They saw God the Son (Exodus 24:10-11)

[Faber]

Exodus 24:10-11
(10) and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
(11) Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank. (NASB)

John 6:46
Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. (NASB)


Since they "saw God" (Exodus 24:10-11) but it wasn't the Father (John 6:46) to whom then does "God" refer to?

[marco]

I had to chuckle at this. Not because of the 'mooning' bit so much as because ordinarily you tend to post specific to accuracy, but in light of the passage, you are assuming this GOD was naked...but what in the story makes you think that is the case?

The uttering of the word God carries an immediate assumption. The rest is conjecture. One would suppose that there is no need for a deity to adopt human habits (in both senses of the word).



But I was simply going by the account in Exodus 33: 23

"And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. "

Notice incidentally the delicate use of "mine" with hand, and the full-blown force of "my" with back parts. Subtle translation.

[William]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]

The uttering of the word God carries an immediate assumption.

What would that be?

The rest is conjecture. One would suppose that there is no need for a deity to adopt human habits (in both senses of the word).

If this is the same GOD as the one both Adam and Eve spoke with in The Garden, then we could surmise that [he] would have been clothed in that [he] had the knowledge of good and evil and one of the first affects of having this attribute is that one clothes oneself.

In regard to that, neither of the pair fell down dead at the sight of this GOD, so one could also surmise that the GOD was playing a game with Moses...wanting Moses to think that he was in mortal danger if Moses got a good look at his front parts (face).

But why would that be?

Perhaps if Moses saw the face, he may have been tempted to melt down the Golden Calf and have it reworked into the image of the GOD?

But I was simply going by the account in Exodus 33: 23

"And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. "

Notice incidentally the delicate use of "mine" with hand, and the full-blown force of "my" with back parts. Subtle translation.

Yes. I have always assumed it had something to do with the face, as to why anyone seeing it would drop down dead.

[marco]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]

The uttering of the word God carries an immediate assumption.

What would that be?

We dress our ideas in mental pictures. The Biblical God is anthropomorphic and for all it matters wears nice clothes and Sunday hats.

If this is the same GOD as the one both Adam and Eve spoke with in The Garden, then we could surmise that [he] would have been clothed in that [he] had the knowledge of good and evil and one of the first affects of having this attribute is that one clothes oneself.

I think you're confusing the issue. Adam lost his sense of innocence and covered himself. He didn't have to; there is nothing intrinsically wrong in nakedness (though of course later Bible dwellers imagined there is). God would not be susceptible to human failings and misconceptions.

Yes. I have always assumed it had something to do with the face, as to why anyone seeing it would drop down dead.

Children that we are, we run in terror from God's face where there is no beauty. But in the words that humans have created there is a sense of a much deeper beauty than anything Yahweh tossed our way.

Here is Yeats, seeing a face amid a crowd of stars....



When you are old and grey and full of sleep,
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;


How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;


And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.

The face of God may be in the people we see every day.

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by marco]

We dress our ideas in mental pictures. The Biblical God is anthropomorphic and for all it matters wears nice clothes and Sunday hats.

Fair enough. It is a contradiction then, to put form onto the nature of GOD, and the contradiction stems from the theology itself. the GOD makes it plain that no image shall be used to represent [him], and then we get stories of [him] coming and showing[himself] to others in form.

I think you're confusing the issue. Adam lost his sense of innocence and covered himself. He didn't have to; there is nothing intrinsically wrong in nakedness (though of course later Bible dwellers imagined there is). God would not be susceptible to human failings and misconceptions.

So the realizing they were naked had more to do with a psychological reaction to the knowledge of good and evil, and in covering their nakedness - something that until then was neither here nor there - they were attempting to hide something from each other which they found in themselves?

The GOD, having no such problems with [himself] in relation to knowledge of good and evil, could walk around naked because [he] did not have such misconceptions.

[He] knew himself, regardless of form. Form is costume, not what GOD is - it is what GOD puts on.

The pair conflated the two things and thus had the human fail of misconception.

Children that we are, we run in terror from God's face where there is no beauty.

Or would a GOD with an drop-dead ugly face also be a misconception of human failure?

Better then not to show those who so easily misconstrue things, anything which might terrorize them that much that they have no option but to up and die.

But in the words that humans have created there is a sense of a much deeper beauty than anything Yahweh tossed our way.

Here is Yeats, seeing a face amid a crowd of stars....



When you are old and grey and full of sleep,
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;


How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;


And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.

The face of God may be in the people we see every day.

I have a little trouble with your idea that Yahweh only gave us ugly. I think that too is a misconception on your part (and the part of many others) as they strive to separate the good from the evil and in doing so, the ugly from the beauty.

If we want a naked GOD, [he] has to be everything we could wish for, in our misconceptions.

Yet, with Yahweh, we do get something of nakedness, and complain about those ugly parts as if they shouldn't exist in a GOD, but in a human, we can accept that as 'lovable' enough, because - we understand 'human' but our understanding can still be misconception.

What if you consciously encountered the presence of a being in form, the form of which was not 'human' (but 'humanoid) and in that encounter this produced absolute terror - the like of which you had never before encountered and could never encounter from any earthly source and in that encounter the entity was able to paralyze your body so that you couldn't move to get away, or even scream, although you still tried to - and that entity approached you and when it looked into your eyes, it seemed to gaze right into the quintessence of your being and in that moment you knew two things with a certainty that you had never experienced before...that the being knew you better than you knew yourself, and that the being loved you unconditionally.

How would you explain that encounter using words which did not offer any human misconception?

[marco]

I have a little trouble with your idea that Yahweh only gave us ugly.

Mention of minor instances of generosity do not redeem a portrait of cruelty, terror and heartlessness. The Biblical character painted for us would not be a hero but a villain; and villains with redeeming features stay villains. I am not inventing the character, simply deducing from his partial biography.

Yet, with Yahweh, we do get something of nakedness, and complain about those ugly parts as if they shouldn't exist in a GOD, but in a human, we can accept that as 'lovable' enough, because - we understand 'human' but our understanding can still be misconception.

You speak as though we have an understanding that nakedness is ugly. It isn't, and the Greeks, to their credit, didn't deem it so.

How would you explain that encounter using words which did not offer any human misconception?

I don't see what is to be gained by presenting me with an imaginative speculation and requiring my reaction to the hypothetical. We might as well take the actuality of God as our premise and proceed from there. Some do.

[William]

[Replying to post 25 by marco]

Mention of minor instances of generosity do not redeem a portrait of cruelty, terror and heartlessness. The Biblical character painted for us would not be a hero but a villain; and villains with redeeming features stay villains. I am not inventing the character, simply deducing from his partial biography.

Well there we have it. The GOD Yahweh is a villain.

Now I need to ask you this. Do you feel the same way about [his] followers? The Jews? The Christians?

Are they all Villains serving a villainous agenda inspired by their idea of GOD? Are they, like their GOD, simply performing minor instances of generosity (etc) but are for the most part, cruel, terrifying, heartless peoples?

If, not, then please explain to me how they can be considered by Yahweh to be his people, of for that matter, how they can consider themselves to be Yahweh's people going by your own judgement regarding Yahweh the Villain.

Yet, with Yahweh, we do get something of nakedness, and complain about those ugly parts as if they shouldn't exist in a GOD, but in a human, we can accept that as 'lovable' enough, because - we understand 'human' but our understanding can still be misconception.

You speak as though we have an understanding that nakedness is ugly. It isn't, and the Greeks, to their credit, didn't deem it so.

The Greeks would have looked a lot uglier naked if they had of lived in a less balmy clime.

But seriously, I would have thought you sharp enough to realize that I was speaking poetically. The nakedness of the GOD has to do with [him] not always behaving so lovable - lovable as we understand the word in today's modern reality.

What if you consciously encountered the presence of a being in form, the form of which was not 'human' (but 'humanoid) and in that encounter this produced absolute terror - the like of which you had never before encountered and could never encounter from any earthly source and in that encounter the entity was able to paralyze your body so that you couldn't move to get away, or even scream, although you still tried to - and that entity approached you and when it looked into your eyes, it seemed to gaze right into the quintessence of your being and in that moment you knew two things with a certainty that you had never experienced before...that the being knew you better than you knew yourself, and that the being loved you unconditionally.

How would you explain that encounter using words which did not offer any human misconception?

I don't see what is to be gained by presenting me with an imaginative speculation and requiring my reaction to the hypothetical. We might as well take the actuality of God as our premise and proceed from there. Some do.

I thought it might present for you a good opportunity to examine your self (as best you know your self) in relation to the 'Human failings and misconceptions.' I think these have a lot to do with how and why Yahweh as an idea of GOD might be conflated with evil actions done by human beings under the influence of some misguided conceptions, Poetically speaking, flinging dung around and some of it landing on the Naked GOD.

Specifically I brought that hypothetical imaginative speculation into the conversation because what you were writing reminded me of an actual incident that I experience, and which for the next 26 or so years had to work out why I had this encounter and why I reacted to it the way that I did and why I now share that alongside everything I have shared on this forum, with whosoever chances to read it.
I was wondering how you, with your present judgement might react to experiencing such a thing and how that might change your perceptions, attitude, and understanding related to the idea of the actuality of GOD.

But, it was just a suggestion. If you see no value in the thought experiment, that is neither here nor there with me, or my position - in relation to your own or anyone else's.

[marco]

Well there we have it. The GOD Yahweh is a villain.

So too are the characters Lady Macbeth and Iago. I read the plays and deduce.

Now I need to ask you this. Do you feel the same way about [his] followers? The Jews? The Christians?

People in the past who worshipped gods were not automatically bad. Unquestioning service to a God can lead to evil and does, as we see today and have seen in the past. Since Yahweh is no more than Iago his followers will be the expected mix of good and bad, as are Allah's.

If, not, then please explain to me how they can be considered by Yahweh to be his people, of for that matter, how they can consider themselves to be Yahweh's people going by your own judgement regarding Yahweh the Villain.

Yahweh's hypothetical opinion is of no account. His worshippers rationalise the viciousness, the mass destruction, the calls for infanticide, the demand that Abraham murder his son and they call his offering of Christ to be tortured and crucified LOVE. Not so long ago they burned heretics and killed homosexuals to satisfy Yahweh's edicts. They are more tolerant now not because they are following Yahweh's instructions but largely ignoring them; concentrating instead on the message of Christ, in contrast to that of his acclaimed Father. Don't massacre your enemies: love them!

But seriously, I would have thought you sharp enough to realize that I was speaking poetically. The nakedness of the GOD has to do with [him] not always behaving so lovable - lovable as we understand the word in today's modern reality.

You are employing nakedness, metaphorically, in a pejorative sense.

Specifically I brought that hypothetical imaginative speculation into the conversation because what you were writing reminded me of an actual incident that I experienced, and which for the next 26 or so years had to work out why I had this encounter. But, it was just a suggestion. If you see no value in the thought experiment, that is neither here nor there with me, or my position - in relation to your own or anyone else's.

I saw no value in the hypothetical situation you first presented to me. If you are asking what my reaction is to some personal, inexplicable occurrence it is the same as yours - puzzlement. I have had one or two such incidents which could easily be interpreted as supernatural. The culture we find ourselves in deals in the currency of gods so it is easy to suppose the inexplicable has a divine link. I feel uncomfortable sitting beside the witch doctor, accepting his bones bring rain.

However I can accept that we are not at the pinnacle of intellectual accomplishment, but mere ants in the dust; so I would not expect to understand all things. Coping with integral equations, tensor calculus and Markov chains was trial enough.

[Claire Evans]

Exodus 24:10-11
(10) and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
(11) Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank. (NASB)

John 6:46
Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. (NASB)


Since they "saw God" (Exodus 24:10-11) but it wasn't the Father (John 6:46) to whom then does "God" refer to?

Yahweh, who was a Canaanite deity. He was a physical being who conversed with the Israelites. He is not the Father. Yahweh's nature is contrary to Jesus'.

Explain further.....

Yahweh had a father, El, the chief Canaanite god. He was one of many sons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elyon


Baal happened to be his brother, too. Both were depicted as golden calves. In fact, they were so similar that Yahweh was sick of being mistaken for Baal.


Hosea 2:16

And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.

Yahweh was called the God of War.


"The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name." " Exodus 15.3.

It's interesting that Yahweh is described as a man. Of course this entails flesh and blood.

Jesus was not called the god of war.

[brianbbs67]

Exodus 24:10-11
(10) and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
(11) Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank. (NASB)

John 6:46
Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. (NASB)


Since they "saw God" (Exodus 24:10-11) but it wasn't the Father (John 6:46) to whom then does "God" refer to?

Yahweh, who was a Canaanite deity. He was a physical being who conversed with the Israelites. He is not the Father. Yahweh's nature is contrary to Jesus'.

Explain further.....

Yahweh had a father, El, the chief Canaanite god. He was one of many sons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elyon


Baal happened to be his brother, too. Both were depicted as golden calves. In fact, they were so similar that Yahweh was sick of being mistaken for Baal.


Hosea 2:16

And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.

Yahweh was called the God of War.


"The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name." " Exodus 15.3.

It's interesting that Yahweh is described as a man. Of course this entails flesh and blood.

Jesus was not called the god of war.

Hos. 2:18

That's a common mistake. Both terms meant Husband as God married Himself to Isreal and they forsook him for Baalim(female sex dieties) Don't trust the Wiccanpedia. It can not be used for reference in any scholarly work as anyone can edit it. El, is the generic term for God in Hebrew. Thus the terms El Shaddai, Ellohim.

The Exodus is actually, "The Lord, the warrior--the Lord is his name" JPS Tanakh, the real OT. If you wish to study it. It was a song Moses and the rest sang to God for delivering them.

[William]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

Yahweh's hypothetical opinion is of no account. His worshippers rationalise the viciousness, the mass destruction, the calls for infanticide, the demand that Abraham murder his son and they call his offering of Christ to be tortured and crucified LOVE. Not so long ago they burned heretics and killed homosexuals to satisfy Yahweh's edicts. They are more tolerant now not because they are following Yahweh's instructions but largely ignoring them; concentrating instead on the message of Christ, in contrast to that of his acclaimed Father. Don't massacre your enemies: love them!

Thus we have the evolving idea of Yahweh rather than a static one. Some evolve, others remain static but in general it appears that today is a mix of both old and new because people don't seem to understand this idea. It confuses and confounds, and this happens in regard to any idea formulated in the past which still tries to insist its relevance in the present, be that religious thinking (which we are speaking about as the focus) or cultural or political etc.

Dealing with the one (religious) means dealing with them all (cultural, political etc). Otherwise, it is essentially a waste of effort, other than in perhaps making some who are anti-theist - somehow feel better about themselves dealing with just the religious aspects of the problem of trying to fit old past ideas into present day circumstances.

A waste of effort = The world won't change in any way significantly enough to make a difference anyway.

I saw no value in the hypothetical situation you first presented to me. If you are asking what my reaction is to some personal, inexplicable occurrence it is the same as yours - puzzlement. I have had one or two such incidents which could easily be interpreted as supernatural. The culture we find ourselves in deals in the currency of gods so it is easy to suppose the inexplicable has a divine link. I feel uncomfortable sitting beside the witch doctor, accepting his bones bring rain.

However I can accept that we are not at the pinnacle of intellectual accomplishment, but mere ants in the dust; so I would not expect to understand all things. Coping with integral equations, tensor calculus and Markov chains was trial enough.

I shared it as it relates to 'Human failings and misconceptions' that you mentioned, in that it describes a situation of seemingly total oxymoron between good/evil beauty/ugly etc. How are these reconciled? I have my answer through the pivotal experience of that encounter and all that followed from that in relation to my subjective experience.
'Supernatural' does not come into the equation because that is a human misconception.

My own theology regarding the evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD is one of the main focuses threaded throughout my Member Notes, which the reader can peruse at their own leisure, if they want to. The resource is there for that purpose.

The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

In relation to the thread subject, GOD cannot be 'seen' as GOD, but can be 'seen' through form - through the creation, and through conscious expression - action of the internal into the external.

Is the expression 'evil' (DEVIL)?

Is the action 'good' (GOD)?

Is the action undecided? (Might be GOD might be DEVIL)

Who decides?



As an individual I get to decide. The graph above shows the reader how I understand the subject (seeing GOD) related to how I choose to decide.

I choose to decide that in all circumstances, GOD knows Itself always in the position of the Actuality, and in that, is always in the position that my position is 'catching up with' and that this process is me evolving in my understanding of the idea of GOD.