Original sin

[Sparko]

Let's start with that one --- other than Jesus referring to this...

Matthew 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
Luke 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!

...about Himself, where is God referred to this way?

Psalm 91?

[KingsGambit]

I think that was more like a Theophany.

Even so, that passage says "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live." That warning would make no sense if there was literally nothing possible to see.

[Adrift]

Let's start with that one --- other than Jesus referring to this...

Matthew 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
Luke 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!

...about Himself, where is God referred to this way?

I'm not sure I quite understand the question. Jesus is a person in the Godhead. Ben Witherington goes into this a bit in Psalms Old and New: Exegesis, Intertextuality, and Hermeneutics

"Jesus has modified the thought in the psalm, which does not depict Yahweh as a female creature, so that on Jesus's lips it now reads "Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often have I desired to gather your children as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" Contrast this with "his pinions under his wings" in the psalm. This is because Jesus is presenting himself as Wisdom/Hokma, a female figure here, in contrast to Yahweh, a male figure."

[Adrift]

Even so, that passage says "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live." That warning would make no sense if there was literally nothing possible to see.

Wait, what? You actually believe that God (sans the incarnation) is a physical being?

[seer]

This is because Jesus is presenting himself as Wisdom/Hokma, a female figure here..."[/indent]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Blasphemy not allowed even as a joke.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[seer]

Wait, what? You actually believe that God (sans the incarnation) is a physical being?

I believe He has a "form" as Jesus suggested. Whatever that means, I don't think it means that God is formless.

[Adrift]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Trans is confusion about one's gender. Before the incarnation, Jesus, as part of the Godhead, had no gender. That's why this whole "God is really a male/female" is off on the wrong foot. We start imagining that God the Father is a man with a white beard in white robes sitting on a literal throne in the clouds someplace, and there's another literal throne on his right hand that Jesus, the man, sits. It's a wrongheaded conception of the whole deal. God is spirit. He doesn't have a penis or a vagina. Both men and women were made in his image, and that image isn't a physical one, it's a spiritual one.

[KingsGambit]

Wait, what? You actually believe that God (sans the incarnation) is a physical being?

No, I misspoke pretty badly. There are too many NT Scriptures that maintain that God is spirit in form. I believe these Old Testament manifestations in physical form nonetheless did represent God as opposed to being written off as anthromorphisms.

[Adrift]

I believe He has a "form" as Jesus suggested. Whatever that means, I don't think it means that God is formless.

While I have no doubt that God can take on form, isn't spirit, by nature, formless? There's something slightly... Mormon about the idea that the spirit of God has physicality or form. Did God have some sort of appearance, form, or materiality before the creation of the universe?

[Adrift]

No, I misspoke pretty badly. There are too many NT Scriptures that maintain that God is spirit in form. I believe these Old Testament manifestations in physical form nonetheless did represent God as opposed to being written off as anthromorphisms.

Hmm. I have no doubt that God can take on, say, the appearance of an angel, or can, in some sense "show" his glory. I'm not sure that's the same as saying that God literally possess those same physical characteristics, which is what I meant in post #116.

[seer]

While I have no doubt that God can take on form, isn't spirit, by nature, formless? There's something slightly... Mormon about the idea that the spirit of God has physicality or form. Did God have some sort of appearance, form, or materiality before the creation of the universe?

Jesus said that no one has seen His form. It doesn't sound like some arbitrary form that God may or may not take, but something inherent. And I'm not sure why spirits can't have an intrinsic form, perhaps like angels? But not material or physical like us.

[Cow Poke]

Psalm 91?

I think that's so obviously metaphorical...

[KingsGambit]

Hmm. I have no doubt that God can take on, say, the appearance of an angel, or can, in some sense "show" his glory. I'm not sure that's the same as saying that God literally possess those same physical characteristics, which is what I meant in post #116.

The distinction between different body parts within, say, a theophany, would thus be consigned to an extended metaphor, which might end up being the best way to systematize this passage with various NT passages, but it still seems unsatisfying, like the common tack of writing off all references to God's emotions (an extended number) as anthromorphisms in order to protect Aquinas's view of the dispassionate nature of God.

[seer]

Trans is confusion about one's gender. Before the incarnation, Jesus, as part of the Godhead, had no gender. That's why this whole "God is really a male/female" is off on the wrong foot. We start imagining that God the Father is a man with a white beard in white robes sitting on a literal throne in the clouds someplace, and there's another literal throne on his right hand that Jesus, the man, sits. It's a wrongheaded conception of the whole deal. God is spirit. He doesn't have a penis or a vagina. Both men and women were made in his image, and that image isn't a physical one, it's a spiritual one.

I was joking...

[KingsGambit]

I think that's so obviously metaphorical...

So is saying that God is our father, though.