- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Can you see what you have said..? In your attempt to explain the Son, you have included Him in the word “GOD”
Read it again… maybe you need to revise your theology..!? (or give it up).
And t8 said, let us discuss this post.
So are you t8 DavidL because I ask you to discuss this post?
or
Adam said, let us have a child and call his name Seth. So is Adam actually Eve as well as Adam in that statement?
I see what you are saying though DavidL as your view is the traditional view of that verse. I believed that interpretation once upon a time myself.
But let me correct you using other scripture so that you may see clearly. There is one God the Father and so it is the Father who says, let us make man in our image. We further learn that all things were made through him and for him and that Jesus is the Word became flesh.
Thus God can absolutely say, Let us make man in our image without that teaching that Jesus must be part of God. Further, God is a HIM and HE in scripture, and this verse says US.
There is also at least one other possible view in that verse that is allowable in the sentence construction, but I don’t want to get into that one right now.
“And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image'”
I guess it’s obvious that you have to try and somehow deny the reality of this verse because it so clearly refers to the plurality of God..
Yet to give it the explanation you give is to acknowledge Jesus is God.. perfectly confirming John 1:1 (which you deny)
Confusion…!
Hi davidl,
Very weak.
Of course it is the Spirit that creates -ps 104.jb 33.4
That Spirit fills the heavenly sons. jb 38.7
Would you divide God from His Spirit?ps 139.7
DavidL,
Even Trinitarians doubt that those words in Genesis support their view.
The God uses the plural pronoun in Genesis 3:22 so state humanity has “become like one of us” so that does that mean man is God.
In that verse you most likely believe God is talking about the angels and not him even though he say “one of us”.
Kerwin, that is another use of the figure of speech heterosis of number. Likewise a spectator rooting for their favorite team could say the same thing and people would understand what he said. Like you said, the spectator was not on the field, but felt (emotionally, but not actually) part of the team.
Of course, the problem with both the benchwarmer and spectator example is that neither actually did the work.
God was neither a spectator nor a bench warmer, He did the creating, the speaking, the dividing, the making, the setting, etc.
God’s work until he formed and made and created man was good, but His “crowning” achievement was man and woman. With man, His wisdom in design and function (with the exception of authoring His word, Psalm 138:2) was best exemplified.
sonOfGod,
Of course, the problem with both the benchwarmer and spectator example is that neither actually did the work.
God was neither a spectator nor a bench warmer, He did the creating, the speaking, the dividing, the making, the setting, etc.
God’s work until he formed and made and created man was good, but His “crowning” achievement was man and woman. With man, His wisdom in design and function (with the exception of authoring His word, Psalm 138:2) was best exemplified.
It can only be a collective pronoun if God considered the angels as part of his team as he, himself did the work of creation.
Supporting evidence that he does look at angels as part of the team though he did the actual work is the words “become like one of us” in Genesis 3:22. It seems absurd he is stating we are like Jehovah any more than we were already like him from the nature of our creation.
Hi davidl,
If God spoke and did the works through Jesus of Nazareth tell us again why this made a man a god.
I’ve answered your questions Nick..
I don’t think you are interested in truth – because it challenges your own theology.
Receive Jesus..that is the starting point, and the conclusion.
Hi Davidl,
Receive Jesus?
Which salvation theology is this?
Why would you separate him from your trinity?
Hi davidl,
I am not interested in your foolish trinity because it does not come from the Word of God.
Why do you hide behind catholic theologians?
Hi davidl,
If the way you have walked led you to promote the teachings of men why would you think you are on the right path?
Why would you separate him from your trinity?
Because – in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete..
Receive Jesus?
Which salvation theology is this?
Pure unadulterated Scripture – as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God..
I am not interested in your foolish trinity because it does not come from the Word of God.
I show you God’s Word – you give me useless arguments..
Why do you hide behind catholic theologians?
so.. whose really hiding..??
..whose really promoting the teachings of men…???
Hi davidl,
Certainly God indwelled him
But that does not make him any sort of god.
If you are a follower then what Paul said in Phil would apply to you too
“God is at work in you to will and to do”
Those who received him repented and were baptised in the name of Jesus, not a trinity.
If you offer a trinity god that is not in the bible how does that affect your standing with the Father?
Those who received him repented and were baptised
Receive Jesus?
Which salvation theology is this?
SEE YOUR OWN CONFUSION..?!
Carnal logic applied to scripture leads men into darkness.
Scripture is spiritual.
Yes, you must be born again Nick…
This site promotes exactly what you have described.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
