My logic is simple. If God is omnipresent, then God is not a body of flesh <Non Sequitur> in the same was as I am a body of flesh, because we'd all be stuck trying to walk around inside a body of flesh which we could not do . . . . therefore, God is a spirit, just like Jesus said.
Absolutely! God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.
So, you’re saying that God can be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and yet He is incapable of having a body? Can you provide the logic that intimates the God that created this universe cannot have a spiritual body, and be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent?
I’ll tell you what; I’ll let God be God, and I’ll simply be His servant.
Then you would be proceeding on an assumption, as SOME appearances are BELIEVED to be that of Jesus, but to say ALL, is nothing more than a presupposition on your part.
And if Jesus is truly God, how could some of the appearances NOT be of Jesus? <Clear cases of misrepresentation>
Unfortunately for your assertion, the scripture says that we were created “in His Image”. And as I provided in abundance, God has body parts, so it ONLY follows that God has a body.
Well, let me be perfectly clear about this. We are created in the image of God. But the image of God in man is not in the two eyes, the two feet, the one head. Instead, the image of God in man is our soul, our mind, our spiritual nature.
Consider the cherubim:
Isa 6:2-3 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory."
They too are in the image of God. <Clear cases of misrepresentation>
No Paul, I think you do indeed get it… Anyway, I’m saying that GOD said we were created in His image. Evolutionists claims that man evolved from an ape-like creature. The Bible nowhere makes such a claim, or gives any support for such a claim, therefore either God looks like an ape-like creature, or the evolutionary claim is bunk (i.e. foundationless).
And another point to make is that even if God have His own physical body as a target to copy as He fashioned us, this does not preclude Him from using evolution as a means to fashion us <Non Sequitur>
. In such a case we would expect to see the evolutionary method resulting in one line among the many that more and more closely resembled His target for His image until - Bingo <Clear cases of misrepresentation>
! The process was complete.
That is not my opinion about God's body and God's image, but it is a logical possibility that could be entertained. <Clear cases of misrepresentation>
Well, you go ahead and believe God cannot change His image and I'll go ahead and believe God can appear in any form He chooses to and we'll just let it go at that.
Further, the God of the Bible is not a capricious God, so claiming “God can make Himself to be like us whether or not He created us by means of evolution” is itself not scripturally founded, is nothing more than a hypothesis, and is nothing but the fallacious “straw man” assertion . Also, there is no Biblical support for your hypothesis that God would change his image on a whim.
How can I set forth alternate possibilities for the sake of discussion and not be breaking forum rules on "equivocation"? <Complaining about board moderation>
Therefore, either scripture is correct, or your attempt to change it to fit the macro-evolutionary hypothesis is correct. I’ll put my eternity on the scripture, you can put yours wherever you want. I would further remind you to read the forum rules on “Equivocation”.
This is what’s known as a “Non Sequitur” as absolutely nothing in Matt4:4 provides evidence for macro-evolution. In fact, all it really provides (in context) is that God has a mouth, and from His mouth comes the words that we are to live by.
Yes, it does involve scripture, but your attempted rationale doesn’t follow from the scripture that you are attempting to link it to.
Well, of course, we disagree, don't we? Is this a surprise, somehow? I'll continue to believe my logic there is sound, you continue to believe it is not.
Below is a far better, and more accurate syllogism concerning said scripture.
Premise 1 – Paul wants to link macro-evolution to the Bible via scripture.
Premise 2 – The scripture Paul used provides that God has a mouth.
Premise 3 – It follows then, that if God has a mouth, God has a body.
Premise 4 – God said that man was created in His image.
Premise 5 – It follows then, that if man was created in Gods Image, and man has a body, than God has a body.
Premise 6 – God’s word says that He is a spirit.
Premise 7 – There is absolutely NO reason to believe that a spirit cannot have a body.
Premise 8 – In Genesis, God said that He walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the.
Premise 9 – If God walked, it stands to reason the He had legs; and if God had legs, it stands to reason that He has a body.
Conclusion – ALL scripture adduced provides that God has a Body. Further, Paul has not provided any evidence contrary to this!
Again, we simply disagree as to the forms being used in scripture. Does God or does God not have wings? <Clear cases of misrepresentation>
Ps 57:1 Be gracious to me, O God, be gracious to me,
For my soul takes refuge in You;
And in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge
Until destruction passes by.
Is our image of God incomplete, as we lack wings? <Clear cases of misrepresentation>
I say nay, these are poetic references, all of them. <Clear cases of misrepresentation> Clarification with emphasis on forum rules violations AND blatant fallacious claims. (Admin Ron)
A “hyper literalist” Paul? Really??
First – I’m not sure you actually understand what a Biblical literalist really is (as most Theistic Evolutionist follows the misinterpretation).
Second – Using an Ad Hominem abusive directed toward me is really not a good idea in this forum.
Why would you even say that, and what does it even have to do with the conversation?
Further , when you make a fallacious accusation against a forum member, especially against an administrator at this site, you may find that your stay will be far shorter than you anticipated.
I beg your pardon, I did not realize that when you engaged me in debate you were also retaining all the prerogatives of your position as moderator as well. Very well, I shall attempt to keep that in mind.
Not at all Paul…What does eating locust have to do with your misinterpretation of Matt 4:4?
Nothing at all, it has to do with being literal in interpreting the Bible, the very thing you seem to want me to do. I'm speaking of the number of legs attributed to the locusts and in addition attributed to all other flying insects, which number is clearly stated as four.
I don't see how one can follow such slavishly literal ways of interpreting statements about God speaking with His mouth and still accept that flying insects have more than four legs. But perhaps you DO accept that flying insects are four-legged. I don't know, yet, that you don't, and in that case perhaps you do remain consistent in your biblical interpretations.
Most people interpreting this scripture about the insects being four-legged agree that insects are truly six legged and this passage is to not be interpreted literally, but it should be understood in some non literal fashion, perhaps counting the use of the phrase as an idiom, for example.
Perhaps you are consistent and don't do that. Let me know.