Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic’, says archbishop

If Jesus was God in the flesh how come the Bible tells us that 'no one can see God'? ( Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:14–16; 1 John 4:12). And what are we to make of the places where Jesus talks to, er God EG  Luke 11 "One day Jesus was in a place talking with God. When he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, `Lord, teach us to talk with God as John taught his disciples.' Jesus said, `When you talk with God, say, "Our Father in heaven... " Did he have a glove puppet?

But hey, it is your religion and you are naturally free to believe as you want. But don't take my word for it

thedeenshow.com/90-verses-that-say-jesus-is-not-god-nor-the-literal-son-of-god/

And I reminded you then that, whether anthropomorphisms are used or not is not germane to the idea of contradiction: i.e. the point still is that the Bible says that God cannot be seen and also describes occasions when He apparently was. A contradiction perfectly encapsulated in Exodus where we read

Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. (Exodus 33:11)



But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” (Exodus 33:20)



Apologists have used other apologetics other than yours to explain this btw, an example which can be found at 

firmisrael.org/learn/no-man-can-see-my-face-and-live/

Believers really need to get their special exegesis singing the same tune.




The doctrine of the Trinity, to which you refer, appears to be logically inconsistent and even when explained by those who represent has not not a idea supported by all Christians. The logical problem is that according to Christian orthodoxy God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but the Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Holy Spirit the Son. Not surprising this confusion: after all. a committee (otherwise known as the Council of Nicea,325) came up with it. The late Bishop Pike certainly thought so when he suggested that the Trinity was “a sort of committee god” only superimposed upon Scripture from later Christian thinkers who were highly influenced by Greek philosophy. Meanwhile the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament while references to God always uses singular pronouns. Two passages may appear to support the concept ( Matthew 28:19,1 John 5:7–8)  at least one and probably both are quite late interpolations

An example of the awkwardness engendered is when we learn that Jesus didn’t know the day or hour of his return, though his Father did know it (Mark 13.32). He cannot have two minds, one that knew something and another that did not know something, unless we now want to make the absurd claim that mind and person are not correlated. So if Jesus was God, he did know everything and lied about not knowing the day of his return…but if Jesus lied then he cannot be God, for God cannot lie (Titus 1.2) The conclusion is that Jesus did not know everything, because he wasn’t God. And so on.

But back in the world of this recent exchange we are still left in Luke 11 with Jesus effectively talking to Himself. As if an 'essence of one in three' would not know what it was thinking.

The suggestion that Christians don't really or fully understand their scriptures, where you presumably do sounds like a Scotsman. In the case of the Trinity however, for those who think about it logically, one can well believe it

You are welcome to your creative exegesis. But the plain fact is, if any part of God out of the purported three can be seen, then no matter how one cuts it with special pleading, the Bible still insists elsewhere it anyhow cannot be so. Glad to be of help.

"Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. (Exodus 33:11)"


This works until one pauses and reflects that words  are careful to specify "just as man speaks to his friend" - a clear reference to how one normally goes about conversation. I don't know about your relationships, but I do not often speak to my friends' 'presence' only. But I enjoyed the creative exegesis ,thanks.


Or it could just be another of those very common OT anthropomorphisms, the possibility of which are contradicted elsewhere, right? And what makes you so sure that some writers of the OT did not believe that the Almighty could be literally seen on rare and famous occasions by the select? These were not sophisticated peoples and many were uneducated (one reason why the Bible is estimated 43% rather bald narrative and only 24% poetical discourse.) You just seem to be assuming peasants understanding a sustained metaphor, to suit your arguments.  The stories and laws it contains were communicated orally, through prose and poetry, written by a number of people over many centuries - none of this fertile ground for transcendental metaphors.



A further point you have overlooked is this, and makes your equivocating "could be" above, sensible: In Exodus, we agree we read both "But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” (Exodus 33:20) while later "the LORD speaks to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." or shows his His rear out in the rocks. It is unlikely that all these verses cannot be talking about the same "face" i.e.  speaking only of his "glory, Goodness and protection" as you gloss it. In one case, even with your interpretation, Moses does see God thusly, while we also learn it cannot be. That is, if being able to see God 's 'face' cannot be done and be able to live, one of these verses cannot be a metaphor or the verses are still in opposition.


Finally, there is this which ought to be obvious: how would one go about seeing this "glory, Goodness and protection" at all? (And why would a metaphor kill the faithful, "no one can see me and live", come to that?) Things break down when taken in narrative context.

It appears even you have problems with the logic eg:

"The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons"

www.cru.org/us/en/train-and-grow/spiritual-growth/core-christian-beliefs/understanding-the-trinity.html#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20of%20the%20Trinity%20means%20that%20there%20is%20one,essence%20and%20three%20in%20person.


More precisely: the original Nicene Creed was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and in 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople, another 'committee'. (The amended form is also referred to as the Nicene Creed). Scholars have sometimes argued that the Nicene Creed was just the local creed of Caesarea (an important centre of Early Christianity) recited in the council by Eusebius of Caesarea. More recent scholarship has not been convinced by their arguments. The large number of secondary divergences from the text of the creed quoted by Eusebius make it unlikely that it was used just as a starting point by those who drafted the conciliar creed. [Kelly, J.N.D. (1963). "Early Christian Creeds".] Their initial text was probably a local creed from a Syro-Palestinian source into which they inserted phrases to define the Nicene theology and come up with an agreed text. In other words it was more than rubber stamping.

The main point here, no matter how one interprets history is that the Trinity was not thought up and finalised by one man (notably not Jesus) which might explain confusing logic.




James Pike was an American Episcopal bishop, As said before it is your religion and you are naturally fully entitled o disagree with your fellow Christians on how it ought to be interpreted which is something of grand tradition among the devoutly-challenged. Watching the squabbles between the faithful, which are as eternal it would seem as the god you claim for, is part of the fun of being an atheist.




As usual other Christians can easily be found who disagree. And there is no 'we' or 'them' in Matt 28:19, probably since:

Isn't creative exegesis wonderful? www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/does-matthew-28-verse-19-prove-the-trinity

And even we accept such rare occurrences, such as when God, er, ever talks of Himself in the plural, one is still left with the inconvenient fact that nearly every mention of your deity in scripture is with a singular pronoun. You'd think they would have got it right most times...




And yet he did not know the time of his return, apparently. For reasons already outlined, this is odd, especially as it is claimed elsewhere that He apparently knew everything.


“Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.””
John 16:30

Thank you for providing yet another contradiction. Perhaps Jesus really knew the day of His return and just forgot?



It seems weird that God does not know all that God knows, when knowing everything is er, part of his essence. Or that Jesus, being separate in person but of God or something needs to ask for knowledge from that which He is a part. But of such knots are Trinity made.

www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/what-we-believe/lords-prayer   I am not a Catholic but I recited it in religious services when younger countless times.

Archbishop, in the Christian church, a bishop who, in addition to his ordinary episcopal authority in his own diocese, usually has jurisdiction (but no superiority of order) over the other bishops of a province


Glad to help.