Evidence for God from Science

1stjohn0666 wrote:Why not grab a Lexicon and look up "bible words", you will find Pneuma (Spirit) but you will not find "essence" or as the Geek ousia. Still my question is unanswered "Where in the bible is God an essence or ousia?"

Hey, look, someone who doesn't read Greek and doesn't understand the words he is talking about! All these words are in your Bible.

First, there is no Greek word for essence. The English word itself comes from the Latin word essentia, and that wasn't even a real Latin word. It was made up by Aristotle's Latin translators to translate his phrase το τι ην ειναι (to ti en einai), which in literal English would be "the what it was to be." There's nothing unbiblical about those words or even about the concept. If you ever asked "What is an angel," for instance, you are using the exact same concept. Aristotle would have replied something like το τι ην ειναι πνευμα ("the essence of [angels] is spirit).

Second, the Greek ουσια (ousia) certainly is found in Scripture. In Luke 15:13 it is rendered "goods" or "substance." If you go the LSJ online lexicon (scholarly standard) and type in "ousia" into the search bar, you will find all the meanings of the word in the NT time period--the first meaning mentioned being "that which is one's own, one's substance, property."

Third, other related words that you failed to mention are in the NT, such as morphe and hypostasis and many others.

Finally, you don't even understand the doctrine you are critiquing. God is not understood to be an essence or substance (ουσια). To quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the matter:

• St. Thomas further teaches that the name substance cannot properly be applied to God, not only because He is not the subject of any accidents, but also because in Him essence and existence are identical, and consequently He is not included in any genus whatever. For the same reason, it is impossible that God should be the formal being of all things (esse formale omnium), or, in other words, that one and the same existence should be common to Him and them (op. cit., I, 25, 26).

We would thus not look for God to be called a substance. That would be theologically incorrect. But we would look for God to be called, as per Thomas here, existence itself, since "what He is" (viz., His essence) is existence. That much is stated plainly in Yahweh's interpretation of His own Name: I am that I am (Exod 3:14). The Hebrew phrase here is אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (simplified transliteration: ehyeh asher ehyeh), where ehyeh (אֶהְיֶה) is the imperfect form of the verb "to be" and is literally "I am." Thus, Jesus says, "Before Abraham was born, I am." The Greek for "I am" here is εγω ειμι (ego eimi) and is a direct reference to Exod 3:14 (The LXX translation says there, και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωθσην εγω ειμι ο ων), and if He were speaking Arabic, it would have been just as clear, if not clearer.

So the Bible properly avoids calling God a substance. It attributes to God the very nature of existence itself. On all counts, then, you are simply mistaken.

1stjohn0666,

Jac3510 has explained things very well and even reveals the need to know what a Spirit is.

So again, what is a Spirit?
-
-
--

B. W. wrote:So again, what is a Spirit?

I want to emphasize this question and insist you answer it, 1stjohn0666. And since don't like to use post-biblical words in definitions, be sure to define Spirit for us without using them, please. After all, you believe God is Spirit, so when we ask what Spirit is, you should be able to give us a biblical answer using biblical words alone . . .

I would say that God being Spirit he does not have a physical body, however God (the Father) has appeared in the form of his own creation to many people in the OT. I may have misquoted ousia is only used in the bible as "goods"

You didn't answer the question. You just gave a negative trait. What is a spirit?

point me to any scripture that says God is an "essence"

1stjohn0666 wrote:point me to any scripture that says God is an "essence"

Do you not read what people write to you?

I wrote:

• St. Thomas further teaches that the name substance cannot properly be applied to God, not only because He is not the subject of any accidents, but also because in Him essence and existence are identical, and consequently He is not included in any genus whatever. For the same reason, it is impossible that God should be the formal being of all things (esse formale omnium), or, in other words, that one and the same existence should be common to Him and them (op. cit., I, 25, 26).

We would thus not look for God to be called a substance. That would be theologically incorrect. But we would look for God to be called, as per Thomas here, existence itself, since "what He is" (viz., His essence) is existence. That much is stated plainly in Yahweh's interpretation of His own Name: I am that I am (Exod 3:14). The Hebrew phrase here is אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (simplified transliteration: ehyeh asher ehyeh), where ehyeh (אֶהְיֶה) is the imperfect form of the verb "to be" and is literally "I am." Thus, Jesus says, "Before Abraham was born, I am." The Greek for "I am" here is εγω ειμι (ego eimi) and is a direct reference to Exod 3:14 (The LXX translation says there, και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωθσην εγω ειμι ο ων), and if He were speaking Arabic, it would have been just as clear, if not clearer.

So the Bible properly avoids calling God a substance. It attributes to God the very nature of existence itself. On all counts, then, you are simply mistaken.

Now, answer the question. What is a spirit?

1st john666, I take it you are a Christadelphian. That is someone who teaches a different kind of Jesus than what the bible teaches a false gospel. The bible tells us to beware of false brethren as you do not believe in the biblical Jesus.

You need to be honest with the people here of this forum and correctly identify yourself.

That way people can actually have an honest dialogue with you instead pf playing a guessing game.

CARM has much to say on Christadelphianism:

http://carm.org/christadelphianism

I do not belong to any religious institution, I am simply monotheist.

1stjohn0666 wrote:I do not belong to any religious institution, I am simply monotheist.

You hold the Christadelphian view on all points they do, therefore, I class you as a Christadelphian with a bent toward 666 anarchy.

So how come you hold to all the tenets of Christadelphianism if you are not?

Bit of honesty would be appropriate from you instead of vagueness. Just stating you are a monotheist is too vague and can mean anything. Please use a bit of honesty here but for now, your avatar name tells us all we need to know...

1stjohn666 means 1st john (means: outhouse) and 666 is the Mark of the Beast, the Antichrist number, therefore, please do not list yourself as a Christian on your profile. As for honesty, the 666 gives you away.

A true monotheist would not be a brick wall when talking to them. True monotheist stands up for their religious affiliations. They not deny them. Agnostics and atheist don’t cower either, they at least are honest where they stand and identify themselves as agnostics or atheist. People can respect that. But to place on your profile, you are a Christian and then deny who Jesus Christ is, well, very revealing.

For now, you have aligned yourself completely to Christadelphian doctrine as documented in the majority of your post. So if people would like to respond to you, they need to read up on the cult of Christadelphianism to understand where you are coming from.

1stjohn0666 wrote:I oppose the trinity all together. The doctrine of the trinity is "post biblical" and comes from the creeds. Depending on which one you go by is also a factor on how you believe it. That is to say, does one have to believe the trinity to be saved or not? The Creeds have both statements. John 17:3 will suffice that Jesus excludes himself from the "only true God" 1 Cor 15:24-28 say that Jesus must hand back what was given to him, so that his Father and our Father, his God and our God can be all in all. Jesus is never omniscient because he does not know the hour of his return. John 1:1-18 lack the trinity doctrine in this sense, there is never mention of the 3rd member in those texts. Gen 1 "and God (the Father) spoke" John 1 "in the beginning was the word" Deut 18:18 I will raise up a prophet from among you "and put my (the Father) words in his (the Messiah) mouth. But as Mormons oppose the trinity, they do not. Here is from the book of Mormon, Mormon 7:7 7 "And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end." It should be noted that here is plain evidence of the trinity "unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God" There it is plain as to all can see 3 in 1

1stjohn0666 wrote:Answers for B.W.
AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE I AM NOT "ONE OF THOSE"

Let's see what you agree with so far in from you prior postings...it is evident that you believe and agree with the following numbers...from the article...

What do the Christadelphians Teach?
Quote From: http://carm.org/christadelphianism

by Matt Slick
Though they acknowledge many truths found in the Bible, they deny many others.

2. They teach there is only one God. (Isaiah 43-45)

6. They believe that there has been an apostasy and that Christianity is a false religious system. (A tract titled “Christendom Astray Since the Apostolic Age, Detroit Christadelphian Book Supply)

7. They believe annihilation of the wicked. (What They Believe, p. 187).

10. They deny the doctrine of the Trinity. (What They Believe, p. 84-87)

11. They deny that Jesus is God in flesh. (Answers, p. 22)

12. They deny that Jesus existed prior to his incarnation. (What They Believe , p. 85,86)

13. They deny the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. (What They Believe , p. 115)

16. They deny immortality of the soul. (What They Believe , p. 17

17. They deny that a person exists after death. (What They Believe, p. 17

18. They deny the existence of hell and eternal punishment. (What They Believe, p. 188-189)

John666 should we add to the list as well - do you hold these views? Do you deny these???

14. They deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ. (Answers, p. 25; What They Believe, p. 71) WHICH VERSION OF substitutionary atonement

15. They deny salvation by grace through faith alone. (What they Believe, p. 204)

MY LXX reads in Exodus 3:14 "ego eimi ho on" what is in John 8:58 is "ego eimi" note that the name is completely different. John 8:58 works this way "Before Abraham was (there was a prophecy) I am (the Messiah) Exodus 3:14 is not I am he, but rather "the being" ho on is only indicative of the Father.