The God of John's gospel, the God of the Old Testament

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Akragon
The people of the Old Testament did not see their God, in any real sense, either. A real vision of the Creator God is beyond human capacity.
What they saw was an image accomodating itself to their understanding, designed to give them the sense of being in the presence of God. That is why the image takes different forms, varying from Moses and the seventy elders to Daniel.

good explanation

So all the instances of "god" walking with men in the bible were images... most say "Christ" or the lord...

Wouldn't that invalidate Thomas's declaration though?

originally posted by: Akragon
Wouldn't that invalidate Thomas's declaration though?

I don''t think so. "Who has seen me has seen the Father". The Incarnation makes possible what is otherwise impossible.
"If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him" (John ch14 v7).

a reply to: DISRAELI

No one has seen God at ANY time...

Jesus is saying to know me is to know the Father to the people that knew him best... but a son is the image of his Father, and not his own Father

how does one Equate an image with reality... as IF what we see in a mirror is equal to our being

If you see a pillar of fire by night and smoke by day you saw God.

Jacob even whooped a blessing out of El.

The chariot of Ezekiel was his throne or something, but that is seeing God.

As opposed to just reading about him and trying to make it fit into the genre of history.

The Bible is classic, ancient esoteric Wisdom within Wisdom.

The literal story is for beginners in the faith. You need to do more than just read the Bible. You need to learn esoteric tradition starting with Egypt or you are just not going to understand.


Some people just can't get it.

So to say nobody saw God in any real sense is to say the Bible isn't true, in any real sense.


The first place to look if you want to know God is WITHIN.

a reply to: Akragon
Since both statements are made, both statements have to be included in our understanding.
No man has seen God, but he who has seen me has seen the Father.

a reply to: DISRAELI

True but my understanding is that Jesus actually had a God... and was headed in his direction

Again... when you see the image of yourself in the mirror... is it Equal to YOU?

Of course not...

Changing the very image of God is the first clue that the OT god isn't the same thing as Jesus spoke of...

a reply to: DISRAELI

Jacob touched God, so someone did see him.

Not just saw but fought and won.

And it was no angel if you are going to try that. It says God, Israel means "wrestles with God.''

And saying it was an angel is killing the spirit of the original and is not in any respectable translation.

originally posted by: Akragon
Changing the very image of God is the first clue that the OT god isn't the same thing as Jesus spoke of...

Jesus thought they were the same God and said so, which means you are disagreeing with Jesus on that point.
The message is "I am showing him to you more clearly than you have ever "seen" him before".

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Akragon
Changing the very image of God is the first clue that the OT god isn't the same thing as Jesus spoke of...

Jesus thought they were the same God and said so, which means you are disagreeing with Jesus on that point.
The message is "I am showing him to you more clearly than you have ever "seen" him before".

Well no...

Jesus taught the HE had a God, and it wasn't himself

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Akragon
Changing the very image of God is the first clue that the OT god isn't the same thing as Jesus spoke of...

Jesus thought

You know what he thought 100%?

they were the same God and said so, which means you are disagreeing with Jesus on that point.
The message is "I am showing him to you more clearly than you have ever "seen" him before".

That is debatable and I hear a message that God is Love, incapable of evil, when I listen to Jesus. A New Covenant for a new God. Well, the same God without the OT evil that is said to have been done by him.

Jesus used parables to teach proper interpretation of scripture.

And revealed His true nature.

Literalism was a parasite then, like now.

a reply to: Akragon
Now you're getting onto a different issue.
This piece of the jigsaw is about "The God of the New Testament is the God of the Old Testament".
So yes, I repeat, Jesus thought they were the same God and said so.

a reply to: DISRAELI

How do you know what Jesus thought?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well even as our friend above said...

Love and Jealousy are not compatible with each other... How can this god be a jealous one, and for that matter what could he possibly be jealous of... being the creator of all?

other "gods" perhaps?

a reply to: ASIAHXPAORSBA

Of course they literally saw that aspect of God as it specifically names the God that appeared to Jacob as El Shaddai, that also appeared to Abraham as a man at Mamre, the progenitor and tutelary God of Israel, there is no reason that Jesus couldn't be the likeness of El Shaddai, the Father of Israel.

a reply to: Akragon
I'm going to have to refer you to my forthcoming thread on "Jealousy and wrath are not emotions". August, I think. Another piece of the jigsaw.
I have told "our friend" in some of his previous accounts why he is not to be taken seriously as a contender in debate, so I don't bother responding to his posts in detail.

a reply to: DISRAELI

regardless of our friend

I do not believe i am of the same status

So its quite ok to reply to me...

a reply to: Akragon
Yes, I have been replying to you.
In this case, my reply is that I'm going to go more deeply into the question of "jealousy" on another occasion.

a reply to: DISRAELI

sigh...

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
Sp the issue i'm raising here relates entirely to identity and the establishment thereof, because if El Shaddai is the Tribal God of the Hebrews and their ongoing generation then that aspect of God can only ever relate to the descendants of that tribe.

That "only ever" conclusion does not follow at all. The New Testament understanding has always been that the Creator God first established a relationship with the smaller group, and then extended it to the rest of the world.
The difference is between God addressing a small audience, and the same God addressing a larger audience (intending to use the original audience as his spokesmen).

a reply to: DISRAELI

It does follow because the application is only ever with regards to the physical generation of the Tribe of Israel, the progenitor of Israel can never have extended significance to those outside the actual Tribal group, why do you think genealogy is continually emphasized...?

The implication of this is that El Shaddai as the Father of Israel cannot be the Father of other Nations, and as your opening post makes clear that is the sense that Jesus is comparing himself to the Father, the continuation of Patriarchal descent, the problem lies in inappropriate translation of El Shaddai as "God Almighty" and the suggested reason for that is Shaddai having extended meaning as the self sufficient one, given the association with mountains that is in the sense of a singular self contained construct, the same premise that can be applied to a tribal grouping.

In other words then one can take the premise of the singular and self contained and apply that in terms of a Universal Creator and thus God Almighty, but that was never the specific and intended usage of El Shaddai, there is also the association of this aspect of their Deity with nurturing breasts but again that is derivative of the concept of the sacred mountain relative to both horizons.