Jump to content

Is The Spirit In 1 Kings 22:19-23 Embodied Or Incorporeal?


Recommended Posts

Please try to understand that when some Mormons accuse some Christians of being atheists, what they're referring to is the idea that some Christians believe God, our Father, doesn't have some type of "real" and "physical" form and substance, which to those Mormons conveys the idea that God is seen as more of an abstract thought rather than something, or someone, which exists in reality..

I think it is also important to remember that just because some beliefs are shared does not mean all beliefs are shared. What counts is whether or not the defining belief is held in common. Since atheist by definition do not believe in God and theists do, it is silly to claim that the latter is the former simply because they both do not believe that God the Father has a material form (even if one chooses to disregard the extreme differences in the reasons for that one 'shared' belief.

I dislike cold cereal including Chex. My daughter dislikes Chex. Using above logic, that would mean my daughter hates cold cereal, a fact proved contrary to reality by the size of our food budget devoted to cold cereal.

Even if one could prove that God the Father has a material form, someone who still believes he was immaterial would still believe in God just as flat earthers still believe the earth exists even after it has been proved that the earth is round.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

Well I stepped in that one... didn't I.

Not as much as it may appear.

The word "body" has multiple connotations—so, for purposes of our discussion here, a "body" is composed of elements of some sort. Those I listed were on the order of metaphors, not true bodies.

An abstraction is not reality.

Lehi

Link to comment

This is intresting.... And pertinant to the discussion.

Tertullian : Against Praxeas

Chapter 7. The Son by Being Designated Word and Wisdom, (According to the Imperfection of Human Thought and Language) Liable to Be Deemed a Mere Attribute. He is Shown to Be a Personal BeingThen, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, “Let there be light.” Genesis 1:3 This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God— formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom— “The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways;” Proverbs 8:22 then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect— “When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.” Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart— even as the Father Himself testifies: “My heart,” says He, “has emitted my most excellent Word.” The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father's presence: “You are my Son, today have I begotten You;” even before the morning star did I beget You. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me.” For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that “all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made;” John 1:3 as, again, in another place (it is said), “By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit” — that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God Proverbs 8:22 which “strengthened the heavens;” “by which all things were made,” John 1:3 “and without which nothing was made.” John 1:3 Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him. Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) air when struck against, intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that He Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could He who is empty have made things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and He who is incorporeal have made things which have body? For although a thing may sometimes be made different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and empty thing. Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 It is written, “You shall not take God's name in vain.” Exodus 20:7 This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Philippians 2:6 In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although “God is a Spirit?” John 4:24 For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.

http://www.newadvent...athers/0317.htm

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

CV75,

How many examples of Mormons making this accusation would satisfy you that it's "fairly common"?

I have been an active Mormon for many years, have travelled widely, been to many different Mormon churches and congregations, in more than one country, interacted with many Mormons, and I would say off the top of my head that 99% of the Mormons don't believe that non-LDS Christians are atheists. They are never taught to believe that. No one at General Conference has ever advocated it as far as I know. It has never been taught in any sacrament meeting sermon that I have ever heard, nor in any Gospel Doctrine or priesthood lesson that I have attended. If such a doctrine was ever taught, I am sure the great majority of Church members would object to it. Heck, the Church invited a Catholic bishop to preach a sermon at a BYU devotional not too long ago! So by your reckoning, how "common" is less than 1%?

Edited by zerinus
Link to comment

I have been an active Mormon for many years, have travelled widely, been to many different Mormon churches and congregations, in more than one country, interacted with many Mormons, and I would say off the top of my head that 99% of the Mormons don't believe that non-LDS Christians are atheists. They are never taught to believe that. No one at General Conference has ever advocated it as far as I know. It has never been taught in any sacrament meeting sermon that I have ever heard, nor in any Gospel Doctrine or priesthood lesson that I have attended. If such a doctrine was ever taught, I am sure the great majority of Church members would object to it. Heck, the Church invited a Catholic bishop to preach a sermon at a BYU devotional not too long ago! So by your reckoning, how "common" is less than 1%?

I likewise have NEVER seen any allusion to the idea, except the one unfortunate example that was been touted from another thread.

Link to comment

How many examples of Mormons making this accusation would satisfy you that it's "fairly common"?

The old "answer the question with a question"... should I or shouldn't I? I'm asking what satisfies you, not me since you made the observation / claim in the first place.

I am going white water rafting for the weekend and I will catch up on the posts later, but don't hesitate to answer.

Link to comment

I have been an active Mormon for many years, have travelled widely, been to many different Mormon churches and congregations, in more than one country, interacted with many Mormons, and I would say off the top of my head that 99% of the Mormons don't believe that non-LDS Christians are atheists.

I have also been around. And from my experience your stat is off by an order of magnitude. Since I have never heard it before this current discussion I would say 99.9% is more accurate.

Other than the current incident, I am wondering if Bowman can come up with a single example.

Edited to add,

This is just more of Bowman distracting from the fact that Bowman's original argument (OP) has been shredded?

Edited by Vance
Link to comment

I likewise have never heard this notion espoused by anyone in the church either over the pulpit, in leadership meetings...or in even in the foyer in private conversation...except when Zak alluded to it on another thread.

But then again, I've only been a member since 1964 and have only lived 13 states and traveled in the Military...so my exposure may be lacking compared to some others.

Link to comment

Oh so now I'm the bad guy everyone is talking about?! <_<

All I'm saying is that when you boil down the argument, the beleif in something that is immaterial is the belief in nothing, by the very definition of the words. (1. of no real importance; inconsequential 2. not formed of matter;)

I think a lot of people don't even realize this.

I believe my "Tertullian : Against Praxeas" quote above expresses this same sentiment.

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

CV75, calmoriah, randyj, zerinus, et. al.,

I have started a new thread in which I demonstrate rather thoroughly that what I said about Mormons criticizing orthodox Christianity as a form of atheism was quite accurate.

Zakuska,

Don't feel bad. You're actually on the side of the traditional LDS teaching.

Edited by Rob Bowman
Link to comment

maklelan,

Regarding my taking 1 Kings 8:27 literally but not 22:19-23, you had written:

This is the hermeneutic circle, though. You're saying we have to take this text literally to show that the other cannot be taken literally. Why not take the other literally to show that this one shouldn't be taken literally? There's no rule saying they have to both be taken one way or the other.

I had replied:

"Actually, there is such a rule. It is the hermeneutical principle of differentiating between using stock imagery or language of the culture and making a direct affirmation or assertion."

You then asked:

Can you provide a publication that explains this rule? Can you explain what criteria help us make such a determination, and show those criteria employed in these verses?

I'm somewhat dissatisfied with the way I worded my response. Let me see if I can clarify my approach.

By “stock imagery” I mean conventional language that in a mundane, earthly context has a literal usage but that can also be used in other contexts in a recognizably figurative way. All good textbooks on biblical hermeneutics discuss the importance of recognizing figurative language and symbolic genres in the Bible. Five criteria should be considered collectively in an integrated fashion to determine whether a statement is literal or figurative. (This is my own analysis. Having taught hermeneutics at the undergraduate and graduate levels numerous times, I make no apology for giving my own take on the matter. But I think you’ll find hermeneutics textbooks making much the same points here and there, and I think you’ll also find that the criteria make sense.)

(1) Does the text takes language normally applicable in one context and transfers its application to another context? For example, “There’s a fire in the attic!” is literal when the context is in reference to one’s house, but “He has the fire in the belly needed to run for President” is figurative because fire is not normally associated with a man’s belly.

(2) Does a literal understanding of the language violate commonplace observations without suggesting that doing so is the intention? The qualification about intention is important lest we misconstrue the principle here to mean that any statement that conflicts with our preconceived beliefs may be explained away as figurative. For example, “I got a million phone calls today” is probably figurative because people normally don’t get a million calls in one day and there is no evidence that the statement is meant to express something so extraordinary. On the other hand, the statement “The Congressional switchboard logged nearly a million calls today due to widespread panic in the nation” is probably literal because the statement includes evidence that the intention is to provide an actual numerical estimate of the number of calls.

(3) Does the text fit a common or easily recognizable type of figure of speech? Most types of non-literal speech are not explicitly figurative, though similes are; “the nations are like a drop in the bucket” (Isa. 40:15) is explicitly a simile, whereas “Surely the people are grass” (Isa. 40:7) is clearly metaphor even though there is nothing about the form of the statement that explicitly requires that understanding. Metaphor is an extremely common type of figure of speech in most if not all cultures, and certainly is common in the Bible. There are, of course, other types of figurative language in the Bible (idiom, euphemism, hyperbole, personification, etc.). There are also types of symbolic forms in which not merely individual words or phrases are figurative but a whole passage is to be understood as symbolic; parables are an easy example. If a statement or passage easily or comfortably fits a specific figure or speech, it is probably figurative rather than literal (particularly if the first or second condition discussed above applies).

(4) Does the passage or whole text (a) fit a conventional form of speech that typically was not to be understood literally as a whole or that (b) typically used a great deal of figurative language? (a) An example of a conventional form of speech that was to be understood symbolically as a whole would be a parable. For example, Jesus’ parable of the woman and the ten coins was not a historical narrative (Luke 15:8-10); it was a story that Jesus told to illustrate his message. Sometimes a parable is not immediately recognized as such; for example, at first David thought that Nathan’s story of the rich man who stole a poor man’s lamb was a literal account, but then Nathan explained that it was really a parable about David’s sin against Uriah and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:1-10). This passage exemplifies the fact that a whole passage can be symbolic or non-literal even though the individual statements within that passage do not use specific figures of speech. Thus, the lack of individual figures of speech in such a passage does not count against the whole passage being a parable or other non-literal speech form or genre. Another category of symbolic genre was apocalyptic prophecies, which commonly included visions that used symbolic imagery to convey their message, such as Daniel’s vision of the gigantic tree (Dan. 4). Ezekiel’s “visions of God” (Ezek. 1:1) is dominated by the symbolism of the four living creatures that are clearly not literal entities matching Ezekiel’s description (1:4-25). (b) Some genres are not necessarily symbolic as whole texts, but texts of those genres are far more likely to use figurative language. For example, a psalm was more likely to use figures of speech than a law code. This criterion must be used cautiously because there are gray areas: not everything in a psalm is figurative, for example.

(5) Does anything in the context of the passage or the book of which it is a part negate a literal understanding? For example, the hyperbolic comment of the Pharisees that “the world has gone after him,” i.e., Jesus (John 12:19), is incoherent if literal because the Pharisees themselves were part of the world and they were opposed to Jesus. Thus, something in the passage itself militates against a literal interpretation. The statement in Joshua 11:23 that “Joshua took the entire land” is evidently hyperbole, because in 13:1 we learn that “a great deal of the land remains to be possessed.” Notice that this criterion is not a subjective appeal to one’s preference for taking one statement literally rather than another. One cannot legitimately assume that 11:23 is literal and then argue that 13:1 is figurative, because no recognizable figure of speech can explain the statement in 13:1. Nor is it hermeneutically sound to assume that both statements must be literal and therefore they are contradictory statements (explained by their coming from different sources, perhaps, or by speculating that the text of one has been garbled).

Let’s apply these criteria, starting with an easy one. “Heaven is your throne and earth is your footstool” (Isa. 66:1a). Is this literal or figurative? I argue that it is clearly metaphor. Let’s apply the five criteria discussed above; I think four of the five raise considerations that make this conclusion certain. (1) “Throne” and “footstool” are stock imagery recognizable in that culture (and in most cultures until recently) as having mundane meanings, referring to familiar items on earth, but here applied in a non-mundane context. (2) Anyone in the ancient world knew that heaven, whatever it is, is not a chair, and that no one had his feet propped up on the earth. (3) There is a standard type of figurative language that easily applies here, namely, metaphor. (4) Isaiah 66:1a appears in poetic language in the context of ancient Israelite prophetic speech, which was permeated by figurative language, making a figurative understanding more likely though not necessary. (5) Nothing in the context of the book that I know of precludes a literal understanding, nor does anything require it so far as I can see; so this criterion appears to yield no insight either way. Based on the first four criteria, however, the intelligent ancient Israelite should have been able to know without any difficulty that this is metaphor (even though he probably didn’t have the word “metaphor” handy).

But what about the next two lines? “What house could you possibly build for me, and what place could be my home?” (Isa. 66:1b). Is this literal or figurative? The form of this part of the text is a rhetorical question calling for a negative answer. We could reword this rhetorical question as a statement, “Human beings cannot build a house for God or provide him with a place to be his home,” and that would be equivalent in meaning to the rhetorical question. I argue that this part of the text is literal, not figurative. (1) It does not apply terms or imagery of mundane realities to a different context than their conventional usage. (2) If taken literally, it does not contradict common observations about the real world. (3) There is no standard type of figurative language that easily or comfortably fits here. (4) The passage uses figurative language, which heightens the likelihood of figurative language but does not by itself prove it for each statement. (5) Nothing in the context precludes a literal interpretation. In conclusion, all but the fourth criterion supports a literal interpretation, and the fourth is not sufficient to overturn the specific evidence. We should therefore understand this statement literally to be a denial that human beings could build a house adequate to accommodate God.

When we put the two halves of Isaiah 66:1 together, we can see that in this text God is denying that an earthly temple can be a place where God could literally reside because, in some sense, he just wouldn’t “fit.” The imagery of the first part of the verse is metaphorical but nevertheless suggests in some sense that God is too “immense” for an earthly building to function as a place where God’s being could be enclosed. There is no attempt in the verse to articulate what the nature of God’s being is, but what it does say tells us something about what God is not: he is not a man-like being that could sit in a literal chair in the Jerusalem temple.

Next, let’s consider Solomon’s statement in 1 Kings 8:27. “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!” (1) There are no mundane, familiar objects here to serve as the raw materials for metaphor or simile. (2) Solomon’s statement does not contradict any commonplace or ordinary observations that an ancient Israelite might have made. (3) There is no standard type of figure of speech that will clearly fit his statement. The text is not simile, metaphor, personification, euphemism, or any of the other common figures of speech found numerous times in the OT. Perhaps the only possible figure of speech of relevance is hyperbole; perhaps someone might think that “heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain you” is an exaggeration for effect. However, hyperbole depends for its effectiveness on a frame of reference in which ordinary readers might be legitimately expected to understand, without having to be told, that the wording is rhetorical exaggeration. (For example, the statement that the cities were “walled up to heaven” in Deut. 1:28 is one that would in that frame of reference be immediately recognized as hyperbole.) That is, unless the statement meets criteria #2 above, it is probably not hyperbole; and that means 1 Kings 8:27 is probably not hyperbole. (4) Solomon’s statement is part of a prayer, which is not a genre or speech form for which one expects figurative language though it might have some. (5) Nothing in the context of the passage or book precludes taking the statement literally; at most, someone might express a preference for taking (for example) Micaiah’s vision literally but not Solomon’s statement, but this won’t work because we have independent reasons (#1 through #4 just discussed) for understanding Solomon’s statement literally. Taking all of these factors into consideration, I conclude that it is most likely that Solomon’s statement should be taken literally. Thus, the text is best interpreted to mean that God literally cannot be contained or enclosed within an earthly building like the temple, or even within the confines of the universe.

Finally, let’s apply the same criteria to Micaiah’s vision (1 Kings 22:19-23).

(1) The vision takes mundane, earthly language about a king seated on a throne addressing his army and applies it to the non-mundane context of God and the spirits.

(2) Micaiah’s vision does not contradict any commonplace observations an ancient Israelite might have made, but since it deals with spiritual realities that very few people might have observed this criterion goes nowhere.

(3) Micaiah’s description of his vision does not appear to use individual figures of speech such as simile or hyperbole, so if it is non-literal it would have to be a symbolic speech-form or genre as a whole; otherwise, we would need to take the passage literally.

(4) The passage is a vision, and as noted visions, particularly those of prophets, often used symbolic stories or present symbolic scenes to convey their message (Ezekiel’s vision of God, his vision of the valley of the dry bones, Daniel’s vision of the gigantic tree, etc.).

(5) Three contextual considerations, taken together, militate against taking the vision literally.

  • First, in the immediate context, a literal reading would mean that God was trying to deceive Ahab, but the very fact that Micaiah tells Ahab this vision counts against the view that God’s intention was to deceive Ahab.
  • Second, also in the immediate context, the spirit offers to become a lying spirit “in the mouth of all his [Ahab’s] prophets.” Even if we take “in the mouth of” as an individual figure of speech, that figure of speech in the context of prophets inspired by spirits presupposed the idea that a spirit would actually take control of a person’s mind and/or body. Yet the spirit is said to be responsible for inspiring four hundred false prophets simultaneously (cf. 1 Kings 22:6). At this point the notion that a spirit is an anthropomorphic entity breaks down.
  • Third, in the broader context of the whole book, a literal reading of the vision conflicts with the meaning of 1 Kings 8:27 we have previously determined to be literal. For our purposes here it does not matter whether 1 Kings 8:27 is taken to imply that God is an immensely large being greater in size than the whole universe or it is taken to imply that God transcends spatial dimensions altogether. Either way, the picture of God sitting on a throne (chair) with his army of spirits to his left and right doesn’t fit. It is incoherent to picture anthropomorphic spirits (presumably of a size comparable to human beings) flanking or surrounding a being larger than or transcending the universe, or one spirit carrying on a face-to-face conversation with such an immense or transcendent being.

In my judgment, the first, fourth, and fifth criteria combine to make a good case that the vision in the context of 1 Kings does not mean that God and spirits are anthropomorphic beings sitting and standing in a throne-room somewhere. At the very least, these considerations raise serious doubts about using this passage as part of a theological argument for or defense of the doctrine that God and all spirits have something called “spirit bodies”—which the Bible never mentions or discusses.

Edited by Rob Bowman
Link to comment


In my judgment, the first, fourth, and fifth criteria combine to make a good case that the vision in the context of 1 Kings does not mean that God and spirits are anthropomorphic beings sitting and standing in a throne-room somewhere. At the very least, these considerations raise serious doubts about using this passage as part of a theological argument for or defense of the doctrine that God and all spirits have something called “spirit bodies”—which the Bible never mentions or discusses.

Huh?

1 Cor 15

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Link to comment

Zakuska,

As even some Mormon leaders have pointed out, Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 15 to a "spiritual body," by which he means the physical body resurrected to immortal life empowered and transformed by the Spirit. Thus it is a mistake to confuse the "spiritual body" with a so-called "spirit body."

Huh?

1 Cor 15

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Link to comment

Huh?

1 Cor 15

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

WOW!!!!

How incredibly easy it was to refute Bowman's assertion. And he even attempted to deflect it by making a claim about LDS teachings.

The fact remains that the Bible DOES mention "spirit bodies". LOL!!!

Link to comment

But what about the next two lines? “What house could you possibly build for me, and what place could be my home?” (Isa. 66:1b). Is this literal or figurative? The form of this part of the text is a rhetorical question calling for a negative answer.

Actually there are two questions there, not one. And did you notice the subtle difference?

House vs. home.

The answer to the first question is not "no" but rather YES!!!

By my count there are over one hundred Old Testament references to "the house of the Lord". Also we have these.

Matt 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

We could reword this rhetorical question as a statement, “Human beings cannot build a house for God or provide him with a place to be his home,” and that would be equivalent in meaning to the rhetorical question.

Obviously, a faulty conclusion. They can and DID build a house for God.

I argue that this part of the text is literal, not figurative.

You error doesn't really affect this statement, but it does go to show that you can't separate yourself from your own theology to see what the text actually says. All while trying to claim an unbiased "exegesis" approach.

Link to comment

Actually there are two questions there, not one. And did you notice the subtle difference?

House vs. home.

The answer to the first question is not "no" but rather YES!!!

By my count there are over one hundred Old Testament references to "the house of the Lord". Also we have these.

Matt 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Obviously, a faulty conclusion. They can and DID build a house for God.

You error doesn't really affect this statement, but it does go to show that you can't separate yourself from your own theology to see what the text actually says. All while trying to claim an unbiased "exegesis" approach.

And Prior to that... they had made him a Tent, for the very purpose.

Exodus 25:8

8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

Vance,

To "refute" my statement that Paul does not refer in 1 Corinthians 15 to spirit bodies, you cited verse 45, where Paul says that Christ became "a life-giving spirit." You then triumphantly proclaimed:

WOW!!!!

How incredibly easy it was to refute Bowman's assertion. And he even attempted to deflect it by making a claim about LDS teachings.

The fact remains that the Bible DOES mention "spirit bodies". LOL!!!

If just one other Mormon claims to think that your argument "refutes" my position, I will respond to it. Otherwise...I'm having a very hard time taking it seriously.

Regarding Isaiah 66:1, you wrote:

Actually there are two questions there, not one. And did you notice the subtle difference?

House vs. home.

The answer to the first question is not "no" but rather YES!!!

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the phenomenon of synonymous parallelism. "House" and "home" here are synonyms. The answer to both halves of the rhetorical question is No. Your implication that the first line assumes a Yes answer while the second line assumes a No answer is exegetical mayhem.

You wrote:

By my count there are over one hundred Old Testament references to "the house of the Lord".... They can and DID build a house for God.

So, did God live in the house? Did he eat there? Where was his bed?

By my count, God is called a "shield" over 20 times in the Old Testament, so by your reasoning God is a shield (a piece of armor or armament). God's people are called "sheep" over 60 times in the Bible, so does that mean they are four-footed wooly mammals? The number of times a term is used has nothing to do with whether it is to be understood literally or figuratively.

Link to comment

So, did God live in the house? Did he eat there? Where was his bed?

You tell us Rob.

Exodus 40:34

34 ¶Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

Sure seems like God was inside his tent to me. The bonfire he had go'in in there was so big Moses couldn't enter for the heat and the light.

The same thing happend at the dedication of Solomons Temple.

2 Chron 7

1 Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the Lord filled the house.

2 And the priests could not enter into the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord had filled the Lord’s house.

3 And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped, and praised the Lord, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever.

He sure did eat and reside in his house!

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

Zakuska,

Exodus says that the "glory of the LORD" filled the tabernacle, and likewise Chronicles says that the "glory of the LORD" filled the temple. The "glory" of the LORD was not a body; it was a manifestation of God's magnificent presence represented by a bright cloud (Ex. 40:35). Nor do these passages say anything about God eating or sleeping in either structure. If anything, the details to which you have pointed further underscore the fact that God was not a literally embodied Man taking up physical residence in the temple as his literal "house."

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...