Genesis 1:26

[Ellen Brown]

It is both amusing and sadining that we are so fond of debating the minutiae of scripture, but seem to ignore the spirit.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Deuteronomy 6:4 American Standard Version (ASV)
Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah:
You have quoted one scripture which does not disqualify others. God is one, not two or three.

How about I quote this one.
John 8 American Standard Version (ASV)
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning,

So the Devil is part of God, and always existed, from your logic. Correct?

Certainly not. The devil is an agel created by God. As far as God being one, think of this. Say there is a man named John Doe and he has a wife named Jane Doe and a son named Tom Doe. They are three different people but they are one Jones family. One family with several members. There is one God but that one God is like a family made up of a Father and a Son. Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus but together they are God. Much of the confusion starts when people say "God" but they mean the "Father". I never pray to God, I pray to the Father but I pray through Jesus who is the go-between for humans to approach the Father.

 

[rosends]

Shalom:

I always like to read what the Jews think about these things.

If one goes through the commentaries to the verse, one will find 4 basic approaches to explain the use of the plural for that verb:
1. God consulted with the angels in order to make them feel included even though they were not part of the creation process
2. God was speaking to and with the ingredients (imagine if you get out all the makings for a cake and then address them, saying "OK, let's make us some cake!"
3. This reflects that more than one Godly aspect was infused into man in the creation -- both the attributes of mercy and justice were part of the creating of man.
4. The figure of speech is either a mark of royalty or of humility.

My concern is just that this thread is in a section called Scriptural Debates but, as the understanding comes from extra-scriptural sources, it might not be fruitful or relevant.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

It is both amusing and sadining that we are so fond of debating the minutiae of scripture, but seem to ignore the spirit.

So is it minutiae to try to determine if God consists of one person or more than one person? What are your beliefs on this subject?

 

[nPeace]

Certainly not. The devil is an agel created by God. As far as God being one, think of this. Say there is a man named John Doe and he has a wife named Jane Doe and a son named Tom Doe. They are three different people but they are one Jones family. One family with several members. There is one God but that one God is like a family made up of a Father and a Son. Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus but together they are God. Much of the confusion starts when people say "God" but they mean the "Father". I never pray to God, I pray to the Father but I pray through Jesus who is the go-between for humans to approach the Father.

The Logos (Word) is an angel created by God.
Your argument falls apart. The son in the family was born. The son did not exist until after the man found the woman, married her, and impregnated her. Nine months later, the son came into being.,, at least visible to them. The son is not in any way equal to the father.

I'm dealing with scripture, so let's deal with scripture.
You used John 1:1 to make this argument...

So, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God. This is the Bible and it shows two "beings" together without a beginning.

It does not show that however.
Is it not the case that you used beginning mentioned there in John 1:1 to support your view?
I used John 8:44 which also mentions beginning.
According to your argument, the word beginning is your support.
In that case, beginning in John 8:44 would be the same beginning, putting the Devil on par with God.
Where does it say that the Devil is an angel created by God?

 

[Ellen Brown]

Certainly not. The devil is an agel created by God. As far as God being one, think of this. Say there is a man named John Doe and he has a wife named Jane Doe and a son named Tom Doe. They are three different people but they are one Jones family. One family with several members. There is one God but that one God is like a family made up of a Father and a Son. Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus but together they are God. Much of the confusion starts when people say "God" but they mean the "Father". I never pray to God, I pray to the Father but I pray through Jesus who is the go-between for humans to approach the Father.

Have you heard the "thing" about Jesus and satan being brothers?

 

[Ellen Brown]

So is it minutiae to try to determine if God consists of one person or more than one person? What are your beliefs on this subject?

I'm not Trinitarian. This debate is not the most vital issue. Taking heed of Micah 6:8, and the 10 commandments along with obeying the two commandments of Jesus the Christ is the center of belief.

A street preacher was admonishing a homeless man in an unkind way on Monday when I was out. When I gave the man money, the preacher turned on me and asked me what I thought of God and Jesus being one. I asked him, if God is one, then how could God baptize himself and then say he was proud of his Son? These people have their mantras memorized, but neglect the will of God.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Have you heard the "thing" about Jesus and satan being brothers?

Complete stupidity. Jesus existed from the beginning of time ( as the Word ) and it was he who created everything ( including the angels ). Satan was a fallen angel who rebelled against God and was put out of Heaven. Brothers? Absolutely not.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The Logos (Word) is an angel created by God.
Your argument falls apart. The son in the family was born. The son did not exist until after the man found the woman, married her, and impregnated her. Nine months later, the son came into being.,, at least visible to them. The son is not in any way equal to the father.

I'm dealing with scripture, so let's deal with scripture.
You used John 1:1 to make this argument...

It does not show that however.
Is it not the case that you used beginning mentioned there in John 1:1 to support your view?
I used John 8:44 which also mentions beginning.
According to your argument, the word beginning is your support.
In that case, beginning in John 8:44 would be the same beginning, putting the Devil on par with God.
Where does it say that the Devil is an angel created by God?

If you really think John 1:1 does not say the Word was with God and that does not mean there were two distinct "persons" present then I cannot say anything else. It is so clear that only those who do not want to see it cannot see it. There is really nothing else to say.

 

[Neuropteron]

So my question is: why does "God" refer to himself in plural? (Let us create...)

I did some research, and the Trinity isn't even mentioned in the Bible (at least not as "Trinity", there are hints of it). Why would a "God" that claims to be only God refer to what looks like others like him (as if he was one of many; "our likeness")?

*I'm an atheist (just in case)

The answer is to be found in the cross-references r 8:30,John 1:3,Col 1:16.
These texts show that God's firstborn creation was alongside the creator during the creation period and was referred to as the Master worker.
Thus the phrase "let us" was not a "plural of Majesty" but rather was the creator talking to the one through whom all things came into existence, his firstborn.

 

[nPeace]

Complete stupidity. Jesus existed from the beginning of time ( as the Word ) and it was he who created everything ( including the angels ). Satan was a fallen angel who rebelled against God and was put out of Heaven. Brothers? Absolutely not.

Why is it stupidity?
You have not shown that Jesus existed from the beginning.
The only thing you did was claim it without scriptural backing.

When you are presented with scriptures that challenge your view, you say this

If you really think John 1:1 does not say the Word was with God and that does not mean there were two distinct "persons" present then I cannot say anything else. It is so clear that only those who do not want to see it cannot see it. There is really nothing else to say.

It's so much easier to do that, than use the scriptures.

@lostwanderingsoul I am not arguing against Jesus and his father being two distinct beings.
I am showing you that Jesus was created. He had a beginning, whereas his father did not.

Jesus was created as a angel,
He worked alongside his father, in creating all other things, including the other angels.
They are all sons of God, and morning stars.
Therefore they are all brothers, under one father.
The scriptures show why Jesus is a special son, and the other angels are not jealous of him, but respect him.

I gave the scriptures here, and another poster gave some here.
I am already familiar with the pattern of those who follow ideas you hold to, so I am not expecting anything different.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Complete stupidity. Jesus existed from the beginning of time ( as the Word ) and it was he who created everything ( including the angels ). Satan was a fallen angel who rebelled against God and was put out of Heaven. Brothers? Absolutely not.

Your approach lacks in tact and kindness. It was only a question to test you. Go your way in peace.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Your approach lacks in tact and kindness. It was only a question to test you. Go your way in peace.

Thank you. I guess you disagree with my answer but that is fine. I am always at peace.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Why is it stupidity?
You have not shown that Jesus existed from the beginning.
The only thing you did was claim it without scriptural backing.

When you are presented with scriptures that challenge your view, you say this


It's so much easier to do that, than use the scriptures.

@lostwanderingsoul I am not arguing against Jesus and his father being two distinct beings.
I am showing you that Jesus was created. He had a beginning, whereas his father did not.

Jesus was created as a angel,
He worked alongside his father, in creating all other things, including the other angels.
They are all sons of God, and morning stars.
Therefore they are all brothers, under one father.
The scriptures show why Jesus is a special son, and the other angels are not jealous of him, but respect him.

I gave the scriptures here, and another poster gave some here.
I am already familiar with the pattern of those who follow ideas you hold to, so I am not expecting anything different.

Thank you for your OPINION. I also gave scripture. The Word was with God at the beginning, not created. You are free to have whatever OPINIONS you want but do not say that scripture agrees with you.

 

[nPeace]

Thank you for your OPINION. I also gave scripture. The Word was with God at the beginning, not created. You are free to have whatever OPINIONS you want but do not say that scripture agrees with you.

Please, realize what an opinion is.
Your opinion is that the word was not created.
The scriptures say he was created - more than once it says - Colossians 1:15-17; Revelation 3:14; John 1:14-18; 3:16
Jesus / the word said he is a morning star - an angel. Revelation 22:16
Jesus also said he is a son of God, brought forth from the father. John 3:16, and backed up by an apostle. 1 John 4:9, 10
The scriptures say God is one - O N E. Deuteronomy 6:4
Those are scriptures, many of them, not opinions.

On the other hand, where did you read the Word was not created? Which scripture did you point out to show that?
Where did you read that God is two persons?
Um... Nowhere.
That what an opinion, or idea, or unscriptural view is.
It is a statement, or statements made that is not supported by facts - In this case scripture, but is instead contrary.
Arriving at unsupported conclusions.

You tried to support you ideas with a failed analogy - note: an analogy, not scripture - about a family - utterly flawed, and when that was pointed out to you, you said nothing.... obviously because there was nothing you could say. Isn't that true?

These are not opinions either. They are clearly supported facts.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Please, realize what an opinion is.
Your opinion is that the word was not created.
The scriptures say he was created - more than once it says - Colossians 1:15-17; Revelation 3:14; John 1:14-18; 3:16
Jesus / the word said he is a morning star - an angel. Revelation 22:16
Jesus also said he is a son of God, brought forth from the father. John 3:16, and backed up by an apostle. 1 John 4:9, 10
The scriptures say God is one - O N E. Deuteronomy 6:4
Those are scriptures, many of them, not opinions.

On the other hand, where did you read the Word was not created? Which scripture did you point out to show that?
Where did you read that God is two persons?
Um... Nowhere.
That what an opinion, or idea, or unscriptural view is.
It is a statement, or statements made that is not supported by facts - In this case scripture, but is instead contrary.
Arriving at unsupported conclusions.

You tried to support you ideas with a failed analogy - note: an analogy, not scripture - about a family - utterly flawed, and when that was pointed out to you, you said nothing.... obviously because there was nothing you could say. Isn't that true?

These are not opinions either. They are clearly supported facts.

Read John 1:1 It says that the Word was with God at the very beginning. Not created but there at the start of all things. It cannot be more plain. If there is the Word and God together then that is two beings. If you cannot read and understand this then there is nothing to discuss. Your mind is made up and you do not want to hear anything that disagrees with your opinions. I can say nothing more.

 

[nPeace]

Read John 1:1 It says that the Word was with God at the very beginning. Not created but there at the start of all things. It cannot be more plain. If there is the Word and God together then that is two beings. If you cannot read and understand this then there is nothing to discuss. Your mind is made up and you do not want to hear anything that disagrees with your opinions. I can say nothing more.

I have read John 1:1. It says nothing about "at the very beginning".
It reads, " In the beginning", which is what Genesis 1:1 says too - "In the beginning". John 8:44 says, "from the beginning".
John 8 American Standard Version (ASV)
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning,

So evidently it seems clear to me you are interpreting John 1:1 to mean "the very beginning", when that is not what it says.
So the problem you are having, is that you have grabbed onto one word, or phrase, with the imagination that you can use it to support your view, while ignoring all the scriptures that say you are wrong.
Don't we call that grabbing at straws?

Is it not clear that you don't care about what scripture says, as long as you can repeat (pattern of those who follow ideas you hold to) over and over what you want to believe, and totally ignore scriptures that say directly what you don't want to hear?
Why are you ignoring scriptures, if you believe them?
Why can't you address any of them? Is it not because you don't care what they say - they don't support your view, so....?

Don't try to accuse people of not understanding, when you have not even shown that you care to understand what you have read.

So what is the beginning?
In the beginning God created. Genesis 1:1
It seems quite obvious, it is not speaking about God, who is the beginning, but is obviously speaking about a beginning - the beginning of something - not the beginning, that is, God.
This is evidently the case with John 1:1, and John 8:44. There are all beginnings.

Consider this beginning, mentioned by Jesus...
Matthew 19:4-9
4 In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”
8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. 9 I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”

Another beginning.
This one is specified by Mark.
Mark 10:6-8
6 However, from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh,’ so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Now be honest. Does it really seem to you that nPeace cannot read and understand, or are you just saying that as an excuse to run away, because you cannot reason?
Can we be reasonable here?
Or are you going to keep to that pattern of repeating your view, and ignoring scripture?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I have read John 1:1. It says nothing about "at the very beginning".
It reads, " In the beginning", which is what Genesis 1:1 says too - "In the beginning". John 8:44 says, "from the beginning".
John 8 American Standard Version (ASV)
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning,

So evidently it seems clear to me you are interpreting John 1:1 to mean "the very beginning", when that is not what it says.
So the problem you are having, is that you have grabbed onto one word, or phrase, with the imagination that you can use it to support your view, while ignoring all the scriptures that say you are wrong.
Don't we call that grabbing at straws?

Is it not clear that you don't care about what scripture says, as long as you can repeat (pattern of those who follow ideas you hold to) over and over what you want to believe, and totally ignore scriptures that say directly what you don't want to hear?
Why are you ignoring scriptures, if you believe them?
Why can't you address any of them? Is it not because you don't care what they say - they don't support your view, so....?

Don't try to accuse people of not understanding, when you have not even shown that you care to understand what you have read.

So what is the beginning?
In the beginning God created. Genesis 1:1
It seems quite obvious, it is not speaking about God, who is the beginning, but is obviously speaking about a beginning - the beginning of something - not the beginning, that is, God.
This is evidently the case with John 1:1, and John 8:44. There are all beginnings.

Consider this beginning, mentioned by Jesus...
Matthew 19:4-9
4 In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”
8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. 9 I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”

Another beginning.
This one is specified by Mark.
Mark 10:6-8
6 However, from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh,’ so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Now be honest. Does it really seem to you that nPeace cannot read and understand, or are you just saying that as an excuse to run away, because you cannot reason?
Can we be reasonable here?
Or are you going to keep to that pattern of repeating your view, and ignoring scripture?

OK back to the original question. Why does God refer to himself as "us" in Genesis 1:26? Answer - because there was the one reffered to as God and the one reffered to as the Word. That is two beings. Plural. Us. And both of these beings make up the one and only God. There is no third person which some people include to make a trinity. But there are two.

 

[nPeace]

OK back to the original question. Why does God refer to himself as "us" in Genesis 1:26? Answer - because there was the one reffered to as God and the one reffered to as the Word. That is two beings. Plural. Us. And both of these beings make up the one and only God. There is no third person which some people include to make a trinity. But there are two.

Original question. Why does God refer to himself as "us" in Genesis 1:26?
Answer - God is not referring to himself. Why assume he is when no scripture says that? He obviously is addressing another.
The reason we can scripturally conclude that God is addressing his only begotten son, is because...
Colossians 1:15-17; Revelation 3:14; John 1:14-18; 3:16
1. God's first creation was his only begotten son, who is called the Logos (Word), and later, on earth, Jesus.
2. The only begotten son was alongside the father in bringing all things into existence - including all the angelic beings.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So my question is: why does "God" refer to himself in plural? (Let us create...)

I did some research, and the Trinity isn't even mentioned in the Bible (at least not as "Trinity", there are hints of it). Why would a "God" that claims to be only God refer to what looks like others like him (as if he was one of many; "our likeness")?

*I'm an atheist (just in case)

I would say it would be easier to relate an imaginary friend that way.