ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26 -
April 5th, 2009, 06:45 AM
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.
Threat is not the word. The Truth cannot be threatened. The problem is that the Trinity mars the image of Judaism in the world among those who don't know that the Faith of Jesus was absolutely Monotheistic.
What are the references in the Torah that you would use to demonstrate that God is incorporeal? -Thanks!
There are many; but here is a classical one: "You saw no form at all on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Be strictly on your guard, therefore,
not to degrade yourselves by fashioning an idol to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or of a woman. (Deut. 4:15,16)
Slogan/motto:
"And it came to pass that we lived after the manner of happiness."
- 2nd Nephi 5:27
Reputation:
April 5th, 2009, 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
There are many; but here is a classical one: "You saw no form at all on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Be strictly on your guard, therefore,
not to degrade yourselves by fashioning an idol to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or of a woman. (Deut. 4:15,16)
Ben:
Thanks. Could you oblige me with 2 more? I'll take a look at these.
Personification of Attributes -...The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man...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...but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man...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...The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.
Ben
You repeatedly used the phrase "attributes of God" or "God's attributes" yet never described them.
Could you describe (or list) what you believe those attributes of God are?
Slogan/motto:
Ps82 KJV You will die like mere men, you will fall like one of the princes
Reputation:
April 5th, 2009, 01:19 PM
Hi Ben,
I embrace your Jewishness ... for I know that the LORD and My LORD has embraced your people as his covenant remnant of Israel, but I know that their/your interpretation of the scriptures may often be different from the way Christians see things. I appreciate what you have shared ... but may I now share the way I see things? I promise you in several ways it will be very different from what you have heard before.
You said:
Quote:
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.
It is my understanding that the word Elohiym is a collective noun. I'm sure you understand that a collective noun is a word that is used the same way in sentence structure as a singular word. IOW A singular noun takes a singular verb not a plural verb.
But, actually, Elohiym and other collective nouns are representing an essence of plurality. For example: The team is (a singular verb) in the locker room... Instead of saying - The team are (a plural verb) in the locker room.
Elohiym/God is ONE ... but he is of a spiritual essence that is just so xxx divine that a regular singular noun could not and should not be used to describe all that he is. When you add the fact that God is life ... then you begin to realize that all of his nature is totally and equally alive! This is an important characteristic of his nature.
You said:
Quote:
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.
Yes, I agree with you that Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. I would say it this way ... Elohiym/God is an invisible spirit and a spirit essence probably does not reflect light ... but I believe that God was literally able to bring forth visible things out of his own invisible nature. Things like forming the ground and then forming mankind a body from the elements of that visible ground are two great examples of how God was able to bring forth visible things... not only manifesting visible things ... but also imparting a measure of his life essence unto those things! For example mankind.
Now, if God was able to do this sort of thing for the ground and for living mankind ... then I would never attempt to limit HIS ability to do the same sort of thing for himself and his purposes.
You said.
Quote:
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.
Your goal to explain such things, which seem difficult to many, is admirable ... but the precise explanations are so clearly explained within these simple sentences. All one needs to do is just remember that the scriptures are divinely inspired, are true, and for enlightenment or revelation - not for confusion.
You said:
Quote:
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.
Without taking the sentences line by line and through the process of correctly diagramming the sentences and locating the correct antecedents for all the pronouns, let's, instead, just look at the contextual clues that make things clear for us.
First, Elohiym is a collective noun (IOW - a plural noun - like team or committee - but which is used grammatically as if it were a singular noun. There is nothing wrong with using plural pronouns to talk about a collective word. The visiting team is in the locker room, and they all have on their uniforms.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with talking about a ONE God with a plural nature and then using plural pronouns like our and us to refer to him.
The visiting team is in the stadium, and it is ready to play.
The visiting team is in the stadium, and they are all putting on their uniforms.
Now concerning the pronoun 'them." Well mankind was literally first "a THEM." God created THEM as male and female. Mankind had a plural nature. Actually, MAN / ADAM is actually also a collective noun - especially when it is used in the sense of mankind.
The simple truth is that God created a collective called mankind / Adam ... and THEY were male and female ... but God placed the collective nature of mankind within ONE VISIBLE physical bodily form. We now accept that the first IMAGE of the first Adam was that of a male presence. Only later was a female presence manifested for female who was brought forth - wo-man - for she came from out of MAN.
If diagramming these sentences, then the pronoun THEM would perfectly reflect the collective noun MAN / mankind.
Your Conclusion was:
Quote:
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.
I do disagree. The leaders of Israel, being imperfect humans like all other humans, soon lost the reality of the complete identity of their covenant God... by weaving in and out of the influences of gentile nations around them the accepted ideas about false gods often blurred the truth about the ONE TRUE GOD. The LORD God often warned them that this would be a serious thing for them to do ... but it happened anyway.
What was the truth that was lost?
Yes, there is ONE invisible omni-everything GOD, but he was able to create and manifest for himself a living visible IMAGE for his divine purposes. He was able to manifest that divine IMAGE within the creation when ever he chose. There was/is ONE GOD and ONE IMAGE for representing all of his nature.
And the scriptures tell us that 74 men saw his created glorious image at one time!
Exodus 24:
9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and 70 of the elders of Israel:
10 And THEY SAW THE GOD OF ISRAEL: and there was under HIS feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as IT(what they saw) were THE BODY OF HEAVEN in HIS clearness.
11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel HE laid not HIS hand: also THEY SAW GOD, and (they) did eat and drink.
I hope you don't come back with some argument about these verses being examples of unclear figurative language ... because then I will know that you are simply searching to deny the truth found within the scriptures.
I hope I've written something that rings a bell with your knowledge.
Have a nice day.
Slogan/motto:
Ps82 KJV You will die like mere men, you will fall like one of the princes
Reputation:
April 5th, 2009, 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
There are many; but here is a classical one: "You saw no form at all on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Be strictly on your guard, therefore,
not to degrade yourselves by fashioning an idol to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or of a woman. (Deut. 4:15,16)
Ben:
Hi Ben,
Do you know why the children of Israel saw no similitude or form of the LORD at the event at Mt. Horeb?
Yes, it is true that they saw no divine form that day ... but there was a reason why they did not see the LORD.
I know the reason they did not see the LORD at the event a Mt. Horeb... and it was not because God does not have a created visible form, which he is able to use for his purposes within the creation.
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
Greetings Ben,
This brings up the issue of the 'personal' and 'impersonal' aspects of 'God' I've shared on elsewhere. Your analysis on the use of 'us' and 'our' in Gen. 1:26 is an interesting take, if but for a counter-trinitarian perspective. However,...such could be open to other 'interpretations',...for 'God' could be 'personified' just as much as an 'attribute' could be, and probably more rationally. 'God' is recognized in some schools as being a 'divine Personality', or called the 'Supreme Person'.
Still,...'God' as 'Elohim', being a plurality of Majesty,....ever retains eternal Oneness of BEING. We therefore uphold that 'God is One'. Oneness is prior, eternal, ultimate. - however,..within 'God' the One,...arises the Many(plurality, multiplicity)...and the concept of an Original Trinity can still 'be', without affecting the Integrity of Oneness of the Primordial Deity. God is 'One',...yet a Godhead includes a primeval association of relational beings or 'personalities', - The Universal Father, Eternal Son, Infinite Spirit. - from this Original Godhead,....all evolutions of Existence proceed and have their divine Center.
Looking over this wonderful subject of 'personhood', we see its many dimensionsal contexts and applications. As a meta-theist gleaning from many schools,..I see 'God' in all his various attributes/qualities...and also the more impersonal pure essences of 'Spirit' which to us appear to be without any attributes or qualities. With-in 'God' there is both the 'definitive' and 'indefinitive'.
In any case,...while essentially a strict Monotheist, but more of a Monist,....I see the Oneness of God as Absolute, the Unity of Life being primal. 'God' is forever ONE, for only One Supreme BEING exists, however....a Trinity-conception of Original Deity (the Father/Mother Monad or Fountainhead of all Existence)...poses no problems for me. All is One,...yet many diversifications, relationships, personifications arise within that Oneness. And so we have the many dimensions of Life, 'appearing' within the One Infinity.
Slogan/motto:
Ps82 KJV You will die like mere men, you will fall like one of the princes
Reputation:
April 5th, 2009, 03:09 PM
Hi Freelight,
Well I agree with Freelight that there is ONE God with a plural nature. I think that understanding that the nature of the ONE God can be expressed as being made up of uniquely identifiable, equal, living, components is what is very fascinating.
I have no problem with the trinity ... and I do think the scriptures support the idea that God wants to be known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I accept this, bu, at the same time, I do not limit God to only choosing to be known as THREE. He has the potential to be more than three if it were to be his will ... but the question is: Was it his will ... or did he only select three divine personages to be the God Head?
My ideas about ONE God with ONE image would explain things this way:
God with his pluralistic infinite living invisible nature is able to represent ALL of his nature with ONE image. If God wanted to represent himself as the ONE God, then he would appear singularly with his created image named LORD. Exodus 33 (mid) - 34(beginning).
If he wanted to represent himself as three divine personages then he would simply need to manifest his ONE image, named Lord, three times ... like perfect lordly triplets. Genesis 18-19.
I think there is evidence within the OT scriptures that God did manifest his ONE visible presence in identical multiples as well as singularly.
The key to understanding the manner in which God chose to work within the environments that HE created ... is to understand how God used his personal ONE IMAGE. The IMAGE is not God, but is a created living visible representative for him.
Humanly speaking people can decide to created a single flag to represent the collective nature of a nation... that flag can even be flowing singularly or in identical multiple ... but the difference between a national man made flag and the IMAGE that represents the collective nature of an invisible God is this:
God can create a walking talking living image to represent him!
The image of God was first mentioned in Gen.1 and he was first described as walking and talking within the creation in Gen.2 and his name was revealed to Moses in Exodus 33-34.
This is how Moses knew the correct way to use THE NAME OF THE LORD in the scriptures as he recorded the first 5 books of the Bible.
Well I agree with Freelight that there is ONE God with a plural nature. I think that understanding that the nature of the ONE God can be expressed as being made up of uniquely identifiable, equal, living, components is what is very fascinating.
I have no problem with the trinity ... and I do think the scriptures support the idea that God wants to be known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I accept this, but, at the same time, I do not limit God to only choosing to be known as THREE. He has the potential to be more than three if it were to be his will ... but the question is: Was it his will ... or did he only select three divine personages to be the God Head?
Shekinah blessings Ps82
All Glory to the One.
The One Supreme Will resonates within the Center of the Universal Father, the Eternal Son, and the Infinite Spirit, so that these 3 personalities make up the Original Trinity, from which all creation arises and is patterned after, the Godhead being that Infinite Intelligence governing and guiding the Whole. 'God' is the Center and the circumfrence, with the threshold of outer space ever latent with expanding creation.
The Eternal will is innate within the Father-Source, the I AM...and is relationally and effectively realized and mediated within and thru the Trinity-administration, on down thru all emenating heirarchies of demi-gods, angels, spirit-beings, elementals, etc...serving in their respective orders in the various dimensions.
As we have shared, asides from more meticulous explanations of the Trinity from dogmatic orthodox trinitarian schools,...in a meta-logical sense,...a fundamental understanding of the primacy of God's Oneness ever retains. Hence the claim for an authentic 'monotheism' holds, by their definition. If anything, the Christian conception of the Trinity supports variations of monotheism, monism and polytheism, depending on how one dimensionally qualifies things.
No matter,...the glory, supremacy and primacy of the Infinite ONE reigns....however it is diversified or divested in the manifold expresssions of personalities or the multiplicity of matter-ial Creation.
Slogan/motto:
Ps82 KJV You will die like mere men, you will fall like one of the princes
Reputation:
April 6th, 2009, 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freelight
Shekinah blessings Ps82
All Glory to the One.
The One Supreme Will resonates within the Center of the Universal Father, the Eternal Son, and the Infinite Spirit, so that these 3 personalities make up the Original Trinity, from which all creation arises and is patterned after, the Godhead being that Infinite Intelligence governing and guiding the Whole. 'God' is the Center and the circumfrence, with the threshold of outer space ever latent with expanding creation.
The Eternal will is innate within the Father-Source, the I AM...and is relationally and effectively realized and mediated within and thru the Trinity-administration, on down thru all emenating heirarchies of demi-gods, angels, spirit-beings, elementals, etc...serving in their respective orders in the various dimensions.
As we have shared, asides from more meticulous explanations of the Trinity from dogmatic orthodox trinitarian schools,...in a meta-logical sense,...a fundamental understanding of the primacy of God's Oneness ever retains. Hence the claim for an authentic 'monotheism' holds, by their definition. If anything, the Christian conception of the Trinity supports variations of monotheism, monism and polytheism, depending on how one dimensionally qualifies things.
No matter,...the glory, supremacy and primacy of the Infinite ONE reigns....however it is diversified or divested in the manifold expresssions of personalities or the multiplicity of matter-ial Creation.
pj
Hi Freelight,
Sometimes I seem to agree with you in many ways - as with your post above. I just couldn't find anything with which I would argue.
Now, if you begin putting names to the demi-gods and elementals and begin talking about our becoming ONE (as in equal) with God one day ... I might start having trouble.
But, I definitely think that God has created various realms and has designated various lesser created beings to function within those realms.
God IS ONE ... He able to exist in ways that are hard for us to understand ... and can accomplish things in ways that are beyond our thinking.
No wonder we, as the church of believers, are called the Body of Christ ... We may not be equal with God, but he is in us in measured ways ... and in some way we are part of his totality.
Personalizing 'God' -
April 5th, 2009, 02:05 PM
Linear Mode
