Who is this man?

Joseph,

*s* I knew that. lol I meant God the Father, Christ, or were the "three men" really the three parts of the trinity vs The Lord and 2 angels? (Most theologians, and I, believe it is God and 2 angels.)

 

Since God is spirit, and it says in the Bible (as Bill pointed out) that no one can see God and live, I think it was a Christophany.

Of course, at that time Jesus had not incarnated and so I can see why someone would then say, well if Jesus was spirit then, why could it not have been God? But I think the fact that Jesus did incarnate later, and that the Bible says no one can see God face to face and live, that it was Jesus. But they did not know Jesus then, so it was the Lord. Since Jesus is God, no problem.

 

God is spirit (John 4:24); God is invisible (Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17); the first commandment prohibits making an image of him, meaning that there was no physical body. God took human form in Christ, the Son, at the incarnation.

 

Technically -

Saying, "Thou shalt not make" doesn't mean "it can't be done," it means "it shouldn't be done."

I have to agree with Joseph that God can take any form He wants.

As to "man not being able to look upon his face," yes, the bible does say that HOWEVER ....

It ALSO says it has happened.

Genesis 32:30 "So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, 'IT is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

My study bible notes say that Jacob actually wresteled with God, but that God was in angelic form.

In any case - the bible clearly says that Jacob saw God face-to-face and lived.

 

Another passage that is interesting:

Exodus 33:9-11

As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses. Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud stnding at the entrance of the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to his tent. The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua, son of Nun did not leave the tent.

Later, in that same chapter, Moses asks to see the full Glory of God, and God responds that none can see God and live.

I believe that God appears in manly form showing only a small part of Himself.

 

Well Joseph see what you started. It is a bit of fun.

 

Moses did see the hind quarters of God and lived. He did not see the fullness of the Glory of God. But, consider the following passages:
</font>[/QUOTE]God doesn't have "hindquarters" since He is spirit. He didn't see God, he just saw the "back" of God, and the Bible makes it sound like it was God's departing glory that Moses saw. God doesn't have a "back" either. These words like "back" are just anthropomorphisms like passages that talk about God's hands or other body parts. The Mormons try to use those to show that God has a body. I think it's really important to maintain that God is spirit.

Seeing God "face to face" is something no man has done, as the Bible says. Here, God talks about his glory passing Moses by.

I think the Isaiah passage is a vision, and it could have been Christ. I think Christ is all that man can see before death and live.

I also think Jacob saw Christ. But to him it was the Lord.

As far as the Ex. 33.11 passage about Moses speaking to the Lord face to face, I was told by my OT prof (who also teaches Hebrew) that this is a Hebrew expression meaning God spoke directly to Moses. It does not mean Moses saw God's face. The prof went on at some length on that.

 

None of those passages speak anything about seeing a physical body, and that is the distinction. God can certainly manifest himself in many different ways, though I am not sure that list is open-ended. That's not the point. The point is that when God manifested himself as a person, it was Jesus, the Son.

The phrase "the angel of the Lord" is usually understood as a Christophany.

There is nothing that prevents God from revealing himself as a man. When he did so, it was Jesus.

What are you going after here? Just curious what the point is?

 

Joseph maybe I get your point and maybe I don't. As just a quick survey I went to some of my commentaries to check wiser heads than mine.This is just a quick check but here goes:
Barnes,MH,Wavoord&Zuck say it was Christ.
Darby says it was God the Father.
Gill and JFB are nuetral and don't state specically.
I have to go for a few hours so I won't be able to reply or check with more resources.

 

OOOH you got your in while I was entering mine.Anyhow I think it validates your thinking.

 

Again, I urge you all to be cautious of the language you are using. The "oneness pentecostals" believe God "manisfested" Himself as Jesus at various times in history. They believe He only existed as one (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) at a time, and does not exist as a Trinity within the Godhead.

When the second person of the Trinity (The Son) took on flesh, He took it on permanently, He is named Jesus at that point, and He is the Christ.

God appeared at various times in history and this can be explained as a theophany or christophany, but it is not the God-man Jesus.

I hope I am not making too much of this. Please forgive me if you think I am.

 

These are good points.

You are not making too much of this. I think it's important how we view God. God is never spoken of as having a body, as Pastor Larry, I think pointed out. My concern is also the Mormon view that God has a body.

 

I think the burning bush was like the pillar of fire -- God's glory. Interesting since God is also described as a "consuming fire."

See also Deut. 9.3, Is 9.26, Is. 30.30, Is 33.24, Heb 12.29.

 

i always thought that

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

meant that they were all christophanies, or does this not apply.

i think in the Genesis Record by Henry Morris, He even states that it was a Christophany in the Garden.

just thoughts

thankyou and God Bless