The Body of God

[DavyCrocket2003]

Hi guys. This is an email I sent to someone about my thoughts on God being an invisible God and one that no man has seen at any time. I learned a lot in searching through the Bible and here it is.


My belief is that God has a body. I also believe that the Bible clearly confirms this:

Genesis 1:27; 5:1; 9:6; "God created man in his own image."

How are we created in his image? We look like him.
1 John 3:2: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

The Old Testament seems to clearly illustrate a view of God as a being who comes and goes in a very physical way:

Genesis 18:23-33 tells a narrative where Abraham draws near the Lord and talks to him. And then at the end when they finish speaking it says " And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place." This kind of represents to me the pattern that is in the Old Testament. The way God leads them in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. The way a cloud overshadows the tabernacle when Moses talks to God as if to hide him from the people etc. When God gave Moses the tablets it says they were written "with the finger of the God" (Exodus 31:18). Granted that one could be figurative but it's lots of little things like that. Again Numbers 12:8-10 it tells of God descending upon the tabernacle. "With [Moses] will I speak mouth to mouth." I am inclined to think this is more than a figure of speech.

I feel that there could be reasonable alternative explanations for these things, however I feel that the pattern speaks to a belief in an actual, physical being. Someone with a body: a mouth that can speak, eyes that see, and hands and feet:

Exodus 24:9-11 "9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. 11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

Exodus 33: The entire story from about verse 8 to 23 is as I see it is an undeniable example. Specifically these verses: "11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle. 22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my backparts: but my face shall not be seen."
I think you can understand how I read these verses. You pointed me to verse 20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live." It seems to me that in context God is telling Moses that if someone were to look upon him at this time, they would die. So he doesn't allow Moses to view his face. But he does cover Moses' face with his hand. and after he passes moses he allows him to see his "backparts."

In Matthew 17:5-8 a cloud comes down and out of the cloud God speaks "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." It seems strange to me to conceal an invisible being with a cloud.

In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul calls Christ "the image of God." Other New Testament scriptures use similar language: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:6). "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:3). The express image of his person. That seems very real and concrete to me. And how could he sit on the right hand of a being that doesn't have a right hand? That just doesn't make sense to me. Why would God send Jesus Christ to teach us about who he is. Why would he be his son and be his express image if he were nothing like him in appearance? When Stephen was martyred he said he saw the Glory of God, and Jesus Christ, standing on the right hand of God (touching story in Acts 7:54-56). In James 3:9 it says that we are made in the similitude of God, meaning to me that he is of the same form as us. He looks like us (see again 1 John 3:2).

And to me the most powerful testimony is found back in the Gospel of John 14:6-9:
"6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hat seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

It is my belief that the Bible is speaking literal truth when it says we are created in the image of God. I believe that it speaks truth when it says Moses spoke to God face to face. I believe that it is true when Jesus says that if you have seen him, you have seen the Father. I believe Paul when he says Christ is the "express image" of God. I believe that God has a body of flesh and bones and that he appeared to Joseph Smith just as he appeared to elders of Israel in times of old. I believe that father and son are alike both in nature and in form. And I am doubtful that any amount of convincing will move me on this matter. But I am open to hear what you have to say.

Thanks. David Gann.

 

[Orontes]

Hello Davy,

If someone is asserting God is necessarily invisible I think one can ask:

Was the Resurrected Christ fully Divine? Was he not visible, even tangible?

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Hello Davy,

If someone is asserting God is necessarily invisible I think one can ask:

Was the Resurrected Christ fully Divine? Was he not visible, even tangible?

Said person would respond that Jesus Christ is different than his father, and that he is tangible and visible while being fully divine. The invisible God aspect he applies only to God the Father.

 

[Orontes]

Said person would respond that Jesus Christ is different than his father, and that he is tangible and visible while being fully divine. The invisible God aspect he applies only to God the Father.

If Christ is Divine, and the Father is divine, while the topic is attributes of God i.e. whether He is invisible or no, then it is a distinction without a difference.

Christ's being both divine and visible is itself sufficient to demonstrate God is not invisible. If one wants to assert the Father is invisible, while we already have an example of divinity without the need for invisibility, then they are asserting a characteristic to the Father that has no meaning which would be an undercutting of the logic of perfection.

 

[Watchmen]

If Christ is Divine, and the Father is divine, while the topic is attributes of God i.e. whether He is invisible or no, then it is a distinction without a difference.

Christ's being both divine and visible is itself sufficient to demonstrate God is not invisible. If one wants to assert the Father is invisible, while we already have an example of divinity without the need for invisibility, then they are asserting a characteristic to the Father that has no meaning which would be an undercutting of the logic of perfection.

That's faulty logic.

If C = D, and G = D, that does not mean G = V just because C = V.

 

[Orontes]

That's faulty logic.

If C = D, and G = D, that does not mean G = V just because C = V.

You are confused. All I put forward was: ∃z[H(z) ∧ P(z)] which is hardly remarkable.

 

[Watchmen]

You are confused. All I put forward was: ∃z[H(z) ∧ P(z)] which is hardly remarkable.

I think you are confused.

 

[Orontes]

I think you are confused.

Have you formally studied logic? You're earlier post would indicate you have not. Would you like me to explain ∃z[H(z) ∧ P(z)] ?

 

[Watchmen]

Have you formally studied logic? You're earlier post would indicate you have not. Would you like me to explain ∃z[H(z) ∧ P(z)] ?

I'd like you to explain why my post was incorrect.

 

[Orontes]

I'd like you to explain why my post was incorrect.

Sorry, I don't come to the site very often. I missed your reply.


This comment: "If C = D, and G = D, that does not mean G = V just because C = V." doesn't relate to anything I posted. This is my assertion:

If Christ is Divine, and the Father is divine, while the topic is attributes of God i.e. whether He is invisible or no, then it is a distinction without a difference.

This is an identity statement. That I expressed in simple logical terms ( ∃z[H(z) ∧ P(z)] ) when you brought up logical expression.


The point is simply this: if one admits


1) The Father is Divine
2) Christ is Divine


Both are participants in the class: divinity. Any other attribute either subject possesses cannot negate their participation in that class, based on the assertion of 1) and 2). Therefore, one cannot say God (the divine class) is invisible, if there is a member of that class that is visible i.e. Christ.

 

[Watchmen]

Sorry, I don't come to the site very often. I missed your reply.


This comment: "If C = D, and G = D, that does not mean G = V just because C = V." doesn't relate to anything I posted. This is my assertion:





This is an identity statement. That I expressed in simple logical terms ( ∃z[H(z) ∧ P(z)] ) when you brought up logical expression.


The point is simply this: if one admits


1) The Father is Divine
2) Christ is Divine


Both are participants in the class: divinity. Any other attribute either subject possesses cannot negate their participation in that class, based on the assertion of 1) and 2). Therefore, one cannot say God (the divine class) is invisible, if there is a member of that class that is visible i.e. Christ.

I'm not following. Just because two things share a characteristic does not mean they share all characteristics.

 

[Orontes]

I'm not following. Just because two things share a characteristic does not mean they share all characteristics.

It's not about sharing characteristics, but class membership. For example, an elephant and dog are both mammals. One may have a trunk, the other paws, but both share whatever characteristics are necessary for class membership as mammals: produce milk, live birth, warm blooded etc. The mistake would be if someone said mammals can't have trunks. The fact elephants do and are mammals acts as a counter example.

In the earlier post(s) God is the class. The Father and Son are members of that class.* As such, one could not say God is invisible, given the Son is visible. It operates as a counter example.


*There is likely no challenge that both the Father and Son are Divine, therefore they possess whatever necessary characteristics are needed for the label.

 

[Watchmen]

It's not about sharing characteristics, but class membership. For example, an elephant and dog are both mammals. One may have a trunk, the other paws, but both share whatever characteristics are necessary for class membership as mammals: produce milk, live birth, warm blooded etc. The mistake would be if someone said mammals can't have trunks. The fact elephants do and are mammals acts as a counter example.

In the earlier post(s) God is the class. The Father and Son are members of that class.* As such, one could not say God is invisible, given the Son is visible. It operates as a counter example.


*There is likely no challenge that both the Father and Son are Divine, therefore they possess whatever necessary characteristics are needed for the label.

Sounds like you're making assumptions then. We may agree that the Father and the Son are in the same class (Divine), but who is to say visibility is a characteristic of that class?

 

[Orontes]

Sounds like you're making assumptions then. We may agree that the Father and the Son are in the same class (Divine), but who is to say visibility is a characteristic of that class?

The position is not that visibility is a necessary characteristic of Divinity. Rather, if the Son is Divine and the Son is visible, then ipso facto Divinity can and does include visibility. Just as in the mammal example: a trunk is not a necessary condition to be a mammal, but if an elephant is a mammal and has a trunk, then mammals can and do have trunks. Thus, if one were to say mammals can't have trunks, they would be wrong, just as were one to say Deity cannot be visible they would be wrong. Make sense?

 

[Watchmen]

The position is not that visibility is a necessary characteristic of Divinity. Rather, if the Son is Divine and the Son is visible, then ipso facto Divinity can and does include visibility. Just as in the mammal example: a trunk is not a necessary condition to be a mammal, but if an elephant is a mammal and has a trunk, then mammals can and do have trunks. Thus, if one were to say mammals can't have trunks, they would be wrong, just as were one to say Deity cannot be visible they would be wrong. Make sense?

But you can't use that logic to assert that God is visible because he is Divine. God is the trunk in your example.

 

[Orontes]

But you can't use that logic to assert that God is visible because he is Divine. God is the trunk in your example.

You have misunderstood. The relational functions are like this:

God/Divinity is the class. This is what both the Father and Son participate in and are members of. Visibility would be a characteristic of one of the class members only: a non-essential attribute of a member of that class.

Mammal is the class. This is what both elephants and dogs participate in and are members of. A trunk would be a characteristic of one of the class members only: a non-essential attribute of a member of that class

No one has challenged that either the Father and Son are Divine, or that elephants or dogs are mammals. Once class membership is established, then the attributes of members may be relevant if someone makes assertions about the class. So, if someone said, mammals can't have trunks, an elephant would server as a counter example. If one were to say, Americans don't have red hair, then if one could produce an American with red hair, it would be a counter. This is the relational function being presented. This is the same case with the God class. Given the assumed Christian metaphysic if one were to say: God can't be visible, the fact the Son is a member of that class and visible, is a counter example.


In other words: the trunk in the mammal example, is not a necessary attribute of class membership. A dog does not cease to be a mammal because it does not have a trunk. A trunk is not required. However, if a mammal should have a trunk, then that serves as a counter example to any who might say mammals can't have trunks.

Does that make it more clear?

 

[Watchmen]

If Christ is Divine, and the Father is divine, while the topic is attributes of God i.e. whether He is invisible or no, then it is a distinction without a difference.

Christ's being both divine and visible is itself sufficient to demonstrate God is not invisible. If one wants to assert the Father is invisible, while we already have an example of divinity without the need for invisibility, then they are asserting a characteristic to the Father that has no meaning which would be an undercutting of the logic of perfection.

Did you forget this post? Seems to me you're saying God is not invisible because Christ is both divine and visible. By your own logic, that statement cannot be supported. Again, God and Christ are both Divine (mammals), but that doesn't mean they are both visible (trunks).

 

[Orontes]

Did you forget this post? Seems to me you're saying God is not invisible because Christ is both divine and visible. By your own logic, that statement cannot be supported. Again, God and Christ are both Divine (mammals), but that doesn't mean they are both visible (trunks).

I am saying God is not invisible. God (the class) is not invisible because we have an example of a member of that class that is visible (Christ/the Son). The statement is supported by the fact Christ is divine and a resurrected being: having a body that is visible as demonstrated in the Gospels (i.e. doubting Thomas). Christ being a counter example against any claim God is invisible has been the main point we have looked at, though you’ve not challenged Christ’s divinity or why he would be visible, so I’ve not bothered to go into any mention of resurrected status to this point. This basic point doesn’t deal with the Father’s possible visibility, only the basic question on whether God is visible or no.

This statement of mine “If one wants to assert the Father is invisible, while we already have an example of divinity without the need for invisibility, then they are asserting a characteristic to the Father that has no meaning which would be an undercutting of the logic of perfection.” hasn’t been dealt with at all. It’s not really tied to the original question. The basic idea I was going for in the statement was: if one wanted to assert the Father is necessarily invisible, that would be problematic. Further, we have an example of a Divine being that is visible.

 

[Watchmen]

I am saying God is not invisible. God (the class) is not invisible because we have an example of a member of that class that is visible (Christ/the Son). The statement is supported by the fact Christ is divine and a resurrected being: having a body that is visible as demonstrated in the Gospels (i.e. doubting Thomas). Christ being a counter example against any claim God is invisible has been the main point we have looked at, though you’ve not challenged Christ’s divinity or why he would be visible, so I’ve not bothered to go into any mention of resurrected status to this point. This basic point doesn’t deal with the Father’s possible visibility, only the basic question on whether God is visible or no.

This statement of mine “If one wants to assert the Father is invisible, while we already have an example of divinity without the need for invisibility, then they are asserting a characteristic to the Father that has no meaning which would be an undercutting of the logic of perfection.” hasn’t been dealt with at all. It’s not really tied to the original question. The basic idea I was going for in the statement was: if one wanted to assert the Father is necessarily invisible, that would be problematic. Further, we have an example of a Divine being that is visible.

Does the statement God is not invisible equate to God is visible?

 

[Orontes]

Does the statement God is not invisible equate to God is visible?

Yes. As long as one understands it refers to attributes found in the class, but not necessarily to all members of that class.