What is the express image of God?

[keypurr]

Your answer leaves me with more questions:
a.) Does your answer mean that you do not believe the OT scripture Exodus 24:9,10,11,12? You don't believe that they saw a body of heaven in his clearness?

b.) Do you believe that the form they saw was a super-natural presence representing the future fleshly form of our Lord Jesus?

I may agree with you about this comment?

a.) I think they saw a form of God, maybe Christ.
b.) Possiable

I also agree with you in this way. God created an image for his personal use ... and that image was to be used for manifesting the WORD of God, our Savior, in flesh in the future.

I believe that when anyone saw this super-natural image then they had seen a FORM of what would one day be seen as "the son of man / Son of God" in flesh. Until the time of our Lord Jesus no one had ever seen that FORM in flesh.

Christ exsisted before Jesus, I believe he is involved much more that I first thought.

But you need to now address the truth in this verse:
Isaiah 43:11
I (God), even I AM, the LORD, beside ME (God) there is no savior.

I think both the Father and his son are the saviours. As they are one in purpose. And one is the express image of the other.

So in Exodus 24:9,10,11,12 these 74 men saw a FORM God created
for revealing himself ... as:
Well, according to Christ who said that he and the Father are ONE, then there are actually two entities recognized as the ONE God.
According to all that is found in scripture about the manifestation of the both of them (OT and NT times), then the only conclusion is that these two, who are ONE, are:
a.) The Father who is God (manifested body of heaven)
b.) The Son, who is God's WORD, who is God (manifested flesh)

If Christ reveiled himself to Moses and the 74 would the wording be the same. Is Christ the God mentioned here? We know that Christ is a form of God, God calls him a God, yet there is but one God. Jesus says that there is one TRUE God, his Father, who is called the most high God. A lot of questions have been opened up to me this year, My thoughts are evolving arouind a little. I wish I knew Greek and Hebrew friend, I might be able to find beter answers for you.

Peace

 

[Bright Raven]

Jesus is the Christ. Old Testament revealings are called Theophanies. Who was in the fiery furnace with Shaddrack, Meshak, and Abbednigo?

 

[keypurr]

Jesus is the Christ. Old Testament revealings are called Theophanies. Who was in the fiery furnace with Shaddrack, Meshak, and Abbednigo?

I go alone with Christ, but Jesus was not born yet.

That brings up more questions BR, when did Jesus become the son of man? I bet you lay awake nights thinking of ways to keep me thinking.

 

[Bright Raven]

I go alone with Christ, but Jesus was not born yet.

That brings up more questions BR, when did Jesus become the son of man? I bet you lay awake nights thinking of ways to keep me thinking.

Nope, they just come to me.

 

[Bright Raven]

Here's one for you Friend. Who is it that is spoken of in Genesis 3:15


Gen 3
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

 

[keypurr]

Here's one for you Friend. Who is it that is spoken of in Genesis 3:15


Gen 3
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

Most likely the same guy that became a pillar of fire for Moses and his folks. Or walked with Abraham. Or walk in the Garden of Eden.

 

[keypurr]

Nope, they just come to me.

Take a sleeping pill tonight, I need the rest.

 

[Paulos]

I think both the Father and his son are the saviours. As they are one in purpose. And one is the express image of the other.

Col 1:15a
He is the image of the invisible God...

Deut 16:22 KJV
Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth.​

If Jesus is the image of the invisible God (cf. 2 Cor 4:4 and Heb 1:3), then is it appropriate to worship him or is it idolatry?

If "an image of God is not God", then the image of God should not be worshiped, correct?

An image of God is NOT God, it is an image of God, a creation.

He is the firstborn of all creatures, a creation.

If the "image of God is NOT God", as you say, then to worship the image of God would be idolatry because it is idolatry to worship that which is not God.

But then you say that the Father is the express image of the Son, and the Son is the express image of the Father. If that is so, then to worship one is to worship the other. If you worship the Father, then you are worshiping the Son, because the Father is the express image of the Son. Likewise, if you worship the Son, then you are worshiping the Father, because the Son is the express image of the Father. But, if the "image of God is NOT God", as you say, then to worship the image of God is idolatry. But if you worship the Father, and the Father is the image of the Son, then you are worshiping the Son and not the Father. On the other hand, if you worship the Son, then you are not worshiping the Son but the Father, because the Son is the express image of the Father.

So which is it?

 

[Bright Raven]

Col 1:15a
He is the image of the invisible God...

Deut 16:22 KJV
Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth.​

If Jesus is the image of the invisible God (cf. 2 Cor 4:4 and Heb 1:3), then is it appropriate to worship him or is it idolatry?

If "an image of God is not God", then the image of God should not be worshiped, correct?

Correct!

 

[Ps82]

a.) I think they saw a form of God, maybe Christ.
b.) Possiable




Christ exsisted before Jesus, I believe he is involved much more that I first thought.



I think both the Father and his son are the saviours. As they are one in purpose. And one is the express image of the other.



If Christ reveiled himself to Moses and the 74 would the wording be the same. Is Christ the God mentioned here? We know that Christ is a form of God, God calls him a God, yet there is but one God. Jesus says that there is one TRUE God, his Father, who is called the most high God. A lot of questions have been opened up to me this year, My thoughts are evolving arouind a little. I wish I knew Greek and Hebrew friend, I might be able to find beter answers for you.

Peace

Our thinking is so close at times, but now I've gained some insight into your thinking that I've never noticed before.

You make a distinction between Christ and Jesus. I actually don't think I am opposed to pondering this idea.

By noting a difference between Christ and Jesus do you mean:
a.) Christ eternally existed before Jesus?
b.) Christ was manifested in the OT times of a super-natural FORM before Jesus was manifested in his day with a natural fleshly form?
c.) Do you consider Christ to be God?

 

[keypurr]

Col 1:15a
He is the image of the invisible God...

Deut 16:22 KJV
Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth.​

If Jesus is the image of the invisible God (cf. 2 Cor 4:4 and Heb 1:3), then is it appropriate to worship him or is it idolatry?

If "an image of God is not God", then the image of God should not be worshiped, correct?



If the "image of God is NOT God", as you say, then to worship the image of God would be idolatry because it is idolatry to worship that which is not God.

But then you say that the Father is the express image of the Son, and the Son is the express image of the Father. If that is so, then to worship one is to worship the other. If you worship the Father, then you are worshiping the Son, because the Father is the express image of the Son. Likewise, if you worship the Son, then you are worshiping the Father, because the Son is the express image of the Father. But, if the "image of God is NOT God", as you say, then to worship the image of God is idolatry. But if you worship the Father, and the Father is the image of the Son, then you are worshiping the Son and not the Father. On the other hand, if you worship the Son, then you are not worshiping the Son but the Father, because the Son is the express image of the Father.

So which is it?

Would an express image of God be another deity or a copy of the same deity? I would say it is the same.

The son is the image of the Father, not the father being the image of the son. If we are seeing the image as a spirit, because God is spirit, one is God and one is the image or likeness of God. Who would be greater between the two, God or his image?

Christ has a God, he is the image. He says that his father is the only true God. But Christ is a form of, or lesser god, for an image is a creation. The Father is not a creation, but I think Christ is. The father is called the most high God, so it appears that there must be more than one, yet there is only one TRUE God. Maybe that is why the Apostle Paul says we have one God and one Lord.

Peace friend

 

[keypurr]

Our thinking is so close at times, but now I've gained some insight into your thinking that I've never noticed before.

You make a distinction between Christ and Jesus. I actually don't think I am opposed to pondering this idea.

By noting a difference between Christ and Jesus do you mean:
a.) Christ eternally existed before Jesus?
b.) Christ was manifested in the OT times of a super-natural FORM before Jesus was manifested in his day with a natural fleshly form?
c.) Do you consider Christ to be God?

I see Christ to be a lower form of God, a spirit. I see this spirit as a creation of the Father, his first creation. I am so glad your seeing this distinction between Christ and Jesus. Christ spoke through Jesus, Christ is as God, yet not the God.

I see Christ walking in the Garden with Adam and Eve. Christ and his Father are the we/us/our in the Book of Genesis. I do not see Jesus there, he was born to Mary many years later. He was foretold by the prophets as the kinsman who would come and save us from sin. Jesus was given this Christ spirit to do wonders in the name of his father.
Jesus was God's son in the flesh, Christ is God's son in the spirit.

God bless

 

[Bright Raven]

I see Christ to be a lower form of God, a spirit. I see this spirit as a creation of the Father, his first creation. I am so glad your seeing this distinction between Christ and Jesus. Christ spoke through Jesus, Christ is as God, yet not the God.

Isaiah 43:10

10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,

“And My servant whom I have chosen,

So that you may know and believe Me

And understand that I am He.

Before Me there was no God formed,

And there will be none after Me.

 

[Ps82]

I see Christ to be a lower form of God, a spirit. I see this spirit as a creation of the Father, his first creation. I am so glad your seeing this distinction between Christ and Jesus. Christ spoke through Jesus, Christ is as God, yet not the God.

I see Christ walking in the Garden with Adam and Eve. Christ and his Father are the we/us/our in the Book of Genesis. I do not see Jesus there, he was born to Mary many years later. He was foretold by the prophets as the kinsman who would come and save us from sin. Jesus was given this Christ spirit to do wonders in the name of his father.
Jesus was God's son in the flesh, Christ is God's son in the spirit.

God bless

May I try to show you just how close we in some ways to thinking the same way. By substituting my terminology and points of interpretation within your own paragraphs, I hope to point out likes and differences.


I (Ps82) see the IMAGE named LORD to be a lower (created) form of God, a spiritual presence. I see this spiritual presence as a creation of the Father, his first creation.

We are very similar here in that we both believe there was a living entity that was created by God for his use. You call that living entity "Christ" ... I call him the IMAGE of God

You then mentioned:

I am so glad your seeing this distinction between Christ and Jesus. Christ spoke through Jesus, Christ is as God, yet not the God.

I can only agree with you here in part of what you say ... if you believed that the spiritual Christ was God or, at least, the spiritual living WORD of God as is described in John 1:1,2, then we would be thinking alike, but you don't.

I cannot agree that the one who spoke through Jesus was something other than equal to God himself. To me it is the IMAGE that was created as the first born of every creature ... and that the ONE speaking through the image ... and through Jesus is God himself. These two truths are revealed in the NT in Colossians 1:15, we are told that The IMAGE is the first born of every creature... and then in John 3:34,35 we are told that Jesus only spoke the words of God the Father.

Well, I'm glad that you are, at least, seeing a distinction between an OT spiritual form and the fleshly form of Jesus. I would say things like this:
God spoke through the super-natural Christ-like bodily form in the OT, but then God later also spoke through the fleshly Christ-like bodily form of Jesus in the NT.

continued:
I (PS82) certainly believe that God was able to walk in the Garden with Adam and Eve. The Spiritual God did so by manifesting His selected created living presence ... which I believe you are referring to as the spiritual Christ.

We differ a bit here, becauseI understand the ONE, who you call the spiritual Christ, to be the actual WORD of God manifested as a visible presence, who was also recognized as the Father God of Israel at that time.

The Father and the Christ are the ONE God, but they are also the "we/us/our" that is mentioned within the Book of Genesis. The Father and the Son are ONE God, and remain the "we/us/our" that is mentioned in scripture.

continued:
You say that you do not see Jesus in the OT times, and I agree only in this way.
John 1:18 tells us that no man at anytime hath seen, God, the begotten Son ... That's because in the OT when anyone beheld the ONE you call "The Christ," but I call "the IMAGE of the LORD," they saw a super-natural presence and NOT the fleshly form that Jesus bore later.

Yes, The WORD of God manifested as the created living form of God, which you call the Christ, was born to Mary many years later. He (the Christ to come as visible flesh) was foretold by the prophets as the kinsman who would come and save us from sin... he was identified as Emmanuel (meaning God with us).

Now your last statement still shows our differences.

Jesus was given this Christ spirit to do wonders in the name of his father.
Jesus was God's son in the flesh, Christ is God's son in the spirit.

I would say this:
Jesus was given the spirit of God to do wonders in the name of the Father ... (the Father being identified by men in the OT as the ONE God who was able to appear with a super-natural created living body of heaven form among them as the God of Israel. Exodus 24:9,10,11,12 You choose to call him "The Christ."

I hope this helped rather than confused!!!

 

[Bright Raven]

Hey Keypurr, where have you been friend?

 

[keypurr]

May I try to show you just how close we in some ways to thinking the same way. By substituting my terminology and points of interpretation within your own paragraphs, I hope to point out likes and differences.


I (Ps82) see the IMAGE named LORD to be a lower (created) form of God, a spiritual presence. I see this spiritual presence as a creation of the Father, his first creation.

We are very similar here in that we both believe there was a living entity that was created by God for his use. You call that living entity "Christ" ... I call him the IMAGE of God

You then mentioned:


I can only agree with you here in part of what you say ... if you believed that the spiritual Christ was God or, at least, the spiritual living WORD of God as is described in John 1:1,2, then we would be thinking alike, but you don't.

Friend, I am so galad you see what i am saying, most do not.
That image is a godlike representative of God. He acts and speaks for God. I do not think he is equal to the god that sent him.

I cannot agree that the one who spoke through Jesus was something other than equal to God himself. To me it is the IMAGE that was created as the first born of every creature ... and that the ONE speaking through the image ... and through Jesus is God himself. These two truths are revealed in the NT in Colossians 1:15, we are told that The IMAGE is the first born of every creature... and then in John 3:34,35 we are told that Jesus only spoke the words of God the Father.

Keep in mind that the IMAGE is a creature. Yet it has been given godlike power. The image would also only speak the words of his father.

Well, I'm glad that you are, at least, seeing a distinction between an OT spiritual form and the fleshly form of Jesus. I would say things like this:
God spoke through the super-natural Christ-like bodily form in the OT, but then God later also spoke through the fleshly Christ-like bodily form of Jesus in the NT.

Yes I do see his presence in the OT.

continued:
I (PS82) certainly believe that God was able to walk in the Garden with Adam and Eve. The Spiritual God did so by manifesting His selected created living presence ... which I believe you are referring to as the spiritual Christ.

We differ a bit here, becauseI understand the ONE, who you call the spiritual Christ, to be the actual WORD of God manifested as a visible presence, who was also recognized as the Father God of Israel at that time.

The Father and the Christ are the ONE God, but they are also the "we/us/our" that is mentioned within the Book of Genesis. The Father and the Son are ONE God, and remain the "we/us/our" that is mentioned in scripture.

The reason why I see two as father and son is the son is the IMAGE of the father. Christ is a spirit exsisted many years before Jesus. I believe God united this spirit with his physical human son.

continued:
You say that you do not see Jesus in the OT times, and I agree only in this way.
John 1:18 tells us that no man at anytime hath seen, God, the begotten Son ... That's because in the OT when anyone beheld the ONE you call "The Christ," but I call "the IMAGE of the LORD," they saw a super-natural presence and NOT the fleshly form that Jesus bore later.

Yes, The WORD of God manifested as the created living form of God, which you call the Christ, was born to Mary many years later. He (the Christ to come as visible flesh) was foretold by the prophets as the kinsman who would come and save us from sin... he was identified as Emmanuel (meaning God with us).

AMEN

Now your last statement still shows our differences.


I would say this:
Jesus was given the spirit of God to do wonders in the name of the Father ... (the Father being identified by men in the OT as the ONE God who was able to appear with a super-natural created living body of heaven form among them as the God of Israel. Exodus 24:9,10,11,12 You choose to call him "The Christ."

I hope this helped rather than confused!!!

You brought a smile to my face friend, we have know each other for a few years now and I think we understand more or each other than we ever did.

God Bless

 

[dave3712]

Here's one for you Friend. Who is it that is spoken of in Genesis 3:15


Gen 3
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

Men are Mars, women are Venus.

Women are dominated by the Anima, while men are dominated by their Libido.

They both have these same two entities in their psyche, but the dominance transcends this, asif there is a flavor to there outlooks which can not reconciled like a wal between them that can not totally be removed.

 

[dave3712]

Friend, I am so galad you see what i am saying, most do not.
That image is a godlike representative of God. He acts and speaks for God. I do not think he is equal to the god that sent him.



Keep in mind that the IMAGE is a creature. Yet it has been given godlike power. The image would also only speak the words of his father.



Yes I do see his presence in the OT.



The reason why I see two as father and son is the son is the IMAGE of the father. Christ is a spirit exsisted many years before Jesus. I believe God united this spirit with his physical human son.



AMEN



You brought a smile to my face friend, we have know each other for a few years now and I think we understand more or each other than we ever did.

God Bless

As long as you entertain this archaic imagery and metaphysical language your insights are too heavenly good to be earthly valuable to you.

When you realistically accept Truth as more imlportant than the compromises and rationalizations we all make to avoid changing attitudes and behavior, your just treading water in a fantasy world full of lies useful to you in some way or another.

 

[Read]

Jesus is the Christ. Old Testament revealings are called Theophanies. Who was in the fiery furnace with Shaddrack, Meshak, and Abbednigo?

Dan 3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

 

[Read]

GM,

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Keypurr,

The Bible puts no difference between "the first man Adam" and "the last Adam" Jesus, as to the fact that both Adam (Gen.1:27) and Jesus (2 Cor.4:4) are both said to be "the image of God." In between all men are said to be "the image of God" (Gen.9:6) and even "the image and glory of God" (1 Cor.11:7). So the term "image of God" can be said of Adam, Jesus and all other men and apparently, is applicable to "mortal man" (Job 4:17), that is every human being who ever has or will live.

Now what I am going to suggest is that when we come to our Lord Jesus, who is described as being "the image of the invisible God..." (Col.1:15a); we have here a description of him prior to his being "the firstborn from the dead" (Col.1:18), "...not yet glorified" (John 7:39).

Conversely, the phrase "the express image of his person" (Heb.1:3), the subject of this thread, is spoken of Jesus after his resurrection and after he entered "into his glory" (Luke 24:26). That the description of Jesus as being "the express image" of God, is a reference to the time after his exaltation on the right hand of God, is proven by reading of Hebrews chapter 1 verse 3:

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

MY CONCLUSION: The term "image of God" is common to all mortals whereas the term "the express image of his person" describes only our Lord Jesus and then only after his being "glorified" (John 7:39).

Should you or anyone else can think of any objection to this line of thinking, I am happy to hear it.



Read