James Banta Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 As others have said, my post makes very good sense.Why don't you tell us how an image can be invisible. And, be sure to explain with more than one dismissive sentence why my explanation doesn't make sense.Are you sure it's ok to talk to you? I don't want to be pushy.. If it's not just report me and I will leave..Since the passage says that Jesus is the image I can say without any problem that Jesus is not invisible.. I say that the context make it clear that the Father is not seen the Only Begotten of the Father has revealed Him.. Even Stephen at he was stoned saw only the Glory of God the Father not a visible person.. Throughout the Bible it is made clear that jesus has ALWAYS been the revealed God, That the Father though present is never seen.. IHS jim
Zakuska Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Are you sure it's ok to talk to you? I don't want to be pushy.. If it's not just report me and I will leave..Since the passage says that Jesus is the image I can say without any problem that Jesus is not invisible.. I say that the context make it clear that the Father is not seen the Only Begotten of the Father has revealed Him.. Even Stephen at he was stoned saw only the Glory of God the Father not a visible person.. Throughout the Bible it is made clear that jesus has ALWAYS been the revealed God, That the Father though present is never seen.. IHS jimAnd yet Jesus says his Father looks just like he does...John 1245 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.Its not that God can't be seen because he is invisible or some such silly thing. It's that he remains concealed.TG: God, Priviledge of Seeing
Sargon Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Are you sure it's ok to talk to you? I don't want to be pushy.. If it's not just report me and I will leave..Relax Jim. Its fine to talk to me. I only asked that you provide a fuller explanation for why my reasoning above didn't make sense. All you provided was one dismissive sentence with no substance.Since the passage says that Jesus is the image I can say without any problem that Jesus is not invisible.. I say that the context make it clear that the Father is not seen the Only Begotten of the Father has revealed Him.. Even Stephen at he was stoned saw only the Glory of God the Father not a visible person.. Throughout the Bible it is made clear that jesus has ALWAYS been the revealed God, That the Father though present is never seen.. IHS jimWhy isn't the Father seen? Is it because he has chosen to remain aloof, to not show himself to man.....or is it because by his very metaphysical nature is unseeable? Will we not see God the Father in heaven after judgement day because his "wholly other" and completely unique metaphysical nature is absolutely unseeable?Do you really get all of that out of the text we are discussin?
James Banta Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 And yet Jesus says his Father looks just like he does...John 1245 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.Its not that God can't be seen because he is invisible or some such silly thing. It's that he remains concealed.TG: God, Priviledge of SeeingWhere oh where could such an Idea come from... Maybe here:Isaiah 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of PeaceHummmm could be... IHS jim
Sargon Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Where oh where could such an Idea come from... Maybe here:Isaiah 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of PeaceSo, was the "child" who "is born" the "everlasting father", meaning, God the Father?
Zakuska Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 If God is invisible (because of his metaphysicla nature) and can't be seen...Judges 1322 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. Why all the Israelite fear associated with seeing him?Isaiah must have also missed the memo that God the father was Invisible...Isaiah 6 5
Chris Smith Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 If God is invisible (because of his metaphysicla nature) and can't be seen...Judges 1322 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. Why all the Israelite fear associated with seeing him?Isaiah must have also missed the memo that God the father was Invisible...Isaiah 6 5
Zakuska Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Yes, there are theological developments and differences of theological opinion in the Bible.These are more than "Theological Developments/Opinions" Chris... these are flat out contradictions.John says no one has seen God and Isaiah flat out says his EYES (Id assume his Physical eyes because he is speaking of his Physical lips) have beheld the Lord.So which is it?Another Good one...Ex. 19: 11, 24 11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
Chris Smith Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 These are more than "Theological Developments/Opinions" Chris... these are flat out contradictions.Have you considered that the problem may lie in your assumption that there will be no flat out contradictions in the Bible?
Sargon Posted February 4, 2009 Author Posted February 4, 2009 I think Christ has a point. The bible isn't a unified voice on very many things at all. Since Chris recognizes this, he doesn't get as involved in bible bashes like a Carmite might do. We LDS recognize it, and we use it against simplistic interpretations like the ones proffered by Carmites.
Zakuska Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Have you considered that the problem may lie in your assumption that there will be no flat out contradictions in the Bible?Thank you and Sargon for illustrating my point perfectly. I assume no such thing. However... since you claim to be Evangelical I assumed you would take the assumption that Evangelicals usually do take. But thanks for admiting the obvious. One question... if there are flat out contradictions in the Bible... how can it be said to be "inerrant"? If some say they have seen God while others say they haven't... who is to be beleived? Thats some pretty core Bible doctrine right there.
Chris Smith Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I am not an evangelical (though I was one once upon a time) and have never believed in biblical inerrancy.For what it's worth, though, I think the average evangelical would argue that biblical theophanies are manifestations of God in which God is revealed but not in his essential being (which is unrevealable).
Zakuska Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I am not an evangelical (though I was one once upon a time) and have never believed in biblical inerrancy.For what it's worth, though, I think the average evangelical would argue that biblical theophanies are manifestations of God in which God is revealed but not in his essential being (which is unrevealable).Thanks for the heads up Chris.The paradox there of course is... God is not all powerful because there is something.... some MAJOR something that he cannot do. Which is also paradoxical in and of itself... Because if his essential being is unrevealable... then how can he manifest himself in the first place...
cksalmon Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I am not an evangelical (though I was one once upon a time) and have never believed in biblical inerrancy.For what it's worth, though, I think the average evangelical would argue that biblical theophanies are manifestations of God in which God is revealed but not in his essential being (which is unrevealable).Hi Chris--Just to underscore your point: this is essentially what Michael Heiser and a whole host of others argue. OT theophanies are instances of condescending grace whereby God manifests physically in order to "connect," as it were, with his people, for their benefit. Such manifestations are also necessarily protective in nature: No one can withstand the full, unmitigated presence of God. Best.cks
Chris Smith Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 The paradox there of course is... God is not all powerful because there is something.... some MAJOR something that he cannot do.The limitation would be on our part rather than God's. Nevertheless, you're right that omnipotence (absolutely conceived) creates some difficulties.
James Banta Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 So, was the "child" who "is born" the "everlasting father", meaning, God the Father?You interpret I'll just believe it.... IHS jim
James Banta Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 And yet Jesus says his Father looks just like he does...John 1245 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.Its not that God can't be seen because he is invisible or some such silly thing. It's that he remains concealed.TG: God, Priviledge of SeeingHere is my answer again for both you are Sargon:Isaiah 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of PeaceIHS jim
Zakuska Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 So in your world view... Christ is his own Grandpa.Gotcha!
Sargon Posted February 4, 2009 Author Posted February 4, 2009 You interpret I'll just believe it.... IHS jimThat was a non-answer Jim. There is no such thing as reading scripture without interpreting it. You can't cite a passage as support for your argument without interpreting it. There must be some interpretation on your end or you wouldn't have chosen this particular passage to begin with.So, in what is Christ the "everlasting father"? I propose it is in the sense that the BoM describes.
James Banta Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 That was a non-answer Jim. There is no such thing as reading scripture without interpreting it. You can't cite a passage as support for your argument without interpreting it. There must be some interpretation on your end or you wouldn't have chosen this particular passage to begin with.So, in what is Christ the "everlasting father"? I propose it is in the sense that the BoM describes.My interpretation is Jesus is the Counselor, He is Wonder, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace.. Isn't that what the passage says? It's clear to me... If you wish it to say something it doesn't you put some other meaning to it.. I believe it as it stands.. IHS jim
James Banta Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 So in your world view... Christ is his own Grandpa.Gotcha! I am saying that Jesus is God and God is from everlasting to everlasting.. Jesus always exited as God.. He was never a mere spirit child of some other God, He was never a uncreated preexistant intelligence. He is God, has always been God, and will always be God.. Your statement is just some silliness invented by a man to try to make lite of a serious doctrine.. How you think that you "GotMe" is a mystery to me.. IHS jim
Tanyan Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Olam to Olam ?. what does Olam mean in a Celestrial/Heavenly/Hebrew/Israelite context ?. In His Debt/Grace Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
Zakuska Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I am saying that Jesus is God and God is from everlasting to everlasting.. Jesus always exited as God.. He was never a mere spirit child of some other God, He was never a uncreated preexistant intelligence. He is God, has always been God, and will always be God.. Your statement is just some silliness invented by a man to try to make lite of a serious doctrine..Yet Proverbs 8 says Christ (aka wisdom) was created, brought forth, setup and Colossians agrees that he was the first thing God the Father Created. BEFORE his works of old.How you think that you "GotMe" is a mystery to me.. IHS jimGotcha as in... ca-peesh... understood... I understand what you where saying.
Sargon Posted February 5, 2009 Author Posted February 5, 2009 My interpretation is Jesus is the Counselor, He is Wonder, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace.. Isn't that what the passage says? It's clear to me... If you wish it to say something it doesn't you put some other meaning to it.. I believe it as it stands.. IHS jimJim, hang with me here.It sounds like you are suggesting that Jesus Christ = The Everlasting Father. Therefore,1. God the Father = The Everlasting Father2. God the Son = The Everlasting FatherAre you a modalist?
Programmer Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 In the debate over the corporeality of God the Father, John 4:24 is usually a focus:Many non-LDS Christians make a big fuss over the phrase "God is spirit". To them, that is the clencher. To them, this precludes the possibility that a God who is spirit could also be a God who is body. To them, the two are mutually exclusive.Hold your horses!In this verse, man who is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT.According to the logic proffered by many non-LDS Christians, this precludes the possibility of man also being body.What?I offer this observation as an addition to the usual perfectly good responses to our critic's use of John 4:24 (God is love, fire, etc.).Sargon, this is simply AWESOME!Another scripture: 36
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.