Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our greatest importance has always been our spirit, which drives our lives. It can be for good/positive or evil/negative, or anything in-between. Our bodies have never been of key importance, and they're of course temporary as well.
Mystic had it correct early on when he mentioned that our spirit is what was/is in God's image, not our bodies.
It is very difficult for us to contemplate our Spirit because we are so highly conditioned to think of ourselves as a physical being. It was beyond our ancestors' carnal mins and it seems to have enduring power over our thinking about our Spirits even today, Thoreau.
I wonder if this verse would mean that no one has seen God face-to-face, while other parts of Scripture seem to clearly say that He's revealed parts of image to some people.
I'm not sure if even Jesus would look exactly like God, being that He was descended from mankind, but I believe our bodies are modeled after the physicality of the Father.
There are several places in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament where it is said that God was seen face to face, such as Ex. 33:11 where it is said that the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, or Genesis 32:30 where Jacob says he has seen God face to face and yet he lived.
Now it may be that in these instances where God was seen face to face it is referring to theophanies in which God takes on human form, in contrast to that time in Exodus 33:20-23 where God only permitted Moses to see his back because no man can see the face of God and live. The implication being that God does have a non-theophanic form which does not allow for man to see him face to face.
It could also mean that different traditions were drawn upon in writing the biblical stories and so you get contrasting stories.
This sounds contradictory, YG. Do you believe Christ is Heaven with His resurrected body or not?
He, he, he. He is in Heaven with His "Spiritual Body," the same one He presented to His disciples that was NOT "physical" (but only made to appear so to their consciousness to assuage their fear of Spirits). The need to accommodate our ancestors' carnal minds cannot be ignored when interpreting scripture, IMO.
He, he, he. He is in Heaven with His "Spiritual Body," the same one He presented to His disciples that was NOT "physical" (but only made to appear so to their consciousness to assuage their fear of Spirits). The need to accommodate our ancestors' carnal minds cannot be ignored when interpreting scripture, IMO.
I'm not trying to accommodate anyone's "carnal mind." I'm simply taking scripture at face value, and it appears as if the earliest Christians did, too. You've got a real hangup with anything physical. When God created the physical world, He proclaimed it "good," not "carnal." If anyone was afraid of spirits, that was their problem, but Jesus was not just playing tricks on them when He appeared in a body of flesh and bone that housed His immortal spirit.
Anyway, we're getting off topic and I don't want to do that.
I'm not trying to accommodate anyone's "carnal mind." I'm simply taking scripture at face value, and it appears as if the earliest Christians did, too. You've got a real hangup with anything physical. When God created the physical world, He proclaimed it "good," not "carnal." If anyone was afraid of spirits, that was their problem, but Jesus was not just playing tricks on them when He appeared in a body of flesh and bone that housed His immortal spirit.
Anyway, we're getting off topic and I don't want to do that.
Sorry. My teasing is not designed to offend you, Katz. In my Synthesis, the kind of body that exists at our low level of energy and frequency cannot exist at the higher level of energy and frequency we call the quantum level (Spiritual realm). That is what I am referring to. It will seem like the same kind of body, but it cannot BE the same kind of body.
Michael Heiser is who I learned from what I know about the subject. I've listened to many of his lectures on YouTube and have most of his books. His death was a great loss to the academic community.
Hi Michael Way
I am glad you like Michael Heisner. I do too.
Perhaps you and KATZPUR would enjoy a story about Michael.
Michael was a wonderful and rare hebraist and historian and it took years for other historians to "catch up" with Michael on some of his specific historical discoveries. He did years of historical research on his doctoral "council" thesis and it was wonderfully well done.
Because his historical research confirmed some historical points of LDS doctrines, some of his colleagues accused him of being a "secret" member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ("mormons") and he felt under pressure to "explain" why he was supporting the mormon claims.
Michael responded by writing a wonderful Critique regarding the LDS use of Psalms 82 called "You've seen one Elohim, you've seen them all" and sent it to the scholars at Brigham Young University.
The problem was that Michael didn't realize the LDS, as restorationists, had always agreed with and had always taught specific basic elements of his historical discoveries.
So, the back and forth between him and the LDS scholars went like this :
Michael : The LDS disagree with my research on this point. The LDS : No, we actually agree with your historical research on this point.
Michael : I am saying "this" and you guys think it means "that". The LDS : No, we agree with your point that it means "this" and don't know why you think we believe "that"
And that is the way the back and forth went with Michael trying to convince the LDS that they disagreed with him on base points and the LDS trying to convince him that they agreed with him and gave him examples where they had long taught his base historical discoveries.
I think it hurt his feelings that he wasn't the first to discover these important historical points. He was a wonderful historian and his historical discoveries were quite wonderful. He simply didn't realize that even the LDS taught what it took him years to discover.
I felt a bit of a kinship with Michael on this point since I remember being quite disappointed when I also thought I was the first to discover a significant historical point and found out that it has already been discovered by multiple other individuals. Like Michael, I had hoped that I had been the one to contribute something special and was disappointed to find that I others already knew and taught what I had only recently discovered.
However, Michael got over this episode and continued to make wonderful contributions to the world of religious history.
At any rate, you may also enjoy this Critique Michael wrote to the LDS that turned out to be common knowledge among them.
I love Michael and I'm glad we share this love and respect for him and his wonderful contributions to the understanding of historical religion.
Last edited by Clear lens; 05-07-2024 at 11:54 AM..
When God created the universe, He saved the best for last- us. We are the only part of creation that bears His image. Everything He made, He made for us. A very humbling thought.
God created us to bear His image and likeness. Our task in life is to be His image bearer. We are to represent Him to the world. A huge undertaking, yet one we are able to accomplish if we choose to.
Thanks so much for this point Kate. I think your point is wonderful and important.
There is something about mortality that is intended to help us be more like our Father in heaven.
When Jesus said "Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in the heavens is perfect" (matt 5:48), there must be some important principle underlying this mandate for emulation.
Christ is not in his body now. As to the physical location of his body is a mystery of faith.
As his body was a fully human body, after 2,000 years, it's dust.
You believe that Jesus' body decayed into dust? That's curious since according to the Gospels Jesus' body was not in the tomb because he had risen (bodily). His grave clothes remained in the tomb but body was gone, his mortal body having been transformed in the resurrection. His mortal body had put on immortality. As Paul said concerning our resurrection of which Jesus was the first-fruit - our body '' is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body, it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. 1 Corinthians 15: 42-43.
As per Acts 2:27 in which Jesus is being spoken of by the apostle Peter who was quoting King David concerning the Messiah, ''. . . ''Because you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow your Holy One to undergo decay.''
Jesus' mortal body was not allowed to undergo decay which means, according to these passages, that Jesus body did not decay into dust. His mortal body was transformed in the resurrection into a spiritual body, Not a spirit body, but an immortal and incorruptible glorified spiritual body of flesh and bone. Accordingly then, it follows that Jesus is at the present time seated at the right hand of the Father in his resurrected body.
In Jewish thought, resurrection always referred to the raising of the body. Not to some kind of incorporeal spirit resurrection.
Perhaps you and KATZPUR would enjoy a story about Michael.
Michael was a wonderful and rare hebraist and historian and it took years for other historians to "catch up" with Michael on some of his specific historical discoveries. He did years of historical research on his doctoral "council" thesis and it was wonderfully well done.
Because his historical research confirmed some historical points of LDS doctrines, some of his colleagues accused him of being a "secret" member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ("mormons") and he felt under pressure to "explain" why he was supporting the mormon claims.
Michael responded by writing a wonderful Critique regarding the LDS use of Psalms 82 called "You've seen one Elohim, you've seen them all" and sent it to the scholars at Brigham Young University.
The problem was that Michael didn't realize the LDS, as restorationists, had always agreed with and had always taught specific basic elements of his historical discoveries.
So, the back and forth between him and the LDS scholars went like this :
Michael : The LDS disagree with my research on this point. The LDS : No, we actually agree with your historical research on this point.
Michael : I am saying "this" and you guys think it means "that". The LDS : No, we agree with your point that it means "this" and don't know why you think we believe "that"
And that is the way the back and forth went with Michael trying to convince the LDS that they disagreed with him on base points and the LDS trying to convince him that they agreed with him and gave him examples where they had long taught his base historical discoveries.
I think it hurt his feelings that he wasn't the first to discover these important historical points. He was a wonderful historian and his historical discoveries were quite wonderful. He simply didn't realize that even the LDS taught what it took him years to discover.
I felt a bit of a kinship with Michael on this point since I remember being quite disappointed when I also thought I was the first to discover a significant historical point and found out that it has already been discovered by multiple other individuals. Like Michael, I had hoped that I had been the one to contribute something special and was disappointed to find that I others already knew and taught what I had only recently discovered.
However, Michael got over this episode and continued to make wonderful contributions to the world of religious history.
At any rate, you may also enjoy this Critique Michael wrote to the LDS that turned out to be common knowledge among them.
I love Michael and I'm glad we share this love and respect for him and his wonderful contributions to the understanding of historical religion.
That's a good story. Heiser was however quick to say that nothing he said was original to himself but that he conveyed the ideas already put forth in academic scholarship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The need to accommodate our ancestors' carnal minds cannot be ignored when interpreting scripture, IMO.
