Genesis 1:27

[Bini]

Last night, I thought to myself, the voids that I have within the gospel will eventually come together with faith, and will be revealed in the next life. I still struggle with the idea that the Lord, or any god, would be designed in human form. Not saying I don't believe it, I just struggle with it. I remember when I worked, one of my coworkers was Atheist and loved taking playful jabs at me for being Christian. We were friends, so he didn't say things that he knew would really upset me but he liked to push the envelope every once in a while. One day he said to me, "Won't you be disappointed if you die and instead of God greeting you, a little green martian does?" The thought freaked me out! Needless to say, I certainly hope God is in human form, if anything, as I'm not sure how I'll cope if He's anything else..

[SteveVH]

This is a very interesting question because rhetorically we can ask the same question by implanting another verse, Luke 24: 39 - 40,

" Behold my hands and my feet...handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.

"And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet." (emphasis added)

I have always found it interesting the reference of an invisible God, yet after Christ's resurrection, he appeared to be very visible to all, at least to all he revealed himself unto. With a spiritual body of flesh and bone.

Well I don't think it is any secret that Jesus was a historical Person with a body of flesh and blood. Jesus became man. Implicit in the fact that he became man is the fact that he was not always a man. Even Jesus was invisible before he was incarnate. What any of this has to do with the verse, though, is beyond me. The scripture speaks of Jesus being the image of the invisible God. Obviously it is not referencing Jesus as the invisible God since they could stand there and talk to him. It is difficult to be an image of anything if one cannot see you. It is in reference to the Father. I think any reasonable mind can see that. We should not confuse the Persons of the Godhead (Trinity).

Edited September 7, 2012 by StephenVH

[Jason_J]

Well I don't think it is any secret that Jesus was a historical Person with a body of flesh and blood. Jesus became man. Implicit in the fact that he became man is the fact that he was not always a man. Even Jesus was invisible before he was incarnate. What any of this has to do with the verse, though, is beyond me. The scripture speaks of Jesus being the image of the invisible God. Obviously it is not referencing Jesus as the invisible God since they could stand there and talk to him. It is difficult to be an image of anything if one cannot see you. It is in reference to the Father. I think any reasonable mind can see that. We should not confuse the Persons of the Godhead (Trinity).

Latter-day Saints believe that God is "invisible" meaning that He is "unseen". This doesn't mean that He is always invisible, or that it is His nature to be invisible or immaterial (I guess), but that He is not visible to us in most circumstances. Similarly, Romans 1:20 states that "invisible" things were made visible, seen. This is a similar concept.

[SteveVH]

Stephen, I intend no disrespect, but your belief in what I call the "I Dream of Jeannie" God makes conversation difficult. I have dropped out of conversation with you because, after I carefully explained to you my line of reasoning, your response was essentially "nuh-uh". You refuse to, or perhaps are unable to, extend yourself past your own Catholic conditioning.

"Invisible" means we don't see him. It does not mean he cannot be seen. Your selective acceptance of verses, taking "invisible" to mean "he can never be seen, because THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE!!!", and ignoring other verses that clearly indicate a corporeal God, demonstrate that your intent is to win the debate by whatever means you see fit. Okay, so whatever. If we are forced to accept your terminology, your preconceptions, and your interpretations, it should come as no surprise that your gloss will reign supreme.

No one is forced to accept anything I say, Vort. And if I say "nuh-uh" it is because I do not accept what is said as true. For instance, your comment that "Invisible" means we don't see him. It does not mean he cannot be seen" is something that I do not accept because "invisible" means precisley that "he cannot be seen". You can't see me but that does not make me invisible. I can't see the ocean from here but that does not mean it is invisible. The text is speaking of God's invisible nature, not that he is just out of sight. So I think it is you who "refuse to, or perhaps are unable to, extend yourself past your own [Mormon] conditioning".

But even your religion teaches that God has (present tense) a body. That same Bible that you take full credit for preserving teaches unambiguously that Jesus rose physically from the dead, and even ate fish and honeycomb. It teaches that after Jesus rose into heaven, angels told his disciples that they would see him come again in the same way he left -- that is, incarnate.

Yes, Jesus was incarnate. The Father is not. I assumed I would not have to make that distinction but apparently I do. Obviously the fact that Jesus was visible means that I am not speaking of Jesus, but rather the Father.

I understand that you don't like this doctrine and that you don't want to accept it. That's fine with me; I have little interest in convincing you of doctrine you don't like.

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking anything. It has to do with proper interpretation of ancient documents in which the style of writing and manner of speaking and even thinking in that culture and that time cannot be ignored. For instance it is failry common knowledge that "the right hand of God" is an idiom used to indicate God's power, not that he actually has a right hand. I will say that God is certainly capable of manifesting himself in any way in which he chooses, but God does not require a physical body as a human does. Do you believe that God is omnipresent? Did not Christ say "Where two or more are gathered, there am I in the midst of them"? If God is limited by a physical body then he cannot be in two places at once. God is supernatural (above nature) therefore he is not limited by physical nature.

John 1:18

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 4:24

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Colossiand 1:15

15 "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

1 Tim 1:17

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen."

1Tim 6:16

"Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."

If we can find a way to ignore the verses above (and there are more) then your position might be more plausible. I do understand that you believe what you believe because you think God is a glorified and exalted man and that you are just like him except in degree of exaltion, therefore he must have a body. I am only saying that the scriptures do not support that postition and I have demonstrated why.

But don't think that your insistence on special definitions and ignoring Biblical evidence somehow proves your point.

I think I just demonstrated that I am not ignoring Biblical evidence.

You are welcome to believe as you like, but you really ought to realize that others have different views which are (at least) as defensible as yours, and that do not include such unBiblical ideas as "the holy Trinity".

Thank you for allowing me to believe as I like, Vort. That is very generous of you.

[SteveVH]

Latter-day Saints believe that God is "invisible" meaning that He is "unseen". This doesn't mean that He is always invisible, or that it is His nature to be invisible or immaterial (I guess), but that He is not visible to us in most circumstances. Similarly, Romans 1:20 states that "invisible" things were made visible, seen. This is a similar concept.

Okay.

[SteveVH]

Last night, I thought to myself, the voids that I have within the gospel will eventually come together with faith, and will be revealed in the next life. I still struggle with the idea that the Lord, or any god, would be designed in human form. Not saying I don't believe it, I just struggle with it. I remember when I worked, one of my coworkers was Atheist and loved taking playful jabs at me for being Christian. We were friends, so he didn't say things that he knew would really upset me but he liked to push the envelope every once in a while. One day he said to me, "Won't you be disappointed if you die and instead of God greeting you, a little green martian does?" The thought freaked me out! Needless to say, I certainly hope God is in human form, if anything, as I'm not sure how I'll cope if He's anything else..

He will prepare you. It will be the greatest day of your life.

[SteveVH]

Bini,

I believe this to be very literal, and should be taken very literally. We are in the image of God. We know that Jesus is in the image of his Father.

We also know The Family: A Proclamation to the World makes emphasis that gender is an essential characteristic to individual worth not only in this life, but in the next life.

When Joseph was visited by the Angel Moroni, and others, these Angels were in the image of a glorified man.

When the brother of Jared witnessed the whole spirit body of Christ, he was told,

"And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, all men were created in the beginning after mine own image."

We know that our Savior is in the image of his father.

Yes, this is to be taken very literally.

Was Jesus in the image of his Father before he was incarnate? Yes, he was, and he did not possess a human body.

[Vort]

Was Jesus in the image of his Father before he was incarnate? Yes, he was, and he did not possess a human body.

Correct. He possessed a spiritual body, which was in the image of his mortal body. See the experience of the brother of Jared for more information.

[SteveVH]

Correct. He possessed a spiritual body, which was in the image of his mortal body. See the experience of the brother of Jared for more information.

It is difficult for me to respond to Mormon "scriptures" outside of the Bible for obvious reasons. I don't accept them as scripture. I do accept that this is evidence for your beliefs, however.

[Traveler]

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with viewing things from a modern perspective, as long as we realize that we may not be completely accurate.

For example, StephenVH argued with my assessments of ancient things. The claim that Asherah is not found in the Bible as God's wife is because later scribes removed it. Yet in the archaeological record, we find Yahweh and Asherah together frequently. Solomon's temple had a tree in it, representing Asherah, the Mother of Heaven. Jeremiah condemned the Jews in his day, because they began to worship Asherah rather than Yahweh. BTW, Asherah, aka Wisdom, was known in the Bible, and Solomon quotes her in Proverbs.

I would recommend to StephenVH to read "Did God have a Wife?" by William G Dever, or a handful of other books that discuss this and how we understand it from within the Bible.

StephenVH also does not believe man can see the face of God, or that God has body parts. This is a modern view based upon the Athanasius Creed, but was believed by early Jews and Christians: God has a physical body!

Exodus 33 notes that God placed his hand on Moses' face, so he would not see God in all his glory, but could see only his backside. We read there, "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

In Exodus 24, we read:

"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 a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness."

They saw God, they saw God's feet. Moses saw God's face. Any other way of reading this is to twist the scriptures into something it is not.

As it is, God IS above all others. But we are also of Him, and he has called us his sons, making us heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ of the divine nature.

So it is with the issue of sex and God. We can view what the scriptures state, or we can read into them modern ideas that were not there anciently.

Okay - I must be blunt because you do not seem to get my point. The word "sex" includes in its extent of definition includes: masturbation, child abuse, adultery, fornication, anal sex, bestiality among other perversions that I do not believe describes activities of G-d. Since sex implies so many possibilities - I therefore request that we limit our terms to things that are more helpful concerning specific possible behaviors of G-d.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

It is difficult for me to respond to Mormon "scriptures" outside of the Bible for obvious reasons. I don't accept them as scripture. I do accept that this is evidence for your beliefs, however.

Okay - I have a question - What did Jesus do with his body when he went to heaven? Is it possible from what we learn in scripture that Jesus took that body with him? Why do you think the scriptures told us that he did that? Because divine beings do or do not have physical bodies in heaven?

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Okay - I have a question - What did Jesus do with his body when he went to heaven? Is it possible from what we learn in scripture that Jesus took that body with him? Why do you think the scriptures told us that he did that? Because divine beings do or do not have physical bodies in heaven?

The Traveler

The answer to the first question is that Jesus took his body to heaven with him. Jesus' physical body became a glorified spiritual body upon the resurrection.

Divine beings do not have physical bodies in heaven. Nor will we have physical bodies in heaven, but rather glorified bodies just as Jesus does. Our mortal bodies receive the gift of immortality. Our bodies which were once subject to corruption will be incorruptible. We will be changed in an instant. So what is a glorified body? Jesus at once walked through a locked door and then ate fish which did not fall on the floor when he consumed it but stayed in his body. He really ate and he really walked through a locked door. Our bodies will be supernatural. We will not be subject to the laws of nature because we will be above nature. So we will be able to walk through locked doors and at the same time consume food if we wish, just as Jesus did. It's a mind blower and I can't wait.

It is important to point out that we will never loose our identity (I will always be Stephen) and our glorified bodies will really be our own bodies, but transformed by the power of God so that we may share in the divine life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We will recognize each other in even a more intimate way than we do now. I can't wait to see my mother and little brother again. My mother died of Parkinson's Disease and my brother from cancer. I watched both of them suffer terribly. They no longer suffer and will never suffer again. They will never die again. The point is that we do not become some ambiguous life force, or part of some vague "all", but remain who we are; more accurately, who we were created to be because we were created to share in God's divine life. I think we are probably in agreement on most of what I have said.

I would be interested in your view.

Edited September 10, 2012 by StephenVH

[Jason_J]

The answer to the first question is that Jesus took his body to heaven with him. Jesus' physical body became a glorified spiritual body upon the resurrection.

Divine beings do not have physical bodies in heaven. Nor will we have physical bodies in heaven, but rather glorified bodies just as Jesus does.

So there is no physicality at all associated with Christ's glorified body and our future (by God's grace) glorified bodies? That is interesting. If Jesus said to touch Him, etc. as proof of the resurrection, He was able to eat, etc., I think there is indeed some physicality associated with glorified bodies. Also, traditional Christians believe that God is immaterial, so do you believe a "glorified spiritual body" is composed of material (i.e. not immaterial), and therefore, physical to some degree? This is really what Latter-day Saints mean when we believe that Christ physically resurrected and physically/bodily ascended to Heaven. Yes, His mortal body was changed, put on immortality, incorruptibility, etc., however there is a clear physical component to this (as opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses and Gnostics who would reject such a notion). So the question really is, do "glorified spiritual bodies" have some material component to them, or are they immaterial? If not immaterial but material, then does this mean that there is some physical component to them? Latter-day Saints believe so (and we also believe that spirit is material as well, just a different, more refined type, as we don't believe in the concept of immaterial things).

I also see Catholics write things like this that make me wonder about what you are saying (maybe I am misunderstanding you): Was Jesus' Resurrection of a physical or purely spiritual nature?

[SteveVH]

So there is no physicality at all associated with Christ's glorified body and our future (by God's grace) glorified bodies? That is interesting. If Jesus said to touch Him, etc. as proof of the resurrection, He was able to eat, etc., I think there is indeed some physicality associated with glorified bodies. Also, traditional Christians believe that God is immaterial, so do you believe a "glorified spiritual body" is composed of material (i.e. not immaterial), and therefore, physical to some degree? This is really what Latter-day Saints mean when we believe that Christ physically resurrected and physically/bodily ascended to Heaven. Yes, His mortal body was changed, put on immortality, incorruptibility, etc., however there is a clear physical component to this (as opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses and Gnostics who would reject such a notion). So the question really is, do "glorified spiritual bodies" have some material component to them, or are they immaterial? If not immaterial but material, then does this mean that there is some physical component to them? Latter-day Saints believe so (and we also believe that spirit is material as well, just a different, more refined type, as we don't believe in the concept of immaterial things).

I also see Catholics write things like this that make me wonder about what you are saying (maybe I am misunderstanding you): Was Jesus' Resurrection of a physical or purely spiritual nature?

Jason, if you will remember I stated that Jesus, at once, ate fish which was which was assimilated into his body, while being able to walk through solid objects. And yes, one could touch Jesus' body. The point is that our bodies will become supernatural (above nature) and therefore we will not be subject to the laws of nature, we will be over the laws of nature. If we choose to eat, great. If we choose to walk through a wall, great. We cannot, however, retain our physical nature and walk through a wall. Science cannot answer the question as to what the make up of a glorified body will be and I will not speculate.

[Jason_J]

Jason, if you will remember I stated that Jesus, at once, ate fish which was which was assimilated into his body, while being able to walk through solid objects. And yes, one could touch Jesus' body. The point is that our bodies will become supernatural (above nature) and therefore we will not be subject to the laws of nature, we will be over the laws of nature. If we choose to eat, great. If we choose to walk through a wall, great. We cannot, however, retain our physical nature and walk through a wall. Science cannot answer the question as to what the make up of a glorified body will be and I will not speculate.

Stephen, I'm not asking you to speculate, I'm trying to understand what you mean by a "spiritual body". The link provided in my last post from Catholic Answers seems to denounce the concept of a "spiritual body" in relation to the resurrection of Christ. Also, I think that the point in Jesus asking them to touch His body was, as He said, to show that He is not merely a spirit, but that He is bodily resurrected, and the fact that they could touch Him means that there is some material or physical component to His glorified body (which of course still allows for the possibility of that body to pass through walls if He so desires). In the context of traditional Christian thought, if spirit is immaterial, and Christ is saying look, I'm not just a spirit, I have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), then clearly there is a material aspect to His glorified body, and material would mean physical to some degree. I'm not saying that glorified bodies are the same as our bodies are now, but I am saying that they are composed of matter, and are physical, at least to some degree.

I would be interested in any Catholic sources that say that glorified bodies are not physical.

[SteveVH]

Stephen, I'm not asking you to speculate, I'm trying to understand what you mean by a "spiritual body". The link provided in my last post from Catholic Answers seems to denounce the concept of a "spiritual body" in relation to the resurrection of Christ. Also, I think that the point in Jesus asking them to touch His body was, as He said, to show that He is not merely a spirit, but that He is bodily resurrected, and the fact that they could touch Him means that there is some material or physical component to His glorified body (which of course still allows for the possibility of that body to pass through walls if He so desires). In the context of traditional Christian thought, if spirit is immaterial, and Christ is saying look, I'm not just a spirit, I have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), then clearly there is a material aspect to His glorified body, and material would mean physical to some degree. I'm not saying that glorified bodies are the same as our bodies are now, but I am saying that they are composed of matter, and are physical, at least to some degree.

I would be interested in any Catholic sources that say that glorified bodies are not physical.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (Par 999)

"Christ is raised with his own body: "See my hands and my feet that it is I myself", but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, "all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear, but Christ will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, into a "spiritual body".

"But someone will ask 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?' You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel...What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable... The dead will be raised imperishable... For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality" (1 Cor 15:35-37)

[rameumptom]

From a Catholic view, the Council of Chalcedony disagrees with Stephen. It discusses the dual nature of Christ's body. Although LDS do not agree with this concept, it is the basis for the Trinitarian concept in most of traditional Christianity today. Christ has both a physical and spiritual body.

As for denying Christ's physical body runs against the teachings of the apostle John, who in his epistles noted that the person who denies Christ resurrected into a physical body is anti-Christ. Not sure if I want to be in Stephen's shoes here.....

[rameumptom]

We agree that our resurrected bodies will be glorified bodies, Stephen. But that isn't the point. It is a glorified physical body, which both the Catholic Church, the Council of Chalcedony, and other traditional Christians agree upon.

[SteveVH]

From a Catholic view, the Council of Chalcedony disagrees with Stephen. It discusses the dual nature of Christ's body. Although LDS do not agree with this concept, it is the basis for the Trinitarian concept in most of traditional Christianity today. Christ has both a physical and spiritual body.

You are speaking of the Council of Chalcedon which was held in 451 A.D. The council had nothing to say about the nature of a "glorified body". The purpose of the council was to officially define what the Church had always believed concerning the nature of Jesus Christ in the face of the Nestorian heresy.

The Nestorian heresy denied that Jesus was truly human. It asserted that Jesus had two separate natures and two wills, making him two persons, one divine and the other human, however sharing one body.

In response to this heresy the council produced the “Chalcedonian Definition.”

The definition stated that Christ is “complete in Godhead and complete in humanness, truly God and truly human.” He is “of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his humanity.” He is to be “recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” The “distinction of natures” is “in no way annulled by the union.” “The characteristics of each nature” are to be considered as “preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence.” They are not to be “separated into two persons.”

I have never denied, nor would I ever deny Christ's human nature just as I would never deny his divine nature. You are confusing the issues. Have I not said that it will be our own bodies which are resurrected and transformed into glorious bodies? The question is, what is the nature of a glorious body, not whether or not Jesus is both divine and human.

As for denying Christ's physical body runs against the teachings of the apostle John, who in his epistles noted that the person who denies Christ resurrected into a physical body is anti-Christ. Not sure if I want to be in Stephen's shoes here.....

When have I denied Christ's physical body? Christ's physical body became a glorified body. It changed, just as ours will change. But I have never denied that Christ has a physical body nor that it was this very body that was resurrected. I am very comfortable in my shoes, thank you.

[SteveVH]

We agree that our resurrected bodies will be glorified bodies, Stephen. But that isn't the point. It is a glorified physical body, which both the Catholic Church, the Council of Chalcedony, and other traditional Christians agree upon.

Well, I would say that it is a glorified body that was once physical. And, as I have pointed out in earlier posts, we really only have the example of Jesus in getting some idea of what properties a glorified body might have. In Jesus' case, we know he could walk through a locked door. We know he could appear and disapear in a flash. We also know that he could eat food and that one could touch his body. I guess we could argue for the rest of eternity on what this means exactly. Jesus could certainly interact with the physical world, yet he also could defy physics. Will we be able to touch our glorified bodies? I would have to say yes if Jesus' glorified body is our example. Will we be able to defy the laws of nature? Yes again. Can we define it as a "physical body"? Maybe. But I think the new definition of "glorious" body is probably more acurate. It must be a spritual body in order to defy the laws of nature. It must be a supernatural body as it rises "above nature". Is it still physical in the common understanding of the term? I don't think so. The physical has become glorified and therefore transformed into something it was not before, even if we can still touch it and eat real food.

I'm not sure that this is really an issue between Mormons and Catholics. My guess is that we're pretty close in our understanding and that if we took the time to define our terms better we might even be a lot closer.

[Traveler]

Catechism of the Catholic Church (Par 999)

"Christ is raised with his own body: "See my hands and my feet that it is I myself", but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, "all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear, but Christ will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, into a "spiritual body".

"But someone will ask 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?' You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel...What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable... The dead will be raised imperishable... For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality" (1 Cor 15:35-37)

Steve you left out an important part from the scripture in Luke - So I thought to quote it here completely for you:

Luke 34:29

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

What do you think G-d (and Jesus) did with that body of flesh and bones (and not a spirit as Jesus testified) when Jesus went into heaven with only his spirit body? Was it left behind dead?

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Steve you left out an important part from the scripture in Luke - So I thought to quote it here completely for you:

What do you think G-d (and Jesus) did with that body of flesh and bones (and not a spirit as Jesus testified) when Jesus went into heaven with only his spirit body? Was it left behind dead?

The Traveler

I didn't leave anything out. It was a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As for the rest of your question I believe I answered it in my post above in which I was responding to rameumptom. I have acknowledged over and over again that Christ's body was really Christ's body. He was not a ghost. But his physical body was now beyond our understanding of the term "physical". Physical things, such as human bodies do no walk through walls or locked doors and appear and disapear at will. Physical matter simply cannot do these things because it is subject to the laws of nature. Nor have I said that having a glorified body necessarily prevents us from interacting with the physical world or that we will not be able to touch our bodies. But our "physical" bodies undergo a transformation into something we do not and have not experienced in this world. It is called a glorified body.

[Traveler]

I didn't leave anything out. It was a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As for the rest of your question I believe I answered it in my post above in which I was responding to rameumptom. I have acknowledged over and over again that Christ's body was really Christ's body. He was not a ghost. But his physical body was now beyond our understanding of the term "physical". Physical things, such as human bodies do no walk through walls or locked doors and appear and disapear at will. Physical matter simply cannot do these things because it is subject to the laws of nature. Nor have I said that having a glorified body necessarily prevents us from interacting with the physical world or that we will not be able to touch our bodies. But our "physical" bodies undergo a transformation into something we do not and have not experienced in this world. It is called a glorified body.

Your problem is that you have not kept up with science and are still back in what was left over from the science the era of the Dark Ages. Physical particles can and do pass through other physical particles. In the scientific world it is called the tunneling effect and has been observed on its own and as an extension of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This is not outside the possibilities in quantum physics that has been observed to do such things and much more.

You really should consider some studies in modern science. You may try Amazon or the local library. Check out some books on Astrophysics, quantum physics, and dark matter and dark energy. If you read anything on dark matter and dark energy try to find something published in 2011 or later.

The Traveler

PS. So you do not believe that G-d could allow someone to walk thourgh a wall or passed a locked door or appear or disapear at his will? How about walking on water? These are not supernatural - they are natural things that we do not understand that G-d does - G-d is a natural and living G-d. Living -- Why would G-d say he is a living G-d to creatures that only understand that physical things that are alive?

Edited September 11, 2012 by Traveler
added PS.

[SteveVH]

Your problem is that you have not kept up with science and are still back in what was left over from the science the era of the Dark Ages. Physical particles can and do pass through other physical particles. In the scientific world it is called the tunneling effect and has been observed on its own and as an extension of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This is not outside the possibilities in quantum physics that has been observed to do such things and much more.

Well thanks for pointing out my problem. Yes, Traveler, I am very much aware that physical particles can pass through other physical particles. More to the point however, I am willing to buy a plane ticket to come and watch you walk through a wall. Just let me know where and when you would like to put on this little demonstration.

PS. So you do not believe that G-d could allow someone to walk thourgh a wall or passed a locked door or appear or disapear at his will?

Here we go again. You seem to have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth. Once again, when you accuse me of making such a stupid comment as the one you made above please be honest enough to quote my own words to prove it. It is exactly God who does allow us to have these capabilities through the gift of a glorified body. Please show me where I have ever said anything else.

How about walking on water? These are not supernatural - they are natural things that we do not understand that G-d does - G-d is a natural and living G-d. Living -- Why would G-d say he is a living G-d to creatures that only understand that physical things that are alive?

Walking on water is not supernatural? While you're demonstrating your ability to walk through walls I guess you could also demonstrate your ability to walk on water, since this is apparenty a natural, rather than supernatural capability. This should be a good time. The rest of your comment is nonsensical so I cannot respond.

Edited September 11, 2012 by StephenVH