What is the express image of God?

[keypurr]

Hello, keypurr. I haven’t had the pleasure of speaking with you for a while. I hope you and your family are blessed these days.

Hi, right back at you friend. My family is fine, I'm a little under the weather, but at my age you have to expect something. Hope things are well with you.

My response to #1 is that an image does not necessarily have to be a copy to such a degree that the substance of both the original and the copy are the same. For example, my image in the mirror isn’t made of flesh and bones.

I understand that, but this is called an express spirit that the Father was glad had his fullness. Not only that, God used this image to create with.

T

he word “firstborn” doesn’t necessarily mean “creature.” For example, ideas are birthed every day.

Firstborn can mean first to be born or first in rank. I think he is both.

Those who love God partake in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The word “deity” is equivalent to “god.”

True, I think Christ did have a form of deity. I believe he is a created godlike being (a spirit)

The image may or may not have been a spirit. We don’t really know what the substance of the image was. God created through this image. This image WAS God, because Isaiah 44:24 says that God stretched out the heavens ALONE.

Logic tells us that if his father is a spirit and he is an express image of his Father, then he has to be spirit also.

Phil. 2:6 says he was in THE form of God, not that he was in A form of God. This image (not necessarily “spirit”) was THE form of God.

That’s what I think.

Good point, but....

Phil. 2:6

(CEV) Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.

(GNB) He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.

(ISV) In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping.

(NIV) Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

These translations are a little different wording.
Makes me scratch my friend.

Glad your back and in my thread. Peace

 

[keypurr]

If one can't see a spirit, why did Jesus reassure his disciples that they weren't seeing a spirit (Luke 24:37-39)?

Thats a good question, how did he appear in a locked room?

Why did not Mary know him at the tomb?

There is a lot more to figure out in my THEORY yet. But it is keeping my mind from falling asleep.

 

[Read]

Christ is a spirit. He is the express image of God which is spirit. But that image spirit took the form of man so he could die as a man. That is what you pointed out to me, and I think you are correct. BR tried to tell me that two weeks ago but I questioned it because Jesus had to grow in wisdom. So I assumed that is when he became Christ. We know he got his power at his baptism so it is only logical that is when he became Christ.



Who is the us/we/our in Genesis?
Who is the son by whom he made the worlds (Heb 1:2)?
Who does God say laid the foundation of the world in (Heb1:10)?

Who is this?
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

The Christ Spirit is very alive and well in the NT.
Was the Apostle Paul wrong?

Peace my friend

"There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked" (Isa.48:22).

 

[keypurr]

"There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked" (Isa.48:22).

Are you talking the role of the Lord?

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

 

[freelight]

living truth.............

living truth.............

What bothers me friend is Christ means anointed by God, yet Jesus is called the Christ before his anointing.

Thats one of the confusions, since 'Christ' is ONLY a title, a 'term' at best. It is only conventionally used to refer to 'Jesus', but 'Jesus' always means the MAN Jesus, referring to his humanity, his human person. It is only 'conventionally' that we conceive of both 'Jesus' and 'Christ' as meaning the same thing or pointing to a 'person', yet the latter is a 'title', 'assumption' or whatever else we designate it. We can 'personalize' the term 'Christ' or refer to it impersonally as a divine principle, the divinity in man, the inner light or anointing of the Spirit. We can also assume 'Christ' to be a divine Angel, Aeon, a created being in the sense that He was 'generated' from God. In any case.....'Christ in us is the hope of glory'. 'Christ' can only indwell a soul, if it is 'incorporeal'. It is the Christ (light/divinity of God) that enlightens all men that come into the world.

Originally from a traditional Jewish perspective.... their 'Messiah' was never to be a divine god-man, but a human ruler-king from the lineage of David. 'Messiah' also referred to the whole nation of Isreal as well...as they were a 'nation of priests', God's suffering servant, his anointed SON (used here 'collectively'. Paul expands on this in his 'body of Christ' concept).

It is well enough to see 'God' in the Messiah, or the person of Jesus and his ministry...for they both include God's glory. The human and divine element in Man, is perfected and glorified in the Messiah, as a servant surrendered to God's perfect will, maximizing both his human and divine potential. We are called as well.....to walk in his footsteps, to be perfected by the Spirit's power.



pj

 

[Zed Bee]

Gods are what humans make them out to be.
Ethereal spirits don’t write, dictate, or inspire books.
Every book, whether “holy” or otherwise, reflects the level of knowledge, ignorance, bias, prejudice, and the good or evil intent of the writer.

An all-knowing god wouldn’t make physical and mathematical howlers.
A just god wouldn’t exterminate all the nations in favour of another.
A judicious god wouldn’t allow one person to shoulder the crimes of others.
A merciful god wouldn’t allow murder, theft and mayhem on an international scale.

What it boils down to, as far as mighty men are concerned, is that Might Makes Right and let the pathetic believers in gods, saints, and miracles take the hindmost.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Keypurr does not deny that Christ dies for our sins. The Christ took the form of a man (Jesus) to die for our sins.

So Jesus was two persons?

 

[surrender]

I understand that, but this is called an express spirit that the Father was glad had his fullness. Not only that, God used this image to create with.

Whether the “image had His fullness” or not, that does not mean it was a spirit.

By the way, the same word is used in Wisdom 14:17. Examine how the word is used: “Thus in the process of time an ungodly custom grown strong was kept as a law, and graven images were worshiped by the commandments of kings whom men could not honor in presence, because they dwelt far off. They took the counterfeit of his visage from far and made an express image of a king whom they honored, to the end that by this their forwardness they might flatter him that was absent as if he were present” (Wisdom 14:16-17).

Firstborn can mean first to be born or first in rank. I think he is both.

Even if it means to be first to be born, my point is that “firstborn” does not necessarily mean “creature.” For example, ideas, which are not “creatures” are birthed every day. So, even if Jesus was "first to be born" that does not necessarily mean he was/is a "creature."

True, I think Christ did have a form of deity. I believe he is a created godlike being (a spirit)

Christ didn’t “have a form of God,” it is written Christ Jesus, who “being in the form of God.” You’ve changed the words there.

have a form
being in the form

See? You've changed the way Scripture has it written.

Linda "had a form" ...of an apple. Linda owned/had possession of an apple.
Linda, "being in the form" ...of an apple. Linda was/is an apple.

Logic tells us that if his father is a spirit and he is an express image of his Father, then he has to be spirit also.

Logic may tell you that, but what does Scripture say? It’s silent. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with theorizing, privately and when it’s made perfectly clear within each post. But you’ve taken your theory and you’re teaching others to embrace and believe it. You’re teaching ideas, not found in Scripture, on what the substance/material of God’s preincarnate Word and image is. You’ll have to give an account for that.

These translations are a little different wording.
Makes me scratch my friend.

They’re all saying something very similar (Christ Jesus is THE form of God). None of them reflect your idea that Christ was “a” form of God.

(CEV) Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.

Christ was God. Not “a” form of God.

(GNB) He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.

Christ always had “the” nature of God. Not “a” nature of God.

(ISV) In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping.

Christ existed in God’s “own” form. Not Christ existed in “a” form of God.

(NIV) Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

Christ was in “the” very nature of God. Not Christ was in “a” nature of God.

 

[keypurr]

Whether the “image had His fullness” or not, that does not mean it was a spirit.

By the way, the same word is used in Wisdom 14:17. Examine how the word is used: “Thus in the process of time an ungodly custom grown strong was kept as a law, and graven images were worshiped by the commandments of kings whom men could not honor in presence, because they dwelt far off. They took the counterfeit of his visage from far and made an express image of a king whom they honored, to the end that by this their forwardness they might flatter him that was absent as if he were present” (Wisdom 14:16-17).

Even if it means to be first to be born, my point is that “firstborn” does not necessarily mean “creature.” For example, ideas, which are not “creatures” are birthed every day. So, even if Jesus was "first to be born" that does not necessarily mean he was/is a "creature."

Christ didn’t “have a form of God,” it is written Christ Jesus, who “being in the form of God.” You’ve changed the words there.

have a form
being in the form

See? You've changed the way Scripture has it written.

Linda "had a form" ...of an apple. Linda owned/had possession of an apple.
Linda, "being in the form" ...of an apple. Linda was/is an apple.

Logic may tell you that, but what does Scripture say? It’s silent. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with theorizing, privately and when it’s made perfectly clear within each post. But you’ve taken your theory and you’re teaching others to embrace and believe it. You’re teaching ideas, not found in Scripture, on what the substance/material of God’s preincarnate Word and image is. You’ll have to give an account for that.

They’re all saying something very similar (Christ Jesus is THE form of God). None of them reflect your idea that Christ was “a” form of God.

Christ was God. Not “a” form of God.

Christ always had “the” nature of God. Not “a” nature of God.

Christ existed in God’s “own” form. Not Christ existed in “a” form of God.

Christ was in “the” very nature of God. Not Christ was in “a” nature of God.

So, using your understanding, we have at least two Gods???

One godhead?. Jesus is the son of the most high God. Most high terms mean more than one. Yet, there is only one true God, the Father.
Who is God about in Hebrews 1:8-11 when he calls is son a god and then Lord who laid the foundation for earth?
Who is the firstborn of all creation in Colossians 1:15, for all things were made through him and for him?

Thats why I am having a problem NOT seeing a created express image of the Father who would be a form of God. There is something here we are not seeing friend. I believe only the Father is uncreated. All things come from the Father through Christ.

My theory started last spring and has drawn a lot of attention. It's been adjusted many times when I had to realize that I should not assume anything. But there is some merit to this theory. It just might give us a deeper understanding of God.

Peace friend

 

[surrender]

So, using your understanding, we have at least two Gods???

No. But it does sound like that’s what you are saying, because you say that Christ Jesus is “a” form of God. Scripture says that Christ Jesus was/is “the” form of God.

Who is God about in Hebrews 1:8-11 when he calls is son a god and then Lord who laid the foundation for earth?

There is a distinction between “God” the Son (verse 8) and “God” Yahweh (verse 9), and furthermore, “God” (Yahweh) gives credit to “God” the Son for laying the foundation of the earth (verse 10), yet we know that “God” (Yahweh) laid the foundation of the earth ALONE (Isaiah 44:24). THIS is what Scripture reveals. One may try to squeeze what has been revealed into a formula or, instead, embrace the mystery of what has been revealed.

Scripture reveals:
There is ONE God.
This one God, Yahweh, laid the foundation of the earth ALONE.
This one God, Yahweh, laid the foundation of the earth through the Son (whom He calls “God” in Heb. 1:9).

Who is the firstborn of all creation in Colossians 1:15, for all things were made through him and for him?

Christ Jesus.

Thats why I am having a problem NOT seeing a created express image of the Father who would be a form of God.

This language you are using (“created” image and “a” form of God) suggests a distinction that Scripture doesn’t allow for. Scripture says there is only one God who laid the foundation of the earth and this one God laid the foundation ALONE.

There is something here we are not seeing friend.

You are right. It has not been revealed to us. Because of how Scripture reveals the Father and the Son, a mystery remains. Scripture does not give us all the answers about this.

I believe only the Father is uncreated. All things come from the Father through Christ.

All things come through the Father’s uncreated Word, who became Messiah Jesus.

 

[Read]

Hi Read,

As I've shared,....there is more than one view upon the subject, and that 'God' could use a divine agent or personality to create thru, and it would still be God's creative power and will in action. The historical Unitarian/Trinitarian debates cover this on different levels (see my former post Here).

I see 'God' working thru all creation whether he uses luminaries (divine sons/daughters, cosmic beings, angels, etc.) or not....and Jesus as well has both 'human' and 'divine' elements working in his 'person'. We do too by the way.

How Keypurr chooses to see Jesus in relation to 'God' is a natural reflection of his own perception and understanding, and from a more 'Unitarian' view is just fine, since he loves the God and Father of the Lord Jesus, and recognizes that a divine and holy Spirit was inspiring and animating Jesus during his earthly ministry (call it the 'Spirit of God', 'Spirit of Christ', 'Christ-spirit', 'Holy Spirit' or 'whatever'). The 'debate' is over scriptural interpretations, whether one sees Jesus thru a more 'unitarian' or 'trinitarian' perspective, and what makes most sense to ones own mind.

Again...'God' is the source of all creation, of all movements in the cosmos, and could just as well create or emenate out from His Being .....other beings, divine Sons and angels that have creative power vested in them by God, certain 'agencies' thru which God organizes and coordinates the worlds. There is still only One 'God' and his 'logos'(word) thru which he brings the worlds into existence (in Taoism this is the 'Tao', in Hinduism, the "om (Aum)" as far as a creative principle, energy and power sustaining the universe). If God creates thru a Creator-Son it is still God's work and will being manifested.


pj

Free,

You write: " As I've shared,....there is more than one view upon the subject..."

Please bear with me. THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF MY QUESTION TO KEYPURR There is only one view I am interested in here and its the view of the LORD as expressed through his prophet Isaiah. I am not interested in the historical Unitarian/Trinitarian debates they only confuse the matter - please answer my 6 questions about Isaiah's view, it will take you but a moment . These are the questions which Keypurr failed to answer probably because they expose the IMAGE he has constructed which he calls the CHRIST SPIRIT. Keeper is convinced apparently that it was this socalled CHRIST SPIRIT which actually was used of God in creation. Since he wont answer my 6 questions, I am hoping you will. Then from Isaiah we will try to determine if 'God' could use a divine agent or personality (such as Keypurr's CHRIST SPIRIT) to create thru, and it would still be God's creative power and will in action. Concentrate only on Isaiah for the moment, do not confuse my argument by introducing any other passage of scripture.

Here is the 'passage under discussion:

"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..."

Please answer my simple questions that hopefully will establish whether or not 'God' used a divine agent or personality to create thru, and it would still be God's creative power and will in action.

1. According to Isaiah who was it "that maketh all things?"
2. According to Isaiah, was it the LORD " that maketh ALL things?" (Answer yes or no)
3. According to Isaiah, when the LORD spread abroad the heavens, was he "ALONE?" (Answer yes or no)
4. According to Isaiah and to Isaiah only, did the LORD say: "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself?" (Answer yes or no)
5. Is it true that Isaiah said that: "the LORD maketh all things; stretcheth forth the heavens alone; and spreadeth abroad the earth by himself?" (Answer yes or no)
6. Did Isaiah believe that the LORD God made everything ALONE...BY HIMSELF? (Answer yes or no)

Read!

 

[keypurr]

No. But it does sound like that’s what you are saying, because you say that Christ Jesus is “a” form of God. Scripture says that Christ Jesus was/is “the” form of God.

There is a distinction between “God” the Son (verse 8) and “God” Yahweh (verse 9), and furthermore, “God” (Yahweh) gives credit to “God” the Son for laying the foundation of the earth (verse 10), yet we know that “God” (Yahweh) laid the foundation of the earth ALONE (Isaiah 44:24). THIS is what Scripture reveals. One may try to squeeze what has been revealed into a formula or, instead, embrace the mystery of what has been revealed.

I realize that there is only ONE true God, Jesus told us that. We also know that his father is the most high God, Luke told us that. So that implies two Gods of different ranks. Now you know why I am confused.

Scripture reveals:
There is ONE God.
This one God, Yahweh, laid the foundation of the earth ALONE.
This one God, Yahweh, laid the foundation of the earth through the Son (whom He calls “God” in Heb. 1:9).

Christ Jesus.

We agree on this.

This language you are using (“created” image and “a” form of God) suggests a distinction that Scripture doesn’t allow for. Scripture says there is only one God who laid the foundation of the earth and this one God laid the foundation ALONE.

You are right. It has not been revealed to us. Because of how Scripture reveals the Father and the Son, a mystery remains. Scripture does not give us all the answers about this.

All things come through the Father’s uncreated Word, who became Messiah Jesus.

Maybe he gave me the answers???? But I see no reason why he would intrust me with this knowledge.

I see what your saying but the language I use in used in scripture. I see an image as a creation. If God cannot die, his created image could if it took the form of man. God did not send himself, he sent his son.

Dear friend, I love the God of my Lord and I would not dishonor him in any way intentionally. But why will he not let my mind drift from this theory?

I'm sure God loved his son as much as we love ours and it was not easy for him to allow the lamb to go to the cross. It would not matter to him if his son was from his substance or adopted. You see God as one, so do I, but only one is the real God, the other is in subjection to his father. One God has a God, one is God. Does that sould mixed up? Yes it does. But if Christ is a God or form of God that is exactly what we got. Paul says we have one God and one Lord, I accept that. Jesus is Lord, a form of God.

Friend, I wish I could switch off my mind for a couple of days and look at this fresh, but I know that I have preconceived ideas now. But I want to thank you for your words, I will untangle them again to see if I missed anything latter on.

God bless

 

[Bright Raven]

Dear friend, I love the God of my Lord and I would not dishonor him in any way intentionally. But why will he not let my mind drift from this theory?

Friend, be sure of who it is that is speaking to you.

 

[keypurr]

Free,

You write: " As I've shared,....there is more than one view upon the subject..."

Please bear with me. THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF MY QUESTION TO KEYPURR There is only one view I am interested in here and its the view of the LORD as expressed through his prophet Isaiah. I am not interested in the historical Unitarian/Trinitarian debates they only confuse the matter - please answer my 6 questions about Isaiah's view, it will take you but a moment . These are the questions which Keypurr failed to answer probably because they expose the IMAGE he has constructed which he calls the CHRIST SPIRIT. Keeper is convinced apparently that it was this socalled CHRIST SPIRIT which actually was used of God in creation. Since he wont answer my 6 questions, I am hoping you will. Then from Isaiah we will try to determine if 'God' could use a divine agent or personality (such as Keypurr's CHRIST SPIRIT) to create thru, and it would still be God's creative power and will in action. Concentrate only on Isaiah for the moment, do not confuse my argument by introducing any other passage of scripture.

Here is the 'passage under discussion:

"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..."

Please answer my simple questions that hopefully will establish whether or not 'God' used a divine agent or personality to create thru, and it would still be God's creative power and will in action.

1. According to Isaiah who was it "that maketh all things?"
2. According to Isaiah, was it the LORD " that maketh ALL things?" (Answer yes or no)
3. According to Isaiah, when the LORD spread abroad the heavens, was he "ALONE?" (Answer yes or no)
4. According to Isaiah and to Isaiah only, did the LORD say: "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself?" (Answer yes or no)
5. Is it true that Isaiah said that: "the LORD maketh all things; stretcheth forth the heavens alone; and spreadeth abroad the earth by himself?" (Answer yes or no)
6. Did Isaiah believe that the LORD God made everything ALONE...BY HIMSELF? (Answer yes or no)

Read!

I answered your questions with verses that conflict in post 313. I know that we have one true God but can you answer the questions I posted again for you?


Who is the us/we/our in Genesis?
Who is the son by whom he made the worlds (Heb 1:2)?
Who does God say laid the foundation of the world in (Heb1:10)?

Who is this?
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

The Christ Spirit is very alive and well in the NT.

Was the Apostle Paul wrong?

As you have seen, I do not have all the answers YET. But I will not stop seeking them. The father is called the most high God, so there must be more than one considered a god. Using human logic we should be able to assume that.

Mr Read, I am not an evil person trying to discredit our God, I just want to understand who he and his son are. He did make his image and he used it to make the worlds. Now we have to find out why. I think it is bedcause God can not die, but his created image could if it took the form of man. Thats just my thoughts.

God Bless

 

[freelight]

susbtance and form......

susbtance and form......

Free,

You write: " As I've shared,....there is more than one view upon the subject..."

Please bear with me. THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF MY QUESTION TO KEYPURR There is only one view I am interested in here and its the view of the LORD as expressed through his prophet Isaiah. I am not interested in the historical Unitarian/Trinitarian debates they only confuse the matter - please answer my 6 questions about Isaiah's view, it will take you but a moment . These are the questions which Keypurr failed to answer probably because they expose the IMAGE he has constructed which he calls the CHRIST SPIRIT. Keeper is convinced apparently that it was this socalled CHRIST SPIRIT which actually was used of God in creation. Since he wont answer my 6 questions, I am hoping you will. Then from Isaiah we will try to determine if 'God' could use a divine agent or personality (such as Keypurr's CHRIST SPIRIT) to create thru, and it would still be God's creative power and will in action. Concentrate only on Isaiah for the moment, do not confuse my argument by introducing any other passage of scripture.

Here is the 'passage under discussion:

"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..."

Please answer my simple questions that hopefully will establish whether or not 'God' used a divine agent or personality to create thru, and it would still be God's creative power and will in action.

1. According to Isaiah who was it "that maketh all things?"
2. According to Isaiah, was it the LORD " that maketh ALL things?" (Answer yes or no)
3. According to Isaiah, when the LORD spread abroad the heavens, was he "ALONE?" (Answer yes or no)
4. According to Isaiah and to Isaiah only, did the LORD say: "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself?" (Answer yes or no)
5. Is it true that Isaiah said that: "the LORD maketh all things; stretcheth forth the heavens alone; and spreadeth abroad the earth by himself?" (Answer yes or no)
6. Did Isaiah believe that the LORD God made everything ALONE...BY HIMSELF? (Answer yes or no)

Read!

Hi Read, I think i've explained my viewpoints already....as they are quite 'versatile' concerning the man Jesus and the 'Christ' (which of course means 'anointed one', but can also refer to the divinity in man, or to a divine agency used by God...depends on how you define the term and the context in which it is used).

Since different points of view exist on 'Christ', let alone 'Christology'.... I dont think quoting a few passages from Is. says alot, for most all monotheists (even monists) hold that there is only One 'God' who is the origin of existence, the 'Creative Intelligence' behind all that is. There is one universal MIND or SPIRIT, one incorporeal reality out of which all forms emerge and take shape. 'God' Alone is the sole life, energy, light and intelligence from which all things derive.

The 'LORD' in Isaiah is claming to be the sole originator or maker of all things...so this Supreme "I" is indeed the Supreme Deity speaking, as a monothetic reality. You might also NOTE that this same 'God' in Gen. says Let "us" make man in our own image, so there is an aspect of 'associative deity' or a 'divine collective' at work here as 'Elohim'. "Us" could be referring to a first-born Son who works with 'God'....who embodies or personifies the "Logos" or "Word", the creative wisdom inherent in 'God' from all eternity, but expressed in the unfolding of creation, that thru which he makes the worlds. An 'Arian' view could just as easliy hold here, as a 'Trinitarian', for it is still God creating thru his own 'personality-matrix'.

To specifically answer your question of "was God alone when he created?".....the answer is 'yes' and 'no'. 'God' was alone in the sense that there is only One Creative Power and Presence. If God did use other creative agencies, intelligences, personalities in the creative process of cosmic expansion,...then 'God' was not alone IF there was an 'associative co-operation' of forces working together in creation. 'God' is surely 'One', the Singular Source of all, but this 'One' is also a 'manifold' One, distributing, individualizing itself in the play of creation, which includes a vast heirarchy of beings, personalities, angels, etc. Understood metaphysically....everything is 'God'. Nothing could exist apart from or outside of 'God'. 'God' makes all and everything possible....all actuals and potentials.

The entires cosmos has 'God' as its source and sustainer...consider the root, seed, substance and form. (basic metaphysics). 'God' is the only Life, Power, Presence, Truth, Reality there IS. So,...back to semantics, doctrinal biases, dogma or point of view,.....still 'God' is the One and Only Real Presence, and the source or substratum in which all creation arises,....even if 'God' allows or includes another personality or 'agency' thru which to mold and shape his universe.


pj

 

[surrender]

I realize that there is only ONE true God, Jesus told us that. We also know that his father is the most high God, Luke told us that. So that implies two Gods of different ranks. Now you know why I am confused.

You’re mystified because it’s a mystery. Who wouldn’t be mystified? Scripture says that Yahweh laid the foundation of the earth ALONE. Then Scripture says that Yahweh laid the foundation of the earth through Christ Jesus (whom Yahweh calls “God”!). Well, how could Yahweh have laid the foundation of the earth alone when Christ was right there with Him? How is there only one true God when Yahweh calls Christ Jesus “God”? Has anyone that you know of come up with a satisfactory answer? Whatever theory they come up with, they can’t sacrifice one Scripture for another, and that’s what I feel you have done (& most theories do for that matter). I appreciate your desire to figure it out, though.

I see what your saying but the language I use in used in scripture.

Yes, for the most part, you do. But you can’t leave any Scripture out.

I see an image as a creation.

Some images are creations. I didn’t create my image reflected in the mirror.

If God cannot die, his created image could if it took the form of man.

An uncreated image could take the form of man and die.

God did not send himself, he sent his son.

Yes, He sent His Son. And He calls this Son, “God.” He tells us that His Son (“God”) laid the foundation of the earth.

Dear friend, I love the God of my Lord and I would not dishonor him in any way intentionally. But why will he not let my mind drift from this theory?

I don’t know. It certainly has generated a lot of discussion about God and His Son.

Dear friend, I love the God of my Lord and I would not dishonor him in any way intentionally.

I believe you.

But why will he not let my mind drift from this theory?

I’m not sure. In some of our past discussions, you’ve seemed so stubborn, but maybe it’s because of what you’ve just shared (that your mind can’t seem to drift from this theory). I empathize with you because I, too, have longed to make sense of this God of ours and His Son, but nothing has resonated as completely accurate.

I'm sure God loved his son as much as we love ours and it was not easy for him to allow the lamb to go to the cross. It would not matter to him if his son was from his substance or adopted. You see God as one, so do I, but only one is the real God, the other is in subjection to his father.

The wording here is…lacking. To say that Yahweh is the “real” God implies that the Son is the “fake” (or not so real) God. Yes, the Son is in subjection to the Father. And yet Yahweh says of him that his name is above all names. He has all the authority of Yahweh Himself. The only way, I suppose, that Christ Jesus is “less” than Yahweh is that he is not Yahweh but the “image” of Yahweh. BUT Yahweh IS Yahweh THROUGH His image. There is no Yahweh—for us, anyway—without His image.

One God has a God, one is God. Does that sould mixed up? Yes it does.

LOL! Yes, it sounds mixed up. Especially when you add in the truth that there is only one true God. What does that make the “God that has a God”? The “not true” God? Yep, mixed up. Whatever “theory” we formulate, we’ve got to keep in ALL Scripture.

There is one true God.
Yahweh is God.
The Son is God (according to Yahweh via the author of Hebrews).
The one true God laid the foundation of the earth ALONE.
The one true God laid the foundation of the earth through the Son.

But if Christ is a God or form of God that is exactly what we got. Paul says we have one God and one Lord, I accept that. Jesus is Lord, a form of God.

You’ve agreed that there is one God. But you’ve also written that Christ is “a” God. If Christ is “a” God, then there are two Gods (Yahweh and the “other” one). But if Christ is “the” God, we have one God—Yahweh, who is invisible, and Christ Jesus, who is visible. One God expressed in two different ways: invisible and visible.

Friend, I wish I could switch off my mind for a couple of days and look at this fresh, but I know that I have preconceived ideas now. But I want to thank you for your words, I will untangle them again to see if I missed anything latter on.

God bless

God bless!

 

[Read]

Are you talking the role of the Lord?

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Keypurr,

You forget the motto of TOL: "Open rebuke is better than secret love" (Proverbs 27:5).

Proverbs 12:2 says: "A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn."

It is against your "wicked devise" which you call the "CHRIST SPIRIT" that I have "reproved" you (Eph.5:11). You "add" unto 'HIS WORDS" Keypurr. This is disobedience to Proverbs_30:6 which says: " Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. "

Now if your CHRIST SPIRIT was the same "Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow" (1 Peter 1:11) I would not object. For "the Spirit of Christ" here is a reference to what was "in them (Christians)" AFTER Christ's exaltation.

Your evil CHRIST SPIRIT was. supposedly "used" as you say in creating everything IN ETERNITY PAST. Furthermore, you claim to see your CHRIST SPIRIT in the expression "the express image of his person" in Hebrews 1:3. However in context this is a reference to the time AFTER his exaltation and glorification when Christ "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

TWO QUESTIONS FOR KEYPURR TO ANSWER :
1. In context does the unique expression "the express image of his person" refer to a time AFTER "the birth of Jesus Christ?" (Mt.1:18) (Answer yes or n0)
2. If your answer is "yes" will you admit there is no justification to insist that the unique term "the express image of his person" is a reference to a supposed CHRIST SPIRIT prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, sometime in ETERNITY PAST ?

Keypurr, I need eight (8) questions answered 2 in this post and 6 in an earlier post.

If you do not answer my 8 simple questions, I will understand that I am not welcome on your thread.

Read!

 

[Totton Linnet]

The "express image of God" is the visible Person of the invisible God. Jesus Christ.

 

[dave3712]

]Please answer my simple questions that hopefully will establish whether or not 'God' used a divine agent or personality to create thru, and it would still be God's creative power and will in action.

1. According to Isaiah who was it "that maketh all things?"
2. According to Isaiah, was it the LORD " that maketh ALL things?" (Answer yes or no)
3. According to Isaiah, when the LORD spread abroad the heavens, was he "ALONE?" (Answer yes or no)
4. According to Isaiah and to Isaiah only, did the LORD say: "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself?" (Answer yes or no)
5. Is it true that Isaiah said that: "the LORD maketh all things; stretcheth forth the heavens alone; and spreadeth abroad the earth by himself?" (Answer yes or no)
6. Did Isaiah believe that the LORD God made everything ALONE...BY HIMSELF? (Answer yes or no)

Immanuel Kant answered these questions without reference to the Bible though he may well have had it in mind.

First he defined what is meant by "things/everything."

The "things" exist and trhey were physically "created."

"Things" do exist in the material world we call Reality.
We have convinced ourselves of this, that "things" do exist, and that we all identify and agree that they exist, and we all describe the "things" in a similar way.


But the "thing" we describe is really an image of it in our mind.

We are really telling each other about the "thing," as we have discerned it.
We have discerned the "thing" by using our senses to discover what it is.

Can you accept that?
Can you understand that?

Though some power outside of ourselves has created the real world, we must discern that world and describe it, mentally, in order to recognize what the "things" in the world actually seem to be.


It that sense, internalizing an image of the "thing" in our mind, we have "created it," too.

This replicating mentally is what we call the son-of-God at work.




God is all there is, ie; he is the creative force behind the eternally unfolding Reality itself... the whole external existence beyond our mind is the almighty God to which all life must bow:

...Truth inside our head, is the Holy Spirit, the image of God, is present inside our mind when our thinking correctly images the TRUTH, or the picture of Reality inside our mind.




TRINITY is explained with the above concepts in mind like this:
Our (1) Lord is Truth, in whose (2) Spirit of mind we must commit our lives, in order to face (3) Father Nature, the Almighty Reality, within which we all exist.

 

[dave3712]

The "express image of God" is the visible Person of the invisible God. Jesus Christ.

The "express image of God"... i.e. Truth

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, (even though I have been saying, "I am the Truth"), Philip?...

... he that hath seen me, (the Truth), hath seen the Father, (i.e.; the Reality of our existence is a mental phenomenon);
and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father, (when you have seen His image in my personification of Truth)?