Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

God literally walked this earth and spoke with us

22 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

I've been thinking about this lately, understanding that God came to us in the flesh as Jesus Christ. The God of the universe spoke with us, hung out with us, ate and drank with us. The disciples got a first glance at what God was, what he wore, what he ate/drank, how he spoke, and how he presented himself. They walked side by side with God. It's just amazing to me, and I hope it's amazing to you too. - DRS81 :grin:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I know, it still blows my mind.

God was enfleshed as a helpless babe and He left ootprints on His own creation ..He sat on the shores and watched His own waves roll in.... Sigh...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I've been thinking about this lately, understanding that God came to us in the flesh as Jesus Christ. The God of the universe spoke with us, hung out with us, ate and drank with us. The disciples got a first glance at what God was, what he wore, what he ate/drank, how he spoke, and how he presented himself. They walked side by side with God. It's just amazing to me, and I hope it's amazing to you too. - DRS81 :grin:

 

Sometimes I think that none of the disciples had that revelation. How come they don't describe Jesus better? All that you mentioned, if I'm knowing this is God, then hello! I would have him described to perfection. I would have painted him and give him life with words.

But then I guess that, Jesus was so naturally human for them -who knows, maybe too vulgarly human- that they just couldn't realize it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

too vulgarly human

Hey Helm, can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by "vulgarly human"?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sometimes I think that none of the disciples had that revelation. How come they don't describe Jesus better?

 

Well..... i would think too many exclamation points in the Bible would be an overdo if you know what I mean. The word glory is the word glory. However, I think the disciples got a better idea of who Jesus was when he visited them after death and before resurrecting. I think the disciples wrote in humility and awe. If you read Hebrews 1:3 to an atheist they would shrug it off as whatever, but if you're reading the Bible with the Holy Spirit in you then the exclamation points would be living inside of you as some would say. Authentic love.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sometimes I think that none of the disciples had that revelation. How come they don't describe Jesus better? All that you mentioned, if I'm knowing this is God, then hello! I would have him described to perfection. I would have painted him and give him life with words.

But then I guess that, Jesus was so naturally human for them -who knows, maybe too vulgarly human- that they just couldn't realize it.

 

~

 

Knowledge

 

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

 

Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

 

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:26-28

 

And Love

 

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2

 

~

 

Believe

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

Love, Joe

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm glad we don't have a description of Jesus' looks.

It would become a focal point or comparison and that is not what looks are about.

That is not what He's about.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I've been thinking about this lately, understanding that God came to us in the flesh as Jesus Christ. The God of the universe spoke with us, hung out with us, ate and drank with us. The disciples got a first glance at what God was, what he wore, what he ate/drank, how he spoke, and how he presented himself. They walked side by side with God. It's just amazing to me, and I hope it's amazing to you too. - DRS81 :grin:

 

Sometimes I think that none of the disciples had that revelation. How come they don't describe Jesus better? All that you mentioned, if I'm knowing this is God, then hello! I would have him described to perfection. I would have painted him and give him life with words.

But then I guess that, Jesus was so naturally human for them -who knows, maybe too vulgarly human- that they just couldn't realize it.

Scripture does declare that the disciples did know Jesus was the Son of God. It is clearly stated in the NT. IF you do not get this from your reading and studies, who do you say Jesus is if not God the Son?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm glad we don't have a description of Jesus' looks.

It would become a focal point or comparison and that is not what looks are about.

That is not what He's about.

 
here may be one verse of Jesus on earth, what is your opinion on this verse
ISA 53:1-2
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

 

 
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Until the death and resurrection of Jesus, the disciples were obligated to the Mosaic covenant, so when Jesus walked the earth, they were not to make an image of Him. The lack of a painting or statue made of Him was due to the Mosaic law. 

 

While using words to describe Him would not have been prohibited, the NT words are given to us thru the writers who received revelation from God. God was in control of what went into scriptures, so it seems that God chose not to include a detailed description of what Jesus body looked like.

 

The NT also has many many areas where it warns against making idols and worshipping idols. Perhaps, having paintings, statues, etc, is an issue for people?  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I'm glad we don't have a description of Jesus' looks.

It would become a focal point or comparison and that is not what looks are about.

That is not what He's about.

 
here may be one verse of Jesus on earth, what is your opinion on this verse
ISA 53:1-2
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

 

 

 

that is a picture of Jesus on the cross.   Not a physical description of his appearance prior to the cross.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

that is a picture of Jesus on the cross.   Not a physical description of his appearance prior to the cross.

 

Why do you state such? (Just curious on your thinking/reasoning on this, not challenging.)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I've been thinking about this lately, understanding that God came to us in the flesh as Jesus Christ. The God of the universe spoke with us, hung out with us, ate and drank with us. The disciples got a first glance at what God was, what he wore, what he ate/drank, how he spoke, and how he presented himself. They walked side by side with God. It's just amazing to me, and I hope it's amazing to you too. - DRS81 :grin:

 

Sometimes I think that none of the disciples had that revelation. How come they don't describe Jesus better? All that you mentioned, if I'm knowing this is God, then hello! I would have him described to perfection. I would have painted him and give him life with words.

But then I guess that, Jesus was so naturally human for them -who knows, maybe too vulgarly human- that they just couldn't realize it.

 

Actually they offered up a pretty good description of Jesus through His words and His activities.  Had God provided a physical portrait of Jesus it would enshrined and venerated.

 

Jesus came to earth to show us the Father, not to be drawn and painted.  His physical appearance isn't important.  What He did is what we need to be focused on.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

that is a picture of Jesus on the cross.   Not a physical description of his appearance prior to the cross.

 

Why do you state such? (Just curious on your thinking/reasoning on this, not challenging.)

 

Isaiah 53: 1-6 is all about the humilation of Christ.  This is a man from the vantage point of the people, who was cursed.  There was nothing desirable about Him.  Add to that His appearance beaten to the point that He didn't look human.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

I'm glad we don't have a description of Jesus' looks.

It would become a focal point or comparison and that is not what looks are about.

That is not what He's about.

 
here may be one verse of Jesus on earth, what is your opinion on this verse
ISA 53:1-2
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

 

 

 

that is a picture of Jesus on the cross.   Not a physical description of his appearance prior to the cross.

 

only v4-6 is about him on the cross not v1-3 they are before the cross.

 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/isaiah-53-2.html

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Until the death and resurrection of Jesus, the disciples were obligated to the Mosaic covenant, so when Jesus walked the earth, they were not to make an image of Him. The lack of a painting or statue made of Him was due to the Mosaic law. 

 

While using words to describe Him would not have been prohibited, the NT words are given to us thru the writers who received revelation from God. God was in control of what went into scriptures, so it seems that God chose not to include a detailed description of what Jesus body looked like.

 

The NT also has many many areas where it warns against making idols and worshipping idols. Perhaps, having paintings, statues, etc, is an issue for people?  

 

 

AMEN!! and AMEN!! Qnts 2,

 

 

While using words to describe Him would not have been prohibited, the NT words are given to us thru the writers who received revelation from God. God was in control of what went into scriptures, so it seems that God chose not to include a detailed description of what Jesus body looked like

 

Can you post this :rolleyes: :rolleyes:  on every Thread on the Site.....then post this 5x per week in the Science vs Faith Forum for the next year?

 

ps.  Can you specifically say OT writers also?

 

Thanks

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

I'm glad we don't have a description of Jesus' looks.

It would become a focal point or comparison and that is not what looks are about.

That is not what He's about.

 
here may be one verse of Jesus on earth, what is your opinion on this verse
ISA 53:1-2
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

 

 

 

that is a picture of Jesus on the cross.   Not a physical description of his appearance prior to the cross.

 

I do not it is him on the cross neither does john Gill, Ill go with Gill on this

 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/isaiah-53-2.html

 

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I've been thinking about this lately, understanding that God came to us in the flesh as Jesus Christ. The God of the universe spoke with us, hung out with us, ate and drank with us. The disciples got a first glance at what God was, what he wore, what he ate/drank, how he spoke, and how he presented himself. They walked side by side with God. It's just amazing to me, and I hope it's amazing to you too. - DRS81 :grin:

 

Sometimes I think that none of the disciples had that revelation. How come they don't describe Jesus better? All that you mentioned, if I'm knowing this is God, then hello! I would have him described to perfection. I would have painted him and give him life with words.

But then I guess that, Jesus was so naturally human for them -who knows, maybe too vulgarly human- that they just couldn't realize it.

Actually they offered up a pretty good description of Jesus through His words and His activities.  Had God provided a physical portrait of Jesus it would enshrined and venerated.

 

Jesus came to earth to show us the Father, not to be drawn and painted.  His physical appearance isn't important.  What He did is what we need to be focused on.

AMEN!!!! God wants to look beyond the physical and to lay up treasures in heaven, focusing on the spiritual attributes and values.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

that is a picture of Jesus on the cross.   Not a physical description of his appearance prior to the cross.

Why do you state such? (Just curious on your thinking/reasoning on this, not challenging.)

Isaiah 53: 1-6 is all about the humilation of Christ.  This is a man from the vantage point of the people, who was cursed.  There was nothing desirable about Him.  Add to that His appearance beaten to the point that He didn't look human.

 

OK

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Until the death and resurrection of Jesus, the disciples were obligated to the Mosaic covenant, so when Jesus walked the earth, they were not to make an image of Him. The lack of a painting or statue made of Him was due to the Mosaic law. 

 

While using words to describe Him would not have been prohibited, the NT words are given to us thru the writers who received revelation from God. God was in control of what went into scriptures, so it seems that God chose not to include a detailed description of what Jesus body looked like.

 

The NT also has many many areas where it warns against making idols and worshipping idols. Perhaps, having paintings, statues, etc, is an issue for people?  

 

 

AMEN!! and AMEN!! Qnts 2,

 

 

While using words to describe Him would not have been prohibited, the NT words are given to us thru the writers who received revelation from God. God was in control of what went into scriptures, so it seems that God chose not to include a detailed description of what Jesus body looked like

 

Can you post this :rolleyes: :rolleyes:  on every Thread on the Site.....then post this 5x per week in the Science vs Faith Forum for the next year?

 

ps.  Can you specifically say OT writers also?

 

Thanks

 

:laughing:

 

I'll go a bit further for the OT.

 

The first five books of the OT, the Torah, the Pentateuch, initially written by God and the second copy was dictated by God to Moses. The rest of the OT was by revelation from God thru the prophets and writers.  God was in control of what was written in both the OT and the NT.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

:laughing:

 

I'll go a bit further for the OT.

 

The first five books of the OT, the Torah, the Pentateuch, initially written by God and the second copy was dictated by God to Moses. The rest of the OT was by revelation from God thru the prophets and writers.  God was in control of what was written in both the OT and the NT.

 

 

OUTSTANDING!!

 

And I wasn't kidding.  Head on over to Science vs Faith and pull up topic:  GOD IS THE AUTHOR

 

Thanks  :thumbsup:

 

ps. Next week, please create a Topic solely devoted to the subject

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

Hey Qnts2,

 

Do you have support for this other than the ones I alluded to in:  The AUTHOR is GOD? (Science vs Faith Forum)

 

The first five books of the OT, the Torah, the Pentateuch, initially written by God and the second copy was dictated by God to Moses

 

if so, I would be very interested in what you have  :)

 

Thanks

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0