Well... Jesus says his own words are spirit and life and will set men free from sin if they continue as disciples of and in his words. He says that the Queen of Sheba and the people of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Solomon and Jonah and yet one greater than them is preaching and folks in certain cities still would not repent. The NT and the OT both deserve to be studied and addressed without making bold generalizations that mislead folks into thinking they are singular entities that can be dismissed out of hand. Both books are collections of copies of the copies of the copies and contain the views and perspectives of many men and women who lived centuries apart. And yet one theme is without question the most important and that is that God created us in his image that we might find fellowship with him.
Two points here, I would like to bring to your attention: The first is that there is an enormous difference between the NT and the Tanakh. While this was written by Jews, which for us, it doesn't matter who, since they were from among the Jewish People, the NT was written by Hellenist Gentiles former disciples of Paul who had a mind only on promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.
The second point is that God did not create us in His image, because God is Incorporeal, and there is no image in incorporeality. (Deut. 4:15-18) Therefore, the passage of Genesis 1:26 must not be interpreted on a literal manner but metaphorically as follows:
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
