- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Does the word “us” in Genesis 1:26 mean that God consists of plural persons as the Trinity Doctrine teaches?
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.Genesis 3:22
Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evilThe first verse uses the word Elohim as God, and the second verse uses the words Yahweh Elohim. The plurality of the word “us” is the Father and the Son. So when God says “Let us make man in our image” it is the Father talking to the Son. To put it another way, God talking to the Word (Logos). God created everything through his Word, so it makes sense that God would say “Let us make man in our image”.
Remember Revelation 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.
Never again will he leave it.
I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.John 20:17
Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,
`I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.We also need to remember that humans can be referred to as gods/theos/elohim at least according to Psalms 82:6
“I said, `You are “gods” (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.’Jesus confirms this truth as he quotes this very scripture to the Jews.See John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)’← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.
“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image'”
The plurality of the word “us” is the Father and the Son. So when God says “Let us make man in our image” it is the Father talking to the Son.
..how can you include the Son in the word ‘God’ – yet still deny the oneness of the Father and Son – lol..this really exposes the confusion of your teachings..!?!?
Hi davidl,
And you would press the text to make your god a oneness when you work so hard to make your god a trinity?
David L,
Even trinitarians are getting wise to the fallacies of this argument on Genesis 1:26. At the time Jesus walked the earth it was believed God is speaking to his angels. He and they are all on the same team after all. His job is to do and there’s is to watch and celebrate.
Angels look like human beings according to the ones that visited Abraham and then Lot though they came first. God is invisible and so does not look like a human being. Those humans that are fully mature in Christ bear the Spiritual image of God and physical likeness of the angels.
T8,
Your chosen teaching and David L’ were just not taught at the time of Jesus.. They are teachings of a new religion and Jesus did not come to teach a new religion. All he came to do is teach a new covenant and bring it into being.
Kerwin, which of the scriptures I quote is wrong?
If none, then you are talking about the only paragraph in the post.
The first verse uses the word Elohim as God, and the second verse uses the words Yahweh Elohim. The plurality of the word “us” is the Father and the Son. So when God says “Let us make man in our image” it is the Father talking to the Son. To put it another way, God talking to the Word (Logos). God created everything through his Word, so it makes sense that God would say “Let us make man in our image”.
And I am taking it that the point of contention is this:
So when God says “Let us make man in our image” it is the Father talking to the Son.
Thus you perhaps hold that man was made in the image of God, and the prototype son came later meaning that God was talking to the Logos who is not the son when made flesh.
Or is it that you believe that God was talking to himself and US is not a plural word.
However there is a good reason why people in the past did not talk about the son of God because he is a mystery that has been revealed in the right time.
Colossians 2:2–3
“My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”.Are we to go back to only what they knew in their time of revelation or do we progress as the day gets brighter and knowledge increases. If the answer is we do not progress, then we would hold that Jesus is not the messiah. The Jews including David, Moses, and Abraham, did not utter once that God had a son called Yeshua. Although some saw a being that was likened to the son of God.
Further, we are told that God created the cosmos through his son. If the son was the Logos that became flesh, then the writer of that scripture is happy to call him the son, even if he was the Logos that was with God in the beginning.
Actually I just read this now from a Trinitarian I think. Some of it is relevant here perhaps. Another relevant look at Yeshua who is the son and the high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
We come now to Psalm 110:4. In that Psalm David, the writer, says, “The Lord [Jehovah] said unto my Lord, sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool” (v. 1). This clearly points to Christ, the Son of God. Lower down in the Psalm the Son of God is thus addressed, “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (v. 4). Here we get a most important and illuminating statement. This unique and extraordinary person coming upon the scene with no previous intimation, in the fulness of his power and position is now nine centuries later identified by the shepherd-King of Israel as a type of Son of God in Psalm 110:4. We come now to Hebrews 6:20; 7:1-22. Here we get a flood of light on Melchisedec. It is remarkable that in chapter 3:1 we are bidden to consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus. Moses is then spoken of as a type of Christ as the Apostle, and yet in contrast, for Moses at best was but a ministering servant, whereas our Lord was not only a Son, but the Son over God’s house. We might expect then next in order to have Aaron brought forward as typical of our Lord, as the High Priest, but instead of that we find Christ introduced as the High Priest, not after the Aaronic order but after the order of Melchisedec. The writer of the Hebrews argues that as Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, and Levi was yet in the loins of his father, the superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood over the Aaronic was established. That there should be a Melchisedec priesthood proved that perfection did not come by the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priesthood played its part inasmuch as our Lord, though a high priest after the Melchisedec priesthood, functions during the present time after the Levitical order, till the moment comes when He shall come King and Priest upon His throne, fulfilling the type of Melchisedec.
But now we come to another point. In the Old Testament Melchisedec was a priest of the most high God; in the New Testament our Lord is presented as a high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Does this not associate us as priests with our blessed Lord? Whilst the display of His priesthood awaits the millennial age, the ministry of worship and supplication is our portion. As we enter into the holiest we find our blessed Lord there, our High Priest over the house of God. Now we come to the very important statement that Melchisedec was made “like unto the Son of God”—like unto a Person WHO ALREADY EXISTED AS THE SON OF GOD1 . How was Melchisedec made like unto the Son of God? First he was “without father and mother.” This could not apply to Adam, he was without father and mother certainly, but the verse goes on to say, “having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” and Adam had beginning of days and end of life as told us in Scripture. It could not apply to our Lord in incarnation. If He only became the Son in incarnation, as the Son He had beginning of days. Moreover as born into this world He had in infinite grace a mother, but the unique character of His real manhood is guarded in that He had no earthly father as He had an earthly mother.
Oh I see Kerwin. You say that ‘us’ is God x the Angels.
Yet that is your assumption only. You cannot prove that man was made after the likeness of angels. But this is what is written:
Hebrews 1:1-3
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,…You say the angels, when scripture says that God made all things through the son of God and for him.
And when we read of the Logos that was with God, we understand this:
He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.…
What is the difference between John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:1-3?
Further we know that Wisdom was the first to be with God and Jesus is called wisdom from God too.
1 Corinthians 1:24
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.Christ has first place in more things that you believe.
Colossians 1: 17-19
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,…Note that:
He is the beginningHi t8,
Of course Colossians does not refer to any puny man but the Word that was with God.
The Word that was made flesh thanks to Jesus.
Hi t8,
Colossians 2:2–3
“My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”.Yes THE ANOINTING=Christ
Not the man who was anointed
hi t8,
You should believe that Jesus Christ is the anointed man Jesus.
That until the Word was made flesh Jesus was a man from Nazareth
Scripture is confusing taken at face value but it makes spiritual sense.
But to the unspiritual nothing makes sense
Hi T8,
Nobody is accusing you of anything.
From his anointing Jesus is one with that anointing.
That is why Acts 3.20
says
“..God will send you Jesus, the Christ appointed for you..”
Hi,
Natural men see a natural man and ascribes all his words and actions to him.
All confusion begins here.
Nick, if Christ/christos means ‘Anointing’, then how can Jesus be the anointing if he was just a plain man that became anointed? The anointing is something or someone else surely if a person like the man Jesus receives it.
T8…….THE ANOINTING IS GOD THE FATHER HE WAS “IN” JESUS THROUGH THAT ANOINTING. THE FULLNESS OF GOD DWELT IN BODLY FORM, THAT “BODLY FORM” WASTHE MAN JESUS. HOW MANY TIMES DID JESUS SAY THE “FATHER” WAS “IN” HIM?
THE WORD CHRIST REPRESENTS THE ANOINTING SPIRIT OF GOD. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE TBE ANOINTING A PERSON THEN THAT PERSON IS GODTHEFATHER IT IS NOT THE MAN JESUS WHO THAT ANOINTING WAS “IN”.
THERE IS ONLY “ONE” GOD AND “ONE” MEDIATOR BETWEEN THAT “ONE” GOD AND MAN “THE MAN” JESUS (THE ANOINTED)
YOU ARE ASSUMING THE WORD “US” MEANS GOD THE FATHER AND JESUS, BUT THAT IS NOT WRITTEN THERE, IT JUST AS EASLY COULD HAVE BEEN ANGELS AS KERWIN SAID, OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE “SEVEN SPIRITS OF GOD” WHICH I BELIEVE IT WAS BUT IT’S ALL SPECULATION BECAUSE IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY SAID.
SATAN DOES NOT WANT US TO SEE JESUS AS A HUMAN BEING, BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT US TO REALIZE WHAT GOD THE FATHER DID AND CAN DO WITH EACH OF US, SO HE WANTS US TO MOVE JESUS’ IDENITY AWAY FROM OUR OWN IDENITY WITH HIM AS AN ACTUAL BORN HUMAN BEING, WHO LIKE US A MAN WHO CAME INTO BEING AT HIS BERTH ON THIS EARTH.
peace and love to you and yours. ………………….gene
Nick,
Hi KW,
Angels are not physical.
At times they do look like men.
Have you have concluded that from Scriptures?
In Scripture they have been touched and have eaten and therefore they are physical.
The immaterial can not be touched nor does it eat, for example ghosts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
