Guest shiloh357 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 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? There are no other beings on earth that possess reasoning skills on an abstract level. Mankind is capable of making moral choices. We are able to form written and audible language. No other creature can do that. We have (on a lesser level than God) creative skills. We are able to take matter and use it from and in a sense "create." No other creature has that attribute. We are able to fellowship and commune with God in a way that no other creature can. We were created for that purpose. 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. Angels do not have free will, are never shown as creative, and the Bible does not speak of them having any semblance of communion with God. They are purely servants of the Lord, nothing more. They do not (despite what we see on TV) do not get emotionally caught up in our lives. There is no sense in which we are created in the image of God AND angels. For anyone to assert that we are, is laughable. The angels might have witnessed creation but God and God alone was the creator. There are two passages that tell that Jesus as God, was the creator: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (head) of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Colossians 1:13-16) Not ony that but the Scriptures tell us that the Holy Spirit is also called "creator:" By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent. (Job 26:13) The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. (Job 33:4) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, were present at Creation. All three are God (Phil. 1:2 John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9 Acts 5:3-4). So, it would be silly to say that God was talking to angels when He said, let us make man in our image. 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? Well since God did not create us in the image of Himself AND angels, any attempt to assert such, is nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted January 21, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted January 21, 2006 If God created us in His image AND the angels image, this puts God and the Angels on the same ontological level, which of course, is a HUGE heresy. It states that God and the Agnels are metaphysically equal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted January 21, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,060 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 426 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Online Share Posted January 21, 2006 Mr 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. Is this an angel or a young man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGR Posted January 22, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 512 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 8,601 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 2 Joined: 07/16/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1973 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Mr 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. Is this an angel or a young man? It would be an angel who had taken on the appearance of a man. If the point you are getting at is that we are made like unto an angel, consider the following: Revelation 19:10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Clearly the angel in question here was a remarkable being, quite unlike anything human! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted January 22, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted January 22, 2006 Mr 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. Is this an angel or a young man? You just made too many flaws to be considered reliable to really debate this subject with. For one, you ignore what I stated, about the ontological level we place Angels at if we are created in their image AND God's image which is a subsequent heresy. This is an absolute conclusion; you cannot draw any other conclusion from what you have stated. Until you adequately adress it, I don't see why we should be forced to even pay attention to your trite. As for what you are stating here, this shows that you haven't paid attention to how this was originally written (in the Greek language). Both aggelos and neaniskos are descriptive terms. In other words, neither refers to a being but a description of that being. aggelos is descriptive to what the being does, it is not the name of that being. Such as, the same word used that we now call "Angel" is also used to speak of John the Baptist (Matthew 11:10). I point all this out to say that aggelos and neaniskos mean the same thing. Whereas one simply denotes "Messenger" the other denotes "young messenger." The being looks young, but still fulfills the role of a messenger. When Mark uses the Greek word neaniskos he is saying that the being appeared young and had a message, but was not a literal man. Had Mark intended this to refer to a literal man, or someone in the image of God, he most likely would have used the word neanias which denotes "young man." What you are looking at in Mark 16:5, essentially, is the inadequacy of the English language. A proper rendetion of "young man" should read, "a messenger who had the apperance of being young." Even if you choose to ignore this (which you will), it still doesn't lend credit to us being created in the image of Angels. When we look to Revelation we see that Angels appear quite different looking than men. Revelation offers us a stark contrast, and show us a key theological element. When Angels interact with men, they take on the apprence of men because this is most beneficial to their temporary purpose. When they are not interacting with men, they take on their true apperance around God, which does not look like men. Therefore, for us to be created in the image of Angels would mean we would have to hold the same duality. Adding onto this, "image of God" is not merely a physical attribute, but also an emotional one. This would mean that Angels would have the ability to create, have emotion, free will, to sin, to need fellowship, etc. If men were created in the image of Angels, as well as God, then there should be no difference between Angels and men. Of course, this leads back to the first point, that being in the image of God and Angels put them on the same ontological level which is a greater heresy than saying, "Jesus is not God." This is why "us" CANNOT be refering to the Angels at creation...it is simply impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adarian Posted January 22, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 526 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/23/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/03/1961 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I don't follow the concept of Trinity. It's Pagan. When I mean God - that's the ONLY (and no other) TRUE GOD - none other than the Father. Definitely NOT the Son, Not the holy spirit. Peace, Unico [Marked as First Post] From the book of John, chapter 16, the trinity in bas-relief. These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. 2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. 3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. 4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you. 5 But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? 6 But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted January 22, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 22, 2006 All you have demonstrated from the above is that Elohim can have either a plural or singular usage. What you have not done is shown that in the instances in question it should be take in the singular. IN at least one case (let us make man) the tense of the surrounding context indicates a plural understanding which you are then required to explain away as angels or the like. The key is context. In Genesis 1 and 2 we have the context given the pural reference God makes to Himself "Let us make man in our image" 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 Being created in the image of God is very simple for man is a three part being body soul and spirit God is also three part Father Son and Holy Ghost yet one as we are one. The verse in Genesis Let us make man according to Our image is simply showing that God was pondering these two thoughts in His mind #1 what man was going to look like #2 what task man would have in the earth and He states them both (as you will notice man had not yet been created here yet on the sixth day that came a little further down in scripture) It is great heresy to believe we were created in the image of the angels for it is not scripturally sound for the angels are themselves created beings of God no matter what image they are in heaven or what image they take on in the earth as we see them in scripture throughout interacting with mankind they still are created beings always will be. Also mankind was created both male and female however in scriptures there are no female angels. There are also many teachings out there that God is both male and female which is not true (sorry women) but God is male form else He wouldn't be Father the head of the Family in the person of Christ who begot us by His own blood. Jesus came in the form of man (God was made flesh) and He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. God Bless Openly Curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted January 22, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) All you have demonstrated from the above is that Elohim can have either a plural or singular usage. What you have not done is shown that in the instances in question it should be take in the singular. IN at least one case (let us make man) the tense of the surrounding context indicates a plural understanding which you are then required to explain away as angels or the like. The key is context. In Genesis 1 and 2 we have the context given the pural reference God makes to Himself "Let us make man in our image" 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 Edited January 23, 2006 by Openly Curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Posted January 22, 2006 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 119 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 22, 2006 Arent soul and spirit the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewPilgrim Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) Heresy breeds heresy. The absence of the word "trinity" in the bible is hardly sufficient evidence for it to be untrue, so existing scripture must be twisted to fit a pattern that those of limited understanding can use to their own ends...and so the spiral deepens... Soul and Spirit are not the same. Spirit, like Flesh, is a state of being. I see them both as a vessel for the soul, it exists in either or in both at the same time and both enable the soul to express itself, either to others or to God. The Soul is what makes you and I different, its the "essence of you". That help? Edited January 22, 2006 by NewPilgrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts