The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[synergy]

You means John prologue in 1John 1 where he explicitly refers to the Word as a thing?

You continue to display your willful ignorance of Greek. John makes use of Greek-styled neuter pronouns in 1 John 1 to refer to an abstracted or collective reality, as he did in John 3:6: “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” We can all agree that a thing is not born of Spirit, people are. Right?

 

[Peterlag]

God is a spirit. He does not have hands, or an arm, or a face. These are figures of speech because men have these things and God is communicating with us from what we can understand. The amount of spiritual energy coming from God if you ever got close to Him in the human body would kill you.

 

[Peterlag]

 

[FreeInChrist]

You are Brilliant...

Yes, I am one flesh with my spouse but that is through intimacy. We are still TWO separate and distinct individuals......we are not collapsed into ONE PERSON because we are considered ONE flesh.

Yes, collectively my family is one unit ---- just as the church is collectively one unit but we are all still different members within that family or the church, the body of Christ ----- because we are considered ONE unit we are not actually ONE PERSON.
If I see a herd of cattle --- I'm not seeing one cow because collectively they each make up a herd.
If I have a cluster of grapes - it's one cluster but each grape make up the cluster --- it is not one grape.

Then why can you not understand that God is three?

 

[FreeInChrist]

God is a spirit. He does not have hands, or an arm, or a face. These are figures of speech because men have these things and God is communicating with us from what we can understand. The amount of spiritual energy coming from God if you ever got close to Him in the human body would kill you.

Did Moses talk to a spirit or to a person when he was up the mountain?

 

[Doug Brents]

You can't get it because I am not talking about God ---- I am talking about the man - Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

You cannot talk about the man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth without talking about God, because Jesus is God. Yes, He was a man too. But He started as God in Heaven, emptied Himself, and became a man who lived among men, with all the weaknesses and trials of a man. But He did not sin as a man, and so took on all the sin of mankind to pay the debt we could not pay.

Let's just forget about what scripture says.

No, let's not. What Scripture says it the most important thing ever written, and must not be forgotten.

WE DON'T KNOW if the angels were created in the image of God or not scripture doesn't say - although God is Spirit and the angels are also spirit beings. Regardless, that is not what I said I said God was talking, discussing with someone other than himself - But you can continue to believe God spoke to himself.

No, God was not talking to someone other than Himself. He said, "Let US make man in OUR image...". "Us" and "Our" both refer to the one(s) doing the creating. God was not talking to other created beings, for they were not participating in creating. Nor are the angels, or any other created being, made in the image of God, so they would not have constituted an "Us" or "Our" since they didn't have the same image as God.

Yes, I am one flesh with my spouse but that is through intimacy. We are still TWO separate and distinct individuals......we are not collapsed into ONE PERSON because we are considered ONE flesh.

God is the same way. God is not condensed into one being, there are still three separate and distinct individuals within the union of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Yes, collectively my family is one unit ---- just as the church is collectively one unit but we are all still different members within that family or the church, the body of Christ ----- because we are considered ONE unit we are not actually ONE PERSON.
If I see a herd of cattle --- I'm not seeing one cow because collectively they each make up a herd.
If I have a cluster of grapes - it's one cluster but each grape make up the cluster --- it is not one grape.

See above. The title "God" equates to family, cluster, herd, couple, etc. (no disrespect to God intended in any way). We speak of God as a singular "He", but there are three that make up "God"; He is not a single being, but three in one.

God is singular because God is singular.......God is not a collective unit like a family, the church, a herd or a cluster of grapes - He is ONE ALONE.

Thank you for that opinion. But it contradicts Scripture, so I will ignore it.

You only seem to focus on the passages of scripture that support your preconception ----- JOHN 1:1.

All Scripture is true at the same time. Which means that if you find two passages that "seem" to contradict each other, there must of necessity, be a misunderstanding of one of the passages within you (for there is no contradiction in Scripture). This means that God is one, and God is also three. How can this be? Because the three are united so closely together (as in a right marriage) that the three become one: one mind, one power, one purpose, one voice, one glory.

It does matter how I intended it and I did not intend it in the manner in which you are taking it.
I'm sure if a moderator took what I said as blasphemy - I am sure it would have been deleted.

I would hope that they would.

As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. . . . . .
When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”

'a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces' ....... Yep, fire often represents the presence of God NOT THAT GOD WAS LITERALLY THERE. God here is representing himself in a unilateral covenant ---- the covenant is with Abraham because Abraham is the beneficiary but the covenant itself did not involve Abraham because he was asleep at the time.

Wrong. Abraham had responsibilities within the covenant also. And he, and each and every one of his children, broke them (all have sinned). This was not a unilateral covenant.

God wanted to make sure that this particular covenant could not be broken so he made it with himself so that no human could break it or invalidate it. ...... [Hebrews picks this up at Heb. 6:13,14 ----- For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.”]

Now, I really would like to know where in the context of Gen. 15 did God state if Abraham broke the covenant he would die or that mankind broke the covenant then HE God, would take the punishment and die in our place. Why do the epistles repeatedly say that Jesus Christ died for our sins?

Jesus Christ is God. As I said, the act of passing through the cut apart animals was a promise that if the covenant being sworn is broken, this (the cutting apart of the animals) will happen to me. But Abraham did not pass through the animal parts, ONLY God did. He took on the responsibility of both parties to the covenant, and then He came down (as Jesus) and paid our part of the covenant, because only a pure sacrifice would do. If Jesus had sinned, He would not have been qualified to be our sacrifice.

 

[synergy]

View attachment 2767

How about the name YHWH which was translated directly into κύριος in the Septuagint and which was then translated to Lord in English Bibles? And was then ascribed by the Apostles exclusively to both the Father and the Son which means they are both YHWH.

It's a fact that in the entire NT the Apostles consistently reserved the term κύριος (the Greek term used in the Septuagint to translate the divine name YHWH) exclusively for either the Father or Jesus, and never for any angel, prophet, or anyone else, which shows they were intentionally applying to Jesus a title that functioned as the Greek equivalent of God’s covenant name YHWH. Peter calls Jesus “Kurios” in contexts that quote OT YHWH texts and apply them directly to Him (Acts 2:21 with Joel 2:32; Acts 2:36), Paul repeatedly pairs “God the Father” and “the Lord (Kurios) Jesus Christ” as the two bearers of this divine title (1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:11), and Thomas explicitly addresses the risen Jesus as “my Lord (Kurios) and my God” (John 20:28). Because the apostles deliberately avoid using Kurios for any third category of beings, yet freely give to Jesus the same Kurios used for the Father—including in passages where Kurios translates YHWH—this shows they regarded Jesus not as a mere creature elevated by God, but as truly sharing the Divine Identity of YHWH. That proves Jesus is YHWH/God

More examples of Jesus being identified as YHWH are as follows: Joel 2:32 speaks of calling on YHWH for salvation, yet Paul applies this to calling on Jesus in Romans 10:13; Isaiah’s vision of YHWH’s glory (Isa. 6:1–5) is identified by John as the glory of Jesus (John 12:37–41); Isaiah 40:3 commands preparing the way for YHWH, but the Gospels apply it to Jesus (Matt. 3:3); and Psalm 102:25–27, addressed to YHWH as the eternal Creator, is directly given to the Son in Hebrews 1:10–12.

BTW, John 8:54 also fits the pattern: Jesus says the Father glorifies Him, yet Isaiah 42:8 declares that YHWH will not give His glory to another—meaning Jesus receives the very glory reserved exclusively for YHWH. Thus, through the LXX’s “Kyrios = YHWH” for Jesus usage and the NT’s application of those texts to Christ, Jesus is shown to fully share the divine identity of YHWH.

I can keep going on and on ....

 

[Peterlag]

How about the name YHWH which was translated directly into κύριος in the Septuagint and which was then translated to Lord in English Bibles? And was then ascribed by the Apostles exclusively to both the Father and the Son which means they are both YHWH.

It's a fact that in the entire NT the Apostles consistently reserved the term κύριος (the Greek term used in the Septuagint to translate the divine name YHWH) exclusively for either the Father or Jesus, and never for any angel, prophet, or anyone else, which shows they were intentionally applying to Jesus a title that functioned as the Greek equivalent of God’s covenant name YHWH. Peter calls Jesus “Kurios” in contexts that quote OT YHWH texts and apply them directly to Him (Acts 2:21 with Joel 2:32; Acts 2:36), Paul repeatedly pairs “God the Father” and “the Lord (Kurios) Jesus Christ” as the two bearers of this divine title (1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:11), and Thomas explicitly addresses the risen Jesus as “my Lord (Kurios) and my God” (John 20:28). Because the apostles deliberately avoid using Kurios for any third category of beings, yet freely give to Jesus the same Kurios used for the Father—including in passages where Kurios translates YHWH—this shows they regarded Jesus not as a mere creature elevated by God, but as truly sharing the Divine Identity of YHWH. That proves Jesus is YHWH/God

More examples of Jesus being identified as YHWH are as follows: Joel 2:32 speaks of calling on YHWH for salvation, yet Paul applies this to calling on Jesus in Romans 10:13; Isaiah’s vision of YHWH’s glory (Isa. 6:1–5) is identified by John as the glory of Jesus (John 12:37–41); Isaiah 40:3 commands preparing the way for YHWH, but the Gospels apply it to Jesus (Matt. 3:3); and Psalm 102:25–27, addressed to YHWH as the eternal Creator, is directly given to the Son in Hebrews 1:10–12.

BTW, John 8:54 also fits the pattern: Jesus says the Father glorifies Him, yet Isaiah 42:8 declares that YHWH will not give His glory to another—meaning Jesus receives the very glory reserved exclusively for YHWH. Thus, through the LXX’s “Kyrios = YHWH” for Jesus usage and the NT’s application of those texts to Christ, Jesus is shown to fully share the divine identity of YHWH.

I can keep going on and on ....

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts...

The Greek word for Lord is kurios and is a masculine title of respect and nobility, which is why we see many others besides God and Jesus being called the “Lord."

• Property owners are called the "Lord" (Matthew 20:8) kurios is “owner” in the NIV.
• Heads of households are called the "Lord" (Mark 13:35) kurios is "owner."
• Slave owners were called the "Lord" (Matthew 10:24) kurios is "master."
• Husbands were called the "Lord" (1 Peter 3:6) kurios is "master" in the NIV.
• A son called his father the "Lord" (Matthew 21:30) kurios is "sir."
• The Roman Emperor was called the "Lord" (Acts 25:26) kurios is "His Majesty."
• Roman authorities were called the "Lord" (Matthew 27:63) kurios is "sir."

 

[Peterlag]

Did Moses talk to a spirit or to a person when he was up the mountain?

Whoever Moses spoke to be it an Angel or God. He did not see them. He saw what looked like a bush on fire.

 

[Peterlag]

Then why can you not understand that God is three?

Because God is not three. You believe that because your church twisted these...

1.) Isaiah 9:6
2.) Matthew 28:18
3.) John 1:1
4.) John 1:3
5.) John 1:14
6.) John 6:38
7.) John 8:58
8.) John 10:30
9.) John 10:33
10.) John 14:19
11.) John 20:28
12.) Philippians 2:6
13.) Colossians 1:16
14.) 1 Timothy 3:16
15.) Hebrews 1:8
16.) 1 John 5:7
17.) Revelation 1:8

 

[amazing grace]

You cannot talk about the man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth without talking about God, because Jesus is God. Yes, He was a man too. But He started as God in Heaven, emptied Himself, and became a man who lived among men, with all the weaknesses and trials of a man. But He did not sin as a man, and so took on all the sin of mankind to pay the debt we could not pay.

No, let's not. What Scripture says it the most important thing ever written, and must not be forgotten.

Yeah, let's not forget what scripture says: God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? [Num. 23:19]
And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret. [1 Sam. 15:29]
I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath. [Hosea 11:9]
For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together. [Job 9:32]
...and scripture says God is not a man.

No, God was not talking to someone other than Himself. He said, "Let US make man in OUR image...". "Us" and "Our" both refer to the one(s) doing the creating. God was not talking to other created beings, for they were not participating in creating. Nor are the angels, or any other created being, made in the image of God, so they would not have constituted an "Us" or "Our" since they didn't have the same image as God.

Nope - in 1:26 there is a discussion going on which doesn't involve participating in the creating .....
(You cannot say that the angels weren't in the image of God - what is the image of God? Isn't God spirit? Aren't angels spirit beings?but you cannot state for a surety because scripture doesn't come out and say that).

.............. in v27 the creation is taking place:

​

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.​

The noun elohim although a plural noun is used in a singular sense here --- in Hebrew, singular verbs and singular pronouns accompanying the plural noun elohim make it function as a singular term for the one God.

I don't think anyone stops to consider how dissociative it makes God seem to be speaking to two other persons within Himself. Wouldn't that be considered having a split personality complex where God - having two distinct identities in Himself carries on conversations with the other two alter egos?

God is the same way. God is not condensed into one being, there are still three separate and distinct individuals within the union of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

See above. The title "God" equates to family, cluster, herd, couple, etc. (no disrespect to God intended in any way). We speak of God as a singular "He", but there are three that make up "God"; He is not a single being, but three in one.

God is condensed into ONE being because each are God - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit - yet ONE God. Three persons being ONE is condensing the three persons into ONE BEING.
The biggest contradiction here is - One is three and three is one.
NO HERD OF CATTLE = ONE COW; herd in and of itself is more than one.
NO CLUSTER OF GRAPES = ONE GRAPE; cluster in and of itself is more than one.
NO COUPLE = ONE PERSON; a couple in and of itself is more than one.

If words, grammar and language mean anything singular pronouns, verbs and adjectives identify singularity.

Thank you for that opinion. But it contradicts Scripture, so I will ignore it.

All Scripture is true at the same time. Which means that if you find two passages that "seem" to contradict each other, there must of necessity, be a misunderstanding of one of the passages within you (for there is no contradiction in Scripture). This means that God is one, and God is also three. How can this be? Because the three are united so closely together (as in a right marriage) that the three become one: one mind, one power, one purpose, one voice, one glory.

Correct, there is no contradiction in Scripture and scripture does not describe God as a Triune being - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as ONE God. God is ONE and God ALONE is God.
I am married - I am not my husband and he is not me so we are not literally ONE PERSON, ONE FLESH. We are one flesh because of intimacy and we are one in purpose and intent in regard to our family.
Oops they are not ONE mind - One mind would be one will - Jesus, the Son of God always submitted his will to that of God his Father.

I would hope that they would.

Wrong. Abraham had responsibilities within the covenant also. And he, and each and every one of his children, broke them (all have sinned). This was not a unilateral covenant.

This was a unilateral covenant which is why you do not see Abraham walking between the animals but only the presence of God represented by the smoking fire pot and flaming torch. God's promise of the land and offspring were to Abraham - God gave his covenant commitment to live up to his promises.

Jesus Christ is God.

Jesus Christ is not God nor does Genesis 15 indicate such. Give me a section of the context that indicates this.

As I said, the act of passing through the cut apart animals was a promise that if the covenant being sworn is broken, this (the cutting apart of the animals) will happen to me.

Where do you get that understanding? Give me the section of the context that indicates this.

But Abraham did not pass through the animal parts, ONLY God did.

Correct, Abraham did not pass through the animal parts ONLY the presence of God represented by the smoking fire pot and flaming torch which makes it a unilateral covenant.

He took on the responsibility of both parties to the covenant, and then He came down (as Jesus) and paid our part of the covenant, because only a pure sacrifice would do. If Jesus had sinned, He would not have been qualified to be our sacrifice.

Did God owe himself for the transgressions of humanity or did humanity owe God?
Adam's disobedience is what happened - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [Romans 5:12]
Now humanity owed God because - For the wages of sin is death; [Romans 6:23a]
It took the obedience and death of a man to redeem humanity - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. [Romans 5:19] That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. [Romans 5:21] = but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Romans 6:23b]
Jesus Christ was our pure sacrifice.......He never sinned. We were redeemed = ..... with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: [1 Peter 1:19]

 

[Doug Brents]

Yeah, let's not forget what scripture says: God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? [Num. 23:19]
And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret. [1 Sam. 15:29]
I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath. [Hosea 11:9]
For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together. [Job 9:32]
...and scripture says God is not a man.

When those were written, God had not yet become a man. And the point being made in these passages is that man is sinful, God is not. Man is weak, God is not. Man has regrets and failed plans, God is/does not.

These passages do not tell us that God will not become a man, in Jesus Christ, and live the life that we could not.

Nope - in 1:26 there is a discussion going on which doesn't involve participating in the creating .....

Yes, Gen 1:26 is referring to creation. God said, "Let us make man in our image." God is talking within Himself about what they will do next: make Man in their own image. God made man's body from the dirt (not creation, but reforming what was already created), but then He breathes into the body (flesh) the breath of life (spirit), and that is creation.

(You cannot say that the angels weren't in the image of God - what is the image of God? Isn't God spirit? Aren't angels spirit beings?but you cannot state for a surety because scripture doesn't come out and say that).

Man is the only part of God's creation that He said He would make in His image. There is great emphasis on the fact that mankind was made in God's image. There is not even a hint at any other being (angel or whatever) also possessing His image.

.............. in v27 the creation is taking place:

​

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.​

The noun elohim although a plural noun is used in a singular sense here --- in Hebrew, singular verbs and singular pronouns accompanying the plural noun elohim make it function as a singular term for the one God.

I don't think anyone stops to consider how dissociative it makes God seem to be speaking to two other persons within Himself. Wouldn't that be considered having a split personality complex where God - having two distinct identities in Himself carries on conversations with the other two alter egos?

When you talk to your wife, have a discussion with her, argue with her, etc.; does that mean you have a split personality complex?

God is condensed into ONE being because each are God - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit - yet ONE God. Three persons being ONE is condensing the three persons into ONE BEING.

No, not one BEING, but one GOD.

The biggest contradiction here is - One is three and three is one.
NO HERD OF CATTLE = ONE COW; herd in and of itself is more than one.
NO CLUSTER OF GRAPES = ONE GRAPE; cluster in and of itself is more than one.
NO COUPLE = ONE PERSON; a couple in and of itself is more than one.

God, the creator of the universe, is more than one being.
Herd is singular. Herds is plural.
Cluster is singular. Clusters is plural.
Couple is singular. Couples is plural.

If words, grammar and language mean anything singular pronouns, verbs and adjectives identify singularity.

Not when the singular refers to plural parts within it.

Correct, there is no contradiction in Scripture and scripture does not describe God as a Triune being - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as ONE God. God is ONE and God ALONE is God.

Yes, Scripture does describe God as being triune. The Father, whom no one disputes is God, is God. The Son, Jesus, is God also (John 1:1-3, 14, Isa 9:6, John 20:28, Tit 2:3, Col 1:15, Matt 1:23, Rev 1:8, and many others). The Holy Spirit is also God (Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor 3:17, 1 Cor 2:10-11, Matt 28:19, Gen 1:2, and many others).

I am married - I am not my husband

Ahh, forgive me. I have been saying your wife. You are the wife; I didn't realize you were a woman.

and he is not me so we are not literally ONE PERSON, ONE FLESH. We are one flesh because of intimacy and we are one in purpose and intent in regard to our family.
Oops they are not ONE mind - One mind would be one will - Jesus, the Son of God always submitted his will to that of God his Father.

Jesus did submit to the Father, when He emptied Himself and became a man (indicating His preexistence in Heaven before He became a man).

This was a unilateral covenant which is why you do not see Abraham walking between the animals but only the presence of God represented by the smoking fire pot and flaming torch. God's promise of the land and offspring were to Abraham - God gave his covenant commitment to live up to his promises.

That is a popular opinion, but the covenants with Issac, Jacob, and Moses are nothing more than a renewal and extension of the covenant with Abraham.

Jesus Christ is not God nor does Genesis 15 indicate such. Give me a section of the context that indicates this.

All of Scripture points to Jesus Christ being God.

Where do you get that understanding? Give me the section of the context that indicates this.

This comes from understanding the culture in which the covenant was made. It is not stated explicitly in Scripture.

Correct, Abraham did not pass through the animal parts ONLY the presence of God represented by the smoking fire pot and flaming torch which makes it a unilateral covenant.

No, it does not make it unilateral. As has been stated, usually only the lesser party had to pass through. If a king made a covenant with a peasant, the king would probably not pass through (although in some cases they did), but the lesser party had to pass through. This did not make it unilateral.

Did God owe himself for the transgressions of humanity or did humanity owe God?

Humanity owed God. But there is no possible way for man to pay the debt to God we owed. But God wanted the relationship with us so much, that He came down in Jesus Christ to pay that debt for us. To pay that debt, He had to be one of us (Human)(Lev 25:25, Heb 2:11, 14, 17). In essence, Jesus is our Kinsman-Redeemer because He became our "brother" (Heb 2:11) and paid the ultimate price (His blood) to redeem us from the curse of sin, securing our eternal inheritance as His bride, the Church (Eph 5).

Adam's disobedience is what happened - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [Romans 5:12]
Now humanity owed God because - For the wages of sin is death; [Romans 6:23a]
It took the obedience and death of a man to redeem humanity - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. [Romans 5:19] That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. [Romans 5:21] = but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Romans 6:23b]
Jesus Christ was our pure sacrifice.......He never sinned. We were redeemed = ..... with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: [1 Peter 1:19]

Man is not capable of keeping God's Law perfectly. There has never been, nor can there be a man who does so. So it took God stepping in and becoming a man, living a life like ours, with all of the temptations, trials, suffering, etc. yet without sin to become the perfect sacrifice to pay the price for our sin. Jesus was not just a "good man". He was God in the flesh.

 

[amazing grace]

When those were written, God had not yet become a man. And the point being made in these passages is that man is sinful, God is not. Man is weak, God is not. Man has regrets and failed plans, God is/does not.

These passages do not tell us that God will not become a man, in Jesus Christ, and live the life that we could not.

The point being made is God has no attributes of a human being and therefor is NOT A MAN.
God invested in his human Son, the man Jesus Christ to live the life we could not and that man accomplished what God gave him to do.

Yes, Gen 1:26 is referring to creation. God said, "Let us make man in our image." God is talking within Himself about what they will do next: make Man in their own image.

You did not read correctly what I said which isn't new!!! I said 1:26 is the discussion with whoever else is there - I believe it to be the heavenly court, i.e. angels NOT THE ACTUAL ACT OF CREATING. THE ACTUAL ACT OF CREATING was at 1:27 in which GOD alone did the creating----no THEY involved indicated by singular verbs and pronouns.

God made man's body from the dirt (not creation, but reforming what was already created), but then He breathes into the body (flesh) the breath of life (spirit), and that is creation.

Man is the only part of God's creation that He said He would make in His image. There is great emphasis on the fact that mankind was made in God's image. There is not even a hint at any other being (angel or whatever) also possessing His image.

Okay, I don't know what your religious denomination is but scripture clearly says:
'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'
HE (singular) created (singular) man in his [own] image (singular) created HE (singular) them.
Singularly God created ------ WE (plural) did not create; US (plural) did not create; OUR (plural) did not create.

When you talk to your wife, have a discussion with her, argue with her, etc.; does that mean you have a split personality complex?

No, not one BEING, but one GOD.

When I talk to my husband - have a discussion with him, argue with him . . . . does that mean I have a split personality complex -- WHY WOULD IT! We may be considered one flesh but I ain't him and he ain't me therefore I am not discussing with myself, not arguing with myself, not making decisions with myself ---- my husband is actually ANOTHER PERSON --- wife = ONE PERSON; husband = ANOTHER SECOND PERSON.

According to the Trinity the Triune God is all three persons - God is the Father God is the Son and God is the Holy Spirit, yet one God ----- therefore God would be interacting with himself!!!!!

One being is the same equivalent to ONE person, ONE God, i.e. God is condensed into ONE being because each are God - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit - yet ONE God. Three persons being ONE is condensing the three persons into ONE BEING.
The biggest contradiction here is - One is three and three is one.

Herd is singular. Herds is plural.
Cluster is singular. Clusters is plural.
Couple is singular. Couples is plural.

Not when the singular refers to plural parts within it.

Exactly - herd is a singular noun and herds is plural but neither one = one cow. You don't look at a cow and say there is a herd of cattle. If you have two herds of cattle you have more than one herd.
Exactly - cluster is a singular noun and clusters is plural but neither one = one grape. You don't take a cluster of grapes and say it is one grape. If you have two clusters of grapes you have more than one cluster.
Exactly - a couple is a singular noun and couples is plural but a couple = One person. If you have four people - you have two couples.

You are getting a little ridiculous with this and I won't discuss this further. Three persons do not make ONE God. Three is not one unless you are saying God has singular parts within him?

Yes, Scripture does describe God as being triune. The Father, whom no one disputes is God, is God. The Son, Jesus, is God also (John 1:1-3, 14, Isa 9:6, John 20:28, Tit 2:3, Col 1:15, Matt 1:23, Rev 1:8, and many others). The Holy Spirit is also God (Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor 3:17, 1 Cor 2:10-11, Matt 28:19, Gen 1:2, and many others).

Of course, I disagree with your understanding of most of the above verses.
I believe Jesus is a man, not a piece of flesh covering God but a man, a human being and I believe that is what scripture teaches throughout.

Ahh, forgive me. I have been saying your wife. You are the wife; I didn't realize you were a woman.

Jesus did submit to the Father, when He emptied Himself and became a man (indicating His preexistence in Heaven before He became a man).

whatever........

That is a popular opinion, but the covenants with Issac, Jacob, and Moses are nothing more than a renewal and extension of the covenant with Abraham.

All of Scripture points to Jesus Christ being God.

This comes from understanding the culture in which the covenant was made. It is not stated explicitly in Scripture.

No, it does not make it unilateral. As has been stated, usually only the lesser party had to pass through. If a king made a covenant with a peasant, the king would probably not pass through (although in some cases they did), but the lesser party had to pass through. This did not make it unilateral.

Yes, I understand that the covenant made with Abraham was also made to his descendants but we are discussing Genesis 15 not any other context brought into the subject to divert.
You can't give me a section of scripture from the context of Genesis 15 which indicates Jesus so you divert by saying 'all scripture points to Jesus Christ being God.' which actually it does not.

Again - God being represented by the smoking fire pot and flaming torch was the only one participating in this covenant for Abraham was in a deep sleep. God's promise of the land and offspring were to Abraham - God gave his covenant commitment to live up to his promises.

Humanity owed God. But there is no possible way for man to pay the debt to God we owed.

Well, apparently there was a man that paid the debt . . . Jesus of Nazareth. God's only Son, God's Messiah, the one God sent via conception and birth to accomplish His predetermined plan for salvation.

But God wanted the relationship with us so much, that He came down in Jesus Christ to pay that debt for us. To pay that debt, He had to be one of us (Human)(Lev 25:25, Heb 2:11, 14, 17). In essence, Jesus is our Kinsman-Redeemer because He became our "brother" (Heb 2:11) and paid the ultimate price (His blood) to redeem us from the curse of sin, securing our eternal inheritance as His bride, the Church (Eph 5).

Leviticus 25:25 is talking about 'kin' which would be an Israelite which Jesus was.
A kinsmen redeemer is a close relative who can redeem kin to secure their future, restore their family name and to continue a lineage ---- Boaz represents a kinsman-redeemer by redeeming Naomi's land and marrying Ruth continuing a lineage which led to King David and Jesus. Jesus was sent to the house of Israel to be their kinsmen redeemer (salvation is of the Jews John 4:22) they rejected him and Paul was sent to the Gentiles to preach the gospel there by including US into the family of God ---- God being our Father and Jesus Christ being our brother.

I believe that Jesus is considered the bridegroom........

Man is not capable of keeping God's Law perfectly. There has never been, nor can there be a man who does so. So it took God stepping in and becoming a man, living a life like ours, with all of the temptations, trials, suffering, etc. yet without sin to become the perfect sacrifice to pay the price for our sin. Jesus was not just a "good man". He was God in the flesh.

You are taking away everything that Jesus Christ accomplished by saying he was God.
You diminish all that he went through by saying he was God.
It is you which makes Jesus Christ a 'mere man' - nothing but an impersonal piece of flesh that covered Almighty God, changing the glory of the immortal God to resemble mortal man.

Christ is to be our example of living a spirit filled life, the one we are to emulate.
You say he is God --- You go ahead and live up to that as an example if you can ---- it's hard enough for me to live up to being like Christ!

 

[Doug Brents]

The point being made is God has no attributes of a human being and therefor is NOT A MAN.

You're kindof right; He wasn't a man, until He became one (Jesus); He emptied Himself in Heaven (Phil 2:7), took on flesh (John 1:14), and lived a life as a human man who died to pay the price for our sins.

God invested in his human Son, the man Jesus Christ to live the life we could not and that man accomplished what God gave him to do.

Yes, Jesus did accomplish what the Father sent Him to do. But as noted in Scripture, Jesus wasn't just a man, He was God in the flesh.

You did not read correctly what I said which isn't new!!! I said 1:26 is the discussion with whoever else is there - I believe it to be the heavenly court, i.e. angels NOT THE ACTUAL ACT OF CREATING. THE ACTUAL ACT OF CREATING was at 1:27 in which GOD alone did the creating----no THEY involved indicated by singular verbs and pronouns.

You are wrong. God (a singular noun denoting the multiple beings that make Him up (like a couple)) was talking within the members of Himself (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (not some fictitious "heavenly court" which is not mentioned in Scripture anywhere)), and then God (the whole of the trinity that makes Him up) acted in creating man. If you believe that it was only one being involved in creating man, then you must admit that it was Jesus (the Word of God) who did the creating (John 1:3).

Okay, I don't know what your religious denomination is

I am a Christ follower. I am not affiliated with any "denomination" or division or splinter group from God's Church.

but scripture clearly says:
'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'
HE (singular) created (singular) man in his [own] image (singular) created HE (singular) them.
Singularly God created ------ WE (plural) did not create; US (plural) did not create; OUR (plural) did not create.

Again, God is made up of three separate beings. We know them as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three have separate functions, but the same glory, power, purpose, etc.

You are a triune being yourself. You have a physical body, a spirit, and a soul. These three have different functions, but they are all still you.

When I talk to my husband - have a discussion with him, argue with him . . . . does that mean I have a split personality complex -- WHY WOULD IT! We may be considered one flesh but I ain't him and he ain't me therefore I am not discussing with myself, not arguing with myself, not making decisions with myself ---- my husband is actually ANOTHER PERSON --- wife = ONE PERSON; husband = ANOTHER SECOND PERSON.

As is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are separate beings that make up one God, just like your spirit, soul, and body. Your spirit may talk to your body, and your body respond, and your soul argue with them both, yet you are not insane. Your spirit says obey God, but your body says it wants to satisfy the flesh, and you soul goes back and forth between them. That is the fight that Paul it talking about in Rom 7:14-25.

Exactly - herd is a singular noun and herds is plural but neither one = one cow. You don't look at a cow and say there is a herd of cattle. If you have two herds of cattle you have more than one herd.

God = herd. There is only one God/herd. But there are three individuals/cows that make up the God/herd.

Exactly - cluster is a singular noun and clusters is plural but neither one = one grape. You don't take a cluster of grapes and say it is one grape. If you have two clusters of grapes you have more than one cluster.

God = cluster. There is only one God/culster. But there are three individuals/grapes that make up the God/cluster.

Exactly - a couple is a singular noun and couples is plural but a couple = One person. If you have four people - you have two couples.

God = couple. There is only one God/couple. But there are three individuals that make up the God/couple.

Of course, I disagree with your understanding of most of the above verses.
I believe Jesus is a man, not a piece of flesh covering God but a man, a human being and I believe that is what scripture teaches throughout.

You are correct that Jesus was a real man. A real human being who lived a real life. But He was also God, with authority over angels, and was responsible for creating everything that was made.

Yes, I understand that the covenant made with Abraham was also made to his descendants but we are discussing Genesis 15 not any other context brought into the subject to divert.

No diversion. It is the same covenant, it was just renewed with each successive generation. We are discussing the same covenant at Mt Sinai as we are with Abraham.

You can't give me a section of scripture from the context of Genesis 15 which indicates Jesus so you divert by saying 'all scripture points to Jesus Christ being God.' which actually it does not.

I never said that Gen 15 says Jesus is God. I said that the fact that God took on the responsibility for both sides of the covenant (His own and ours) points to the fact that Jesus had to be God. In Jesus, God fulfilled His promise to take into Himself the consequences of our breaking the covenant.

Again - God being represented by the smoking fire pot and flaming torch was the only one participating in this covenant for Abraham was in a deep sleep. God's promise of the land and offspring were to Abraham - God gave his covenant commitment to live up to his promises.

Which is meaningless if that is all that it means, because God cannot die, nor can He violate His covenant.

Well, apparently there was a man that paid the debt . . . Jesus of Nazareth. God's only Son, God's Messiah, the one God sent via conception and birth to accomplish His predetermined plan for salvation.

Leviticus 25:25 is talking about 'kin' which would be an Israelite which Jesus was.
A kinsmen redeemer is a close relative who can redeem kin to secure their future, restore their family name and to continue a lineage ---- Boaz represents a kinsman-redeemer by redeeming Naomi's land and marrying Ruth continuing a lineage which led to King David and Jesus. Jesus was sent to the house of Israel to be their kinsmen redeemer (salvation is of the Jews John 4:22) they rejected him and Paul was sent to the Gentiles to preach the gospel there by including US into the family of God ---- God being our Father and Jesus Christ being our brother.

All of this is correct, but you leave out that Jesus was also God. God could not redeem us without there being a perfect kinsman to pay the price for us. Man is incapable of being perfect. So God had to step in and become one of us, to be that perfect sacrifice.

You are taking away everything that Jesus Christ accomplished by saying he was God.
You diminish all that he went through by saying he was God.
It is you which makes Jesus Christ a 'mere man' - nothing but an impersonal piece of flesh that covered Almighty God, changing the glory of the immortal God to resemble mortal man.

Christ is to be our example of living a spirit filled life, the one we are to emulate.
You say he is God --- You go ahead and live up to that as an example if you can ---- it's hard enough for me to live up to being like Christ!

Neither of us is capable of being even half of what Jesus was. But the good news is, we don't have to be. We don't even have to be 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of who Jesus was. We just have to trust that He is God, that he came down from Heaven to redeem us, that He is a God who keeps His word, and that He promised that if we trust in Him and do what He commanded us to do, He will forgive our sins and take us to Heaven with Him for eternity.

 

[Runningman]

Thanks for your thoughts. Let’s stay inside 1 John 1:1–3 and let John define his terms.

"That which was from the beginning"

John is explicit. The Word of life existed from the beginning. He does not say “from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry," he is talking about pre-existence.

This matches perfectly John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word…” The apostles’ ability to see, hear, and touch the Word does not limit its pre-existence. They are witnessing the manifestation of something that already existed.

Heard,... seen,... touched
John says:
“…which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon, and touched with our own hands ....this is the Word of life.”

These verbs describe tangible personal experiences, not abstract qualities. Doctrines, ideas, or mere “qualities of God” cannot be heard, seen, or touched. Only a person can be experienced this way.

Word of life = eternal life

John immediately clarifies in 1 John 1:2
"and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us"—

The Word of life and eternal life are the same reality. Eternal life is with the Father (pre-existent) and manifested (revealed to human senses). It is not an abstract concept or a “thing” ....it is personally revealed in Jesus.

There is the Timeline of manifestation which covers

The apostles’ ability to hear, see, and touch the Word as it aligns perfectly with Jesus’ ministry. It does not require that the Word only became a person at adulthood, nor does it restrict pre-existence. John is describing the revelation of eternal life to humanity, which is exactly what they experienced.


And not leaving out Qualities vs personhood.

Saying the Word has “the qualities of God” but is not God ignores what John says ..... eternal life was with the Father and was manifested. The text identifies eternal life as something real, pre-existent, and personally revealed ,not a set of qualities or abstract “thing-ness.”

So what do we learn with a careful study?

1 John 1:1–3 clearly shows that eternal life is God’s own life personally revealed in the Word. The apostles saw, heard, and touched this reality .....something a mere thing or abstract quality could not accomplish. The text itself leaves no ambiguity: eternal life is a person manifested to the apostles.

Your conclusion, once again, contradicts what John originally stated in his prologue. He said the Word of Life, which is eternal life, is a that, which, this, and it not a he, who, him, his which is consistent with eternal life being a thing. Eternal life is a thing afterall, isn't it? Therefore the Word is a thing, John explicitly said so.

So how to make heads or tails out of John 1:1? For starters, I am going to have to point out in the Greek that the Word is not the God. John 1:1 is a bad translation in most Bible. Ignores Biblical grammar and context in exchange for a theological translation.

 

[Runningman]

You continue to display your willful ignorance of Greek. John makes use of Greek-styled neuter pronouns in 1 John 1 to refer to an abstracted or collective reality, as he did in John 3:6: “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” We can all agree that a thing is not born of Spirit, people are. Right?

Because Jesus was talking about a thing, flesh, not a person. Flesh is a thing and so is the Word. You have only provided additional argumentation against "the Word" being a person. Also, a spirit is a thing in this context. There are many spirits in the Bible that are not persons, but they can be a person depending on the context. For example, we know God is a Spirit, but not a thing. I will have to use the verse you supplied to supplement my original point. Thank you disproving the Word is a person with me.

 

[Doug Brents]

Your conclusion, once again, contradicts what John originally stated in his prologue. He said the Word of Life, which is eternal life, is a that, which, this, and it not a he, who, him, his which is consistent with eternal life being a thing. Eternal life is a thing afterall, isn't it? Therefore the Word is a thing, John explicitly said so.

1 John 5:11 - Jesus is eternal life.

So how to make heads or tails out of John 1:1? For starters, I am going to have to point out in the Greek that the Word is not the God. John 1:1 is a bad translation in most Bible. Ignores Biblical grammar and context in exchange for a theological translation.

That is your opinion. But it does not say that the "Word was 'a' God". It says the "Word was God". You don't like it, you don't believe it, but that doesn't change the truth.

 

[Runningman]

1 John 5:11 - Jesus is eternal life.

That is your opinion. But it does not say that the "Word was 'a' God". It says the "Word was God". You don't like it, you don't believe it, but that doesn't change the truth.

That doesn't say Jesus is eternal life. It says life is in Jesus. God also gave Jesus eternal life, it's a thing. I will have you know you can't change the truth either, such as how you just attempted to with 1 John 5:11. I recommend you be honest about what the Bible says and don't add to it. If I catch people saying the Bible says something it doesn't I will call them out. Let's avoid this going forward.

 

[Doug Brents]

That doesn't say Jesus is eternal life. It says life is in Jesus. God also gave Jesus eternal life, it's a thing. I will have you know you can't change the truth either, such as how you just attempted to with 1 John 5:11. I recommend you be honest about what the Bible says and don't add to it.

"And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 The one who has the Son has the life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." 1 John 5:11-12
If you have the Son, you have the Life. If you don't have the Son, you don't have the Life. The Son (Jesus) is the Life. Like you said, be honest about what the Bible says.

If I catch people saying the Bible says something it doesn't I will call them out. Let's avoid this going forward.

And well you should. But I didn't change Scripture.

 

[Runningman]

"And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 The one who has the Son has the life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." 1 John 5:11-12
If you have the Son, you have the Life. If you don't have the Son, you don't have the Life. The Son (Jesus) is the Life. Like you said, be honest about what the Bible says.

And well you should. But I didn't change Scripture.

Yes the life is in Jesus because God have it to him, not that Jesus is eternal life. Eternal life is something Jesus received, not something he is or already had in the first place. Eternal life is something that was with the Father, yes, but Jesus didn't pre-exist with the Father. Eternal life was given to Jesus from the Father and then Jesus gave it to others after he was already an adult, not when he was a baby or before he was born.

John 5
26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.