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

[dwight92070]

I wish I knew why a Trinity concept is so important to the Trinitarians that they argue day and night to defend it. A concept that is not even real. All I ever get from them when I ask is because the Bible teaches it. And then I show them that all of their verses that they quote are twisted like for example Thomas. And they come right back like if I never posted a thing and say Thomas said Jesus is God.

Just like you arguing day and night for probably over a year now, or more, that the Trinity concept is not valid. Oh it is definitely real. So real that the 12 apostles believed it and every other author in the New Testament. Yes, Thomas did say Jesus is God and Jesus did not correct him. It's your twisting of Scripture and your unbelieving heart that blinds you from the truth.

 

[amazing grace]

Sweetheart, you seem to think that "son" means descendant. Jesus is NOT God's descendant. Jesus was in Heaven with God before Creation. He is equal with God, and did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but emptied Himself. He lowered Himself so that He became lesser than the Father and became a man. All of the verses you focus on only tell us that He was indeed a man. But He was not JUST a man. He was also God in the flesh.

Do not call me 'sweetheart' I am NOT your 'sweetheart'.

Just from the writings of Luke we can see:
Jesus was the Son of God by birth - God is his Father.
Jesus was the Son of God as declared by God his Father at his baptism - His public anointing to begin his ministry and as the Messiah.
Jesus was the Son of God as declared by God his Father at his resurrection and ascension to be enthroned at the right hand of God the Father.

Yes, three different meanings for the title Son of God - Luke 1, Luke 3 and Acts 13. What we can also see is that Luke does not describe the Son of God as God; as some sort of eternally begotten figure or some sort of divine person within the Triune God, and no hint or suggestion that this Son of God literally is a preexisting figure.

HE IS A SON and GOD is his FATHER in the NATURAL sense by way of a miraculous conception.

I am done trying to get you to see this Truth. I pray that you open your eyes and your heart, and accept who Jesus really is. But until then, I have no desire to continue to through God's pearls fin your path. But when you are ready to listen to Truth, come back and I can instruct you.

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Runningman]

No, the Word is NOT flesh ONLY. The Word was spirit that took on flesh.

Not what John 1:14 says. The Word became flesh. Full stop. You are adding "The Word was spirit that took on flesh."

Do you see how you interpret everything using philosophy that no one in the Bible repeated?

Do you have any idea what "incarnate" means? Obviously not.

I sure do. I also know the word "incarnate" is not in the Bible.

The Father is not. But the Son is.

I am also flesh. Do you understand that Jesus is one of many Sons who are flesh?

Sure He is human. That is demonstrated many times in the NT Scripture. But He was there in the OT too. He was there are Creation, for all that was created was created by/through Him. He was there in the burning bush, for He is the I AM that spoke to Moses.

You couldn't prove that there are any theophanies in the Old Testament that align with the trinitarian model of God.

Let's see what we can prove. Do you believe the Old Testament contains messianic prophecies of a coming, future, messiah who had not yet came up until that point? Why are there no prophecies about God incarnating, or God becoming a man, or Spirit becoming a man, or the Word becoming a man, or any such thing that you have said? See, the Bible has an entirely different narrative than the one you're presenting.

You don't understand English either. "That which I say about runningman, I declare to you." Are you just a thing? No, you are a person.

If you called me a that, which, this, that, and it when I am a person that would ridiculous. And your example doesn't work because the that refers to what you would say, not to who I am.

The Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word was both with (meaning a separate being) and was (meaning equal to) the Father.

Now that we know the Word is a thing in 1 John 1, we can properly understand John's poem in John 1. Do you agree that John wrote a poem about the Word of God in John 1? Many trinitarian scholars agree that John 1 is a poem and that the Word is personified, meaning it's not actually God. The Greek makes the best case for this.

There is no contradiction (except in your mind). The Word/Logos (which is indeed a "thing") took on flesh (John 1:14) and became a man. This is a very crude analogy, but if you remember in Bicentennial Man, when the robot became a free, "living", self-aware being, it became a "he" in the eyes of it's/his owner. The Word was never bound/enslaved. The Word was always living. The Word was always self-aware. The Word was essential to the process of creation. That means that the Word (even though the word Logos/Word does indicate a "thing") can be referred to as a "HE" because in this case it is a proper noun, it refers to a specific "thing" that happens to also be a male person, Jesus.

But based on the narrative of John 1, Jesus was created.

John 1
3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.
14The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Sonc from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here's a question to get you thinking. See that word "became" there in John 1:14? When something becomes something else, such as when the devil tempted Jesus and told him "tell these stones to become bread" in Matthew 4:3, were the stones already bread and if the stones became bread, would they still be stones? Would the stones have pre-existed as bread prior to being bread? If you can answer these carefully, you'll see that the Word becoming flesh is in line with a creation.

John is the writer who most specifically demonstrates the humanity AND deity of Jesus. Just because in one place he highlights the humanity of Jesus doesn't in any way take away from the places he emphasizes His deity.

John did no such thing. No one ever repeated what John said about the Word either.

John 1:1

Sorry, 1 John 1:1-3 appears to be the mountain you can't move. It's still there referring to the Word as a thing. Things don't incarnate.

Sure I can, and have.

Bless your heart. You think you have been doing something you have not done.

Luke 1:32-33: Describes Jesus as the ruler who will "reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end," directly echoing Isaiah 9:7's promise of endless government and peace on David's throne.
Matt 2: While not quoting Isaiah 9:6, the narratives of Jesus' birth and the arrival of the Magi (who sought the "King of the Jews") point to the fulfillment of the Messiah's arrival described in Isaiah.
Eph 2:14: Calls Jesus "our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility," connecting to Isaiah's "Prince of Peace" and His reconciling work.
Yes, Isa 9:6-7 does refer to Jesus. He is the King who is descended from David who established an everlasting Kingdom and is the Prince of Peace. The other titles attributed to Him by Isaiah therefore do apply to Jesus.

Doesn't necessarily refer to Jesus. It's true that Jesus is said to be on the throne of Jacob forever, but so are others. It refers to the Davidic throne, a shared throne. Everyone who is proverbially on that throne died, including Jesus. While it's true that Jesus was resurrected to eternal life, the very same thing could be said of Solomon.

Solomon is explicitly called God with an eternal throne:

Psalm 45
6Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,
and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.
7You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
above your companions with the oil of joy.

There's still the matter of Jesus never being called any of the titles that you claim Isaiah 9:6 assigns to him. At least in context we know that Jesus isn't YHWH as evidenced by Isaiah 9:7.

Yes, Jesus is the Word. That is what John 1:14 tells us. The Word became/took on/put on flesh and dwelt among men; we know this man as Jesus of Nazareth.

The Word is flesh. Jesus isn't only flesh right? But the Word is only ever described as "becoming flesh."

The Word is eternal life (thank you for admitting that). And the Word is Jesus (John 1:14). That means that Jesus IS eternal life.

John 1:14 doesn't say the Word is Jesus. The Word is a thing in 1 John 1:1-3. If you don't agree with the Bible, now is the time to come out and say it. I don't want to go in circles rehashing your refuted claims.

The Life that was with the Father and has been revealed to us. What was revealed to us? The Word that became flesh. Who is the Word that became flesh? Jesus.

Jesus didn't pre-exist with the Father though. Eternal life is something the Father had with Him, yes, and it was revealed to them when Jesus received it and taught them the gospel. What else would that be? Hence the literal Word of Life is the gospel, essentially.

Again, your opinion.

Again, your opinions. Not what Scripture says.

Most of your commentary is foreign to the Bible. No one in the Bible has stated most of your opinions.

Again, your blindness and disbelief.

This is most likely the more accurate translation of Isaiah 9.

Brenton's Septuagint Translation
6For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
7His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgement and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.

I never said He emptied Himself of being God. That is one thing of which He did not empty Himself. He emptied Himself of the use of His power and authority. He emptied Himself of His glory. He emptied Himself of His knowledge. He emptied Himself of His honor. But He did not cease to be God. The angels are lesser than God, and man is lesser than the angels. So when the Word that was God became a man, of course He became lesser than God (the Father). But He didn't cease to be deity.

Again, none of that is stated in the passage. Philippians 2:5-10 is a teaching to the church about how to be like Jesus and bring glory to God the Father. That is all.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Runningman:

I asked you to quote scripture that says Jesus is a man "right now," in this day and age. The scripture at Acts 2 is merely telling us he was a human in the first Century AD and has nothing to do with "right now."

The Bible indicates Jesus is the first of Jehovah's created angels.


"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." (Colossians 1:15 -- New International Version)

Colossians 1 NIV

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15 -- English Standard Version)

Colossians 1 ESV

So are you Jehovah Witness ? They like you believe Jesus is a created angel

Correct, civic. According to Colossians 1:15, Jesus Christ was the first of Jehovah's created angels. Thereafter, Jehovah God--who happens to be the power behind all creation--proceeded to create all other things through the pre-human Jesus.


"for through him [Jesus aka the Word] God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can’t see— such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him." (Colossians 1:16 -- New Living Translation)

Colossians 1 NLT

 

[Peterlag]

You have yet to show that what Thomas said is being mistaken from what He intended. All you have given is your opinions, and they hold no weight whatsoever.

Thomas did not produce a teaching on the trinity. For there to be a trinity it would have had to be taught by someone and it is not.

 

[synergy]

Correct, civic. According to Colossians 1:15, Jesus Christ was the first of Jehovah's created angels. Thereafter, Jehovah God--who happens to be the power behind all creation--proceeded to create all other things through the pre-human Jesus.


"for through him [Jesus aka the Word] God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can’t see— such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him." (Colossians 1:16 -- New Living Translation)

Colossians 1 NLT

If everything was created through Jesus (aka the Word) and he was created (as you claim) then Jesus would have had to create himself through himself. That's typical JW Arian illogic in full display and makes everyone's head spin.

 

[civic]

If everything was created through Jesus (aka the Word) and he was created (as you claim) then Jesus would have had to create himself through himself. That's typical JW Arian illogic in full display and makes everyone's head spin.

lol

 

[Doug Brents]

Not what John 1:14 says. The Word became flesh. Full stop. You are adding "The Word was spirit that took on flesh."

Genius, what is God? He is a Spirit. The Word was with God and the Word was God, so the Word is Spirit too. Then the Word became flesh (literally 'put on flesh'). So the Spirit put on flesh.

I sure do. I also know the word "incarnate" is not in the Bible.

But you haven't defined it, and you keep using it in a way that is inaccurate. Please define "incarnate" for us.

I am also flesh. Do you understand that Jesus is one of many Sons who are flesh?

No. He is the ONLY Son of God (John 3:16). Not one of many.

You couldn't prove that there are any theophanies in the Old Testament that align with the trinitarian model of God.

I don't believe that there are any theophanies. But I could be wrong about that; Scripture is not explicit about it.

Let's see what we can prove. Do you believe the Old Testament contains messianic prophecies of a coming, future, messiah who had not yet came up until that point? Why are there no prophecies about God incarnating, or God becoming a man, or Spirit becoming a man, or the Word becoming a man, or any such thing that you have said? See, the Bible has an entirely different narrative than the one you're presenting.

Wrong. Isa 9:6 says explicitly that the Messiah will be "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father".

If you called me a that, which, this, that, and it when I am a person that would ridiculous. And your example doesn't work because the that refers to what you would say, not to who I am.

1 John 1:1-3 says exactly that. "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."

Now that we know the Word is a thing in 1 John 1,

The Word is not a thing in 1 John 1. That passage is speaking about what was heard, seen, and experienced about the Word.

But based on the narrative of John 1, Jesus was created.

John 1
3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.
14The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Sonc from the Father, full of grace and truth.

No, He could not have been created. Something cannot create itself. A computer program cannot write itself. A robot cannot make itself. A planet does not pull itself out of nothing. If EVERYTHING that was created was created through Him, and NOTHING was not created through Him, then He could not have been created.

Here's a question to get you thinking. See that word "became" there in John 1:14? When something becomes something else, such as when the devil tempted Jesus and told him "tell these stones to become bread" in Matthew 4:3, were the stones already bread and if the stones became bread, would they still be stones? Would the stones have pre-existed as bread prior to being bread? If you can answer these carefully, you'll see that the Word becoming flesh is in line with a creation.

Your thinking is perverted by your doctrine. In your analogy, the stones were not bread until they were changed. But they did already exist as stones. They preexisted as stones and were changed into bread. This is not CREATION, this is TRANSMUTATION; one thing changing into another thing.

In the case of Christ, the Word that was with God and was God, and existed in the form of God, left Heaven (having preexisted the incarnation) and was changed into (took on the form of) a man.

John did no such thing. No one ever repeated what John said about the Word either.

Such a profound opinion. It's wrong, but profound.

Sorry, 1 John 1:1-3 appears to be the mountain you can't move. It's still there referring to the Word as a thing. Things don't incarnate.

Sure they can. But I don't expect you to be able to understand, so I won't waste my time explaining.

Doesn't necessarily refer to Jesus. It's true that Jesus is said to be on the throne of Jacob forever, but so are others. It refers to the Davidic throne, a shared throne. Everyone who is proverbially on that throne died, including Jesus. While it's true that Jesus was resurrected to eternal life, the very same thing could be said of Solomon.

Yes, every one of those passages refer to Jesus.

Solomon is explicitly called God with an eternal throne:

Psalm 45
6Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,
and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.
7You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
above your companions with the oil of joy.

Solomon is not God, nor is he the subject of that passage. That is a reference to God Almighty, and His throne is the only throne that endures forever.

There's still the matter of Jesus never being called any of the titles that you claim Isaiah 9:6 assigns to him. At least in context we know that Jesus isn't YHWH as evidenced by Isaiah 9:7.

Yes, Jesus most certainly is Lord (YHWH).

The Word is flesh. Jesus isn't only flesh right? But the Word is only ever described as "becoming flesh."

The Word stared as Spirit (with God and is God), but He then became flesh.

John 1:14 doesn't say the Word is Jesus. The Word is a thing in 1 John 1:1-3. If you don't agree with the Bible, now is the time to come out and say it. I don't want to go in circles rehashing your refuted claims.

Read all of John 1. The Word is God, then the Word puts on flesh and becomes a man whom the Apostles saw and testify about (who did they testify about? Jesus!). Then John comes and paves the way for the Word (who did John pave the way for? Jesus!). The whole of John is about Jesus, starting from the very first sentence: Word = Jesus.

Jesus didn't pre-exist with the Father though. Eternal life is something the Father had with Him, yes, and it was revealed to them when Jesus received it and taught them the gospel. What else would that be? Hence the literal Word of Life is the gospel, essentially.

Jesus IS the Gospel. Jesus is eternal life. And Jesus absolutely preexisted creation with the Father.

This is most likely the more accurate translation of Isaiah 9.

Brenton's Septuagint Translation
6For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
7His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgement and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.

There is a MASSIVE amount of that verse that has been cut out and changed from what the original Hebrew says. Now I understand why your doctrine is so perverted.

Again, none of that is stated in the passage. Philippians 2:5-10 is a teaching to the church about how to be like Jesus and bring glory to God the Father. That is all.

Sure Phil 2 is talking about how to be like Christ, but in telling us how to be like Him, it tells us more about Him and the way we are to be like Him.
Be like Jesus: He was God but He humbled Himself and became a servant, so humble yourself and be a servant too.
Be like Jesus: He was all powerful and mighty, but He emptied Himself of His power and submitted to death to protect His friends, so lay down your power and authority and serve your fellow man.
Etc.

There is not just one line of lessons we can take from a passage like Phil 2:5-10. A righteous minister of God could take a single chapter of Scripture and preach a different sermon with a different lesson for a year and not cover the same lesson twice.

 

[Doug Brents]

Thomas did not produce a teaching on the trinity. For there to be a trinity it would have had to be taught by someone and it is not.

You have been shown many times that it is taught by almost every writer of the NT.

 

[Peterlag]

You have been shown many times that it is taught by almost every writer of the NT.

You have never produced a teaching on the trinity.

What you produce are a hint here and a clue there. Often a name that if you twist it can say his name meant God. And you ignore that there's a whole bunch of Scripture showing other men and kings were called God. You use pieces from statements that are scattered all over the Bible. Words and half verses along with your own human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions as you pick one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here, and a clue there.

 

[Peterlag]

Just like you arguing day and night for probably over a year now, or more, that the Trinity concept is not valid. Oh it is definitely real. So real that the 12 apostles believed it and every other author in the New Testament. Yes, Thomas did say Jesus is God and Jesus did not correct him. It's your twisting of Scripture and your unbelieving heart that blinds you from the truth.

Trinitarians have never produced a teaching on the trinity...

What they produce is a hint here and a clue there. Often a name that if you twist it can say his name meant God. And they ignore that there's a whole bunch of Scripture showing other men and Kings were called God. They use pieces from statements that are scattered all over the Bible. Words and half verses along with their own human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions as they pick one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here, and a clue there.

 

[Doug Brents]

You have never produced a teaching on the trinity.

What an interesting opinion. Thanks for that.

What you produce are a hint here and a clue there.

Again, that is your opinion and your blindness talking. You are too wrapped up in your false doctrine to see the Light. I pray your eyes are opened and your heart softened. There is still hope for you.

 

[Peterlag]

What an interesting opinion. Thanks for that.

Again, that is your opinion and your blindness talking. You are too wrapped up in your false doctrine to see the Light. I pray your eyes are opened and your heart softened. There is still hope for you.

What you say is Yeah... there's a teaching on the Trinity. But you can only see it if you're able to get God to help you. Or Yeah... there's a teaching on the Trinity. We showed it to you already. Didn't you see it?

 

[Peterlag]

Let us make man in our image is not a teaching on the Trinity...​

The verse does not say let us make men to look like you Jesus. It does not say Dear Jesus, let us make men to look like you. It says "let us" and "let us" means He was talking to someone and that someone could have been His dog. Don't laugh. He could have given you the same personality as His dog.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman:

I asked you to quote scripture that says Jesus is a man "right now," in this day and age. The scripture at Acts 2 is merely telling us he was a human in the first Century AD and has nothing to do with "right now."

The Bible indicates Jesus is the first of Jehovah's created angels.


"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." (Colossians 1:15 -- New International Version)

Colossians 1 NIV

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15 -- English Standard Version)

Colossians 1 ESV

As I said before, decades after Jesus was taken to heaven they kept right on calling him a man.

Is the man Jesus Christ our mediator RIGHT NOW?

1 Timothy 2
5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

We also know that John the Baptist defined the Lamb of God as a man:

John 1
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is He of whom I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’

We know the same Lamb who John identified as a man is still a man in heaven.

Revelation 21
22But I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

So we know Jesus was born a human, died a human, resurrected as a human, was taken up into the sky as a human, and was continued to be called a human decades afterwards right up until the present day.

So I will ask you where do you see any evidence that Jesus isn't a man right now? Also, if Jesus isn't a man, where did his human body go?

 

[JesusFan]

As I said before, decades after Jesus was taken to heaven they kept right on calling him a man.

Is the man Jesus Christ our mediator RIGHT NOW?

1 Timothy 2
5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

We also know that John the Baptist defined the Lamb of God as a man:

John 1
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is He of whom I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’

We know the same Lamb who John identified as a man is still a man in heaven.

Revelation 21
22But I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

So we know Jesus was born a human, died a human, resurrected as a human, was taken up into the sky as a human, and was continued to be called a human decades afterwards right up until the present day.

So I will ask you where do you see any evidence that Jesus isn't a man right now? Also, if Jesus isn't a man, where did his human body go?

Jesus was called God and Man, as he was the Second Person of the trinity incarnating to dwell and live among us

 

[Doug Brents]

What you say is Yeah... there's a teaching on the Trinity. But you can only see it if you're able to get God to help you.

Clearly, you do not have the Holy Spirit within you guiding you to more complete knowledge of His Word. If you did, you wouldn't ridicule Him that way.

Or Yeah... there's a teaching on the Trinity. We showed it to you already. Didn't you see it?

We have, and you have not.

Let us make man in our image is not a teaching on the Trinity...​

The verse does not say let us make men to look like you Jesus. It does not say Dear Jesus, let us make men to look like you. It says "let us" and "let us" means He was talking to someone and that someone could have been His dog. Don't laugh. He could have given you the same personality as His dog.

ROTFLMBO. Your "logic" is unbelievable. The ones who are involved in the conversation were all in the same image: "Let US makd man in OUR image." Who has (is made in) the image of God? Well, God does. And mankind does; He made us that way. Who else has (is made in) the image of God? No one, and no thing. Only Man and God. So then, God's dog would not be in His image; so that's out. The angels are not either, so that's out. And man had not yet been made when this conversation took place, so man is out too. That leaves only God that was in the image of God at this time. So God is talking within Himself. And there are obviously more than one part of God that are involved, because otherwise it would have been, "Let ME make man in MY image."

Another key is that man is in three parts: the body, the soul, and the spirit. The image of God is also in three parts: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hmmm.

 

[Peterlag]

Clearly, you do not have the Holy Spirit within you guiding you to more complete knowledge of His Word. If you did, you wouldn't ridicule Him that way.

We have, and you have not.

ROTFLMBO. Your "logic" is unbelievable. The ones who are involved in the conversation were all in the same image: "Let US makd man in OUR image." Who has (is made in) the image of God? Well, God does. And mankind does; He made us that way. Who else has (is made in) the image of God? No one, and no thing. Only Man and God. So then, God's dog would not be in His image; so that's out. The angels are not either, so that's out. And man had not yet been made when this conversation took place, so man is out too. That leaves only God that was in the image of God at this time. So God is talking within Himself. And there are obviously more than one part of God that are involved, because otherwise it would have been, "Let ME make man in MY image."

Another key is that man is in three parts: the body, the soul, and the spirit. The image of God is also in three parts: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hmmm.

Made us in our image could have been in the image of their personality. Or with the same kind of spirit. The spirit He first put in Adam and Eve and could have also had it in His cats.

 

[Doug Brents]

Made us in our image could have been in the image of their personality. Or with the same kind of spirit.

It could have been almost anything. But since there is no qualification in Scripture to what is included in "His Image", it seems to be all inclusive. We are like Him in almost every way. Sure there are some exceptions: we are not omniscient, we are not omnipresent, we are not omnipotent, (these things are reserved for deity , and we are not deity). But we are triune, as He is (as noted in previous post). And we do have His capacity for love, empathy, desire for unity with others, etc.

The spirit He first put in Adam and Eve and could have also had it in His cats.

It is worthy of note the multiple restatements of our creation in His image. This indicates that this was significant, and that the lack of anything else being similarly stated to be in His image means that nothing else was made in His image before man was, and nothing was made in His image after man was.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus was called God and Man, as he was the Second Person of the trinity incarnating to dwell and live among us

Moses was called God and Man as well. Moses isn't the Second Person of anything and didn't incarnate, but did dwell and live among us. If Moses can be called God and Man without being God and without being in a trinity, then there isn't a reason why Jesus is God either.

Exodus 7
1The LORD answered Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.