conception of Paul's Glory, the one in human likeness being GOD ALMIGHTY, (i.e., not the Son, but the FATHER) is the basis of Paul's ideas of God and in Jewish Merkhavah Mysticism. I am just starting Segal's very excellent book and am absolutely totally intrigued by his analysis thus far.

[Chris Smith]

Sargon:

On Philo? I think Margaret Barker has ripped my anchor of understanding out from under my feet on him. In a most fascinating way also........... if anyone is still interested I can keep this thread gtoing.......

I'm still interested in your thoughts, especially on the notion of the pleroma as understood by Philo, John, and the author of Colossians.

[Sargon]

I'm still interested in your thoughts, especially on the notion of the pleroma as understood by Philo, John, and the author of Colossians.

Yes I am interested in learning more as well. I found an old article you wrote that is related to it Kerry, but I haven't been able to read it yet.

Sargon

[e=mc2]

What? An article I wrote about this? What's the name of it Sargon, and it will refresh my memory also. Thanks, and I is a comin man, I is a comin with more info!

[urroner]

What? An article I wrote about this? What's the name of it Sargon, and it will refresh my memory also. Thanks, and I is a comin man, I is a comin with more info!

Could it be this one: The Oneness of God

or this one: To Be or Not to Be: An Odyssey of Philosophyyâ?¦, Deityyyâ?¦, and Infinityyyyâ?¦

[e=mc2]

Good heavens, how much of this stuff have I written?!

[Sargon]

Actually it was this one: Logoj The Significance of Jesus Christ

Sargon

[e=mc2]

Ah that one eh? One of my better ones, in my personal view. I have no idea in the entire world how or why the titla got misspelled....... oh well.