God is Spirit

[Sargon]

In the debate over the corporeality of God the Father, John 4:24 is usually a focus:

KJVJhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

Many non-LDS Christians make a big fuss over the phrase "God is spirit". To them, that is the clencher. To them, this precludes the possibility that a God who is spirit could also be a God who is body. To them, the two are mutually exclusive.

Hold your horses!

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

In this verse, man who is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT.

According to the logic proffered by many non-LDS Christians, this precludes the possibility of man also being body.

What?

I offer this observation as an addition to the usual perfectly good responses to our critic's use of John 4:24 (God is love, fire, etc.).

[Lightbearer]

Actually it is ironic that this scripture in John 4:24 was at one time used to defend the idea that God does have a physical body. (Can't remember where I read that)

[Sargon]

Actually it is ironic that this scripture in John 4:24 was at one time used to defend the idea that God does have a physical body. (Can't remember where I read that)

I believe it was Origen, who denied that God had a physical body, but believed that spirit was a sort of corpus nonetheless.

[BCSpace]

In this verse, man who is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT.

According to the logic proffered by many non-LDS Christians, this precludes the possibility of man also being body.

What?

I offer this observation as an addition to the usual perfectly good responses to our critic's use of John 4:24 (God is love, fire, etc.).

Makes perfect sense to me. Afterall, James 2:26 also shows that man is spirit.

[Cold Steel]

Until someone can adequately define spirit, the question is moot.

Man was made in the image of God. I ask people who find our views unpalatable why God would be in the image that was obviously designed for a terrestrial existence. Man is a being designed for standing upright, moving on two legs with two arms and hands. He has a nose for breathing, hair, eyes. Why would God be in that image if He had never lived on another world? If God is an eternal being and changes not, then His having an image like man's is most intriguing.

God is not incorporeal. He doesn't transform Himself into our image to commune with us. He's never appeared to a prophet and said, "I'm showing myself to you in this form because it is something you understand, for you could not comprehend me in my true appearance and glory." Yet isn't this what our sectarian friends would have us believe of God? One, in fact, writes: "The â??image of Godâ? is a concept God initiated to help us understand him."

Where in scripture does it say that?

"Man in the image of God," said Professor John Rendle-Short; "what does this mean in practical terms? It cannot refer to bodily, biological form since God is a Spirit and man is earthly." His answer is that God honored humans by sending His Son to Earth in human form, a form people could comprehend. But he never explains how Jesus is in the "express image" of the Father. Adam was in the image of God and Seth was in the image of Adam. What could be more clear?

Blogger Rich Deem plays an intellectual "kick the can" by approaching it and kicking it, but he retreats before he can be drawn too far into the ramifications of the scripture. "Some have equated the image of God as being the physical characteristics of our bodies that make up the way we look. In fact, the Mormons have taken this interpretation to extreme by saying that God is just an exalted man, who has "a body of flesh and bones." However, the Bible says that both males and females are created in the image of God. Unless God were a hermaphrodite (having both male and female sexual organs), this phrase could not refer to just physical characteristics."

Yes, it was God who made the familial connections. Jesus is His "Son." But what kind of a son doesn't have both a father and a mother? And God did speak in the plural when He said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." What's this "our" all about? Could the oneness of God somehow be inclusive of a female counterpart? I frankly don't see how it could not.

The nature of God is the single greatest reason cited as to why Mormons supposedly aren't Christians. We worship "another Jesus" and, therefore, we don't deserve the title that some of these learned professors are said to possess. "We are made in the image or likeness of God, and are unique from the rest of creation and from animals in that we have both a body and a soul/spirit," says Mark Slaughter, InterVarsity staff specialist in Indiana.

Really? Can anyone really look at a beloved animal and truly believe that when it dies, everything that it was and is perishes? Is man the only being with both body and spirit? How absolutely incredible that any rational sectarian could believe that. During the cold months, my cat often catches my hand in his claws and teeth and pulls it close to him for warmth. He purrs when I scratch him and moves his head up so I can get beneath his neck. Do you Bible believing Christians actually believe that these animals have no intelligence or spirits that lives on after death? And if so, do you want to explain it to my cat?

[maklelan]

Actually it is ironic that this scripture in John 4:24 was at one time used to defend the idea that God does have a physical body. (Can't remember where I read that)

Origen talks about that in De Principiis.

[cksalmon]

In the debate over the corporeality of God the Father, John 4:24 is usually a focus:

Many non-LDS Christians make a big fuss over the phrase "God is spirit". To them, that is the clencher. To them, this precludes the possibility that a God who is spirit could also be a God who is body. To them, the two are mutually exclusive.

Hold your horses!

In this verse, man who is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT.

According to the logic proffered by many non-LDS Christians, this precludes the possibility of man also being body.

What?

I offer this observation as an addition to the usual perfectly good responses to our critic's use of John 4:24 (God is love, fire, etc.).

Hi Sargon--

Just very quickly, and without any offense intended, I find your argument overly simplistic, here. It seems to presuppose that John/Jesus is using "spirit" as a precisely defined variable. But, of course, that's not how language works. Words have multiple semantic domains--thus, ranges of meanings--that cannot be easily collapsed into neat syllogisms or math-like formulae.

I think it's an interesting issue, but not one that makes for a compelling argument.

At any rate, I'll try to check back in later with some expanded thoughts. (But, for now, I just downloaded the James White/Bart Ehrman NT debate that occurred yesterday in Florida!)

Best.

cks

[Notquitewetyet]

I believe it was Origen, who denied that God had a physical body, but believed that spirit was a sort of corpus nonetheless.

Right. From Mr. Shirts:

Origen even noted that the text John 4:24 "God is spirit" was initially understood as proof ***against*** incorporeal thinking!

"I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because they find it said in the Gospel according to John that God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Spirit according to them is to be regarded as nothing less than a body." (Paulsen, p. 109).

I love that you put up pictures of such a pretty cat you have. I know last year I lost my dog (I wasn't at home) who I'd had since the time I was in kindergarten. He was like a brother, and I've mourned for him more than I have for many distant relatives. I am so glad for the gleaming truth of the Restored Gospel, which assures me I'll see him again. My catholic parents tried to say it was okay and that it was fine that he passed on (because the Catholic Church teaches animals have no soul[spirit] and cannot love), but they don't think they'll ever see him again. I know I will.

[Chris Smith]

Sargon,

I would link you to my recent discussion on this subject with maklelan over in MDB's Celestial Forum, but this board's highly annoying linking restrictions make that impossible. So instead I will simply paste for you a (slightly modified) portion of what I wrote there.

The passage to which you are referring reads as follows:

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

To say here that those who born of the Spirit "are spirit" cannot mean that they "have a spirit". Presumably we all "have a spirit", regardless of whether we are born of the Spirit or not. Rather, what is described here is a transformation into a spiritual being. Such beings are like the wind (pneuma: breath, wind, spirit); they blow wherever they please, and no one can tell whence they come or whither they are going. John tells us that Jesus is the only one who has ever been to or come from heaven (3:13). There he shared in God's light, love, and glory. He imparts this light, love, and glory to his disciples so that they cease to be "of this world" and become instead "sons of light" (12:36; ch. 17). Only those who are thus born of spirit can "see the kingdom of God". Is this because John conceives of the kingdom as a metaphor for a spiritual reality? The only other passage in the fourth gospel that mentions the kingdom is 18:36, where we read that "My kingdom is not of this world. [...] My kingdom does not have its origin here." John 17:3 speaks of eternal life as knowledge of God. Jesus also says that his disciples will "be with Me where I am." In other words, they will ascend spiritually to heaven and share with the Logos in the divine light and glory. John tells us in 6:63 that "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." Hardly a Mormon perspective!

By the way, an important backdrop to keep in mind while reading John's gospel is Wisdom of Solomon 7:24-8. The Logos of John's prologue is basically Wisdom under a different name. Jesus was thought to be the fleshly incarnation of this pre-existent Wisdom/Logos. WoS says,

"For wisdom is more moving than any motion: she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness. For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets. For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom."

Wisdom is here spirit, breath, light, and image of God. The understanding of spirit here is a Stoic one: spirit is rarified matter that "passeth and goeth through all things" because of its purity (as the resurrected Jesus walks through a locked door in John 20:19, perhaps).

In any case, all of this is to say that the verse you cite describes a process of transformation whereby we are changed into spiritual beings precisely because we serve a spiritual God. The notion that this supports the doctrine of an embodied deity is entirely backwards.

Best,

-Chris

[LeSellers]

I find your argument overly simplistic, here. It seems to presuppose that John/Jesus is using "spirit" as a precisely defined variable. But, of course, that's not how language works. Words have multiple semantic domains--thus, ranges of meanings--that cannot be easily collapsed into neat syllogisms or math-like formulae.

So that explains how Joseph Smith translated "Messiah" and "Christ" from a (assumed) single altered Hebrew word in the Golden Plates.

Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Lehi

[Notquitewetyet]

Looks like Mr. Shirts pulled this argument about Origen from this side note in the text actually written by Jerome as a unique recording or paraphrase of Origen:

Jerome, in his Epistle to Avitus, No. 94, has the passage thus: â??Since, as we have already frequently observed, the beginning is generated again from the end, it is a question whether then also there will be bodies, or whether existence will be maintained at some time without them when they shall have been annihilated, and thus the life of incorporeal beings must be believed to be incorporeal, as we know is the case with God. And there is no doubt that if all the bodies which are termed visible by the apostle, belong to that sensible world, the life of incorporeal beings will be incorporeal.â? And a little after: â??That expression, also, used by the apostle, â??The whole creation will be freed from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of Godâ?? (Rom. viii. 21), we so understand, that we say it was the first creation of rational and incorporeal beings which is not subject to corruption, because it was not clothed with bodies: for wherever bodies are, corruption immediately follows. But afterwards it will be freed from the bondage of corruption, when they shall have received the glory of the sons of God, and God shall be all in all.â? And in the same place: â??That we must believe the end of all things to be incorporeal, the language of the Saviour Himself leads us to think, when He says, â??As I and Thou are one, so may they also be one in Usâ?? (John xvii. 21). For we ought to know what God is, and what the Saviour will be in the end, and how the likeness of the Father and the Son has been promised to the saints; for as they are one in Him, so they also are one in them. For we must adopt the view, either that the God of all things is clothed with a body, and as we are enveloped with flesh, so He also with some material covering, that the likeness of the life of God may be in the end produced also in the saints: or if this hypothesis is unbecoming, especially in the judgment of those who desire, even in the smallest degree, to feel the majesty of God, and to look upon the glory of His uncreated and all-surpassing nature, we are forced to adopt the other alternative, and despair either of attaining any likeness to God, if we are to inhabit for ever the same bodies, or if the blessedness of the same life with God is promised to us, we must live in the same state as that in which God lives.â? All these points have been omitted by Rufinus as erroneous, and statements of a different kind here and there inserted instead (Ru

[cksalmon]

Right. From Mr. Shirts:

Origen even noted that the text John 4:24 "God is spirit" was initially understood as proof ***against*** incorporeal thinking!

"I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because they find it said in the Gospel according to John that God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Spirit according to them is to be regarded as nothing less than a body." (Paulsen, p. 109).

Why does Paulsen (or, perhaps Kerry?) misquote Origen here? "Fire and spirit, according to them, are to be regarded as nothing else than a body" is the correct translation.

Kerry's assumption that "'God is spirit' was initially understood as proof ***against*** incorporeal thinking" is completely unfounded on the basis of this citation. Origen just notes no such thing at all. He states that some people believe X and they are wrong (they are obviously chronologically prior to his writing).

I don't know how Kerry purports to discern the "initial" (the first) understanding from the fact that Origen wrote against what he deemed a mistaken understanding. In point of fact, logic dictates that Origen actually believed that such an understanding was a departure from--a deficient understanding of--what the verse claims. Thus, Origen is actually defending what he believes to be the "initial" understanding against secondary misunderstanding.

cks

[Notquitewetyet]

Why does Paulsen (or, perhaps Kerry?) misquote Origen here? "Fire and spirit, according to them, are to be regarded as nothing else than a body" is the correct translation.

Kerry's assumption that "'God is spirit' was initially understood as proof ***against*** incorporeal thinking" is completely unfounded on the basis of this citation. Origen just notes no such thing at all. He states that some people believe X and they are wrong (they are obviously chronologically prior to his writing).

I don't know how Kerry purports to discern the "initial" (the first) understanding from the fact that Origen wrote against what he deemed a mistaken understanding. In point of fact, logic dictates that Origen actually believed that such an understanding was a departure from--a deficient understanding of--what the verse claims. Thus, Origen is actually defending what he believes to be the "initial" understanding against secondary misunderstanding.

cks

(Unignored) I posted Mr. Shirts' source for this. It doesn't seem like using a variant makes a very strong argument on Mr. Shirts' part.

[cksalmon]

So that explains how Joseph Smith translated "Messiah" and "Christ" from a (assumed) single altered Hebrew word in the Golden Plates.

Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Lehi

Hi Lehi--

You're welcome, I suppose.

I don't believe Joseph Smith translated any ancient documents, but I wouldn't argue against your belief that he did on the basis of your adduced example.

Hope that helps.

Best.

cks

[Zakuska]

In the debate over the corporeality of God the Father, John 4:24 is usually a focus:

Many non-LDS Christians make a big fuss over the phrase "God is spirit". To them, that is the clencher. To them, this precludes the possibility that a God who is spirit could also be a God who is body. To them, the two are mutually exclusive.

Hold your horses!

In this verse, man who is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT.

According to the logic proffered by many non-LDS Christians, this precludes the possibility of man also being body.

What?

I offer this observation as an addition to the usual perfectly good responses to our critic's use of John 4:24 (God is love, fire, etc.).

Don't forget that Jesus... who is SPIRIT, also has a glorified ressurected body of flesh and bone just like his father...

2 Cor. 3: 17

17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

But where does that leave Luke?

Luke 24

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

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.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

The answer is the TYPE of Spirit being spoken of in Luke 24 is fundamentally different than the type of Spirit being spoken of In John 4:24... yet modern Chrisitians in their proof texting try and equivocate the two.

[Zakuska]

Chris wrote-

To say here that those who born of the Spirit "are spirit" cannot mean that they "have a spirit". Presumably we all "have a spirit", regardless of whether we are born of the Spirit or not. Rather, what is described here is a transformation into a spiritual being. Such beings are like the wind (pneuma: breath, wind, spirit); they blow wherever they please, and no one can tell whence they come or whither they are going. John tells us that Jesus is the only one who has ever been to or come from heaven (3:13).There he shared in God's light, love, and glory. He imparts this light, love, and glory to his disciples so that they cease to be "of this world" and become instead "sons of light" (12:36; ch. 17). Only those who are thus born of spirit can "see the kingdom of God". Is this because John conceives of the kingdom as a metaphor for a spiritual reality? The only other passage in the fourth gospel that mentions the kingdom is 18:36, where we read that "My kingdom is not of this world. [...] My kingdom does not have its origin here." John 17:3 speaks of eternal life as knowledge of God. Jesus also says that his disciples will "be with Me where I am." In other words, they will ascend spiritually to heaven and share with the Logos in the divine light and glory. John tells us in 6:63 that "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." Hardly a Mormon perspective!

John must not have read his bible very much...

Eccl. 12: 7

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Job 19: 26

26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Luke 3: 6

6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

How can something "return" to some place it has never been? Am I reading this right... ALL flesh shall be saved?

[Chris Smith]

John must not have read his bible very much...

Eccl. 12: 7

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

How can something "return" to some place it has never been?

The author of Ecclesiastes did not believe in an afterlife-- in fact, he emphatically teaches that there is none (See Ecc. 9:5,6,10; 3:19,20). The Hebrew word ruach in the verse you quoted means breath-- when man dies, his breath or life-force returns to God who gave it.

Having said that, it is unlikely that John put much stock in Qohelet's view, since it had been repudiated by the Wisdom of Solomon (2:1), of which John was evidently a fan.

Best,

-Chris

[Mudcat]

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Its a clincher for me.

[rhinomelon]

I don't know how Kerry purports to discern the "initial" (the first) understanding from the fact that Origen wrote against what he deemed a mistaken understanding. In point of fact, logic dictates that Origen actually believed that such an understanding was a departure from--a deficient understanding of--what the verse claims. Thus, Origen is actually defending what he believes to be the "initial" understanding against secondary misunderstanding.

With Origen it's important to realize that his style of argumentation actually takes up certain positions and defends them, then discards them in favor of his preferred conclusion. One can quote Origen on both sides of many issues within his "On First Principles", but one has to read the entire context to see where he actually falls. For instance, on this particular issue, you don't have to go much further than the first book of De Principiis:

Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured.

Book 1, chap. 5.

Origen later goes on to teach that it is not only God who is incorporeal, but that God has created both incorporeal and corporeal beings. I would go as far as to say that Origen leans so far on the side of incorporeality that it gets him into trouble in other areas, leading to some of his more heretical beliefs. For instance, that the desired end of all human beings is an incorporeal existence in God's presence, or that the body is a result of sin and corruption, a part of man's punishment (albeit a rehabilitative one).

Take care, everyone

[Cold Steel]

I love that you put up pictures of such a pretty cat you have. I know last year I lost my dog (I wasn't at home) who I'd had since the time I was in kindergarten. He was like a brother, and I've mourned for him more than I have for many distant relatives. I am so glad for the gleaming truth of the Restored Gospel, which assures me I'll see him again. My catholic parents tried to say it was okay and that it was fine that he passed on (because the Catholic Church teaches animals have no soul[spirit] and cannot love), but they don't think they'll ever see him again. I know I will.

Do the Catholics really think that?

In some of the looking around I did for my response, I noticed that many people say that God made man in His image in the sense that man is intelligent, but that animals somehow lack this. I go visit my parents every now and again in a neighboring state and my wife says the cat has fits. He wanders through the house looking in each room and sometimes comes in and out of the house repeatedly. When I come home I get the royal treatment for about ten minutes, then the cold shoulder for an hour or two. It's as if he's ticked that I left. But for any learned doctor of theology to say animals can't love is the worst rot I've ever heard of. It's clear to me that the same sort of spirits that animate our bodies so animate the bodies of animals. When an animal dies, in fact, their bodies seem to look completely different and it's clear that the animating force has left it.

That God would have an image like man's is significant in so many ways and it really gives Mormonism an edge over the others. Why would God have legs, arms, feet, etc., had He never lived in an environment where He needed them? That He just existed like that from all eternity doesn't make any sense.

[Notquitewetyet]

Do the Catholics really think that?

In some of the looking around I did for my response, I noticed that many people say that God made man in His image in the sense that man is intelligent, but that animals somehow lack this. I go visit my parents every now and again in a neighboring state and my wife says the cat has fits. He wanders through the house looking in each room and sometimes comes in and out of the house repeatedly. When I come home I get the royal treatment for about ten minutes, then the cold shoulder for an hour or two. It's as if he's ticked that I left. But for any learned doctor of theology to say animals can't love is the worst rot I've ever heard of. It's clear to me that the same sort of spirits that animate our bodies so animate the bodies of animals. When an animal dies, in fact, their bodies seem to look completely different and it's clear that the animating force has left it.

That God would have an image like man's is significant in so many ways and it really gives Mormonism an edge over the others. Why would God have legs, arms, feet, etc., had He never lived in an environment where He needed them? That He just existed like that from all eternity doesn't make any sense.

This is the most lenient position I can find: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.a...p;number=562184 But when I asked a priest once after loosing a pet bird when I was a little child, he said "Absolutely not."

Here's what Pope Pius X had to say on St. Thomas Aquinas' capital theses:

The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.

And here are St. Thomas' capital theses (especially relevant are 14-19):

Ontology

1 . Potency and Act divide being in such a way that whatever is, is either pure act, or of necessity it is composed of potency and act as primary and intrinsic principles.

2. Since act is perfection, it is not limited except through a potency which itself is a capacity for perfection. Hence in any order in which an act is pure act, it will only exist, in that order, as a unique and unlimited act. But whenever it is finite and manifold, it has entered into a true composition with potency.

3. Consequently, the one God, unique and simple, alone subsists in absolute being. All other things that participate in being have a nature whereby their being is restricted; they are constituted of essence and being, as really distinct principles.

4. A thing is called a being because of "esse". God and creature are not called beings univocally, nor wholly equivocally, but analogically, by an analogy both of attribution and of proportionality.

5. In every creature there is also a real composition of the subsisting subject and of added secondary forms, i.e. accidental forms. Such composition cannot be understood unless being is really received in an essence distinct from it.

6. Besides the absolute accidents there is also the relative accident, relation. Although by reason of its own character relation does not signify anything inhering in another, it nevertheless often has a cause in things, and hence a real entity distinct from the subject.

7. A spiritual creature is wholly simple in its essence. Yet there is still a twofold composition in the spiritual creature, namely, that of the essence with being, and that of the substance with accidents.

8. However, the corporeal creature is composed of act and potency even in its very essence. These act and potency in the order of essence are designated by the names form and matter respectively.

Cosmology

9. Neither the matter nor the form have being of themselves, nor are they produced or corrupted of themselves, nor are they included in any category otherwise than reductively, as substantial principles.

10. Although extension in quantitative parts follows upon a corporeal nature, nevertheless it is not the same for a body to be a substance and for it to be quantified. For of itself substance is indivisible, not indeed as a point is indivisible, but as that which falls outside the order of dimensions is indivisible. But quantity, which gives the substance extension, really differs from the substance and is truly an accident.

11. The principle of individuation, i.e., of numerical distinction of one individual from another with the same specific nature, is matter designated by quantity. Thus in pure spirits there cannot be more than individual in the same specific nature.

12. By virtue of a body's quantity itself, the body is circumscriptively in a place, and in one place alone circumscriptively, no matter what power might be brought to bear.

13. Bodies are divided into two groups; for some are living and others are devoid of life. In the case of the living things, in order that there be in the same subject an essentially moving part and an essentially moved part, the substantial form, which is designated by the name soul, requires an organic disposition, i.e. heterogeneous parts.

Psychology

14. Souls in the vegetative and sensitive orders cannot subsist of themselves, nor are they produced of themselves. Rather, they are no more than principles whereby the living thing exists and lives; and since they are wholly dependent upon matter, they are incidentally corrupted through the corruption of the composite.

15. On the other hand, the human soul subsists of itself. When it can be infused into a sufficiently disposed subject, it is created by God. By its very nature, it is incorruptible and immortal.

16. This rational soul is united to the body in such a manner that it is the only substantial form of the body. By virtue of his soul a man is a man, an animal, a living thing, a body, a substance and a being. Therefore the soul gives man every essential degree of perfection; moreover, it gives the body a share in the act of being whereby it itself exists.

17. From the human soul there naturally issue forth powers pertaining to two orders, the organic and the non-organic. The organic powers, among which are the senses, have the composite as their subject. The non-organic powers have the soul alone as their subject. Hence, the intellect is a power intrinsically independent of any bodily organ.

18. Intellectuality necessarily follows upon immateriality, and furthermore, in such manner that the further the distance from matter, the higher the degree of intellectuality. Any being is the adequate object of understanding in general. But in the present state of union of soul and body, quantities abstracted from the material conditions of individuality are the proper object of the human intellect.

19. Therefore, we receive knowledge from sensible things. But since sensible things are not actually intelligible, in addition to the intellect, which formally understands, an active power must be acknowledged in the soul, which power abstracts intelligible likeness or species from sense images in the imagination.

20. Through these intelligible likenesses or species we directly know universals, i.e. the natures of things. We attain to singulars by our senses, and also by our intellect, when it beholds the sense images. But we ascend to knowledge of spiritual things by analogy.

21. The will does not precede the intellect but follows upon it. The will necessarily desires that which is presented to it as a good in every respect satisfying the appetite. But it freely chooses among the many goods that are presented to it as desirable according to a changeable judgment or evaluation. Consequently, the choice follows the final practical judgment. But the will is the cause of it being the final one.

God

22. We do not perceive by an immediate intuition that God exists, nor do we prove it a priori. But we do prove it a posteriori, i.e., from the things that have been created, following an argument from the effects to the cause: namely, from things which are moved and cannot be the adequate source of their motion, to a first unmoved mover; from the production of the things in this world by causes subordinated to one another, to a first uncaused cause; from corruptible things which equally might be or not be, to an absolutely necessary being; from things which more or less are, live, and understand, according to degrees of being, living and understanding, to that which is maximally understanding, maximally living and maximally a being; finally, from the order of all things, to a separated intellect which has ordered and organized things, and directs them to their end.

23. The metaphysical motion of the Divine Essence is correctly expressed by saying that it is identified with the exercised actuality of its own being, or that it is subsistent being itself. And this is the reason for its infinite and unlimited perfection.

24. By reason of the very purity of His being, God is distinguished from all finite beings. Hence it follows, in the first place, that the world could only have come from God by creation; secondly, that not even by way of a miracle can any finite nature be given creative power, which of itself directly attains the very being of any being; and finally, that no created agent can in any way influence the being of any effect unless it has itself been moved by the first Cause.

Here's the Latin/English version of Postquam sanctissumus

[Tanyan]

#1 Harvard Theological Review 83:2 April 1990

Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Diety: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses.

David Paulsen, pages 105-116.

#2 Faith and Philosophy

Must GOD be Incorporeal ?.

Journal of The Society Of Christian Philosophers, Volume #6 Number 1, 1989.

David Paulsen, pages 76-87

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[johnny]

Sargon

Many non-LDS Christians make a big fuss over the phrase "God is spirit". To them, that is the clencher. To them, this precludes the possibility that a God who is spirit could also be a God who is body. To them, the two are mutually exclusive.

Origen made a fuss over the phrase "God is a Spirit", he refuted any Mormon notion of that God has a body.

• Origen "4. ... But we must pass on to the language of the Gospel itself, in which it is declared that God is a Spirit, and where we have to show how that is to be understood agreeably to what we have stated. ... He spoke these words to the Samaritan woman, saying to her, who thought, agreeably to the Samaritan view, that God ought to be worshipped on Mount Gerizim, that God is a Spirit. ... the Saviour answered that he who would follow the Lord must lay aside all preference for particular places, and thus expressed Himself: The hour is coming when neither in Jerusalem nor on this mountain shall the true worshippers worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. And observe how logically He has joined together the spirit and the truth: He called God a Spirit, that He might distinguish Him from bodies; and He named Him the truth, to distinguish Him from a shadow or an image. ... "For they who worshipped in Jerusalem worshipped God neither in truth nor in spirit, being in subjection to the shadow or image of heavenly things; and such also was the case with those who worshipped on Mount Gerizim. 5. Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured.... 6. ... God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as an uncompounded intellectual nature ..." (De Principiis Book I Chapter 1)
  

In this verse, man who is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT.

Those born of the Spirit is spirit, the Spirit of the God dwells in them, they are spiritually minded.

According to the logic proffered by many non-LDS Christians, this precludes the possibility of man also being body.

According to the logic of the Bible, God the Father transcends, see below

• Eph.4 ([6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.)
  

I offer this observation as an addition to the usual perfectly good responses to our critic's use of John 4:24 (God is love, fire, etc.).

In your response you might want to explain why the early Christians were wrong in declaring that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple nature--that is, a nature containing no parts, which rules out having a body since all bodies are extended over space and thus can be divided into parts.

GOD HAS NO BODY

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9510frs.asp

• Irenaeus "Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. 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 intelligent, 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" (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).
  

- Tatian 170 AD (God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the Maker of material spirits)

- Athenagoras 177 AD (we acknowledge one God ... by whom all things, through his word, have been produced)

- Irenaeus 189 AD (the Father ... simple, not composed of parts, without structure ... He is all mind, all spirit)

- Clement of Alexandria 200 AD (each one of us ... having an immaterial soul and a mind, which is the image of God)

- Clement of Alexandria 200 AD (God is divine being, eternal and without beginning, incorporeal and illimitable)

- Clement of Alexandria 200 AD (God,' as the Lord says, 'is a Spirit.' Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal)

- Clement of Alexandria 200 AD (is the Father of the universe)

- Clement of Alexandria 200 AD (Nor are any parts ... For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite ... without dimensions, and not having a limit ... therefore it is without form and name)

- Origen 225 AD (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)

- Origen 225 AD (No one has at any time seen God ... that there is no nature to which God is visible)

[johnny]

Cold Steel

Man was made in the image of God.

God the Father does not have a body that looks like ours just because we are made in his image. God the Father transcends all creatures, we are not to confuse our image of God the Father with our human representations. Previously God had neither a body nor a face. But now that he has made himself visible in the flesh. At the appointed time, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, became incarnate. It is in Son of God, "the image of the invisible God" that man has been created. The first Adam is created after the image of the second Adam.

[rhinomelon]

#1 Harvard Theological Review 83:2 April 1990

Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Diety: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses.

David Paulsen, pages 105-116.

Hey Tanyan, how are you doing? The article referenced above actually demonstrates my earlier point about Origen. Paulsen argues that Origen acknowledges there are Christians who believe that God is a corporeal being, in order to segue into his case that God is not. Basically, he says, "I know there are some Christians who think that God is incorporeal, so let me correct that." Hence the phrase "reluctant witnesses" in Paulsen's title. In arguing against the position, Origen demonstrates that it existed in some sectors of Christianity.

Take care, everyone