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]

Thus we have the evolving idea of Yahweh rather than a static one.

There is no thus - the Christian view of the OT God is as it always was, a being to be feared but, through Christ, possessed of extraordinary and impenetrable love. Your philosophy is a few light years away from the Biblical God whom we are discussing.

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.

The Biblical God is not subject to change, nor is he simply an idea. I am happy to go along with the Jesuit poet Manley Hopkins at the close of his sonnet:

"He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change: Praise Him!"

Changing God to a concept or to a washing powder does nothing for me. I prefer his status as a character in a play.

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.

Well that is interesting and it is like adapting God to be a pocket watch. I see absolutely no point in doing this. It neither adds to nor subtracts from life. Poetry can at least be admired for the skill of its author and for the thoughts lodged in it that may inspire us.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by marco]

There is no thus - the Christian view of the OT God is as it always was, a being to be feared but, through Christ, possessed of extraordinary and impenetrable love. Your philosophy is a few light years away from the Biblical God whom we are discussing.

No matter. I am still arguing for the existence of GOD. How Christians generically view that is here nor there in relation to that.

The focus is on seeing GOD - most notably in FORM. When in FORM is GOD still distinguishable from Human?

If so, how so?

The Biblical God is not subject to change, nor is he simply an idea. I am happy to go along with the Jesuit poet Manley Hopkins at the close of his sonnet:

"He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change: Praise Him!"

Changing God to a concept or to a washing powder does nothing for me. I prefer his status as a character in a play.

Is the play real, imaginary, or a conflation of both? What is the key expectation from you in relation to how any GOD should behave and express their self into the external world?

Is the biblical idea of GOD expressed through the 'play' by the playwrights as someone who is evolving or static?

If 'evolving', then what's the problem? If 'static' then yes - therein is the problem.

Abrahamic organised religions are not altogether agreeing on which of these two are applicable to their overall shared theology on the question.

But your focus upon that idea of GOD is problematic. It does not in itself do away with the notion that GOD exists. It simply allows the observer to see that you have difficulty with this one idea of GOD - not the idea of GOD itself.

Would that be a fair observation?

Well that is interesting and it is like adapting God to be a pocket watch. I see absolutely no point in doing this. It neither adds to nor subtracts from life. Poetry can at least be admired for the skill of its author and for the thoughts lodged in it that may inspire us.

Obviously you have a taste for poetry. I don't think your comment of criticism re the pocket watch is deserved.

Would you say something similar about the universe? Our position therein is one where the universe's actuality - in terms of knowing it completely - is still relatively unknown to us, because we are always in the position of 'working it out'.

Surely if you can accept that as fine and dandy, you should be able to accept the same re the idea of GOD.

You 'see no point' in my' light years ahead of biblical theology', why? Because the point is you can argue against Christianity/ the Abrahamic idea of GOD? And there is some 'point' in doing so?

Perhaps it is 'time' to get out that 'pocket watch' and go onto bigger and better things?

[marco]

The focus is on seeing GOD - most notably in FORM. When in FORM is GOD still distinguishable from Human?

If so, how so?

To discuss God in any detail we must first invent or adopt and then discuss our invention. It is obviously easy to discuss Yahweh, whom many admire and adore. I don't believe in his existence but find it fascinating that others do. Modern substitutes are mere metaphorical lego bricks.

Is the play real, imaginary, or a conflation of both? What is the key expectation from you in relation to how any GOD should behave and express their self into the external world?

The play is a fiction, just like Othello. I cannot possibly make sensible comments on how I would see a fictional being fitting in to the real world, though I know a few Hamlet characters.

Is the biblical idea of GOD expressed through the 'play' by the playwrights as someone who is evolving or static?

Jehovah is he who changes not, the rock of ages; he does not evolve though I accept that Jesus seems to have wanted to mollify his harshness.

I don't think your comment of criticism re the pocket watch is deserved.

I said it as I saw it. The merit of the metaphor didn't cross my mind.

You 'see no point' in my' light years ahead of biblical theology', why?

I didn't say "light years ahead". I said "light years away." There was no intention on my part to imply a progression.

Because the point is you can argue against Christianity/ the Abrahamic idea of GOD? And there is some 'point' in doing so?

Yes. Many believe in it. If it is false then it would be a useful exercise to demonstrate why. If one has the impertinence to criticise, one should at least let the other side present a counter argument. I am not infallible. Your nebulous idea of a God does not lend itself to verification. One may comment on its cleverness but that's about it.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

To discuss God in any detail we must first invent or adopt and then discuss our invention. It is obviously easy to discuss Yahweh, whom many admire and adore. I don't believe in his existence but find it fascinating that others do. Modern substitutes are mere metaphorical lego bricks.

A good comment for the Apologetics subforum, but not for this one.

[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.

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.

Wikipedia is not my only source.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... e_Religion

Let's look at the Bible itself.

An important passage to consider is DEUTERONOMY 32:7 which have some ambiguity.

"Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you: 8 When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. 9 For the LORD's portion is His people; Jacob is the place of His inheritance. (NKJV)

From this, we assume that Yahweh divided the 70 nations as listed in Genesis among the sons of Adam and kept Israel for himself . However, this is an English translation from the traditional Hebrew text of the Old Testament. That includes the words, children of Israel. However, the manuscripts of Deuteronomy found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, much older than the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament says:

DEUTERONOMY 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD. 9 For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage.

Likewise, the Septuagint, the 3rd century translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek states:

DEUTERONOMY 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years for past ages: ask thy father, and he shall relate to thee, thine elders, and they shall tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. 9 And His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of His inheritance. (Brenton's LXX)

Earlier manuscripts of the Septuagint have houin theou (sons of God) instead of the extant Septuagint manuscripts ,which is read as aggelon theou (angels of God). Therefore the Septuagint translators knew sons of God and angels of God were interchangeable. For the sake of clarity, the former description was used in response to passages like Job 1:6:

One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

The Book of Jasper 9:31-32 supports this:

Jash 9:31 And they built the tower and the city, and they did this thing daily until many days and years were elapsed.

Jash 9:32 And God said to the seventy angels who stood foremost before him, to those who were near to him, saying, Come let us descend and confuse their tongues, that one man shall not understand the language of his neighbor, and they did so unto them.

This supports that El, or God, was addressing his 70 sons.

So what is it? Is the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament correct? I think not because Israel could not have been one of the 70 nations as Israel is not listed as one in Genesis. It did not exist then. Therefore it is logical to assume that the Septuagint and the Deuteronomy found with the Dead Sea Scrolls at Quram are correct.

The seventy nations should rather be read as the 70 sons of God. Deuteronomy speaks of the Most High giving out inheritance. It is therefore illogical for Yahweh to give an inheritance to himself. He was a recipient. He received ancient Israel for his own.

El is not a generic name as El is acknowledged as the Canaanite deity worshiped by the Canaanites.

Israel means, May El persevere. El was seen as the chief god in the formative years of Israels religious practices. The narratives describe El as a deity to whom early patriarchal shrines and altars were built. There are many instances in the Bible that prove this. Genesis 14:17-19 is one example.

After Abram had defeated Kedorlaomer and rescued his nephew, Lot, he returned to meet the King of Sodom and King of Salem, Melchizedek, in the Valley of Shaveh. Verse 18-22:

18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,

Blessed be Abram by God Most High,

18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,

Blessed be Abram by God Most High,

Creator of heaven and earth.

20 And praise be to God Most High,

who delivered your enemies into your hand.

Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

21 The king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself.

22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, With raised hand I have sworn an oath to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth,

We see here that King Melchizedek is acknowledging Abrams god as his own. They are worshiping the same god. I have previously mentioned that El is referred to as the Most High. Genesis does not give us any explanation how Melchizedek, also a Canaanite priest of El Elyon, would know about Abrams god living in Canaan if one believes they are referring to two different gods. Abram gave his first recorded title to Melchizedeks god, El. It would seem strange that Abram would honour a god but his own.

Another example is Genesis 33:20

There he set up an altar and called it El Elohe Israel.

"Jacob bought a piece of land that he had bought from one of the sons of Hamor and called the altar erected as El Elohe Israel in Shechem, a Canaanite city. El was the deity worshipped in Shechem (Judges 9:46).

On hearing this, the citizens in the tower of Shechem went into the stronghold of the temple of El-Berith."

This El Berith, meaning God of the Covenant was the deity worshiped by the people of Shechem in Bethel, which was a border city in the Hebrew Bible as being located between Benjamin and Ephraim named by Jacob. Bethel means House of God.

El Berith of Bethel is the same god of the Canaanites shared by the Hebrews. Genesis 21:13 says:

"I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Now leave this land at once and go back to your native land.'"

Finally, the temple of Bethel was considered one of the official sanctuaries of the state of Israel.

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.

What is the difference? A warrior is someone who participates in war. He constantly led the Israelites into battle.

Why would God want the Israelites to call Him husband rather than Lord (Baal)? He is always known as Lord.

[marco]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

To discuss God in any detail we must first invent or adopt and then discuss our invention. It is obviously easy to discuss Yahweh, whom many admire and adore. I don't believe in his existence but find it fascinating that others do. Modern substitutes are mere metaphorical lego bricks.

A good comment for the Apologetics subforum, but not for this one.

I am trying to move the discussion away from a philosophical consideration of God, which as you say belongs elsewhere, to one about Yahweh, which belongs here. I have no desire to investigate godishness - just the attributes that make Yahweh the being he is, as evidenced in the Bible.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

To discuss God in any detail we must first invent or adopt and then discuss our invention. It is obviously easy to discuss Yahweh, whom many admire and adore. I don't believe in his existence but find it fascinating that others do. Modern substitutes are mere metaphorical lego bricks.

A good comment for the Apologetics subforum, but not for this one.

I am trying to move the discussion away from a philosophical consideration of God, which as you say belongs elsewhere, to one about Yahweh, which belongs here. I have no desire to investigate godishness - just the attributes that make Yahweh the being he is, as evidenced in the Bible.

You are?

On the contrary, as in this further example:

The play is a fiction, just like Othello. I cannot possibly make sensible comments on how I would see a fictional being fitting in to the real world, though I know a few Hamlet characters.

To you Yahweh is "a fictional being", so you recognise the point I am making.

In your words, "I cannot possibly make sensible comments" on this thread.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 35 by Claire Evans]

El is a generic term for a god. Moabites, Amalikites and many others worshiped the God that the hebrews did. He had deals with several of them including, later, Nebakanezzer, if we believe the OT>

Also, there is nothing wrong with a warrior. Nearly all warriors, people who have faced imminent danger and fought, prefer not to do so, for obvious reasons. But, they are willing if need be. So, for The great Jah to act as a defender of His chosen people, is fine for me. It is what He promised.

[marco]

To you Yahweh is "a fictional being", so you recognise the point I am making.

In your words, "I cannot possibly make sensible comments" on this thread.

You are misunderstanding what was being discussed.

I am allowed to have my views on the OT and I can correctly use the OT passages as illustrations for whatever point I am making. The "sensible comments" part referred to discussing a progressive idea of God while still upholding the details of the biblical one. They don't fit.

I am perfectly happy to take what is written in the Bible and use it illustratively. I quoted the verses about God's exposing himself and in doing so I am doing what the forum requires. I can certainly make sensible comments about Yahweh's depiction in the OT by quoting accurately from the OT. What on earth is wrong with that? Or do we require some sort of baptism before we pronounce?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 35 by Claire Evans]

El is a generic term for a god. Moabites, Amalikites and many others worshiped the God that the hebrews did. He had deals with several of them including, later, Nebakanezzer, if we believe the OT>

Also, there is nothing wrong with a warrior. Nearly all warriors, people who have faced imminent danger and fought, prefer not to do so, for obvious reasons. But, they are willing if need be. So, for The great Jah to act as a defender of His chosen people, is fine for me. It is what He promised.

Please don't avoid addressing each of my points.