Has anyone seen god?

go post that one in the trinity thread, i'm sure it'd help a little.

haha ok nm.

what about in genesis where god repeatedly appears to the patriarchs?

there is nothing clear about genesis 32. if it's meant to be god, he's refered to as a man. nor does it actually say he was wrestling with god in that particular instance. although the implication is there with the naming of the place. and angels can bless people like anyone else.

quote:

---

1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

---

and my favourite

quote:

---

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

---

quote:

---

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

---

quote:

---

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years,

---

agreed. i have no problem with it. but people who would hold god to morals set forth for people really get uncomfortable when you tell them that god lies.

according to the story, or rather the words of jehoshaphat, god is holding a meeting to try to decided how to get ahab to enter a battle that he will lose. various spirits (angels?) suggest ways to get ahab to do it, but the one that god chooses is the one that says he will lie to ahab.the story is trying to explain reasons that not all prophesies come true, and still keep a perfect god in ultimate command of everything.so, the question is, did god send a messenger with the knowledge that the messenger would lie? but the text is very clear.

quote:

---

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

---

one more time. in the day he eats of it, he will die. not just die, SURELY die. that day. that's what it says. i don't see how you can evade that.930 years and one day are not the same. but don't look at me, i'm just reading the text literally. let's look at the text again.

quote:

---

and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

---

this is talking about a single action. god has to prevent this from ever happening. it's not saying that it's constantly eating of the tree that will keep him alive. he's saying eat of it once, and adam will live for ever.how many times did adam need to eat of the tree of knowledge to become like god?this means that adam was created mortal. if he had eaten of the tree of life before, he'd be a god when he ate of the tree of knowledge. (poor planning on god's part? there's nothing to indicate that adam was previously immortal at all, quite the contrary. notice the text doesn't talk of "starting to die" or "spiritual death" it says only that adam could become immortal.the sin did not bring death into the world. this doctrine is not biblical in the slightlest, no matter what paul says.[editted for typo]This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-15-2004 11:36 PM

it's quite obvious to anyone who's read a large segment of old testament that one of two things happened:1. god changed somehow, towards the abstract spiritual entity and away from the physical being god. looking at him became deadly, first just his face, and then any part.2. peoples' opinions of god changed.i think that considering the bible was written over more than a thousand years, the second one is the safe bet, even if you don't believe a word of the bible. the evolution of the way religious people have thought of the creator has changed rather drastically.i'd like to say that it's clear progression, but it's not. if you arrange the books chronologically in order they're supposed to take place in, god changes somewhat linearly from a physical being into a spiritual one, and then all but disappears. but i suspect that was not the order they were written in. (points for neither side)

i see no idication of that. and as well, if they already ate of the tree of life, why would god worry about them doing it again? you're arguing that effects of one tree wore off, but the sin of another didn't for 4000 years?genesis 3 indicates god preventing a single action, to prevent them from becoming gods. the tree of life was in eden, which is described as having a very real location on earth. it was in mesopotamia. the tree of life in heaven that john is referring to is christ.see, it's symbolism. communion, eating from the tree, leading twelve disciples, having twelve fruits? healing the world?the tree of life is three different things:1. a literal or symbolic tree in eden, whose fruit made you live forever.
2. the design upon which god made adam (see the qabala for that one)
3. a metaphor for jesus, who also gives eternal life.

well, not exactly. we're comparing the fruit of the tree or knowledge of good and evil and the fruit of the tree of life. but the joke doesn't sound as funny that way. why was god so worried about the one that wasn't sin?why does god tell the animals, and man, to "be fruitful and multiply" before eating of tree of knowledge?why would eating of the tree of life make them immortal is they were not mortal to begin with? god didn't say that eating of the tree of knowledge would make them susceptable to death, he said it would make them dead. this didn't happen, did it?

the text of that passage says, literally, that abraham saw the lord.

i don't believe the book of john.and when it says abraham saw the lord, it says LORD in caps, not Lord in lower case. the difference is between YHWH (god the father) and adonay (lord of anything, really)

i'm well aware of the substitution. you may wish to go read this thread: http://EvC Forum: HaShem - Yahweh or Jehovah? -->EvC Forum: HaShem - Yahweh or Jehovah? יהוה and אדני are not, however, of the same meaning. יהוה or yahweh is the proper name of god. it's play on the word hawah or "to be." so the name yahweh literally means "he who exists." אדני or adonai, however, means lord and denotes some kind of soveriegnty.however, traditionally, when you read יהוה you say "adonai" not "yahweh" and thus the two are interchanged. but they only use his title in avoidance of using the actual name. the two are not of same meaning.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-23-2004 02:23 AM

no, i'm a christian.i don't believe john because it has christ saying things that actually are blasphemy. it reads more like propaganda than actual quotations.