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

[Zakuska]

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."

Does not the sun give off a "bright cloud" of light? There had to be a source for the Light. This "fire" that fell from Heaven also "ate" the sacrifice.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Vance]

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."

So, did God lie when He said that He would dwell there?

So, "the house of the Lord" isn't His house?

So, when Christ says "my house", He lied?

Does God have to "eat and sleep" there for it to be His house?

[Vance]

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.

You mean besides me, and Zak?

[wenglund]

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.

This is an interesting interpretation. Since our bodies, and our hearts in particular, are smaller than Solomon's temple, then you seem to be suggesting that God cannot literally "fit" or reside within our bodies and hearts, he may only do so figurative?

Taking this notion one step further, since God is more immense than the earth and heavens, then by your logic God cannot literally "fit" or reside within the heavens and earth, he may only do so figuratively? In other words, to your way of thinking God doesn't literally exist anywhere, just figuratively. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 23, 2011 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

This is an interesting interpretation. Since our bodies, and our hearts in particular, are smaller than Solomon's temple, then you seem to be suggesting that God cannot literally "fit" or reside within our bodies and hearts, he may only do so figurative?

No. I am saying that God is not a literally embodied individual who fits materially within any physical structure. But God can literally dwell in us because his mode of existence is infinite, immaterial spirit, by which he can be personally present with and in anyone, anywhere, anytime.

You wrote:

Taking this notion one step further, since God is more immense that the earth and heavens, then by your logic God cannot literally "fit" or reside within the heavens, he may only do so figuratively? In other words, to your way of thinking God doesn't literally exist anywhere, just figuratively. Right?

Wrong. God literally exists everywhere, not nowhere. But he exists as infinite spirit, not as a solid materially embodied entity.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

You mean besides me, and Zak?

Zak supported your second argument, but I haven't seen anything from him agreeing that "became a life-giving spirit" refers to Christ as having a "spirit body."

[Zakuska]

Wrong. God literally exists everywhere, not nowhere. But he exists as infinite spirit, not as a solid materially embodied entity.

If God literally exists everywhere then how can people be cast "out of his presence"? Or even come and Go in and out of his presence?

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Zak,

The light did have a source--it was created miraculously by God to manifest his presence.

As for the fire, are you suggesting that God is a dragon?

Does not the sun give off a "bright cloud" of light? There had to be a source for the Light. This "fire" that fell from Heaven also "ate" the sacrifice.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You asked:

If God literally exists everywhere then how can people be cast "out of his presence"? Or even come and Go in and out of his presence?

So, you believe that God is not literally omnipresent, right?

The Bible can speak of God's "presence" in different ways and with different connotations, just as Christians commonly do today. Thus, a Christian might pray for God to be "with" him, meaning more than being spiritually in the vicinity--rather, meaning that God would be with him in a life-giving, comforting, strengthening way. The Bible speaks of God's presence in such differing connotations as well.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Did God lie when he called his people his "sheep"? Did David lie when he called God his "shield"? So, God's sheep are not sheep?

You're old enough and smart enough to understand figurative language, Vance.

So, did God lie when He said that He would dwell there?

So, "the house of the Lord" isn't His house?

So, when Christ says "my house", He lied?

Does God have to "eat and sleep" there for it to be His house?

[Zakuska]

So, you believe that God is not literally omnipresent, right?

His "presence" can be felt everywhere, except outer darkness. There is no where man can go and hide from him. He is the all seeing eye after all.

[Zakuska]

Zak,

The light did have a source--it was created miraculously by God to manifest his presence.

No miracle needed at all. If we take people at there word of what they saw when Gods presence was seen felt and his voice heard coming from the cloud of light.

As for the fire, are you suggesting that God is a dragon?

Not in the least. Joseph Smith described the light he saw falling from the heavens, as defying any description.

[Zakuska]

Vance,

Did God lie when he called his people his "sheep"? Did David lie when he called God his "shield"? So, God's sheep are not sheep?

You're old enough and smart enough to understand figurative language, Vance.

Very correct... the problem is you take everything about God as figurative. The trick is knowing the difference. and taking people at their word when they describe what they saw with their physical eyes.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

Wade,

No. I am saying that God is not a literally embodied individual who fits materially within any physical structure. But God can literally dwell in us because his mode of existence is infinite, immaterial spirit, by which he can be personally present with and in anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Wrong. God literally exists everywhere, not nowhere. But he exists as infinite spirit, not as a solid materially embodied entity.

So, even though you interpreted Isa. 66:1 to mean that God cannot literally fit or reside in temples or houses made by men, you actually believe he can? Fascinating!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

So, even though you interpreted Isa. 66:1 to mean that God cannot literally fit or reside in temples or houses made by men, you actually believe he can? Fascinating!

No. That's not what I said. What I said was that the text means that God does not have a material body that can literally reside in a man-made building on earth.

[wenglund]

No. That's not what I said. What I said was that the text means that God does not have a material body that can literally reside in a man-made building on earth.

Why, then, can his spirit literally reside in temples, and not his body? I would think his spirit would be far more immense than his body--assuming his body is similar in size to the mortal and resurrected body of Christ and his spirit shines forth to fill the universe.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 23, 2011 by wenglund

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Zak supported your second argument, but I haven't seen anything from him agreeing that "became a life-giving spirit" refers to Christ as having a "spirit body."

Here is a clue for you Bowman. I did nothing but highlight portions of Zak's post.

Get it?

[Vance]

Vance,

Did God lie when he called his people his "sheep"? Did David lie when he called God his "shield"? So, God's sheep are not sheep?

You're old enough and smart enough to understand figurative language, Vance.

So, you refuse to answer the simple questions.

Got it.

Yes, I understand figurative language, I can also understand literal language, and I am smart enough to tell the difference.

But to claim that man can not build a house for God while ignoring God's claim of ownership of said house, is making you look foolish, arrogant and dogmatic. Now, if that is the way you want to come across, then just continue ignoring the obvious.

[Zakuska]

So, you refuse to answer the simple questions.

Got it.

Yes, I understand figurative language, I can also understand literal language, and I am smart enough to tell the difference.

But to claim that man can not build a house for God while ignoring God's claim of ownership of said house, is making you look foolish, arrogant and dogmatic. Now, if that is the way you want to come across, then just continue ignoring the obvious.

Also his command to do so for the very purpose of him residing there.

[Vance]

Wade,

You wrote:

No. That's not what I said. What I said was that the text means that God does not have a material body that can literally reside in a man-made building on earth.

Talk about reading into the text something that is NOT there.

LOL!!!!!!!!

[Vance]

Also his command to do so for the very purpose of him residing there.

Yup, Bowman totally missed that one. Maybe I should have helped him out by pointing him to it.

So, God commanded them to build Him a house so He could come and "dwell" there. He (God) claims ownership of said house. Then Bowman mistakenly denies that man can build a house for God?

So, who here is having trouble understanding scripture?

[wenglund]

I think that what Rob is really trying to say is that in a literal sense God cannot [entirely] fit or reside in temples or houses made by man, though he can, in part, reside there.

In a way, I agree with Rob. God, or in other words the spirit of God that shines forth from his resurrected body in light, glory, love and truth, cannot entirely fit or reside (be contained solely) in temples or houses made by man, but fills them and all the universe,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 23, 2011 by wenglund

[Vance]

I think that what Rob is really trying to say is that in a literal sense God cannot [entirely] fit or reside in temples or houses made by man, though he can, in part, reside there.

There is a difference between "cannot" and "choosing not".

In this case, I think the latter is more accurate.

[Zakuska]

I think that what Rob is really trying to say is that in a literal sense God cannot [entirely] fit or reside in temples or houses made by man, though he can, in part, reside there.

In a way, I agree with Rob. God, or in other words the spirit of God that shines forth from his resurrected body in light, glory, love and truth, cannot entirely fit or reside (be contained solely) in temples or houses made by man, but fills them and all the universe,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh.. so its the Cliffords Dog house syndrome.

[wenglund]

There is a difference between "cannot" and "choosing not".

In this case, I think the latter is more accurate.

I can respect that. Personally, I am not sure the radiation of God's light, glory, love and truth is a matter of choice or a supernatural by-product--kind of like the rays of the sun are not so much a matter of choice as it is a natural by-product of the suns body.

There are, as Zak has pointed out, places where God's light doesn't shine (areas of spiritual darkness), and I am not sure if that is because God so chooses, or simply because light does not commune with darkness (2 Corinthians 6:14). I just don't know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-