Jenna, Jac is absolutely right. I may have added to the confusion in my attempt to use your own language (shape, form) and not in their proper philosophical understanding (no surprise there, I'm not a philosopher). It is true that God is both immaterial and pure form as it is equally true that God is pure love, pure goodness, pure existence (itself). That's philosophical jargon we can get into at some point if need be by delving into divine simplicity. But I really don't think we're there yet as we have to (hopefully) agree on some ideas first.jenna wrote: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.
This goes to the heart of the matter, i.e. the distinction between God the Father and God the Son, on one hand (we'll keep the discussion on God the HS for later), and the fact that there is only one God on the other. So let me state some things and get your take on them.jenna wrote: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.
On God the Father:
- God is spirit, therefore immaterial
- No one has seen God
On God the Son:
- Prior to the incarnation, God is spirit, therefore immaterial
- At incarnation God took on a human nature
On God the Father and Son:
- There is only one God
I think that's a good start. Let me know if you disagree with any of the above and why.