The God of the Bible is a Divine Man

[PD1]

You presupposing that God is a inmaterial cloud of light.

Are angels created beings? Yet they are called spirits... (Ps. 104: 4; Heb. 1:7)

Even men are called spirits ? Rev 1:4

All these Spirits with Bodies. Hmmmmm.

Methinks... you have no idea what you're talking about.

A regularly repeated, fundamental flaw that the LDS consistently make when dealing with this subject is to equate God the Father with God the Son. For just because the latter was incarnated, and took on human flesh to redeem humanity, does not necessitate that the former did the same.

Why is this a fundamental flaw?

Is not to see Christ to see his father?

Did not Christ do the things the father did?

At least our position is backed up by Scripture.

As for your Lukan-type question, what prevents God from having a physical, human body, as the LDS suggest are many, including some of the biblical passages that have been given which demonstrably show that God is not a man.

Again you mischaracterize the Mormon position.

God is no mere-mortal "ish" (ie man).

Furthermore, when one considers the many other claims made about God by the LDS, and their definitions of those attributes are taken into consideration (i.e., omnipresence, omnipotence, aseity, etc.), it becomes clear that those claims and definitions are not at all consistent with what the Bible has to say in reference to the same. In fact, if one were to pursue the arguments offered by the LDS to their logical ends, then one would eventually conclude that not only are the LDS talking about a God who is totally different than the one portrayed in scripture, but also a being that conclusively could not exist at all.

Ominpresence and omnipotence are two of the two easiest things to disporve.

1st... If God is everywhere that means hes in hell to. Why do the scriptures continualy say his throne is the heavens and the earth is his foor stool. And that God is in the heavens. His eyes behold everything so we cant hid from him no matter where we go.

2nd... Can God lie? Can God sin? Then how is he all powerful then?

As for Christ sitting on a throne, since you're being sarcastic, I shall wait until you're more sincere before replying.

Christ sits down in his fathers throne. He walks around it in Johns vision. Where John was taken to heaven.

As for your attempt to translate the Greek word aoratos as "unseen," context is more important that merely stating that such and such is better translated thus, to support a pre-conceived theological position. Aoratos is only cited eight times in the LXX (2), Apocryphal letters (1), and NT text (5). In Genesis 1:2 aoratos is translated from the Hebrew tohu, which can be translated "formless" or "empty." Does this mean that creation was "unseen?" Hardly.

Hmm... you might want to tell that to Johnny... he's the one that supports creation ex nihilo. From "unseen" invisible nothingness.

Conversely, in 2 Maccabees 9:5 is the account of Antiochus, who intended to "make Jersualem a cemetery of Jews" (v. 4). Yet, when he set out to fulfill his dastardly deed, God, by an "unseen" act

[sidewinder]

"If the OT teaches that God is nothing more than a man, then where was this "man" at when he created the heavens and the earth?"

This "man" doesn't exist and had nothing to do with the formation of the heavens and the earth. I'm just telling you what the Israelites believed. They were most likely wrong, along with everyone else.

"And how did this mere "man" manage to put together the universe, and all that is in it, as well as, breathe life into a lump of dirt, if he is as you say?"

It's a ridiculous idea I agree, but then, we have a few thousand years of hindsight.

"It would seem to me that after reading the OT a bit more objectively, one should conclude that God is something other than just a man."

Reading the OT objectively would lead us to the conclusion that the Israelites worshiped a man of war. Yes it's ridiculous, but that's what they worshiped. They were after all, a primitive bunch of savages.

"In fact, he is not a man at all, for a man could never do what God has done in just looking at the creation record."

There is no "creation record' but there is an evolutionary record. God didn't do anything. In fact, God doesn't exist. But, if he did exist, and if he is in fact the God of the Old Testament, then he is a man of war. And if you can't figure out how he did it all, remember, he works in mysterious ways.

[Zakuska]

If the OT teaches that God is nothing more than a man, then where was this "man" at when he created the heavens and the earth? And how did this mere "man" manage to put together the universe, and all that is in it, as well as, breathe life into a lump of dirt, if he is as you say? It would seem to me that after reading the OT a bit more objectively, one should conclude that God is something other than just a man. In fact, he is not a man at all, for a man could never do what God has done in just looking at the creation record.

Hmmm... my wife and I breathed life into 3 lumps of simalac.

You are mischaracterizing the Mormon position again.

[Zakuska]

Angels are spiritual, yet they are also created, meaning they are not of the same essence as God. The same applies to humans.

But that doesnt follow what the scriptures say... it flat out says they are spirits. not merely "spiritual".

Where any where does it say they are not of the same "essence" as God?!

[Zakuska]

I fail to see how Romans 1:20 says anything about gods "invisible attributes".

Again...

All these "spirits" with bodies. What precludes God the father from having one?

[PD1]

"If the OT teaches that God is nothing more than a man, then where was this "man" at when he created the heavens and the earth?"

This "man" doesn't exist and had nothing to do with the formation of the heavens and the earth. I'm just telling you what the Israelites believed. They were most likely wrong, along with everyone else.

"And how did this mere "man" manage to put together the universe, and all that is in it, as well as, breathe life into a lump of dirt, if he is as you say?"

It's a ridiculous idea I agree, but then, we have a few thousand years of hindsight.

"It would seem to me that after reading the OT a bit more objectively, one should conclude that God is something other than just a man."

Reading the OT objectively would lead us to the conclusion that the Israelites worshiped a man of war. Yes it's ridiculous, but that's what they worshiped. They were after all, a primitive bunch of savages.

"In fact, he is not a man at all, for a man could never do what God has done in just looking at the creation record."

There is no "creation record' but there is an evolutionary record. God didn't do anything. In fact, God doesn't exist. But, if he did exist, and if he is in fact the God of the Old Testament, then he is a man of war. And if you can't figure out how he did it all, remember, he works in mysterious ways.

Sorry, but you're not telling me what the Israelites believed, and the whole the OT is evidence of that. The Jews believed in a Supreme Being named Elohim/Yahweh/Adonai, etc., who brought all things into being, and who was not a physical human being.

The rest of your comments fail to answer my questions, or are of a nature better suited for another thread (i.e., Atheistic Evolution), which is as equally absurd as the idea that God is a man.

[PD1]

If the OT teaches that God is nothing more than a man, then where was this "man" at when he created the heavens and the earth? And how did this mere "man" manage to put together the universe, and all that is in it, as well as, breathe life into a lump of dirt, if he is as you say? It would seem to me that after reading the OT a bit more objectively, one should conclude that God is something other than just a man. In fact, he is not a man at all, for a man could never do what God has done in just looking at the creation record.

Hmmm... my wife and I breathed life into 3 lumps of simalac.

You are mischaracterizing the Mormon position again.

Actually I was addressing atheistic assumptions. On the other hand, how could I be mischaracterizing that which the LDS hold to be true? God is a man, is he not? Yet, if God is a man, then where was this man living prior to the creation of all things?

[Zakuska]

The LORD is a man of war, the Lord is his name.

Glad you think scripture is absurd.

[PD1]

Angels are spiritual, yet they are also created, meaning they are not of the same essence as God. The same applies to humans.

But that doesnt follow what the scriptures say... it flat out says they are spirits. not merely "spiritual".

Where any where does it say they are not of the same "essence" as God?!

Indeed, angels are spirits. Nevertheless, they are created. God is not a created being. Therefore, in essence there is a distinction between that which is created, and that which is not.

[Zakuska]

PD1,

Actually I was addressing atheistic assumptions. On the other hand, how could I be mischaracterizing that which the LDS hold to be true? God is a man, is he not? Yet, if God is a man, then where was this man living prior to the creation of all things?

Hes not a "mere-man" as you claim we beleive.

He is a glorfied divine immortal man, and if we obey his commandments we will become what he is.

[Zakuska]

PD1,

Indeed, angels are spirits. Nevertheless, they are created. God is not a created being. Therefore, in essence there is a distinction between that which is created, and that which is not.

And here is where Christians run into trouble... because according to the scripture... the Logos is created as well.

There is a distiction between creature and creator?

Since Angels are spirits and they have Bodies... Since Christ is spirit and he has a body... since men are angels and spirits and they have bodies...

Since God is spirit (John 4:24) how does he not have a body?

What is Christ talking about in Luke 24:39?

Easy... there are different classes of Spirit.

[Zakuska]

PD1,

Sorry, but you're not telling me what the Israelites believed, and the whole the OT is evidence of that. The Jews believed in a Supreme Being named Elohim/Yahweh/Adonai, etc., who brought all things into being, and who was not a physical human being.

Hmm... Not according to Margarate Barker or Burt Erhman.

[urroner]

Zak, I have brought this little factoid up about Jesus being the first of God's creations, but they have successfully avoided responding to it. Maybe you can get a better response than I did.

[PD1]

I fail to see how Romans 1:20 says anything about gods "invisible attributes".

Again...

All these "spirits" with bodies. What precludes God the father from having one?

Actually, Rom. 1:20 was another example of the use of the word aoratos, which is used of God's attributes of eternal power and divine nature, which are "invisible."

As for what precludes God from having a physical body, the answer is simply that it is not necessary. What needed to be accomplished in respect to physicality and redemption was necessarily accomplished through the Son. Prior to that, however, even the Son did not possess physical dimensions. There were theophanies and anthropomorphic displays, but until Jesus was incarnated in the flesh, he, along with the Father and Spirit, was a spirit-being, like they were/are.

[urroner]

As for what precludes God from having a physical body, the answer is simply that it is not necessary.

Now, this is really a head-scratcher here. PD1, is this your opinion that God doesn't need a body or have a body because you can't think of a single reason why? Could you be a little more specific on why and BTW, quotes from the scriptures or even from the Early Church Fathers, the earlier the better, would be very helpful in your argument.

[Zakuska]

Ok lets recap:

1) Men are Angels and spirits... they have bodies

2) Angels are spirits... they have bodies

3) God is spirit... he doesnt have a body (according to PD1)

Apparently haveing or not having a body has nothing to do with whether one is a spirit or not... so how can the Standard Christian misintepretation of...

John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 even mean what they think it means?

It doesnt follow logically.

[PD1]

The LORD is a man of war, the Lord is his name.

Glad you think scripture is absurd.

No one on this end thinks that scripture is absurd. What is thought on this end is the absurd hermeneutical method applied to certain texts to further a dogmatic assertion, that taken with the whole of scripture makes scripture absurd.

Ignoring Hebrew idioms (or Greek, for that matter), figures of speech, metaphors, hyperboles, etc., when dealing with topics like this one will not only make God a man (which is an absurdity), but will have the Israelites literally flying away on huge eagle's wings (Ex. 19:4) and Jesus' constitution to be comprised of literal stone or wood (John 10:7).

So, before anyone concludes that scripture is either contradictory or absurd, let that person at least check the context of the prooftext they're providing to support their favorite dogmatic position. Otherwise, we might as well chuck the Bible altogether, and go join the pagans in their ungodliness, for we will certainly then have more in common with them, than what God has graciously revealed of himself for his own to receive that make them distinct from the pagans.

[Zakuska]

Ignoring Hebrew idioms (or Greek, for that matter), figures of speech, metaphors, hyperboles, etc.,

The problem with this is... in my experience... Christians say that every word in the Bible is metaphor escpecially when it goes against their pre-concieved notions of God.

What about Gen 1:26 and Gen 5:1-3 is metaphorical or a figure of speach?

Who decides what is and what isnt... a figure of speach?

[PD1]

PD1,

Actually I was addressing atheistic assumptions. On the other hand, how could I be mischaracterizing that which the LDS hold to be true? God is a man, is he not? Yet, if God is a man, then where was this man living prior to the creation of all things?

Hes not a "mere-man" as you claim we beleive.

He is a glorfied divine immortal man, and if we obey his commandments we will become what he is.

What difference does it make of what kind of man he is? Is he still not a man? And when God says that he is not a man, then why continue to assert that he is one? Moreover, just what is the essential difference in LDS theology that distinguishes God from man, if anything? Notice, I'm asking about essence, or constitutional makeup, not what anyone supposedly can or cannot do. What is the difference?

[Zakuska]

Big difference.

Man is sinful... God is not.

Man lies... God does not.

But all of these are attributes of his Character. Not what kind of species of being he is.

The notion that God doesnt have a body comes from the greek helenized doctrine that matter is some how inferior or sinful. Out of this need... the kind of being that God is was lost. And thus... Christians go back on the Hebrew Bible and edit out all the Anthropomorphisms. We have even caught the deuteronomists editing out the Anthropomorpghisms. Ask Margaret Barker.

Man and God are of the same species. ( Acts 17:26; Luke 3:38)

However... man is a fallen god and was tricked into death by the adversary. Christ released us from this.

[PD1]

PD1,

Indeed, angels are spirits. Nevertheless, they are created. God is not a created being. Therefore, in essence there is a distinction between that which is created, and that which is not.

And here is where Christians run into trouble... because according to the scripture... the Logos is created as well.

There is a distiction between creature and creator?

Since Angels are spirits and they have Bodies... Since Christ is spirit and he has a body... since men are angels and spirits and they have bodies...

Since God is spirit (John 4:24) how does he not have a body?

What is Christ talking about in Luke 24:39?

Easy... there are different classes of Spirit.

Where does scripture assert that the logos (Son of God) is a created being?

Yes, there is distinction between the creature and Creator. One of them being that one has an eternal existence, and is perfect in his aseity, and brings the creature into being.

Just because spirits and men have "bodies," does not necessitate that God the Father have one like theirs. Remember, God is not a created being, they are, though.

Just because God is qualitatively spirit does not necessitate that he have a physical body, as the LDS assert. In fact, given the grammatical structure of John 4:24, pneuma ho theos, with pneuma moved to the front of the sentence, John is stressing the spirit constitution of God. Not that he is "a" spirit, or that he merely possesses a spirit nature like angels and men, but that his very essence is spirit. And those truly desiring to worship him must do so in "spirit and in truth," denoting the qualitative type of worship acceptable to God.

As for Luke 24:39, Jesus was alleviating the fear of those who thought that they had seen "a ghost" (NET, NIV, NLT). He was merely sharing with them the fact that he was the same person whom they knew before, and not some kind of apparition, which does not have physical attributes.

And your last comment, I agree with. Which is why God cannot be compared to created beings who have spirit. For, above all, God is not a created being, and does not necessitate physicality in order to exist. Otherwise, verses like John 1:3 makes absolutely no sense when speaking of that which came into being by the word of God, that otherwise had no existence. The implication is that at one time nothing existed, except for God. Yet, if physicality is a necessity for God to exist, then there was time when he did not exist either, and that is a logical absurdity.

[PD1]

PD1,

Sorry, but you're not telling me what the Israelites believed, and the whole the OT is evidence of that. The Jews believed in a Supreme Being named Elohim/Yahweh/Adonai, etc., who brought all things into being, and who was not a physical human being.

Hmm... Not according to Margarate Barker or Burt Erhman.

And? So?

[Zakuska]

Pd1,

Where does scripture assert that the logos (Son of God) is a created being?

Col 1:15

Yes, there is distinction between the creature and Creator. One of them being that one has an eternal existence, and is perfect in his aseity, and brings the creature into being.

Does a potter conjure a pot into existance. No he takes of pre-existant matter and forms it into a pot. And thus the pot has being.

Just because spirits and men have "bodies," does not necessitate that God the Father have one like theirs. Remember, God is not a created being, they are, though.

Did I say gods body was like ours?

It looks like our only Glorious and bright and immortal. One day we will receive on like it.

Just because God is qualitatively spirit does not necessitate that he have a physical body, as the LDS assert. In fact, given the grammatical structure of John 4:24, pneuma ho theos, with pneuma moved to the front of the sentence, John is stressing the spirit constitution of God. Not that he is "a" spirit, or that he merely possesses a spirit nature like angels and men, but that his very essence is spirit. And those truly desiring to worship him must do so in "spirit and in truth," denoting the qualitative type of worship acceptable to God.

On the other hand.... theres nothing that says a Spirit Cant have a body either.

There are different classes of "Spirits" ones that have bodies and ones that don't.

So we must Go back to Gen 1:26 and Gen 5:1-3. What does it mean to be made in Gods image and likeness.

As for Luke 24:39, Jesus was alleviating the fear of those who thought that they had seen "a ghost" (NET, NIV, NLT). He was merely sharing with them the fact that he was the same person whom they knew before, and not some kind of apparition, which does not have physical attributes.

Completely agree 100%.

And your last comment, I agree with. Which is why God cannot be compared to created beings who have spirit. For, above all, God is not a created being, and does not necessitate physicality in order to exist. Otherwise, verse like John 1:3 makes absolutely no sense when speaking of that which came into being by the word of God, that otherwise had no existence. The implication is that at one time nothing existed, except for God. Yet, if physicality is a necessity for God to exist, then there was time when he did not exist either, and that is logical absurdity.

Partially agree... This is presuppossing that God "conjured" matter into existance "ex nihilo". Which the Hebrew Bible does not support.

Matter can not be created nor destroyed... only change from one form to another.

The logical absurdity is... God conjures things out of thin air.

[PD1]

As for what precludes God from having a physical body, the answer is simply that it is not necessary.

Now, this is really a head-scratcher here. PD1, is this your opinion that God doesn't need a body or have a body because you can't think of a single reason why? Could you be a little more specific on why and BTW, quotes from the scriptures or even from the Early Church Fathers, the earlier the better, would be very helpful in your argument.

First, the biblical passages have already been given, in their context, in which God reveals that God is not a man.

Second, necessity has already been given as a reason, in relation to the incarnation of Jesus, why physicality is not a part of God's constitution. In another post I explain, in part, why that which is physical had no being prior to the Word bringing it into being. And, if need be, we can explore that further. As for the CF, or anyone else for that matter, they are still subject to what scripture has to say about the person of God. And it is quite clear that God is not a man, that he should lie. To say otherwise is to make God a liar, at one time or another, and to open up a theological discussion that I do not believe I have ever heard or read an LDS attempt to explain. Would you like to be the first?

[PD1]

Ok lets recap:

1) Men are Angels and spirits... they have bodies

2) Angels are spirits... they have bodies

3) God is spirit... he doesnt have a body (according to PD1)

Apparently haveing or not having a body has nothing to do with whether one is a spirit or not... so how can the Standard Christian misintepretation of...

John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 even mean what they think it means?

It doesnt follow logically.

1) True

2) True

3) Misrepresentation. The Bible says that God is spirit, and that God is not a man. So, it according to the Bible that God does not have a body.

And if anyone has misinterpreted the passages that you cite, again, it is those involved in polytheistic, heterodoxical, henotheistic type theologies that tend to do so. Mormon theology shares affinities with each of those theologies which are inconsistent with the Christian worldview and the person of God, as determined by biblical revelation.