[
Replying to post 115 by historia]
Theophilus of Antioch said that the Bible god is "everywhere present." If he is everywhere (an absurd notion even more ridiculous than to say he's in the sky), then he's in the sky! You know--everywhere would include the sky.
Much like Goose, I'm left scratching my head at this argument. You seem to recognize here that Theophilus is saying that God is everywhere (which is correct) and that this is therefore different than saying that God lives in the sky. But then in the very same sentence, you suggest this supports that idea. Bizarre.
LOL. So it's "correct" to say the Bible god is everywhere? I'm wondering how Theophilus of Antioch figured all that out.
But I'm saying the opposite of what you think I'm saying. If the Bible god is everywhere (the "correct" viewpoint), then he would be in the sky. So the two views are not completely different.
So the very "evidence" you posted actually supports the TIMITS model in that the Bible god would be in the sky if Theophilus of Antioch is right.
And who really cares about this Theophilus of Antioch whom few Christians have ever even heard of? Most Christians don't derive their view of the Bible god from such obscure figures but from Sunday school, church, movies, the internet and reading the Bible and other books. If you post evidence, then it should be relevant to the issue, and the issue here is what image of the Bible god most Christian have.
The point that Irenaeus is making here is that God cannot be contained in any fixed space, including heaven, since God is not contained by anything.
Maybe you missed it, but I already posted that in the TIMITS model the Bible god isn't really restricted to the sky. The sky is his "home" you might say, and like any other man, the Bible god isn't always home.
But that's the same thing as the sky. Again, these were superstitious and primitive people who knew nothing of modern cosmology. As they looked up to the sky they imagined a lot of things that weren't there like the "firmament" and the waters above it. And, of course, "the abode of God" was right up there in the sky above the imaginary firmament and the waters.
You've defeated your own argument here. Our modern idea of the "sky" corresponds to what ancient Jews and Christians considered the region below the firmament, which they also called the first heaven.
LOL! Hist, you need to read more carefully. Take another look at what I said. I said that the firmament, the "abode of God," and those mythological waters were ABOVE the sky. So yes, the sky would then be below the firmament as you say, and we are in agreement on that point.
But again, I think it's splitting hairs to argue that the Bible god was not placed in the sky since he was very close to and directly above the sky. It would be like saying space isn't in the sky.
God is in the tenth heaven, far beyond the sky, the planets, the stars, or anything else in the visible cosmos. That is obviously not the sky. It couldn't be more explicit.
Oh? How far is "far"? One mile?
So sorry, I just don't think you make a good case that the TIMITS model is "wrong." All you've done is cited the writings of obscure figures who lived long after "Bible times" who made some claims that in some ways actually support the TIMITS model.
