What did the church fathers believe the Bible god was?

[Jagella]

A colleague of mine and a self-proclaimed expert on history and Christian theology posted the following quotations from four of the church fathers. These quotations serve as evidence for what all Christians believe about the Bible god and are therefore "authoritative."

But this is the attribute of God, the Highest and Almighty, and the living God, not only to be everywhere present, but also to see all things and to hear all, and by no means to be confined in a place; for if He were, then the place containing Him would be greater than He; for that which contains is greater than that which is contained. For God is not contained, but is Himself the place of all.

[The Gnostics] are ignorant what the expression means, that heaven is [His] throne and earth [His] footstool. For they do not know what God is, but they imagine that He sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds, but does not contain.

For God is not in darkness or in place, but above both space and time, and qualities of objects. Wherefore neither is He at any time in a part, either as containing or as contained, either by limitation or by section . . . And though heaven be called His throne, not even thus is He contained

And we do not ask the question, How shall we go to God? as though we thought that God existed in some place. God is of too excellent a nature for any place: He holds all things in His power, and is Himself not confined by anything whatever.

I see some problems with this evidence. First, if we want to know what the early Christians believed about the Bible god, then can't we just get that evidence from the New Testament? I always thought that the New Testament was more authoritative than anything any of the church fathers said. It seems like these church fathers are just making up their own versions of the Bible god and don't even bother to cite the New Testament.

Second, note that Origen denies that the Bible god is in "some place." If he isn't in some place, then where is he? Nowhere? Origin doesn't specify.

Third, Theophilus of Antioch appears to answer the question raised by what Origen said by telling us that the Bible god is everywhere. Or to put it another way, the Bible god is in all places. But if he's in all places, then Origen is wrong by saying he doesn't exist in "some place."

Finally, Irenaeus tells us that the Gnostics are ignorant of what the image of the Bible god really is. Although some Christians describe the Bible god as sitting on a throne in the sky resting his feet on the earth, it is wrong to take that image too literally. So Origen is telling us: "Don't listen to what we say, but listen to what we mean."

Anyway, it seems to me that we have here a good example of how Christianity was made up by people who simply asserted what the Bible god is contradicting each other in the process and confusing the rest of us.

Question for Debate: What did the early church fathers believe the Bible god was?

[The Tanager]

Question for Debate: What did the early church fathers believe the Bible god was?

Each of the four quotes is about the same main point. God does not have a body. Theophilus compares God to gods like Jupiter, who is said to have dwelt on Ida, only present in one part of the earth at a time, etc. and says God is not like that. Irenaeus says the Gnostics are wrong for believing God has a body. Clement says God is not contained in a space, but is above space and time. And Origen's quote involves how we approach God and he directly says it is not a bodily approach as though God has a body. That kind of talk is figurative of God, not literal.

I see some problems with this evidence. First, if we want to know what the early Christians believed about the Bible god, then can't we just get that evidence from the New Testament? I always thought that the New Testament was more authoritative than anything any of the church fathers said. It seems like these church fathers are just making up their own versions of the Bible god and don't even bother to cite the New Testament.

If you want to know what the earliest Christians believed, yes. If you don't want to just assume the early church fathers (historically a designation for a later time period of Christian history) agreed with the New Testament writers, then you must go to their own writings and compare them. On this point, whether God is physical or spiritual, they agree. On other points you will see disagreements.
They cite Scripture throughout their works, but don't always use it and don't need to when they are, like Theophilus right here for this quote, talking about the (in his view) failings of other views.

Second, note that Origen denies that the Bible god is in "some place." If he isn't in some place, then where is he? Nowhere? Origin doesn't specify.

No, he says that we don't go to God as if He exists in a physical place. In the pages that follow Origen does specify that we can access God from any physical location through our intellect or soul.

Third, Theophilus of Antioch appears to answer the question raised by what Origen said by telling us that the Bible god is everywhere. Or to put it another way, the Bible god is in all places. But if he's in all places, then Origen is wrong by saying he doesn't exist in "some place."

Origen said God does not exist in a physical place. Theophilus agrees. And both of them directly talk about how God is present everywhere in an immaterial way.

Finally, Irenaeus tells us that the Gnostics are ignorant of what the image of the Bible god really is. Although some Christians describe the Bible god as sitting on a throne in the sky resting his feet on the earth, it is wrong to take that image too literally. So Origen is telling us: "Don't listen to what we say, but listen to what we mean."

No, he's saying listen to what we say in the way we mean it. In this case it is figurative talk.

It appears he was a kind of "space ghost" to some of them. You might say he was centered in the sky but everywhere. He is obviously invisible and modeled after humans.

Not sure what you mean by "space ghost". They do not say God was centered in the sky. They say God is immaterial, not physically centered anywhere but immaterially present to all physical beings and locations. So, yes, we can't physically see God. But these passages you raised directly argue against God being modeled after humans. Jupiter was human-like, being begotten and living on Ida and all of that. God is different than that. God is other than human, in that regard.

And as I have already pointed out, to claim the Bible god is omnipresent contradicts many Bible passages like Exodus 19:11 in which the Bible god moves from one place to another. Sometimes he "comes down" from the sky or from a mountain top.

That does not logically contradict omnipresence. Being immaterially present to every location in space and time does not contradict being materially present in a specific instance. God is condescending to humans, showing them He is there as a sign. Just like with the burning bush and other things. God is performing a miracle in the physical world as a sign of His existence, not as some kind of photo op for us to see what God looks like. If this was truly saying that God was smoke and thunder and lightning, God would always appear that way when performing such miracles, but He doesn't.

[The Tanager]

For God is not contained, but is Himself the place of all.

So it's not just that God happens to be in all locations, but IS all locations, space-wise and time-wise?

So God = the universe? Great. Kalam defeated then.

No, he's probably talking about our dependence on God. How do I get that? Context. Nowhere else does Theophilus espouse pantheism or panentheism. He talks about his view of creation in chapter 10 and later, so he would have espoused it further there if that is what he meant. He doesn't. So, his comment cannot mean how you interpreted it.

And since one hallmark of being rational is to be charitable with people's views, we should not just assume Theophilus is directly contradicting what he says some pages later in the same book. Linguistically, he got to this statement by talking about that which physically contains something else being greater than that which it physically contains. But he just finished saying God is not physically located. He is turning a phrase, which is a completely normal thing to do. He is probably saying "if that is what 'being a container' means, than God contains everything, because we are all lesser than God and dependent upon God for our existence."

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by Jagella]

Ouch! You really know how to hurt a guy, William. "icon_punch" There's nothing like logging on to this forum to give a person a good hard whack to brighten your day. And not to mention what doing so will do for the acceptance of your ideas.

Put your big-girl pants on Jagella. It wasn't said as a method of insult.

I think you misunderstand what I was asking. If different views of the Bible god contradict each other, and they do contradict each other, then how can we know which one is true?

Please provide an example, and then I will tell you what I think is true or not, and why.

If the Bible god cannot be measured, then he may well be merely an idea in the imagination.

Well, maybe.

Imaginary ideas cannot be measured either.

Yes they can. What is called 'imagination' is a bridge between two related realities which interact with each other. Sometimes that bridge is left to disrepair as the individual decides it is useless or dangerous. Even so, ideas from the other reality still get over the bridge and influence this reality in measurable ways.

If a thing exists, then I should be able to show it to you?

Yes. You said consciousness was a THING. I know that a chair is a THING (which incidentally required consciousness to create it out of another thing) but I have never seen consciousness. You apparently have, because you are calling it a THING.

In that case air isn't a thing either because I cannot show it to you.

You do not need to show me air is a thing as I can figure that out simply enough.

Your claim was that consciousness was a thing. I replied that if consciousness were a thing, you should be able to show it as a thing.

Air can be felt as a thing. Can you feel consciousness as a thing?

I'm confused. If gods are not created, then how can they "come about through a creative process..."? What you're saying here appears to be a contradiction.

I am not surprised that you are conflicted here Jagella, as you think that consciousness is a thing created.
The 'creative process' I was referring to had to do with ideas of GOD which come about in the same way a story teller creates a story. Not all stories are true. Some are solely fictional, others are a mix of truth and fiction, and others are true.

Actual GODs are not created. Therefore, IF GOD=consciousness, THEN no matter where consciousness finds itself re form, it was never created. The form was created, not the consciousness within the created form. The problem derives from conflating the two, as I pointed out in my last post.

Not to worry mate. Even the church fathers were conflicted as were the Gnostics, and indeed, confusion is par for the course when trying to understand the overall idea of GOD.

which is only amplified when unnecessary and dangerous additions are attached.

it hasn't been an easy road for either of us, and we both have suffered at the hands of those we were told represented GOD. One of us loves GOD beyond measure, and the other has a different outlook on that.

Would YOU think yourself somehow important if - when your body dies - you find your self still actually experiencing being conscious and in another reality?

If that ever happened, then I'd never be able to let anybody know about it because I would be dead.

Are you thinking - when your body dies - you find your self still actually experiencing being conscious and in another reality, that you will be all alone in that reality?

But I suppose I might well feel important if I found myself conscious post death.

Can you give reasons why you might suppose this?

I'd also would be left wondering how my consciousness can exist without my body considering that it was stuck to my body my whole life.

And what conclusions would you be able to draw from that?