The passage you quoted has Jesus claiming to be the Son of God.
What is the express image of God?
- Thread starter keypurr
- Start date
You failed to see what the Jews understood to be the truth if anyone ever made the claim which Jesus had made.
They understood that Jesus had claimed to be God when he said:
a.) that he and the Father were ONE and
b.) that he was the Son of God ...
Therefore, they wanted to stone him for claiming to be equal with God and also for blasphemy - because they did not believe that he was who he had said he was and thought he was lying.
You had to read the entire conversation to see that detail.
These Jews in the passage being referred to said that He was claiming to be equal with God, He was making Himself out to be God, but Jesus said He said He is the Son of God.
Nope ... they understood what he was claiming, but they didn't believe what he said [that he was ONE with the Father and was the promised Son as God the Savior] ... and that is why they wanted to stone him. But we all know that Jesus tells the truth.
Well, we are at an impasse because you don't want to admit the the Savior was God Isaiah 43:11 ... and Jesus was the Savior.
Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I".
John 14:28 NASB - "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
So it comes down to what is meant by "I and the Father are one".
John 10:30 NASB - "I and the Father are one."
John 17:11 NASB - "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.
John 17:21 NASB - that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Well, to understand how we should perceive the Father and the Son is an important issue ... but first we should accept that they are ONE and the Isaiah 43:11 are the truth.
Then and only then can we begin to seek our ONE God as the Father and the Son. I've found that the key to understanding who they are is to understand how the ONE God used his ONE image named LORD to real himself as Emmanuel in OT times and NT times.
I can name, at least, one thing that made the Father greater than the Son. The Father appears with an eternal super natural body of heaven of the essence of LIGHT. The Son appeared with a natural body of flesh weakened by mortality. Yet, the book of John (as I've shown above) tells us that the spiritual inner nature of the Christ was equal with God. The essence of the composition of body made them different in one way.
Also the LORD Father and the Lord Son were both associated with the one invisible spiritual God .. who is all and in all. They each being his personal representative in heaven and earth only spoke God's words and did his works.
The book of John also tells us that the WORD of God (aka our Lord Jesus) shared the super-natural glory with the Father before the world was. Thus making them ONE in OT times ... in the same manner that Jesus told us the the Father was IN HIM and He in the Father... thus making them ONE in the NT times.
The WORD was God and was with God and nothing that is was made without him. Our Lord Jesus was the WORD and by him and for him were all things made that have been made.
We should not consider that God can be chopped up into finite parts ... God is always ONE - inseparable... except that God knew how to make himself literally known within his own creation by using a created image and then manifesting IT more than once and of different essences. Thus we have the Father with a body of heaven which is greater than the Son with a body of mortal flesh.
I might ponder one other way the Father was greater than the Son ... the works that they did while on earth. Jesus only did the works of God while he was on earth ... but his works were not to part seas, win military battles, conquer nations, and lead millions of earthly people away to a promised land. Instead he came to glorify the works of the Father and the Father's name (LORD) and to die and inherit a kingdom in glory.
There is no other Savior besides our Savior. There is no other God besides our God.
Jesus never did anything but by the direction of God. He never sinned, and the works He performed were the works of God.
God made Jesus our Savior and Lord. He is the Son of God. He rose from the dead, defeating hell death and the grave. We have the promise of resurrection, for those of us who are believers (we who have been born again by God's Spirit) we are among the righteous who will be raised as opposed to the wicked (there will be a resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked).
Well, I like what you have said ... I agree God is our Savior and when he manifested his presence as Emmanuel (God among us), He announced that he was the Son of God and people called him Jesus.
Jesus was the promised Son and Abraham's seed and great reward. Genesis 15:1 tells us that the LORD God himself was Abraham's exceeding great reward.
Isaiah 43:11 God tells us that he is the only Savior... therefore, do you agree that our Lord Jesus was that Savior? If you do, then you must also accept that our Lord Jesus was God.
Do you agree or not? Now your choices are simple:
a.) Yes, I do.
b.) No, I don't
If you pick one then I will have a clear idea of your conclusion about Jesus.
I believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and that fullness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form.
How can I, believing what I do, disagree with what you have said?
I agree... and scripture states this as well.
Yes, I learned these things from the scriptures.
Thanks keypurr, I will take a look through, :thumb:
Edit:
Hi Keypurr. I have now read the first five pages and the last five pages of this thread. It seems we are in complete agreement concerning the the critical difference between the man Yeshua and Yeshua the Messiah. Rather than rehash what has been gone over already herein I will simply add the following in hopes that it will enhance your understanding of what you already know to be the truth. The only real "change" in what I offer here is truly no change at all but simply a more strict understanding of lego-legomenos which is "lay forth" in the sense of describing, detailing, demarcating, delineating, calling out, which is exactly what the man Yeshua does concerning the Christos given him from the Father above. The Messiah cannot be seen with the eyes of the flesh because as you say he is Spirit. The man Yeshua describes the Messiah through his parables, idioms, sayings, and doctrines, and this is the stricter sense of legomenos even though all translations have rendered it here in the following passage as if it means that the man Yeshua was "called" the Christos. The difference in meaning means the misunderstanding of the entire passage and all of the Gospel. For the same reason modern trinitarianism cannot explain why it cannot account for the full 42 generations in the opening of the Gospel of Matthew. But if Matthew plainly tells us that there are 14+14+14 generations in his genealogy then one either must believe that he made a mistake in his own writing or admit that the mainstream understanding is in error. The Father bless your Bread of Life and Living Water even more than He already has.
Matthew 1:1-17
1. Genesis book of Yeshua Christou-Meshiach, son of David, son of Abraham.
2. Abraham [1] begat Yitschak; [2] and Yitschak begat Yaakob; [3] and Yaakob begat Yhudah [4] and his brethren:
3. and Yhudah begat Pherez [5] and Zerah of Tamar; and Pherez begat Hezron; [6] and Hezron begat Ram: [7]
4. and Ram begat Amminadab; [8] and Amminidab begat Nahshon; [9] and Nahshon begat Salmon: [10]
5. and Salmon begat Boaz [11] of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed [12] of Ruth; and Obed begat Yishay: [13]
6. and Yishay begat David [14] the king. And David begat Sholomoh [15] of her that had been the wife of Uriyah:
7. and Sholomoh begat Rehoboam; [16] and Rehoboam begat Abiyah; [17] and Abiyah begat Asa: [18]
8. and Asa begat Yehoshaphat; [19] and Yehoshaphat begat Yhoram; [20] and Yhoram begat Uzziah: [21]
9. and Uzziah begat Yotham; [22] and Yotham begat Ahaz; [23] and Ahaz begat Hezekiah: [24]
10. and Hezekiah begat Manassheh; [25] and Manassheh begat Amon; [26] and Amon begat Yosiah: [27]
11. and Yosiah begat Yechoniah [28] and his brethren, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
12. And after the deportation to Babylon, Yechoniah begat Shealtiel; [29] and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel: [30]
13. and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; [31] and Abiud begat Eliakim; [32] and Eliakim begat Azor: [33]
14. and Azor begat Tzadok; [34] and Tzadok begat Achim; [35] and Achim begat Eliud: [36]
15. and Eliud begat Eleazar; [37] and Eleazar begat Matthan; [38] and Matthan begat Yaakob: [39]
16. and Yaakob begat Yoseph the andraMariam, [40] of whom was begat Yeshua, [41] who is legomenos-laying-forth-describing-speaking Christos-Meshiach [42].
17. So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the deportation to Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon unto the Christou-HaMeshiach are fourteen generations.
And three times fourteen generations are forty-two generations.
Fourteen generations from Abraham to David:
1) Abraham
2) Yitschak
3) Yaakob
4) Yhudah
5) Pherez
6) Hezron
7) Ram
8) Amminadab
9) Nahshon
10) Salmon
11) Boaz
12) Obed
13) Yishay
14) David
Fourteen generations from Solomon to Jechoniah
15) Sholomoh
16) Rehoboam
17) Abiyah
18) Asa
19) Yehoshaphat
20) Yhoram
21) Uzziah
22) Yotham
23) Ahaz
24) Hezekiah
25) Manassheh
26) Amon
27) Yosiah
28) Yechoniah
Fourteen generations from Shealtiel to Yeshua the Messiah:
29) Shealtiel
30) Zerubbabel
31) Abiud
32) Eliakim
33) Azor
34) Tzadok
35) Achim
36) Eliud
37) Eleazar
38) Matthan
39) Yaakob
40) Yoseph the andraMariam
41) Yeshua son of Yoseph - Netser of Yishay - Isaiah 11:1
42) Yeshua HaMeshiach - Tsemach Branch - Zechariah 3:8 - Zechariah 6:12
Last edited:
I am writing a book on this topic ... need to outline two and half more chapters to organize info and cut down on any repetition and I'll be done with my first completed manuscript. I am so glad see people interested in this topic ... I wrote about this for years without much support of what I was finding.
Hi Keypurr, It's nice to see you still on TOL. I haven't been here much ... but lately I've had the desire to start checking in again. Happy to see that you still interested in this topic. My ideas have not changed much over time, if any. Maybe I'll have time later today to reread some posts and make a comment.
since this has been bumped
I would like to repeat my image of God
the family
three persons in one family
father, mother, and child
this is the best way to understand the Trinity
and
it also shows how sacred each family is
how sacred each child is
it is the child that joins a man and woman together
now more than ever this needs to be expressed
I would like to repeat my image of God
the family
three persons in one family
father, mother, and child
this is the best way to understand the Trinity
and
it also shows how sacred each family is
how sacred each child is
it is the child that joins a man and woman together
now more than ever this needs to be expressed
Ben Masada
New member
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 in 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
Hi Chrysostom,
That is a very nice analogy ... and I do understand and appreciate your imagery.
I'm sure you remember that I take things in scripture literally as well. Hope you will check in on this thread again ... just in case anyone seems interested in my rehash of ideas. I'll be checking back to see.
I think I remember Keypurr not liking my ideas; so, we'll see.
Ben Masada
New member
You have my permission to enhance your book with whatever you need in post #837.