Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

[Ben Masada]

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben: :rainbow1:

 

[Troublemane]

My thought is the writer is trying to subtly impart an understanding that God is both ONE and ALL things, plural and singular at the same time. That God transcends all duality, inlcuding plural/singular dichotomies. Thats what I'm thinking the words are supposed to convey. :angel2:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form.

As are the words humanity and humankind. Stop pretending to know what you don't know. It's tiresome and irritating.

For the rest of you folks: I found Joel S. Burnett's A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim quite interesting.

 

[Ben Masada]

My thought is the writer is trying to subtly impart an understanding that God is both ONE and ALL things, plural and singular at the same time. That God transcends all duality, inlcuding plural/singular dichotomies. Thats what I'm thinking the words are supposed to convey. :angel2:

Keep thinking Troublemane, I can see that you have the potential to think straight.

Ben:

 

[Ben Masada]

As are the words humanity and humankind. Stop pretending to know what you don't know. It's tiresome and irritating.

For the rest of you folks: I found Joel S. Burnett's A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim quite interesting.

And as I can see, you love to get tired and irritated. I am glad I have brought a little of your favorite candy to excite the sweet tooth of your mind.

Ben:

 

[Bishadi]

My thought is the writer is trying to subtly impart an understanding that God is both ONE and ALL things, plural and singular at the same time. That God transcends all duality, inlcuding plural/singular dichotomies. Thats what I'm thinking the words are supposed to convey. :angel2:

sounds pretty clear to me too

let me see: that God is both ONE and ALL things

yep!

the trinity stuff can be returned to foundations too;

mass, energy (light) and time; they do combine (the corporeal (mass) the spirit (light) and transcendent (time)) {personification of attributes}

and even einstein shared E=mc2 (energy = mass x velocity-time)

so if the Boss, is the beginning and ending and 'created all that is' (alpha/omega), then it is not much of a bridge to see, all that is, is HIM as we are just his kids, within the body of God (existence itself)

has anyone ever looked at the frame of what the Big Bang is all about?

That all of everything at one point combines into ONE. (the simple version)

kind of cool to know that everything you even experience is of HIM

that is why it is best to step lightly in knowing, all we do is done unto Him, literally!

the best of the best is to know, we can 'create life' by choice (eg..procreation).....

planting trees, teaching a child, (giving of ourselves) supporting 'life to continue" (good, defined)

does this make sense?

 

[fisherman1]

I am new to this forum and am interested in talking to Jewish members about the Messiah and their beliefs. I am a Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and am curious as to why the Jewish community as a whole reject the "New Testament". Please dont be offended. I have tried to breach this topic with Jewish people before and they dont seem to want to discuss it. Your comment would be greatly appreciated

 

[Bishadi]

I am new to this forum and am interested in talking to Jewish members about the Messiah and their beliefs. I am a Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and am curious as to why the Jewish community as a whole reject the "New Testament". Please dont be offended. I have tried to breach this topic with Jewish people before and they dont seem to want to discuss it. Your comment would be greatly appreciated

me not who-ish to any but i wanna address that

because the understanding of life is not held within

(not any religion, and why people are still looking, awaiting; even jesus is supposed to come back)

all because the last chapter, the revelation of understanding, had not been fullfilled

So it is not just Judaism; the globes religions including christianity knows the last 'coming' has not been completed.

Problem is men made a religion out of the jesus being the 'christ' , when it wasn't jesus who did. He said, follow the rules and prepare. Kind of the same thing Moses said.

Jesus was a teacher

read Mark 10:17-19

then john 14:15-17

read them within any bible you like by themselves and then think about what this thread suggests over all

it's all good, but you have a choice to make and the first rule to keep with God, is honesty, not beliefs.

the faith to maintain is that eventually the truth will be known

keeping that faith and honesty help, you remain honorable to God, yourself and everybody you come into contact with, that is also honest.

just be fair, as i need no answer

your duty is between you and God, not me nor any person on this earth.

(meaning, in today's world, often the really honest don't have the biggest fan base (just yet); this you will learn)

 

[Ben Masada]

I am new to this forum and am interested in talking to Jewish members about the Messiah and their beliefs. I am a Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and am curious as to why the Jewish community as a whole reject the "New Testament". Please dont be offended. I have tried to breach this topic with Jewish people before and they dont seem to want to discuss it. Your comment would be greatly appreciated

Well my friend, you have finally met one who welcomes you. But there is something about him. He does not like assumptions. Why? Because assumptions butter no bread and he hates bread without butter.

If you really want to talk about the Messiah with a Jew, let's start with Isaiah 53. That's the most messianic chapter in the Bible. Do you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah? If you do, please take a look at Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you don't have to assume that he was Jesus.

Ben: :clap

 

[radicul]

Well my friend, you have finally met one who welcomes you. But there is something about him. He does not like assumptions. Why? Because assumptions butter no bread and he hates bread without butter.

If you really want to talk about the Messiah with a Jew, let's start with Isaiah 53. That's the most messianic chapter in the Bible. Do you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah? If you do, please take a look at Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you don't have to assume that he was Jesus.

Ben: :clap

i have read all these texts and can't see what you mean. who is HE, WE, US in this verse

53 Who has put faith in the thing heard by us? And as for the arm of Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed? 2 And he will come up like a twig before one, and like a root out of waterless land. No stately form does he have, nor any splendor; and when we shall see him, there is not the appearance so that we should desire him.

 

[sojourner]

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben: :rainbow1:

Actually, Trinitarians who are worth their salt don't use this passage to prove their point, because they know that elohim doesn't refer to "Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- it refers to the "heavenly court," which remains undefined.

 

[sojourner]

My thought is the writer is trying to subtly impart an understanding that God is both ONE and ALL things, plural and singular at the same time. That God transcends all duality, inlcuding plural/singular dichotomies. Thats what I'm thinking the words are supposed to convey. :angel2:

You're ascribing too much later theology to a very early source. The writer is trying to convey that there is a heavenly court, over which El presides.

 

[jtartar]

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben: :rainbow1:

Ben
Much of what you say is true. There could also be another explanation to the us and our.
Remember, the Bible tells us that God created Jesus before any other thing, and that Jesus was used as a Masterworker of God to help in the making of all other things, Prov 8:22-31, John 1:3, CXol 1:15, Rev 3:14. Since Jesus was God's Masterworker, and Jesus was alive when God created man, it could very well be Jesus that God was talking to when He said Let US make man in OUR image.
I agree totally with you about our being made in God;s image. It is a certainty that God does not LOOK like us, seeing that He is the Almighty Spirit, and we are flesh and blood. It could only be that God was talking about attributes that both He and we have. Of course when you speak about God, you are speaking in absolutes. God's cardinal attributes are Justice, Wisdom. Power, and Love, Rev 4:6-8.
Mankind can only reflect these qualities faintly, 2Cor 3:18.

 

[sojourner]

Remember, the Bible tells us that God created Jesus before any other thing

The Bible tells us that Jesus was begotten, not created.

it could very well be Jesus that God was talking to when He said Let US make man in OUR image.

Highly unlikely, as the author(s) of Genesis had no knowledge of Jesus. It is far more likely that El was referring to the "heavenly court."

 

[Ben Masada]

Actually, Trinitarians who are worth their salt don't use this passage to prove their point, because they know that elohim doesn't refer to "Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- it refers to the "heavenly court," which remains undefined.

I indeed acknowledge the plurality of Elohim as a reference to a metaphorical "heavenly court," or famous people, or judges, or even the Jewish People as the sons of the Most High, according to Psalms 82:6, which Jesus confirmed in John 10:34.
But it has nothing to do with Elohim, the God who is absolutely One.

Ben:

 

[sojourner]

I indeed acknowledge the plurality of Elohim as a reference to a metaphorical "heavenly court," or famous people, or judges, or even the Jewish People as the sons of the Most High, according to Psalms 82:6, which Jesus confirmed in John 10:34.
But it has nothing to do with Elohim, the God who is absolutely One.

Ben:

and what causes you to think that this elohim, commonly translated as "God," has anything to do with a Trinitarian argument?

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben
Much of what you say is true. There could also be another explanation to the us and our.

Remember, the Bible tells us that God created Jesus before any other thing, and that Jesus was used as a Masterworker of God to help in the making of all other things, Prov 8:22-31, John 1:3, CXol 1:15, Rev 3:14.

Proverbs 8:22-31 has nothing to do with Jesus. The firstborn of His ways God had created in His designs and not in actuallity. And the Cohelet is talking about Israel whom the Torah calls the firstborn of God. Read Exodus 4:22,23. Would you be able to prove Jesus with a quotation like this in the only Scriptures Jesus used to handle? Of course not! But you feel good assuming anyways, because you have been brainwashed to think thus. Besides, the Prophet Isaiah would not contradict the Psalmist if this was talking the way you think. Read Isaiah 44:24. When the Almighty created everything, the heavens and the earth, He was alone and none was with Him. That's what I mean to quote without assumption. Moreover, read Isaiah 46:5. "Whom whould you compare Me with as an equal, or match Me against, as though we were alike?"

Since Jesus was God's Masterworker, and Jesus was alive when God created man, it could very well be Jesus that God was talking to when He said Let US make man in OUR image.

You are assuming again. Things cannot be because you wish they could.

Ben: :no:

 

[Ben Masada]

The Bible tells us that Jesus was begotten, not created.

Highly unlikely, as the author(s) of Genesis had no knowledge of Jesus. It is far more likely that El was referring to the "heavenly court."

Sojourner, you are too hypothetical. Yes, you are right, Jesus was begotten but by Joseph with Mary.

In my views, God was referring to His attributes, as the text gives off all the hints to that end.

Ben:

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, you are too hypothetical. Yes, you are right, Jesus was begotten but by Joseph with Mary.

In my views, God was referring to His attributes, as the text gives off all the hints to that end.

Ben:

Which text?
As scholars are so quick to point out, your views are not always the right ones. Matthew definitely infers that the child was not born of Joseph. Luke is less adamant. Mark makes no mention of the birth, and John alludes to Jesus being begotten of God.

 

[Ben Masada]

Which text?
As scholars are so quick to point out, your views are not always the right ones. Matthew definitely infers that the child was not born of Joseph. Luke is less adamant. Mark makes no mention of the birth, and John alludes to Jesus being begotten of God.

Which text! Did you read the thread? Genesis 1:26.

That was not Matthew, but a Gentile disciple of Paul's, loaded just like his master, with all kinds of Hellenistic Mythology. We are talking Judaism, for heaven's sake, and there is no such a thing in Judaism as Greek Mythology. Jesus was Jewish and not a Greek demigod.
Ben: