Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If God is invisible, how could the Son have seen Him?
Has the LORD not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear?
Hold your hand out in front of you, do you see your hand?
Do you see that there is a space between your eyes and your hand, can you describe what that space looks like? While the atoms that fill that space in between your eyes and your hand are unseen, the space they occupy is invisible, yet you see it.
If God is invisible, how could the Son have seen Him?....................................."
Because the heavenly Son whom God sent to us is also invisible in the heavens.
God transferred the heavenly life of Jesus into Mary in order for Jesus to be born a sinless human.
So, man has Not seen God, only Spirit Person Jesus had - John 6:46.
That is why John 1:18 can say No man has seen God at any time. ( Proverbs 8:22 & Proverbs 8:30 applying to Jesus )
Revelation 3:14 B says about Jesus being the beginning of the creation by God.
Jesus considered his God as Creator - Rev. 4:11
The resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him according to Rev. 3:12
Before ascending to Heaven Jesus used different materialized bodies to appear to people including doubting Thomas.
Has the LORD not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear?
Hold your hand out in front of you, do you see your hand?
Do you see that there is a space between your eyes and your hand, can you describe what that space looks like? While the atoms that fill that space in between your eyes and your hand are unseen, the space they occupy is invisible, yet you see it.
I took your advice and held out my hand in front of myself and yes I see my hand.
As the wind blew over my opened hand I also looked around and saw leaves moving in that invisible space.
So, although invisible, the wind exerts power, even the forceful power to move around winter's fallen snow.
That invisible air and wind thus is an impersonal power.
Even the power from a power-plant grid is invisible yet we see the effects of electric lights, etc.
So, it was God's invisible spirit or power that God used to blew the breath of life into life-less Adam .
Hi Katzpur. It always amazes me at how connected to historical religious doctrines and ancient language you are.
You are correct. “Invisible” is the wrong translation in that it gives the wrong impression to this sentence.
Thank you, Clear lens. Actually, my knowledge is really very minimal, but I do find this information to be fascinating. Your interest in the doctrines of the early Church is probably strictly academic, but it really strengthens my conviction to know that my Church is teaching the same things that the early Church taught. I also find it particularly interesting when I realize that Joseph Smith was not only not a scholar by any means, but didn't even have access to these early documents. How on earth did he manage to come up with the doctrines he did? (Anyway, that's all I'll say or else someone will accuse me of proselytizing. )
Genesis 1:26-27 says “And God said, Let us make man according to our image, and according to our likeness; and let them control the fishes of the sea, and the winged creatures of the heaven, and the cattle, and all the earth, and all the reptiles , those crawling upon the earth.
Presumably God could have created the body of man in another shape and appearance but instead, he chose to create the body of Adam in Gods own appearance and similitude.
Why did God create a theomorphic body for Adam?
What is the profound underlying symbolism and lesson regarding man’s nature to be found in God’s having created the body of Adam in his own shape and appearance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I'd say that it's because we are His children, his own offspring, and not merely another creation.
In Genesis 1:24-27, we read, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
God was clearly speaking of the physical creation of all life in these verses. He said that every form of life would reproduce "after its kind." Therefore, it would only make sense that God would reproduce after His kind.
Katzpur, I like this insight. In fact, I like all of your insights so far.
The discovery that mankind are not simply chess pieces being played by God because God is bored and the accompanying concept that the Lord of Spirits is also the Father of Spirits did not merely create mankind because he was lonely is a profound concept.
It explains to some extent WHY God loves us as children and offers context as to why he is so concerned about mankind learning moral principles of Good and Evil as preparation to return to live in a social heaven.
This insight is helpful in explaining why God chose the epitaph of “Father” and why so much of the early Judeo-Christian literature places their doctrines inside the context of God the Father and Adam as his son.
For example, the Coptic Psalm-Book relates that “When the First Man had ended his struggle the Father sent his second Son. He came and helped his brother out of the Abyss. (THE COPTIC PSALM-BOOK Psalm 223 (allberry 9-11)
It matters whether the ancient epitaph of God the Father who is “Lord of Spirits” is also our “Father of Spirits” as well.
When the God the Father says to his only begotten Son regarding the spirit of the Prophet Sedrach: “Go, take the soul (spirit) of my beloved Sedrach, and put it in Paradise.” The only begotten Son said to Sedrach, “give me that which our Father deposited in the womb of your mother in your holy dwelling place since you were born.” The Apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1-2 and 5;
Thus, the Book of Jubilees (that remains firmly inside the modern Eastern Orthodox Bible (Ethiopian)) relates concerning the Jews and their changed attitudes towards the Messiah in the latter days:
“And the Lord said to Moses, “I know their contrariness and their thoughts and their stubbornness. And they will not obey until they acknowledge their sin and the sins of their fathers. But after this they will return to me in all uprighteousness and with all of (their) heart and soul. And I shall cut off the foreskin of their heart and the foreskin of the heart of their descendants. And I shall create for them a holy spirit, and I shall purify them so that they will not turn away from following me from that day and forever And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments. And they will do my commandments. And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me. And they will all be called ‘sons of the living God.’ And every angel and spirit will know and acknowledge that they are my sons and I am their father in uprightness and righteousness. And I shall love them.” Jubilees (the book of division) 1:22-25
Just a few verses later God repeats this important principle of his Fatherhood saying : “And he said to the angel of the presence, “Write for Moses from the first creation until my sanctuary is built in their midst forever and ever. And the Lord will appear in the sight of all. And everyone will know that I am the God of Israel and the father of all the children of Jacob and king upon Mount Zion forever and ever.” Jubilees 1:27-28
The Gospel of Thomas also makes this ancient doctrine clear when it relates Jesus teaching his disciples thusly: “Jesus said, “If they say to you ‘Where did you come from?’, say to them, ‘We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on it’s own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.’ If they say to you, ‘Is it you?’, say, ‘We are it’s children, and we are the elect of the Living Father.’ THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS vs 50-51;
Thomas, in quoting Jesus as teaching that the disciples are Children of God is merely repeating Pauls statement to the Hebrews : “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” Heb 12:9-10;
The Parthian Hymn-cycles also repeats this same principle in it’s texts: “…I beheld the Savior as he shone before me. I beheld the sight of all the helmsmen, who had descended with him to array my soul.....To me he says, Come, spirit! Fear not..... And forever shall I show you the noble Father (the First man): and I shall lead you in, into his presence, in pure raiment. Angad Roshnan - THE PARTHIAN HYMN-CYCLES - The Ship of God VI
Your point regarding one reason why God created man in his own image, that “…it's because we are His children, his own offspring, and not merely another creation. Katzpur (post #2) reminds me of a lot of the early Judeo-Christian literature that says the same.
For example, Speaking of the Eucharist and it’s connection with the promise of the revelatory Holy Spirit, Phillip says : “The cup of prayer contains wine and water, since it is appointed as the type of the blood for which thanks is given. And it is full of the Holy Spirit, and it belongs to the wholly perfect man. When we drink this, we shall receive for ourselves the perfect man… A horse sires a horse, a man begets man, a god brings forth a god.” The gospel of Phillip
I like your insights and I like the restoration movement in all of it's forms as a return to the early salvific doctrines. Kuddos Katzpur
Regarding references to God being "visible" in the Old Testament, there are several instances when the Angel of the Lord appears to e.g. Abraham, Moses, Hagar, but is referred to in the same passage as God [Yahweh] himself.
Since elsewhere the Bible states that "no one has seen the Father," if you start with the belief that the Bible does not contradict itself, the logical conclusion is that this "Angel of the Lord" was actually a preincarnate appearance of Jesus, the Son (what is called a "Christophany").
Of course, this requires a Trinitarian theological view. Without that, one might conclude that God, as a unity, does have a body. And the statement that no one has seen the Father wouldn't make sense.
Regarding references to God being "visible" in the Old Testament, there are several instances when the Angel of the Lord appears to e.g. Abraham, Moses, Hagar, but is referred to in the same passage as God [Yahweh] himself.
Since elsewhere the Bible states that "no one has seen the Father," if you start with the presupposition that the Bible does not contradict itself, the logical conclusion is that this "Angel of the Lord" was actually a preincarnate appearance of Jesus, the Son (what is called a "Christophany").
Of course, this requires a Trinitarian theological view. Without that, one might conclude that God, as a unity, does have a body. And the statement that no one has seen the Father doesn't make sense.
Actually, within 2nd Temple period Judaism there was a belief based upon certain verses in the Hebrew Bible which indicated a binitarian view of God. This view came to be referred to as 'Two powers in heaven.' While the view came to be regarded by the Jews as a heresy by the 2nd century AD, prior to that time it was a legitimate belief within 2nd Temple Judaism. The Jewish scholar, Alan F. Segal wrote a book, based upon one of his lectures, called 'Two Powers in Heaven.' He wrote from the standpoint of this being a heresy since he himself was a Jew.
You mentioned the 'Angel of the Lord', and indeed the Angel of the Lord is presented both as Yahweh and as distinct from Yahweh, indicating a duality to God. Another example is Genesis 19:24 having Yahweh raining down fire and brimstone from Yahweh out of heaven - Two Yahwehs?- or two distinct 'persons' who are both Yahweh.
The Trinitarian view of God does have its roots in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The New Testament expands upon the binitarian view of God presented in the Old Testament.
The Bible does contradict itself since the Bible is multivocal with the various biblical writers expressing different ideas about God. For instance, no has seen God (John 1:18), yet God was seen by certain people (various verses in the Old Testament such as Exodus 24:10-11 for one example).
Thank you, Clear lens. Actually, my knowledge is really very minimal, but I do find this information to be fascinating. Your interest in the doctrines of the early Church is probably strictly academic, but it really strengthens my conviction to know that my Church is teaching the same things that the early Church taught. I also find it particularly interesting when I realize that Joseph Smith was not only not a scholar by any means, but didn't even have access to these early documents. How on earth did he manage to come up with the doctrines he did? (Anyway, that's all I'll say or else someone will accuse me of proselytizing. )
I have to disagree with your self-assessment. You seem to have incredibly accurate historical insights.j
My interest in the earliest Judeo-Christianity and what they believed in and taught is not merely academic per se. At least not at it's roots. I am a born-again Christian who is convinced that the most original form of Christianity will contain the most accurate descriptions of the most original teachings and practices.
Having said that, I love the restorational movement in all of it's forms. (The "restorational movement" is the religious movement attempting to discover and return to the earliest forms of Judeo-Christian worldview and practices)
1) RELIGIOUS HISTORIANS WANT LARGE DATA STREAMS RATHER THAN LIMITING THE DATA TO SINGLE SOURCES
I've noticed that one major difference between religious historians and the typical "sunday school" Christians is not the number of opinions they have, but in the tendency for typical Christians to limit their stream of data they will accept to a very small stream such as their own personal intepretations of the bible they grew up with. Most do not even realize what source biblical texts say and cannot read their bible in any original language to see what it actually says.
In terms of the restorational movement, It doesn't matter to me if it be the Latter Day Saints in their attempts to return to original doctrines, or if it be a protestant or a Catholic religious historian attempting to determine what original Christian doctrines were, or if it is a Muslim historian (the great Al-Thalabi is one of my favorite historians..) or an athiest historian who is trying to determine what early Judeo-Christian religion taught. It is often this very lack of religious bias (that is necessary to acquire the greatest amount of knowledge) that is a source of criticism by sunday school christians of historians.
It is unavoidable that Historians of religion will have different religious views than individuals who are more "relaxed" in their acquisition of religious historical data. Such individuals as The great Frank Moore Cross and John Allegro of Dead Sea Scroll team were often Criticised by other Christians when the historical religious data disagreed with the opinions of the regular "sunday school" crowd.
2) THERE ARE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO HISTORICAL RESTORATION THAT ARE REMARKABLE
I personally have given it an increasing amount of thought as to how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Joseph Smith were able to restore certain early Christian doctrines (pre-existence, gradient of rewards in the afterlife, etc).
While I can explain imperfections Smith had (we all have them), I cannot nor have I ever seen or heard of anyone explain how he was able to restore certain doctrines without extant sources. For example, I believe that the Pearl of Great Price is obvious Enochian literature just as the Book of Abraham is obviously related to the ancient Apocalypse of Abraham.
The problem is that Enochian literature and the Apocalypse of Abraham Smith would have had to steal from did not exist in his day. How does one borrow ideas from the future? It is very, very interesting and I cannot explain it without revelation.
To a lessor degree but similarly, Ellen White of the Seventh Day Adventist movement came up with some very interesting insights historically. Although it was not nearly to the Degree Smith was able to restore certain doctrines, Still, I can't explain how Ellen White was able to restore some of the concepts she espoused without either incredibly deep historical study or revelation.
There are other examples of restorationists who restored multiple early concepts that leave me without explanation as to how they did it without revelation. There is something important going on in such cases.
3) DIFFERING DATA STREAMS FOR "CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS HISTORIANS" VS "SUNDAY SCHOOL CHRISTIANS"
While it is sometimes difficult for the typical "sunday school" Christians to understand (I was one...) they often hold to the concept that it is only their modern, western bible from which they will take religious information. The problem is that their translations are often incorrect, their texts and their canons are not the same as the ancient Judeo-Christians used and they are left to do the very best they can at either personal interpretations or the interpretations of their parents or church leaders.
The authentic religious historians cannot do this. Instead of insisting they will accept an english bible only, or a single arbitrary bible, or narrowing their data stream to traditions they accepted growing up, religious historians need the widest historical data stream possible and trying to avoid nacent bias.
4) THE EFFECT OF LIMITING HISTORICAL DATA
Limiting data leaves one with a skewed concept of how much information they actually have and what they actually know. The importance of study of Jewish and Islamic literature as well as Christian literature is that a few of the early doctrines intersect and agree.
For example, modern Christians know relatively little about why Satan rebelled and the controversies and multiple processes surrounding his becoming an enemy to God and mankind. Modern Christians are left to quote just a couple of scriptures, but nothing in depth. This leaves them open to criticism from athiests and agnostics and philosophers who point out the problems with Evil which were simple for early Christians to answer but which Modern Christians cannot justify. Thus, some individuals reject modern Christianity simply because modern Christianity no longer has the same answers and doctrines that so blessed the early Judeo-Christians.
The centuries following the death of Christ were described by a logia of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas as follows : “Jesus said, “The kingdom of the [father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking [on the] road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [on] the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty.”
This logia is one of many sad descriptions of the failed attempt to pass on the doctrines and traditions of the early Christianities to later generations. Thus, when one looks inside of modern Christian Churches and many of the various iterations and various Christian theories, one finds that much of the doctrinal substance that gave the early Church it’s value, is no longer to be found in many of these theories
I hope your own spiritual Journey in this life is wonderful Katzpur
Actually, within 2nd Temple period Judaism there was a belief based upon certain verses in the Hebrew Bible which indicated a binitarian view of God. This view came to be referred to as 'Two powers in heaven.' While the view came to be regarded by the Jews as a heresy by the 2nd century AD, prior to that time it was a legitimate belief within 2nd Temple Judaism. The Jewish scholar, Alan F. Segal wrote a book, based upon one of his lectures, called 'Two Powers in Heaven.' He wrote from the standpoint of this being a heresy since he himself was a Jew.
You mentioned the 'Angel of the Lord', and indeed the Angel of the Lord is presented both as Yahweh and as distinct from Yahweh, indicating a duality to God. Another example is Genesis 19:24 having Yahweh raining down fire and brimstone from Yahweh out of heaven - Two Yahwehs?- or two distinct 'persons' who are both Yahweh… The New Testament expands upon the binitarian view of God presented in the Old Testament.
You are wonderfully insightful Michael Way.
1) POLYTHEISM, MONOTHEISM AND HENOTHEISM IN ISRAELITE RELIGION
The Jews themselves are aware and teach that the earlier religion of Israel was not monotheistic, but polytheistic. Israel was chastised multiple times for the worship of other Gods. This was not necessarily for belief in other Gods, but for worshipping them instead of and more than Jehovah. It is only the later religion that evolves into a strictly monotheistic religion.
While we typically discuss Judeo-Christian religion in terms of monotheism versus polytheism, a third term, “Henotheism” more accurately described early Israel religion (before modern “orthodox” rabbinic Judaism began).
Henotheism is the recognition that there are other Gods or God-like beings in heaven (such as are discussed in the Dead Sea Scrolls) but the worship of only one God. Thus it was said of Jehovah in Deuteronomy 10:17 “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome…”. In the case of henotheism, all gods (with a small “g”) were always directed by THE God (with a large “G”).
In this model, all authority and direction came from one God and this God delegated authority and tasks to all other God-like beings. If the henotheistic model is correct, there may be multiple God-like individuals involved (just as the Dead Sea Scrolls describe).
Language introduces problems as well. The words for Angel, both in Greek and in Hebrew are the exact same word as the word for “messenger”. And in fact, angels ARE messengers. One problem is that when the word “angel” is used, one cannot tell, other than by context, if this person is an angel/messenger from heaven or an angel/messenger from a mortal king or another mortal. Occasionally it is confusing.
2) CONFLICTS IN THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE / CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
The Bible does contradict itself since the Bible is multivocal with the various biblical writers expressing different ideas about God. For instance, no has seen God (John 1:18), yet God was seen by certain people (various verses in the Old Testament such as Exodus 24:10-11 for one example).
IF henotheism is a correct model for Israelite religion, then this may help explain potential textual contradictions and, while no one knows what the earliest texts that became “the bible” said, we do know the current text is not original and this may help partly explain internal contradictions as well.
For example, the Enochian literature describes the prophet Enoch in his vision ascension into heaven, seeing both God the Father and the Son with him. The time period is after Jesus is chosen to be the redeemer and advocate for mankind. The prophet Enoch says: ”I saw the he who precedes time (God the Father). And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. “ 1st Enoch 46:1-6;
The Prophet Isaiah said: “I see more than Moses the prophet.’ Moses said, There is no man who can see the Lord and live.’ But Isaiah has said, ‘I have seen the Lord, and behold I am alive.’ Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah .
The Masoretes who, in the middle ages, created what has become the current official Rabbinic Bible provide a List of Sopheric alterations (sometimes with original readings). Among reasons they altered the original text was to avoid any narrative that would (in their opinion) dishonor God.
For examples, the Manuscripts Orient 1397 and Orient 2349 not only ascribed the changes to the Sopherim, but declared that according to the opinion of some Schools the changes were made by Ezra Himself. (I think this claim simply represents a mechanism to increase credibility that the changes were authorized…)
Example of changes to the text :
Gen 18:22 : IN Genesis 18, the introduction context of the chapter in verse one is “And the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre…” (vs 1).
The story then follows that three men came to Abraham who bowed to them (vs 2) As talk turns to the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah at least two of the men went toward Sodom. The sentence in verse 22 of the later Jewish massoretic reads And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom, “but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.”
In all three Massoretic Rubrics in the manuscripts Orient 1379, 2349 and 2365, each emphatically states that the original reading was “but the Lord stood yet before Abraham” but that the text was altered. Other lists of changes to the original text such as the ancient List of the Maase Ephod confirms that the text was originally “and the Lord still stood before Abraham”.
The greatest scholar on the Massorah, Ginsberg himself tells us : “With such an emphatic declaration before us, both in the ancient post-biblical records and in the Massorah itself, it seems almost superfluous to point out that it would be most incomprehensible for the redactors of the text to state that they have here altered the text and also to give the original reading when they had in fact done no such thing.”
The context, and the logical continuity of the original narrative is more logical and reasonable and smoothly transitions in the original as compared to the textual alteration. It was the Lord who came down to see and tell Abraham whether the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had acted in accordance with the bitter cry which went up to heaven. Sometimes, the God in the original text was more personable and different than the God described in the alterations.
I do not think the motives of the Jewish Sopherim were evil. I think they were "wrong" to change the biblical text, but not "evil".
i think those who changed the text of the bible were trying to honor God rather than attempting to corrupt a text.
For example, the phrase to “stand before another” is often a stock phrase denoting a state of inferiority and homage (comp Gen XVIII:8; XLI:16, Deut I:38; XVIII:7 etc) such as when one “stood before” a judge.
Thus, it seemed derogatory to say that the Lord stood before Abraham. Hence in accordance with the Massoretic rules “to remove all indelicate expressions”, this and other phrases were altered by the Sopherim.
At any rate, there are multiple verses that indicate the God of the Old Testament appeared to individuals anciently and this was an acceptable claim in early Judeo-Christian tradition though, as you mentioned, there are contradictions that result in multiple conflicting opinions on this point.
I really like some of your wonderful historical insights Michael Way
Last edited by Clear lens; Yesterday at 02:31 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
