October 31, 2020

The Council

Proclaiming the truth to the world.

Chris Fisher said:

I’m not sure I’ve ever claimed God is a physical entity. I’ve questioned the usefulness of the category “physical” and stated God has bodies.

How do you have a non-physical body? Physical things are usually contrasted against things that are more abstract. Bodies are spacial and temporally located. Clearly, he thinks God has bodies in multiple places. So, it doesn’t make much sense to posit non-physical bodies. Especially if you think the Bible is sharing an ANE custom of physical multi-bodied deities.

He and others like Robert Rowe appeal to the works of Benjamin Sommers. The issue with that is Sommers posits his theory on a theory of how the Pentateuch originated and he maintains the biblical writers present contradictory models of God throughout the OT. The very thing I charged Open Theist understandings to possess:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/01/23/god-isnt-open/

This was stated by Sommers himself in an interview(HT Békefi Bálint):

https://www.thinkingaboutreligion.org/s1-e9-benjamin-sommer-on-gods-bodies/

These positions can’t be maintained if one wishes to maintain inerrancy. Nor a conservative view such as about the origin of the books of Moses. Such as this one:

This is why most that affirm the Bible teaches Open Theists’ distinctive notions are in higher liberal scholarship. They don’t have to maintain the contradictions are true. As Sommer states on page 136:

Indeed, in light of this study, certain cliched assumptions common among both ´ Jews and Christians who attempt to distinguish their theologies must be stood on their heads. Divine embodiment, paradoxically, emerges from this study as far more important to Judaism than to Christianity. For the Tanakh, for rabbinic literature, and for important strands in Jewish mysticism, God has always been a corporeal being. For Christianity, in contrast, God deigned to take on a body at a particular moment in time; existence in a body was not part of the eternal essence of divinity.63 In short: Christians believe in incarnation, whereas the Tanakh simply believes in embodiment.64

Suppose one wished to combine the physicality notion of God with the trinity. Well, in what sense is there only one God? In what sense is the Logos made flesh(especially if God all along was already flesh)? We have seen the idea the Word ceases to be divine suffers major criticisms:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/07/21/kenotic-christology/

So, does Jesus’ human body contain a divine body? That is rather strange to believe. In what sense here is it to maintain the Father, Son, and Spirit are one and yet distinct? If they are merely three different embodied modes of some deity, then you have apparently three different deities as much as three different humans are not the same being. If they all share some mind, then they are derivative of some greater immaterial mind that works these three bodies as if they were truly separate in some regard. In other words, that option reduces to modalism. If the Father is the superior mind from which the other two derive, then we are semi-Arian. So, it seems this suffers from the same difficulties that arise in Trinitarian conversation.

Lastly, it must be noted the incoherence of this idea where God is comprised of divine matter. If God is matter, then he subject to the forces of time and space. He is dependent on the world and needs it to be himself(he is made of materials that are more fundamental). But why should we trust inductive reasoning? If these laws of the universe remain outside the control of God then it seems quite likely that we have no reason to suppose we can reason inductively. So, to accept such a perspective leaves you with saying that we can’t trust our ability to reason. But if that is the case, then why accept this perspective?

Chris Fisher said:

I’m not sure I’ve ever claimed God is a physical entity. I’ve questioned the usefulness of the category “physical” and stated God has bodies.

How do you have a non-physical body? Physical things are usually contrasted against things that are more abstract. Bodies are spacial and temporally located. Clearly, he thinks God has bodies in multiple places. So, it doesn’t make much sense to posit non-physical bodies. Especially if you think the Bible is sharing an ANE custom of physical multi-bodied deities.

He and others like Robert Rowe appeal to the works of Benjamin Sommers. The issue with that is Sommers posits his theory on a theory of how the Pentateuch originated and he maintains the biblical writers present contradictory models of God throughout the OT. The very thing I charged Open Theist understandings to possess:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/01/23/god-isnt-open/

This was stated by Sommers himself in an interview(HT Békefi Bálint):

https://www.thinkingaboutreligion.org/s1-e9-benjamin-sommer-on-gods-bodies/

These positions can’t be maintained if one wishes to maintain inerrancy. Nor a conservative view such as about the origin of the books of Moses. Such as this one:

This is why most that affirm the Bible teaches Open Theists’ distinctive notions are in higher liberal scholarship. They don’t have to maintain the contradictions are true. As Sommer states on page 136:

Indeed, in light of this study, certain cliched assumptions common among both ´ Jews and Christians who attempt to distinguish their theologies must be stood on their heads. Divine embodiment, paradoxically, emerges from this study as far more important to Judaism than to Christianity. For the Tanakh, for rabbinic literature, and for important strands in Jewish mysticism, God has always been a corporeal being. For Christianity, in contrast, God deigned to take on a body at a particular moment in time; existence in a body was not part of the eternal essence of divinity.63 In short: Christians believe in incarnation, whereas the Tanakh simply believes in embodiment.64

Suppose one wished to combine the physicality notion of God with the trinity. Well, in what sense is there only one God? In what sense is the Logos made flesh(especially if God all along was already flesh)? We have seen the idea the Word ceases to be divine suffers major criticisms:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/07/21/kenotic-christology/

So, does Jesus’ human body contain a divine body? That is rather strange to believe. In what sense here is it to maintain the Father, Son, and Spirit are one and yet distinct? If they are merely three different embodied modes of some deity, then you have apparently three different deities as much as three different humans are not the same being. If they all share some mind, then they are derivative of some greater immaterial mind that works these three bodies as if they were truly separate in some regard. In other words, that option reduces to modalism. If the Father is the superior mind from which the other two derive, then we are semi-Arian. So, it seems this suffers from the same difficulties that arise in Trinitarian conversation.

Lastly, it must be noted the incoherence of this idea where God is comprised of divine matter. If God is matter, then he subject to the forces of time and space. He is dependent on the world and needs it to be himself(he is made of materials that are more fundamental). But why should we trust inductive reasoning? If these laws of the universe remain outside the control of God then it seems quite likely that we have no reason to suppose we can reason inductively. So, to accept such a perspective leaves you with saying that we can’t trust our ability to reason. But if that is the case, then why accept this perspective?

Chris Fisher said:

I’m not sure I’ve ever claimed God is a physical entity. I’ve questioned the usefulness of the category “physical” and stated God has bodies.

How do you have a non-physical body? Physical things are usually contrasted against things that are more abstract. Bodies are spacial and temporally located. Clearly, he thinks God has bodies in multiple places. So, it doesn’t make much sense to posit non-physical bodies. Especially if you think the Bible is sharing an ANE custom of physical multi-bodied deities.

He and others like Robert Rowe appeal to the works of Benjamin Sommers. The issue with that is Sommers posits his theory on a theory of how the Pentateuch originated and he maintains the biblical writers present contradictory models of God throughout the OT. The very thing I charged Open Theist understandings to possess:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/01/23/god-isnt-open/

This was stated by Sommers himself in an interview(HT Békefi Bálint):

https://www.thinkingaboutreligion.org/s1-e9-benjamin-sommer-on-gods-bodies/

These positions can’t be maintained if one wishes to maintain inerrancy. Nor a conservative view such as about the origin of the books of Moses. Such as this one:

This is why most that affirm the Bible teaches Open Theists’ distinctive notions are in higher liberal scholarship. They don’t have to maintain the contradictions are true. As Sommer states on page 136:

Indeed, in light of this study, certain cliched assumptions common among both ´ Jews and Christians who attempt to distinguish their theologies must be stood on their heads. Divine embodiment, paradoxically, emerges from this study as far more important to Judaism than to Christianity. For the Tanakh, for rabbinic literature, and for important strands in Jewish mysticism, God has always been a corporeal being. For Christianity, in contrast, God deigned to take on a body at a particular moment in time; existence in a body was not part of the eternal essence of divinity.63 In short: Christians believe in incarnation, whereas the Tanakh simply believes in embodiment.64

Suppose one wished to combine the physicality notion of God with the trinity. Well, in what sense is there only one God? In what sense is the Logos made flesh(especially if God all along was already flesh)? We have seen the idea the Word ceases to be divine suffers major criticisms:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/07/21/kenotic-christology/

So, does Jesus’ human body contain a divine body? That is rather strange to believe. In what sense here is it to maintain the Father, Son, and Spirit are one and yet distinct? If they are merely three different embodied modes of some deity, then you have apparently three different deities as much as three different humans are not the same being. If they all share some mind, then they are derivative of some greater immaterial mind that works these three bodies as if they were truly separate in some regard. In other words, that option reduces to modalism. If the Father is the superior mind from which the other two derive, then we are semi-Arian. So, it seems this suffers from the same difficulties that arise in Trinitarian conversation.

Lastly, it must be noted the incoherence of this idea where God is comprised of divine matter. If God is matter, then he subject to the forces of time and space. He is dependent on the world and needs it to be himself(he is made of materials that are more fundamental). But why should we trust inductive reasoning? If these laws of the universe remain outside the control of God then it seems quite likely that we have no reason to suppose we can reason inductively. So, to accept such a perspective leaves you with saying that we can’t trust our ability to reason. But if that is the case, then why accept this perspective?