The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[101G]

Excuse me but how does this (John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.) translate to "Jesus said: I am God" There is not a single proof that this verse talks about Jesus. Jesus was a messenger sent by God and in Islam, we believe that he was miraculously born without male intervention.

Not trying to butt in your conversation, this is were many misunderstand. "with" God is not like there are two persons standing next to one another. no. with here means the same person because now the one Person we call God is "SHARED" or manifested in flesh. let the bible explain itself. scripture,
Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he". Notice the "WITH" here in the verse. as in John 1:1. it seems like the person "first" is WITH the "last" person, if we use first and last as person. but take note, there is only one person speaking, "I the LORD", "I am he". read that verse again. Now watch the REVELATION, scripture, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last". BINGO, this one person "I" is the First, and is "also" the Last. it's the same one PERSON. notice in the verse, "I am the first", and "I" also "Am the last. so the I that is the First is the same person as the Last. ONE person as in John 1:1 which John 1:1c confirm that it is the same ONE person, "and the word was God".

so the Question is, "How is God .... "WITH"..... himself? answer by being "shared" equally in flesh, of himself.

that should clear up the "with" question. now the, " I can do nothing of myself."

Jesus is not God because if you actually did read the gospel of John you would have seen that in Chapter 5 Verse 30 Jesus himself says "I can of my own self do nothing".

the Lord Jesus is the "ARM" of God correct, if not, here's the scripture to prove it. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me". HOLD IT, God's OWN ARM? yes, and his ARM is him, which is identified as "he". sound like another person, don't it. but no, the same person diversified. supportive scripture,
Isaiah 53:1 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
Isaiah 53:2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him"..

so the "ARM" of God is a "he", "him", meaning just as "WITH" in Jhon 1:1 and Isaiah 41:4, it's the same PERSON, only in a diversified state, meaning "shared" or manifested in flesh. and Jesus being the "ARM" of God himself, that means JESUS is the power of God. scripture, .
1 Corinthians 1:24 "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God".

ok, now we know that Jesus the Christ is the "ARM", meaning the POWER of God in Flesh. lets understand why he said, "I do nothing of myself". as the power of God in flesh, he must be authorized to do something. let's see this in a example in the bible,. Sennacherib king of Assyria came aganist Hezekiah king in Judah, he had his ARMY with him, lets pick up the action.
2 Chronicles 32:6 "And he set captains of war over the people, and gathered them together to him in the street of the gate of the city, and spake comfortably to them, saying,
2 Chronicles 32:7 "Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor dismayed for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him: for there be more with us than with him:
2 Chronicles 32:8 "With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah".

here, Sennacherib the king of Assyria had with him, "an arm of flesh", meaning his fighting men, or his "ARMY". for his power was in his "ARM", or his ARMY. and no army fight without authorization. just as any army today, they just don't up and start fighting another nation on their own, no, they must be authorized to fight. so any army commander wiill say, "I can do nothing of myself" this is correct, for the ARMY must be authorized to fight.

Just as Sennacherib king of Assyria, his ARM of flesh, or his army was authorized to fight. Jesus, the ARM of God in "FLESH" is God's "ARM of FLESH" on earth, and he must be authorized to do something, Jesus is our example. he acted on orders. when Peter and John was coming from the temple, and the Lame man was healed, what did they say?
Acts 3:11 "And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.
Acts 3:12 "And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? (Peter could nothing of himself)

Acts 4:9 "If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
Acts 4:10 "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole".

Peter, just as the Lord Jesus acted in the NAME that authorized or released the power of God. but they didn't do nothing on their own. nor will you nor I unless .authorized. so when the Lord said "I do nothing of myself", he is setting the example for us to follow.

I hope that cleared up the "I cannot do nothing of myself".

PICJAG.

 

[Katzpur]

I suggest you re-read this post again for clearity. as said after church we can discuss this futher.

I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense to me at all. I'm not even sure this is something we can resolve. I do not believe that Jesus is the same individual as God the Father, which apparently you do, and there's nothing you could possibly say to make me change my mind about that.

 

[101G]

Um, no. The actual scriptures DON’T say “spreadeth abroad the earth ‘by myself’”. And in fact, neither the Hebrew nor Greek base texts say this. I have already pointed out that your scripture is a mistranslation an it seems very unfair for you to use a mistranslated, faulty text, then offer that to @Katzpur and to forum readers and ask them to assume your mistranslated faulty text is correct and that your personal interpretation is correct. I have already pointed out a few errors in your textual claim. Let me point out more.

@Clear
thanks for the reply,second, you said, "mistranslated faulty text?". well lets see if the bible agree with what the KJV, the bible itself say, or what you claim at isaiah 44:24 about God being "ALONE", and "BY HIMSELF. let's get to the heart of the matter, "THE BEGINNING", where all things are made. and lets see if he was alone or not.

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth".

does the "US" and the "OUR" here in Genesis 1:26 constitute more than one person? NO, and here's my argument why. look at verse 27, the very next verse. Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them".

ok, so how did God go from what seen like being a plurality of "US" and "Our" go to a singularity of "HIS" and "HE?" many of my Trinity believing bro and sister say this verse shows a trinity in verse 26. but STOP and think for a second, lets see what our Lord and Saviour Jesus the christ says about God being a plurality, or a singularity here in the beginning.at verses 26 & 27,(this is what you said, he was not alone). scripture, while speaking with the Pharisees concerning divorcement, our Lord Jesus said this, Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female". HOLD it, the one who made all thing at the beginning according to John 1:3 is Jesus the word whom we call the "Son". and it is God whom we call the Father, who in Isaiah 44:24 said that he was "ALONE" and "BY HIMSELF". the Lord Jesus who cannot lie said that "HE" at Genesis 1:26 and 27 a singularity, that MADE the male and female. we can confirm the "HE" in Marks gospel as to who the "HE" is. scripture, Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". so the "HE" in matthews 19:4 is God in Genesis 1:26 & 27. now the Lord Jesus cannot lie, right. so, the same person in John 1:3 is the same person in Isaiah 44:24, is the same ONE person in Genesis 1:26 & 27 who made all things.is a "he". so the plurality, or a singularity question is answered by the Lord Jesus himself, who cannot lie. he said God at Genesis 1:26 & 27 is a "HE", that settles it for me. so the other two so-called person in the trinity must comes later. because in isaiah 44:24 the Word who made all things said that he was "ALONE". and "BY HIMSELF" just as the Lord Jesus said, "he", and not them made man male and female.

so your assessment of a mistranslation is in error or unless you're saying that what the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 19:4 must be a mistranslation also. so by the Lord Jesus saying that God is a "he" in the beginning, eliminates your assessment that Isaiah 44:24 is a bad translation. no, it's the Lord Jesus exposing the false claim that it's a bad translation.

the question now is, should I believe you and your so-called bad translation, or should I believe what the Lord Jesus said who cannot lie.. I believe the Lord Jesus.

now clear, you must reconcile who and why the bible say "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26 when we know now that God is a "he", a single person at the beginning, (meaning being ALONE), when he made man male and female.

I would like to hear your answer on that. for the Lord Jesus said God, at the beginning, made he him male and female just as Genesis 1:27 states. cain't wait to hear that answer.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense to me at all. I'm not even sure this is something we can resolve. I do not believe that Jesus is the same individual as God the Father, which apparently you do, and there's nothing you could possibly say to make me change my mind about that.

No, I cannot make you or anyone else change their mind, I can only point to scripture that can change your mind. see, it's the gospel that causes REPENTANCE in a person. not 101G or anyone else beside the Lord Jesus. so it on you to believe what the scriptures say,

so I wish you well.

PICJAG.

 

[Katzpur]

No, I cannot make you or anyone else change their mind, I can only point to scripture that can change your mind. see, it's the gospel that causes REPENTANCE in a person. not 101G or anyone else beside the Lord Jesus. so it on you to believe what the scriptures say,

so I wish you well.

PICJAG.

I do believe what the scriptures say. I wish you well, too.

 

[Clear]

1) THE PROBLEM WITH USING FAULTY AND MISINTEREPRETED TEXT TO SUPPORT A PERSONAL THEORY

In post #700, Clear pointed out that the poster 101G is attempted to use faulty text to support his theory that Jesus was absolutely alone before the creation of the world.

@101G replied : “ …"mistranslated faulty text?". well lets see if the bible agree with what the KJV, the bible itself say” (post #703)
Then 101G refers to Genesis 1:26 saying : “Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth". 101G then asked : “ ok, so how did God go from what seen like being a plurality of "US" and "Our" go to a singularity of "HIS" and "HE?"


The early Judeo-Christian answer is that God the Father was talking to the son. When the Father speaks to the son, the text refers to plural individuals (“us”) and then God the Father himself forms the body of Adam who looks like God the father (one individual = singular).

Why create irrational interpretations and use faulty texts inappropriately when the early Christians themselves can tell you how they interpreted such scriptures?

Barnabas explains “For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, … These things he said to the Son.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

If it is not clear that Jesus (as the “word”) was in the beginning WITH God, Barnabas repeats this same point in 5:5 “…he is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hands of men.?“ The Epistle of Barnabas

Even Jewish Enoch gives us the same testimony that John 1:1 gives concerning “the Word was in the beginning WITH God“. Jewish Enoch describes the Word as the “son of man” who was WITH the Lord of Spirits (i.e. God the Father of spirits). The text reads : “ … that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the beginning of days, 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. 5 All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him: they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. 6 For this purpose he became the Chosen One…” 1st Enoch 48:1-7;

One of the converts of the apostle Peter is Clement. Clement explains very very clearly that the Christians at that time taught that God the Father is the ultimate creator of the Universe but that he accomplished it through his Servant Jesus. Clement describes this early Christian doctrine saying that God was “…the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the knowledge of the glory of his name. “ 1 Clement 59:2-3;


So, when you ask “does the "US" and the "OUR" here in Genesis 1:26 constitute more than one person? “ the answer is “Yes”. The Word IS with God the Father in the Beginning. (john 1:1)


2) YOU STILL HAVE NOT JUSTIFIED USING MISTRANSLATED TEXT IN SUPPORT OF YOUR PERSONAL THEORY
I might remind you that NOTHING in your last response justified your misuse of faulty text in order your attempt to support your personal religious theory that Jesus was alone at the creation.

1) WHY did you mistranslate and offer us faulty biblical text in support of your theory?
2) Now that we find your interpretation of Genesis is ALSO incorrect, why don’t you answer MY question to you?


3) WHY SHOULD THE POSTER 101Gs RELIGION AND TEXT AND INTERPRETATION TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE RELIGION AND INTERPRETATION OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY?

The question for readers is since 101Gs’ religion and text and interpretation is different than those of the early Christians, why should 101Gs religion and his text and his interpretations have precedence or priority over that of the more original and more authentic Christian religion?

What would be your answer @101G ?

Clear
εισενετζφυω

 

[MonkeyFire]

The word of God is LOVE.

 

[axxxa_3]

Not trying to butt in your conversation, this is were many misunderstand. "with" God is not like there are two persons standing next to one another. no. with here means the same person because now the one Person we call God is "SHARED" or manifested in flesh. let the bible explain itself. scripture,
Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he". Notice the "WITH" here in the verse. as in John 1:1. it seems like the person "first" is WITH the "last" person, if we use first and last as person. but take note, there is only one person speaking, "I the LORD", "I am he". read that verse again. Now watch the REVELATION, scripture, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last". BINGO, this one person "I" is the First, and is "also" the Last. it's the same one PERSON. notice in the verse, "I am the first", and "I" also "Am the last. so the I that is the First is the same person as the Last. ONE person as in John 1:1 which John 1:1c confirm that it is the same ONE person, "and the word was God".

so the Question is, "How is God .... "WITH"..... himself? answer by being "shared" equally in flesh, of himself.

that should clear up the "with" question. now the, " I can do nothing of myself."

the Lord Jesus is the "ARM" of God correct, if not, here's the scripture to prove it. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me". HOLD IT, God's OWN ARM? yes, and his ARM is him, which is identified as "he". sound like another person, don't it. but no, the same person diversified. supportive scripture,
Isaiah 53:1 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
Isaiah 53:2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him"..

so the "ARM" of God is a "he", "him", meaning just as "WITH" in Jhon 1:1 and Isaiah 41:4, it's the same PERSON, only in a diversified state, meaning "shared" or manifested in flesh. and Jesus being the "ARM" of God himself, that means JESUS is the power of God. scripture, .
1 Corinthians 1:24 "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God".

ok, now we know that Jesus the Christ is the "ARM", meaning the POWER of God in Flesh. lets understand why he said, "I do nothing of myself". as the power of God in flesh, he must be authorized to do something. let's see this in a example in the bible,. Sennacherib king of Assyria came aganist Hezekiah king in Judah, he had his ARMY with him, lets pick up the action.
2 Chronicles 32:6 "And he set captains of war over the people, and gathered them together to him in the street of the gate of the city, and spake comfortably to them, saying,
2 Chronicles 32:7 "Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor dismayed for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him: for there be more with us than with him:
2 Chronicles 32:8 "With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah".

here, Sennacherib the king of Assyria had with him, "an arm of flesh", meaning his fighting men, or his "ARMY". for his power was in his "ARM", or his ARMY. and no army fight without authorization. just as any army today, they just don't up and start fighting another nation on their own, no, they must be authorized to fight. so any army commander wiill say, "I can do nothing of myself" this is correct, for the ARMY must be authorized to fight.

Just as Sennacherib king of Assyria, his ARM of flesh, or his army was authorized to fight. Jesus, the ARM of God in "FLESH" is God's "ARM of FLESH" on earth, and he must be authorized to do something, Jesus is our example. he acted on orders. when Peter and John was coming from the temple, and the Lame man was healed, what did they say?
Acts 3:11 "And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.
Acts 3:12 "And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? (Peter could nothing of himself)

Acts 4:9 "If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
Acts 4:10 "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole".

Peter, just as the Lord Jesus acted in the NAME that authorized or released the power of God. but they didn't do nothing on their own. nor will you nor I unless .authorized. so when the Lord said "I do nothing of myself", he is setting the example for us to follow.

I hope that cleared up the "I cannot do nothing of myself".

PICJAG.

I really appreciate your response, thank you.

 

[101G]

The early Judeo-Christian answer is that God the Father was talking to the son. When the Father speaks to the son, the text refers to plural individuals (“us”) and then God the Father himself forms the body of Adam who looks like God the father (one individual = singular).

-
lets take your response one step at a time to see clearly. the only problen with your statement above is this, "THE SON HAD NOT YET COME". grant it God was speaking of, of, of, of the Son to come, but the son was not manifested at the beginning, for all time is the same time for God, (who is the son to come in flesh). but as said, your statement is faulty, and here's why. scripture, Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come".
the figure of him, (God), to come is the "SON", not yet manifested in flesh. so the Son had not yet come when God made that statement in the beginning, "Let US make man in OUR Image. understand the IMAGE, is the Figure, which means IMAGE, that was to COME. he was speaking future of himself "diversified" in flesh as the Son.

so clear if God was speaking to the son, there manisested, then you're saying that God speaking throught his apostle Paul in Romans 5:14 was lying when he said, "who is the figure of him that was to come", meaning the Son, was not already with God in the beginning as a manifested person? is this what you're saying?, if so please explain how God is talking to his son when he made man male and female, when the same God said that the son was to come, (meaning himself to come in flesh), which has not happen yet..

cain't wait to hear that answer.

If it is not clear that Jesus (as the “word”) was in the beginning WITH God, Barnabas repeats this same point in 5:5 “…he is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hands of men.?“ The Epistle of Barnabas

the word Jesus with God in the beginning, at Genesis 1:1? NO. but did not John say, 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". again, not at Genesis 1:1. and here's why. John again but now,
1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(STOP, HOLD IT, was John at Genesis 1:1 to see, or hear, or touch the word?... NO, lets contuine.

1 John 1:2 "(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us. BINGO, that which was MANIFESTED,as the apostle Paul said "who is the figure of him that was to come". but John said, "which was with the Father", as said all time is one time for God, who was speaking of himself to come. for the "WITH" is the same person as I have explain many time from Isaiah 41:4 and isaiah 48:12 who is the same ONE person.

1 John 1:3 "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:4 "And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

so what beginning was the apostle John was talking about?, well let Mark confirm this. Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God". well see clear, the son of God has a beginning, but not at Genesis 1:1.... he was to COME, just as God prophesize in genesis 1:26 and was told in Romans 5:14b.

you see clear, we'll let you in on a mystery, the WORD is God himself, didn't you understand John 1:1c "and the WORD was GOD. it's the same ONE person who later diversified himself in flesh as the son to "COME". BINGO. for JESUS is the ONE TRUE GOD who made man male and female at the beginning. my, my, my when will they ever learn. no three persons, no two persons, only ONE ... and was to come "diversified", or "shared" in flesh.

People check what you're saying, because we wiil put scripture right in front of you.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

I really appreciate your response, thank you.

in the name of the Lord Jesus you're welcome. and be blessed.

PICJAG

 

[Muffled]

I do believe what the scriptures say. I wish you well, too.

I can't imagine why you would believe that but it certainly isn't the scriptures that definitely point to the identity of Jesus as God.

 

[101G]

I can't imagine why you would believe that but it certainly isn't the scriptures that definitely point to the identity of Jesus as God.

well who do you think Jesus is?

PICJAG

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO


1) THE WORD OF JOHN 1:1 EXISTED PRIOR TO HIS INCARNATION AT BIRTH

@Clear gave examples of early Christian theology where the Son of God (the word, the right hand, etc. ) existed with God when Adam was created. It is to the Son that God was speaking when he said "Let us make man in our image..." For examples :

“For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, … These things he said to the Son.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

“…he is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hands of men.?“ The Epistle of Barnabas 5:5

“ … that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the beginning of days, 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. ...” 1st Enoch 48:1-7;

God was “…the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the knowledge of the glory of his name. “ 1 Clement 59:2-3;


@101G responded : “the only problen with your statement above is this, "THE SON HAD NOT YET COME". grant it God was speaking of, of, of, of the Son to come, but the son was not manifested at the beginning,”

Read the sentence you wrote and the answer will stare you in the face.

Regarding the text you said “grant it, God was speaking of the Son to come….”.

the text you quote refers, as you admit, to the later birth (incarnation) of that same spirit into mortality as the Messiah, Jesus and NOT to the pre-creation time period when he was known by names such as "the Word".

101G, Why is your religion and your complicated interpretation of these texts to be preferred over the religion and their simple interpretations of early and more authentic Christian religion?


2) COMPARING 101Gs RELIGION AND INTERPRETATION OF TEXT WITH THE RELIGION OF EARLY CHRISTIANS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION OF TEXT

THE TEXT UNDER CONSIDERATION : The text of Genesis 1:26 LXX is : “And God said : “Let us make man according to our image and according to our likeness….”


DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TEXT 101G vs EARLY CHRISTIANS

In 101Gs interprets thusly : "Let US make man in OUR Image. understand the IMAGE, is the Figure, which means IMAGE, that was to COME. he was speaking future of himself "diversified" in flesh as the Son.

In early Christianity the text means just what it says. God made the man Adam in the image and likeness of his creator.

The word used for “Image” is icon (Greek “εικονα”) and the word for “likeness” is homoiosin (Greek = ομοιωσιν). An “Icon” (εικονα) is a visual likeness. A picture on the wall for example is an Icon. The word for “likeness” means something that is like something else (i.e. “similar to”) To make man according to our image simply means that Adam was to be made in the visual likeness of God and his Son.

Early Christianity did not need to produce tenuous metaphorical connections but could let the words mean what they seem to mean.


101G, Why is your religion and your complicated interpretation of these texts to be preferred over the religion and their simple interpretations of early and more authentic Christian religion?




3) DIFFERING BASE INTERPRETATIONS CREATE DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS


MAN CREATED IN GODS’ “IMAGE”

Consider, the sentence : “Man was created in the image of G-d.”: “And God made man. According to [the] image of God he made him.” (gen 1:27)

The greek LXX uses the term “εικονα“ (“Icon” in english) for “image” of God. Koine Greek used this term for actual, physical, visual descriptions of individuals in official documents.

For examples:
In BGU IV. (1 B.C.), “εικονα” (icon/image) is used to describe actual visual characteristics of a female slave (ης τα ετη και αι εικονις θποκεινται).
In P. Tebt I 32:21 (approx. 145 b.c.?) one finds this same usage as a visual characteristic as well.
In P Ryl II. 156.33 (approx first century a.d.) it describes multiple individuals and their physical appearance (εικονα).

Early sacred texts use εικονα in an actual, visual context as well.
For example, when Barnabas explained that though “… Moses had commanded, “You shall not have a cast or a carved image for your God, nevertheless he himself made one in order to show them a symbol of Jesus.” (Epistle of Barnabas 12:6), this is an εικονα / icon or image he speaks of and it is clearly a visual and physical “image” and not a metaphor.

The point is that “image” in this sense was a word used to describe an actual, real, image and is not metaphorical or symbolic in vernacular usage. I can't think of any single early koine greek example of εικονα that is clearly used in early texts in a metaphorical sense and not a visual representation. Can anyone else on the forum think of a single example? Even one?

I think 101G is trying to use εικονα metaphorically as a mechanism to try to make the early texts harmonize to his beliefs rather than to harmonize his beliefs to what the texts said.

This repeated process of creating metaphors to explain the many similar disagreements between text and belief partially explains the multiplication of theories among Christian movements. In fact, the process of producing different metaphors encourages schisms and splits based on differing metaphors and theories while the Christianity that takes this specific example at face value can use such descriptions in the common vernacular and obvious meaning WITHOUT the same problem of coherence and their inherent coherence and harmony decreases schisms on this specific point (though schisms may occur on other points).

This process of “metaphorizing” texts repeats itself multiple times in multiple ways on multiple points of doctrine, in order to create coherence between text and belief. At some point, such spiritualizing and metaphorizing of the text may become a reflex and a standard refuge to which one finds sheltering explanations for difficult passages. It is however, difficult to make any firm rule regarding what is actual and what is metaphor (since metaphors certainly do exist in early texts…).

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

EARLY TEXTUAL USEAGE OF EIKONA / IMAGE WERE, USUALLY A VISUAL DESCRIPTION

In the case of Adam being made in the εικονα, icon or "image" of God, it is clear in much of the early sacred texts, this was not a metaphorical doctrine in early Christianity.

For example, an early Christian text describes a clear physical/visual meaning to the use of εικονα . / “image” when

“ God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. …. “ Cave of treasures text

Contextual descriptions in such texts are clearly describing an actual visual appearance of Adam before his “fall”.

Such description don’t just use εικονα (or "image") as an indication of visual context, but also forms of greek ομοιωμα (or "likeness") are often also used in such descriptions of Adams’ appearance. Ομοιωμα is distinguished from εικων since it implies an archetype, the “likeness” or “form”.

The great Greek linguist Moulton, uses the example of ομιοωμα, “as one egg is like another” (The eggs are not exactly the same, but so close to the same that one may not tell the difference in his example from OGIS 669.62 (from first century a.d.). This is another “visual” context since, In other, non-visual contexts, one may see ομολογεω used, indicating two individuals simply “agree with” each another (without the indication of a visual “sameness”).

A good example of both words being used in such a context is from the early Christian text Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1 when Adam is told : “…God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God….” And “the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.” Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1

These two terms forms of εικονα and ομοιωμα became ingrained not only in texts, but into the oral liturgies and prayers of early Christianity. For example, in one Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer, the prayer reads :

“...you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness”... 24 But when man was disobedient, You took away his deserved life. 25 You did not make it disappear absolutely, but for a time, ...27 You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope!(aposCon 7.34.1-8)

Such examples often seen in early textual traditions are so obviously and consistently a physical, visual context that one cannot mistake some descriptions for metaphor.

For example from Jewish Haggadah repeats this same theme of physical appearance :

“When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are your works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration... ” (The Haggadah)

Whether early traditions are correct or not, still, they did conceive of Adam having the same image (εικονα) and likeness (ομοιωμα) as his creator.

In fact, the most common post c.e. tradition that is common to all three Abrahamic religions (i.e. early Judaism and Christianity AND early Islam) IS the tradition concerning the fall of Lucifer, and it concerns the honoring of Adam, as the image and likeness of God. Though the story/tradition exists in multiple texts common to all three Abrahamic traditions, Christian Vita is a good example of this genre of literature.

When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God, Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness...’ (Vita) 12:1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3

My point is that "image" and "likeness" used in Genesis 1:27 (LXX) were not generally used in any metaphorical sense in any common usage anciently.

The ancient Christians had a different religion than 101G and their interpretation of texts were different than 101Gs interpretation of scripture.


101G, Why is your religion and your complicated interpretation of these texts to be preferred over the religion and their simple interpretations of early and more authentic Christian religion?


Clear
εισενεσιφιω

 

[101G]

Read the sentence you wrote and the answer will stare you in the face. Regarding the text you said “grant it, God was speaking of the Son to come….”.
So even you realize the sentence you refer to is not referring to the Messiah as a spirit that had prior existence when he created the world, but the text you quote refers, as you admit, to the later birth (incarnation) of that same spirit into mortality as the Messiah, Jesus.

101G, Why is your religion and your complicated interpretation of these texts to be preferred over the religion and their simple interpretations of early and more authentic Christian religion?

what was written is staring you in the face. and you know it. just one example,
John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made"

Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself"

you know that this is the same Spirit that "MADE ALL THING". there is no two Spirits, for God is a,a,a, Spirit one. so read my post again, this is exactly what I said.

The ancient Christians had a different religion than 101G and their interpretation of texts were different than 101Gs interpretation of scripture.


101G, Why is your religion and your complicated interpretation of these texts to be preferred over the religion and their simple interpretations of early and more authentic Christian religion?

they are the same, and YES, the spirit to come was the Messiah. I see from your reply, you have no clue of the difference between the Son of man, and the son of God. for if you would have know you would have not asked that question.

that's why what I said is the same thing that the apostle, and the disciple said. and their religion is no different from what i believe, "Holiness", and our doctrine is "Diversity". which is a oneness doctrine, a "diversified oneness" doctrine..... .
so i suggest you get an understanding of the son of man, (the spirit to come, the son, the messiah), and the son of God, (the flesh that he, God diversified himself in). BINGO..

PICJAG

 

[Katzpur]

I can't imagine why you would believe that but it certainly isn't the scriptures that definitely point to the identity of Jesus as God.

I'm confused, Muffled. Is this remark directed to me or to 101G? When you say, "I can't imagine why you would believe that," I don't know what "that" is referring to.

 

[101G]

@Clear, understand, I'm not teaching another gospel, no, but the same gospel, just using different words to describe what the apostles, and the disciple used in their time. see my gospel that the Lord Jesus gave me is the exact same Gospel he gave all of his apostles, and disciples. so there is nothing NEW here, only words. let me give you an example. when I say "diversity" I'm saying "Offspring" and Jesus said that he is the "Offspring" of David, see Revelation 22:16.

now what do "Offspring" means? it's the Greek word,
G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n.
kin.
{abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective}
[from G1096]
KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock
Root(s): G1096

see how I'm using "offspring" now... as "diversity". what I'm saying is right in the bible, just using another word to say the same thing..... and the messiah is the "offspring, or the "diversity of God in flesh...

see, "offspring"/diversity is the kin or KINsman Redeemer that was to come in flesh.... see how I'm using it now. I'm just saying the same thing in another way.... (smile). understand, God is the KIN... Kinsman Redeemer in flesh as the Son of Man, again which was to come, the same Spirit who "MADE ALL THINGS" in the beginning, before he diversified himself in flesh.... BINGO. yes the same one person in John 1:3 is the same one person in Isaiah 44:24 only now at his comming in a diverse state in flesh as the Son of God. see the difference now. the son of God was not in the OT, other words the flesh was not in the OT as GOD. so he was not in the beginning when he made all thing, as the Lord Jesus himself who is the one in Genesis 1:26 abd 27 said that "he" was the only one there in the beginning. and he don't lie. so yes, he was alone and by himself when he made all things. that's why my Doctrine that God gave me is the exact doctrine he gave his apostles and disciple. as I pointed out in another topic with Ananias in Paul conversion.

the same gospel, the same doctrine, but I use different words for the same thing....

PICJAG.

 

[Clear]

Hi @101G :

Another poster said to you that “…you aren't making any sense to me at all.” (post #702)
I admit that I feel the same way. I read your last two posts twice and am finding it difficult to follow any rational thought.

For example You describe your doctrine thusly : “…what I said is the same thing that the apostle, and the disciple said. and their religion is no different from what i believe, "Holiness", and our doctrine is "Diversity". which is a oneness doctrine, a "diversified oneness" doctrine.” (101G in post #715)

This sort of statement is so disjointed that I cannot follow the logic at all.
Is it possible for you to pause, then take some time, gather your thoughts more clearly and then try to explain your base theory in a logical, coherent way?

Also, your biblical text and your religion and your interpretations are different than the text and religion and interpretation of the Early Christians. Your religion is much more difficult to understand than the religion and interpretations of the early Christians and their texts are more correct than what you are using.

Can you try again to explain your religious theory more simply?


I hope your spiritual journey is insightful and good 101G


Clear
εισιτζφιειω

 

[101G]

Hi @101G :

Another poster said to you that “…you aren't making any sense to me at all.” (post #702)
I admit that I feel the same way. I read your last two posts twice and am finding it difficult to follow any rational thought.

For example You describe your doctrine thusly : “…what I said is the same thing that the apostle, and the disciple said. and their religion is no different from what i believe, "Holiness", and our doctrine is "Diversity". which is a oneness doctrine, a "diversified oneness" doctrine.” (101G in post #715)

This sort of statement is so disjointed that I cannot follow the logic at all.
Is it possible for you to pause, then take some time, gather your thoughts more clearly and then try to explain your base theory in a logical, coherent way?

Also, your biblical text and your religion and your interpretations are different than the text and religion and interpretation of the Early Christians. Your religion is much more difficult to understand than the religion and interpretations of the early Christians and their texts are more correct than what you are using.

Can you try again to explain your religious theory more simply?


I hope your spiritual journey is insightful and good 101G


Clear
εισιτζφιειω

First thanks for the reply, second, I thank you for taking an intrest in what I'm saying. I will make it short and simple and to the point. in post #717 I gave the basic understanding of "Diversity", or "Offspring".

now just a touch of technical information.
A. God is the "another" EQUAL of himself "shared" in flesh as the Son, per Phil 2:6.

B. this "sharing" of oneself in natural flesh is identifed by the Greek term G243 Allos, which "expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort". now that right there is the heart of the doctrine. where trinitarians have put the Holy Spirit as a third person, in fact he's the ONLY person in the Godhead who shares the title "Father" and "Son" in a diversified state, that's the numerical difference. understand G243 allos express a "NUMERICAL DIFFERENCE", meaning more than one, but as the definition states, "of the SAME SORT". that's how God is a plurality of, of, of, himself in flesh, as title holder of "Father" and "Son". that's how he's one God, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD". but at the same time holding both titles as "Father" and "Son" a plurality of himself at the "SAME TIME".

C. the term "Offspring" simply shows the Lord God in his "diversified" states as Son, per Revelation 22:16. and the Greek term for "Offspring" is G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n. which means
kin. (that's how he got the title "son of man), because he came in just what we're in FLESH, spirits in flesh)
{abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective}
[from G1096]
KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock
Root(s): G1096
as you can see from the above definition, the kjv can translate the term "offspring" as "Diversity", hence my doctrine, "Diversified Oneness". a numerical difference of ONE as the plurality of himself in flesh.

now My source for for these terms that I have used. my work can be quickly confirm. so that you may read and better understand what I'm saying, (read for yourself).

G243 ἄλλος allos (al'-los) adj. "ANOTHER", is from the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n. "Offspring", is from Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments.

If you have any question please ask. understand something, I know you have never hear of this doctrine before, but as said, it's biblical, "the OFFSPRING". but the bible is true,
Mark 16:17 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues" A new tongue is not "Another" Language, nor an Unknow tongue, but a NEW TONGUE. and this NEW TONGUE is "diversity".

Now you have just some of the scriptures, and the definitions to back up what I posted. and let me tell you something, please understand this clear, I was not taught this by any man, but by God himself. that's why I'm confident in his Knowledge, not mine. it has been tested over and over and yet it stand. as the teacher Gamaliel said, "But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God", acts 5:39. that's how much confident I am in him and his doctrine.

PICJAG.

 

[Clear]

Is there any other poster reading 101Gs post #719 (the post prior to this) that has any idea what 101G is saying?
Anyone who has read 101Gs’ theory and can actually explain it in clear and logical language?


@101G :

I apologize, but I have read your last post through several times and I simply can’t follow the logic of your religious theory despite your attempt to present it in its simplest form.

However, my own interests lies in authentic historic Christianity and its earliest beliefs; its early literature and its earliest characteristics. I honestly don’t have much interest in later Christian movements and in new religious theories unless they provide insight and understanding into historical Christian worldviews. .

I don’t want to discourage you from creating new personal models of religious principles, but your theory is simply not historically coherent enough to offer any historical insights. At least not as far as I am able to tell.

I wish you the best of spiritual journeys and insights as you attempt to form your beliefs and to communicate clearly to others what it is you believe. Good luck 101G.

Clear
εισιειτζακω