Genesis 1:26

[Desert Snake]

Jesus is God His Father is God He is the son of God. Jesus was previously known as the Word. He had not yet been born as Jesus at that time. But God has no beginning so the Father and the Word had no beginning. That is what I believe the Bible teaches. Please list what you believe so we can compare.

Jesus=God
JHVH=God
Spirit=God

The reason why we say Jehovah, is because that is the religious name that is used in this context, as compared to Jesus. Not because the New Testament writers said, 'this is the trinity', so forth, and listed the names.
God has more than one name, Jehovah being one, that I find reasonable and descriptive, for this context. Jesus as the word manifested, is God manifested, as we know that the 'word' is God.
John 1:1-12
So, our configuration is basically the same, however, the names for God, in Genesis 1:26, and John 1:1, isn't actually the Tetragrammaton, they are both names that correspond to 'God', Elohim, and theon. Now, just directly, aside from complexities in the book of John, this name for God, for Jesus believers, would include Jesus, and the 'word'. I mean, "the word", that's a description, ok?
So, in
Genesis 1:26
In Jesus religion, doesn't signify just other aspect of God, aside from Jesus, nor, does it signify, just Jesus, to me.

I believe that you actually could replace 'theon', with Elohim, and get the same meaning, and singular plurality inference.
•
What often isn't understood, is that these names, they are in a religious belief context, in other words, they aren't always directly implied just by words or names. The 'main God', has more than one name. The idea that He only has one name, isn't traditional for Jesus believers, and, ideas can get arbitrarily mixed up between Judaism, and Christianity, even though, Jesus here, didn't practice what we know of as Judaism. Literally. Not just a different perspective in the same religious, textual perspective, so forth.
Because we use the Old Testament, not just the New Testament, we therefore have a religious basis that coincides with Jesus religion.

•
Concerning what could be contradictions, we take the most practical and traditional approach, in what basically is a religious context that conforms to itself. This is why, I might use different names, or a name, for the High God, and "Jesus in Spirit form", than some biblical authors, might. That doesn't mean that there is a wildly varying religion, especially if the basis of the theistic ideas, maintains.
If there is a verse that I consider contrary to what I believe Jesus religion to be, I do question it. That being said, everything taken in context, these verses can usually be interpreted in a manner that makes sense.
Such as we encounter in the book of Yohanan, 'Jesus is God', John 1:10, that means that there isn't going to be disagreement in at least that context, [for the Jesus religion perspective.

 

[nPeace]

Let me try it this way. I am John Doe. My wife is Jane Doe. It is completely correct to say I am a Doe and my wife is a Doe. If you think of the name God as a last name then any member of that family is a God. You could have a father named Jehovah God and a another member of the family named Word God. It would be correct to say Jehovah is a God and Word is a God just like I am a Doe and my wife is a Doe. I think our difference is that you believe there was a time when only Jehovah God existed and Word God was somehow made or created at a later time. I believe both Jehovah God and Word God existed together before there was anything else. John 1:3 is speaking about the Word when it says "all things were made by him." And John 1:2 says "the same was in the beginning with God." So Word God was in the beginning with Jehovah God. And if all things were made by Word God, he certainly did not make himself so he must have existed before anything was created. Col 1:16 is speaking about Word God when it says "by him were all things created." But again he did not create himself. And Col 1:17 says "he is before all things." So Word was there before anything else existed. Jehovah God and Word God existed for all eternity and one day decided to make man in THEIR image. "Let us make man in our image." This is what the Bible says.

Oh, so the analogy you gave doesn't work, so you create a new one?
You do know what they call that right? It's called, "moving the goal post".
Nothing you do, can fix your problem.

We have already established from the scriptures that the word had a beginning. That was shown in both Colossians 1:15, and Revelation 3:14, so no amount of prayer will change that.

Where does the scriptures say the Word created? Nowhere.
Or if I am not seeing well, please show me.
John 1:3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.
Colossians 1:16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.

I don't see it. I see this - through him, all things were created.
Also, if you are arguing that "if all things were made by Word God, he certainly did not make himself so he must have existed before anything was created.", then certainty according to your argument, the Word created the father.

Anyway, I think our conversation on this topic has been exhausted, as we have covered things that you have again brought up, showing that you do not even accept scriptures you have agreed to, which are against your views.
So we are back to where we have seen that you are not about to change your views, regardless of what the scriptures say against those views.

So, carry on, until perhaps we meet again... on a different topic, of course.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

Where does the scriptures say the Word created? Nowhere

Well, first off, I do NOT believe the use of WORD in that particular verse is in reference to Jesus. I believe God was speaking literally, in that His WORD should be considered as if it were GOD, since it came FROM God.
EVERYTHING spoken during that period of time was carried on by means of ORAL TRADITION, as there was no written language. God was simply making it a POINT of declaring that when His WORD was spoken of, that it SHOULD be considered as though GOD Himself had spoken it.
Yes, some time later on, that "Spoken Word" being GOD, did indeed manifest itself in the personage of one Jesus (the) Christ. So therefore, what Jesus spoke of regarding God, was as though it WAS God Himself speaking.
I feel we can thank the RCC for their involvement in fiddling with scripture and scriptural interpretations, where this notion of a "Trinity" came about, and then finalized in the 4th Council at Nicea.
Backing up to the original question of WHOM was God referring to when He spoke in the plural.......since God made mankind, Male AND Female, in HIS OUR likeness and in OUR image, it only stands to reason that the OTHER individual present with God, was a "Female"...but this can ONLY be surmised and not proven. It HAS been said and suggested that God had a "consort", a Mistress, if you please......that's ONE possibility.
But to suggest that it was JESUS, in light of just what the scripture says, is actually "feminizing" Jesus, and I do NOT think that is what the typical believer really wants to do.
Flak Jacket on....ducking for cover

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Oh, so the analogy you gave doesn't work, so you create a new one?
You do know what they call that right? It's called, "moving the goal post".
Nothing you do, can fix your problem.

We have already established from the scriptures that the word had a beginning. That was shown in both Colossians 1:15, and Revelation 3:14, so no amount of prayer will change that.

Where does the scriptures say the Word created? Nowhere.
Or if I am not seeing well, please show me.
John 1:3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.
Colossians 1:16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.

I don't see it. I see this - through him, all things were created.
Also, if you are arguing that "if all things were made by Word God, he certainly did not make himself so he must have existed before anything was created.", then certainty according to your argument, the Word created the father.

Anyway, I think our conversation on this topic has been exhausted, as we have covered things that you have again brought up, showing that you do not even accept scriptures you have agreed to, which are against your views.
So we are back to where we have seen that you are not about to change your views, regardless of what the scriptures say against those views.

So, carry on, until perhaps we meet again... on a different topic, of course.

Col 1:15 is talking about the physical man named Jesus who certainly had a beginning but the spirit that was in him was thw spirit of god which had no beginning. I am sorry you give up so easy. But you use words to mean what they do not say so you have nothing left to support your views.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Jesus=God
JHVH=God
Spirit=God

The reason why we say Jehovah, is because that is the religious name that is used in this context, as compared to Jesus. Not because the New Testament writers said, 'this is the trinity', so forth, and listed the names.
God has more than one name, Jehovah being one, that I find reasonable and descriptive, for this context. Jesus as the word manifested, is God manifested, as we know that the 'word' is God.
John 1:1-12
So, our configuration is basically the same, however, the names for God, in Genesis 1:26, and John 1:1, isn't actually the Tetragrammaton, they are both names that correspond to 'God', Elohim, and theon. Now, just directly, aside from complexities in the book of John, this name for God, for Jesus believers, would include Jesus, and the 'word'. I mean, "the word", that's a description, ok?
So, in
Genesis 1:26
In Jesus religion, doesn't signify just other aspect of God, aside from Jesus, nor, does it signify, just Jesus, to me.

I believe that you actually could replace 'theon', with Elohim, and get the same meaning, and singular plurality inference.
•
What often isn't understood, is that these names, they are in a religious belief context, in other words, they aren't always directly implied just by words or names. The 'main God', has more than one name. The idea that He only has one name, isn't traditional for Jesus believers, and, ideas can get arbitrarily mixed up between Judaism, and Christianity, even though, Jesus here, didn't practice what we know of as Judaism. Literally. Not just a different perspective in the same religious, textual perspective, so forth.
Because we use the Old Testament, not just the New Testament, we therefore have a religious basis that coincides with Jesus religion.

•
Concerning what could be contradictions, we take the most practical and traditional approach, in what basically is a religious context that conforms to itself. This is why, I might use different names, or a name, for the High God, and "Jesus in Spirit form", than some biblical authors, might. That doesn't mean that there is a wildly varying religion, especially if the basis of the theistic ideas, maintains.
If there is a verse that I consider contrary to what I believe Jesus religion to be, I do question it. That being said, everything taken in context, these verses can usually be interpreted in a manner that makes sense.
Such as we encounter in the book of Yohanan, 'Jesus is God', John 1:10, that means that there isn't going to be disagreement in at least that context, [for the Jesus religion perspective.

I am doing my best to understand but when you have heard only a different story for many years it sometimes is not easy to grasp new ideas. Let me say this. Many people believe "God" is made up of three "persons". We will not even give them names. You mentioned "aspects". Do you believe "God" is made up of several "aspects". Again, we do not need to name them right now. But I need a clear and simple answer to this. Jesus was on the cross ( I assume you believe that ) and asked someone " Why have you forsaken me?" Many people believe that was one of the "persons" ( Jesus ) speaking to another of the "persons" ( the Father ). Do you believe it was one "aspect" of God speaking to a different "aspect"? So, very simply, who was on the cross and who was he speaking to. Please, if you can give a short and clear answer to this I think I will understand a lot more. Thanks for your help and understanding that it is not easy for me to see ideas that are new and different from what I have heard all my life. I do appreciate you taking the time to help me and do not mean to argue. Just trying to compare my ideas with yours.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am doing my best to understand but when you have heard only a different story for many years it sometimes is not easy to grasp new ideas. Let me say this. Many people believe "God" is made up of three "persons". We will not even give them names. You mentioned "aspects". Do you believe "God" is made up of several "aspects". Again, we do not need to name them right now. But I need a clear and simple answer to this. Jesus was on the cross ( I assume you believe that ) and asked someone " Why have you forsaken me?" Many people believe that was one of the "persons" ( Jesus ) speaking to another of the "persons" ( the Father ). Do you believe it was one "aspect" of God speaking to a different "aspect"? So, very simply, who was on the cross and who was he speaking to. Please, if you can give a short and clear answer to this I think I will understand a lot more. Thanks for your help and understanding that it is not easy for me to see ideas that are new and different from what I have heard all my life. I do appreciate you taking the time to help me and do not mean to argue. Just trying to compare my ideas with yours.

The idea that Jesus was talking to another aspect of God, doesn't make sense in a religious, or Biblical context.
So, that, just directly, contradicts 'Scripture'. The idea contradicts Scripture, the Bible.

Now, outside of that, the idea that this is Jesus, talking to another aspect of deity, is strange, even in a 'non theistic', concept. The religion of Jesus, that a non theist would associate with Jesus, doesn't correlate to this sort of idea. It's a foreign concept, basically, unless there is a very strange context, going on, in my estimation.
So, there are some different theories about that verse, is it a hymn, so forth.
I believe the best interpretation, is that Jesus was actually talking to a person named Eli.

Religiously, if this was an important theological moment, this would be an entire basis of a new religion, new deity, so forth. And would be in every gospel account, featured prominently.

Personally, i believe in a singular plurality God aspect, like we encounter in Genesis 1:26. We also encounter this elsewhere, and there isn't necessarily some sort of direct specification, of the persons. Religiously, since God, or the High God, is the main god on the Throne, then I always include, or mean that, when I say God.

Jesus presumably being god manifested, that is contextual, obviously, though Jesus is still god, that is the 'spirit Jesus', in other words.

Different churches present different ideas concerning these things, however my belief is quite literal, here. Trinitarian to me just means more than one aspect of God, and if we use cross language inference, then Genesis 1:26 is a great example of this, comparing to other verses. The word is 'God', there, like we encounter in other verses, 'Lord God'. I don't believe this is a repetition , neither do I believe it has to mean two different things.

Hope that clears that up, at least to general belief.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The idea that Jesus was talking to another aspect of God, doesn't make sense in a religious, or Biblical context.
So, that, just directly, contradicts 'Scripture'. The idea contradicts Scripture, the Bible.

Now, outside of that, the idea that this is Jesus, talking to another aspect of deity, is strange, even in a 'non theistic', concept. The religion of Jesus, that a non theist would associate with Jesus, doesn't correlate to this sort of idea. It's a foreign concept, basically, unless there is a very strange context, going on, in my estimation.
So, there are some different theories about that verse, is it a hymn, so forth.
I believe the best interpretation, is that Jesus was actually talking to a person named Eli.

Religiously, if this was an important theological moment, this would be an entire basis of a new religion, new deity, so forth. And would be in every gospel account, featured prominently.

Personally, i believe in a singular plurality God aspect, like we encounter in Genesis 1:26. We also encounter this elsewhere, and there isn't necessarily some sort of direct specification, of the persons. Religiously, since God, or the High God, is the main god on the Throne, then I always include, or mean that, when I say God.

Jesus presumably being god manifested, that is contextual, obviously, though Jesus is still god, that is the 'spirit Jesus', in other words.

Different churches present different ideas concerning these things, however my belief is quite literal, here. Trinitarian to me just means more than one aspect of God, and if we use cross language inference, then Genesis 1:26 is a great example of this, comparing to other verses. The word is 'God', there, like we encounter in other verses, 'Lord God'. I don't believe this is a repetition , neither do I believe it has to mean two different things.

Hope that clears that up, at least to general belief.

You will have to tell more about this Eli person. Jesus askes why his father forsook him. That would mean Eli was the father of Jesus. But I think Jesus had no earthly father so Eli would have to be God. And I do not see any mention of Eli in the Bible. Can you explain more. This is very interesting but a bit hard to digest.

 

[nPeace]

Well, first off, I do NOT believe the use of WORD in that particular verse is in reference to Jesus. I believe God was speaking literally, in that His WORD should be considered as if it were GOD, since it came FROM God.
EVERYTHING spoken during that period of time was carried on by means of ORAL TRADITION, as there was no written language. God was simply making it a POINT of declaring that when His WORD was spoken of, that it SHOULD be considered as though GOD Himself had spoken it.
Yes, some time later on, that "Spoken Word" being GOD, did indeed manifest itself in the personage of one Jesus (the) Christ. So therefore, what Jesus spoke of regarding God, was as though it WAS God Himself speaking.
I feel we can thank the RCC for their involvement in fiddling with scripture and scriptural interpretations, where this notion of a "Trinity" came about, and then finalized in the 4th Council at Nicea.
Backing up to the original question of WHOM was God referring to when He spoke in the plural.......since God made mankind, Male AND Female, in HIS OUR likeness and in OUR image, it only stands to reason that the OTHER individual present with God, was a "Female"...but this can ONLY be surmised and not proven. It HAS been said and suggested that God had a "consort", a Mistress, if you please......that's ONE possibility.
But to suggest that it was JESUS, in light of just what the scripture says, is actually "feminizing" Jesus, and I do NOT think that is what the typical believer really wants to do.
Flak Jacket on....ducking for cover

Are you serious? I was about to rate this funny, because it did give me a good laugh, but then I thought to myself, you may actually be serious about this. Are you?
I find each time I am on a religious forum, I always hear a number of new versions on the father and son. I'm sure I haven't heard the last either.
Don't worry, you can take your armor off and rise up. I'm not going to throw anything. Besides, if I did, a flak Jacket would be the last thing to save you, and ducking.... I think you would find it more comforting in a hole curled up with a beaver.

Anyhow. I'll go ahead and rate it funny, because I can't stop laughing. Thanks.

 

[nPeace]

Col 1:15 is talking about the physical man named Jesus who certainly had a beginning but the spirit that was in him was thw spirit of god which had no beginning. I am sorry you give up so easy. But you use words to mean what they do not say so you have nothing left to support your views.

So the physical man Jesus was the firstborn of all creation? ...and all things came into existence through him...

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The idea that Jesus was talking to another aspect of God, doesn't make sense in a religious, or Biblical context.
So, that, just directly, contradicts 'Scripture'. The idea contradicts Scripture, the Bible.

Now, outside of that, the idea that this is Jesus, talking to another aspect of deity, is strange, even in a 'non theistic', concept. The religion of Jesus, that a non theist would associate with Jesus, doesn't correlate to this sort of idea. It's a foreign concept, basically, unless there is a very strange context, going on, in my estimation.
So, there are some different theories about that verse, is it a hymn, so forth.
I believe the best interpretation, is that Jesus was actually talking to a person named Eli.

Religiously, if this was an important theological moment, this would be an entire basis of a new religion, new deity, so forth. And would be in every gospel account, featured prominently.

Personally, i believe in a singular plurality God aspect, like we encounter in Genesis 1:26. We also encounter this elsewhere, and there isn't necessarily some sort of direct specification, of the persons. Religiously, since God, or the High God, is the main god on the Throne, then I always include, or mean that, when I say God.

Jesus presumably being god manifested, that is contextual, obviously, though Jesus is still god, that is the 'spirit Jesus', in other words.

Different churches present different ideas concerning these things, however my belief is quite literal, here. Trinitarian to me just means more than one aspect of God, and if we use cross language inference, then Genesis 1:26 is a great example of this, comparing to other verses. The word is 'God', there, like we encounter in other verses, 'Lord God'. I don't believe this is a repetition , neither do I believe it has to mean two different things.

Hope that clears that up, at least to general belief.

Two lines in your post seem to be complete random words. You said, "Personally, I believe in a singular plurality god aspect." Singular means "one" and plural mean "more than one". So this makes no sense. Then you say, "Jesus presumaly being god manifested,that is contextual,obviously, though Jesus is still god,that is the spirit Jesus, in other words." I think I can read and understand English but this string of words makes no sense in any way. It seems like when you do not have a good answer you just string some words together and hope no one notices. Please try to make more sense.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

So the physical man Jesus was the firstborn of all creation? ...and all things came into existence through him...

The physical man Jesus was the first human to be raised from the grave. He was the first to experience the second birth. His spirit was called the Word and made all things. It says he was the first born of all creatures not creation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Two lines in your post seem to be complete random words. You said, "Personally, I believe in a singular plurality god aspect." Singular means "one" and plural mean "more than one". So this makes no sense. Then you say, "Jesus presumaly being god manifested,that is contextual,obviously, though Jesus is still god,that is the spirit Jesus, in other words." I think I can read and understand English but this string of words makes no sense in any way. It seems like when you do not have a good answer you just string some words together and hope no one notices. Please try to make more sense.

Wrong. It does make sense, just not in the religious conceptualization you are familiar with.

 

[Desert Snake]

You will have to tell more about this Eli person. Jesus askes why his father forsook him. That would mean Eli was the father of Jesus. But I think Jesus had no earthly father so Eli would have to be God. And I do not see any mention of Eli in the Bible. Can you explain more. This is very interesting but a bit hard to digest.

No. The translation there is saying 'father', from a speculation that it means father, even though the word isn't even father. The word is 'Eli'.

 

[Desert Snake]

Matthew 27:46

So, there is something about deity forsaking Yeshua, it's a nonsense, could be added for some reason.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus never talked like that. Nor, does that supposed reference to deity, make sense, Scripturally. Whatever wingnut editing the book of Matthew, seems to to think it makes sense.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus said 'Abba'. In other words, a direct reference, not a 'name'.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Wrong. It does make sense, just not in the religious conceptualization you are familiar with.

No it doesn't make sense in English.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

No. The translation there is saying 'father', from a speculation that it means father, even though the word isn't even father. The word is 'Eli'.

So why would Eli forsake Jesus?

 

[Desert Snake]

No it doesn't make sense in English.

Yes it does. It had better, because it's Biblical.

 

[Desert Snake]

So why would Eli forsake Jesus?

They didn't want to be around the crucifixion area. Occupied state, remember.