Jump to content

GOD the man


Recommended Posts

On 10/9/2022 at 8:57 AM, Niblo said:

The Rabbi’s statements reflect those of the Catholic Church, which teaches – and has always taught – that the Beloved does not have a body.  He is spirit. Her teaching is exemplified by St Thomas Aquinas – arguably her greatest theologian:

‘Every corporeal thing, being extended, is compound and has parts.  But God is not compound: therefore He is not anything corporeal.   With this demonstrated truth divine authority also agrees.  For it is said: God is spirit (John 4:24): To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, only God (1 Tim. 1:17): The invisible things of God are understood and discerned by the things that are made (Rom. 1:29).’ (‘Summa Contra Gentiles’).

The idea that God does not have a body was not a universal belief within the early Christian church. 

The Clementine Homilies seem quite clear in teaching that God has a body, for example:

Quote

Chapter XIX. The Shape of God in Man

And Simon said: I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God. And Peter said: I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case. And Simon said: How can death dissolve the body, impressed as it has thus been with the greatest seal? And Peter said: It is the shape of the just God. When, then, the body begins to act unjustly, the form which is in it takes to flight, and thus the body is dissolved, by the shape disappearing, in order that an unjust body may not have the shape of the just God. The dissolution, however, does not take place in regard to the seal, but in regard to the sealed body. But that which is sealed is not dissolved without Him who sealed it. And thus it is not permitted to die without judgment. And Simon said: What necessity was there to give the shape of such a being to man, who was raised from the earth? And Peter said: This was done because of the love of God, who made man. For while, as far as substance is concerned, all things are superior to the flesh of man,—I mean the ether, the sun, the moon, the stars, the air, the water, the fire—in a word, all the other things which have been made for the service of man,—yet, though superior in substance, they willingly endure to serve the inferior in substance, because of the shape of the superior. For as they who honour the clay image of a king have paid honour to the king himself, whose shape the clay happens to have, so the whole creation with joy serves man, who is made from earth, looking to the honour thus paid to God."  (ANF 8: Clementine Homilies—Homilies Homily 16 Ch. 19–19)

Origen, who quite firmly believed that God does not have a body, admitted that the Jews and some Christians in his day believed that God has a body:

Quote

HOMILY III - On the circumcision of Abraham

WE READ IN MANY PASSAGES of the divine Scripture that God speaks to men. For this reason the Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions. Because of this it seems to me that I must first discuss these few matters and then come to those words which have been read.

First, therefore, let my word be to those outside the Church who arrogantly clamor around us, saying that it is not appropriate for that most exalted and invisible and incorporeal God to experience human affections. For if, they say, you give him the experience of speaking, you will, doubtless, give him also a mouth and a tongue and the other members with which the function of speaking is performed. But if this be so, one has departed from the invisible and incorporeal God. And they harass our people, joining many similar arguments to these. Therefore, if we may have the support of your prayers, we shall briefly reply to these arguments as the Lord may grant.

(2) As we profess that God is incorporeal and omnipotent and invisible, so we confess with a sure and immovable doctrine that he cares about mortal affairs and that nothing happens in heaven or earth apart from his providence.... (etc.)    (Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, translated by Ronald E. Heine, 1982, Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC, p. 89)

Note what Origen is saying there:  The Jews believe that God has a body, and some Christians also believe that God has a body.  BUT, the philosophers despise those ideas, and people outside the church keep attacking the church for believing that God can become corporeal (as Jesus was made flesh), so the church was backing away from that doctrine, it was embarrassing for them.

Elsewhere, in his work De Principiis, Origen wrote that "the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to every one".  The teaching that God is an incorporeal being is not listed among the points that Origen said came from the apostles.  In fact, he admits there that the idea that God is incorporeal is nowhere to be found in the Bible and was not taught by the holy apostles.  He says that teaching is not "clearly indicated in our teaching", but it is something that must be solved.  He wrote:

Quote

8. Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God, and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most. For those (words) which are written are the forms of certain mysteries, and the images of divine things. Respecting which there is one opinion throughout the whole Church, that the whole law is indeed spiritual; but that the spiritual meaning which the law conveys is not known to all, but to those only on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word of wisdom and knowledge.

The term ἀσώματον [asomaton], i.e., incorporeal, is disused and unknown, not only in many other writings, but also in our own Scriptures. And if any one should quote it to us out of the little treatise entitled The Doctrine of Peter, in which the Saviour seems to say to His disciples, “I am not an incorporeal demon,” I have to reply, in the first place, that that work is not included among ecclesiastical books; for we can show that it was not composed either by Peter or by any other person inspired by the Spirit of God. But even if the point were to be conceded, the word ἀσώματον [asomaton] there does not convey the same meaning as is intended by Greek and Gentile authors when incorporeal nature is discussed by philosophers. For in the little treatise referred to he used the phrase “incorporeal demon” to denote that that form or outline of demoniacal body, whatever it is, does not resemble this gross and visible body of ours; but, agreeably to the intention of the author of the treatise, it must be understood to mean that He had not such a body as demons have, which is naturally fine, and thin as if formed of air (and for this reason is either considered or called by many incorporeal), but that He had a solid and palpable body. Now, according to human custom, everything which is not of that nature is called by the simple or ignorant incorporeal; as if one were to say that the air which we breathe was incorporeal, because it is not a body of such a nature as can be grasped and held, or can offer resistance to pressure.

9. We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers call ἀσώματον [asomaton], or “incorporeal,” is found in holy Scripture under another name. For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood,—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies,—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching. And the same inquiries have to be made regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as respecting every soul, and everything possessed of a rational nature.  (ANF 4: Origen—De Principiis, Preface, 8, 9)

 

Link to comment

@InCognitus and @RevTestament

Thank you both for your thought-provoking posts.  Great stuff. 

In šāʾ Allāh, I will return, just as soon as I’ve given your words the attention they deserve.

 Blessings.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes because we believe in other scriptures than you do.   See what I mean?   We have had spiritual experiences that inform our hearts that we are correct, and you may have had such experiences showing what YOU believe to be correct.

This doesn't mean either of us is "wrong"- just that we have different paths- and clearly you too have been on many paths, as too so have I .  I respect that deeply.

If I wanted to get to Mecca or any other location on earth and you did likewise we would all have different paths and different journeys.   You might turn right at the first step where I would turn left at the first step but we could still end up at the same place.   I hope we can figure it all out after we find each other in the afterlife.  

Unless you want to discuss a specific point, I will not say more on this thread.   All my best.

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says this:

We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If Allāh had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to Allāh and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 48);

Blessings.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The idea that God does not have a body was not a universal belief within the early Christian church. 

The Clementine Homilies seem quite clear in teaching that God has a body, for example:

Origen, who quite firmly believed that God does not have a body, admitted that the Jews and some Christians in his day believed that God has a body:

Note what Origen is saying there:  The Jews believe that God has a body, and some Christians also believe that God has a body.  BUT, the philosophers despise those ideas, and people outside the church keep attacking the church for believing that God can become corporeal (as Jesus was made flesh), so the church was backing away from that doctrine, it was embarrassing for them.

Elsewhere, in his work De Principiis, Origen wrote that "the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to every one".  The teaching that God is an incorporeal being is not listed among the points that Origen said came from the apostles.  In fact, he admits there that the idea that God is incorporeal is nowhere to be found in the Bible and was not taught by the holy apostles.  He says that teaching is not "clearly indicated in our teaching", but it is something that must be solved.  He wrote:

 

Fabulous post, thanks!  Gotta study this one!

Clearly if you understand Platonism and the concept of "Forms", the idea of shape and form even infiltrates the pro-body argument that the Form itself, of the body, is sacred and that decomposition is due to sin.

That still contains the position that Form itself is sacred!

And so Aquinas then needs the Aristotilian substance argument to show how Christ's body can take on the Form and shape of bread and still also contain the "body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ

Catholics believe that the bodies of some Saints in fact have not decomposed, thereby preserving their Form

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility#:~:text=Incorruptibility is a Roman Catholic,a sign of their holiness.

The paradox here is that God cannot have a body because of his holiness and yet that Saints have bodies because of their holiness.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

There are a number of competent works concerning the topic of the corporality of God that are available online for free. The following links are some of my favorites:

 

David Paulsen (LDS) –

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol35/iss4/ 

(“Part II: Early Christian Belief in an Embodied God" is particularly germane to this thread)

Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christian Understanding of God

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/paulsen/2021-07-26/07_david_l._paulsen_divine_embodiment_239-293.pdf

Must God Be Incorporeal?

https://www.academia.edu/35042972/Must_God_Be_Incorporeal

Augustine and the Corporeality of God (with Carl Griffin)

https://www.academia.edu/9848436/Augustine_and_the_Corporeality_of_God

 

Jacob Neusner (Jewish) –

Conversation in Nauvoo about the Corporeality of God

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3100&context=byusq

 

Deborah L. Forger (Protestant) –

Divine Embodiment in Jewish Antiquity

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/138783/dkforger_1.pdf?sequence=1

 

In addition to the above resources, I published a post that may be of interest to some folk reading this thread:

Lactantius on the figure/form of God

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2019/01/lactantius-on-figureform-of-god.html

 

Grace and peace,

David

Edited by David Waltz
typo
Link to comment
10 hours ago, David Waltz said:

There are a number of competent works concerning the topic of the corporality of God that are available online for free. The follow links are some of my favorites:

 

David Paulsen (LDS) –

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol35/iss4/ 

(“Part II: Early Christian Belief in an Embodied God" is particularly germane to this thread)

Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christian Understanding of God

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/paulsen/2021-07-26/07_david_l._paulsen_divine_embodiment_239-293.pdf

Must God Be Incorporeal?

https://www.academia.edu/35042972/Must_God_Be_Incorporeal

Augustine and the Corporeality of God (with Carl Griffin)

https://www.academia.edu/9848436/Augustine_and_the_Corporeality_of_God

 

Jacob Neusner (Jewish) –

Conversation in Nauvoo about the Corporeality of God

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3100&context=byusq

 

Deborah L. Forger (Protestant) –

Divine Embodiment in Jewish Antiquity

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/138783/dkforger_1.pdf?sequence=1

 

In addition to the above resources, I published a post that may be of interest to some folk reading this thread:

Lactantius on the figure/form of God

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2019/01/lactantius-on-figureform-of-god.html

 

Grace and peace,

David

Hey David, True Grace To you and all that you Love. Can you email me the link post above with the Gods body references please ?. I tried to Pm you but it says your Inbox is full. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bishop Phil Boyce-bottoms said:

Hello!!

GOD as a male has always confused me...

'HIM'....

 

Firstly GOD is considered a spiritual entity...

How can a spiritual entity have a physical body??

 

Spiritual beings don't have a gender. 

Sure they do. Do not the scriptures teach that He is the "Father of spirits?" We are all spirits, yet have a body. That is how a spiritual entity can have a body. The Father does have a body. What Yeshua was telling us is not that the Father is merely a spirit, but that He is a spiritual being, and we need to learn to communicate with Him spiritually. He, like Jesus, is basically just like us. After all, He created us in His image. Was Yeshua a "spiritual being?" He had a gender.

3 hours ago, Bishop Phil Boyce-bottoms said:

A question I would like you to go and research....

If GOD is male (MAN),

Why is everything thats claased as a mammal, including humans, are female at the very beginning of development??

Have you never wondered why men have 'nipples'??

Because they are a remnant of our creation. I  believe in evolution. I believe it is the process by which God created man. Sometimes men have more than two nipples. Sometimes our genes are not turned off in time and we develop parts that are formed differently in other mammals. So, sometimes people have more than two nipples. They have vestigial nipples that sometimes even produce milk. Sometimes people have vestigial tails, but for the "normal" people the tail disappears into the sacrum very early in fetal development. Indeed, we still form just like the earliest life did in the oceans - only the "ocean" is in the womb with the same salinity as the ocean.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

Can you email me the link post above with the Gods body references please ?. I tried to Pm you but it says your Inbox is full. 

Hi Anakin7,

Not understanding precisely what you want. I just tried the link and it works fine. Could you clarify a bit further?

Thanks,

David

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Anakin7 said:
15 hours ago, David Waltz said:

David

Hey David, True Grace To you and all that you Love. Can you email me the link post above with the Gods body references please ?. I tried to Pm you but it says your Inbox is full. 

Just copy them and paste ?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Bishop Phil Boyce-bottoms said:

Hello!!

GOD as a male has always confused me...

'HIM'....

 

Firstly GOD is considered a spiritual entity...

How can a spiritual entity have a physical body??

 

Spiritual beings don't have a gender.?.

Are you a Latter-day Saint and if not, would you please explain your choice of the name “Bishop Phil Boyce-Bottoms” as the Bishop part has implications for LDS.  Knowing if you are a Latter-day Saint or not is necessary to know where to start the explanation.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Bishop Phil Boyce-bottoms said:

Do I need to explain??

I've seen many made up names on this forum.

 

And this is the one I've chosen.

I take it then you are not LDS.

You don’t have to explain, just might help in communicating with you if there was something in it more than just “sounded fun”.   It is nice to form a picture of the person we are talking to and names are a big part of that.

And you should be aware you are likely going to get confused with claiming to be a Latter-day Saint Bishop or possibly be seen as trolling if you are strongly critical of something LDS as there have been antis who have pretended to be traditional, faithful members and church leaders by claiming to hold respected positions, such as bishop, while saying critical things or making unlikely and even outrageous claims to irritate/tease believing members.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Bishop Phil Boyce-bottoms said:

Do I need to explain??

I've seen many made up names on this forum.

 

And this is the one I've chosen.

No, you don't have to explain if you don't mind being perceived as a troll.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

The Links on the God's body above you posted. Can you email them to me please.

Is there a reason you can’t copy paste them?  I would be happy to email them to you by me copy pasting the post if there is a problem, it just seems simplest for you to do it yourself. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Brahms said:

are you referring to how mammals often (I don't know if always) begin as part of their mother which has been fertilized by their father?  Like how we were once one of our mother's eggs before being fertilized by our father?

No, he is referring to there being no observable (without looking at genetic material) difference between the male or female embryo until androgens (male hormones) are released that then develop the male characteristics and if not released or otherwise prevented from doing their work, even XY individuals would appear to be female.***. However, internally they are not female as they have no womb or ovaries, so while they may be “classed” or labeled as “female” initially, technically is a fetus female prior to male development if genetically male?  Phenotype may be female at that point, but genotype may vary between male or female or atypical genotype. 

Are we not as much our genotype as our phenotype in our lifetime?
 

Quote

All human individuals—whether they have an XX, an XY, or an atypical sex chromosome combination—begin development from the same starting point. During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female. After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that result in the development of the testes. Thus, this gene is singularly important in inducing testis development. The production of testosterone at about 9 weeks of gestation results in the development of the reproductive tract and the masculinization (the normal development of male sex characteristics) of the brain and genitalia. In contrast to the role of the fetal testis in differentiation of a male genital tract and external genitalia in utero, fetal ovarian secretions are not required for female sex differentiation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222286/

Quote

Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is when a person who is genetically male (who has one X and one Y chromosome) is resistant to male hormones (called androgens). As a result, the person has some of the physical traits of a woman, but the genetic makeup of a man.

 

***https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001180.htm#start

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

Yes please  email Thank you.

You will need to PM me your email as the board does not have the option to email someone (I think it used to like the first five or ten years, but if it did, it hasn’t for quite sometime).  I have deleted a few messages to be sure there is room. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Dear, my ECF reference drops in the Social Hall was moved to General Discussions and started a ECF reference war. Special thanks to InCognitus and RevTestament.

On 10/9/2022 at 9:55 AM, Niblo said:

As you know, it is a doctrine of your community that the earth: ‘Was not created from nothing; it was organized from existing matter’ (see D&C 76: 22– 4).’ (‘Doctrine and Covenants and Church History; Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students’; my emphasis).

 You will note that this extract references only the ‘Doctrine and Covenants’.  Not the Bible.  Not the Fathers. 

 We ought not to be surprised by this, since neither the Bible nor the Fathers lend support to this doctrine:

'You, Yahweh, are the one, only Yahweh, you have created the heavens, the heaven of heavens and all their array, the earth and all it bears, the seas and all they hold. To all of them you give life, and the array of heaven worships you.’ (Nehemiah 9:6; my emphasis).

Because that is what He has done. It is He who has rescued us from the ruling force of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son that He loves, and in Him we enjoy our freedom, the forgiveness of sin.  He is the image of the unseen God, the first-born of all creation, for in Him were created all things in heaven and on earth: everything visible and everything invisible, thrones, ruling forces, sovereignties, powers – all things were created through Him and for Him.’ (Colossians 1: 13-16).

The repetition of the expression ‘all things were created’ is meant to express a truth, with emphasis.  The  Beloved is He who brings everything from non-existence to existence; not only the created object itself, but the very substratum from which it is made.  This is what the word ‘creation’ means.  In short, the Beloved creates ‘ex nihilo’, from nothing:

I implore you, my child, look at the earth and sky and everything in them, and consider how God made them out of what did not exist, and that human beings come into being in the same way.’ (2 Maccabees 7:28-290).

You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you made the whole universe; by your will, when it did not exist, it was created.’ (Revelations 4:11; my emphasis).

The Fathers are in agreement (my emphases in every case):

‘Let us proceed then, O King, to the elements themselves that we may show in regard to them that they are not gods, but perishable and mutable, produced out of that which did not exist at the command of the true God, who is indestructible and immutable and invisible,” (Aristides: ‘Apology of Aristides Chapter 4’).

‘God, who dwells in the heavens and made out of nothing the things that exist.’ (Hermas: ‘Shepherd of Hermas, Book 1, Chapter 1’).

‘While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point pre-eminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation when previously it had no existence.’ (Irenaeus: Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 10, Section 4).

‘The case stands thus: we can see that the whole structure of the world, and the whole creation, has been produced from matter, and the matter itself brought into existence by God.’ (Tatian: ‘Address to the Greeks, Chapter 12).

“There is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word.’ (Tertullian: The Prescription Against Heresies, Chapter 13).

And again:

“The conclusion of the whole is this: I find that there was nothing made, except out of nothing; because that which I find was made, I know did not once exist. Whatever was made out of something, has its origin in something made: for instance, out of the ground was made the grass, and the fruit, and the cattle, and the form of man himself; so from the waters were produced the animals which swim and fly. The original fabrics out of which such creatures were produced I may call their materials, but then even these were created by God,’ (Tertullian: Against Hermogenes, Chapter 33).

It is quite clear that the earliest Christians saw, in the Scriptures, confirmation that the Beloved created – from nothing at all – the very substance, essence, and material of the universe; and that He did so by the power of His word alone.

The Catholic Church teaches that not only did the Beloved create all things, but that He continually preserves their existence. 

The First Vatican Council declared:

‘The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself.

‘This sole true God by His goodness and "omnipotent power," not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, "immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body" (Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5).

‘But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, "reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly" (cf. Wisd. 8: 1).  For "all things are naked and open to His eyes" (Heb. 4:13), even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.’ (Denzinger 1782-1784).

In short, if the beloved’s Providence did not preserve all things with the same power with which they were created in the beginning, they would fall back into nothingness immediately.

The Beloved’s preserving love is said to be a continuation of His creative activity.  The Church cites a number of biblical verses in support of this doctrine:

‘And how could a thing subsist, had you not willed it?  Or how be preserved, if not called forth by you?’ (Wisdom 11:25); and again:

His answer to them (the Jews) was, “My Father still goes on working, and I am at work, too.”’ (John 5:17).

‘He (Yeshua) existed before all things and in him all things hold together…’ (Col 1:17).

‘He (Yeshua) is the reflection of God’s glory and bears the impress of God’s own being, sustaining all things by his powerful command.’ (Hebrews 1:3).

The message is clear:  All things depend on the Beloved; not merely for their becoming, but also for every moment of their existence (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 104; Article 1).

Blessings.

The Bible and ancient Jews clearly say everything that was created was made from pre-existing matter. There was a pre-existing but uninhabitable "formless waste", a world of chaotic "water", or a primal element sometimes referred to as "hyle'' or "formless matter" of (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17)

As First Century Jewish scholar Philo said God shaped the world from "formless matter" (Philo, Her. 134, 140), the "earth and water being mingled together and knead like a mass of dough, into a single element, without shape or distinction of its parts" (Philo, On Creation 38).

Thus, the water is uncreated, it already existed on day one with the Spirit hovering over it, the heavens were made on day two by separating it from the waters, and the earth came forth on day three from that primeval water element (Genesis 1:1, 9; Job 37:6; 2 Enoch 28:2). 

Pope St. Peter said, "by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water" (2 Peter 3:5).

Pope Clement stated, "Thou . . . didst make manifest the everlasting fabric of the world. Thou, Lord, didst create the earth." The terms used asserts that God did "make manifest" the "everlasting fabric of the world" referring to His view that God had created from an eternally existing substrate, creating by "making manifest" what already existed in some form. It appears to have been a generally accepted belief in the early Christian church. (1 Clement 60.1, in Apostolic Fathers, 1:112. Cf. also Clementine Recognitions 1.27 and 8.16, in ANF, 8:85 and 169ff)

Justin Martyr (110 AD) said, "...we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received-of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering.”
 
“by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses.” (Justin, First Apology 59, in ANF, 1:182)

Clement of Alexandria, (200 AD), also taught creation out of primal matter, " O King... Maker of all, who heaven and heaven’s adornment by the Divine Word alone didst make; . . . according to a well-ordered plan; out of a confused heap who didst create. This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass of matter didst the universe adorn." (Clement, The Instructor 3.12, in ANF, 2:296)

Though declarations that the world is made “out of nothing” occurs three times in the Stromata (his miscellaneous notes), it maybe referring to Philo, the ordering of formless matter. The phrase he employs is ek mē ontos, not the Maccabean ex ouk ontos; that is to say, it is made not from that which is absolutely non-existent, but from relative non-being or unformed matter.

The first Christian espouser of creato ex nihilo was a late second century Gnostic named Basildes, because he was a platonic metaphysical philosopher. Then it was Irenaeus who first formulates it, but he depended on 2 Maccabees' use of "ex ouk onton" a term for "art", things that exist after not existing. Like art, the artist made a bowl exist when one had not existed, but it's not to say the bowl was not made from pre-existing matter, the clay, thought it was made from non-being. As Judas Maccabee said human beings were made the same way, so note that humanity/Adam was created from pre-existant matter, his clay body was not made from nothing, rather from dust and a spirit creating a sole from non-being.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
On 10/15/2022 at 9:02 AM, Calm said:

You will need to PM me your email as the board does not have the option to email someone (I think it used to like the first five or ten years, but if it did, it hasn’t for quite sometime).  I have deleted a few messages to be sure there is room. 

Still says your inbox is full.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

Still says "Your inbox is full". 

 

I think the difficulty might be at your end or the message service is broken as it says you can’t receive messages.  I just replied to an old conversation just fine and they replied back, so check your settings.

It may be your inbox that is full. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the difficulty might be at your end or the message service is broken as it says you can’t receive messages.  I just replied to an old conversation just fine and they replied back, so check your settings.

It may be your inbox that is full. 

Okay.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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