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

[Vance]

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

They are rather harsh toward all things Catholic, excepting the "Trinity" of course, which they swallow, hook, line, sinker, rod, reel and boat.

[zerinus]

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

You say you accept that a spirit is made of something (as opposed to being made of nothing). We call that spirit something out of which a spirit is made its spirit body. So how is what we believe different from what you believe?

Edited September 19, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

Regarding my critique of your use of the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva, you wrote:

I saw someone mention it on CARM, but I am banned, so I could not comment. I didn't get the quote from Patai, I got it from an article by Barry Bickmore and used it in an article I wrote as a sophomore at BYU (which you can find here)....

See my response in the relevant thread here.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

A spirit (other than God) is made or created by God, and it is definitely something rather than nothing. However, "something" does not mean something material or something with a human form. My position is that all spirits are incorporeal or, if you prefer, not embodied (bodiless). That is, spirits do not have mass, do not occupy physical space, and do not have a fixed spatial arrangement (shape).

You say you accept that a spirit is made of something (as opposed to being made of nothing). We call that spirit something out of which a spirit is made its spirit body. So how is what we believe different from what you believe?

[Vance]

That is, spirits do not have mass, do not occupy physical space, and do not have a fixed spatial arrangement (shape).

And, pray tell, where is the ("sola scripturists") scriptural support for this belief?

[Ahab]

zerinus,

A spirit (other than God) is made or created by God, and it is definitely something rather than nothing. However, "something" does not mean something material or something with a human form.

Then what do you think that "something" is if not something of some sort of material substance? Something like only a thought or a concept ih the mind of God, maybe?

You're wrong on this point by thinking a spirit isn't composed of some type of substance, but I'd like to at least understand your thoughts on this.

Try starting from the fact that when we die some part of us will return to God who gave that part of us to us, just like the scripture says which says that when we die our spirit will return to God.

If our spirit is not something of some type of material substance, as you think it isn't, then the only option left is that our spirit is only a thought which God gave to us, because even "energy" is composed of some type of substance, just as light is composed of light particles and energy is composed of atoms.

My position is that all spirits are incorporeal or, if you prefer, not embodied (bodiless). That is, spirits do not have mass, do not occupy physical space, and do not have a fixed spatial arrangement (shape).

Then please support your position by referencing some scripture or providing some other sort of evidence to support your postion. A thought in your head doesn't make what you think true.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Ahab

[zerinus]

And, pray tell, where is the ("sola scripturists") scriptural support for this belief?

Then please support your position by referencing some scripture or providing some other sort of evidence to support your postion. A thought in your head doesn't make what you think true.

I asked that question of Rob not too long ago in this thread, to which he never replied. I am not holding my breath that he will this time round.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

Do you mean "for not understanding"?

Yes, I did. Thanks for the correction.

You wrote:

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

I don't believe I said it made it "literally true." What I said is that it's very prevalent and that in every instance within and without the Bible the evidence points unilaterally to the type-scene being understood as an actual physical event. This text is no different, and I would honestly be shocked if you could point to a single critical scholar from the last 75 years who arrived at the conclusion that this was not intended to be understood as a description of an event actually witnessed by the prophet.

You wrote:

There are other options besides Micaiah literally observing a divine council meeting and Micaiah engaging in figurative rhetoric.

But why would we need to look for another option when the former is how divine council scenes were universally understood?

For example, he may have had a vision supernaturally conveyed to his mind in which he actually saw what he describes.

But he knew it wasn't real? Where is this indicated? Perhaps he didn't know it wasn't real, but you do. Again, where do you find this indicated?

But most such visions in the Bible are full of symbolism.

And I don't know any place where the Bible indicates that theophanies rich in symbolism were not thought to be actual visions by readers, but just literary expressions. Of course it's possible, but that's not the simple reading or the reading supported by the literary context, so what evidence compels one to move past the simple reading supported by the context and arrive at your conclusion? Right now the only reason I can fathom is simple dogmatism (the same thing that compels one to reject the simple reading in favor of a reading with no support in 2 Kgs 3:27, or in the conflicting accounts of Sennacherib's invasion).

[Calm]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

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

I was hoping for such, but alas while it did not lack for civility, there was little actual discussion involved.

It happens quite a lot on the Internet (and off) and is a frustrating but understandable situation. Sometimes people simply listen more to what they think should be said than what really is being said. If assumptions are strong enough to drive the 'conversation' I'm not sure how to get past it.

Edited September 19, 2011 by calmoriah

[LeSellers]

I asked that question of Rob not too long ago in this thread, to which he never replied. I am not holding my breath that he will this time round.

I cannot read his mind, but I can comment on his actions and words.

It appears that Mr. Bowman does not come here to dialogue (i.e., to discuss his beliefs as well as ours), but, rather, to mine us for nuggers he can use elsehwere. It seems he assumes his position, being older (at least in the current frame), needs no defense, hence, all burden of proof lies on our shoulders, and he bears none.

But I hope I am wrong in this, as, from my Point of View, his is the more tenuous position. Everything from the near modern non-necessity for baptism to the inexplicable doctrine of the Trinity. As far as I can determine, his brushing aside of the obvious (albeit non-explicit) requirement for Priesthood keys to administer every ordinance from baptism and bestowal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost to healing the sick and calling on the powers of heaven for revelation forces him into a trap of his own making.

Lehi

Edited September 19, 2011 by LeSellers

[Vance]

I asked that question of Rob not too long ago in this thread, to which he never replied. I am not holding my breath that he will this time round.

Well, it is impossible to provide scriptural references that don't actually exist. So, it is wise not to hold your breath.

[CV75]

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

I hope I’m not recycling other posts and arguments, but I think existing in a body (which I see as embodiment) differs from existing as a body. I think the Holy Ghost is the latter, existing as a “personage of spirit” comprised of spirit matter with a decidedly human form, and functions accordingly. If embodiment means either of these conditions, then the actual condition has to be laid out very clearly.

Similarly, we are personages of spirit but have also become embodied in a tabernacle of clay or “element” that matches our human spirit form.

I think some confusion arises in the term “having a body” synonymously with “embodiment” since this apparently has the potential to convey both the condition of being a spirit in a physical (or even spirit) body and of being a spirit existing as a spirit body with form.

[Zakuska]

I cannot read his mind, but I can comment on his actions and words.

It appears that Mr. Bowman does not come here to dialogue (i.e., to discuss his beliefs as well as ours), but, rather, to mine us for nuggers he can use elsehwere. It seems he assumes his position, being older (at least in the current frame), needs no defense, hence, all burden of proof lies on our shoulders, and he bears none.

But I hope I am wrong in this, as, from my Point of View, his is the more tenuous position. Everything from the near modern non-necessity for baptism to the inexplicable doctrine of the Trinity. As far as I can determine, his brushing aside of the obvious (albeit non-explicit) requirement for Priesthood keys to administer every ordinance from baptism and bestowal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost to healing the sick and calling on the powers of heaven for revelation forces him into a trap of his own making.

Lehi

The non-necessity of Water Baptism is actually quite old originating with the Gnostics and something that the Orthodox 1st Century church had to deal with as well.

Example:

Tertullian

"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [but] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12).

"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).

Edited September 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[CV75]

spirits do not have mass, do not occupy physical space, and do not have a fixed spatial arrangement (shape).

I agree that from our reckoning, spirits have no mass, yet through some means of their spiritual power interact with (influence, move) physical things.

I also agree that they do not occupy physical space, but spiritual space. That physical and spiritual space coexist or overlap is evident from their constant interaction and "connectedness" in moving and acting in this world. I do think it may be more accurate to describe the spirit as being "connected with" or "possessing" a mortal body rather than actually occupying it, though I have no problem with the figurative vernacular (the term "dwelling" as well). I'm suggesting this is how adult human spirits with their specifications can "occupy" infant, incomplete or gargantuan bodies, and how many evil spirits can possess one body.

I do not agree that spirits have no shape, which is the crux of the LDS interpretation of I Kings 22:19-23.

Spiritual power and influence are another matter.

Edited September 19, 2011 by CV75

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

I don't believe I said it made it "literally true." What I said is that it's very prevalent and that in every instance within and without the Bible the evidence points unilaterally to the type-scene being understood as an actual physical event. This text is no different, and I would honestly be shocked if you could point to a single critical scholar from the last 75 years who arrived at the conclusion that this was not intended to be understood as a description of an event actually witnessed by the prophet.

My interest here is specifically in explaining why I don't think this passage, which was cited by a Mormon to me in defense of the Mormon view of spirits, actually supports that view. Your own characterization clearly won't fit the Mormon view, since Mormons don't think the "divine council" is a "physical event" but is rather an event involving spirit beings in the celestial kingdom. Spirit beings, according to LDS doctrine, are "material" but not "physical." This isn't a mere semantic point, because construing the vision as meaning that spirits are literally embodied entities does imply that they are physical beings.

I won't try to answer your appeal to scholarly authority by looking for scholarly support for my view, in part because such an appeal would fall on deaf ears among the rank and file Mormons here if I were to make it in support of my position, and partly because you have stacked your challenge to exclude any scholars that disagree with you by your qualification "critical scholars." I have to wonder, though, how many of these "critical scholars" you have in mind actually believe that Micaiah literally observed an actual meeting of the divine council. My guesstimate would be...zero. Again, I am focused in this forum ("Mormon Dialogue") on addressing issues pertaining to the truth or falsity of the Mormon position as compared with my own.

You wrote:

And I don't know any place where the Bible indicates that theophanies rich in symbolism were not thought to be actual visions by readers, but just literary expressions.

I already stated that such was not my claim.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

I was hoping for such, but alas while it did not lack for civility, there was little actual discussion involved.

My objection was to your suggestion that I might be looking for "another excuse to avoid dealing with the actual topic." This was not a civil comment.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

My interest here is specifically in explaining why I don't think this passage, which was cited by a Mormon to me in defense of the Mormon view of spirits, actually supports that view.

So you have no intention of arguing in support of the larger conclusion, namely that Joseph Smith didn't restore an ideology found in pre-apostate Christianity/Judaism?

Your own characterization clearly won't fit the Mormon view, since Mormons don't think the "divine council" is a "physical event" but is rather an event involving spirit beings in the celestial kingdom. Spirit beings, according to LDS doctrine, are "material" but not "physical." This isn't a mere semantic point, because construing the vision as meaning that spirits are literally embodied entities does imply that they are physical beings.

No, Latter-day Saints believe pre-mortal spirits had bodily form. Abraham saw them in his vision, and Latter-day Saints certainly believe that he wasn't just being shown temporarily personified symbolism.

I won't try to answer your appeal to scholarly authority by looking for scholarly support for my view,

I wouldn't characterize my appeal as a fallacy. After all, I provided a quite extensive argument of my own. This appeal to scholarship is intended to suggest that the only scholars who would arrive at the conclusion you espouse are those who presuppose it on dogmatic grounds.

in part because such an appeal would fall on deaf ears among the rank and file Mormons here if I were to make it in support of my position, and partly because you have stacked your challenge to exclude any scholars that disagree with you by your qualification "critical scholars."

So in essence you're agreeing with me that a critical scholar would not arrive at your conclusion? Only one who presupposed certain dogmas would do so?

I have to wonder, though, how many of these "critical scholars" you have in mind actually believe that Micaiah literally observed an actual meeting of the divine council. My guesstimate would be...zero.

And I have already stated that I agree with them. I don't see what this has to do with the fact that the authors of the Hebrew Bible certainly believed it was true.

Again, I am focused in this forum ("Mormon Dialogue") on addressing issues pertaining to the truth or falsity of the Mormon position as compared with my own.

You wrote:

I already stated that such was not my claim.

Then tell me exactly what the following statements are meant to suggest. Please be specific:

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.

It seems to me you're implying--while avoiding committing to specific details--that Micaiah saw something that was not real, and that he either knew it wasn't real, or mistakenly thought it was real. If you meant something else then please explain.

[Calm]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

My objection was to your suggestion that I might be looking for "another excuse to avoid dealing with the actual topic." This was not a civil comment.

At that time of night the state I was in, that was civil.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You may very well never understand my position, because you (and most Mormons with whom I have tried to discuss these things) appear to accept a monistic view of reality, i.e., the idea that all reality is ultimately of one basic or elemental kind. The idea that immaterial beings might be very real entities just doesn't compute with many people today. Historically, this difficulty in accepting the idea of immaterial beings can be traced to the Enlightenment, in which skeptics dismissed the idea as incomprehensible and contrary to their understanding of Ockham's razor.

The classical Jewish and Christian view of spirits that I accept is that spirits are real, substantial beings, but not material beings. Matter in our view is the stuff of the physical universe. We do not view spirits as abstractions akin to thoughts or concepts. They are real, personal entities, but they are not composed of matter and are incorporeal (bodiless). Their "substance" may itself be called spirit; it is real and, in the case of created spirits, finite, but still immaterial.

I'm happy to offer biblical evidence to support this view, but obviously I can't offer support for a view I don't hold, such as your misunderstanding of my view as meaning that spirits are unreal abstractions or thoughts. So first we need to have a minimal understanding of what it is I am advocating.

[Vance]

Your own characterization clearly won't fit the Mormon view, since Mormons don't think the "divine council" is a "physical event" but is rather an event involving spirit beings in the celestial kingdom.

WOW!!! It makes me wonder if Bowman actually understood what Mak actually said.

I did see, "description of an event actually witnessed by the prophet" though.

Oh wait, maybe we are just see a strawman under construction.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

So you have no intention of arguing in support of the larger conclusion, namely that Joseph Smith didn't restore an ideology found in pre-apostate Christianity/Judaism?

Well, not with someone who doesn't believe the texts he is using to defend that claim!

You wrote:

No, Latter-day Saints believe pre-mortal spirits had bodily form. Abraham saw them in his vision, and Latter-day Saints certainly believe that he wasn't just being shown temporarily personified symbolism.

Bodily form, yes; physicality, no. Mormon theology denies that premortal spirits are or were physical.

Regarding whether the "critical scholars" to whom you appealed believe that Micaiah really saw a meeting of the divine council, you wrote:

And I have already stated that I agree with them. I don't see what this has to do with the fact that the authors of the Hebrew Bible certainly believed it was true.

The point is, again, that I'm not here to argue about the meaning of texts with someone who doesn't himself believe those texts.

I denied that my position was that Micaiah was merely engaging in figurative rhetoric. You replied:

Then tell me exactly what the following statements are meant to suggest. Please be specific.... It seems to me you're implying--while avoiding committing to specific details--that Micaiah saw something that was not real, and that he either knew it wasn't real, or mistakenly thought it was real. If you meant something else then please explain.

Micaiah had a vision. I assume it was supernaturally conveyed to his mind. It was not merely Micaiah's own clever story. But it uses symbolism, just as most visions in the Bible do, whether Pharaoh's dreams about the fat and lean cows or Ezekiel's vision of the four bizarre-looking creatures or John's vision of the harlot riding on a beast.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

At that time of night the state I was in, that was civil.

Good enough.

[Vance]

The idea that immaterial beings might be very real entities just doesn't compute with many people today.

Gee, I wonder why.

Historically, this difficulty in accepting the idea of immaterial beings can be traced to the Enlightenment, in which skeptics dismissed the idea as incomprehensible and contrary to their understanding of Ockham's razor.

That is one reason to reject it. Another would be that it isn't found in scripture, at least, not without dogmatically reading it INTO them.

The classical Jewish and Christian view of spirits that I accept is that spirits are real, substantial beings, but not material beings.

"real" and "substantial", without being "material"?

Makes no since at all.

Matter in our view is the stuff of the physical universe.

Ok, THAT is YOUR view.

But to us, not all matter is element or what we would call "physical". It is simply for your own convenience that you want to conflate the two.

We do not view spirits as abstractions akin to thoughts or concepts. They are real, personal entities, . . .

Ok.

. . . but they are not composed of matter

Nah. This is just presumption. The use of "pneuma" would indicate otherwise.

. . . and are incorporeal (bodiless).

Sorry but your use (or mis-use) of "incorporeal" continues.

corporeal: having, consisting of, or relating to a physical material body: as

corporeal: 1.of the nature of the physical body; bodily.

Their "substance" may itself be called spirit; it is real and, in the case of created spirits, finite, . . .

Ok.

. . . but still immaterial.

Back to the presumption, again.

I'm happy to offer biblical evidence to support this view, . . .

I would like to see the biblical evidence for "immaterial", IF you can provide it.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

Well, not with someone who doesn't believe the texts he is using to defend that claim!

And why not? If you believe you're right then there should be no reason my not believing in the inerrancy or veracity of the truth-claims of biblical and non-biblical texts should affect the debate one way or another. It seems you want to be able to fall back on criticisms of the truth claims of the texts if your argument is otherwise unsupportable. If it's something else, I'm genuinely curious why you hold to this criterion.

You wrote:

Bodily form, yes; physicality, no. Mormon theology denies that premortal spirits are or were physical.

Joseph Smith said "there is no such things as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes" (DHC 5:392-93). (EDIT: I removed the incriminating part where I forgot this was a part of the D&C) Is it now your contention that according to Latter-day Saint ideology, spirits are "matter" and "material" but not "physical"? If so, would you mind showing where this distinction is made?

Regarding whether the "critical scholars" to whom you appealed believe that Micaiah really saw a meeting of the divine council, you wrote:

The point is, again, that I'm not here to argue about the meaning of texts with someone who doesn't himself believe those texts.

Why not?

I denied that my position was that Micaiah was merely engaging in figurative rhetoric.

Then what is it, exactly? Please be specific and arrive at a definite description of what it is. If you could explain why the texts support that conclusion that would be very helpful.

You replied:

Micaiah had a vision. I assume it was supernaturally conveyed to his mind. It was not merely Micaiah's own clever story. But it uses symbolism, just as most visions in the Bible do, whether Pharaoh's dreams about the fat and lean cows or Ezekiel's vision of the four bizarre-looking creatures or John's vision of the harlot riding on a beast.

But you contend it was not real, do you not? Your argument about spirits not having bodies kinda depends upon that assertion. This means either (1) Micaiah was deceived into thinking he saw an actual event, (2) he deceived the king into thinking he saw an actual event, or (3) he claimed to have seen an actual event, but everyone there knew he was just using symbolism to rhetorically chide the king. Which is it? Do you have another option? I would appreciate it if you'd start being specific so your argument stops sounding like you're just running around with the goal post refusing to put it down anywhere.

Edited September 19, 2011 by maklelan

[Vance]

Joseph Smith said "there is no such things as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes" (DHC 5:392-93). This is not "official doctrine," but it surely counts as "Mormon theology," and there is no "official doctrine" that conflicts or precludes it.

Actually,

I think its inclusion in D&C 131:7 makes it "official doctrine".