"TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe the

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

"TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe the

Post #1

Post by Jagella »

Due to popular demand, I've decided to again tackle the subject of what may or may not be an accurate description of the Bible god. I think it's safe to say that most Christians would reject or at least not affirm that the god they believe in can be accurately described as "The Invisible Man In The Sky." They probably feel that "TIMITS" is not a name that most people can respect because it makes the Bible god appear to be mythological or even the product a a child's imagination.

While I think the name TIMITS fits well, another member here disagrees.
tam wrote: Invisible

Might have a problem here. Just because something is unseen does not mean that it is invisible. My brother lives on the other side of the country; I cannot see him, but he is not invisible.

God dwells in the spiritual realm (in unapproachable light). We may not currently see Him; but that does not mean He is invisible; nor does it mean that other spirit beings cannot see Him. As well, what would be the point of God saying, 'No one can see me and live'... if He was invisible, if no one could see Him, ever? Would He not have said instead, "No one can see me because I am invisible"?

"No one can see me and live" implies rather than that He is too powerful a being for us to physically (stand in His presence and) see Him. At least not in this vessel (the body that we currently inhabit).

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
This argument is very easy to disprove. The Bible god is indeed invisible. Just read Colossians 1:15:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Question for Debate: Would anybody else like to affirm or deny that the Bible god is The Invisible Man In The Sky?

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #11

Post by tam »

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Peace to you Jagella!

I am posting over my entire response from that other thread (I will respond to the bit about 'invisible' in a separate post).



TIMITS


The

No problem there.


Invisible

Might have a problem here. Just because something is unseen does not mean that it is invisible. My brother lives on the other side of the country; I cannot see him, but he is not invisible.

God dwells in the spiritual realm (in unapproachable light). We may not currently see Him; but that does not mean He is invisible; nor does it mean that other spirit beings cannot see Him. As well, what would be the point of God saying, 'No one can see me and live'... if He was invisible, if no one could see Him, ever? Would He not have said instead, "No one can see me because I am invisible"?

"No one can see me and live" implies rather than that He is too powerful a being for us to physically (stand in His presence and) see Him. At least not in this vessel (the body that we currently inhabit).



Man

Problem here as well.

God is not a man (numbers 23:19; 1Samuel 15:29)



In

No particular problem with the word itself.


The

Again, no problem.


Sky


You have a problem here as well. God does not dwell in the sky (the atmosphere, the clouds in the earthly realm, etc).

God dwells in the spiritual realm (the heavens); and He can also dwell in people by means of His holy spirit (His breath, blood, seed), if indeed a person has been anointed with holy spirit (the holy spirit that Christ breathed upon His apostles, and again upon the people at Pentecost, and upon anyone who is truly a Christian - an anointed one.)


Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #12

Post by William »

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]
Question for Debate: Would anybody else like to affirm or deny that the Bible god is The Invisible Man In The Sky?
The way I understand the GOD of the bible (or any other theist idea of GOD which isn't deist) is that he is invisible just like consciousness is invisible, but can be seen through the material world just like consciousness can be seen in the brain and through expression of biological forms.

From what I can gather, many of the biblical stories deal with ascending and descending beings from the sky but these are usually visible.

The 'voice in the garden' might be considered to be 'in the sky' or at least in the air around Adam. The story of the voice making proclamations about Jesus when he was baptized seems to be written in a way which makes the reader think it was coming from the sky.

Generally though, my overall impression is that the GOD in question is more inclined toward being 'a voice in the heart' of the individual and do not think that most Abramites have ever heard the GODs voice boom out from the sky, so I wouldn't personally agree that it is correct to describe the GOD as 'The invisible man in the sky' as an accurate depiction of how the GOD interacts with those who presently believe in him, and believe they interact with him.

I think rather, that it is an unnecessary expression of - not even thinly veiled - contempt on the part of those, such as yourself, who use it as you have and apparently still want to...even that you were - if I remember correctly - recently asked not to by the mods.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #13

Post by tam »

Jagella wrote: Due to popular demand, I've decided to again tackle the subject of what may or may not be an accurate description of the Bible god. I think it's safe to say that most Christians would reject or at least not affirm that the god they believe in can be accurately described as "The Invisible Man In The Sky." They probably feel that "TIMITS" is not a name that most people can respect because it makes the Bible god appear to be mythological or even the product a a child's imagination.

While I think the name TIMITS fits well, another member here disagrees.
tam wrote: Invisible

Might have a problem here. Just because something is unseen does not mean that it is invisible. My brother lives on the other side of the country; I cannot see him, but he is not invisible.

God dwells in the spiritual realm (in unapproachable light). We may not currently see Him; but that does not mean He is invisible; nor does it mean that other spirit beings cannot see Him. As well, what would be the point of God saying, 'No one can see me and live'... if He was invisible, if no one could see Him, ever? Would He not have said instead, "No one can see me because I am invisible"?

"No one can see me and live" implies rather than that He is too powerful a being for us to physically (stand in His presence and) see Him. At least not in this vessel (the body that we currently inhabit).

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
This argument is very easy to disprove. The Bible god is indeed invisible. Just read Colossians 1:15:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Question for Debate: Would anybody else like to affirm or deny that the Bible god is The Invisible Man In The Sky?

It was not really an argument to prove or disprove. I realize that Paul describes God as 'invisible'... but meaning unseen. Which is what the word translated as 'invisible' means.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... G517&t=KJV


So if by invisible you mean unseen, then there may be no problem (as I said). God is unseen by us; but that does not mean that no one has ever seen Him or that no one will ever be able to see Him.

"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father." John 6:46


The Son has Himself seen the Father.


Am I explaining myself clearly?



Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #14

Post by tam »

Peace again to you!

To demonstrate that he is a man as well, all I need to do is cite other numerous passages that prove Jesus is a man (Romans 5:15, 1 Timothy 2:5) and that he is the Bible god: John 1:1:

First - John 1:1 does not prove that "Jesus" is the "bible god". "Jesus" being God is something that is quite debated, in the rest of the world as well as on this forum.

Second - I quoted a couple of passages above in my original post that clearly state God is not a man:

"God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind.

Third - Adam is described as the first man (and both God and Christ existed before Adam, so how could God be a man if the first man is someone that God created?):

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 1Corinthians 15:45


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 22886
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 899 times
Been thanked: 1338 times
Contact:

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #15

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Jagella wrote:
Would anybody else like to affirm or deny that the Bible god is The Invisible Man In The Sky?
I don't believe the above statement to be true.
  • # A man is usually defined as a human of the male sex and the bible explicitly states God is a spirit (John 4:24).

    NOTE: The bible often uses metaphors, describing God as having "eyes", "hands" "arms" "feet" etc) these figures of speech they help us understand his nature and capacities. Scholars call such terms anthropomorphic (see further reading below)
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102008370


    # While it is true God is described as being invisible to humans, the bible implies Him to be visible to fellow spirits; thus the bible God is not "invisible" in the absolute sense.

    # While the Hebrew wordtranslated as the English "heaven" covers what we call the "sky" ie the atmopher surrounding the earth were birds fly) the same word also, and more frequently refer to the spirit realm. It is arguably this meaning that is exclusively used when speaking of God's literal location.
CONCLUSION



I contend that all three markers in the expression The Invisible [1] Man[2] In The Sky[3] are at the very least linguistically and biblically ambiguous and at the most totally inaccurate


RELATED POSTS

Does the bible speak of God exposing his naked buttocks?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 993#896993

Does Genesis 32:30 (where Jacob claims to have seen "God") contradict John 1:18 which says that no man has seen God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 226#867226
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #16

Post by Jagella »

tam wrote:Man

Problem here as well.

God is not a man (numbers 23:19; 1Samuel 15:29)
At that time the writers of those passages were denying the beliefs that probably arose among some of the Jews that their god was a man. That those "heretic" Jews would believe he was a man should come as no surprise at all considering that the Jewish scriptures portrayed him as a very fallible, petty, and angry ruler who meted out violent and deadly revenge on all those who displeased him. You know--just like a man!

Later on Christians brought the Bible god down to earth in the man, Christ. If you know your basic Christian theology, Christ is described as a "god-man." So the Bible god is established as a man albeit a man who is also a god with magical powers.
Sky

You have a problem here as well. God does not dwell in the sky (the atmosphere, the clouds in the earthly realm, etc).
There's no problem at all for my position that the Bible god is in the sky. Consider Matthew 5:48:
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The Greek for "heavenly Father" is Πατὴ� � ο��άνιος. The word ο��άνιος is defined as
of or relating to the sky. So Πατὴ� � ο��άνιος can be translated as "Father of/in the sky."
God dwells in the spiritual realm (the heavens); and He can also dwell in people by means of His holy spirit (His breath, blood, seed), if indeed a person has been anointed with holy spirit (the holy spirit that Christ breathed upon His apostles, and again upon the people at Pentecost, and upon anyone who is truly a Christian - an anointed one.)


Oh sure, TIMITS can be anywhere people imagine him to be. So TIMITS need not be in the sky only but other places as well.

So there you go, Tam. Another rock-sold post from Jagella that is well reasoned and properly documented.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #17

Post by Divine Insight »

JehovahsWitness wrote: # While the Hebrew wordtranslated as the English "heaven" covers what we call the "sky" ie the atmopher surrounding the earth were birds fly) the same word also, and more frequently refer to the spirit realm. It is arguably this meaning that is exclusively used when speaking of God's literal location.
I don't see how you can accept this JW.org position.

The Bible clearly makes many references to Jesus "ascending" to heaven. It even describes Jesus' disciples actually witnessing this event when Jesus supposedly actually does ascend to heaven.

He also takes his physical body with him which makes these tales even more absurd.

Keep in mind that these ancient people were not even aware that the Earth's atmosphere only reaches a very short way into space.

There are many things that these ancient rumors and myths state that clearly are not consistent with a "spiritual realm".

Don't you think that if there truly was a God who understood this he would have at least has Jesus simply fade away? In fact, the story would have actually made more sense if Jesus had left his physical body in the grave and simply returned as a spiritual ghost.

Clearly the humans who wrote these stories didn't want Jesus to be a spiritual ghost. They wanted him to be a physically resurrected man. But this all backfires on them in the end.

Today, Christian theists need to argue that these were all just abstract metaphors in an effort to correct the gross mistakes made by the original authors who made this stuff up originally. But really doesn't fly at all. If there truly was a God who wanted modern day people to believe in these ancient stories surely that God would have made sure that the stories made sense. The fact that they don't make sense is actually overwhelming evidence that no God had anything to do with any of this.

~~~~~~

I would just like to point out that the same thing applies to the concept of evil demons being cast out of people's bodies. Modern day theists like to argue that this was never meant to be literal, but instead this idea of casting out demons actually refers metaphorically to simply changing a person's character and having them realize the difference between good and evil.

However, there's a major problem with this because there is a story where Jesus goes to cast demons out of someone and the demons beg Jesus to cast them into nearby swine. This hardly makes any sense at all as an abstract metaphor of someone supposedly having a change of heart or character.

So these stories simply cannot be repaired by trying to claim that they are simply metaphors. Clearly the original authors were describing actual demons being cast out of a person and into swine.

So these metaphorical apologies for the Bible don't hold up.

Jesus supposed ascended up into the clouds taking his physical body with him. He didn't just fade away into a spiritual world leaving a dead physical carcass behind.

So the biblical stories are indeed literal. They were intended to be literal descriptions and not spiritual metaphors like modern day apologists try to make them out to be.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #18

Post by Jagella »

William wrote: Generally though, my overall impression is that the GOD in question is more inclined toward being 'a voice in the heart' of the individual and do not think that most Abramites have ever heard the GODs voice boom out from the sky, so I wouldn't personally agree that it is correct to describe the GOD as 'The invisible man in the sky' as an accurate depiction of how the GOD interacts with those who presently believe in him, and believe they interact with him.
I'm still in the dark about what your version of a god might be. If you think TIMITS is inaccurate, then the god you believe in is visible, not anything like a man, and rarely if ever in the sky. So when did you last see him on earth, and how did you recognize him if he isn't a man? What did he look like?

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #19

Post by Jagella »

tam wrote:
It was not really an argument to prove or disprove. I realize that Paul describes God as 'invisible'... but meaning unseen.
The Greek word is ἀο�άτου. It can mean either unseen or invisible. I thought that these two words can be synonyms.

Anyway, if God is visible, then what does he look like? When did you last see him? I was taught by Christians that the Bible god was present but unseen which makes him invisible.

So I'm not making up TIMITS. I became acquainted with TIMITS from my Bible studies and what Christians have told me about the Bible god.

Image

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 22886
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 899 times
Been thanked: 1338 times
Contact:

Re: "TIMITS" Revisited: Is it correct to describe

Post #20

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]
JehovahsWitness wrote: # While the Hebrew word translated as the English "heaven" covers what we call the "sky" ie the atmopher surrounding the earth were birds fly) the same word also, and more frequently refer to the spirit realm. It is arguably this meaning that is exclusively used when speaking of God's literal location.
What exactly do you see as problematic in my explanation?



RELATED POSTS

What does the bible mean when it uses the word "heaven(s)"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 228#841228

Did Jesus go to heaven?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 552#901552

The Ascension: Is heaven really "up"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 907#818907
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Locked