The Trinity

[1Mind1Spirit]

Your question was flawed: it attempted to introduce an unsupported assumption as if it were fact. Thus the demonstration where your premise was questioned. Would you like to reconstruct your question?

No, my question simply demands an answer.

I conceded Angels could have been there.

So what makes you so sure that they could hear the Father speak to His Son?

I am assuming you believe the Son was there as well.

If not, then say so and I'll change my question.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I have given you many requests to give the scripture to show us, but you have not, and you don't admit that that makes it going beyond what is written.

I've already stated that I will continue to refer to GOD as HIM for the most part for the sake of ease of communication.

You want to convict me though I have done nor said anything wrong; to which you even admitted.

I agree that GOD is generally refered to as a he in the bible. But I do not agree that we should limit GOD in any way. That is what you are doing by saying it is wrong for me to think of GOD as a Spirit. Due toGOD being such, and due to the fact that we are speaking of what is responsible for the creation and sustaining of all existence, it cannot be limited to particular symbolisms for only part of creation.

To keep from confusing others, which I do not want to do, I will make certain everyone knows I am talking about the One Creator GOD, from now on. If that doesn't appease you then tough, I'm not here to appease any but One.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Look at what has happened in this thread this morning:

Popsthebuilder ignored many scriptures.

Popsthebuilder calls God the Father an 'It', but he still has not given one scripture calling God an 'It'. I have given many scriptures that say God is the Father and a 'He' and not an 'It'

Michael came on and attacks me for correcting him when he says the Father and Jesus are different; and for telling him no one is to fear his doom prophecy because he has done it before. Anyone can say something bad is going to happen, but Michael makes it like whatever he says is from God. Michael thinks he can prove his beliefs by just claiming they are true and insulting me is his defense. I give scriptures that prove my beliefs.

Marhig puts down Jesus' blood shed on the cross. She claims God did not plan for that. I have proven with scripture that the blood of animals were to atone for the people's souls and it was a teaching tool and shadow of Christ, and that Jesus is called a Lamb and it is not as an after thought.

"His body is a Spiritual Body meaning it won't die. Jesus has a Spirit inside this Spiritual body."

Scripture supporting above claim please.

 

[Rosenritter]

No my question simply demands an answer.

I conceded Angels could have been there.

So what makes you so sure that they could hear the Father speak to His Son?

I am assuming you believe the Son was there as well.

If not, then say so and I'll change my question.

I understand the Son of God to be God manifest in the flesh. When God had not yet had reason to become manifest in the flesh and to refer to his himself in this fashion, the term "Son" has yet to have meaning or application.

1) If you are speaking in the sense of "was he who we knew as the Son of God present at creation?" then I would answer yes.
2) If you are speaking in the sense of "was there more than one being calling themselves God at creation?" then I would answer no.

The assumption I am questioning was that there was any such thing as a Father speaking to a Son in that context.

But a question for you if I may (and I assume you are coming from a Trinitarian perspective) why did you say "Father speak to Son" rather than "Son speak to Father" or "Holy Spirit speak to Son" or any of the other possible permutations? The passage doesn't say anything about "Father" or "Son" there. Only God. If you understand Father Son and Holy Spirit to be God, why would you favor one over the other in your interpretation?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

1. Is there a biblical support for the term "sons of God" meaning the "sons of Seth?" For example, is there another passage that uses the same reference?
2. Is there any theory on why descendants of Seth and Cain would yield giant mighty men on a significantly larger scale than the originally created Adam and Eve?

I think a better question would be, who were the sons of God, spoken of in Job, that shouted with joy before Adam was created?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I understand the Son of God to be God manifest in the flesh. When God had not yet had reason to become manifest in the flesh and to refer to his himself in this fashion, the term "Son" has yet to have meaning or application.

1) If you are speaking in the sense of "was he who we knew as the Son of God present at creation?" then I would answer yes.
2) If you are speaking in the sense of "was there more than one being calling themselves God at creation?" then I would answer no.

The assumption I am questioning was that there was any such thing as a Father speaking to a Son in that context.

But a question for you if I may (and I assume you are coming from a Trinitarian perspective) why did you say "Father speak to Son" rather than "Son speak to Father" or "Holy Spirit speak to Son" or any of the other possible permutations? The passage doesn't say anything about "Father" or "Son" there. Only God. If you understand Father Son and Holy Spirit to be God, why would you favor one over the other in your interpretation?

I'm not a Trinitarian.

Nor have you answered my question.

P.S.
Let me worry about why I asked.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Originally Posted by Rosenritter
I understand the Son of God to be God manifest in the flesh. When God had not yet had reason to become manifest in the flesh and to refer to his himself in this fashion, the term "Son" has yet to have meaning or application.

That would make one wonder how Peter knew he was God's son wouldn't it?

Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah
13*When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14*They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15*“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16*Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm not a Trinitarian.

Nor have you answered my question.

P.S.
Let me worry about why I asked.

If you desire a short answer, then I still have to object to your leading question. I am not certain that the angels could hear the Father speaking to the Son. Rather, I am certain that the angels could not hear the Father speaking to the Son is because there would be no Father to speak and no Son to be spoken to.

Or if you prefer an answer spoken from the perspective of hindsight, the real person of the Father and Son are interchangeable, which renders your question in the non-applicable short-circuit zone or "does not compute." Or in other words, there were no other intelligent beings besides the One God and his created spirits, so who else could he have been speaking to? It does say "speaking" rather than "thought to himself."

 

[Rosenritter]

That would make one wonder how Peter knew he was God's son wouldn't it?

Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah
13*When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14*They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15*“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16*Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

I'd say it was revealed to him by the Spirit of God.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

If you desire a short answer, then I still have to object to your leading question. I am not certain that the angels could hear the Father speaking to the Son. Rather, I am certain that the angels could not hear the Father speaking to the Son is because there would be no Father to speak and no Son to be spoken to.

Or if you prefer an answer spoken from the perspective of hindsight, the real person of the Father and Son are interchangeable, which renders your question in the non-applicable short-circuit zone or "does not compute." Or in other words, there were no other intelligent beings besides the One God and his created spirits, so who else could he have been speaking to? It does say "speaking" rather than "thought to himself."

Oh hell, another one of the Jesus is Yahweh crowd.

:doh:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I'd say it was revealed to him by the Spirit of God.

Which would mean not Jesus who was sittin' there right in front of him.

 

[Rosenritter]

Oh hell, another one of the Jesus is Yahweh crowd.

:doh:

I believe most of the people participating on this forum are as well, even those arguing on other issues. It is the minority here that would dispute that Jesus is LORD.

 

[Rosenritter]

Which would mean not Jesus who was sittin' there right in front of him.

After a fashion, yes. Revealed by the Spirit of God, rather than the Son of God.

Like if someone said they could teach someone a lesson with words, or they could teach them a lesson with their fist. If taught with the fist, it wasn't taught by the word, if taught by the word, it wasn't taught by the fist. The confusion enters if someone starts to argue that the word is not the fist. In one sense it is, in another sense it isn't.

Better analogy without implication of violence: I can move an object with my hand or my foot. If I move it with my foot, it isn't moved with my hand that is visible right in front of you, is it?

 

[glorydaz]

You know this? Scripture please. Please show me where it tells us what image the angels are created in, or show me where it denies that the angels are created in the image of God. Either one would suffice.

As to the proof that you asked for, you need to answer my question of you first. What do you consider to be the image of God? You cannot possibly expect me to "prove that angels are created in the image of God" if you will not define what you understand the "image of God" to be.

Arguing on undefined terms is a shell game... let's not waste energy on that, eh?

Actually, I don't NEED to do anything. I'm sure all are aware of what it takes to prove a negative. The fact is that the Bible NEVER says angels or plants or animals or sun, moon, and stars are "created in the image of God".

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.​

Luke 24:39

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

After a fashion, yes. Revealed by the Spirit of God, rather than the Son of God.

Like if someone said they could teach someone a lesson with words, or they could teach them a lesson with their fist. If taught with the fist, it wasn't taught by the word, if taught by the word, it wasn't taught by the fist. The confusion enters if someone starts to argue that the word is not the fist. In one sense it is, in another sense it isn't.

Better analogy without implication of violence: I can move an object with my hand or my foot. If I move it with my foot, it isn't moved with my hand that is visible right in front of you, is it?

Originally Posted by Rosenritter
If you desire a short answer, then I still have to object to your leading question. I am not certain that the angels could hear the Father speaking to the Son. Rather, I am certain that the angels could not hear the Father speaking to the Son is because there would be no Father to speak and no Son to be spoken to.

So to you Father and Son is merely a concept.


:kookoo:

 

[glorydaz]

1. Is there a biblical support for the term "sons of God" meaning the "sons of Seth?" For example, is there another passage that uses the same reference?

This might be rough for you. Let's actually read what is written.
Here is the lineage from Adam (the son of God), through Seth, down to Noah.

The SONS OF GOD

Gen. 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

Gen. 5:Genesis 5:1-3
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

CAIN "A MAN" (Daughters of men)-unequally yoked

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Genesis 6:1-2
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Genesis 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

​

2. Is there any theory on why descendants of Seth and Cain would yield giant mighty men on a significantly larger scale than the originally created Adam and Eve?

I see the word Giant, but nothing about them being "significantly larger". Maybe you're thinking Rock Hudson was bigger than life in that movie with Liz Taylor. :think:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Better analogy without implication of violence: I can move an object with my hand or my foot. If I move it with my foot, it isn't moved with my hand that is visible right in front of you, is it?

Now the Holy Spirit is God's foot?

 

[glorydaz]

That Triunity thing is a nice theory, but seeing as that's what you're seeking to prove in the first place, you can't use that as support for this passage without wallowing in circular logic.

Oh, so you choose to ignore it and imagine it's speaking of angels....I see. :rotfl

 

[glorydaz]

No, you haven't defined your term. Please do so.



1. Where does it tell us what image the angels are created in?
2. Where does it tell us what image the angels are not created in?
3. What do you consider the image of God to consist of?

So far, you've asked a bunch of rhetorical questions. Or at least they seemed rhetorical because the answers contradicted what it seemed you were trying to prove. So please, be specific? Thank you.

Where does it tell us what image the beasts were created in?

Where does it tell us what image the world was created in?

Where does it tell us what image the serpent was created in?



You're obviously stuck up a creek without a paddle and want me to go outside what is written like you do.

 

[glorydaz]

If you desire a short answer, then I still have to object to your leading question. I am not certain that the angels could hear the Father speaking to the Son. Rather, I am certain that the angels could not hear the Father speaking to the Son is because there would be no Father to speak and no Son to be spoken to.

Or if you prefer an answer spoken from the perspective of hindsight, the real person of the Father and Son are interchangeable, which renders your question in the non-applicable short-circuit zone or "does not compute." Or in other words, there were no other intelligent beings besides the One God and his created spirits, so who else could he have been speaking to? It does say "speaking" rather than "thought to himself."

GOLLY, who was WITH GOD in the beginning? :think:

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.​