Understanding the Trinity

[Byblos]

what i am trying to say here is that it is possible for spirit to have form, but still be immaterial. another analogy would be a hologram. maybe a bad comparison, idk, but it has form and shape that you can see, but it is still immaterial.

That's a contradiction in terms. By definition the immaterial is formless for if it has a form (i.e.the form is visible or can be felt) then it can be defined and if it can be defined then it is NOT immaterial. There is a reason you're unable to come up with a suitable example, it is because the idea is mutually contradictory and, therefore, irrational. P.S. a hologram is not immaterial, it is composed of light particles and occupies space-time. What is an illusion is what the hologram represents.

Post edit: By 'defined' I mean as to composition.

so if I am reading this correctly, if something is immaterial, it cannot be defined, (i.e visible or felt)? God can be defined, He can be visible, and He can be felt.

Lol, Jenna. This is exactly why I changed my reply to include a post edit where I clarify what I meant by 'defined', i.e. as to composition, i.e. what it is that a thing is composed of, i.e. matter and energy. And no, God is not visible unless one is in heaven in the presence of the beatific vision. And no, I'm not talking about feeling as in to have a feeling but felt in the physical, material sense. So yes, a spirit is by definition immaterial and formless.

[jenna]

what i am trying to say here is that it is possible for spirit to have form, but still be immaterial. another analogy would be a hologram. maybe a bad comparison, idk, but it has form and shape that you can see, but it is still immaterial.

That's a contradiction in terms. By definition the immaterial is formless for if it has a form (i.e.the form is visible or can be felt) then it can be defined and if it can be defined then it is NOT immaterial. There is a reason you're unable to come up with a suitable example, it is because the idea is mutually contradictory and, therefore, irrational. P.S. a hologram is not immaterial, it is composed of light particles and occupies space-time. What is an illusion is what the hologram represents.

Post edit: By 'defined' I mean as to composition.

so if I am reading this correctly, if something is immaterial, it cannot be defined, (i.e visible or felt)? God can be defined, He can be visible, and He can be felt.

Lol, Jenna. This is exactly why I changed my reply to include a post edit where I clarify what I meant by 'defined', i.e. as to composition, i.e. what it is that a thing is composed of, i.e. matter and energy. And no, God is not visible unless one is in heaven in the presence of the beatific vision. And no, I'm not talking about feeling as in to have a feeling but felt in the physical, material sense. So yes, a spirit is by definition immaterial and formless.

So if God cannot be seen, please explain the verses where Moses saw God? And Adam and Eve? they were not in heaven. John saw God also, although his was a vision, he saw Him nonetheless.

[Jac3510]

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. ~John 1:18

[jenna]

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. ~John 1:18

no one has ever seen God the Father. Christ is the God of the old testament, the One Moses saw was Christ the Son, not the Father.

[Jac3510]

I don't think that answer fits the conversation. Notice:

• Byblos: God is not visible unless one is in heaven in the presence of the beatific vision.
  Jenna: If God cannot be seen, please explain the verses where Moses saw God?
  John: "No one has seen God"
  Jenna: No, no one has seen the Father

But now go back and reread the converastion in light of your distinction:

• Byblos: [The Father] is not visible unless one is in heaven in the presence of the beatific vision.
  Jenna: If [the Father] cannot be seen, please explain the verses where Moses saw [the Father]?
  John: "No one has seen [the Father]"
  Jenna: No, no one has seen the Father

You see the problem? You claim that Byblos' statement that the Father is not visible is wrong because OT folks saw Him. But then you say who they really saw was the Son, not the Father. So Byblos' point stands.

Now, I happen to know he's making a much stronger claim than merely that only the Father is immaterial, but I'm curioius how you respond to this minimalist approach.

But two more points:

1. John 1:18 doesn't say that no one has seen the Father. It says no one has seen God. So why are you changing the words?

2. Even if you limit the reference to the Father, wouldn't that mean that if we were to take literally all the passages that refer to God as having hands and feet and eyes and wings and female genitalia and being made of sediment . . . if we took all that literally, then all of that only refers to Christ and not the Father? In other words, if God in the OT is Jesus--if Jesus is the God OT folks saw, then what makes you think that any of the passages you referred to that you claim proves the Father has a physical form apply to Him as well as Christ?

[jenna]

I don't think that answer fits the conversation. Notice:

• Byblos: God is not visible unless one is in heaven in the presence of the beatific vision.
  Jenna: If God cannot be seen, please explain the verses where Moses saw God?
  John: "No one has seen God"
  Jenna: No, no one has seen the Father

But now go back and reread the converastion in light of your distinction:

• Byblos: [The Father] is not visible unless one is in heaven in the presence of the beatific vision.
  Jenna: If [the Father] cannot be seen, please explain the verses where Moses saw [the Father]?
  John: "No one has seen [the Father]"
  Jenna: No, no one has seen the Father

You see the problem? You claim that Byblos' statement that the Father is not visible is wrong because OT folks saw Him. But then you say who they really saw was the Son, not the Father. So Byblos' point stands.

Now, I happen to know he's making a much stronger claim than merely that only the Father is immaterial, but I'm curioius how you respond to this minimalist approach.

But two more points:

1. John 1:18 doesn't say that no one has seen the Father. It says no one has seen God. So why are you changing the words?

2. Even if you limit the reference to the Father, wouldn't that mean that if we were to take literally all the passages that refer to God as having hands and feet and eyes and wings and female genitalia and being made of sediment . . . if we took all that literally, then all of that only refers to Christ and not the Father? In other words, if God in the OT is Jesus--if Jesus is the God OT folks saw, then what makes you think that any of the passages you referred to that you claim proves the Father has a physical form apply to Him as well as Christ?

If God, as you assert, is formless, why did He speak of a face, back, and hands when Moses asked to see what He looked like? When Christ returns, we are going to be able to see Him. (1 John 3:2) we could not do this this if He had no form. and in Revelation 1:13-16, John describes Christ, who he saw in a vision. again, how could he do this this to an immaterial being? Byblos's point stands only to the extent that no one has ever seen the Father. But a very few have seen God.
to answer your point 2): you must separate analogy from literal. And also read John 14:9. Christ looks like the Father, which is plainly stated here. so no, it does not apply to Christ alone.

[Kurieuo]

what i am trying to say here is that it is possible for spirit to have form, but still be immaterial. another analogy would be a hologram. maybe a bad comparison, idk, but it has form and shape that you can see, but it is still immaterial.

That's a contradiction in terms. By definition the immaterial is formless for if it has a form (i.e.the form is visible or can be felt) then it can be defined and if it can be defined then it is NOT immaterial. There is a reason you're unable to come up with a suitable example, it is because the idea is mutually contradictory and, therefore, irrational. P.S. a hologram is not immaterial, it is composed of light particles and occupies space-time. What is an illusion is what the hologram represents.

Post edit: By 'defined' I mean as to composition.

This does get tricky -- I'm not so sure it's settled on human nature as much as I am God's.

I personally do not think that "we" humans are immaterial in the same sense God is who is pure spirit, self-existence and omnipresent. Consider omnipresence and what such means? God's manifestations aside, God ultimately isn't here or there in this or that form, but just IS: "I AM". God may manifest Himself in this or that form, but such is more for our benefit, benefit of communication perhaps and benefit of relationship etc.

That said, I do believe we will have spiritual form. While I think the essence of consciousness is fundamentally immaterial (I tend to believe such is sustained upon God who is pure spirit that is without form), I'm of the mind that we do need bodies of some kind to experience and interact with one another. In support of this, I'd offer 1 Cor 15:42-45 which reads:

• 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

The fact "bodies" are used here of both physical and spiritual, says to me we will exist in spiritual form hereafter. And, like our physical bodies allow us to directly experience and navigate our physical world, our spiritual bodies will allow us to directly experience and navigate the spiritual world and God.

It could perhaps be said there are two different levels of immateriality. And this is merely my own reflection:

• 1) Non-Material Physical form: as you picture spiritual bodies, which aren't necessarily what we would call "material" in our physical world.
  2) God's Immateriality: no form whatsoever requires to exist, just pure self-existence.

[Jac3510]

If God, as you assert, is formless, why did He speak of a face, back, and hands when Moses asked to see what He looked like?]

You tell me. We're talking about the Father now. You said his face, back, and hands when talking to Moses belonged to the Son. So when did the Father speak to Moses face to face?

When Christ returns, we are going to be able to see Him. (1 John 3:2) we could not do this this if He had no form. and in Revelation 1:13-16, John describes Christ, who he saw in a vision. again, how could he do this this to an immaterial being?

Christ has a human body.

Byblos's point stands only to the extent that no one has ever seen the Father.

I want to highlight this, because I'm sure Byblos can very well point out the implications of that admission.

But a very few have seen God.

The Father or the Son? John 1:18 says NO ONE has seen God. If you mean that very few have seen the Son, then I would say that many, many have seen the Son. Everyone who has ever seen Jesus has seen the Son.

to answer your point 2): you must separate analogy from literal.

Agreed. So what makes you think that God's wings and female genitalia are figurative but Hands and face are literal? And how do you know if that language is applied to the Father or the Son?

And also read John 14:9. Christ looks like the Father, which is plainly stated here. so no, it does not apply to Christ alone.

No, John 14:9 does not say that Jesus looks like the Father. It says that if you have seen Him, then you have seen the Father. I can tell you that I look a lot like my father. If you see me, have you seen him? Of course not.

--------------------

Now, I want to ask you again--are you ever going to answer the questions I asked you a long time ago? Jesus said plainly that spirits do not have bodies. His very words: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." It isn't enough to say that Jesus only says that spirits don't have flesh and bones. Look more closely. Jesus is telling them to look at His hands and feet. His point is that if He has hands and feet, then He has a body, but that spirits don't have bodies. Moreover, that goes directly against your previous argument about God having a brain and eyes and such things. Even if you want to argue that God has some human like shape, you still can't say that shape is material, because that's Jesus' point. There's no material in the shape in a spirit!

But that gets to my deeper question you never answered, and I'd like you to answer it. If God has a body of any kind (material or not), then He has to take up space. Where there is no space, there can be no body. And suppose God moves His body--maybe He lifts His hand. That takes time to do. So if God has had a body from eternity past, then that means that space and time have existed from eternity past. But where there is space and time, there is the universe. And that means that the universe has always existed. And even more, it means that God exists within the universe and is contingent upon the universe. For without this space and time, God could not exist--He wouldn't have any place or time for His body to exist in! So now you've made God a contingent being. How does that square with your acceptance that God is not contingent and is the creator of the universe? Please answer that. I've been asking you that for pages now.

[Jac3510]

what i am trying to say here is that it is possible for spirit to have form, but still be immaterial. another analogy would be a hologram. maybe a bad comparison, idk, but it has form and shape that you can see, but it is still immaterial.

That's a contradiction in terms. By definition the immaterial is formless for if it has a form (i.e.the form is visible or can be felt) then it can be defined and if it can be defined then it is NOT immaterial. There is a reason you're unable to come up with a suitable example, it is because the idea is mutually contradictory and, therefore, irrational. P.S. a hologram is not immaterial, it is composed of light particles and occupies space-time. What is an illusion is what the hologram represents.

Post edit: By 'defined' I mean as to composition.

This does get tricky -- I'm not so sure it's settled on human nature as much as I am God's.

I personally do not think that "we" humans are immaterial in the same sense God is who is pure spirit, self-existence and omnipresent. Consider omnipresence and what such means? God's manifestations aside, God ultimately isn't here or there in this or that form, but just IS: "I AM". God may manifest Himself in this or that form, but such is more for our benefit, benefit of communication perhaps and benefit of relationship etc.

That said, I do believe we will have spiritual form. While I think the essence of consciousness is fundamentally immaterial (I tend to believe such is sustained upon God who is pure spirit that is without form), I'm of the mind that we do need bodies of some kind to experience and interact with one another. In support of this, I'd offer 1 Cor 15:42-45 which reads:

• 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

The fact "bodies" are used here of both physical and spiritual, says to me we will exist in spiritual form hereafter. And, like our physical bodies allow us to directly experience and navigate our physical world, our spiritual bodies will allow us to directly experience and navigate the spiritual world and God.

It could perhaps be said there are two different levels of immateriality. And this is merely my own reflection:

• 1) Non-Material Physical form: as you picture spiritual bodies, which aren't necessarily what we would call "material" in our physical world.
  2) God's Immateriality: no form whatsoever requires to exist, just pure self-existence.

K, we know that our resurrection bodies will be like Christ. Clearly, Christ's resurrected body is physical. So Paul's reference to a "spiritual body" does not and cannot mean that it is in any way immaterial. Moreover, I would suggest that the phrase "non-material physical" is a contradiction in terms. That which is material is physical; that which is physical is material. You can't have an immaterial physical body any more than you can have a physical immaterial body.

[Jac3510]

BTW, one more point for those following: I know Byblos conceded the language about God being "formless," and he defined what he means by that ("the form is visible or can be felt"), but strictly, it is incorrect to say that God is formless. And I'm not correcting Byblos. He knows this very well. In fact, Byblos will quickly tell you that God, far from being formless, is actually pure form. It's a distinction in the way jenna is using "form" and the way the word is used in philosophical theology, but it's really important to know on the back end of all this. If jenna were to take a look at her metaphysics, she'd see that in suggesting that God is not "formless" that she is saying that He is a form/matter composite. But now she is saying that God has potentiality, and is thus not the First Cause. But if He is not the First Cause, then something caused Him to be, to exist. That is, something created God. Obviously, that's not right, but it's where her logic necessarily leads. That's why what Trinitarians and other classical theists say is that God is pure form, not a form/matter composite.

[Kurieuo]

@Jac, you're right it doesn't work that way round i.e., "non-material physical" form. Seems I crossed my words around. Rather non-physical material form is what was intended, where "physical" defined as that which we attach to the physical world we find ourselves within.

Re: resurrection, Jesus also said we'd be like the angels. We will be raised and our bodies will be more than at least the physical forms we're familiar with. It isn't clear to me in Scripture, the exact nature we will take on, so I leave it an open question, but I've always felt our nature will primarily spiritual though we could manifest in physical form -- like angels.

On God, we're now in complete agreement though as to His nature and divine simplicity (took me some years, but as you can tell the past couple of years or so, I came around ).

[Jac3510]

Sure, I think it's clear that whatever our resurrection bodies will be like, they won't be composed exactly like our current bodies. There will obviously be some matter involved. You see what Jesus does, including eating. But He also does a lot that we can't do. John says we don't know what we will be other than like Him. What I am sure of, given what we know about Jesus, is that since He is still a man (He didn't cease to be a man in the resurrection), we won't be pure forms like angels or God. What the nature of the material part of our bodies will be, well . . . again, who knows?! I'm looking forward to finding out, though.

Anyway, I don't want to overwhelm jenna. I think my questions stand and would like her to consider them, but I'm going to enjoy you and Byblos work through all this as much as she's willing to discuss it. I do enjoy watching you all make these arguments. It's so fun to read y'all's words and find myself thinking (and sometimes saying out loud), "Yes! Exactly!"

[Storyteller]

This is utterly fascinating reading...

Re the point of God being formless, I thought of wind.
You can feel wind, see it's effects but can't see it, touch it, hold it, (is it immaterial?) yet you feel it. So something non physical can be felt.

I think our spiritual bodies will "see" God, in a different way to how we see things now. How, as limited, mortal beings can we grasp unlimited immortal existence, which is what God is?
We are infants compared to God, for us to understand God, we have Christ. Christ is God, presented in a way we can grasp.

[jenna]

ok, this is for Jac. first, i must say it seems to me that you have made a few statements that contradict themselves. first, you say that God has no form, that He is immaterial. Then you say that God is pure form.
2. you also say that the resurrected Christ has a physical body. which means that A) God does have a physical body, or B) that the resurrected Christ is not God.
3) you say that Christ claims that since He has hands and feet, He has a form, and since spirit beings do not have forms, they do not have hands and feet. You say that He was not merely talking about spirits do not have flesh and blood forms. yet there are people born who do not have feet and/or hands. Are you saying these people do not have forms?

[crochet1949]

Obviously I'm not 'Jac', but if I may interject Anyway -- God is Spirit -- Jesus Christ, while here on earth -- was God 'in the flesh' which is probably what 'we' have most trouble trying to reconcile in our minds -- "How can that be" -- However -- After Jesus Christ was resurrected, didn't He have a 'glorified' body ? and He Was around the physical world for 40 days or so until He ascended back to heaven. So that we could have a real good idea of what 'our' glorified body would be like in heaven?


Someone was asking about the existence of ghosts? Since Scripture says that at the time of death -- believers are immediately with Christ and others are in a "compartment" maybe part of Abraham's Bosom waiting for judgment day. So -- that would rule out the 'spirits of dead people' hovering around in the air. The only other possibility would be the demon part of the spirit world. Because we Know there are angels -- and the fallen angels would be demons. They would be able to take on the Appearance Of people. I've been told that in a real, live séance -- that the demonic world Is being contacted and demons are imitating the appearance and voice Of people / loved ones who've died and people are really Wanting to 'make contact With' them. Same thing can be said about uiji boards. People like to play with them to spell out words in answer to questions, but they can be just as dangerous because the words are supposed to be being spelled out by a 'mysterious force'.

Anyway -- back to "Jac".