No man has seen God at any time

[Stewardofthemystery]

It is written in 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.”

And Jesus said in John 14:6-7
King James Version
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.”

So if no man has seen God at any time, how do we reconcile what seems to be a contradiction? When you understand the identity of the Son of God being the very Word of God, then you will understand there is no contradiction.

It is the Word OF God that was made flesh in the man Jesus. And it is BY God’s Word and words that we get to know and see what God the Father is really like, His likes and dislikes. It is by God’s Word and words we get to see and know the will of God the Father.

In this way, by looking at the words and actions of Jesus Christ we get to see and know what The invisible God is really like.

We don’t see the outward image of God in Christ, but rather we see the inward image of God in Jesus Christ, as God was in Christ.

Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

When you understand this mystery then there is a harmony to the text without contradiction.

Peace and God bless

[Capbook]

...
[Who is the image of the invisible God] The counterpart of God Almighty, and if the image of the invisible God, consequently nothing that appeared in him could be that image; for if it could be visible in the Son, it could also be visible in the Father; but if the Father be invisible, consequently his image in the Son must be invisible also. This is that form of God of which he divested himself; the ineffable glory in which he not only did not appear, as to its splendour and accompaniments, but concealed also its essential nature; that inaccessible light which no man, no created being, can possibly see.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)

Sorry, that doesn't sound very logical, but perhaps I don't understand it correctly. I think it would be best to remain just what is said in the Bible.

As I understand it;
If the Father wants to be visible in the Son, He could be seen in the Son's human nature. (this is your argument)
If the Father wants to be invisible in the Son, He cannot be seen in the Son. (like Jesus baptism, He was not in the Son)
But His essential nature; that inaccessible light which no man, no created being, can possibly see.

[1213]

...
If the Father wants to be visible in the Son, He could be seen in the Son's human nature. (this is your argument)
...

I think that God would rather be seen in actions of Jesus that are above human nature.

[JehovahsWitness]

...
Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
...

Good that you had this. Makes it clear how one can see God, without actually seeing God.

Clark understand this phrase as, The counterpart of God Almighty, as Jesus as God

I think Clark is wrong. If he wasn' t dead I'd tell him to his face.


JW

I just would prefer Clark for deeper understanding of the Word of God.

I think his understanding of the word of God is shallow not deep. Shallow and often inaccurate.

[Capbook]

...
Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
...

Good that you had this. Makes it clear how one can see God, without actually seeing God.

Clark understand this phrase as, The counterpart of God Almighty, as Jesus as God

I think Clark is wrong. If he wasn' t dead I'd tell him to his face.


JW

I just would prefer Clark for deeper understanding of the Word of God.

I think his understanding of the word of God is shallow not deep. Shallow and often inaccurate.

Well, he wrote books used by many.
Adam Clark is considered fairly moderate and full of great information. (quoted online)

[Capbook]

...
If the Father wants to be visible in the Son, He could be seen in the Son's human nature. (this is your argument)
...

I think that God would rather be seen in actions of Jesus that are above human nature.

But I believe the Father's essential nature; that inaccessible light which no man, no created being, can possibly see.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, he wrote books used by many.

So has Oprah doesn't mean we have to agree with his conclusions.

[Capbook]

Well, he wrote books used by many.

So has Oprah doesn't mean we have to agree with his conclusions.

They are Biblical commentaries. I believe you also have reliable commentaries. I would wonder why if you don"t have.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, he wrote books used by many.

So has Oprah doesn't mean we have to agree with his conclusions.

They are Biblical commentaries....

So?! Nobody should agree with a biblical commentary just because many others do. It's reasoning is sound and in harmony with scripture or it is not.

[Capbook]

Well, he wrote books used by many.

So has Oprah doesn't mean we have to agree with his conclusions.

They are Biblical commentaries....

So?! Nobody should agree with a biblical commentary just because many others do. It's reasoning is sound and in harmony with scripture or it is not.

To me they are in harmony with the Scripture.
Don't you ever have commentaries also?

[JehovahsWitness]

To me they are in harmony with the Scripture.

Congratualtions ; I happen to disagree; is that okay?