God is Spirit

[Tanyan]

Doing ok Rhino, thanks for sharing your thoughts .

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[EverASurprise]

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.

My cat does the same thing. When I leave she sits by the door and cries.

I don't know why people are so bent up in insisting animals don't have spirits or can't love or think. Perhaps they are just threatened. Maybe they have to believe that their species is the only one that gets to have a spirit. ?

Anyone who says animals can't think is just stupid. C'mon now! Even training a dog to sit shows that they have a cognitive level of thinking. And have you ever heard of Koko?!

[Zakuska]

The problem here of course is... "God is a Spirit". The 'a' is in italics and thus does not existg in the original Greek.

Not to mention that the "honey comb, fish eating, flesh and bone" ressurected Jesus is called a Spirit as well as all of us Born-Again new creatures in Christ.

2 Cor. 3: 17-18

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

18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

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.

Thats news to the vatican Johnny...

Creation of Adam

"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him" (Genesis 1: 27)

The focal point of the episode of the Creation of man is the contact between the fingers of the Creator and those of Adam, through which the breath of life is transmitted. God, supported by angels in flight and wrapped in a mantle, leans towards Adam, shown as a resting athlete, whose beauty seems to confirm the words of the Old Testament, according to which man was created to the image and likeness of God.

http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/C...StCentr_06.html

[e=mc2]

Cold Steel

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.

I once again then present Jesus Christ as my refutation of your philosophy. He and the FATHER are ONE, and Jesus, of course, had an immortal body after the resurrection. There is our God with a body.

[rhinomelon]

Hey Lord Kerry, how's life up the Idaho way?

I once again then present Jesus Christ as my refutation of your philosophy. He and the FATHER are ONE, and Jesus, of course, had an immortal body after the resurrection. There is our God with a body.

In the above, do you mean that the Father and the Son are completely one in all respects, no distinction between them? On the other hand, if there are distinctions, then mainstream Christianity makes the distinction that the Son took on flesh and possesses it as the incarnate one, not the Father.

But I do agree that, given the incarnation, one can be a Trinitarian and consistently also affirm that God possesses a body in a certain sense. The difference is, mainstream Christianity believes that God is not embodied by nature; His nature is spiritual. The Son took on flesh, but did not change the divine nature.

More later, gotta run. Good to see you around!

[Sargon]

But I do agree that, given the incarnation, one can be a Trinitarian and consistently also affirm that God possesses a body in a certain sense. The difference is, mainstream Christianity believes that God is not embodied by nature; His nature is spiritual. The Son took on flesh, but did not change the divine nature.

More later, gotta run. Good to see you around!

The very idea that flesh and "divine/spiritual nature" are mutually exclusive, except in the case of Jesus, is foreign to Mormon thought.

Regarding my OP, it was addressed to those Christians who insist that John 4:24 is a theological statement about the metaphysical nature of God. That statement, of course, it no such thing. But, if one were to insist that it was, they would be inconsistent if they did not insist that a similar statement by Jesus about baptized mortal men be interpreted also as a theological statement of man's metaphysical nature.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

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.).

Fun stuff!

You don't even have to go back to John 3 to find a contradiction. Just look at the very next part of the verse:

and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth

If we interpret "God is spirit" to mean that he is a Spirit who is not embodied, why don't we take "in spirit" to mean we must be disembodied before we can worship God?

Cksalmon's protest about going back to another verse in another place is valid, IMO. However, "must worship him in spirit" is logically dependent on "God is spirit." Therefore, the term "spirit" here must have a similar meaning--i.e., it refers to an attribute of the beings involved, not to their essential nature.

[Sargon]

You don't even have to go back to John 3 to find a contradiction. Just look at the very next part of the verse:

If we interpret "God is spirit" to mean that he is a Spirit who is not embodied, why don't we take "in spirit" to mean we must be disembodied before we can worship God?

Cksalmon's protest about going back to another verse in another place is valid, IMO. However, "must worship him in spirit" is logically dependent on "God is spirit." Therefore, the term "spirit" here must have a similar meaning--i.e., it refers to an attribute of the beings involved, not to their essential nature.

I'm aware of that, and I guess I hesitate because the construction of the phrase in the latter half of the sentence is different than the construction of the phrase in the first half.

theos pneuma: and they that worship him must worship en pneuma and in truth........

I don't know Greek, but for me the "en" actually modifies the latter half of the statement so that it doesn't exactly reflect the first half of the statement. It is constructed differently.

On the other hand, John 3:6 says:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the pneuma esti pneuma.

For me, this just seems to better reflect the grammar of the first half of John 4:24.

John 4:24 God is spirit....

John 3:6 [baptized man] is spirit.

Anyway, that's why I tend to avoid taking the route you suggest. Hopefully a greek reader can chime in here.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

I'm aware of that, and I guess I hesitate because the construction of the phrase in the latter half of the sentence is different than the construction of the phrase in the first half.

I don't know Greek, but for me the "en" actually modifies the latter half of the statement so that it doesn't exactly reflect the first half of the statement. It is constructed differently.

On the other hand, John 3:6 says:

For me, this just seems to better reflect the grammar of the first half of John 4:24.

John 4:24 God is spirit....

John 3:6 [baptized man] is spirit.

Anyway, that's why I tend to avoid taking the route you suggest. Hopefully a greek reader can chime in here.

I think you're right. If you insist that John 4:24 MUST be a statement about the ontological nature of God, why couldn't a person insist that John 3:6 be a statement about the nature of born-again man? I think it is a perfectly valid argument.

Just by way of clarification, I think that the clause ["and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth"] is clearly dependent upon the statement that "God is spirit." "[They] must worship him in spirit" is based on the fact that "God is spirit." So, to insist that "God is spirit" must mean He is nothing but spirit inevitably leads to the conclusion that God can only be worshiped by those who are also nothing but spirit. So, we cannot worship him in this life...

As far as Origen: My understanding is that pneuma means "wind" or "spirit." The Greek world saw pneuma [wind] as being material in nature. Therefore, to say God is pneuma means he is material in nature, even if the material isn't the same as what our physical bodies are made of. The idea of an entirely "immaterial" God, therefore, can't be correctly derived from John 4:24. The idea of a God whose "material" is quite different from ours certainly can be. In my mind, however, all of this begs the question to start with since the verse doesn't seem to be making a statement about God's physical/nonphysical nature any more than "God is a consuming fire" or "God is love."

[johnny]

DispensatorMyste...

Just by way of clarification, I think that the clause ["and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth"] is clearly dependent upon the statement that "God is spirit." "[They] must worship him in spirit" is based on the fact that "God is spirit." So, to insist that "God is spirit" must mean He is nothing but spirit inevitably leads to the conclusion that God can only be worshiped by those who are also nothing but spirit. So, we cannot worship him in this life...

Origen also thought the above clause was associated with the statement that "God is spirit." But Origen conclusion was "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", see below

• 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 ...But God, who is the beginning of all things, is not to be regarded as a composite being, lest perchance there should be found to exist elements prior to the beginning itself, out of which everything is composed, whatever that be which is called composite. ... 9. Here, if any one lay before us the passage where it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God, from that very passage, in my opinion, will our position derive additional strength; for what else is seeing God in heart, but, according to our exposition as above, understanding and knowing Him with the mind? For the names of the organs of sense are frequently applied to the soul, so that it may be said to see with the eyes of the heart, i.e., to perform an intellectual act by means of the power of intelligence...." (De Principiis Book I Chapter 1)
  

[Sargon]

DispensatorMyste...

Origen also thought the above clause was associated with the statement that "God is spirit." But Origen conclusion was "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", see below

• 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 ...But God, who is the beginning of all things, is not to be regarded as a composite being, lest perchance there should be found to exist elements prior to the beginning itself, out of which everything is composed, whatever that be which is called composite. ... 9. Here, if any one lay before us the passage where it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God, from that very passage, in my opinion, will our position derive additional strength; for what else is seeing God in heart, but, according to our exposition as above, understanding and knowing Him with the mind? For the names of the organs of sense are frequently applied to the soul, so that it may be said to see with the eyes of the heart, i.e., to perform an intellectual act by means of the power of intelligence...." (De Principiis Book I Chapter 1)
  

The same Origen that your church declared to be a heretic?

What about Tertullian, who your church didn't declare to be a heretic?

"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.

[johnny]

Sargon

The same Origen that your church declared to be a heretic?

If you like, we could speak about Irenaeus. Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, he does not share the Mormon belief that God the Father has a body of flesh. Irenaeus was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator.

• 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])
  

What about Tertullian, who your church didn't declare to be a heretic?

What about Tertullian, he wrote God is a Spirit ...

• Tertullian "We have already asserted that God made the world, and all which it contains, by His Word, and Reason, and Power. It is abundantly plain that your philosophers, too, regard the Logos--that is, the Word and Reason--as the Creator of the universe...And we, in like manner, hold that the Word, and Reason, and Power, by which we have said God made all, have spirit as their proper and essential substratum, in which the Word has inbeing to give forth utterances, and reason abides to dispose and arrange, and power is over all to execute. We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun--there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence--in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united." Apology,21(A.D. 197),in ANF,III:34-35
  

[Sargon]

Johnny, why can't you just say, "Yep, Tertullian was wrong about that." The Catholic Church did.

So, in regard to any ECF who disagrees with doctrines revealed by God to modern prophets I say, "Yep, they were wrong."

[johnny]

Sargon

So, in regard to any ECF who disagrees with doctrines revealed by God to modern prophets I say, "Yep, they were wrong."

I would say that the Mormon prophets are wrong ...

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

What about Tertullian, he wrote God is a Spirit ...

You are aware that Tertullian believed spirit was matter, right?

[W]hatever amount of punishment or refreshment the souls taste in Hades, in its prison or lodging, in the fire or in Abraham’s bosom, it gives proof thereby of its own corporeality. (Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul VIII in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:187)

Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical.... Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it." (Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, 151-152.)

[Zakuska]

What is hilarious about Johnny is Iraneaus was writing against the Gnostics who looked at corporeality as a curse. So Johnny is embracing the Gnostic doctrine in the incorporeality of God hook line and sinker. I have a sneeking suspicion that Johnny's Iraneus quotes are out of context. Im going to go verify now.

[johnny]

DispensatorMyste...

You are aware that Tertullian believed spirit was matter, right?

You are aware that Tertullian believed that the Son of God was "His Word" which is Spirit, right?

[Nemesis]

DispensatorMyste...

You are aware that Tertullian believed that the Son of God was "His Word" which is Spirit, right?

Wow you know I've got to say I've had enough of your dogmatism and inability to give in inch to further discussion. It's been a long ride and it ends here.

Nemesis

[Glenn101]

Cold Steel

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.

Hebrews Chapter 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is not the LDS who are confusing anything here but un-scriptural gymnastics to make evrything fit the Hellenistic view of God.

Glenn

[wenglund]

Words have multiple semantic domains--thus, ranges of meanings--that cannot be easily collapsed into neat syllogisms or math-like formulae....cks

This is a very important point that ought to be remembered during inter-faith debates among Bible believers. The language of the Bible provides sufficient latitude for legitimate suopport of a broad diversity of beliefs. The scripture in question, then, can rightly be interpreted both in support of belief in an incorporal God as well as not countering a belief in a corporal God. Therefore, debates may not be settled by an appeal to the Bible.

As such, the questions comes to mind:

1. If the Bible is not the final arbitor and the way to resolve debate, then what, if anything, is?

2. Since the Bible can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, is there greater value that may be derived by interpreting it a certain way? For instance, will I derive greater value from interpeting the passage in question as suggesting an incorporal God as opposed to it allowing for a corporal God, or vice versa?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rhinomelon]

You are aware that Tertullian believed spirit was matter, right?

Yes, like your quote says, he was influenced by the Stoics in this regard.

What is hilarious about Johnny is Iraneaus was writing against the Gnostics who looked at corporeality as a curse. So Johnny is embracing the Gnostic doctrine in the incorporeality of God hook line and sinker. I have a sneeking suspicion that Johnny's Iraneus quotes are out of context. Im going to go verify now.

Actually, the Gnostics generally (though not always) believed that matter itself was evil, a result of a series of emanations from the Pleroma. The incorporeality of God is not a particularly Gnostic doctrine by any means, although they certainly embraced parts of that teaching.

Irenaeus did not reject God's incorporeality; rather, he defended the essential goodness of matter and creation, as it was created by a perfectly good God. Irenaeus certainly believed in the incorporeality of God, and the goodness of the material creation. He saw no contradiction between the two, and agrees with mainstream Christianity in this regard.

Take care, everyone

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Yes, like your quote says, he was influenced by the Stoics in this regard.

Right. That doesn't bother me at all. What does bother me is quoting Tertullian to try to support the idea that God is immaterial. It would seem that he believed God is spirit, but that he believed spirit is, in fact, some sort of material.

It's good to have you around! It's been a while

[rhinomelon]

Right. That doesn't bother me at all. What does bother me is quoting Tertullian to try to support the idea that God is immaterial. It would seem that he believed God is spirit, but that he believed spirit is, in fact, some sort of material.

It's good to have you around! It's been a while

Well, if you're coming from a Stoic perspective, what Tertullian said is about as close to an immaterial God as you can get! But I agree with you. Tertullian is not the guy to go to for this. He was a lawyer, not a philosopher, and his use of philosophical concepts is all over the map and often paradoxical (although very nicely argued, as a lawyer should). On top of it all, he's the one who asked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

It has been a while. I survived last semester, one to go. God willing, I'll complete a PhD application tonight for Durham University, over in England. How are things with you?

[James Banta]

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.).

One verse I need your input on it:

Col 1:13-16

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

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

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

I added the other verses not just verse 15 so we could see the person of context is Jesus...

Wouldn't this mean that the Father is invisible, maybe a Spirit? IHS jim

[Sargon]

One verse I need your input on it:

Col 1:13-16

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

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

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

I added the other verses not just verse 15 so we could see the person of context is Jesus...

Wouldn't this mean that the Father is invisible, maybe a Spirit? IHS jim

Thanks for you input Jim.

I actually view this passage as teaching the exact opposite of how you see it. Sure, it says that God is invisible, but also says that Jesus is the "image" of this invisible God. What is an image if not something that can be seen? Whatever "image" that Jesus is, that is the "image" that the Father is. Given that Paul definitely saw Jesus Christ as a tangible, physical person we can conclude that this is the "image" in which the Father is also.

Why is God called "invisible" then? Well, it is simply because he chooses to be. He didn't come down and reveal himself the way Jesus Christ, God the Son, did. God is invisible by choice, not by nature. You could just as appropriately say that Sargon is the "invisible poster". You can't see me.

I think you are combining this description of the "invisible God" with the description of a God who "is spirit" and concluding that spirit is invisible. I don't see any reason to do that.

The verse you brought up should be read alongside Hebrews 1:1-3:

1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3. Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Again, Jesus is described as being in the image of his Father. Likewise is Seth described in Genesis as being in the image of his father Adam. It is simply a matter of a son looking like his Father. In Jesus' case, his father is "invisible" because he isn't around for us to see!