What is the express image of God?

chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Ben Masada said:
God has no image (or form) to be compared to or with whatever you might have in mind. Read Isa. 46:5 and Deut. 4:15,16.
Click to expand...

don't forget

Genesis 1:26King James Version (KJV)

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
 
B

Ben Masada

New member
chrysostom said:
don't forget

Genesis 1:26King James Version (KJV)

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Click to expand...

Please, read my post #837. To still speak as you have done above, it is only obvious that you have not read that post of mine. Man was formed after some of the attributes of God to relatively share the dominion of God over the whole earth.
 
P

Ps82

Active member
Ben Masada said:
PERSONIFICATION OF ATTRIBUTES - GENESIS 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man in God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.
Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben
Click to expand...

Thanks been for the information and the offer to my using your info., but my script is basically finished and I used my KJV Bible with a few aids like Strong's Concordance, a Bible and regular dictionary, and a hand book. All I am doing now is editing.

Ooop my daughter just came for a visit ... I'll have to get back to any comments on your post. See ys.
 
oatmeal

oatmeal

Well-known member
chrysostom said:
what about

us and our
Click to expand...

What about it?

If indeed us and our of Genesis 1:26 were to understood as literal, then why wouldn't God be consistent throughout scripture instead of referring to himself as "I" or "He" or "Me" or "His" ?

as in the following passage like many others?

Hebrews 1:1-13

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Why didn't God continue using the plural to refer to himself?


For that matter, if there are three in one, than why not images, plural, instead of image, singular?

Jesus Christ is the image of God, not Gods. Why is God singular if indeed God is an "us" or "our"?

Why doesn't God use he? if he is actually a they, why use he instead of they?
 
keypurr

keypurr

Well-known member
chrysostom said:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

I take this literally
Click to expand...

Than you must think God is a man.

There is a difference between man being made in the image of God and the express image of God. It is very important to see that difference. God is a spirit, not a man. This raises a lot of questions about who the son is or was before the creation took place.

In what way was man made in God's image?

Mankind was not made in the express image of God.
 
keypurr

keypurr

Well-known member
Ps82 said:
Hi Chrysostom,
That is a very nice analogy ... and I do understand and appreciate your imagery.

I'm sure you remember that I take things in scripture literally as well. Hope you will check in on this thread again ... just in case anyone seems interested in my rehash of ideas. I'll be checking back to see.

I think I remember Keypurr not liking my ideas; so, we'll see.
Click to expand...

We differ friend but I still like you. It is OK to differ from me because my thoughts are not traditional to most.
 
keypurr

keypurr

Well-known member
oatmeal said:
Jesus Christ, the son of God is the express image of God.
Click to expand...

I do not agree, Jesus was a man, God is a spirit. The express image of a subject would be an exact copy of that subject. A clone. So the express image of God would be a spirit. It is that simple. That spirit took the form of man by dwelling in the body prepared to hold it, Jesus.
 
Jacob

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
keypurr said:
I do not agree, Jesus was a man, God is a spirit. The express image of a subject would be an exact copy of that subject. A clone. So the express image of God would be a spirit. It is that simple. That spirit took the form of man by dwelling in the body prepared to hold it, Jesus.
Click to expand...
There is no copy of God's Spirit.
 
B

Ben Masada

New member
oatmeal said:
For that matter, if there are three in one, than why not images, plural, instead of image, singular?

Jesus Christ is the image of God, not Gods. Why is God singular if indeed God is an "us" or "our"?

Why doesn't God use he? if he is actually a they, why use he instead of they?
Click to expand...

There can't be three in one for the following reason:

The Absolute Unity of God

Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"

Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labor.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibility of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be superfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.

Now, besides being God absolutely One, He is incorporeal. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or he would be comparable to other beings; but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be One. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.
 
keypurr

keypurr

Well-known member
chrysostom said:
don't forget

Genesis 1:26King James Version (KJV)

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Click to expand...

Now we just have to figure out who they are.
I say that it is God and his express image spiritual son.
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
keypurr said:
Would it be possible for God and his son to be separate at the creation in your trinity thoughts?
I see them as two not one. One is a created copy of the other for one is an IMAGE. The other is God.
Click to expand...

How can Jesus be the express image of God if He is not God?
 
Jacob

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Bright Raven said:
How can Jesus be the express image of God if He is not God?
Click to expand...
If you copy something you have written is it something you have written? That is the kind of a thing that he gets his understanding from. I personally don't believe there is a copy of God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top