Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ScriptureLover

For Elihu - God is Certainly Described as a Man

Recommended Posts

Paul Osborne  writes,

And how many hands and feet do the Father and Son have?

Prove it. I have the testimony from Bible prophets who both heard and saw him. His voice and body was seen.

What Bible prophets saw the Father with hands and feet?

Share this post


Link to post
Johnny - What Bible prophets saw the Father with hands and feet?

Many of them. When they were gathered in with Jesus and asked him to show them the Father he told them he who had seen Jesus had seen the Father. They are alike. They saw, heard, and felt Jesus. They *felt* his HANDS and FEET.

Share this post


Link to post
ScriptureLover  writes,

but the Bible absolutely *does* show how God talks to man and woman on the earth. 

But the Bible absolutely *does not* show that our Heavenly Father has a form of a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Teo 9969 - Just because God HAD a Body (Jesus's) while he was on earth, does not mean that God IS Man...God TOOK the FORM of Man while on earth, But his human nature died on the cross, while his divine nature lived on.

You stopped just a wee-bit short my friend. Jesus also took up that same MAN form again as GOD Almighty...........the resurrection you know.........Acts 1:3-10 etc.

Share this post


Link to post

== It seems like with all your research into the matter you should be able to quickly refute my statement with a couple of scriptures.

This is absurd. There is nothing "quickly refuted" in a subject that required this much research. Prooftexting is rhetorical trick practiced by those too lazy to do real research.

== I have presented some of my views in this post ... again with all your knowledge you could quickly refute what I have presented.

Again, you obviously have no clue what research is if you think it enables one to "quickly refute" something so complex as the doctrine of God's nature. I know it is commonplace for Bible-thumpers like yourself, to think prooftexting a few verses "quickly refutes" an opposing interpretation, but this is just an amateurish arm-chair theologian game that I have no interest in playing. I didn't spend that much time writing all of what I did so I could come here and Bible bash with people who don't even want to read it.

== That is non anti-mormon literature that is a sound biblical arguement as to why it is not acceptable to think of God as having form.

Grudem is writing systematic theology according to his Christian corner of the world. Hence the title. In order to ascertain what that Bible means, one must first examine what it would have meant to the people who first heard it. Scholars listed in my article do this very thing. Grudem does none of this. He simply reiterrates the usual Evangelical doctrine and expects his readers to just take it for granted. After all, didn't he get a "divinity" degree from an Evangelical seminary? That must be good for something right?

Whether Grudem's claims are true or not requires critical thought.

The strength of the LDS position is that we can name plenty of non-LDS (even Evangelical) scholars who disagree with this, and essentially agree that the Biblical God is a God in anthropomorphic form. In other words, Mormons have non-Mormon scholars agreeing with us. In fact, the majority of the cream of the crop, do in fact agree. How many non-Evangelical scholars agree with the Evangelical notion of God?

For example, Gurdem's explanation of John 4:24 is rather old, and it simply wont stand the test of scrutiny. For those who disagree, read here: http://kevingraham.net/5spirit.htm

Grudem is not even hip to the fact that according to the earliest Christians, to be made of "spirit" meant that you were made of matter. Spirit was not some incorporeal essence as the later councils insisted. Even Origen was able to admit this much, and he was admitting this as late as the thrid century. So how much more was it a recognzied fact during the first century? Grudem's apologetic thrives off the ignorance of those who really know nothing about how the text was understood during that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Basically what Noahnoah here is saying is he wants to see a 3 word sentence. God is (a) Man. Much like John 4:24 says "God is (a) Spirit:..." his denouncing of that comes in the prepositional phrase "of War".

Now anytime that the bible goes into visions, we must always realized that they are exactly that. Like when peter had the vision in acts about the un-kosher animals being let down from heaven and God telling him to eat them...It was a vision, and it stood for something else, that is, Preach unto the gentiles also, they are to recieve salvation as well.

So when John says I saw Jesus sitting at the right hand of God, that doesn't mean that we take that verse litterally, it was a vision. Same thing with God sitting on the throne, or having a face.

The bible says we were made in his image, that means we entail his image in a certain number of aspects: Moral, Spiritual, Mental, Relational, Physical. In all these ways we have a representation of God, but that doesn't mean that they are exact representations, and when it comes to the physical aspect we resemble God in that we have the ability to hear, just as God has the ability to hear our prayers, to speak, same as God does, to see, just as God does, We have senses such as taste smell, touch, that allow us to enjoy God's creation just as he enjoys his creation. It is also by way of our Body that we can encompass the Moral, Spiritual, etc. aspects.

an analogy:

I paint flowers, and I imagine a rose with Green petels and a read stem. I paint it that way, That rose was painted in my image, but is not what I look like.

read this post again.

Share this post


Link to post
Johnny - But the Bible absolutely *does not* show that our Heavenly Father has a form of a man.

Yes it absolutely does too show this, in Jesus. Everything that Jesus is, the Father is. That is Biblical.

Share this post


Link to post
Teo 9969 - Just because God HAD a Body (Jesus's) while he was on earth, does not mean that God IS Man...God TOOK the FORM of Man while on earth, But his human nature died on the cross, while his divine nature lived on.

You stopped just a wee-bit short my friend. Jesus also took up that same MAN form again as GOD Almighty...........the resurrection you know.........Acts 1:3-10 etc.

That doesn't mean however, that he stayed in that Body in heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
ScriptureLover  writes,

Yes it absolutely does too show this, in Jesus. Evreything that Jesus is the Father is. That is Biblical.

You would agree that the person of the Father is not the person of the Son ... you would agree Jesus is not everything the Father is.

Share this post


Link to post
Johnny - How are you using the word "God"?

Are you using "God" as meaning the Father of Jesus?

Are you using "God" as meaning the quality of being divine?

That is irrelevant. Jesus is God, and he is a man in actual form, the same physical man form he took up again in the resurrection! That at the very least, implies something seriously important and eternal about his man form. It is the form he took up AS GOD. As God with his body in the shape and form of the man they crucified on the cross, Jesus has been given *all* power in Heaven and in earth. There is God Almighty as a man. That is pure Bible doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Paul Osborne  writes,

The Lamb (symbolic of Christ's mission) was slain that we might live again and see the Father. Christ takes the book out of the Father's hand. There is nothing you can say that will dismiss that simple truth. Heavenly Father is a Man and all who are in heaven see him for who he is.

This is symbolic ... it is a vision.

Heavenly Father does not have the form of a man.

Do you think the Son has the form of a lamb?

Share this post


Link to post
Johnny - you would agree Jesus is not everything the Father is.

I agree that Jesus has inherited everything that the Father has. Jesus inherited his body in the resurrection, and hence that says the Father also has a body. The two are the same type of being, with the same properties. Jesus has a man's body, hence the Father does. To say Jesus has something the Father does not have is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Teo9969 - That doesn't mean however, that he stayed in that Body in heaven.

The Bible doesn't state he didn't either though. He took it up with him in the ascension, I believe it is safe to assume he still has that form. It obviously was so very important that he actually resurrected with that same form only in a glorified and perfected state. It was *so crucial* that he used that form to prove he was alive again. A Sprit apparently would not have been able to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

== That doesn't mean however, that he stayed in that Body in heaven.

Do you have any earthly idea how blasphemous this is to Christian orthodoxy?

Christianity affirms that Christ's resurrected body is something that will remain with him throughout the eternities.

Now you have the burden of trying to explain how Christ, who has a body according to Christian creeds, is the "same one being" with the Father, who you now say doesn't have a body.

I know, it must be a "paradox" right?

Wrong.

This "paradox" scape-goat is just an excuse for saying your position is incoherent and illogical, but that you can't bring yourself to accept it.

That isn't our problem, however. We can accept the Bible for what it says.

Share this post


Link to post
ScriptureLover  writes,

That is irrelevant. Jesus is God, and he is a man in actual form, the same physical man form he took up again in the resurrection!

This is revelevant ... When the Bible says Jesus is God it means that Jesus is divine.

I suggest you see the link to better understand the words "Jesus is God".

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=5822&st=630

Why would you think the Father has a form of a man just because the Son has a form of a man?

Share this post


Link to post

Tsk!, TSK! My friend, Exodus 15:3 DOES say the Lord is a man......a MAN OF WAR. Read the scripture. It does not say "like" a man. It says plainly, unequivocally, "MAN." The description of him as being "of war" describes what he is a MAN of, does it not? It doesn't say he is a ROCK of war, or a LOVE of War.......it says MAN OF WAR. no? I just re-read the Hebrew as well. It says quite clearly YHWH 'ish Milhamah"

BS'D

Shalom ScriptureLover,

How would you translate the 'Ish Naomi' in Ruth 1:3?

Peace :P

Share this post


Link to post
== That doesn't mean however, that he stayed in that Body in heaven.

Do you have any earthly idea how blasphemous this is to Christian orthodoxy?

Christianity affirms that Christ's resurrected body is something that will remain with him throughout the eternities.

Now you have the burden of trying to explain how Christ, who has a body according to Christian creeds, is the "same one being" with the Father, who you now say doesn't have a body.

I know, it must be a "paradox" right?

Wrong.

This "paradox" scape-goat is just an excuse for saying your position is incoherent and illogical, but that you can't bring yourself to accept it.

That isn't our problem, however. We can accept the Bible for what it says.

where in the bible does it say that he continued to have that body WHILE in heaven?

Share this post


Link to post

Shalom RevAvomai.........

I would translate it as "husband." The Husband of Naomi. That appears at least to me, to be the context anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Johnny -

This is revelevant ... When the Bible says Jesus is God it means that Jesus is divine.

O.K., and as that Divine God, Jesus, of course, resurrected with what? His physical body of a man. That's fundamentally Biblical.

Share this post


Link to post

Johnny -

Why would you think the Father has a form of a man just because the Son has a form of a man?

Because the Bible clearly and succinctly states that Jesus *inherited* ALL that the Father has........Jesus INHERITED his body in the resurrection, hence the Father has one. Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus has something and can do things with his body that the Father doesn't have?!

Share this post


Link to post
Shalom RevAvomai.........

I would translate it as "husband." The Husband of Naomi. That appears at least to me, to be the context anyway.

BS'D

Shalom ScriptureLover,

Ah. I was just curious. I was not hoping you thought "ish" always means "man" and did not have other definitions.

Peace :P

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...