The Form of God

[Hillsage]

If Jesus came as the Son who as a sinless man become aware through prayer , the scriptures and hearing God that he was indeed Immanuel .. Then at his resurrection and ascension he became eternal at that point no longer subject to time .. Then as the Alpha and Omega he could have been the one Moses saw

What you are saying doesn't sound possible to me. How could he appear to Moses 4000 years ago "after His ascension no longer subject to time"??? He wasn't asended until 2000 years after Moses.
And before 2000 years ago He, JESUS, did not exist in flesh until He was born of Mary. He was "the Word" and then became flesh.

JOH 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[2ducklow]

Don't forget that Jesus was also a loaf of bread when he was also words.

(KJV) John 6:51 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

(KJV) John 1:14 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

the greek word logos doesn't mean word it means preexistent Christ.
3 isn't 3. 3 is one.
the greek word for bread doesn't mean bread it means preexistent Christ.
make sense?

 

[RevelationTestament]

And what 'more than' "very general connection" do you lean on?

Well, there is not a whole lot. But certain passages seem to say He knew us before our bodies were formed in the belly or created.
Ecclesiastes says when we die our body returns to dust but our spirits return to God. To return they must have come "from God."
Genesis 1 says there were hosts in heaven from the beginning. I believe these hosts to be men - prophets etc.

So you don't see the importance of worshiping God in spirit because GOD IS SPIRIT? I think that's the point of the verse, personally.

Well, we are spirit too. I am just emphasizing that this doesn't mean heavenly Father doesn't have corporeal form. Jesus seems to indicate He does.

1CO 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

ALL spirits and created substance came from God who is spirit, and ultimately ALL will be returned to God IMO. Where do you think your spirit came from?

I believe our spirits have always existed. That is how some ended up with Satan. These are some who didn't follow God's plan and therefore were not entitled to come to the earth and inherit a body. These are some who Jesus cast out and who went into swine.

You don't think He has that now?

You assume God had a physical body then. Because scripture says GOD IS SPIRIT. And when the Father spirit, the Word spirit and the Holy Spirit created man they put their FORM into a body fashioned after the earth God had just created, and that FORM He breathed (metaphorically) into them was SPIRIT just like God. That's my take.

Like I said previously I didn't bring it up to debate the topic. Moses saw the back parts of someone with hands etc who said no man could see Him and live. So you must believe that is all allegorical. I am merely pointing out that if we are spirits to the Father of spirits, then it is not outside the realm that the Father has a body like Jesus in which His spirit resides. Do you believe Jesus has a body? Do you believe that He shall be called the Father? El Gibbor, the Mighty God per Isa 9:6? Do you believe He will then give up his body? If not then you have our Father with a body.

Nor do I, because they came forth from God who always was. Spirits are all, and always were eternal coming forth from GOD who IS SPIRIT, and ever eternal.

Hmm. So we seem to agree here. So do you believe our spirits had some form of thought in this pre-existence?

And I believe it was the Jehovah name/nature of God that was being manifested, and not necessarily one part of 'Father/Word (pre-incarnate Jesus)/Spirit'.

Well the scripture says Moses was not allowed to see His face because no man could see Him and live. That does not sound like a manifestation of His name. Then there is no reason to tell Moses this. I believe He manifested His name up on the Cross - Y[hand]H[behold]W[nail]H[behold].

He was manifesting his GLORY which contained both the good/evil of Jehovah. Therefore Jehovah was only going to manifest his goodness to manifest His name...not Him Ex 33:19. To manifest his "evil" would have destroyed Moses.

This seems highly speculative for me. Scripture please? I don't believe the Father has any evil in Him. Is justice evil? eye for an eye and all that?

Son of man is in scriptue 192 times and overwhelmingly it simply means men/women...flesh and blood people. And it was in that context that the Word manifest God in the flesh, when Jesus matured. At full maturation he manifest God fully IMO.

Give an example please. Sons of men is not the same as Son of man imo. Son of man seems to be used for prophets. I don't recall another usage.

ISA 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

I know these last two verses will probably pour a caldron of 'billy goat Christianity' eg. "But, but, but"...into the thread. But, it works for me cause I'm a "Butting" ole billy goat too.

LOL. That's one of the things I like about you. You aren't scared to live it like you see it.
One of the things I've wondered - how was "the land" forsaken of both her kings?

 

[Hillsage]

Well, there is not a whole lot. But certain passages seem to say He knew us before our bodies were formed in the belly or created.
Ecclesiastes says when we die our body returns to dust but our spirits return to God. To return they must have come "from God."

That's why I believe our spirit is the 'god' factor in all men. And those spirits were also part of the hosts of heaven before men had corporeal bodies IMO. I don't think God ever had a corporeal form other than spirit until the Word became Jesus. And the Word gave up "equality with God" who is spirit to become a corporeal body/flesh.

Like I said previously I didn't bring it up to debate the topic. Moses saw the back parts of someone with hands etc who said no man could see Him and live.

Not debateing, just discussing. Moses also saw God as a burning bush??? How he manifested physically is a mystery I suppose. But doesn't mean he had a corporeal body IMO.

Do you believe Jesus has a body?

Yes, and he had/has a 'spirit' on earth which wasn't 'the Holy Spirit'.

Do you believe that He shall be called the Father? El Gibbor, the Mighty God per Isa 9:6? Do you believe He will then give up his body? If not then you have our Father with a body.

Isa was speaking prophetically, and I believe that has been fulfilled with the 'death on the cross. I have repeatedly said I think Jesus is God, but he wasn't God when he came to earth as the incarnate Word.

Hmm. So we seem to agree here. So do you believe our spirits had some form of thought in this pre-existence?

I've leaned toward the teaching that we all had our entire lives written in the volume of the book of our lives. And every spirit read and agreed to walk out that script before being sent to dwell in all of us. That's why we sometimes have a Deja Vu of I remember doing this, but it just happened.

This seems highly speculative for me. Scripture please? I don't believe the Father has any evil in Him. Is justice evil? eye for an eye and all that?

I'm just believing scriptures like these.

JOB 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
DEU 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
JER 21:10 For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good, saith the LORD: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.
JER 32:42 For thus saith the LORD; Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them.
JER 39:16 Go and speak to Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring my words upon this city for evil, and not for good; and they shall be accomplished in that day before thee.

Give an example please. Sons of men is not the same as Son of man imo. Son of man seems to be used for prophets. I don't recall another usage.

There are many, here's just a few.

PSA 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
JER 49:33 And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.
JER 51:43 Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness, a land wherein no man dwelleth, neither doth any son of man pass thereby.
EZE 2:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel,

One of the things I've wondered - how was "the land" forsaken of both her kings?

Don't know.

 

[Ripheus27]

the greek word logos doesn't mean word it means preexistent Christ... make sense?

Since the concept of the divine Logos came in part from Philo, who meant of it a being second only to the One God, the appropriation of this concept for the sake of a being Who is not second to God, but secondly given therewithin, would be entirely fitting. So no, Jesus did not mean to say that He was merely a form of communication, but that He was the being Who in the Old Testament wisdom literature is said to be "the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of His existence" (as is quoted over again in the Epistle to the Hebrews). Which means He did imply His divine preexistence (to have the Spirit inspire the author of the Johannine gospel to say of Him that He is the Word).

 

[RevelationTestament]

That's why I believe our spirit is the 'god' factor in all men. And those spirits were also part of the hosts of heaven before men had corporeal bodies IMO.

Well, we do seem to agree here - not that I see all people as gods, but I believe all do have potential, which is why they are here.

I don't think God ever had a corporeal form other than spirit until the Word became Jesus. And the Word gave up "equality with God" who is spirit to become a corporeal body/flesh.

John 5:37
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Not debateing, just discussing. Moses also saw God as a burning bush??? How he manifested physically is a mystery I suppose. But doesn't mean he had a corporeal body IMO.

The NT confirms that this was the angel of the Lord through whom Moses spoke.

Yes, and he had/has a 'spirit' on earth which wasn't 'the Holy Spirit'.

Jesus' spirit defined His essence. His body was a creation. There is no getting around that fact - it was a mortal tabernacle which grew old and died. His spirit was the Word - not His body. He was also Elohim per Hebrews:
Hebrews 1:8
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Psalms 45:6
6 Thy throne, O Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

So in my reading Jesus came as YHWH Elohim with a body which was later somehow immortal when He appeared to all His disciples again.

Isa was speaking prophetically, and I believe that has been fulfilled with the 'death on the cross. I have repeatedly said I think Jesus is God, but he wasn't God when he came to earth as the incarnate Word.

Isa was speaking prophetically, but I believe He is still the Son until the kingdom is handed over to the Father and the work of the kingdom is done.

I've leaned toward the teaching that we all had our entire lives written in the volume of the book of our lives. And every spirit read and agreed to walk out that script before being sent to dwell in all of us. That's why we sometimes have a Deja Vu of I remember doing this, but it just happened.

Having experienced something similar to this as a child, it is hard for me to dispute it. However, I cannot say if the deja vu feeling I had came from my own spirit of from some kind of inspiration through the spirit of God. But it was like a spiritual feeling or rememberance from my soul. I am kind of surprised to hear you talk about the book "of life." I believe that is a covenant book which carries our promises into this life. I don't believe all events are necessarily presdestined, but I believe God has a plan for the world which all nations end up following when they think they are the masters of their own destiny. I believe in order to fulfill these promises God has destined or foreordained us to accomplish certain things in this life, so you seem surprisingly on par with my belief.

I'm just believing scriptures like these.

JOB 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
DEU 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
JER 21:10 For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good, saith the LORD: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.
JER 32:42 For thus saith the LORD; Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them.
JER 39:16 Go and speak to Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring my words upon this city for evil, and not for good; and they shall be accomplished in that day before thee.

In the Jewish world view things which don't accomplish their created purpose are "evil" or "bad." This includes inanimate objects created by men such as pottery. Thus a piece of pottery that develops a crack could be "evil" since it is not fulfilling its designed purpose. An olive tree which won't produce fruit can be called evil or wicked, and this is indeed reflected in the NT concerning the wicked trees He will cut down and graft in the wild branches which bear fruit. To destroy these trees/people may be considered evil, but is the righteous consequence of their failure. If a people do not follow the word they were given by God, destroying them is not necessarily an act of evil but is an act of justice. If God ends up leaving such people to hell He is not being evil but is fulfilling His word and is performing justice. Punishment is not "evil" in this sense. So although there are verses which say God sent "evil" on a people, it was justified. The plagues God sent on Egypt could be considered evil to the people, but if they had followed God's commands they were safe like the Hebrews. If Pharaoh had let the people go when first told, he would have experienced no "evil." Instead he was repeatedly punished.

There are many, here's just a few.

PSA 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
JER 49:33 And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.
JER 51:43 Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness, a land wherein no man dwelleth, neither doth any son of man pass thereby.
EZE 2:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel,

Perhaps. But yet why say man and Son of man? There seems to be some kind of distinction....it is one of those things I wonder about a little.

Don't know.

I think I read an answer once, but it must not have convinced me LOL.
Cheers

 

[Hillsage]

John 5:37
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Good verse, did you just come up with it? I ask because it doesn't seem to line up with what you'd been saying earlier.

In the Jewish world view things which don't accomplish their created purpose are "evil" or "bad."

So did "the tree of good and evil" ...from God, accomplish God's purpose?

If God ends up leaving such people to hell He is not being evil but is fulfilling His word and is performing justice.

This doesn't quite make sense to me.
Do you mean "LEADING such people to hell" or did you mean "leaving such people IN hell"?

We appear to be the last two standing on this thread.

 

[Norah63]

Yet I'm reading, please don't stop.

 

[Hillsage]

Yet I'm reading, please don't stop.

Nora!!! 😊 :wave
Good to hear from you. Please jump in. Surely our heretical views must stir up a question or two.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Good verse, did you just come up with it? I ask because it doesn't seem to line up with what you'd been saying earlier.

No, it is a verse I almost always refer to on the subject since most modern Christians tend to think of the Father as some ethereal Spirit only. So I reference this verse to show that when Jesus said the Father is Spirit, he also said at the same time He has shape. I believe we are literally physically created in their "image." I believe the Son was also made in His image up on the cross - thus, they are both Y[hand] H[behold] W[nail] H[behold]. This is quite significant when knows that in the early Hebrew their words were formed literally from the meanings of each letter individually. The names of things were derived from the meaning of their pictographic letters. So YHWH was telling them something about Himself in telling them this name. Note Jesus inherited a name from the Father, but the scriptures aren't clear exactly what name that is, but the scriptures tell us even Jerusalem shall inherit this name.

So did "the tree of good and evil" ...from God, accomplish God's purpose?

Well man was given a command so to break it was "evil." But Adam did it for Eve. So like Jesus became sin for the woman or church, Adam ate of the tree and became like Elohim according to Genesis 3 - knowing good and evil. Adam would fully understand good without experiencing evil. I don't believe the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a literally designed thing. It is something one comes to understand when one sins.

This doesn't quite make sense to me.
Do you mean "LEADING such people to hell" or did you mean "leaving such people IN hell"?

YHWH definitely does not lead man to hell. He leaves disobedient and unrepentant behind - they do not enter His presence, and less they repent at some point they must suffer the punishment affixed to their sin and level of culpable knowledge so to speak. Jesus taught it would be more tolerable for ignorant sinners than many who rejected Him.

We appear to be the last two standing on this thread.

I find you to be an interesting guy, and I enjoy chatting with you. You can offer a fresh viewpoint on aspects of the gospel which can provide food for thought. I value your opinion since you try to form it based on the scriptures and don't seem to be particularly swayed by commentaries etc. In short you don't seem to have an axe to grind, which is refreshing here in UDD.
Cheers

 

[4x4toy]

No, it is a verse I almost always refer to on the subject since most modern Christians tend to think of the Father as some ethereal Spirit only. So I reference this verse to show that when Jesus said the Father is Spirit, he also said at the same time He has shape. I believe we are literally physically created in their "image." I believe the Son was also made in His image up on the cross - thus, they are both Y[hand] H[behold] W[nail] H[behold]. This is quite significant when knows that in the early Hebrew their words were formed literally from the meanings of each letter individually. The names of things were derived from the meaning of their pictographic letters. So YHWH was telling them something about Himself in telling them this name. Note Jesus inherited a name from the Father, but the scriptures aren't clear exactly what name that is, but the scriptures tell us even Jerusalem shall inherit this name.
Well man was given a command so to break it was "evil." But Adam did it for Eve. So like Jesus became sin for the woman or church, Adam ate of the tree and became like Elohim according to Genesis 3 - knowing good and evil. Adam would fully understand good without experiencing evil. I don't believe the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a literally designed thing. It is something one comes to understand when one sins.
YHWH definitely does not lead man to hell. He leaves disobedient and unrepentant behind - they do not enter His presence, and less they repent at some point they must suffer the punishment affixed to their sin and level of culpable knowledge so to speak. Jesus taught it would be more tolerable for ignorant sinners than many who rejected Him.

I find you to be an interesting guy, and I enjoy chatting with you. You can offer a fresh viewpoint on aspects of the gospel which can provide food for thought. I value your opinion since you try to form it based on the scriptures and don't seem to be particularly swayed by commentaries etc. In short you don't seem to have an axe to grind, which is refreshing here in UDD.
Cheers

What is your take on Jesus transformation on the mountain with Elijah and Moses .. Do you think it was the fulfilling that Elijah must first come

 

[Hillsage]

No, it is a verse I almost always refer to on the subject since most modern Christians tend to think of the Father as some ethereal Spirit only.

I guess the Greek word for "form/shape" (1491 eidos:a view, i.e. form (literal or figuratively) in John 5 just painted a more figurative picture to me because I have a different POV on the subject. But look at the word 'eidos' in every other case it's used in the NT, and see if you can tell why it may still only be a 'spiritual ethereal' type form IMO.

LUK 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form/eidos, as a dove,...

Luke 9:29 And as he was praying, the appearance/eidos of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white.

2 Corinthians 5:7 for we walk by faith, not by sight/eidos.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 abstain from every form/eidos of evil.

I don't take this to mean some kind of corporeal 'form'...in most of these verses

So I reference this verse to show that when Jesus said the Father is Spirit, he also said at the same time He has shape.

Are you familiar with kirlian photography? They take a picture of the non corporeal shape of a human based upon the electromagnetic energy field surrounding the corporeal body. But that does not make the 'ethereal shape', a 'corporeal body'.

I believe we are literally physically created in their "image."

As do I, but since God is spirit, I believe that only that part of me is in his image. The flesh which came from dirt he created earth from...doesn't fit being God corporeally to me.

Well man was given a command so to break it was "evil." But Adam did it for Eve. So like Jesus became sin for the woman or church,

But he wasn't Jesus, even though he was a "son of God" in Luke's geneology.

Adam ate of the tree and became like Elohim according to Genesis 3 - knowing good and evil. Adam would fully understand good without experiencing evil.

More of a 'different school' thinking thing IMO...Oh well here goes. Elohim is the plural name of God. The creative name or 'most high' name. It is androgenous and not Masculine or feminine. Male and female create or give birth. 'Masculine Jehovah' did not create nor did 'feminine El shaddai'. But like an androgenous earthworm, and operating as Elohim 'Plural' androgenous God, God did create. And when Genesis 3 says "man has become as ONE of US" it was referring to 'ONE' of the names of God IMO IMO IMO 'that' name was Jehovah. OK big big time consuming bunny trail, let's don't go there. There's enough HERE.

I don't believe the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a literally designed thing. It is something one comes to understand when one sins.
YHWH definitely does not lead man to hell. He leaves disobedient and unrepentant behind - they do not enter His presence, and less they repent at some point they must suffer the punishment affixed to their sin and level of culpable knowledge so to speak. Jesus taught it would be more tolerable for ignorant sinners than many who rejected Him.

Again, another big difference btwn us. I am a UR/Universal Reconciliation...as you know. So 'no comment' on this paragraph either.

I find you to be an interesting guy, and I enjoy chatting with you. You can offer a fresh viewpoint on aspects of the gospel which can provide food for thought. I value your opinion since you try to form it based on the scriptures and don't seem to be particularly swayed by commentaries etc. In short you don't seem to have an axe to grind, which is refreshing here in UDD.
Cheers

Lovya too bro, and I mean that. You too have an 'opinions' without the 'religious spirit attitude' that I find so prevalent among those who think themselves...'mature'. Personally speaking, I too have diverse (divisive ) opinions, but I also know that opinions are like bowel movements...we all have them, and they can ALL stink, even if you think 'yours really doesn't' because 'you're right'.

IOW...When you're STRONG, you're WRONG...even if you're right, you're wrong.

 

[RevelationTestament]

What is your take on Jesus transformation on the mountain with Elijah and Moses .. Do you think it was the fulfilling that Elijah must first come

That is a good question. Jesus had said that Elijah must first come and restore all things at the time of the mount of transfiguration. Jesus received the High Priesthood by the oath of the priesthood. I believe He had to receive it on the mount of transfiguration in order to fulfill all righteousness, like it was necessary for Him to be baptized for His resurrection. John the Baptist's father held the levitical priesthood which was a valid priesthood, and thus John was able to receive this priesthood. There was no valid high priesthood at that time. The High Priest of the temple had become a political appointee by the time of Pompey, the Roman conquering general. Moses held this office so Jesus could have received the high priesthood through him. I will defer to any prior revelation concerning Elijah.
I do know that Acts tells us:
Acts 3:21
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
This speaks to a later restoration of all things after Jesus' ascension. I believe it was necessary for Elijah to return to fulfill this prophecy and the scriptures say he would come before the great and terrible day of the Lord. I believe this is what Jesus was speaking to when He said:
11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. Elijah holds the key of the preparer so it seems he is eminently involved with restoration. It seems to me Jesus could not be speaking of the eminent return of Elijah at the mount of transfiguration, since they had just seen Elijah and Jesus was speaking of some future prophetic event as far as I can ascertain. It seems He was referring to the prophesied return before the great and dreadful day. It seems to me Jesus was clarifying for the reader that the appearance of Elias on the mount of transfiguration was not the fulfillment of the prophecy of his return before the great and terrible day of the Lord.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I guess the Greek word for "form/shape" (1491 eidos:a view, i.e. form (literal or figuratively) in John 5 just painted a more figurative picture to me because I have a different POV on the subject. But look at the word 'eidos' in every other case it's used in the NT, and see if you can tell why it may still only be a 'spiritual ethereal' type form IMO.

LUK 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form/eidos, as a dove,...

Luke 9:29 And as he was praying, the appearance/eidos of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white.

2 Corinthians 5:7 for we walk by faith, not by sight/eidos.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 abstain from every form/eidos of evil.

I don't take this to mean some kind of corporeal 'form'...in most of these verses

Are you familiar with kirlian photography? They take a picture of the non corporeal shape of a human based upon the electromagnetic energy field surrounding the corporeal body. But that does not make the 'ethereal shape', a 'corporeal body'.

As do I, but since God is spirit, I believe that only that part of me is in his image. The flesh which came from dirt he created earth from...doesn't fit being God corporeally to me.

You make some good points here about the flexibility of the Greek word. So it comes down to faith and scriptural interpretation. But I do want to be clear I do not believe the Father is limited to some corporeal form. I believe our spirit form is also a type of matter so to some extent, we are talking a moot point.

More of a 'different school' thinking thing IMO...Oh well here goes. Elohim is the plural name of God. The creative name or 'most high' name. It is androgenous and not Masculine or feminine. Male and female create or give birth. 'Masculine Jehovah' did not create nor did 'feminine El shaddai'.

Wow you are losing me here bro, but you do make an interesting point about El Shaddai. You seem to be somewhat familiar with Hebrew or well read up on it?

Again, another big difference btwn us. I am a UR/Universal Reconciliation...as you know. So 'no comment' on this paragraph either.

I am not as hard line as I may have made it sound. I believe Christ will be merciful to men through the final day of judgment. So in the end most will be redeemed. So I am close to a universal reconciliation view I think. Nevertheless, as I read the scriptures this does not mean that some won't receive their punishment, and I don't seem to have a clear understanding of this process at this time.

Lovya too bro, and I mean that. You too have an 'opinions' without the 'religious spirit attitude' that I find so prevalent among those who think themselves...'mature'. Personally speaking, I too have diverse (divisive ) opinions, but I also know that opinions are like bowel movements...we all have them, and they can ALL stink, even if you think 'yours really doesn't' because 'you're right'.

It is good to try to understand, but I think we just aren't meant to understand everything quite yet. It seems the Father still has His secrets...

 

[2ducklow]

Is Fish the plural name of one Fish? or is the plural and singular form of the word the same?
couldn't possibly be the same thing for Elohim because that would destroy the Jesus is god doctrine.

so much for making sense. definitely a foreign concept. I mean you can't really say3 is one unless you can also say elohyim means a singular plural god. gotta keep it nonsensical or everything falls apart.

 

[Hillsage]

I believe our spirit form is also a type of matter so to some extent, we are talking a moot point.

Absolutely...moot...that's why it's always better to get along in love, than to think you're theology is right and that gives you the right to treat other brethren like red headed step kids. My apologies to anyone who is....red headed, that is.

Wow you are losing me here bro, but you do make an interesting point about El Shaddai. You seem to be somewhat familiar with Hebrew or well read up on it?

43 years as a seeker unafraid to go where orthodoxy tells you not to, will give you a well rounded exposure to lots. 'THE TRUTH' that matters though, is always taught by the Spirit of truth.

So I am close to a universal reconciliation view I think.

I just had to laugh to myself at this point RT. I wanted to say "That's like saying God came up with a 'plan of salvation' that came 'close' to working for All the creation He loved." Another thread, another time bro.

Nevertheless, as I read the scriptures this does not mean that some won't receive their punishment, and I don't seem to have a clear understanding of this process at this time.

UR doesn't believe there is no punishment...there absolutely is. There just isn't eternal punishing. The difference between a noun and a verb is thought worthy.

It is good to try to understand, but I think we just aren't meant to understand everything quite yet. It seems the Father still has His secrets...

JOH 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;

Will we follow the Spirit of truth far enough to drown out the opinions of man? I can only hope...and pray. and again I say

 

[2ducklow]

it's better to deal with one's illogical beliefs when they are pointed out than to accuse the person who points it out as calling people red headed step children.

There is an unspoken ubiquitous general rule used to interpret scripture employed by most everyone. That rule is only use illogic to defend one's doctrine when it is absolutely necessary. Otherwise one is to use logic in defending one's doctrine. IN the case of the Jesus is God doctrine, illogic is only used when it's necessary to defend that doctrine, if it isn't necessary, then logic is used. It has to be that way because if people totally used illogic, nothing would be understood or communicable. the Jesus is God doctrine has multitudes of examples of this general unspoken ubiquitous doctrinal defense rule. Of which a few I have pointed out in this thread.

Even non Christians are aware of this rule because only Jesus is God people make the claim that their doctrine makes sense. Everyone knows it is illogical and makes no sense to say that Jesus is God, God the Father is god, there is only one God, and Jesus isn't his Father. Even those who believe that Jesus is God know that, but they will pretend like it makes sense until they are cornered, then they will say such things as well god is beyond our understanding, or God is a mystery, or that's the best explanation of an infinite god that there is. So really everyone knows it even Trinitarians ,and others who believe that Jesus is god.

 

[Ripheus27]

I'm pretty good at logic, and so are many philosophers, even non-Christians, and they don't dismiss the Trinity idea as briskly as you do, 2ducklow. You're claiming something to be obvious that is *not* obvious.

Consider the fact that 0.9999999... = 1, or that light exists as both waves and as particles, or any number of other seemingly "illogical," "self-contradictory" things that are, nevertheless, true. For God to be a Trinity: is that any worse than things mathematicians and scientists have proven?

 

[Ripheus27]

Let me put it this way: logic allows us to infer from the whole of the Bible the divinity of Christ. Maybe certain passages allow us to infer the opposite too. In that case, logic dictates that we ought to throw out the Bible. So we can (a) try to adapt our logic to the divinity of Christ, (b) to the apparently else-self-inconsistent Bible, or (c) decide that the Bible is not just apparently but intrinsically incoherent.

 

[Norah63]

It's the form of God the Father, not the form of trinity.