"Crux-ifixion" -- For Execution and for Post-Mortem Torture of "Departed Souls"

Virgil is quoted by Frederick C. Grant, Ancient Roman Religion (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1957) 209-10. Virgil wrote:

“Not even when their last day of life is done, and life and light depart, not even then do all the deep evils of body wholly leave them; for it is inevitable that many a long-continued evil should take an amazingly deep root.” What does Virgil say will help such hardened practicers of evil? They should be put on the crux for their own good! Says Virgil, “Hence they are disciplined with punishment, and pay in suffering for their lifelong sins; some are hung stretched out to the empty winds.”

We find that Virgil is inconsistent, for elsewhere he states his belief that those who do not receive burial are, for that lack, miserable souls in the nether world; therefore, he has forgot his crux-redeeming theory, which had it that it was for discipline and improvement in the nether world that an executed criminal’s crux-displayed corpse receives no burial. Here is how Virgil puts on the lips of one whom he makes to offer commentary on the departed souls of those who die but receive no burial. One such soul was that of the noble and virtuous Paulinurus, a helmsman lost overboard. Virgil says that Paulinurus’ soul was addressed by someone sympathetic to his plight, and he said to Paulinurus:

“Son of Anchises, true offspring of the gods, you see the deep pools of Cocytus and the Stygian marsh, by whose power the gods fear to swear falsely. This crowd which you see are all helpless and unburied; Charon is the ferryman; those whom the waves bear across have found a tomb. Nor is it permitted to cross these awful banks and hoarse-throated streams until their bones have found a resting place. Whence comes, O Paulinurus, this fierce longing of yours? Are you, without burial, to behold the Stygian waters and the awful river of the Furies, and draw near the bank unbidden? Cease to hope that heaven’s decrees may be turned aside by prayer! But keep my words in your memory, for comfort in your hard lot. Far and wide the neighboring cities will be driven by celestial portents to appease your dust; they shall build for you a tomb” (Grant, 210).

Virgil glibly excuses the cruelty of executions upon a crux (the crux simplex, a stake) and would try to hide the real motive behind executioners’ exposing or keeping exposed a corpse on a crux so that animals might have their way with it, for the real motive in bringing about ghastly spectacles of criminals executed upon a stake and their being left there upon the crux was because of a cruelty in the executioners who could not be done with the criminal through their merely having executed him. They must ensure his torment of mind, so they thought, even in the nether world, which should occur, they thought, if they made sure that the one dying upon the crux was kept there so that he might not have a burial.

Richard Broxton Onians, The Origins of European Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1951), 272 has this to say about the way ancient and classical Greeks looked upon the matter of buried bones being properly treated so that the soul might be aided after departing the body.

“The dead were above all ‘the dry ones.’ Alike the bones and the YUCH {soul} (still associated with them and the grave) were dry. Their great need, therefore, was liquid − preferably actual life-liquid of animal or plant or just the elemental liquid, water − what would help them to the state of the ‘living’ otherwise known as ‘wet’ (DIEROS). The characteristic offerings to the dead were in fact ‘pourings’ (COAI) . . . the habit still existing in Greece of breaking vessels filled with water on the tombs of departed friends . . . In classical times, also, water was poured for the dead. It was received, drunk, by the YUCH; to the bones it was a ‘bath’ (LOUTRON) . . . conferring life-liquid.”

Now, the philosophers prided themselves that they were not deceived by superstitions about what happens to the souls of those who have died. But of course they were still deceived, some by materialistic atheism and others by doctrine of the immortality of the human soul.

Next, I would like to address briefly here the question of the origin of Christendom's cross. Does the construction of a cross or tau-shaped device (i.e., an image constructed of -- or a depiction written as -- a certain combination of two elements; see what next follows) -- represent the shape of the instrument of execution upon which our Lord Jesus Christ was affixed, namely, (1) a vertical or upright member combined with (2) a transverse or crosswise member (where the transverse element is significantly lowered)? Neither the Bible, in an accurate translation from its original languages, nor secular history supports an affirmative answer to that question. The historiography appertaining this subject is voluminous and, as written and catalogued, is scattered across several languages (viz., Latin, Hebrew, Greek, French, German, English, Spanish, etc.). It is indeed a pleasant surprise when a student of the subject happens to find a site on the internet that accurately presents what things that reader's own years of research have revealed, and presents it in a highly readable fashion, concisely and succinctly, for a popular audience, but still giving an accurate distillation of the pertinent, historical data. For example, there is mention of a symbol that the New King James Version (NKJV) translation committee used as their Bible's logo:





 I have seen a discussion of this symbol; it is the Celtics' "Triquetra" emblem. Yes, it signifies Trinity to the Irish Catholic Church, but what meaning did the symbol have in a pre-Christian Celtic culture? So, the site has an interesting presentation, and it shows us how the Catholics consciously borrowed from pagan Celtic culture, reinterpreting it so that new converts from Celtic paganism might hold on to their sacred, comforting devices if they would but confess them as imbued with a reinterpreted, "Christian" meaning. Constantine had done this very thing for the bishops of the "Christianity" of his day in the 4th century. So, now for a few of such particulars. That site's URL and some excerpts from it are given below, too.

*******************************************

http://www.whats-your-sign.com/celtic-symbol-for-trinity.html

Celtic Trinity Symbol and Triquetra Meaning

The Celtic symbol for trinity has a myriad of symbolic meaning.

We see the trinity motif in Celtic knots, as well as in symbol-form like the triquetra and triskelion (a.k.a. triskele or fylfot)  

To the ancient Celtic mind, it may also signify the lunar or solar phases. This conclusion is made as we see the trinity/triquetra motif alongside other solar and lunar symbols in ancient remants [sic] and archeological digs.

Validating this theory, we know the Celts honored the Great Mother, a lunar goddess who was actually three personifications in one (three lunar phases and faces of the goddess)....

The Celtic symbol for trinity may also pertain to the three Bridgits [sic. Elsewhere the name of the goddess has her name translated into English as "Bridgid."]  Bridgit [sic] is one powerful goddess (aspect of Danu), who embodies three aspects which are:

Art
Healing
Metal smithing

*******************************************

http://www.celtarts.com/celtic.htm

The Cross did not become a common symbol of Christianity until the 4th century. Images of the cross were in fact quite rare before the Golden Legend became popular and the "discovery" of the "True Cross" promoted fragments of the "True Cross" as powerful relics....

There are in Britain stone monuments that may be the ancestor of the Celtic Cross. The Chi-Rho symbol, the monogram of Christ was a commonly used symbol of Christianity in the 4th century Roman Empire. The Emperor Constantine who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire used as his emblem the Chi-Rho in a laurel wreath. Thus combined were a pagan Imperial symbol of Rome with a symbol of the new faith. The diagonal cross members of the Chi were eventually conventionalized to a single horizontal cross member that made its cross with the vertical stem of the Rho and the wreath was conventionalized into a simple circle. There are examples of this where the loop of the Rho is also conventionalized into a shepherd’s crook. One can easily see how the curved crook of the staff could disappear to leave just a cross in a circle as is common in many Welsh crosses of the early Celtic Christian period which followed the Roman withdrawal from Britain....

Constantine used the Chi-Rho as a military insignia and victory symbol as well. The cross symbolizes Christ's victory. Military use of the cross as a favorite element of heraldry descends from the shields and standards of the Roman Empire.

(Now I end my making what I trust has been fair use of excerpts from the two sites referenced above.)

On "What Is Holy Spirit?" and on "Where Is Reality?"

endenux
Reading Topic #1477, reply 4
4. "RE: Questions about Jehovah's 'invisible active force'"
Oct-31-05, 05:09 PM (EST)
In response to message #3

We know different forces exist in the physical realm. We speak of contact forces and action-at-a-distance forces. We speak also (1) of external forces (applied, normal, tensional, friction, air resistance), which do work on an object by changing its total mechanical energy ( = potential energy plus kinetic energy); and (2) of internal forces (gravitational, magnetic, electrical, spring), which do work on objects by changing an object's potential energy to kinetic energy, or vice-versa.

But, what do we mean by "an object's energy"? What is energy? We don't know, just as we do not know what gravity is. We slip easily between formal and informal concepts even in our "scientific" language. An interesting read on this subject may be found at

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Mod1/Unitall/QuizAnswers_further_discussions.htm

We need not let ourselves become enmeshed in semantical games when describing the work of holy spirit as result of a special kind of action-at-a-distance force that belongs properly to God, from Whom it proceeds for accomplishment of work even across so great a distance as that which separates God's organism from objects in the physical realm.

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 7
7. "RE: On not getting"
Oct-31-05, 08:20 PM (EST)
In response to message #6

Hello, Rob,

You quoted me as follows:

>We need not let ourselves become enmeshed in
>semantical games when describing the work of holy spirit
>as result of a special kind of action-at-a-distance force
>that belongs properly to God, from Whom it proceeds for
>accomplishment of work even across so great a distance as
>that which separates God's organism from objects in the
>physical realm.

And then you asked:

>I was hoping someone would say something along these
>lines. Do I understand you correctly, then, to be saying
>that one need not agree to engage in semantical games to
>defend one's beliefs about God, assuming we understand
>those beliefs to derive from God's word?

My answer: Yes. We need only to show the reasonableness of the language for the concept expressed. Your game is one you could have pulled against Jesus, who is quoted in one of the Gospels as saying he accomplishes expulsion of demons by means of something belonging to God (namely, God's finger); however, another Gospel account quotes him as saying that he accomplishes the expulsion by means of holy spirit. Well, holy spirit belongs properly to God, that is to say, it is a property of God's being, a special force that God makes proceed from Himself. Holy spirit, then, means that God can accomplish work in places where He is not personally present, but accomplish the work as though He were personally present at some place in order to exert a contact force -- as though the work were accomplished by means of Him exerting finger pressure. Do you have trouble understanding such a concept? Or would you obfuscate the concept by means of a word game?

Endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 13
13. "RE: Finger of God = Spirit of God?"
Nov-01-05, 03:17 PM (EST)
In response to message #12

Rob,

You wrote:

>You're assuming an "ontological identification in
>referents" for the expressions "finger of God" and "Spirit
>of God." What else is God besides 'spirit,' and is any of
>his being not 'holy'? Are you saying that 'holy spirit' is
>a small part of God's being?

All that you have done is to assert that I am (unwittingly?) operating from the assumption that there is an ontological identification for the referents intended by the phrases "finger of God" [taken in the sense that the phrase was supposedly given as reference to a supposedly literal finger attached to God's body, thus leading to the baseless charge "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God literally has fingers"], and "Spirit of God." I make no such assumption, nor have you shown us that anything I have written must somehow logically devolve to my having unwittingly assumed such a position. I do assert in line with the Scriptures, however, that we do not know what differentiae [sic] there are for God's organism as compared to a soulical person's organism (compare 1 John 3:2). We do know that His organism is viewable by His angelic sons who can station themselves before His face for audience with God (see Job 1:6). We have fingers, and we know how we use them; however, we do not know what to say about how God makes use of His organism in Heaven. We can say that His organism is of a spiritual composition like the angels' bodies are (see Hebrews 1:7), and such is also true as respects the bodies of those attaining to heavenly life upon their resurrection from the dead. Will trinitarians really take that to mean that heavenly beings -- those who, like God, have spiritual bodies -- may be referred to as "Holy Spirit," too? Wait! I know they won't, and that despite the pertinent implication at 1 John 3:2 that God does have a body (see also John 5:37). But still you trinitarians don't say that the being of God has embodiment, is corporeal. Well, your ignoring the Scriptures is the basis for your confusion, namely, that God in His being does not have shape, figure, but is amorphously omnipresent, and thus identical to that which is referenced by the mass noun "spirit" when you trinitarians use it in the phrase "Holy Spirit." But you cannot saddle us with the dilemma you would like for us to have, because we can show from the Scriptures that God does have a body, a spiritual organism. So, your question "What else is God besides 'spirit,' and is any of his being not 'holy'?" can only have force for those who accept trinitarians' dogma that God is an amorphous, omnipresent, spiritual being. (Actually, I could have written at this juncture far more than I have time to write just now, but I will point out that the concept of an amorphous, omnipresent God logically does not really leave any literal room for God to make separation from Himself of "holy spirit," though the language of Scripture is that holy spirit "proceeds from the Father" -- John 15:26.)

Just because we should agree that God does not have a shape to His organism that resembles the shape/construction of a human organism does not mean that we should say that God does not have ability to cause to proceed from Himself an action-at-a-distance force, and that such may be metaphorically referenced, for our sake, under the figure of God's "finger." We are thereby helped to make a comparison between, on the one hand, how much work God is able to accomplish (with relatively so little effort on His part) and, on the other hand, how little work we accomplish by comparison to God's, though it requires us to exert every fiber in our being, and thus far more than just use of a finger.

Rob, you wrote:

>I'm not criticizing Jesus' metaphor, but your harmonizing
>interpretation of the metaphor as a reference specifically
>to the Holy Spirit, . .

You have failed to criticize in any convincing fashion my pointing out that Jesus used the metaphor of 'God's finger' as reference to God's holy spirit, and that such use of the metaphor does logically suggest that holy spirit is not God Himself, but is a property of God's being.

>complete with implications drawn that
>are nowhere articulated in Scripture (e.g., apparently,
>that the Holy Spirit must be only a small part of the
>being of God).

Hmmm . . . Quantification of holy spirit -- 'What part/measure of God's being is its property holy spirit?' -- is non sequitur to my position. Nowhere does my argument suggest that holy spirit is only a small part of God's being. BUT if we make comparison between how much force a human must exert for accomplishment of some work as opposed to how much force God must, as a bare minimum requirement, exert for accomplishment of the same work, then we could illustrate it by saying that it requires God to use merely His finger, as it were, when it required us to use every fiber of our being. Really, Rob, you must be playing games with words here in this thread! I am not one to play these games with you.

>I agree that the metaphor of "God's finger" implies not
>only that the specified event is done by God but that it
>was easy for him to do it.

Good. I didn't see as much from you in your earlier posts. But if you have that insight, then I wonder how you can raise questions that suggest to me either that you are playing games with words in this thread, or that you do not know how to apply the insight, for I certainly can see no logical way you came by your assertion that somehow my argument means that holy spirit is only a small part of God's being. At this point, I trust that our readers can understand why I am exasperated by the nature of your response.

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 14
14. "RE: Finger of God = Spirit of God? Clarification"
Nov-01-05, 09:21 PM (EST)
In response to message #13

I wrote:

>All that you {Rob} have done is to assert that
>I am (unwittingly?) operating from the
>assumption that there is an ontological
>identification for the referents intended by
>the phrases "finger of God" and "Spirit of
>God." I make no such assumption, . . .

What I mean is that we do not take the phrase "finger of God" literally, non-metaphorically, and then assert that Jesus' means that God's holy spirit is a real finger on God's organism. If we understand the phrase "finger of God" as a metaphor, then it stands, of course, as reference to God's holy spirit, and logically suggests that holy spirit is one of the properties in God's being. We might come close to such an assertion if we were to assert that God has necessarily to make some part of His organism a point of contact with some other object before work on that object might become accomplished. But we do not say that, either.

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 17
17. "RE: Now we're getting into something important: Does God have a body?"
Nov-03-05, 01:11 AM (EST)
In response to message #15
Rob, you wrote:

>I meant that you identified "finger of God" as
>having the same referent (referring to the same
>ontological reality) as "Spirit of God." You
>confirmed in your clarification that indeed you
>were making that identification or equation. So my
>observation was correct.

But you also stated in the following words:

>The action attributed to God in both passages
>is not akin to "exerting a contact force" by
>"exerting finger pressure."

And in line with what I stated in an earlier post, it is not necessary for God to exert contact pressure by bringing any part of his organism directly into contact with an object. That is not the point of the metaphor, as I have already made clear. We do not read it as though it were one for suggesting such a thing about God. You left yourself quite some wiggle room, though, by your words ". . . is not akin to . . ." But if your observation is that Jehovah's Witnesses take from the metaphor the thought that God exerts a contact force upon objects, then you have no discernment whatsoever as to what we believe about God and holy spirit.

Rob, you wrote:

>Your main proof text for the idea that God has a body is 1
>John 3:2. I assume you have in mind here John's statement
>"that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him,
>because we shall see him just as he is" (1 John 3:2 NWT).
>Honestly, it is quite a leap from this statement to the
>conclusion that God has a body.

Honestly, Rob, I cannot fathom how you can say that God is not an object in Heaven that can be seen in a way that only other spirit persons can see Him.

Rob, you wrote:

>In what way shall we "be like him"? Like him in
>possessing a 'spirit body' such as you believe
>that God has? John does not say so.

God will become manifested to those gaining heavenly life, and then they will have an answer to the question "What will they be?" It is answered by their seeing God in Heaven. The text tells us that it is God Himself as He is that they will behold. John, in his words at 1 John 3:2, is not focusing on God's personality characteristics in the words of that verse, but rather on what hope their special God-given status as God's children has put in them, namely, a heavenly hope, to be at home in heaven where they expect to see their Father. It is in verse 3 that John shows what is required of those who would realize that hope: they must purify themselves just as that one is pure. Thus does John in verse 3 bring into focus their Father's personality that they must emulate for its qualities.

Rob, you wrote:

>I am not sure what to make of your appeal to Job 1:6. Are
>you saying that God has a literal face?

God has an organism, and evidently this organism is one immediately detectable by His spirit creatures in Heaven. Does this mean that God and spirit creatures have photon-sensitive organs (eyes) for seeing in the way that humans see? No, but that does not rule out that information is transmitted by a spiritual organism in such a way as uniquely identifies it vis-à-vis all other organisms, and reveals its placement among all other organisms. Other information from the organism will be transmitted and appropriately detected by another organism, and this will constitute communication between spiritual organisms. What language (method of encoding the transmitted data) does it have? We don't know. But in either case, there is nothing amiss when we use for God and spirit creatures the anthropomorphic language of 'seeing with eyes' and 'hearing with ears.' Just because we don't know the nature of what the "seeing" and "hearing" are in the spiritual realm does not mean that there are not spiritual organisms in Heaven, which are properly equipped for their having the analogues of that which we experience as seeing with our eyes and hearing with our ears. We don't know the very nature of the data transmitted from one spirit person to another, and we cannot say how a spirit person's organism is "wired" for making the spirit person aware of realities external to his organism.

Rob, you wrote:

>. . . do you also think God has a . . . literal face?

The angels know when they are in the bodily presence of God, and they know when He is directing His attention to one or more of them for communications. An angel is able to move his body into a place he did not previously occupy vis-à-vis God's own body in order to let it be known that he is having a one-on-one communication with God. (See 1 Kings 22:21.) It seems right to me to say that this suggests that an angel needs to detect that God, too, has something about His organism that makes it appropriate that the angel adjust orientation of his own organism in relation to God's in order that the angel might have respectful one-on-one communication between himself and Jehovah. I do not see at present why we cannot say that that "something about His organism" that facilitates such behavior is an analogue to what we experience when beholding a person's face, and in that way God has a face that angels, when they are "in heaven," always behold (Matthew 18:10).

Rob, you wrote:

>You cited Hebrews 1:7 to support the idea that angels'
>bodies are composed of spirit. However, while I agree that
>angels are spirits, this text does not say or imply that
>angels have bodies. In fact, if anything it is a good
>proof text for the position that they do NOT have bodies.
>In this verse angels are compared in their ontology to
>winds and flames of fire, neither of which are corporeal
>or embodied.

Angels are among the things invisible, and these spirits -- again, see 1 Kings 22:21 -- have definite location or place in Heaven. This verse does not suggest that we take the word "spirit" as description of an incorporeality for angels. See above for that discussion. As for how angels are made "spirits," I think it possible for us to see that Paul speaks in a poetic manner for a play on a certain two of the several meanings that PNEUMA has in the Scriptures, this so that angels, who are spiritual in their ontology, have ability also to act like a wind (PNEUMA). They are invisible like a wind is, and can act in a very forceful manner, and thus cause us to think of the forcefulness that certain winds can have. The angels can, in implementing God's adverse judgments, also act in a very fiery (destructive) way against those condemned. In that way they are also like a fiery flame.

endenux

P.S. I noticed that you did not comment on all of my arguments.

Reading Topic #1477, reply 21
21. "RE: Now we're getting into something important: Does God have a body?"
Nov-06-05, 02:07 AM (EST)
In response to message #17

As I had hoped to do, I have finished composing my reply, and it follows:

Dr. Dale Moody (Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Systematic Theology and Chairman of Historical-Theological Division, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1970), The Letters of John (Waco, TX: Word, Inc., 1970) 61:

“Here [at 1 John 3:2] the Hebrew and the Hellenistic views on the Vision of God collide. Gnosticism taught that mystical contemplation could lead to a direct Vision of God here and now in human history . . . Jesus taught that the pure in heart would see God in the future, but not in the present (Matthew 5:8) . . . The claim that the direct Vision of God is granted for brief periods to some elite souls was disputed in the Middle Ages. Even Thomas Aquinas believed it was possible under exceptional circumstances, as in the case of Moses and Paul…. God’s children will be like God when they see him, but at present they are only in the process of purification and transformation.” (Emphasis is mine.)

Dr. Moody reads 1 John 3:2 in a way that is the most natural read of the words. He contradicts your read, Rob. Really, the verb translated “we-shall-see” at 1 John 3:2 does not have the meaning “we-shall-know” at that place. If it were so, then we should have to take 1 John 3:2 for the meaning that we shall get to know all God’s personality characteristics “just as” (KAQWS) they are, which would mean that we would get to know God’s holiness, for example, just as it is; however, that can’t be because God’s holiness is infinite, and we will never get to know God’s holiness − nor His wisdom, righteousness, love − to its infinite degree, just as it is (compare Romans 11:33). There is neither in the context for 1 John 3:2 nor anywhere else in the Scriptures anything that would recommend your interpretation of 1 John 3:2. The natural read for 1 John 3:2 shows us that God has a body that can be seen by all persons who are in Heaven. Just as there is no such thing as a man in existence without a (physical) body, so also is there no spirit being without a (spiritual) body; all persons have bodies (see 1 Corinthians 15:44, 45). In fact, I can’t see any coherence in a doctrine that has it that angels and God are incorporeal spirits. If there is not a means whereby an angel is given a place in relation to the placement of all other things − which is what embodiment suffices to accomplish for an angel − then angels would be omnipresent. Maybe trinitarians don’t have a problem with that, because they say that God, Who is a spirit, is omnipresent. I cannot see how one can hold that omnipresent beings may have interaction with each other without there being a locus to their being. It seems to me that because angels are not omnipresent, then they do in fact have size and shape, and that regardless of how large or small their size may be in relation to other things in the spirit realm.

Now, let us revisit John 5:37b. Jesus, at John 5:37b, is referring to God’s figure ( = “shape,” “form,” or “face” as variously rendered in several English versions). He is not referring merely to a manifestation of God’s glory of a sort that was seen, and that by even a stiff-necked people for the forty years that they wandered in the wilderness (see Nehemiah 9:19) until they perished in the wilderness as result of God’s adverse judgment against them. What those rebellious Israelites were seeing in the wilderness was not “the similitude of the LORD” (see Numbers 12:8 KJV) such as Moses saw. The Hebrew word temunah is used at Deuteronomy 4:15, and in that verse the fire of Jehovah’s glory on Mount Horeb is expressly denied to be Jehovah’s “similitude” (temunah). The interesting thing here, though, is that nothing is said that should mean that possession of a similitude is not a property belonging to Jehovah; it is simply that no man has seen or can see Jehovah’s actual figure and live. He may see a representation of Jehovah manifested in a very glorious (refulgent), upright form/figure. Moses saw as much, but even then Jehovah, as He had previously explained to Moses, did not show Moses even the representation of a face on the upright, representative figure that went passing by Moses. It isn’t that Jehovah’s actual figure in heaven is without an actual face, but as respects the representation that Moses saw, Jehovah used the occasion to teach Moses that no man is really able to withstand being in the very presence of Jehovah’s actual figure.

endenux

P.S. I see that you, Rob, have made additional response, too. My quick perusal of it leaves me with the impression that nothing you assert or question is something that has not already been logically met by a careful review of my now-completed response. I may post further, but then again, I may not. I am quite content to let readers make what they will of our responses to this subject.

Reading Topic #1477, reply 22
"RE: Does God have a body?"
Nov-06-05, 04:48 PM (EST)
In response to message #18

Rob, you quoted my words:

>>And in line with what I stated in an earlier
>>post, it is not necessary for God to exert contact
>>pressure by bringing any part of his organism directly
>>into contact with an object. That is not the point of the
>>metaphor, as I have already made clear. We do not read it
>>as though it were one for suggesting such a thing about
>>God. You left yourself quite some wiggle room, though, by
>>your words ". . . is not akin to . . ." But if your
>>observation is that Jehovah's Witnesses take from the
>>metaphor the thought that God exerts a contact force upon
>>objects, then you have no discernment whatsoever as to
>>what we believe about God and holy spirit.

That was your "observation," was it not? I don't see that I have made a misrepresentation of your so-called observation.

And so I see no merit in your remonstrance that followed:

>My words "is not akin to" should have clued you in that I
>was not misconstruing your position in the first place.
>For you to respond as though I were misrepresenting your
>position, and then treat my words "is not akin to" as
>somehow me leaving myself wiggle room in my alleged
>misrepresentation of your position, is a case of special
>pleading.

You next wrote:

>. . . I am asking you (and the other Jehovah's
>Witnesses here) to clarify your doctrine about 'holy
>spirit.' I find it confusing, incoherent, and vague, . . .

As do I as respects your theology. You have not logically acquitted yourself of the arguments that I raised against your theology for its incoherence.

You quoted me as follows:

>>Honestly, Rob, I cannot fathom how you can say
>>that God is not an object in Heaven that can be seen in a
>>way that only other spirit persons can see
>>Him.

And then you merely ask:

>Er...did I say that?

I infer from what you have written that your position devolves to statement, in effect, that God is not an object in Heaven that can be seen in a way that only other spirit persons can see Him.

Rob, you next asserted:

>Let's face it, your original use of 1 John 3:2 asserted
>more than you are now claiming.

Absolutely not true. You have not shown any such thing. What you have managed to show me by your remonstrance is that you have not understood what I have written, which does not surprise me.

Rob, you wrote:

>Your reasoning here is unclear. I fail to see how anything
>you say necessitates the conclusion that God has a body.

I added more in my last response. If you do not wish to address it, fine. If not, then I will not have been held in any suspense.

>I had asked: "I am not sure what to make of your appeal to
>Job 1:6. Are you saying that God has a literal face?"

Again, God's face is not one that we can get to know by any description of it in human language.

You wrote:

>So now the word of choice is apparently 'organism.' The
>Bible doesn't say that God is an organism, either.

All organisms are bodies, but not all bodies are organisms. I can, in context of God's personhood, use body and organism interchangeably. "Organism" suggests for the body so referenced (by "organism") the presence of differentiae in the body. Our sight of a perfectly spherical object does not show us any point on its surface that is different in shape from any other point on its surface. But God has distinguishing characteristics in His body.

>You apparently agree that God does not have a literal 'face,'

You have misread me. I did not say that God did not have a literal face. God has a face, but it is not a face that we can appreciate per any attempt that might have been made in the Scriptures for a literal description of it. He has a face, but only other spirits can know what it is.  It does not yet appear to anointed (heavenly destined) Christians still in the flesh what appearance God's face has (see 1 John 3:2).

You wrote:

> . . . {You apparently agree that God does not have} literal 'eyes,'

You got that much right.

You wrote:

>but you want to conclude somehow from these figurative
>expressions that God has a literal body (or
>"organism").

No, I conclude from Scriptural revelation that God has a body with the properties of sight and hearing. Just exactly how those properties are present in God's organism, then, is not known -- is not knowable by humans as humans. Still, the Scriptures plainly reveal that God has ability to hear (see Psalm 94:9). The Bible does not say that Jehovah hears or sees because He has ears or eyes like ours. However, that Jehovah has a body gives us reasonable basis to conclude that something in God's organism, then, enables Him to hear and see. What that something is per any literal description of it in the language used in Heaven escapes our ability as humans to know and to appreciate.

You wrote:

>But you cannot infer a literal body

No, I need not infer any such thing. The Scriptures make it plain enough that God has a body.

You continued:

> . . . from a figurative face.

I have never said that God's body is without a literal face. He does not have a figurative face; angels in Heaven know how to describe to each other God's face. We can only appreciate anthropomorphic description of His face (e.g., the Scriptural references to God's nostrils, mouth, hair, and ears are anthropomorphic terms for exactly what really exists in the summit of God's figure, but which we cannot literally describe); we do not have ability to describe literally what the appearance (size and shape) and number of God's facial features are.

You asked:

>Does God, then, have something analogous to a chair on
>which he sits in heaven? Does he have something analogous
>to a robe? How big is God's body--how tall is it, do you
>think?

We must not deny Scriptural revelation, which is that God has a body, and just because language used about God's body is necessarily anthropomorphic language does not rule against the coherence of that revelation. Nothing you have presented rules against Scriptural revelation that God has a body with distinguishing characteristics for identifying Him (Jehovah). God literally has a unique and superior place/position in the midst of other spirit persons in Heaven, which, for sake of the sensibilities of a certain culture (one not steeped in metaphysical discussion for fielding objections from trinitarians) the Scriptures describe in anthropomorphic terms (robe, throne, etc.). I see nothing paradoxical about the Scriptures' use of such terms for anthropomorphic description of God.

You wrote:

> . . . none of the texts you cited supports the idea
>that angels or God have bodies, which you seem to have
>realized because you largely backed off that original
>claim.

You suffer from some inability to understand what I have written.

>God, as the creator of the space-time continuum,

That is a metaphysical assumption on your part. If God is not a static being and is one Who has always owned in Heaven a body of size and shape, then your statement must be seen as false. I need not widen out the discussion into more comment on my part as to how such is the case.

I wish to add one more thought about personhood. We cannot divorce body and mind from each other if it is our purpose to discuss what it means for a person to exist. Personhood is an irreducible substance of being. We become incoherent if we say that a person can exist/live without a body. If a (human) body has in its skull a brain so severely damaged that the body (brain), short of a real miracle from God, will not again serve as a natural ground of existence for the mind that had once existed before the brain was damaged -- if a mind has become irretrievably lost because of irreversible brain death --, then there has occurred the death of a person, the death of the one who was a person because he was composed of mind and body, and that despite the presence of biological life still resident in the vast number of cells comprising the dead person's body (organism).

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 27
27. "RE: Does God have a body?"
Nov-07-05, 01:03 AM (EST)
In response to message #24

Rob, you wrote as follows:

>After I challenged that argument, your follow-up
>post said nothing with regard to 1 John 3:2 proving that
>God has a body, but only that it proves that spiritual
>beings can in some undefined (vague) sense "see" God. Read
>your own post and hopefully you'll "see" what I say is
>true.

I did. I made argument that strips you of your interpretation, but I noticed that you did not attempt to undo the damage I made against your interpretation. Demolition of an interpretation like yours for 1 John 3:2 leaves us with the most natural read for the text, which is that those resurrected to heavenly life will be able to describe what is really so about their bodies because they will see that their bodies are like God's for organismal features that spirit persons have. In fact, we can combine testimony from Paul's letter to the Philippians to show that the spiritual bodies of resurrected ones will more closely conform to God's and Christ's bodies than is so for angels' bodies. Paul wrote: "As for us, our citizenship exists in the heavens, from which place [literally, "out of where", EX hOU] we are eagerly awaiting for a savior the Lord Jesus Christ, who will refashion our humiliated bodies to be conformed to his glorious body . . ." (Php. 3:20, 21). Now, I will not widen this discussion in order to field your objections to the meaning that we Witnesses see in this text. We see that Jesus has a spiritual body in heaven (cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-50), and that Jesus' body figures into his now being "the image of the invisible God," "the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his very being" (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). "They will, therefore, receive bodies that are incorruptible, having immortality, as distinguishable from angels in general and from mankind, who are mortal" (Insight I, p. 348).

So, when John writes this about those resurrected into heavenly life "We shall be like him because we shall see him just as he is," then John means a reference to what is seen, namely, God's body. I am sorry for you that you have a problem in reasoning on the Scriptures so that, as a consequence, you don't see implicit reference to God's body in this text. Too bad for you, Rob.

Rob, you quoted me as follows:

>You wrote:
>
>>All organisms are bodies, but not all bodies
>are organisms. I can, in context of God's personhood,
>>use body and organism interchangeably. "Organism"
>>suggests for that body so referenced (by "organism")
>>the presence of differentiae in the body. Our sight
>>of a perfectly spherical object does not show us any
>>point on its surface that is different in shape from
>>any other point on its surface. But God has
>>distinguishing characteristics in His body.

And then you challenged me as follows:

>Book, chapter, and verse, please?

See my use of Php. 3:20, 21; Col. 1:15; and Heb. 1:3 above. It is not said that the Christ and those who will realize citizenship in the heavens (for heavenly life) will there resemble equally all other spirit persons. Their bodies will more closely resemble the bodies of Christ and Jehovah God. That, then, implies distinguishing characteristics in the bodies of spirit persons.

Rob, you quoted me as follows:

>You wrote:
>
>>You have misread me. I did not say that God
>>did not have a literal face. God has a face, but it is not
>>a face that we can appreciate per any attempt that might
>>have been made in the Scriptures for a literal description
>>of it. He has a face, but only other spirits can know what
>>it is.

And then you ask:

>I am glad for the clarification. You appear to be saying
>that God has a literal face but that no description of
>that face is given in Scripture that we can take
>literally. Is that right?

Right.

You next query me for clarification when you wrote as follows:

>I think further clarification is needed. So, can you
>please tell me whether according to your view God, the
>angels, and any other spirit beings in Heaven, reside in a
>three-dimensional space in which objects occupy space,
>with specific measurements of length, height, and width,
>and specific shapes or contours that define their
>"bodies," and whether these bodies move in such space and
>turn one direction and another, so that at one time a
>spirit being's "face" would "face" toward some of the
>spirit beings but not others? If you answer No, in what
>meaningful sense accessible to us can it be said that they
>have "bodies" and "faces"?

I have written some things in my posts that should answer to some -- admittedly, not all -- of your questions you raised in your last post, which I quoted above. Well, now, we would go much wider afield than what is necessary for my giving you answer to the challenge 'Where do the Scriptures teach us that God has a body?' If, though, you now agree that God has a body, then together we may pursue how certain metaphysically based theories can be overturned in those who are more interested in human reason than in God's Word. I don't mind trying to disabuse the minds of those who have a (wrong) metaphysical theory of what can be real; but, Rob, you don't have any such bias, do you? ;)

Rob, you asked the following:

>Also, if God has a literal body and a literal face, does
>he have literal:
>
>eyes?
>mouth?
>nose?
>hair?
>arms?
>fingers?

Rob, how many times do you need to see my denial of the statement 'The Scriptures show us that God literally possesses these organs,' but rather that the Scriptures make anthropomorphic reference to such things when speaking of them as though God has such things for His organism?

[N.B. I edited what I had originally written as response to Rob because the original response had the words " . . . my denial that the Scriptures do not show us that . . . "; so, my original response included incorrect use of "do not." I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused readers. The corrected, and (somewhat) enlarged, statement was made on May 29, 2010, at 11:10 AM Eastern.]

Rob, you wrote as follows:

>Again, I think I understand you to be saying that we don't
>have a description of these body parts in Scripture that
>can be taken literally.

Right.

Then you asked:

>But does God literally have these
>body parts?

No, we cannot say such.

>It seems that you have to say Yes, since you
>say that God has a literal body and a literal face. Yet
>above you say I got it right when I said that your
>position was that God does not have literal eyes. Why
>would the face be literal but not the eyes?

The face is where we look for resemblance between one person and another, and one's having a face makes possible how we orient ourselves in relation to other persons for respectful conversation with another person. Such behavior is in accordance with the way we are built. We are made in God's image. This includes certain psychological facts true in our being so that we may look for a counterpart for them in God's being. If, for sake of pursuing respectful one-on-one conversation with another person, we adjust orientation of our bodies, then that is to my mind convincing evidence that God has a counterpart in His organism, which also faces out from the summit of His figure, and thus facilitates a spirit person's seeking conversation with God. Such conclusion naturally follows, it seems to me, from Scriptural revelation that God has a body (organism). See 1 Kings 22:21. The details of the vision are so rich in their imagery that it strikes me that it pleases God for us to know that His loyal, angelic sons seek out His face for conversation with their Father when they are present in Heaven in God's presence. See Matthew 18:10, and ask yourself that if Jesus does not mean that the Father has a literal face, then why that little detail that it is in heaven that such behavior (seeing the Father's face) can be carried out? Why not say that angels on assignment to earth are still able to see God if, in fact, God is omnipresent as trinitarians assert? (By the way, are angels omnipresent, too, Rob?)

Rob, you quoted me as follows:

>You wrote:
>
>>The Scriptures make it plain enough that God
>>has a body.

You then ask:

>Where? You have not cited a single biblical text that
>attributes a "body" to God.

You are wrong. See above for proof that your assertion is not true.

You asserted:

>Your handling of biblical references to God as
>having body parts is inconsistent: he has a
>literal face but not literal eyes, and so forth.
>God has a literal body (although the word "body"
>is never used of God) but not a literal chair on
>which that body sits or a literal robe to wear on
>that body (although the Bible does speak of God's
>"throne" and of God "sitting" in it, and also
>speaks of God's "robe"). There is nothing "plain"
>about your argument that I can see except that it
>is plain wrong.

You are wrong in your view of what 1 John 3:2 and John 5:37 teach us. You have been wrong in what you say I infer from the Scriptures, as I made plain in my last post. And so it is no wonder to me that you assert that I have been inconsistent in the way I handle references to God as references that teach us that God has body parts. I stated, though, that God has a face and that other distinguishing characteristics exist in His body. My comments are entirely consistent with the fact that the Scriptures show us that God has a spiritual body, but also show us that Heaven is not a place where human organs like ours can be present either (1) in God, (2) in Christ, (3) in ordinary angels, or (4) in those persons who have been resurrected to heavenly life (see 1 Corinthians 15:50). But this does not rule out that God has a real face that can only be described in language that angels in heaven use. If God has an organism, then it naturally follows that some place in God's organism must serve a certain purpose that a face serves for us, but only insofar as it facilitates pertinent orientation between organisms wishing to enjoy face-to-face conversation. What other functions the facial region of God's organism may have we cannot say. We can say that it does not facilitate eating; it does not facilitate auditory expressions. It is not the place for nostrils, which are (1) for the sense of smell and (2) for respiration. It is not for accommodating placement of photon-sensitive eyes.

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 28
28. "RE: 1 John 3:2 and John 5:37"
Nov-07-05, 01:12 AM (EST)
In response to message #26

Rob,

As usual, you miss the salient point and misconstrue it. So here. Moody is pointing out that God's children will be like God when they see him. He says nothing that would indicate that this seeing God is not the Direct Vision of God sought by the Gnostics, but only that it is not granted in human history. And contrary to your assertion, this seeing God is not a seeing that amounts to understanding God's spiritual qualities. You have not answered how I have defeated you on that misinterpretation of yours.

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 29
29. "RE: Ok Rob... I'll ask you."
Nov-07-05, 01:18 AM (EST)
In response to message #25

Rob, you wrote:

>Scottie,
>
>I think you're right. Basically, endenux is using
>'organism' as a vaguer way of saying that God has a body
>with different parts.

You got it completely backwards. "Organism" is a more precise way of stating that God's body has "parts" (differentiae, actually), not a vaguer way for stating such.

Really, Rob, you do have a fundamental problem in following the argument of your opponent.

endenux

Reading Topic #1488, reply 9
9. "RE: Does God have a body?"
Nov-07-05, 06:45 PM (EST)
In response to message #2

Rob, you wrote:

>None of these texts says or implies that God has a body,

Of course they do. Jesus did not take to heaven the body he had for the thirty-three and a half years of his earthly life. He was given a body -- a spiritual body --, and it is this body that is the image/representation of the invisible (spiritual) God's very being (Col.1:15; Heb. 1:3). This means, then, that God Jehovah has a spiritual body, too. Just do the math, Rob, without trinitarianism's blinders for giving Jesus' personhood two natures (the human and divine).

>Your use of Matthew 18:10 is identical in reasoning to
>your use of Job 1:6, which I have already addressed.

No, I emphasized that Jesus said it was in heaven that God's angels are always able to behold the face of their Father. This is not sight of God that is insight into God's qualities, for insight into (appreciation of) God's personality does not occur just in Heaven. So, in what way does an angel's presence in Heaven facilitate his beholding his Father's face? You haven't answered yet.

>Yeah, that's why I included a link to our previous
>discussion--to hide from everyone else your brilliant
>defense of your position. Give me a break. I opened up a
>new thread to draw attention to the issue and invite
>others to weigh in on it.

I'm thinking it's a ploy to present selections of my material in order to hide the "brilliant" responses you made in the exchanges between us. After all, you began the thread with incomplete references to the Scriptures I used, and followed it up with doctrinal error on your part when you declare that those references don't mean that God has a body.

I will participate this thread only to correct your misrepresentations of what I have stated, which, judging from your opening posts, promise a lively participation on my part.

endenux

Jehovah has always existed in Heaven, the spiritual realm. That means that because he has always had bodily existence, then He has always had a place to live. That means space. Time has always existed, too, because it has always been a property of God's mind for Him to think, and that requires that He have orderly progression to His thoughts, and that means or requires that He be aware of when he was thinking something at some earlier time, and that He has since then thought other thoughts. In other words, Jehovah is not a static being, but ever since His creation of His Son, Jehovah has been a contemporary with His rational creatures, men included. So, Heaven is a space-time continuum that has always existed, it never having come into existence precisely because Jehovah has never come into existence, He always having been alive from the eternal past.

Now, what about the space-time continuum (the physical universe, the cosmos) that is the subject of astrophysicists' (e.g., Hoyle's, and Hawking's) studies and speculations? Well, there is where it gets thorny, doesn't it? It seems logical to say that God extended the space-time continuum of Heaven in order that it define the boundaries of the physical universe -- at least defines them at any given moment because we are told that the space-time continuum of the physical universe is still expanding, and if it is not a closed system, will expand forever if God were not to intervene. What this should mean is that if men could travel at or (probably considerably) faster than the speed of light, and if men were able to withstand drawing near to God's bodily presence, then they would arrive at some point in time in Heaven, yes, arrive at and enter the spiritual realm. But such is not possible both from a technological point of view, and from the fact that God would not allow men to do it (compare Gen. 11:6). It is just a thought experiment in order to verbalize my thoughts as to what such an extension of Heaven's space-time continuum accomplished, if there was such an expansion, and I think likely there was at the moment of God's creation of the physical universe. It should mean that if men had some means of traveling as fast as angels do, and if men had a means of protecting themselves against being consumed because of being in a too-close proximity to God's body, and if God were to allow it, then it would logically follow that men could travel from here to Heaven (the spiritual realm).

>Right, and if Christ's body no longer needs food or water,
>etc., then it no longer needs a nose or lungs, or taste
>buds or blood or a stomach, etc.

Right. It wouldn't need a tongue and lips for causing audible expressions that are air-borne words heard by another person, for there is no air in Heaven. If angels paid any attention to speech upon the lips of this glorified human body that Jesus' human nature supposedly incorporates, then it would be because they are reading lips, not hearing sounds. The whole thing is an extremely silly concept, so much so that a (slightly) more dignified approach to the matter could be better implemented were trinitarians to say that God practiced taxidermy upon Jesus' dead body, and then took it to Heaven. The sight of a "stuffed" body is far less pitiable than that of an animated body whose "design has been nullified." Oh what a tangled web of confusion trinitarians have spun!

Hi, Jim,

Well, what you present is certainly one model of Reality (physical realm + spiritual realm) that I can visualize, where Reality (R) is more dimensional than merely three: R > 3D. But I am not convinced that Reality need be more than 3D. I believe that the impossibility of physical objects finding location in the spiritual realm likely has to do with energy levels (Kinetic energy) that no physical object will ever be capable of owning, and that per physical laws that "work OK" without our invoking more than three dimensions for any part of Reality. Why am I skeptical that Heaven (the spirit realm) is a group of coordinates that is mappable to all the coordinates in the physical realm? Because then a spirit would have only to "unzip" the fabric of our physical realm at the right coordinates and step immediately into where he wants to go in the physical realm. But is that compatible with Daniel 9:20-23? Maybe it is, but it seems that once an angel has stepped immediately from the spirit realm into the physical realm, he should still have ability for super-luminal speed in his locomotion, and need not become tired out from hurrying so quickly from the heavenly court to any place on earth, which, per our example, was a place in the Middle East where Daniel was praying. But I am open to other explanation for Daniel 9:20-23.

>Hi Al,
>If the spirit realm is transcendent, “above” the physical
>realm, yet occupying the same space, then this would allow
>the spirit beings to be naturally invisible to our
>physical eyes yet allow them to be in our vicinity at the
>same time.
>
>This transcendency of the spirit realm would also prevent
>any humans from entering it. I remember e-talking to Edgar
>Foster about this, and I think we both were on the same
>page.
>
>Now, how does the spirit realm exist transcendent to ours
>yet occupy the same space? It is not a paradox, since
>Jesus said he is from the “realms above,” (John 8:23) and
>yet angels visited him and others on earth, manifesting
>themselves in a way physical eyes could safely behold
>them, without leaving their spirit realm. (Judges 6:21;
>13:19,20)
>
>The account of the ascending angel in Judges 13:20 is
>especially interesting, as it is similar to Jesus’
>ascension. Regarding the implications of this, the Insight
>book under “Ascension” wisely notes:

>Thus Jesus’ ascension, while beginning with an upward
>movement, from the viewpoint of his disciples, may have
>thereafter taken any direction required to bring him into
>his Father’s heavenly presence. It was an ascension not
>only as to direction but, more important, as to the sphere
>of activity and level of existence in the spirit
>realm and in the lofty presence of the Most High God,
>a realm not governed by human dimensions or directions.
>(underscore added)

>Thus, if astronauts went straight up from earth trying to
>imitate Jesus’ ascension to reach God, they would never
>succeed. They would never succeed since they would never
>exit the physical realm. It’s simply not for us to do
>that. Only by resurrection into the spirit realm can a
>human enter it.
>
>This model also makes the notion of Jesus’ dual nature
>completely absurd. For Jesus to retain his human body
>would mean that he is divided between two realms, one
>transcendent to the other!

>Hi Al,
>Good talking with you. Daniel 9:20-23 is an interesting
>passage, and one that may not be as clear as we would
>like. The NWT faithfully translates verse 21 as: "and
>{while} I was yet speaking in the prayer, why, the man
>Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the start,
>having been made weary with tiredness, was arriving
>by me at the time of the evening gift offering." The
>footnote on the underlined part informs us that this is
>according to the Hebrew, but adds: "LXX, 'being borne
>along speedily'; Vg, 'flying speedily.'"

Jim, Hebrew syntax is not my forte, but however one defines the adjectival clause, we see that it was taken by the LXX translators as modification for "the man Gabriel," and that suggests to me that Hebrew syntax won't be at issue here. (I would be interested to know if there are any translations that take the clause as modification of "I {Daniel}." I haven't researched that, yet.) But vocabulary and idiom are different matters. So, even if the salient words modify "Gabriel," as I suspect they do, we still need to know if there is some idiomatic use of the words in Hebrew that may have caused the LXX translators to translate as they did, or was there a variant Hebrew textual tradition that the LXX translators followed for Daniel 9:20-23 that caused them to translate as they did? If so, then the absence of the thought that Gabriel was tired could be a valid alternative to what we have in NWT.

So, maybe research will bear you out on one or more of your suggested meanings for Daniel 9:20-23. Outside that, I can't think of anything else at the moment that might possibly stand to definitely rule out your suggested model "R > 3D." But neither can I think of anything that might be better explained here than by the model that God extended Heaven's space-time continuum, which defines Heaven's "topography," so that the same space-time continuum now also defines the physical universe's, too.

Your brother,
Al

>The Daniel book
>is interesting on this. On page 185 it highlights that
>Gabriel arrived speedily, but does not mention him being
>tired. The Insight book under "Angel" sites this passage,
>and simply notes that angels can travel at "tremendous
>speeds, far exceeding the limits of the physical world."
>(p. 107)
>
>I wonder if it's possible that,
>1) If Gabriel was indeed tired, perhaps this was due to
>fighting demon forces as in Dan 10:13? (For reference, dp
>pp. 204, 205.)
>2) Or was it Daniel that was tired, since it was "at the
>time of the evening gift offering"? (Note the NASB: "the
>man Gabriel...came to me in {my} extreme weariness about
>the time of the evening offering.")
>3) Or is it that Gabriel just arrived swiftly?
>
>In any event, at the end of the day, we all believe that
>angels are helping us and we can be sensitive the leadings
>of the holy spirit. We can allow God and the angels to
>help us along.
>
>I just question whether or not they are detectable with a
>"tricorder" type device. ;-)
>
>(I edited this a few times and I think I'm done,
>sorry about that.)

Al Kidd

>About the “R > 3D,” I would like to add or clarify a
>little. Length, width, and height, our three dimensions,
>are also found in the spirit realm, in that its
>inhabitants have bodies and are able to move about freely.

Yes, I agree. I stated in one of my other posts that Reality was the physical universe plus the spirit realm. And I agree that each realm is a 3D realm. What I was trying to say with R > 3D was not a statement of what Reality is, but that if, as you think possible/probable, the spiritual realm (Heaven) is not seamlessly of the same space-time continuum as is so for the physical realm, then you have more than three dimensions to work with if you were a spirit seeking to travel from one realm to the other. Navigation between the realms means that there would have to be a way to map the spatial coordinates of a place's location in one realm onto the spatial coordinates for a place's location in the other realm; hence, you can't deal only with the three dimensions in just one of the realms since the three dimensions in one realm are disjunctive to the three dimensions in the other realm. So, as a statement or axiom of dimensionality for Reality goes, R > 3D. In either space-time continuum scenario for Reality, you still have two realms (physical + spiritual); however, in one scenario, there is but one space-time continuum -- the one I lean towards (bit of a pun there) --, but in the other scenario there are two space-time continuums.

>So, I would like to modify the expression R>3D to R>PS,
>that is, Reality is greater than Physical Space.
>Therefore, R=PS+SR (Spirit Realm).

Of course. As a statement that Reality is more than one realm, that is a succinct way of stating it.

>Thus I have often
>considered PS to be a container for matter, the “realms
>below;”

Certainly.

>while the SR is transcendent and the “realms
>above”—

Yes.

>“a realm not governed by human dimensions or
>directions.”—John 8:28; it-1 “Ascension (Correctness of
>the Term)”

What I take from that is that we humans need a unit of measure that has meaning with us -- something we can relate to -- so that we may make meaningful comparisons with objects' sizes in the physical realm, which range from the subatomic to the size of quasars. Directions are given in terms that specify (1) orientation with respect a point on the earth's surface in relation to the place where something else is, which will be an object either on earth or away from the earth's surface, and (2) distance between the objects. None of that will be in units of time, units of distance, and sets of coordinates that would necessarily mean anything to a spirit in Heaven.

>I will close with some interesting scriptures, ones that
>do not necessarily prove or support any position:
>
>“But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The
>heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot
>contain you; how much less, then, this house that I have
>built!” (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chr. 2:6, 6:18)

Ah, yes, 1 Kings chapter 8. It shows us that God is not omnipresent, nor could He ever come into the physical realm.

>“Behold, to Jehovah your God belong the heavens, even the
>heavens of the heavens, the earth and all that is in it.”
>(Deut. 10:14)

And to think that our magnificent, majestic Creator loved sinful, puny humans so much that to save us He was willing to send His own dear Son to suffer and die as result of impalement at the hands of ignorant blasphemers. I am so thankful to have for brothers and sisters those who appreciate how the Son vindicated his Father's sovereignty, and, in so doing, made the way open for us to have a return to Paradise on earth. Even if we should die before God's day and hour for judgment has come, still, we may have a resurrection into a paradisiacal earth.

Al

>The Bible states that Jehovah has always existed.

Yes, that's plain.
>
>It also states that angels and those resurrected to the
>"spirit realm" can "see" him.

Yes, they have sight that is strong enough to look directly upon Jehovah's face.

>Did Jehovah create this "spirit realm" before he created
>the angels who would inhabit it? Or did the spirit realm
>always exist?

Another word for the spirit realm is "Heaven." Jehovah has always lived in Heaven, the spirit realm. It was never created, because Jehovah was never created. The space-time continuum of Heaven expanded as a correlate of God's creation of spirit persons -- a necessary concomitant with their having been created by Him.

>My guess is that Jehovah exists in a "dimension" outside
>(higher than) both the physical and spiritual realms,
>which he created. He can be "seen" in the spirit realm,
>and can "reside" in it, but he is not confined to it.

Are not spiritual bodies properly at home in the spiritual realm? If there is a dimension that is neither the proper home for spiritual or physical persons, then it is not the home for persons, all of whom have bodies. In that case, Jehovah would be in some realm without His having a body, for what other kind of bodies are there but the physical -- which Jehovah can never assume --, and the spiritual, which is the kind of body Jehovah has always had? But if there is some realm where he does not have a body, then what would He be? An omnipresent, impersonal force. But we don't believe Jehovah is omnipresent; He is an embodied person. We have not the slightest inkling in the Scriptures that Jehovah is not properly and entirely at home in the spirit realm/Heaven, His "established place of dwelling." The most magnificent things are ascribed to Jehovah in Heaven, never to Jehovah outside Heaven -- except in poetry where He is spoken of in figurative terms as one who approaches earth for the deliverance of His servant(s), e.g., King David.

>Also, those in the spirit realm, including Jesus, are
>governed by time, whereas Jehovah alone is from time
>indefinate to time indefinate.

Well, only Jehovah is from the eternal past, but beginning in the new world, all God's loyal ones may remain alive for all eternity to come without their ever having to die, for then only those who rebel against Jehovah would have to die. True, 144,001 will have been resurrected to immortal life as spirits in Heaven (the spiritual realm). So, the spiritual realm will be the eternal home of Jehovah, Jesus Christ, the angels, and the 144,000.

Your brother,
Al

>*** pe chap. 4 p. 44 God—Who Is He? ***
>
>"25 Although it may be hard for our minds to understand,
>Jehovah never had a beginning and will never have an end.
>He is the “King of eternity.” (Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17)
>Before he began to create, Jehovah was all alone in
>universal space.

We see affirmed that this space was not created because it is expressly stated that Jehovah was in this space before He began to create. That is reasonable, because a body has to have location, a place to be. "Universal space" may be reference to the brother's thought that there is but one space-time continuum. If he thought so, then it affirms what I have always thought, namely, there is but one space-time continuum.

>As to exactly what "universal space" means, the Society at
>times seems to apply this term to the physical universe
>(perhaps an empty physical universe?).

One and the same space-time continuum would define the boundaries for both realms, the physical and the spiritual.

>"How would you explain what time is? Some would say that
>time is a way of looking at things or that it is the
>distance between events. Therefore, if nothing ever
>happened there would be no time.

But God has always existed, and has always been thinking. So, Jehovah did not exist before time began ("before time began" is an oxymoron), just as He did not exist before there was space, because there was also no time when space did not exist.

>Yet to define what time
>actually is becomes as baffling as explaining what
>universal space is. But certain aspects of time are
>known."

Here is how it seems to me, another of us who also has more questions than answers: 'There has always been time because Jehovah has always been. This means that Jehovah is in the stream of time. There is no phenomenal past, as though things that are happening now are things that keep on being "replayed" in some dimension of Reality; once an event has taken place, it will always remain as an event that has taken place. So, nobody knowing the history of some event -- that some particular event took place -- can cause it to have never happened. Jehovah can undo the effects of some past event, but that is not the same as His causing it to have never happened. That would be a logical impossibility.' So, those are things I keep in mind, and I have yet to see a line of reasoning that causes me to doubt the plausibility of the account I just gave. But then there is always the next moment of consciousness, isn't there? If not for me (because I may die in the next moment), then certainly for most persons in existence. Assuming I will live on past the next moment, I may find in the next moment something that could cause me to change my mind about time and space.

>What is universal space? http://www.novan.com/space.htm

Al