This has been an old issue in the Christian world on how they misrepresent their wrong ideology of the Nature of God. Job Bautista of the INC defender made an attempt to debunk the scripture using their INC teachings that seem too irrelevant to the teachings of the scripture. Job Bautista's Text in
Purple. Let's take a look -
Nang nagturo si Panginoong Jesucristo, ang Diyos ba nakikita?
Okay, so here's his question, Can God be seen? If I have to answer it straight, I could throw back a question like "why would you try to control God's power if he can? Why would you limit God's Nature by just misunderstanding the scriptures? But of course, you need scriptural references to that question. So, I will just keep that first and try to see how you misrepresent God's words to your doctrine of Man.
Juan 5:37 At ang Ama na nagsugo sa akin ay nagpapatotoo rin tungkol sa akin. Kailanma'y hindi ninyo narinig ang kanyang tinig ni nakita man ang kanyang anyo.
Absolutely! This means we have a link to the existence of Christ in the Old Testament as the Foreordained Jehovah. But of course, you don't like that idea.
In some events during Christ's ministry, there arose a question from the apostle about the Father. Let's read it -
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
- John 14
While reading it, you could tell that Christ meant only to represent the Father on earth. While deeply pondering it could lead you to understand how Christ exists as the Lord of the Old-time. That doesn't make any sense if he already proves his objective in the previous verses (v7) of that same chapter, which says about him and the Father, while the succeeding verses say something about Philip's question asking him about the appearance of the Father.
Here's another scripture for everyone to ponder -
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.
I have made a short commentary about this one, check it out if you want to know about it. Just go Here.
Try looking at it from a different angle and ask this question. How did Moses claim to see The face of God? Or even saw his back part? If God has no figure or physical appearance then how was it possible to be seen? Moses was even instructed to avoid his face for he couldn't stand his presence. See the following Scriptures for reference -
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
- Exodus 33:20-23
Following another event, everything changed when God explains to Moses his Physical Appearance that no man could see his face and live. The following Scripture takes us on different understanding -
9 ¶ Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
- Exodus 24:9-11
So, the question here is "Can God be seen?" My plain answer is, of course, He can, depending on how he trusts the person. It all depends on God's will, it depends on the situation or it depends on how he wants to deliver his words to his servants. If God is omnipotent, omniscient etc., Then there's no question of His capacity. He has hands, back parts and a face that he hides or avoids for someone to see it. Yet it's all clear he has a face that doesn't want to be seen during those times. Additional Scripture, even Abraham saw God physically -
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.- Genesis 17:1-5
Can a God without form or just a spirit only, can make Himself appear to a man? I think so, what do you think Job Bautista?
Ang aral ng anti-Cristo na Lds Church ang Diyos daw nagpakita sa laman ?
2 Nephi 25:12 Subalit masdan, magkakaroon sila ng mga digmaan, at alingawngaw ng mga digmaan; at kapag dumating ang araw na ang Bugtong na Anak ng Ama, oo, MAGING ANG AMA NG LANGIT AT NG LUPA , AY MAGPAPAKITA NG KANYANG SARILI SA LAMAN, masdan, kanilang itatakwil siya, dahil sa kanilang mga kasamaan, at sa katigasan ng kanilang mga puso, at sa katigasan ng kanilang mga leeg.
He's trying to quote it as an erroneous teaching of LDS but fails to understand how it was said while it was all about Christ addressed as the Everlasting Father, it even reflects on Isaiah's Messianic declaration. Let's consider understanding this in the bible.
Nephi 25:12 But, behold, they shall have wars, and rumors of wars; and when the day cometh that the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself unto them in the flesh, behold, they will reject him, because of their iniquities, and the hardness of their hearts, and the stiffness of their necks.
This was all about the manifestation of Christ in the flesh (his upcoming Mortal Birth), and here he was also addressed as the Father of heaven and of Earth. So, what's this all about? If we (that includes the INC people) believe and understand the scriptures, then this perfectly leads us to Isaiah 9:6 which says -
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
I will add some Commentaries about this so everyone will be aware of how this Job Bautista fails to understand the Scriptures.
From Wesley's Notes on the Bible -
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
9:6 For - Having spoken of the glorious light, and joy, and victory of God's people, he now proceeds to shew the ground of it. Us - Unto us Jews, of whom Christ was born, and to whom he was primarily sent. A child - The Messiah by the consent of interpreters, not only Christian, but Jewish: for so the ancient Hebrew doctors understood the place, and particularly the Chaldee paraphrast; although the latter Jews, out of opposition to Christ, wrest it to Hezekiah. Which extravagant conceit, as it hath no foundation in this or any other text of scripture, so it is fully confuted by the following titles, which are such as cannot without blasphemy and nonsense be ascribed to Hezekiah, nor indeed to any mere mortal man, as we shall see. Is born - Or, shall be born, as the prophets generally speak. The government - Of God's people, to whom he is given. Shoulders - Upon him, or in his hands. He mentions shoulders, because great burdens are commonly laid upon men's shoulders. His name - This is not to be taken for a description of his name, but of his glorious nature and qualities. Wonderful counsellor - And so Christ is, because he hath been the counsellor of his church in all ages, and the author and giver of all those excellent counsels delivered not only by the apostles, but also by the prophets, and hath gathered and enlarged, and preserved his church, by admirable counsels and methods of his providence, and, in a word, hath in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, Col 2:3. Mighty God - This title can agree to no man but Christ, who was God as well as man, to whom the title of God or Jehovah is given, both in the Old and New Testament. And it is a true observation, that this Hebrew word El is never used in the singular number, of any creature, but only of the almighty God. The father - The father of eternity. Who, though as man he was then unborn, yet was and is from everlasting to everlasting.
So, who was the God as the Father of Heaven and Earth in that Verses Job Bautista? Or perhaps another good alibi for your bigotry?
Okay, now let's get to that main concern of Job Bautista. Could God Have a Body of Flesh and Bones? Christ does and we have proven his Majestic existence and now he manifests in the Flesh to obtain a Physical Body, so yeah God can have a Physical Body if you accept the Scripture about Christ's Nature.
Niliwanag ni Cristo na ang pagkakaiba niya at ng Diyos . Ang Diyos walang laman at buto , subalit siya may laman at buto ayon sa Lukas 4:24 .
Actually, he misquotes the scripture on this one. But he correctly shows me his reference. And yet he still fails to understand the scripture about this one -
 |
| He made a correction of his wrong quote. |
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
The scripture says that God is a Spirit using John 4:24 but that doesn't mean a to be literally understood that way. If we are to take it literally, the rest of the phrase also literally says "and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." How are you gonna do that Job Bautista? How did you worship God using your spirit without your body?
Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν. - Nestle 1904
Also, the Greek Translation of that verse didn't add the word "a" which could make it a different view, for instance, the scripture also says this -
Psalm 84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.
Could it mean that God really is a Sun or Shield? And yet this (Psalm 84:11) was translated into Hebrew, could this be literal or something else?
I include some commentaries about this below and some videos to ponder on it.
From Ellicott's Commentary
(24) God is a Spirit.--Better, God is spirit. His will has been expressed in the seeking. But His very nature and essence is spirit, and it follows from this that all true worship must be spiritual. The appeal is here made to a doctrine of special prominence in the Samaritan theology. They had altered a number of passages in the Pentateuch, which seemed to them to speak of God in language properly applicable to man, and to ascribe to Him human form and feelings. But to believe in the spiritual essence of God contained its own answer both as to place and mode of worship.
The second "Him" ("they that worship Him") should be omitted, as the italics show.
From Pulpit Commentary
Verse 24. - A still more explicit and comprehensive reason is given for the previous assertion, based on the essential nature of God himself in the fulness of his eternal Being. God is Spirit (Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός; cf. John 1:1, Θεὸς η΅ν ὁ Λόγος, - the article indicates the subject, and the predicate is here generic, and not an indefinite; therefore we do not render it, "God is a Spirit"). The most comprehensive and far-reaching metaphor or method by which Jesus endeavoured to portray the fundamental essence of the Divine Being is "Spirit," not body, not ὕλη, not κόσμος, but that deep inner verity presented in self-conscious ego; the substantia of which mind may be predicated, and all its states and faculties. The Father is Spirit, the Son is Spirit, and Spirit is the unity of the Father and the Son. St. John has recorded elsewhere that "God is Light," and "God is Love." These three Divine utterances are the sublimest ever formed to express the metaphysical, intellectual, and moral essence of the Deity. They are unfathomably deep, and quite inexhaustible in their suggestions, and yet they are not too profound for even a little child or a poor Samaritaness to grasp for practical purposes. If God be Spirit, then they who worship him, the Spirit, must by the nature of the case, must by the force of a Divine arrangement, worship him, if they worship him at all, in spirit and in truth.
These Commentaries were outside of the LDS theology and yet this perfectly says a lot about how this Job Bautista misquoted or misunderstood the scripture badly.
Natupad ang salita ng Diyos sa Lds Church na sila nga ang katuparan sa nakasulat sa ss:
2 Mga Taga-Tesalonica 2:9 Paglitaw ng Suwail, taglay niya ang kapangyarihan ni Satanas. Gagawa siya ng lahat ng uri ng mapanlinlang na mga himala at kababalaghan.
2 Mga Taga-Tesalonica 2:10 Gagamit siya ng lahat ng uri ng pandaraya sa mga mapapahamak, sa mga taong ayaw umibig sa katotohanan na makakapagligtas sana sa kanila.
2 Mga Taga-Tesalonica 2:11 Dahil ayaw nilang tanggapin ang katotohanan, hahayaan ng Diyos na sila'y malinlang ng espiritu ng kamalian at maniwala sa kasinungalingan.
2 Mga Taga-Tesalonica 2:12 Sa gayon, mapaparusahan ang lahat ng pumili sa kasamaan sa halip na tumanggap sa katotohanan.
Here he is trying to add his personalized preaching using 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 adding a sign that it was a fulfilment as false teaching. How do you know Job Bautista? Haven't you reflected that to your Church?
I don't know how this guy represents the doctrine of the INC church, but he fails to understand the scripture as bad as their doctrine. He could have a good life as a retired minister or just hang around in the Mobile Games than trying to destroy someone's faith but never understood the teachings of the scriptures. To you Job Bautista, You should be ashamed in representing your INC religion and expose their wrong ideology or poor exegesis. Have a nice day.
