The Father in the OT ?

[Cow Poke]

The man Adam saw both God and the one with God when “us” made man “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” (Genesis 1:26)

Scripture Verse:

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

What version of the bible are you using to show that Adam SAW God?


Or is this just an assumption on your part, like Adam was a prophet.

OH - and congratulations on being somewhat more succinct!

[LDSTrue]

Scripture Verse:

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

What version of the bible are you using to show that Adam SAW God?


Or is this just an assumption on your part, like Adam was a prophet.

OH - and congratulations on being somewhat more succinct!

Scripture Verse:

KJV Genesis 2:21-22
[21] “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
[22] And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

It would seem the Lord God presented Eve unto the man (“brought her unto the man”) rather then ‘sending her alone’ unto the man.

I suppose you could say I'm assuming Adam saw the Lord God when the Lord God “brought her unto the man.” However, “brought her” does sound as if the Lord God and Eve were together when Eve was presented to Adam by the Lord God and if Adam saw Eve he surely would have seen the one who “brought her” ...dontcha think?

Typically, when a father gives away His daughter by bringing the bride to the the groom typically the groom sees the father presenting the bride... right?

[Cow Poke]

Scripture Verse:

KJV Genesis 2:21-22
[21] “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
[22] And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

It would seem the Lord God presented Eve unto the man (“brought her unto the man”) rather then ‘sending her alone’ unto the man.

I suppose you could say I'm assuming Adam saw the Lord God when the Lord God “brought her unto the man.” However, “brought her” does sound as if the Lord God and Eve were together when Eve was presented to Adam by the Lord God and if Adam saw Eve he surely would have seen the one who “brought her” ...dontcha think?

Typically, when a father gives away His daughter by bringing the bride to the the groom typically the groom sees the father presenting the bride... right?

"brought" is ...
935. bow', bo; a prim. root; to go or come (in a wide variety of applications):--abide, apply, attain, X be, befall, + besiege, bring (forth, in, into, to pass), call, carry, X certainly, (cause, let, thing for) to come (against, in, out, upon, to pass), depart, X doubtless again, + eat, + employ, (cause to) enter (in, into, -tering, -trance, -try), be fallen, fetch, + follow, get, give, go (down, in, to war), grant, + have, X indeed, [in-]vade, lead, lift [up], mention, pull in, put, resort, run (down), send, set, X (well) stricken [in age], X surely, take (in), way.

I think you're forcing an interpretation there...
God SPOKE the world into being, and SPOKE and there was light, etc...

I think you're trying to make something physical and literal which isn't necessarily so. Especially, since the Bible says no man has seen God.
I trust the Bible over your interpretation of "brought".

The same word "brought" (bow) is used in vs. 19 when God "brought" the animals to Adam. Do you think God personally walked with all the animals to present them to Adam?

[LDSTrue]

"brought" is ...
935. bow', bo; a prim. root; to go or come (in a wide variety of applications):--abide, apply, attain, X be, befall, + besiege, bring (forth, in, into, to pass), call, carry, X certainly, (cause, let, thing for) to come (against, in, out, upon, to pass), depart, X doubtless again, + eat, + employ, (cause to) enter (in, into, -tering, -trance, -try), be fallen, fetch, + follow, get, give, go (down, in, to war), grant, + have, X indeed, [in-]vade, lead, lift [up], mention, pull in, put, resort, run (down), send, set, X (well) stricken [in age], X surely, take (in), way.

I think you're forcing an interpretation there...
God SPOKE the world into being, and SPOKE and there was light, etc...

I think you're trying to make something physical and literal which isn't necessarily so. Especially, since the Bible says no man has seen God.
I trust the Bible over your interpretation of "brought".

The same word "brought" (bow) is used in vs. 19 when God "brought" the animals to Adam. Do you think God personally walked with all the animals to present them to Adam?

IMO, it could be said you trust your interpretation over what the Bible clearly states.

So then you must disagree with JAYMZ’s statement “…we see one God revealed in the OT, and then we see later in the NT that Jesus is that God....made flesh”…right?

If no man has seen God and according to JAYMZ Jesus is the one God of the OT “made flesh” then thousands have seen God…right?

Either Jesus is confused as to who He really is or JAYMZ and those who endorse his statement are actually the confused and mislead.

[JAYMZ]

If no man has seen God and according to JAYMZ Jesus is the one God of the OT “made flesh” then thousands have seen God…right?
.

Scripture Verse:

John 1:18 (New International Version)
18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Ok, interpret what John is trying to communicate here. I keep asking what YOU think he is conveying, but you keep avoiding it.

Translation differ, but the same idea is being conveyed. No one has seen God in the general sense, BUT the son has now become incarnate on the earth, and has now made God known through the Son. The Son is now flesh and bone and walking among humans.

Spirit you cant see, but if God came into space and time in the Son, space and time affected people could now see Him. This verse, plus John 1:1-3, John 1:14 are painting a picture of the who the Word is and what He came to accomplish. But you keep wanting to look at these verses as a mormon would, while rejecting the simple message. The Word was with God from beginning of all things, the Word is God but john is trying to make a distinction between the Word and the Father, the Word is the creator, the Word has come and lived among mankind, and the Word is revealing God to humanity through Himself.

[JAYMZ]

I suppose you could say I'm assuming Adam saw the Lord God when the Lord God “brought her unto the man.” However, “brought her” does sound as if the Lord God and Eve were together when Eve was presented to Adam by the Lord God and if Adam saw Eve he surely would have seen the one who “brought her” ...dontcha think?

Typically, when a father gives away His daughter by bringing the bride to the the groom typically the groom sees the father presenting the bride... right?

Yes, you are assuming because the bible uses language like this all the time. The bible is conveying an idea, but there is no need to take it in such a literal way. Theres literal, then theres LITERAL.

[Cow Poke]

IMO, it could be said you trust your interpretation over what the Bible clearly states.

Well, I GUESS you could say that if you want to be wrong. But it suddenly hit me why you want to force this "literally brought" Eve - because you believe God has a physical body and was there in the flesh, so to speak. I don't.

So then you must disagree with JAYMZ’s statement “…we see one God revealed in the OT, and then we see later in the NT that Jesus is that God....made flesh”…right?

Jamz is correct. We see "God" in Christ Jesus, manifested in the flesh.

If no man has seen God and according to JAYMZ Jesus is the one God of the OT “made flesh” then thousands have seen God…right?

Either Jesus is confused as to who He really is or JAYMZ and those who endorse his statement are actually the confused and mislead.

Look in the mirror, thou shalt find the confused person.

[JAYMZ]

According to your statement everyone who has seen Jesus has seen the one God of the OT…“we see one God revealed in the OT, and then we see later in the NT that Jesus is that God....made flesh” so your assumption is nonsensical considering Jesus’ statement in John 1:18. .

Hold on, doesn't LDS theology teach that Jesus is the God of the OT ? Except LDS teach that the Father is not revealed til Jesus reveals Him in the NT. Which is a kinda backward way of reading and understanding scripture.

What we believe as christians is the God of the OT IS the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe the ONE God has revealed Himself to humanity as three distinct personalities, YET remaining one single God. The confusion comes from you guys not understanding what we mean as " persons. " Each person is a distinct center of consciousness, but IS NOT a separate god. Its not like we believe there is three people walking around heaven. The center of consciousness that is the Word became flesh, and NOT the CoC of the Father or Spirit. We take the truth revealed in the OT about the One True God, and then God builds on what is revealed about Himself in the NT. This all culminates in the revelation of the Son and the Holy Spirit in addition to the Father that is revealed in the OT.

[LDSTrue]

Originally posted by CP

"brought" is ...
935. bow', bo; a prim. root; to go or come (in a wide variety of applications):--abide, apply, attain, X be, befall, + besiege, bring (forth, in, into, to pass), call, carry, X certainly, (cause, let, thing for) to come (against, in, out, upon, to pass), depart, X doubtless again, + eat, + employ, (cause to) enter (in, into, -tering, -trance, -try), be fallen, fetch, + follow, get, give, go (down, in, to war), grant, + have, X indeed, [in-]vade, lead, lift [up], mention, pull in, put, resort, run (down), send, set, X (well) stricken [in age], X surely, take (in), way.

Is it possible Matthew 23:24 could apply to you concerning “brought”?

Scripture Verse:

KJV Matthew 23:24

[24] “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

Originally posted by LDSTrue

IMO, it could be said you trust your interpretation over what the Bible clearly states.

Well, I GUESS you could say that if you want to be wrong.

Let’s try to envision the “brought” scenario when Adam first met Eve.

Scripture Verse:

KJV Genesis 2:22

[22] And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Now either God formed Eve from the rib of Adam elsewhere then brought Eve to Adam as the scripture clearly states and introduced Eve to Adam or, God formed Eve and then sent her on her way to find Adam… cold turkey.

Not very gentlemanly of God if your scenario is correct. I believe God is the perfect gentleman and brought Eve to Adam and introduced Eve to Adam after escorting her to Adam. After all, Eve is God's greatest creation and God would want to treat her with the kindness and respect she deserves as an example to Adam.

It has been said Eve was formed last as Woman was God’s greatest creation and He saved the best for last. I agree! The bible clearly allows the impression that God brought Eve to Adam and introduced them to one another when He brought her to Adam.

Consider...

Scripture Verse:

KJV Genesis 2:21-23

[21] “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

[22] And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Notice the rib was taken out of Adam and Woman was created after “the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam” Without some sort of introduction, conversation and explanation, how did Adam know enough to state what he stated in verse 23? Everything Adam is talking about in verse 23 transpired after “a deep sleep to fall upon Adam” therefore it is logical to reason an introduction and conversation took place between Adam, Eve and God at that point.

God must have filled Adam in on what had transpired and the purpose thereof while Adam was in the “deep sleep” when He “brought her unto the man” in order for Adam to make the pronouncements recorded in verse 23.

Dontcha think it’s logical and reasonable to assume God escorted Eve to Adam and presented her to him with an explanation of His intentions and the reason he formed her for Adam considering “I will make him an help meet for him.”

But it suddenly hit me why you want to force this "literally brought" Eve - because you believe God has a physical body and was there in the flesh, so to speak.

- - -

I don't.

- - -

Considering man was made “in the image after the likeness” of God it is logical for one to deduce God’s physical shape is very similar to the man He formed in His image and likeness. Would you say a Giraffe giving birth to a Swan was giving birth to something that was in the image after the likeness of the Giraffe? (Naughty Giraffe!)

So then you must disagree with JAYMZ’s statement “…we see one God revealed in the OT, and then we see later in the NT that Jesus is that God....made flesh”…right?

Jamz is correct. We see "God" in Christ Jesus, manifested in the flesh.

So you believe the one God of the OT is Jesus “in the flesh” now and is no longer a disembodied spirit without form or shape?

If no man has seen God and according to JAYMZ Jesus is the one God of the OT “made flesh” then thousands have seen God…right?

So no one has seen the one God of the OT even though that one God of the OT is Jesus…”made flesh” according to Jaymz? If the one God of the OT is Jesus in the flesh and “we see God in Christ Jesus, manifested in the flesh” then why haven’t thousands seen the one God of the OT according to and considering Jaymz's statement?

Either Jesus is confused as to who He really is or JAYMZ and those who endorse his statement are actually the confused and mislead.

Look in the mirror, thou shalt find the confused person.

Well CP, time will tell… and time is on my side!

Besides, I’m not the one claiming the one God of the OT is Jesus “made flesh” and “we see God in Christ Jesus, manifested in the flesh” all the while claiming no one has seen the one God of the OT and God is a spirit without form or shape.

What both you and Jaymz have manifested in your posts is confusion as confusion is manifested and apparent in your OT one God Jesus… “made flesh” doctrine.

You first claim the one God of the OT is a spirit without shape or form and then claim Jesus is the one God of the OT “made flesh” yet go on to claim no one has seen God when it is recorded thousands have seen your OT one God aka Jesus… “made flesh.”

[Cow Poke]

Is it possible Matthew 23:24 could apply to you concerning “brought”?

Scripture Verse:

KJV Matthew 23:24

[24] “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

Now THAT's the LDST we all know and love - posting scriptures that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and comments equal to the non-applicable scripture!

Welcome back!!!

[apostoli]

The confusion comes from you [LDS] guys not understanding what we mean as " persons. " Each person is a distinct center of consciousness, but IS NOT a separate god. Its not like we believe there is three people walking around heaven.

If you are an orthodox christian who adheres to the Nicean creed, that that is exactly what we believe = three distinct invidivuals "walking around heaven". What you seem to be sprouting is Oneness Pentecostalism = Sabellianism - which the greater church rejected about 100 years before the Council at Nicea.

With remarks like yours, no wonder the LDS get confused on what the Trinity doctrine teaches = three in unity = three individuals, who have real and distinct subsistences, who are so unified in personality, activity and purpose that they are the one God to us!

Peace

[Kabane52]

If you are an orthodox christian who adheres to the Nicean creed, that that is exactly what we believe = three distinct invidivuals "walking around heaven". What you seem to be sprouting is Oneness Pentecostalism = Sabellianism - which the greater church rejected about 100 years before the Council at Nicea.

With remarks like yours, no wonder the LDS get confused on what the Trinity doctrine teaches = three in unity = three individuals, who have real and distinct subsistences, who are so unified in personality, activity and purpose that they are the one God to us!

Peace

No. Orthodox Christian doctrine teaches that there are three distinct persons (centers of consciousness) who are nevertheless one in SUBSTANCE (essence). One being, three persons. LDS theology proposes that there are three distinct beings/substances that are only united in purpose.

[Hamster]

who have real and distinct subsistences,

[apostoli]

No. Orthodox Christian doctrine teaches that there are three distinct persons (centers of consciousness) who are nevertheless one in SUBSTANCE (essence). One being, three persons. LDS theology proposes that there are three distinct beings/substances that are only united in purpose.

Suggest you do some thorough reading of Orthodox theology. Pointedly, Orthodox theology does not expound "one being" but "one in being" = study "ego emi" and you might have a clue.

Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Ortthodox, Coptic etc = 99% of christianity teaches that the three are homoousia, of the same essentiality not the same substance (substantia does not refer to matter (substance) but what underlies the matter = substantial existence = ousia/physis = the essentials of personal existence as opposed to the physical existence. 99% of the church does not teach three prosopon (three actors masks) but three hypostases= three individiduals with one consciousness (three individuals who are of the same mind, intent & will)!

Enought blood has been shed over ignorance such as yours.

To the LDS, though it is not my place, I apologise for the Missouri masacres...where innocent men, women and children were forced into a barn and burnt to death by annabaptists and/or credobaptists.

I'm not a big fan of the KKK mentality of new americans, american evangelicalism and Baptist/Methodist extremism...

[apostoli]

Frown all you like. Formal Trinitarian terminology requires the distinction in the subsistence (distinction in identity) of the Father, Son & Spirit. Its been that way for the last 2000-1700 or so years. Might be worth you reading Des Trinitate by Novation, written 50+ or so years before Nicea.