Unico

One what? One God? Hardly. The context of the verse is obvious. That's John 10:30. Please read John 10:28-29. And you'll see the answer. You'll see that Jesus and the Father are one... not of being God... but one in purpose... one accord... ... that is, to take care of the flock.

"Equality with God" doesn't make our Lord Jesus Christ the true God Himself. He is called the "Son of God" to distinct Himself from the ONE TRUE GOD - the Father. For me, and for Jesus, there is ONLY one true God - and that is our Father. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? He is the Son of God. He is the Savior. He is the Head of the Church, His Body. He is the Mediator. He is the Lord. He is everything God made Him to be. He is not the Father. He is lesser than the Father, because the Father is greater than Him. He is not the true God since, according to Jesus Himself, the Father is the ONLY true God.

Or you might want my stand also. I'll try to answer them if you won't mind. I believe that the Father is the ONLY true God. He ALONE [and no other beside Him] is the true God. And there's no Scriptural expression of "God the Son" nor the "God the Holy Spirit". I believe that God created man "according to His image". This "image" of course, as it is obvious, is the "image of God". The Bible has no mention that the angels helped God during creation. The Creator - that's the Father - ALONE created everything. God is all-powerful. The Father will always be greater than anybody else. Sorry, if I answered the questions not intended to me. I also wanted to present to you my contention in this discussion.

Basically, after I read the "notions" somebody here has imposed regarding the "image" of God, nobody... still doesn't know what is this "image" that man was created of. As what I've said.. the Bible has the answer: 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. Genesis 1:26 King James Version That's one. What else? and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Ephesians 4:24 Revised Standard Version Obviously, the Bible pointed out THREE. Namely: Created with Power ... in True Righteousness ... and in Holiness And that's the Scriptural "likeness/image of God". About Genesis 1:26, next post. I just wonder why would people [especially Trinitarians] limit the use of the pronouns "US" and "OUR" in the verse into THREE persons? Pronouns "US", "OUR", and "WE" indeed impose plurality - meaning, more than one - so why limit it into three? If God is only one, why did He used plural pronouns when He said "Let US make man according to OUR image"? And why would King Charles use plural pronouns everytime He proclaim "We, King Charles..."? There must be a reason. Native Hebrews [the Patriarchs, the Prophets, and the first nation of God] knows the best answer. See you next time.

Yes. Obviously. That's why I have the title: On the Word ELOHIM. I am just elaborating my point and contention regarding what NewPilgrim had raised earlier that "ELOHIM" is a proof to "Trinity" concept [because of its plurality form]. The facts I raised disproved such assumption. I am not arguing with Genesis 1:26. Not yet. But we will get there. But before that, I just want to ask some idea from you on how you understand the expression "image of God"? Why do we believe we are created in "God's likeness"? What is this "image" that we have as God's creations? In Genesis 1:26, yes, God said "Let US make man according to OUR image". Why is it in the passage, the pronouns "US" and "OUR" were used? Aren't He supposed to address the "angels" who were witnessing the creation? Is it not possible that we are created ALSO in angels' image? Are we created in God's image ALONE? Yes, we are created in God's image... but when God said, upon creation - "Let us [the Creator and the witnessing angels] make man in our image"... does that necessarily mean angels also participated in the creation? Not necessarily. If God is referring the "image" to His image and to His angels' image, which He incorporated in man, what is this "image" that appears COMMON to God, the angels, and the man? Physical or natural attributes? Certainly not. God and His angels are spirit, the man is not. The man has flesh and bones, God and angels don't have. So what is this "image" then? Surely, the Bible has the answer. That would be on my next post

On the Word ELOHIM Can we use ELOHIM as proof that God is Trinity? ELOHIM, which is itself a plural form and, like most other words, has more than one definition. It is used in a plural sense as "gods" or "men of authority" or "judges". It is also used in singular sense as "God", "god", or "man of authority", or "judge". ELOHIM in Plural Form Elohim is translated "gods" in many verses. Some of which are the following: Genesis 35:2 -- "Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you" Exodus 18:11 -- "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods." Exodus 21:6; 22:8 and 9 -- "judges" Psalm 8:5 -- "angels" (KJV), "heavenly beings" (NIV) That's how the Hebrew writers use the word "ELOHIM" in its plural form. There is no evidence that anyone thought of these "gods" or "judges" or "angels" as having some kind of plurality of persons within themselves. ELOHIM in Singular Form Elohim is also translated as the singular "god" or "judge." Exodus 22:20 -- "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed." Judges 6:31 -- "If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar." Exodus 7:1 -- God says that He has made Moses a god to Pharaoh. Judges 11:24 -- the pagan god Chemosh is called ELOHIM 1 Samuel 5:7 -- the pagan god Dagon is called ELOHIM With these examples, there is no hint of any "compound nature" when ELOHIM is translated that way. Christians do not conclude that those gods were somehow composite or "uniplural," or that the people who worshipped them thought they were. 1 Samuel 2:25 I wonder why ELOHIM in 1 Samuel 2:25 has been debated by scholars according to History. The question is whether ELOHIM in the verse refers to a human judge or to God. In King James Version, it says "judge." Some versions translating ELOHIM as a man, others as God Himself. The fact that the scholars and translators debate about whether the word Elohim refers to a man or God shows vividly that the word itself does not have any inherent idea of a plurality of persons. If it did, it could not be translated as "god" when referring to a pagan god, or as "judge" when referring to a man. The evidence in Scripture, therefore, does not warrant the conclusion that the Hebrew word ELOHIM inherently contains the idea of a "compound nature" as Trinity doctrine implies.. Some teach that the word ELOHIM implies a compound unity when it refers to the true God. That would mean that the word ELOHIM somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. That's just a mere assumption. There's no evidence for that. The Native Hebrews The first place we should go for confirmation of this is to the Jews themselves -- the native Hebrews. In history and the language of the Jews, we can discover that they never understood ELOHIM to imply a plurality in God in any way. In fact, the Jews were staunchly opposed to people and nations who tried to introduce any hint of more than one God into their culture. Jewish rabbis have debated the Law to the point of tedium, and have recorded volume after volume of notes on the Law, yet in all of their debates there is no mention of a plurality in God. Gesenius further affirms that the plural nature of ELOHIM was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Furthermore, when the word ELOHIM is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as "uniplural." Now, we go back to the question I raised earlier and in my previous posts: Can we use ELOHIM as proof that God is Trinity? No. The evidence is clear: God is not "compound" in any sense of the word. He is the "one God" of Israel.

I'll address my question again to EricH [since he commented on my post] Do you believe that the Father is the ONLY true God?

So, you do believe that the Father is the ONLY true God?

As you wish. I'll take your word on that. The questions I raised were not for you to answer anyway.

More on Elohim

Didn't God made everything 'plain' to know Him? Didn't God send Jesus so He could introduce to us who the ONLY true God is? Did He claim He is the true God? So, do you mean that Jesus is the Father? Can you cite the verse, please? Can you cite the verse, please? Would that mean you didn't know why God's people should worship Jesus? Well, I worship Jesus, not because He is God Himself... We should worship no other Gods, but the true God alone. The ONLY true God according to Jesus Himself is the Father. so why worship Jesus? Because it is a COMMANDMENT of God: To worship Jesus is to glorify the Father. A man-god... what a pagan concept. Does God want it to be that way? I don't think so. So, you tolerate it? Would that mean that God would let His people be confused with His word? Is He not the author of confusion? I'm sure He's not. Wrong. I worship Christ not because of the Trinity. It's certainly unscriptural and pagan in origin. I worship Christ because that's what God wanted me to do - for the glory of God - the Father - the ONLY true God.

I am not sure if you really intend to ignore my question. But for now, it's okay with me. Jesus is not God. He never claimed that. What is He then? He is a man. He is our Lord. He is our Savior. He is our Mediator. He is the Head of the Church (His body). He is the Man sitting at the right hand of God. He is the Son of God (the Father - the ONLY true God). Now, I may rephrase my question: Do you believe that the Father is the ONLY true God? A simple YES or NO question, isn't it?