No*s vs. Squirt (Jesus Christ, priest, ritual, Latter-Day Saints, reject)

[No*s]

Squirt and I have talked about setting up a one-on-one debate concerning Christianity, which will no doubt lead up to a strict definition of "Christian" once basic issues are out of the way. We are starting with basic issues, specifically ones relating to the Godhead and beginning that with christological issues.

We will treat our sources in this manner. We both agree on the canon of Scripture excluding the Deuterocanonicals in my canon and the LDS-specific additions in hers. We, therefore, are treating those 66 books as principle sources and other books as supplementery sources. What we can validate with those texts, we can use the external sources to confirm (or challenge), but we need to stick to assertions that can be proven from those texts. For my part, this means I cannot assert the perpetual virginity of Mary without serious prep, because it is not directly attested in the 66 books. It also means that I will normally use the Hebrew OT instead of the LXX.

Some brief definitions here:

Christian -- I'm taking this in the most strict sense possible. The term is somewhat fluid, and in some senses allows more than in this sense. A Christian is one who has been mystically united to Christ through the means that He handed down to the Apostles and they to us. We enter into the Church through a valid baptism, are given the Spirit at chrismation, and are continually repaired by the Eucharist, prayer, and other such things. A Christian is a "little Christ," more on that later.

Church -- It is the mystical Body of Christ to which believers are united and which has both an institutional and heavenly reality. For the sake of the discussion, I am pretending that the boundries are easily knowable. They are not (I know where God is, and what is normative, but I cannot limit Him beyond His own revelation).

Salvation -- The process of becoming one with God and an extension of Him. "God became man so that men might become God" -- Saint Athanasius the Great. Becoming one with God, though, does not mean I become like Him in all respects. He is still God, the Creator, and I am still a creature. He will always be self-existing, whereas I will always have derivative being. I share in His life, and become very similar to Him by extension, but I cannot become exactly like Him.

Christ -- The God-man. He created the heavens and the earth and is the revelation of God. He assumed flesh and became man by the Virgin, in a truly virginal conception. By uniting our natures, He restored the lost union of humanity and divinity so that we may know God. The creature could never ascend to the Creator, so He descended to us.

Eucharist -- The Lord's Supper. The bread and wine are mystically transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord so that we ingest God to become God.

I think that about gets the most important definitions. I will give more later, as well as my opening argument for my christology. I will not have time to give that opening argument just yet, and most likely Squirt will give a similar set of opening definitions, and perhaps, her opening argument.

To quote the Hulk, "This is gonna be fun."

EDIT:

Based on some other conversations I should add this:

God -- The omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Godhead. He is without beginning and without end. Nothing else is like Him, and with the exception of the body Christ assumed, God has no material presence and is wholly spirit (material being a part of creation, and the Creator is beyond creation).

Spirit -- The other principle element of reality. It is the immaterial portion closest to the nature of God.

I still won't be able to put something substantial up yet, though. These next couple of days will be very pressing on me.

[Squirt]

Originally Posted by No*s

Squirt and I have talked about setting up a one-on-one debate concerning Christianity, which will no doubt lead up to a strict definition of "Christian" once basic issues are out of the way. We are starting with basic issues, specifically ones relating to the Godhead and beginning that with christological issues.

We will treat our sources in this manner. We both agree on the canon of Scripture excluding the Deuterocanonicals in my canon and the LDS-specific additions in hers. We, therefore, are treating those 66 books as principle sources and other books as supplementery sources. What we can validate with those texts, we can use the external sources to confirm (or challenge), but we need to stick to assertions that can be proven from those texts. For my part, this means I cannot assert the perpetual virginity of Mary without serious prep, because it is not directly attested in the 66 books. It also means that I will normally use the Hebrew OT instead of the LXX.

Some brief definitions here:

Christian -- I'm taking this in the most strict sense possible. The term is somewhat fluid, and in some senses allows more than in this sense. A Christian is one who has been mystically united to Christ through the means that He handed down to the Apostles and they to us. We enter into the Church through a valid baptism, are given the Spirit at chrismation, and are continually repaired by the Eucharist, prayer, and other such things. A Christian is a "little Christ," more on that later.

Church -- It is the mystical Body of Christ to which believers are united and which has both an institutional and heavenly reality. For the sake of the discussion, I am pretending that the boundries are easily knowable. They are not (I know where God is, and what is normative, but I cannot limit Him beyond His own revelation).

Salvation -- The process of becoming one with God and an extension of Him. "God became man so that men might become God" -- Saint Athanasius the Great. Becoming one with God, though, does not mean I become like Him in all respects. He is still God, the Creator, and I am still a creature. He will always be self-existing, whereas I will always have derivative being. I share in His life, and become very similar to Him by extension, but I cannot become exactly like Him.

Christ -- The God-man. He created the heavens and the earth and is the revelation of God. He assumed flesh and became man by the Virgin, in a truly virginal conception. By uniting our natures, He restored the lost union of humanity and divinity so that we may know God. The creature could never ascend to the Creator, so He descended to us.

Eucharist -- The Lord's Supper. The bread and wine are mystically transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord so that we ingest God to become God.

I think that about gets the most important definitions. I will give more later, as well as my opening argument for my christology. I will not have time to give that opening argument just yet, and most likely Squirt will give a similar set of opening definitions, and perhaps, her opening argument.

To quote the Hulk, "This is gonna be fun."

EDIT:

Based on some other conversations I should add this:

God -- The omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Godhead. He is without beginning and without end. Nothing else is like Him, and with the exception of the body Christ assumed, God has no material presence and is wholly spirit (material being a part of creation, and the Creator is beyond creation).

Spirit -- The other principle element of reality. It is the immaterial portion closest to the nature of God.


I still won't be able to put something substantial up yet, though. These next couple of days will be very pressing on me.

Hey, No*s! Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I've got a lot on my plate right now, too, so I may not be back with my opening comments for another day or so. But after that, watch out!

[Squirt]

Originally Posted by No*s

Squirt and I have talked about setting up a one-on-one debate concerning Christianity, which will no doubt lead up to a strict definition of "Christian" once basic issues are out of the way. We are starting with basic issues, specifically ones relating to the Godhead and beginning that with christological issues.

We will treat our sources in this manner. We both agree on the canon of Scripture excluding the Deuterocanonicals in my canon and the LDS-specific additions in hers. We, therefore, are treating those 66 books as principle sources and other books as supplementery sources. What we can validate with those texts, we can use the external sources to confirm (or challenge), but we need to stick to assertions that can be proven from those texts. For my part, this means I cannot assert the perpetual virginity of Mary without serious prep, because it is not directly attested in the 66 books. It also means that I will normally use the Hebrew OT instead of the LXX.

Sounds good so far!

Some brief definitions here:

I'll attempt to give the LDS viewpoint for each of the main points you bring up in these definitions.

Christian -- I'm taking this in the most strict sense possible. The term is somewhat fluid, and in some senses allows more than in this sense. A Christian is one who has been mystically united to Christ through the means that He handed down to the Apostles and they to us. We enter into the Church through a valid baptism, are given the Spirit at chrismation, and are continually repaired by the Eucharist, prayer, and other such things. A Christian is a "little Christ," more on that later.

Christian: Had the Bible actually defined the term, we wouldn't need to. Since it doesn't, we are left with the Lord's own words, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." To me, a true Christian (1) acknowledges Jesus Christ as his Savior and (2) is a disciple of Christ.

The word "mystical" is not really a part of the LDS vocabulary at all. The word "spiritual" would probably be the closest I could come to it. We enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ through baptism, which takes place when an individual has reached an age where he is capable of understanding what this means. As part of this covenant relationship, we recognize that we have sinned and are therefore in a position where we would be permanently estranged from God unless someone without sin is willing to pay the price to redeem us. Our baptismal covenant with Christ involves our making a commitment to honor and obey Him throughout our lives. We formally become members of the Church at our confirmation, which follows our baptism. It is at this time that we formally receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

Church -- It is the mystical Body of Christ to which believers are united and which has both an institutional and heavenly reality. For the sake of the discussion, I am pretending that the boundries are easily knowable. They are not (I know where God is, and what is normative, but I cannot limit Him beyond His own revelation).

I can't think of anything to add here. I agree completely with your definition. Obvious, we do not agree on which earthly institution represents Christ's Church on earth today.

Salvation -- The process of becoming one with God and an extension of Him. "God became man so that men might become God" -- Saint Athanasius the Great. Becoming one with God, though, does not mean I become like Him in all respects. He is still God, the Creator, and I am still a creature. He will always be self-existing, whereas I will always have derivative being. I share in His life, and become very similar to Him by extension, but I cannot become exactly like Him.

Salvation has several definitions based upon the context in which the word is used. 1 Corinthians 15:22 states, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." When used in this way, the word is referring to the unconditional salvation of all mankind from the permanance of the grave. In other words, all will be physically resurrected either at the beginning or at the end of the Millennium. The word may also be used as a rough equivalent to "redemption." Christ's Atonement allows the repentent sinner to be forgiven for his trespasses against God. Finally, It may be used as a synonym for "exaltation" which is to say eternal life in God's presence with the potential of becoming "godlike." This is the aim of all truly committed Latter-day Saints. It does not, however, imply that we will ever be equal to or independent of God or that we could achieve this status on our own. We will always be subject to Him and will always worship Him as our God.

Christ -- The God-man. He created the heavens and the earth and is the revelation of God. He assumed flesh and became man by the Virgin, in a truly virginal conception. By uniting our natures, He restored the lost union of humanity and divinity so that we may know God. The creature could never ascend to the Creator, so He descended to us.

Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father. He was with His Father in the beginning and created words without number -- under His Father's direction. He was also appointed by His Father to be the "Lamb Slain from before the foundation of the world." He is is Father's representative on earth, and is our mediator with the Father. He was conceived of a Virgin, as described in Luke's gospel account. Just as Mary was Jesus' literal mother, God was His literal Father. Theirs is a true father-son relationship. Jesus Christ offered Himself up as a sacrifice for our sins and paved the way for us to be reconciled to God. From His mortal mother, He inherited mortality. He was, like all men, subject to death. From His immortal Father, He inherited immortality, or the power over death.

Eucharist -- The Lord's Supper. The bread and wine are mystically transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord so that we ingest God to become God.

We refer to this as "the Sacrament," recognizing that it is actually one of several different sacraments or "saving ordinances" that Christ himself instituted during His eartly ministry. We partake of the Sacrament on a weekly basis, in remembrance of His sacrifice and to renew our baptismal covenants with Him. The bread and water are representative of His body and blood, but and not transformed into His literal body and blood.

God -- The omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Godhead. He is without beginning and without end. Nothing else is like Him, and with the exception of the body Christ assumed, God has no material presence and is wholly spirit (material being a part of creation, and the Creator is beyond creation).

God is omnipotent in that His power is absolute. Nevertheless, He will not use that power to take away our free agency. He is spiritually omnipresent (through the Holy Ghost) but is physically "in Heaven." He is omniscient, but again, this does not mean that He micro-manages our lives. He knows each and every one of us perfectly, but allows us to make our own decisions. He has not pre-destined any of us to either be saved or damned.

Here is where we will differ most in our belief: God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three divine beings who together constitute the Godhead spoken of in the scriptures. They are physically distinct from one another, but are otherwise perfectly "one" in will and purpose. Their unity in mind and heart is absolute and beyond our comprehension. The Father and the Son are both glorified, celestial beings of flesh and bone. The Holy Ghost, as His name/title implies, is a being of spirit only. It is through the Holy Ghost that the Father and the Son interact with humanity today. All three share the name/title of "God," and all three have the same divine attributes. The Father, however, is supreme. He always has been and always will be. The Son is second in supremacy, followed by the Holy Ghost.

Spirit -- The other principle element of reality. It is the immaterial portion closest to the nature of God.

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Could you give me just a little bit more information to go on before I comment.

I think that about gets the most important definitions. I will give more later, as well as my opening argument for my christology. I will not have time to give that opening argument just yet, and most likely Squirt will give a similar set of opening definitions, and perhaps, her opening argument.

I don't know how much you actually know about Mormonism. I know less about Eastern Orthodoxy than I do about Roman Catholicism, but I feel safe in saying that I believe we have more in common with both Orthodoxy and Catholicism than we do with any of the Protestant Churches. We reject the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide. We insist on the need for authority and reject the doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers." Hopefully, my definition of terms will give us a basis upon which to construct an opening argument for our debate. I am thinking that we will probably want to debate something along the lines of the nature of God, and of the Trinity/Godhead.

Looking forward to an interesting, respectful exchange of ideas...

Squirt

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Squirt

I don't know how much you actually know about Mormonism. I know less about Eastern Orthodoxy than I do about Roman Catholicism, but I feel safe in saying that I believe we have more in common with both Orthodoxy and Catholicism than we do with any of the Protestant Churches. We reject the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide. We insist on the need for authority and reject the doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers." Hopefully, my definition of terms will give us a basis upon which to construct an opening argument for our debate. I am thinking that we will probably want to debate something along the lines of the nature of God, and of the Trinity/Godhead.

Looking forward to an interesting, respectful exchange of ideas...

Squirt

I can't say I know much, so I have to define my own position and let you define yours. I'm certain we can flesh out what differences there are and do so respectfully .

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Squirt

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Could you give me just a little bit more information to go on before I comment.

OK, I'm going to elaborate a bit (and apologize for getting caught up in another, fruitless thread when I could have explained it). Ironically, I believe this is a foundational disagreement which must, even if it seems amazing, precede a disagreement, if it is such and not a misunderstanding, over Christ .

Matter is the substance (notice that "substance" is used here in a classic theological context and is parallell to "nature" or "essence" more than "matter") of which all physical things consist. We consist of molecules, and below that, atoms (I'm going to ignore the scientific concept of "energy" here, and may actually commandeer the word later for a spiritual thing).

Matter takes up space, has mass, is subject to natural laws, etc. Anything whose nature is corporeal, or principally corporeal, is subject to the physical laws. It is contained within a sphere. I am approximately 5"9' tall, rather skinny, with shaggy hair. My person does not extend beyond this attribute. This extends, also, to my house. It extends from that to the town, to the planet, to the solar system, etc.

My whole being has a place. It is physically locateable, because of this body. It is not a manifestation of me, but is me (not, as the Platonists would argue, a prison). It is discernable and tangible. When burnt, my body will always act a certain way. A material being will always be subject to material laws (barring a spiritual and superior force interfering).

Spirit, though, derives from the Latin word spiritus, which is a good translation of pneuma in Greek and ruach in Hebrew. I don't read Hebrew, but I do know that pneuma was one of the words used to translate ruach in the LXX, and the NT further baptized the word through its use.

Spirit, to the ancients, was like a wind. The words for "spirit" could equally mean "wind" and "breath." Some ancient teachers actually supposed that if you knocked the breath out of someone, their soul left them: breath was life. (Incidentally, ruach was also translated as anemos, which just means "wind," and from the Latin cognate we derive "animate.") In order to understand what they mean here, you must look at how they had to perceive wind (even if it is scientifically wrong). Wind, in their mind, was not material. It had no shape, no body, no color, no visibility. All material things had those properties. It could not be trapped. If you placed a jar up and tried to catch the wind, nothing would be in there (hence, the sign of Aeolis' divinity as the god of the wind in the Odyssy was that he actually could do that). Christ used it as an analogy in John 3, when He explained that the wind blows where it will, and nobody knows from whence it comes or where it goes.

Wind and breath, to the ancients, was a sort of counter-point to "breath." It was inherently immaterial and unclassifiable by material standards. Our minds, darkened as they are, cannot properly perceive spiritual realities, and as such, our means of measuring and defining it are inherently flawed.

That said, I will go on here. The universe is basically material. Everywhere there is something, it is matter. We define the universe by its material connections. God, however, fashioned these. He cannot have a body, because He made matter. He exists before material, and therefore, cannot be material: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." (The LXX spin on those verses, baptized, again, by the NT).

Since God has no body, He cannot be contained, He is not bound (indeed, if He had a body, then He would be both contained and bound; that is the nature of bodies). He is limitless in this respect (no body provides boundries), and further, undivided. If this is the case, then His nature, substance, ousia, whatever you want to call it, cannot be matter, not even some kind of divine matter; it must be something else, of a wholly different nature. Hence God can be present in the same way everywhere at all times. He isn't, as the Manicheans assumed, be more present in something the size of an elephant as opposed to a cup (analogy taken from St. Augustine's Confessions). As the Psalmist says:

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in [Hades], behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me. If I say, "Surely the darkness shall fall on me,' Even the night shall become light about me; Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to you. Ps. 139.7-12

. Hell is a mistranslation, and I have taken the liberty to replace it with the LXX' translation of the Hebrew Sheol, which was a concept very close to Hades.[/indent]
Here the Psalmist expounds, and links, two separate attributes of God: His omnipresence and omniscience. If God is omnipresent, He has not a material nature, and if He has not a material nature, then He has not a body containing Him.

In the Old Testament, further, the Lord reveals Himself in various ways: He appears as three men to Abraham, as one like a Son of Man in the fiery furnace, as a pillar of fire, and so on. What this shows us is that the Lord's presence is not limited by corporeal laws, just as His role as the Creator would suggest. He could take various forms and do what He wishes (this is an important element for Jesus' body after the resurrection, as He has made its material more spiritual so that it can pass through walls, teleport, and so on, as it was intended).

The ability of the Holy Spirit to indwell a believer, for instance, is an indication of this immaterial nature as well. He doesn't just descend on someone, but actually coexists in the person's body and divinizes him. Had the Spirit a body, then He could not dwell in our bodies in the same space, lest we only receive particles of the Spirit and not the Spirit entire.

The connection between other beings and God here is that angels were created like this. They, also, can appear in whatever form they wish. They can, for instance, appear as travelers as happened in Sodom and Hebrews warns us about. The ancient worship services of the Church refers to them as "bodiless powers" and sings a hymn that the believers are "invisibly escorted by angelic hosts." Similarly Satan can appear as an angel of light, or by tradition, any form He chooses: He is not limited by our corporeal laws. Demons can indwell people like the Spirit, but they do not displace the person's matter.

None of the statements I make later about the nature of Christ or the incarnation can make sense without this dualism of spiritual and material. It is a necessary preceding concept. The Orthodox view of the Eucharist, baptism, the Fall, chrismation (reception of the Spirit), salvation, and several other things are simply incomprehensible without it as well. This, if there is disagreement, must be base one; our conception of God's nature will necessarily precede our understanding of the Godhead proper.

That said, I have done something very dangerous: I have used logic to deduce the nature of God. Those are shakey grounds, because God, being beyond the universe, is also beyond our experience and laws, and thus, our finite minds cannot truly comprehend Him. I must be careful how I use this, and I say this lest it appear that I bind God to our logic .

*ducks after first shot *

[Squirt]

Originally Posted by No*s

OK, I'm going to elaborate a bit (and apologize for getting caught up in another, fruitless thread when I could have explained it). Ironically, I believe this is a foundational disagreement which must, even if it seems amazing, precede a disagreement, if it is such and not a misunderstanding, over Christ.

Wow! It looks like I'm up against a guy with a brain. You're obviously going to present me with more of a challenge than I've encountered on this forum up until now. I'm actually going to have to work at this for a change.

Matter is the substance (notice that "substance" is used here in a classic theological context and is parallell to "nature" or "essence" more than "matter") of which all physical things consist. We consist of molecules, and below that, atoms (I'm going to ignore the scientific concept of "energy" here, and may actually commandeer the word later for a spiritual thing).

While I agree that matter is the substance of which all physical things consist, I must take it a step further and say that matter is the substance of which all things consist. The concept that spirit and matter are incompatible has its foundation in Hellenistic thought and not in the mind of God. I don't see spirit and matter as being opposed or inimical to each other, and if we're going to assume that they are, we're probably not going to get beyond that one point of disagreement. Joseph Smith taught that "there is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes." (I apologize for quoting a uniquely LDS source, but from my perspective, Joseph Smith is at least as reliable when it comes to spiritual truths as Plato! .) We believe that, not only is there such a thing as immaterial matter, but that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. I suppose it goes without saying that we reject the doctrine of an ex nihlo creation.

Matter takes up space, has mass, is subject to natural laws, etc. Anything whose nature is corporeal, or principally corporeal, is subject to the physical laws.

But do we really fully comprehend what we refer to as "natural laws"? I don't think we do. And because we don't, I don't see how we can argue whether spirit might not also take up space, have mass and be subject to natural laws. After all, "natural laws" are God's laws. The fact that we don't fully understand them is "immaterial" (pun intended ).

A material being will always be subject to material laws (barring a spiritual and superior force interfering).

If you are saying that a spiritual force can overcome natural, physical or material laws, I agree. I just think that's one more reason to believe that God having a physical body would not limit Him.

Spirit, though, derives from the Latin word spiritus, which is a good translation of pneuma in Greek and ruach in Hebrew. I don't read Hebrew, but I do know that pneuma was one of the words used to translate ruach in the LXX, and the NT further baptized the word through its use.

Spirit, to the ancients, was like a wind. The words for "spirit" could equally mean "wind" and "breath." Some ancient teachers actually supposed that if you knocked the breath out of someone, their soul left them: breath was life.

Yes, and I believe that it can also be translated as "life." If we can agree on this, why is it such a stretch to concede that "God is spirit" cannot just as accurately be translated as "God is life"?

According to Christopher Stead (a non-LDS Biblical scholar), Christ's Jewish contemporaries would have understood the "spiritual" nature of God in this way: "By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he had no body ... but rather that he is the source of the mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure." I find this interpretation to me much more compatible to scriptural sources of information about God.

That said, I will go on here. The universe is basically material. Everywhere there is something, it is matter. We define the universe by its material connections. God, however, fashioned these. He cannot have a body, because He made matter. He exists before material, and therefore, cannot be material: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." (The LXX spin on those verses, baptized, again, by the NT).

Maybe we should be debating the nature of the creation instead of the nature of God. Again, I believe that God created the universe from pre-existent materials and not from nothing. I realize that we're probably never going to agree on this point either, but I can provide a few citations from some early Christian sources to support my belief. I'm just not sure that this is the topic we want to debate.

Since God has no body, He cannot be contained, He is not bound (indeed, if He had a body, then He would be both contained and bound; that is the nature of bodies). He is limitless in this respect (no body provides boundries), and further, undivided. If this is the case, then His nature, substance, ousia, whatever you want to call it, cannot be matter, not even some kind of divine matter; it must be something else, of a wholly different nature. Hence God can be present in the same way everywhere at all times.

The Holy Ghost is also God. As the sole person of the Godhead who does not have a corporeal body, He is not only spiritually omnipresent but is potentially physically omnipresent as well. Whenever there is a need for God to be physically present anywhere in the universe, the Holy Ghost fills this role. Besides, since when was Jesus Christ bound by His physical body? If it was possible for Him to control the elements while in a physical state, I find this "limitation" to be non-existent.

In the Old Testament, further, the Lord reveals Himself in various ways: He appears as three men to Abraham, as one like a Son of Man in the fiery furnace, as a pillar of fire, and so on. What this shows us is that the Lord's presence is not limited by corporeal laws, just as His role as the Creator would suggest. He could take various forms and do what He wishes (this is an important element for Jesus' body after the resurrection, as He has made its material more spiritual so that it can pass through walls, teleport, and so on, as it was intended).

Perhaps you would be willing to save me some time and quote chapter and verse for each of these instances. I apologize for not getting into this further right now, but I'm running out of time to post and want to tie things up before I leave. I do have a few thoughts on this subject, but just no time to express them adequately.

The ability of the Holy Spirit to indwell a believer, for instance, is an indication of this immaterial nature as well. He doesn't just descend on someone, but actually coexists in the person's body and divinizes him. Had the Spirit a body, then He could not dwell in our bodies in the same space, lest we only receive particles of the Spirit and not the Spirit entire.

I agree that the Spirit can actually fill the person of a believer. That's what His role is, or at least what one of His roles is. What, may I ask, would the purpose of the third person of the Godhead even be if the Father and the Son were both non-corporeal beings themselves? It is precisely because the Father and the Son are corporeal that the Holy Ghost is given this name in the scriptures. It is the fact that He alone is incorporeal that He is referred to as the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. If the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were all non-corporeal beings, what need would there even be for the Holy Ghost?

So, I see the Holy Ghost as the person within the Godhead who can literally co-exist with me, within my body. But could Jesus Christ literally co-exist within my body and simultaneously sit on His Father's right hand in the Heavens? You may think so. I don't. That's why I see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as physically distinct beings.

None of the statements I make later about the nature of Christ or the incarnation can make sense without this dualism of spiritual and material. It is a necessary preceding concept.

Hmmm. Do does this mean our debate has ended before it's begun?