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

I would love to stay in this live debate, but I'm going with my lady friend to see the Christmas special.

This is a lot of fun guys :P ...I'm glad that we can act like civil adults on such a serious issue.

Share this post


Link to post

RebAvomai -

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

Oh.........hey does that mean I get an "A" on my first test? :P

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.

:P

I thought you were a Christian.

I have to pay more attention.

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post

Teo9969 -

This is a lot of fun guys  ...I'm glad that we can act like civil adults on such a serious issue.

I am also. It's very enjoyable to learn together.........thanks for the discussion, and we shall catch you here later so we can learn more together.......

Share this post


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

Oh.........hey does that mean I get an "A" on my first test? <_<

BS'D

Shalom ScriptureLover,

Indeed! I would be appreciative if you could explain why you think "man" would be the best translation of "ish" for Shemot 15:3 instead of it's other uses, such as Master.

Not issueing a challenge or anything, just would like to see your reasoning :P

Peace

Share this post


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

Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Will you slay Christ and seperate his spirit from his body? God forbid.

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post

Johnny -

Again the Son of God has a glorified body but the person of the Son is not the person of the Father.

I never said he was...............

Share this post


Link to post

For RebAvomai..........

"Master" is an interesting translation, which perhaps actually can reflect the meaning of the verse of Shamot 15:3. I could live with that. But on further noting, the Hebrew really does have "Milkhamah" which is the word for "battle," "war," etc., yes? So "Master" wouldn't seem to be as good a fit as "warrior" or "man of war."

Ah! I just looked up the Hebrew word for "Master." It is "'adon." Are you advocating perhaps that this verse should read the Lord is a Master of War? That is interesting........not literal word for word, but since Jewish fok substitute the Ha'Shem with 'Adon, or 'Adomai, I think I see what you might be alluding to? Perhaps?

Actually in checking into other various Bible translations, I find they translate this as "The Lord is a warrior," while many others take the more literal tack and translate it word for word as "Man of war." The Hebrew construct chain does not mean he isn't a man, it describes the type of man he is, in this instance a man of war. I think I am understanding the Hebrew correctly here.

The context, so far as it appears to me, is of a male, or a warrior, or a man, being a man of war. I'm not adamant about that I don't suppose. I think my point with the Evangelical was that the Bible does literally say God is a man in some instances. The Bible can be very anthropomorphic as William F. Albright noted in his book "From the Stone Age to Christianity." (p. 264) "Yahweh, on the other hand, is virtually always referred to in the earlier sources in a way which suggests His human form though his body was usually hidden in a refulgent envelope called his Glory (kabhodh). On pg. 265 Albright said it was precisely because of Yahweh's human form that helped Israel's religion succeed! But Yahweh did not have the human frailties which we have, he still had the human form, though not the restrictions. Fascinating stuff from the then world's leading archaeologist of the Bible...........

Share this post


Link to post
ScriptureLover  writes,

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

Jesus has a glorified resurrected body of a man but this does not mean that his Father has a glorified resurrected body 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?!

I am saying that the Father is spirit.

I am saying that the Son has a glorified body.

Jesus obtained a glorifed body when he was glorified but he had a body with blood prior to his death.

Share this post


Link to post

BS'D

Shalom ScriptureLover,

Master" is an interesting translation, which perhaps actually can reflect the meaning of the verse of Shamot 15:3. I could live with that. Actually in checking into other various Bible translations, I find they translate this as :The Lord is a warrior," while many others take the more literal tack and translate it word for word as "Man of war." The Hebrew construct chain does not mean he isn't a man, it describes the type of man he is, in this instance a man of war. I think I am understanding the Hebrew correctly here.

The context, so far as it appears to me, is of a male, or a warrior, or a man, being a man of war. I'm not adamant about that I don't suppose. I think my point with the Evangelical was that the Bible does literally say God is a man in some instances.

Thank you for expounding. I won't digress further for the time being, since my eyelids are getting heavy :P

The Bible can be very anthropomorphic as WIlliam F. Albright noted in his book "From the Stone Age to Christianity." (p. 264) "Y-h-w-h, on the other hand, is virutlaly always referred to in the earlier sources in a way which suggests His human form though his body was usually hidden in a refulgent envelope called his Glory (kabhodh). On pg. 265 Albright said it was precisely because of Y-h-w-h's human form that helped Israel's religion succeed! But Y-h-W-h did not have the human frailties which we have, he still had the human form, though not the restrictions. Fascinating stuff from the then world's leading archaeologist of the Bible...........

Does he speak about the Targums which are void of all anthropomorphic refrences and replaces them with memra' or "word"? The author(s) took some effort to avoid any form that might be considered Idolatry/Blasphomy.

Just something to schmooze over.

night

Share this post


Link to post
Kevin Graham  writes,

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.

The creeds do not say "same one being" they reveal that the Son is "one in being" with the Father ... big difference.

Share this post


Link to post

Johnny -

Jesus has a glorified resurrected body of a man but this does not mean that his Father has a glorified resurrected body of a man.

Jesus says differently. He simply followed and did everything He said he saw His FATHER do......John 5:19-20. Jesus does what his Father did. In fact, Robertson's Greek New Testament Word Pictures says this as well as the meaning of the Greek.

"John 5:19 - The Son (ho huios). The absolute use of the Son in relation to the Father admitting the charge in verse 18 and defending his equality with the Father. Can do nothing by himself (ou dunatai poiein aph'heautou ouden).

True in a sense of every man, but in a much deeper sense of Christ because of the intimate relation between him and the Father. See this same point in 5:30; 7:28; 8:28; 14:10. Jesus had already made it in 5:17. Now he repeats and defends it. But what he seeth the Father doing (an m

Share this post


Link to post
ScriptureLover  writes,

Jesus says differently. He simply followed and did everything He said he saw His FATHER do......John 5:19-20. Jesus does what his Father did.

If it was everything ... how is that the Mormonism teaches that the Father was a man like us which I would interpret as saying that the Father was a sinful man and scripture reveals that the Son was sinless?

Can do nothing by himself

I would agree because Christ was true God and true man. He had a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post

Re: Exodus 15:3

"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."

This verse should not be used by the LDS to directly support their notion that God the Father is a literal man since:

1. The verse is talking about Jehovah (LORD = YHWH). According to LDS theology God the Father is a different God than Jehovah.

2. According to LDS theology Jehovah himself was not at this time (Exodus) a literal man.

Share this post


Link to post

Johnny -

the Father was a man like us which I would interpret as saying that the Father was a sinful man and scripture reveals that the Son was sinless?

We don't teach that the Father was once a man just like us..........we teach that God was once a man. Jesus did everything he SAW the Father do. Jesus never once sinned, hence neither did his Father..........

Share this post


Link to post

Hooberus -

According to LDS theology Jehovah himself was not at this time (Exodus) a literal man.

That's not correct. He wasn't a physical man with his physical body yet, but he most definitely was a man.

Share this post


Link to post

Re; John 5:19

In John 5:16 -20 Jesus does not say that He was doing what the Father did (past tense - as in a previous life on another worlds as a man), but that He is doing what he sees the father "do"; "doeth" etc (present tense).

John 5 KJV

16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

John 5 NASB

16 For this reason (12) the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.

17 But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."

18 For this reason therefore (13) the Jews (14) were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, (15) making Himself equal with God.

19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, (16) the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

20 "(17) For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him (18) greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

Jesus was not saying that he was doing what the Father did (past tense), but what the Father does (present tense). Therefore the passage does not seem to offer much support for the concept of the Father once (in the past) being a mortal man on another world.

The passage seems to be dealing with the Father and Jesus presently working on the sabbath.

Share this post


Link to post

Johnny -

I would agree because Christ was true God and true man. He had a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

And............***AND*** what else did Jesus do? He took up his physical body again in the resurrection as he had seen his Father do. John 5 : 19-20 says Jesus does NOTHING except what he saw his father do......

Share this post


Link to post

Hooberus -

The passage seems to be dealing with the Father and Jesus presently working on the sabbath.

Since Jesus never would do anything throughout his life without what the Father did or does, the larger context still applies, yes? Why would Jesus ever change his path of doing what the Father does? They are ONE in thought, mind, and Spirit. What applies to Jesus applies to the Father. Yes? Jesus' entire life is in accordance with what he sees his Father do. Whatever Jesus does the Father does.......show me what Jesus does, and that is what the Father does.

This is the point in Robertson's New Testament pictures - In his work on earth the Son sees continually what the Father is doing. There is no time limit placed on this............it is the pattern throughout Jesus' life I would presume........and what a wonderful doctrine!

Share this post


Link to post
Hooberus -

 

According to LDS theology Jehovah himself was not at this time (Exodus) a literal man.

That's not correct. He wasn't a physical man with his physical body yet, but he most definitely was a man.

I believe that according to LDS theology he was not a literal man (ie: human) as we are, but a spirit in the shape of a man.

Anyway, according to present LDS theolgy Exodus 15:3 is refering to Jehovah (a different God than the Father).

Share this post


Link to post
This is the point in Robertson's New Testament pictures - In his work on earth the Son sees continually what the Father is doing. There is no time limit placed on this............it is the pattern throughout Jesus' life I would presume........and what a wonderful doctrine!

I doubt that Robertson was drawing the same implication from this a you are.

Was the Father being born of a woman, crucified, etc. that same time (present tense) as Jesus? I don't even think that your Church teaches this.

Share this post


Link to post

Hooberus -

Anyway, according to present LDS theolgy Exodus 15:3 is refering to Jehovah (a different God than the Father).

Yes.....his Son......but the Father is still his Father. Incidentally, the Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Frank Moore Cross, Jr., has noted in his classic study "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic," that the Father El (this is the BIBLICAL GOD mind you), had many sons and daughters........and it is the Canaanite model which the ancient Jews utilized for their own theology. El had 70 sons and these sons became the leaders of the various nations of earth, Jehovah being the God of the Jews, as per Deuteronomy 32. Fascinating stuff all this!

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...