Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

This is a great example of how an oft used tactic of anti-mormons can be effective.

Present a non-doctrinal, speculative or even un-agreed upon concept as a main tennant of our religion and use it to portray us as fringe or non-Christian.

Exactly.
Link to comment

CV75,

You wrote:

Would you please repeat / rephrase the actual point?

The actual point I made was that, whatever one may think about the accuracy of saying that the LDS Church teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God, one cannot fairly call this a deliberate misrepresentation or distortion unless one is willing to say this about the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which says the exact same thing about the Holy Ghost.

The nature of the Holy Ghost and his relationship to God the Father does have at least some indirect relevance to the theological issue of this thread, which is whether spirits are necessarily embodied. The Holy Ghost is evidently a "spirit" in the same sense as the spirit to which Micaiah refers in 1 Kings 22:19-23. From the LDS perspective, both spirits are material, embodied beings in human form and with human parts, though not "physical" or "flesh" like our earthly bodies. Can the Holy Ghost (or as I would prefer, Holy Spirit) do what the Bible reveals him to do if he is an anthropomorphic being located at one place at a time? For that matter, can the spirit to which Micaiah refers do what Micaiah describes if he is such an anthropomorphic entity?

If the Holy Ghost is not a spirit son of God the Father, what is he? It is clear enough that LDS theology views the Holy Ghost as male, as a spirit, and as subordinate to God the Father in at least more or less the same way that Christ is (and Christ, of course, was a spirit son of God the Father). That he is a spirit son of God the Father would seem to be a very reasonable inference, and several respected Mormon scholars have said so. Joseph Fielding McConkie, John Tvedtnes, and Victor Ludlow, among others, have taken this position. I am not aware of any Mormon scholar or leader who has dissented from it. No one here has suggested an alternative view or even said that he or she disagrees with the idea that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God the Father.

My position is that the Bible's descriptions of what spirits do reveal them to be non-embodied. This is true for God, angels, demons, and departed humans. Christ, who is God, is not in his divine nature embodied, but he took on bodily form in becoming a human being for our redemption. Not being embodied, spirits are not literal offspring of God. So from my point of view the issue of the identity of the Holy Ghost and the nature of spirits, including the spirit of which Micaiah spoke, are interrelated.

That having been said, it doesn't matter one bit to me whether Mormons believe that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God the Father. I have no vested interest in arguing that this is the LDS view. I agree that it does not appear to be explicitly taught in any official LDS publications. I agree that IRR's web article referring to this idea needs to be revised accordingly (and as I have stated, the article is in the process of being revised). But it would be nice if some Mormon would have the decency to acknowledge that there is nothing about that statement that is offensive or that deliberately misrepresents LDS doctrine.

Link to comment

My position is that the Bible's descriptions of what spirits do reveal them to be non-embodied. This is true for God, angels, demons, and departed humans. Christ, who is God, is not in his divine nature embodied, but he took on bodily form in becoming a human being for our redemption. Not being embodied, spirits are not literal offspring of God. So from my point of view the issue of the identity of the Holy Ghost and the nature of spirits, including the spirit of which Micaiah spoke, are interrelated.

In two different lengthy and totally inconclusive threads, Mr Bowman has yet to give any account whatsoever of what "unembodied" could possibly mean.

How can one possibly believe in something "unembodied" when the term itself is undefined?

It isn't as if the Bible uses the term anyway. One would have to exercise blind faith in an assertion which has no meaning to believe that.

That is not what my God requires.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

If the Holy Ghost is not a spirit son of God the Father, what is he?...No one here has suggested an alternative view or even said that he or she disagrees with the idea that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God the Father....

That having been said, it doesn't matter one bit to me whether Mormons believe that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God the Father. I have no vested interest in arguing that this is the LDS view. I agree that it does not appear to be explicitly taught in any official LDS publications. I agree that IRR's web article referring to this idea needs to be revised accordingly (and as I have stated, the article is in the process of being revised). But it would be nice if some Mormon would have the decency to acknowledge that there is nothing about that statement that is offensive or that deliberately misrepresents LDS doctrine.

What is being misrepresented was that it was a teaching of the LDS Church which is what was claimed in the article.

Whether it was deliberate or not, it was a misrepresentation based on the claim it was a teaching, whether it was IRR or JFM. The purpose of the misrepresentation---in the one case an overstep of someone trying to help explain LDS thought in a positive, constructive way, in the other someone who is using the concept to criticize, 'destruct' the LDS faith, to judge it as a lie makes a tremendous difference in my opinion on how much I hold each accountable. If one is trying to prove something false, one should go the extra mile to establish that 'it' actually exists to begin with, in this case "it" does not exist as a teaching of the LDS faith.

It is possible that the Holy Spirit is of God's the Father 'generation', however God the Father took on spiritual form.

The point is that for LDS unless it's been revealed, it should not be claimed to be part of the Church's theology. The Church works hard to correct the errors that have crept into the writings and talks of its members in order to prevent speculation from being confused with revelation. It is not always successful and to take advantage of it missing something is wrong, in my opinion.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

...and this time folks please stick to the topic at hand. If you have other ideas about other topics start a new thread for them.

Actually Mr. Bowman more or less took the topic off topic by focusing on this.

Perhaps he will be willing to restrict it to the topic as outlined by the opening post now.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

The actual point I made was that, whatever one may think about the accuracy of saying that the LDS Church teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God, one cannot fairly call this a deliberate misrepresentation or distortion unless one is willing to say this about the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which says the exact same thing about the Holy Ghost.

The nature of the Holy Ghost and his relationship to God the Father does have at least some indirect relevance to the theological issue of this thread, which is whether spirits are necessarily embodied. The Holy Ghost is evidently a "spirit" in the same sense as the spirit to which Micaiah refers in 1 Kings 22:19-23. From the LDS perspective, both spirits are material, embodied beings in human form and with human parts, though not "physical" or "flesh" like our earthly bodies. Can the Holy Ghost (or as I would prefer, Holy Spirit) do what the Bible reveals him to do if he is an anthropomorphic being located at one place at a time? For that matter, can the spirit to which Micaiah refers do what Micaiah describes if he is such an anthropomorphic entity?

If the Holy Ghost is not a spirit son of God the Father, what is he? It is clear enough that LDS theology views the Holy Ghost as male, as a spirit, and as subordinate to God the Father in at least more or less the same way that Christ is (and Christ, of course, was a spirit son of God the Father). That he is a spirit son of God the Father would seem to be a very reasonable inference, and several respected Mormon scholars have said so. Joseph Fielding McConkie, John Tvedtnes, and Victor Ludlow, among others, have taken this position. I am not aware of any Mormon scholar or leader who has dissented from it. No one here has suggested an alternative view or even said that he or she disagrees with the idea that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God the Father.

The "point" of a thread is stated in the OP, and this has nothing or very little to do with the OP.

My position is that the Bible's descriptions of what spirits do reveal them to be non-embodied. This is true for God, angels, demons, and departed humans. Christ, who is God, is not in his divine nature embodied, but he took on bodily form in becoming a human being for our redemption. Not being embodied, spirits are not literal offspring of God. So from my point of view the issue of the identity of the Holy Ghost and the nature of spirits, including the spirit of which Micaiah spoke, are interrelated.

This is to do with the OP, and it was addressed by me, if not by others.

That having been said, it doesn't matter one bit to me whether Mormons believe that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God the Father. I have no vested interest in arguing that this is the LDS view. I agree that it does not appear to be explicitly taught in any official LDS publications. I agree that IRR's web article referring to this idea needs to be revised accordingly (and as I have stated, the article is in the process of being revised). But it would be nice if some Mormon would have the decency to acknowledge that there is nothing about that statement that is offensive or that deliberately misrepresents LDS doctrine.

Again, not much to do with the OP.

Link to comment

Let's now look at Rob's third argument:

The story that Micaiah tells Ahab about a conversation between the LORD and one of his spirits planning for Ahab to be incited to go to battle against Ramoth-gilead should probably not be taken literally. It is unlikely that Micaiah is claiming to have heard a literal conversation between the LORD and a spirit planning Ahab’s deception (I gave several reasons for this view).

There are several counters to this:

First, Micaiah may have made the story up, in part or whole, using believable imagery to gain credibility. In other words, while portions of Micaiah's story may not be believed, or may be taken, in part, as figurative, his imagery may be viewed as believable in a literal sense.

Second, Micaiah may have actually seen the heavenly council, but his vision was a function, itself, of a lying spirit, which used believable imagery to gain credibility.

Third, Micaiah may have actually seen the heavenly council, and God may have done what Micaiah saw him do. That we human's, with our limited understanding and "foolishness," and through our mistaken hermeneutic circles presume "that a perfectly unified and consistent worldview and ethic governs this entire narrative," and may balk at this, is not evidence that it didn't occur as stated, and wasn't meant to be interpreted literally--in part or whole.

As such, while once again Rob's third argument may provide room to not take 1 Kings 22:19-23 literally, it does not necessitate it. One may also reasonably interpret it in context as literal--in part or in whole.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

DaddyG,

Sigh. Is there anyone on the Mormon side here who is willing to address the actual point I made? So far, not one has done so. I'm beginning to feel more and more confident that it is unanswerable.

I've looked over this thread multiple times now to make sure, and I am confident that you have not yet responded to this post. In light of this I have to disagree that your points have gone unanswered (unless, of course, you refer to some point other than your OP).

Link to comment

Let's now look at Rob's third argument:

There are several counters to this:

First, Micaiah may have made the story up, in part or whole, using believable imagery to gain credibility. In other words, while portions of Micaiah's story may not be believed, or may be taken, in part, as figurative, his imagery may be viewed as believable in a literal sense.

Second, Micaiah may have actually seen the heavenly council, but his vision was a function, itself, of a lying spirit, which used believable imagery to gain credibility.

Third, Micaiah may have actually seen the heavenly council, and God may have done what Micaiah saw him do. That we human's, with our limited understanding and "foolishness," and through our mistaken hermeneutic circles presume "that a perfectly unified and consistent worldview and ethic governs this entire narrative," and may balk at this, is not evidence that it didn't occur as stated, and wasn't meant to be interpreted literally--in part or whole.

As such, while once again Rob's third argument may provide room to not take 1 Kings 22:19-23 literally, it does not necessitate it. One may also reasonably interpret it in context as literal--in part or in whole.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would argue that there's really no room for understanding 1 Kgs 22:19-23 literally. The presence of the prophet of Yahweh in his divine council is a recurring theme in late pre-exilic and exilic literature in the Hebrew Bible and in other Near Eastern literature (mainly Assyro-Babylonian, thus the exilic dating for its presence in the Bible). A good article on this topic is Robert P. Gordon, "Standing in the Council: When Prophets Encounter God," in The God of Israel (Robert P. Gordon, ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 190-204. Here are a few portions:

Most of the more extensive sightings of the DC [divine council] within the Old Testament are in prophetic contexts. The main passages in this regard are 1 Kings 22, Isaiah 6, Isaiah 40, Jeremiah 23 and Zechariah 3. In each case a prophet is witness to proceedings of the DC, in some instances receiving authorization to prophesy on the basis of this experience. Such witnessing and 'listening in' by prophets is not a biblical innovation. Prophets mentioned in the Mari texts and in the Deit 'Alla plaster text are said to have witnessed sessions of the gods in council.

In some texts, the decisions of the divine council are secretly overheard by a prophet. For instance, in Atrahasis the protagonist hears about the gods' plan to destroy humanity while listening through the reed wall of his house. Utnapishtim overhears the same through a reed wall. It is reminiscent of Job 4:12-13:

A word was brought to me in secret,

My ear received a whisper of it.

Midst unsettling thoughts from visions in the night,

When deep sleep falls on people.

I earlier pointed to the importance of the notions of "standing" and "sitting." Gordon further states,

To 'stand' in the DC, in the way of a prophet (cf. Jer. 23:18, 22) is to experience revelation in a different mode. 'Stand' in this sense is a terminus technicus, as in Mesopotamia where the Akkadian izuzzu/uzuzzu is used for participation in the assembly (puhrum) of the gods. This very specific sense of 'stand' in the Old Testament is to be distinguished from its more general use for service rendered to a superior, notably God before whom worshippers and priests 'stand' (see Deut 10:8; Ezek 44:15). and possibly even from the more general use of the verb for prophetic attendance upon God (see 1 Kgs 17:1; 18:15).
The enhanced role of humans in relation to the biblical DC is seen at its clearest in the fulfilling by prophets of roles more usually, and more naturally, fulfilled by the gods in the typical DC of the ancient Near East. Two of the main Old Testament passages feature the DC in its deliberations over problem issues: the enticing of Ahab to his death in 1 Kgs 22:19-23 ('Who will entice Ahab . . . ?', v. 20), and the announcing of the judgement to Judah in Isa 6:1-13 ('Whom shall I send . . . ?', v. 8). These scenes are paralleled outside the Old Testament, but there, unsurprisingly, it is divine participants in the DC to whom the challenges are addressed. In the Ugaritic Keret poem, for example, El asks seven times of the other gods for a volunteer to cure Keret of his disease, before finally having to take steps himself to help the king. 1 Kings 22, as noted already, exhibits a basic earth-heaven polarity: the earthly court, presided over by the kings of Israel and Judah in this instance, has its reflex in the heavenly DC which, in fact, is a projection into the heavenly realm of an earthly institution regarded as a fit 'metaphor' for divine rule over the earth. In 1 Kings 22 the old conceptuality persists, with its heavenly host and 'spirit' constituency. Micaiah's claim to have witnessed the heavenly court in session is conceptually of a piece with those other Near Eastern traditions of prophets who reported on the deliberations of the gods. Isaiah 6, however, in allowing the prophet to respond to God's question ('Whom shall I send . . . ?', v. 8). gives added emphasis to the human part in the working out of the divine plan. Indeed, the prophet's interjections are crucial to the formulation of the message that he has to deliver to Judah (vv. 5, 8, 11).

Within biblical scholarship it is universally acknowledged that this is a claim on the prophet's part to have actually witnessed God's divine council. This fits perfectly with the wider literary context, and there simply do not exist any reasons to believe it's just figurative rhetoric.

Link to comment

The actual point I made was that, whatever one may think about the accuracy of saying that the LDS Church teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God, one cannot fairly call this a deliberate misrepresentation or distortion unless one is willing to say this about the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which says the exact same thing about the Holy Ghost.

***

But it would be nice if some Mormon would have the decency to acknowledge that there is nothing about that statement that is offensive or that deliberately misrepresents LDS doctrine.

Thank you.

To me, to be “embodied” means to be contained within a unique, mortal or immortal (resurrected) physical body. The Holy Ghost is not an embodied spirit. I don’t think He is disembodied either, since He never had one. That the Holy Ghost is a spirit made of spirit matter with an anthropological form does not mean He is embodied pr disembodied, only that He has a spirit body with the attendant discernible anthropomorphic features of God. This is how I read the Biblical passages in this thread.

Now if I were to entertain the idea that to be “embodied” means to have an immortal spirit that is shaped like a human being, then yes, the Holy Ghost is embodied, but in this sense only. I think wenglund is doing a good job summarizing how reasonable the LDS position is and why we hold to that over an alternative position that is reasonable to you.

I don’t have a problem with some LDS authorities saying that the Holy Ghost has a certain origin and others saying such have not been revealed. I think different origin points and conditions and possibly particular statements are being referenced. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is available for anyone to read, interpret, discuss and agree/disagree accordingly.

While I have seen parts of the website before the link was removed from this forum, I have not read the article in question and so cannot acknowledge that it contains nothing offensive or that deliberately misrepresents LDS doctrine. I think it is obvious from the website that any LDS resource would be used against the Church and some might call this offensive or deliberately misrepresenting, but to me this is a non-issue and takes away from a discussion on the OP (I'd open up a new thread if it is that important).

Link to comment

calmoriah,

You wrote:

What is being misrepresented was that it was a teaching of the LDS Church which is what was claimed in the article.

Whether it was deliberate or not, it was a misrepresentation based on the claim it was a teaching, whether it was IRR or JFM. The purpose of the misrepresentation---in the one case an overstep of someone trying to help explain LDS thought in a positive, constructive way, in the other someone who is using the concept to criticize, 'destruct' the LDS faith, to judge it as a lie makes a tremendous difference in my opinion on how much I hold each accountable.

So, JFM and the editors of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism also "misrepresented" the LDS Church's doctrine, but they had good motives whereas IRR did not. Is that your claim?

Has it ever occurred to you that the author of the IRR article (it wasn't me) was trying to state LDS doctrine accurately and sincerely accepted the statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as accurate?

You wrote:

If one is trying to prove something false, one should go the extra mile to establish that 'it' actually exists to begin with, in this case "it" does not exist as a teaching of the LDS faith.

This really is a tempest in a teapot, since, if Mormonism is true, the Holy Ghost must have been the spirit son of Someone--if not of God the Father, of some other deity. That is, according to LDS doctrine the Holy Ghost is a male spirit being with an anthropomorphic spirit body, and he is subordinate to Heavenly Father. He had to derive this male spirit form from someone; if not from our Heavenly Father, then from someone else. It would actually be a worse theological error to argue that the Holy Ghost is the spirit son of some other, unknown deity.

You wrote:

It is possible that the Holy Spirit is of God's the Father 'generation', however God the Father took on spiritual form.

I have no idea what that "however" means. Evidently, though, you do not have a different view that the one articulated by JFM. You don't seem prepared to argue that it is incorrect, only that it is not "official" LDS doctrine. So this really does seem to be carping over very little.

You wrote:

The point is that for LDS unless it's been revealed, it should not be claimed to be part of the Church's theology. The Church works hard to correct the errors that have crept into the writings and talks of its members in order to prevent speculation from being confused with revelation. It is not always successful and to take advantage of it missing something is wrong, in my opinion.

As I have pointed out, several LDS scholars of note have espoused the idea in question, and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism stated 19 years ago that it was the teaching of the LDS Church, and so far the Church has not gotten around to correcting this supposed error. The fact that an article published on IRR's website twelve years ago accepted what the Encyclopedia said was purely innocent and not "taking advantage" of anything.

Link to comment

I have been trying to find evidence of Evangelical theology on the nature of spirits- and it seems to be extremely vague, and ill-defined, but I found this interesting:

Intermediate State of Existence

The intermediate state of existence is probably the most mysterious of all issues of what we might call “personal eschatology.”

What we know about the intermediate state of existence for Christians:

What we don’t know:

  • What we will be doing.
  • If we will have an “interim” body, though it does seem we will find extension in space and be “recognizable” (1 Sam. 28:15; Matt. 17:1-9).
  • Where it is (it is not really up or down geographically; it could be some sort of scifi parallel plane of existence).

Note the idea of an "interim body" which is extended in time and space" (hardly "incorporeal) and which is "recognizable".

I also found it revealing that the article was titled:

"Questions I Hope No One Will Ask: What Will We Be Doing in Heaven?"

Perhaps Rob could supply some references to allow us to understand a philosophical explanation of what is meant by "incorporeal" in Evangelical theology.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

More from the above-mentioned site. Of course I have no way of knowing how representative this view is, of the views of most Evangelicals. Of course that is a problem since there is so much variation in "doctrine" between different groups, I am not sure it is possible to find a consistent view of "Evangelical Doctrine" or if that has a meaning in an instance such as this

2. Ghosts may be spirits of disembodied people who are left on the earth without explanation.

While not discounting the possibility that many of these events can be attributed to demons, this view believes that paranormal encounters may be legitimate encounters of disembodied spirits of people. We don’t have an explanation as to why these people would be on earth, but a lack of explanation does not mean that it is impossible.

There are four primary biblical arguments that this view uses to justify its openness to ghosts.

  1. When Saul sought a medium the witch of En-dor was apparently able to bring Samuel back from the dead in a disembodied state (1 Sam. 28:7-19). It is interesting that Saul was able to determine it was Samuel by his age and dress. This suggests that even in a disembodied state, spirits retain their physical characteristics that they possessed at death—even their clothes! This parallels with what many people describe when they encounter spirits whose characteristics, language, and dress remain the same as when they died.

In both of these quotes, of course it seems clear that the author is describing something very close to what we would call a "spirit body"; on the other hand there is no explanation for how such a body could be termed "disembodied".

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

I have been trying to find evidence of Evangelical theology on the nature of spirits- and it seems to be extremely vague, and ill-defined...

I also found it revealing that the article was titled:

"Questions I Hope No One Will Ask: What Will We Be Doing in Heaven?"

Perhaps Rob could supply some references to allow us to understand a philosophical explanation of what is meant by "incorporeal" in Evangelical theology.

Indeed. I would love to have an Encyclopedia of Protestantism (including all its surrounding nebulae) that would give their definitive doctrine on all topics so I could comb through it looking for error, in my opinion, of course. I would even settle for an

equivalent to Mormon Doctrine (BRMcC).

Bernard

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

Indeed. I would love to have an Encyclopedia of Protestantism (including all its surrounding nebulae) that would give their definitive doctrine on all topics so I could comb through it looking for error, in my opinion, of course. I would even settle for an

equivalent to Mormon Doctrine (BRMcC).

Bernard

Exactly.

One of the whole logical problems obviously with the whole notion of some "thing" existing which is "disembodied" is the logical problem of individuality.

How can a spirit be "my spirit" as opposed to "your spirit" if it does not a location in time and space which is different from the location of your spirit?

This is precisely the question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"- that is the reality of that problem. How can something be individual, or numbered if it doesn't have spatial extension- ie properties like a location in space in time- that it is "here" and not "there".

Is there just one spirit that fills the universe or do we have individual spirits? You cannot have individual spirits and have them be completely "disembodied". The notion just does not make sense.

Link to comment

Indeed. I would love to have an Encyclopedia of Protestantism (including all its surrounding nebulae) that would give their definitive doctrine on all topics so I could comb through it looking for error, in my opinion, of course. I would even settle for an

equivalent to Mormon Doctrine (BRMcC).

The reality is that if such a thing existed one would find that it is all based on Medieval Catholic philosophy- particularly Aquinas and Scholasticism.

And which Evangelical is going to admit that their entire religious view is based on Catholicism?

Link to comment

I have no idea what that "however" means.

Actually you have demonstrated that you have no idea whatsoever of what I mean, I'm not even going to bother since this will just give you another excuse to avoid dealing with the actual topic.

Just don't quote me since you don't understand my points pretty much from the beginning to the end of this conversation. You have been approaching the subject with too many assumptions and not enough doubt in your knowledge leading you to jump to conclusion after conclusion making it impossible for me to keep up with corrections.

******I just conceived of a clearer way to phrase my concern so will add it in hopes of being understood and not misrepresented in one point but have no intention of restarting the conversation to deal with any others.

JFM was attempting to describe a set of beliefs that he held in common with the Church. It does not surprise me when someone makes an assumption that a minor personal belief is also held by others sharing in a greater belief system. I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt. This is significantly different from someone who does not hold those beliefs who includes a believer's additional as if it were held by the whole, even if they believe that it is a part of a whole because there is a responsibility in criticism to be accurate in one's accusations. The latter mistake is at best lazy and inconsiderate and if such disregard for accurate portrayal and scholarship is persistent, the habit is offensive and can even be justified as being deliberate IF the individual involved has received correction in the past on his habit of inaccuracy but ignored it.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

Exactly.

One of the whole logical problems obviously with the whole notion of some "thing" existing which is "disembodied" is the logical problem of individuality.

How can a spirit be "my spirit" as opposed to "your spirit" if it does not a location in time and space which is different from the location of your spirit?

This is precisely the question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"- that is the reality of that problem. How can something be individual, or numbered if it doesn't have spatial extension- ie properties like a location in space in time- that it is "here" and not "there".

Is there just one spirit that fills the universe or do we have individual spirits? You cannot have individual spirits and have them be completely "disembodied". The notion just does not make sense.

Its often said that God is omnipresent. (I've even read some early discoures by LDS leaders which go into this)... one thing that has been said that goes along with this is that God is uncircumscribable.

Which is the opposite of...

cir·cum·scribe

1.

to draw a line around; encircle: to circumscribe a city on a map.

2.

to enclose within bounds; limit or confine, especially narrowly: Her social activities are circumscribed by school regulations.

3.

to mark off; define; delimit: to circumscribe the area of a science.

4.

Geometry .

a.

to draw (a figure) around another figure so as to touch as many points as possible.

b.

(of a figure) to enclose (another figure) in this manner.

Basically it says that God is infinite in all directions in all planes and has no boundaries. But if thats the case... then we have a lot of verses which have to be explained away which describe God as having definite boundaries and being circumscribed by other things in a definite time and space.

2 Chron 18

18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord; I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left

Psalms 18:11

11 He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.

Link to comment

Its often said that God is omnipresent. (I've even read some early discoures by LDS leaders which go into this)... one thing that has been said that goes along with this is that God is uncircumscribable.

Which is the opposite of...

Basically it says that God is infinite in all directions in all planes and has no boundaries. But if thats the case... then we have a lot of verses which have to be explained away which describe God as having definite boundaries and being circumscribed by other things in a definite time and space.

2 Chron 18

18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord; I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left

Psalms 18:11

11 He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.

Walking in the garden in the cool of the evening and making sound so Adam could

hear him approaching.....

Passing in front of Moses and a bunch of his men and letting them see his back.....

Bernard

Link to comment

Walking in the garden in the cool of the evening and making sound so Adam could

hear him approaching.....

Passing in front of Moses and a bunch of his men and letting them see his back.....

Bernard

I read this one this afternoon which goes along with the Moses seeing his back parts.

Ex 19

16 ¶And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.

17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.

18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.

21 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish.

22 And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.

23 And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.

24 And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them.

25 So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.

These aren't merely "Visions" or poetic license. They are presented as actual events that people saw and heard with their phsyical eyes and ears.

Link to comment

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Actually you have demonstrated that you have no idea whatsoever of what I mean, I'm not even going to bother since this will just give you another excuse to avoid dealing with the actual topic.

Argh. Here I thought we were having a civil discussion.

Link to comment

CV75,

You wrote:

To me, to be “embodied” means to be contained within a unique, mortal or immortal (resurrected) physical body. The Holy Ghost is not an embodied spirit. I don’t think He is disembodied either, since He never had one. That the Holy Ghost is a spirit made of spirit matter with an anthropological form does not mean He is embodied pr disembodied, only that He has a spirit body with the attendant discernible anthropomorphic features of God. This is how I read the Biblical passages in this thread.

"Embodied" simply means that someone exists in a body. If the Holy Ghost has a "spirit body," then he's embodied.

Link to comment

Its often said that God is omnipresent. (I've even read some early discoures by LDS leaders which go into this)... one thing that has been said that goes along with this is that God is uncircumscribable.

Which is the opposite of...

Basically it says that God is infinite in all directions in all planes and has no boundaries. But if thats the case... then we have a lot of verses which have to be explained away which describe God as having definite boundaries and being circumscribed by other things in a definite time and space.

2 Chron 18

18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord; I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left

Psalms 18:11

11 He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.

I listed a bunch more that clearly indicate that God, the Father has a definite locality. Spoken by Jesus, no less.

(See here, http://www.mormondia...__p__1209046114 )

No comment from Bowman attempting to explain them away.

Also, contrary to Bowman's stated purpose for starting this thread as found here, http://www.mormondia...__p__1209044757

Are you fine with limiting the discussion of specific biblical texts to exegesis (not "my" exegesis, but simply exegesis, the study of the text in its context)? That is what I have been asking all along.

and here, http://www.mormondia...__p__1209044816

Thanks for sharing your explanation as to why you think 1 Kings 22:21 reveals that spirits have bodies. I appreciate the effort. I will be happy to explain how I view this verse.

One of the problems I see is that, contrary to Bowman's assertion that it would be

not "my" exegesis, but simply exegesis, the study of the text in its context

We have his dogmatic Eisegesis insistence on what must be literal and what must be figurative.

Edited by Vance
Link to comment

Dan,

You wrote:

I would argue that there's really no room for understanding 1 Kgs 22:19-23 literally.

Do you mean "for not understanding"?

You wrote:

The presence of the prophet of Yahweh in his divine council is a recurring theme in late pre-exilic and exilic literature in the Hebrew Bible and in other Near Eastern literature (mainly Assyro-Babylonian, thus the exilic dating for its presence in the Bible).

The prevalence of a theme does not make it literally true.

You wrote:

Within biblical scholarship it is universally acknowledged that this is a claim on the prophet's part to have actually witnessed God's divine council. This fits perfectly with the wider literary context, and there simply do not exist any reasons to believe it's just figurative rhetoric.

There are other options besides Micaiah literally observing a divine council meeting and Micaiah engaging in figurative rhetoric. For example, he may have had a vision supernaturally conveyed to his mind in which he actually saw what he describes. But most such visions in the Bible are full of symbolism.

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

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