Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity

[Dave]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/10/2004 5:21:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH:  I hope you don't mind my intrusion, John.  First.....welcome to TT and this thread.........  it is great to speak with you [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with "person"  (and I have used this many more times than once) gives us the impression that know what God looks like. DAVEH:  Does not the Bible suggest what God looks like when we are told Jesus is in his express image?  (He 1:3)   It seems logical to me that the Son would look similar to his Father.   Not at all.  What do we do with John's observation that no one has seen God at any time?   AND   His existence apart from the incarnation (remember he EMPTIED HIMSELF OF HIS ACTUAL EXISTENCE Phil 2) is totally different from ours.   He is everywhere at all times DAVEH:  This is an interesting comment to me.  How does Protestantism (assuming you subscribe to it) justify his omnipresence, John? --  obvious we are not.   Therefore, reason demands that he be different from us in appearance -- not to mention the fact that we actually have revelation on this matter.   (I Jo 4:12 DAVEH:  As I mentioned before, I believe this pertains to the natural man.  I posted passages that would suggest otherwise.  The most important one is Jn 6:46..... Not that any man hath seen the Father, SAVE HE WHICH IS OF GOD, he hath seen the Father. .......Now go back to 1Jn 4:2...... Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh IS OF GOD. ......From this, cannot one conclude that those filled with the Holy Spirit of God are OF GOD, and capable of seeing God?  Do you disagree, John?     For another perspective on this, consider those who pure in heart......Will they not see God?  (Mt 5:8)     IMHO, the Bible plainly teaches that it is possible for holy men filled with the spirit of God to see God.  I fail to understand why most Christians believe otherwise, so I appreciate your comments. and I Jo 3:2  --  these passages clearly state that God's actual appearance is a mystery AS IS OUR FORM TO BE  --  do they not?  DAVEH:  I certainly don't see it that way, John.  You added FORM to this.  I assume it was inadvertent action promoted by your bias toward thinking about this as you do.  I think John was merely reiterating and emphasizing what was said by Paul....... For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.   Rom 8:18 ......In other words, the first part of vs 2........ ......and it doth not yet appear what we shall be:..... .......has nothing to do with form, but rather the glory we will inherit from our Heavenly Father.  Whereas the second part of that same passage...... .....but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. .......may (or may not) refer to God's physical form.  That's how I understand this, John.   We are persons.   He is a person.   They (all three) are persons   ---   and walla   -- he is male with arms, legs, hindquarters.    The manifestation becomes the reality and the observation by John that "no man hath seen God at any time"  gets lost in the shuffle.   DAVEH:  Do you leave any room for considering that some men of  God may have seen him, though not necessarily with their natural eyes.  Did not Stephen see God when filled with the Holy Ghost?  (Acts 7:55)  I have seen him,  judyt has seen it (I am imagining that she will agree0.   Many have seen a minifestation of his reality.   Does he look like a burning bush or a pillar of fire or a dead man on a cross or ........?   DAVEH:  Even Moses who did see him in a burning bush, claims he had body parts and he spoke to him face to face as a man, though not seeing his face.  (Ex 33: 11, 20 & 23)   Isn't it interesting that at that point in time, the only part Moses was not allowed to see was his face?  He body parts (back parts, etc)....but not the face.  So......doesn't that imply we were made in God's image, just as he said we were in Gen 1:27?     Note also, John.....it wasn't seeing God that presumably brought death, but rather seeing God's face (vs 20) that was the problem.    There are certainly passages that infer that such a belief (men that see God will die) is in error.  Judges 13:22 is a good example...... And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. In the biblical message, there are three souces of information.   God, Satan and man.   Only the words of God in the bibilical message (whether spoken directly by him or via a prophet) are true in all cases.    Satan's words are always wrong even when he is right (ulterior motives condemn even the Enemy's truth) DAVEH:  I find that to be an interesting comment too!  Do you think God has at times used Satan to further his gospel plan? and man sometimes gets it and sometimes not. DAVEH:  With such a vast disparity of beliefs in the world.....I'd say it is more often not.....    I have I Joh 4:12  and the passage to deal with.   You see how I settle the matter. ........Isaiah is another who spoke of seeing the King in 6:5.  To me though, the most compelling passage is Gen 32:30......Has he seen God or a manifestation of God? DAVEH:   Hmmmmm......my first thought is....."Is there a difference?"  I suspect there is, but I'd want to ponder it for awhile.  Actually....that was a short 'while'!  Yes......I believe it is possible that some folks see manifestations of God that may not be God in reality.      Hmmmmmm again.  Would you call Jesus a manifestation of God, which would explain why people could set eyes on him without dying?  Seems like that would diminish his Godly station though. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.  Here, the problem becomes complicated.  Or is it.  Does Jacob speak from his own sense of reality or is he, here, inspired as a prophet? DAVEH:  Whichever the case, he sure seemed surprised that he did not perish.  As an alternative answer, I think Judy may have a more plausible explanation (that it was not God, but rather an angel appearing as God......I hope I remember that as she intended....there have been quite a few posts today, and my brains are a bit more muddled than usual.) .......What more evidence can be more plain than that, John?  Perhaps we will not agree. DAVEH:  I don't think it is important that we agree.  I'm just happy to hear what you think.  I hope you don't mind me explaining my contrasting perspective in return.   And this is why we can continue to share fellowship in spite of the disagreement.   There is a revelatory issue here.   And quite frankly,  honest word bound people can disagree here.   For me, "manifestation"  gets I John 4:12  and IJOs 3:2 to agree with the scripture you point to. DAVEH:  I do understand the point you've made, thank you.  I tend to favor thinking that men OF GOD (filled with the Holy Ghost) did actually see God, as did Moses and I believe Stephen as well.  Though none claimed to see God's face, which God said himself (to Moses) was not for viewing.  From reading Ex 33, I personally don't think Moses saw a manifestation of God, do you?    Perhaps Jn 6:46 might make more sense in light of many Biblical instances (suggesting some men are able to see God and live) if one considers the exception (save he which is of God) may be referring to anybody who is filled with the HG as was Stephen, rather than thinking the passage exclusively refers to Jesus.  Certainly a reasonable conclusion. DAVEH:  Yikes John.....Be careful suggesting Mormons might have reasonable conclusions...Doing such could get you branded here with a friend of foe label!    Grace back at ya---John  In His grace John David Smithson  (JD in another and most regretable life) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.