/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

This is probably better asked in the Orthodox General thread >>>657770

From my knowledge, God is a being that is. He is present on Earth and Heaven. Yes, God does have a physical form as Christ the Son. God the Father is something beyond our comprehension, but exists in all. He has chosen to sit in Heaven or the Spiritual realm. Of course, you must be careful in your understanding of God the trinity undivided. Perhaps I do not fully understand your meaning.

>>733104

God does have a physical form, Jesus Christ who is God became incarnate, he took on human flesh and became physical in order to redeem physical matter as well as out souls and spirits. He ascended into heaven in his physical resurrected body.

Heaven can simply be called "where God is", Jesus said to his disciples that "the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21) this means that heaven is in their midst (as Jesus is near them) and/or that heaven is within their souls as God is now in them.

>three dupes

Calm down bruh

God is omni present too, see psalm 139

Re: dwelling place in heaven, I think that there's only two ways to understand it - either poetically/symbolically or some other similar kind of word (can't think) or like >>733116 anon says, we simply do not know the actual reality of heaven as it actuallly exists where the fullness of the presence of God is and only a small number only will, likely only partially, once through the narrow gate

Not orthodog but thought I'd yuk my 2cents in

>>733897

>only two ways to understand it - either

to add, use of 'either' here didn't mean to imply exclusivity between those two identified types of understandings, to me it would seem that there's good reason to think both (literary, poetic etc. on the one hand and the utter mystery of the experience and specifics of being 'in' the direct presence of God as the ultimate foundation reality on the other) are valid

God dwells in Heaven in the same sense he dwells in the Temple or he dwells in our heart. If you don't have a problem with the latter, the former should not be any different. He rules in a divine council of "elohim" (high ranking angels) from which he rules the world. Does he have to rely on these intermediary beings? No, but that's how God likes to do things. He didn't need to create anything at all, but he chose to do so. For more on the divine council see Michael Heiser's "Unseen Realm" or watch some of his lectures.

What is with all the "I want to be Orthodox but…." threads?

>>733902

People are considering the Orthodox Church but they have hangups. They want some loose ends tied, and some questions answered. It can be a lengthy process coming to Orthodoxy.

>>733104

The answer is rather simple, and I'm confused that no one has mentioned this before - heaven is not a physical place. It's that simple.

>>733906

I'd assumed that everyone had taken that as a given personally (and why I put 'in' in quotes in my post >>733899 to imply I'm not talking spatially or anything) but guess worth pointing out, and guess now you've stressed it suppose that could have simply been the actual crux of OPs q in the first place tbf

>>733116

This is true, the throne may simply be symbolic or incomprehensible to us human beings. Even in Islam which boasts of being the "one true monotheistic faith", there are numerous quotes of their god being seated on a throne, despite having no form.

The Biblical jews/hebrews also believed that God Almighty resided in the inner most depths of the Holy Temple, in a chamber known as the Holy of Holies. Only the judaic priest could enter this chamber, and only once per year. Anybody else who attempted to would be killed on the spot.

I believe orthodox jews today follow this tradition which is why the Sanhedrin is obsessed with constructing the third jewish Temple. Even though in Judaism, God has no physical form either. I believe what they infer to is that His 'presence' is in this chamber.

We can think of this in a similar manner. God Almighty is above time and space. He is not bound to be in one place at one time only. God is not like Zeus or Baal Haddad, who live atop a mountain and glance down at the earth.

God is beyond time and space. So He can be present on His 'throne' (whatever that may be) as well as with us, simultaneously.

>>733104

God is the creator of this universe and everything we know. Therefore He can access both our world but can also exist outside. I guess think of it as you creating a program. You can access it anytime but you also exist outside the program. I also believe He is omniscience

>>733906

I guess to put it in more detail : It won't be fleshy and corruptible like what we have on earth. But New Heaven and New earth is going to have fruits, a river of life, and a city.

>>734442

The Christian equivilent of God's dwelling in the Holy of Holies under the old covenant is the spirit dwelling within us - Jesus referred to his body as the temple, kingdom of God is within you, do you not know the body is a temple for the holy spirit etc etc

>>734512

Flesh is not inherently corrupt. Corruption is not natural and death is not natural.

Christ's body is like that of Adam before the fall, natural.

>>734474

Our bodies will be flesh. The difference is that they will be perfect, as >>734545 stated.

>>734545

Why did you address this post to me? I can't see what point you're making based on what I posted? Am I missing something or did you reply to me by accident?

>>734545

>>734695

Is it because I equivocated both Jesus describing his (uncorrupted, as you correctly stated) body as the temple and the fact that our body is said to be 'a' temple with the Holy of Holies, and you think I/anyone should only refer to the former, on the basis it's uncorrupted and so able to truely be the dwelling place of God, in a place uncorrupted by sin? And we cannot be the true dwelling place of God on the basis of our sin?

If that's the point, I ask, isn't the view I put across a common understanding? That in general the believer's body is the new temple on the basis of a) the Spirit dwelling within us and b) us being made righteous by the atonement? If so to my mind the distinction is moot?