Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 10, 2023 at 0:52 comment added moron These verses present problems for those who claim that God has no body, and also for those who claim that this was the pre-incarnate Jesus and not God the Father. If God has no body then why cover Moses' eyes so he couldn't see a non-existent body? Huh? And why cause Moses to see a vision of a non-existent body but not let him see the face of the vision of a non-existent body? Huh? Huh? And if this was Jesus here, who lots of people saw bodily in the first century, why couldn't Moses see Jesus' face here? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Feb 25, 2021 at 18:05 comment added Dave @Adam For consideration, [even just] the ‘presence’ of God was/is usually overwhelming. You can ‘see’/‘sense’/feel’ [via your physical senses] God without actually ‘seeing’ God with your physical eyes. My personal interpretation is this could be what Moses is describing. That reference to ‘Gods back parts’ probably has some [Hebraic] meaning beyond the literal meaning?
Feb 25, 2021 at 17:53 comment added Dave @user48152 Firstly, thanks! Appreciate you for providing reason for the down vote. I never mind them, they’re part of debate, nice to have a ‘why’! Pre-incarnate appearances are not Jesus as ‘human’. For this He needs a physical body, and these only come via birth. And yes, these pre-incarnate visits are all somewhat speculative. (Cannot defend energetically). But to the Hebrews, in Hebraic ‘thinking’, seeing the angel of God = seeing God, seeing a pre-incarnate Jesus = seeing God
Feb 25, 2021 at 7:46 comment added Adam i think the answer given by Dave explores a probability that what Moses in fact may have seen is exactly that "A christophanby (Jesus). Its an interesting idea, however, i think that one would have to first confirm whether or not one could look upon Jesus in the old testament without dying? Seeing God and facing death appears to be foremost concern in the example of Moses. Stephen seeing the Godhead (with Jesus seated on the Right) was in vision. Whether he saw "the Father" here is unkown. It may be he interpreted God because he was allowed to see the Son of Man (whom he obviously recognised)
Feb 25, 2021 at 5:06 comment added Steve All good until Ex3. There is only ambiguous references to a pre-existing Christ/Jesus and to make from these meagre inclusions a speculative truth is without merit. On the other hand we have clear and ample evidence to a human Jesus born of Mary according to prophecy. -1 for the last part only. Esp, as the Q was about God, not Jesus.
Feb 25, 2021 at 4:42 history edited Dave CC BY-SA 4.0
added 86 characters in body
Feb 25, 2021 at 4:34 history answered Dave CC BY-SA 4.0