Jehovah…

[The Nehor]

Just now, CV75 said:

That's great -- who can you recommend I look up?

Dan McClellan.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Dan McClellan.

Cool, thank you -- that wasn't too hard, was it?

I don't like YouTube videos, but from I gather, he doesn't assert that God lied, only that immediate physical death did not happen, contrary to the wording as he treats it, and this leads some thinkers into complex interpretations of God's honesty or the text's meaning. By not concluding that "God lied" but that some may interpret an ostensibly unfulfilled warning as a lie, I think he balances a modern literal interpretation with an idiomatic or cultural understanding.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

he doesn't assert that God lied,

No, Dan says the text says God lied or changed him mind.  He says it’s more likely intent of the story is God lied.  God is an antagonistic to humanity in this part of the Bible, God doesn’t want humanity to encroach on the boundaries of the divine.  God is not a loving father here.

The text says, not Truth….he is not claiming that God is a liar, he is not claiming there is a God, he is not claiming a doctrinal or truth position, but examining the text’s language and how that should be interpreted.

 

Edited December 10, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Cool, thank you -- that wasn't too hard, was it?

Thank you for asking. It was excruciatingly painful.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

No, Dan says the text says God lied or changed him mind.  He says it’s more likely intent of the story is God lied.  God is an antagonistic to humanity in this part of the Bible, God doesn’t want humanity to encroach on the boundaries of the divine.  God is not a loving father here.

The text says, not Truth….he is not claiming that God is a liar, he is not claiming there is a God, he is not claiming a doctrinal or truth position, but examining the text’s language and how that should be interpreted.

 

Yes, that is how I took it.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, that is how I took it.

Got it.  I misunderstood.

Edited December 10, 2025 by Calm

[JAHS]

This may have already been answered. On the subject of what non-latter-day saints believe about the triune God.
When Jesus was resurrected and showed His flesh and bone body to His apostles did He maintain that physical body when He ascended to Heaven?
And if He did, does that now mean that the triune God that most Christians believe in now also has a body of flesh and bone?
And if not why?

[Anakin7]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

This may have already been answered. On the subject of what non-latter-day saints believe about the triune God.
When Jesus was resurrected and showed His flesh and bone body to His apostles did He maintain that physical body when He ascended to Heaven?
And if He did, does that now mean that the triune God that most Christians believe in now also has a body of flesh and bone?
And if not why?

 Some  Evangelicals might say - "well Jesus the man has a body but Jesus The God does not " or for them to be honest would have to say that one third of the Trinity is corporeal.   

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

 Some  Evangelicals might say - "well Jesus the man has a body but Jesus The God does not " or for them to be honest would have to say that one third of the Trinity is corporeal.   

The Apostle Paul testifies that within the corporeal body of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ dwells “all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”This powerfully attests to the reality that the resurrected corporeal body of Jesus Christ doesn’t hinder nor diminish from the infinite and eternal fulness of his Godhood in any way. To me, the fact that Christ has a resurrected material body actually makes him superior to the Father in some ways, at least insofar as the enjoyment of his existence is concerned. Is say this because the corporeal body of Jesus Christ makes it possible for him to enjoy a wider breadth of experience than the Father is able to enjoy, for if the Father is immaterial there’s a whole wondrous realm of existence that the Father is unable to fully participate in and enjoy. The Catholic and Protestant God the Father is unable to participate in the experiences that can only be enjoyed when a spirit is clothed with a corporeal body.

Consider: Due to the fact that Christ has a body he’s quite literally able to physically embrace the embodied sons and daughters of God in his holy arms, and tell them he loves them with audible words spoken from his mouth, something the Catholic and Protestant God the Father is unable do because he is immaterial, ineffable and “totally other.” If possessing a corporeal body doesn’t diminish the Godhead of Jesus Christ one iota, while enabling him to fully function as a living personage within the material realm, one has to wonder why the Father wouldn’t want to enjoy having a physical body as well?

‘For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9)

Edited December 12, 2025 by teddyaware