What is the express image of God?

[Bright Raven]

He had a beginning BR for he is an IMAGE. ALL IMAGES ARE CREATED. To be a copy of something, the something has to exist first. Simple logic friend. God was alone until he created his exact image and he was pleased that it contained his fullness. In other words, God created a form of God. This spirit is FIRST BORN of all creatures. Col 1:15. I did not rewrite the scriptures, I just have been given an understanding of some of them. Christ is the created spiritual son of the most high God. Being a creation he can become flesh and die for us. My God can not die so he sent his son to take the form of man to do that. Time has come to discard the errors of our forefathers and see truth.

1 John 1:1-2 New International Version (NIV)

The Incarnation of the Word of Life
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

 

[Jacob]

Jesus BECAME the Christ when the spirit Christ went into him at his anointing.

God sent his spiritual son to become flesh. That is what is recorded in scripture.

There is no conflict with my thoughts and scripture.

There is no spirit Christ that went into him at his anointing. That is not in the text, you are making it up.

You also say there was a spiritual son, but there was not. Jesus is the only (begotten) Son of God. All other sons of God are adopted. If you are a son of God you should be spiritual (though still flesh). But there is no sent by God spiritual son that was sent to become flesh.

 

[Ps82]

Hi Ben ... So much information covered may require a lengthy response. I will do my best to cover the high points and as succinctly as possible.

quote Ben:

"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.

I agree that verse is often used in a way that matches people's interpretation of the trinity.

quote Ben:

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.

and again quote Ben:
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."

If I understand your use of impersonately I agree with both of the points in bold type. I also agree that looking at the pronouns is important.

quote Ben:

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.

I do not agree with all points here and must ask you several questions:
1.) Who was it that was able to manifest a visible body for mankind?
2.) Who was it that was able to make LIGHT, the stars, sun, moon, plants, and creatures appear?

My answer is: The invisible God

3.) If God could bring these things he established into a visible realm, then why would you doubt that he might have been willing and able to do such a thing for HIMSELF?

4.) Is there any evidence in scripture that he did such a thing?

Well, ask Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, and the prophets. See what they say. Do you believe that they tell the truth or not?

Quote Ben:

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form.

Unless it is used as a collective noun and is a shortened form of "mankind" - representing all of humanity, then it has a plural meaning even if it is used grammatically like a singular word within a sentence.

Examples: The team is putting on their uniforms. Man has a propensity to sin due to Adam's sin.

quote Ben:

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.

Man or Mankind were created as a THEM... because mankind was established as a male and a female and were commanded by God to multiply and reproduce ... therefore male and female contained all of the genetic potential for bringing forth all of humanity from the the beginning. The codes for all potential people were there from the very start. If humanity can read a genetic code these days to determine whether a person has a propensity for a particular disease ... then how much better would the creator be at reading the code combinations so that he would know a person before they ever were born. Mankind was a plurality from the beginning and THEM is a perfectly good pronoun to use for MAN (male - female - and the descendants)

quote Ben:

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 so agree with the concept that there is only ONE God. Yet, because I understand God's plan for his creation ... I understand that God had established a way to save MAN/kind before HE ever created male and female.

That Plan was for God the Father, himself, to come in human form audibly professing HIS WORD unto mankind, and then to give the gift of HIS own Spirit to provide the way of salvation for those who recognize HIM as their LORD.

The ONE God is these three ... and these three are HIM ... they are ONE. I like to say it this way: HE is them and THEY are he. This concepts make John 1:1-18 make so much sense.

quote Ben:

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.

I can't accept this conclusion because of what I have found in scripture.


quote Ben:

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 can't speak for why Israel believes as they do ... but I will say again: I believe there is only ONE God. I do know that in Isaiah 43:11 God say:
I (the ONE God), even I am the LORD, beside ME (who is God and LORD) there is no Savior.

The key to the seeming mystery is: Who is the LORD? Is LORD merely a name or a title? Or does the name Jehovah / LORD actually represent a change that occurred ... and additional explanation of something wonderful? Is a name important?

I say yes. After all it was significant whenever God changed a person's name ... such as Abram to Abraham or Jacob to Israel ... etc.

When God's name changed from Elohiym in Gen. 1 to LORD in Gen. 2 something significant had happened.

Can you guess what ... do you know why God is most often referred to with a male pronoun like HE and HIM?





Here are a couple of hints.

Who was it that was given a body formed after God's image? What did that body look like?

 

[keypurr]

1 John 1:1-2 New International Version (NIV)

The Incarnation of the Word of Life
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

Friend, what is the beginning?

The beginning of creation was the creation of the express image. For all things were created through Christ. Christ was at the beginning. Before there was Christ there was God. God was alone until he created his express image.

There is a lot more to the story than what is preached in church BR.

 

[keypurr]

There is no spirit Christ that went into him at his anointing. That is not in the text, you are making it up.

You also say there was a spiritual son, but there was not. Jesus is the only (begotten) Son of God. All other sons of God are adopted. If you are a son of God you should be spiritual (though still flesh). But there is no sent by God spiritual son that was sent to become flesh.

Please define what the power is that Jesus received at his anointing according to Acts 10:38. It states that he received the Holy Spirit AND POWER. Consider that the spirit Christ has the fullness of the father. If you were God would you give that power to just anyone? Or would you send the Holy Spirit to bring a sinless baby into the world to be the Savior? Who is the body God prepared for Christ in Heb 10:5?

God declared who his Son was at the anointing of Jesus. Why did Jesus need to go into the wilderness for forty days then. What would you do if you were given the power and the knowledge to create the Universe? How would you adjust to that? Why was he then tempted by Satan?

You need to ask a lot of questions to find truth my friends. Jesus is knocking at the door, open up to his blessings and received some truth.

 

[daqq]

There is no spirit Christ that went into him at his anointing. That is not in the text, you are making it up.

You also say there was a spiritual son, but there was not. Jesus is the only (begotten) Son of God. All other sons of God are adopted. If you are a son of God you should be spiritual (though still flesh). But there is no sent by God spiritual son that was sent to become flesh.

Actually the so-called church fathers admit that it was there in the "original Matthew", (which was in Hebrew-Aramaic) which they also then freely admit that they translated into Greek. Whatever happened to the original work nobody knows. Epiphanius calls "the Gospel of the Ebionites" instead the "Hebrew Gospel", but he is now assumed to have confused the matter, either that or he was correct and the issue has been purposely confused to hide what was done, for "the Gospel of the Hebrews" is now thought to possibly have been the original Gospel of Matthew which fairly clearly appears to have been written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. It almost appears that the Gospel of the Hebrews, (original Matthew) was so heavily redacted and mutilated that it had to be translated into Greek by the guilty so as to destroy the innocent. The companion passage in question is Matthew 3:13-17 which in the Gospel of the Hebrews, (or Ebionites) is now suggested to have been a conflation of Mark and Luke, because of what is believed to have been originally written in Luke 3:22 by not a few scholars, as exhibited in the Codex Bezae [D].

Blue emphasis mine:

And after a good deal more it continues that:

After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John; and as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove that descended and entered into him: and a voice from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased: and again: This day have I begotten thee. And straightway there shone about the place a great light. Which when John saw (it saith) he saith unto him: Who art thou, Lord? and again there was a voice from heaven saying unto him: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And then (it saith) John fell down before him and said: I beseech thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But he prevented him saying: Suffer it (or let it go): for thus it behoveth that all things should be fulfilled.

And on this account they say that Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man, and was chosen; and so by the choice of God he was called the Son of God from the Christ that came into him from above in the likeness of a dove. And they deny that he was begotten of God the Father, but say that he was created as one of the archangels, yet greater, and that he is Lord of the angels and of all things made by the Almighty, and that he came and taught, as the Gospel (so called) current among them contains, that, 'I came to destroy the sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you'[SIZE=-1].[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]*Snip*
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]These fragments show clearly that the Gospel was designed to support a particular set of views. They enable us also to distinguish it from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for, among other things, the accounts of the Baptism in the two are quite different. Epiphanius is only confusing the issue when he talks of it as the Hebrew Gospel - or rather, the Ebionites may be guilty of the confusion, for he attributes the name to them.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] The Gospel according to the Twelve, or 'of the Twelve', mentioned by Origen (Ambrose and Jerome) is identified by Zahn with the Ebionite Gospel. He makes a good case for the identification. If the two are not identical, it can only be said that we know nothing of the Gospel according to the Twelve. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
The Gospel of the Ebionites

Concerning the Gospel of the Nazoreans, (which they also say is the Gospel of the Ebionites) we find these statements from Jerome:

10. In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use, which we have recently translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by most people the authentic (Gospel) of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason who pleaded for help in the following words: "I was a mason and earned (my) livelihood with (my) hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, to restore me to my health that I may not with ignominy have to beg for my bread." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2 [on Matthew 12:13])

21. But in the Gospel which is written in Hebrew characters we read not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple of wondrous size collapsed.
(Jerome, Epistula ad Hedybiam 120.8)
The Gospel of the Nazoreans

And Eusebius:

18. But since the Gospel (written) in Hebrew characters which has come into our hands enters the threat not against the man who had hid (the talent), but against him who had lived dissolutely - for he (the master) had three servants: one who squandered his master's substance with harlots and flute-girls, one who multiplied the gain, and one who hid the talent; and accordingly one was accepted (with joy), another merely rebuked, and another cast into prison - I wonder whether in Matthew the threat which is uttered after the word against the man who did nothing may not refer to him, but by epanalepsis to the first who had feasted and drunk with the drunken. (Eusebius, Theophania 22 [on Matthew 25:14-15]
The Gospel of the Nazoreans

Surely there was an original Matthew in Hebrew-Aramaic and surely the early "church fathers" got their hands on copies of it and fully admit that they translated it into Greek. Hmmm, I wonder what ever happened to the Hebrew copies? When someone says to me, "Hey, that's heretical, let me fix it for you", I know for certain that indeed the fix is in and I ain't in on it. Lucy, somebody gonna have some splainin to do! :devil:

 

[keypurr]

Daqq thank you for your informative posts. You quote books that are not know to me. I try to understand so much in such little time. I wish I was younger so that I study more and remember what I have read. Thank you for understanding my thoughts, but I must tell you that I believe that my thoughts come from my God. He has blessed me with what I have about his words.

 

[Ps82]

Ben, be sure to check out post 883. it was written to you.

 

[keypurr]

Daqq, it appears that you have been reading for a long time.

 

[daqq]

Daqq thank you for your informative posts. You quote books that are not know to me. I try to understand so much in such little time. I wish I was younger so that I study more and remember what I have read. Thank you for understanding my thoughts, but I must tell you that I believe that my thoughts come from my God. He has blessed me with what I have about his words.

Daqq, it appears that you have been reading for a long time.

We are probably quite similar with respect to both of your comments in that no mortal man has shown me what I have now been led to understand and believe, (which is one reason I was pleasantly surprised to see someone else having been given the same or at least very similar understanding). However when I began to understand what the Scripture itself says and teaches, first and foremost, then I also began to understand where to start digging. I did not know about what is posted above in my previous post until after I first understood it from what we now have as the Scripture. Likewise the contents which are now in my first post in this thread are supported by a mountain of evidence from within what most would call the current canon of Scripture. Perhaps the greatest insufficiency in modern theology is the lack of Torah and "Old Testament", (Tanach) understanding. It does however seem that there are quite a few very learned people here in this forum.

 

[daqq]

You quote books that are not know to me.

By the way if you are speaking of the following post from the previous page here it is with references:

Yes, in many more ways than one, for there is neither male nor female in Messiah.

The words of Agur, (the Gatherer) son of Yaqeh, (the obedient) the burden: Thus says the Geber, for 'Iythiy'el, (for God has arrived) for God has arrived and devoured: Surely I am lower than an 'iysh and the understanding of an 'adam have I not: neither was I taught wisdom, but the knowledge of the holy ones I know. Who ascends the shamayim and descends? Who has gathered the ruach in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name? and what is the name of His Son if you can tell? Every 'imrat-memra of God is refined: He is a magen to them that put their trust in him, [Proverbs 30:1-5] (and no one has ascended into the shamayim but he that from the shamayim descended in the somatikos-bodily form of a pneumatikos dove: the Son of the Anthropou [Luke 3:22 with John 3:13]). Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. By me kings reign and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. I love them that love me and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honor are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. I lead in the way of righteousness in the midst of the paths of judgment: that I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. YHWH possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old: I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills I was brought forth: while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there, and when he set a compass upon the face of the depth, when he established the clouds above, when he strengthened the fountains of the deep, when he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment, when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then was I by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O you sons: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that hears me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whosoever finds me finds life and shall obtain favour of YHWH. But he that sins against me wrongs his own soul: all they that hate me love death [Proverbs 8:14-36].

In the beginning was the Memra, and the Memra was with the Elohim, and elohim was the Memra: the same was in the beginning with the Elohim. All things through him came to be, and apart from him came nothing to be which has come to be. In him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot apprehend it. There came to be a man sent from Elohim of the name Yochanan: the same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light. That was the true light, which lights every man that comes into the world. He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them he gave power to become sons of Elohim, to them that are faithfully trusting into his name: those not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but from Elohim having been born. And the Memra came to be flesh, and tabernacled among us, [John 1:1-14] but all flesh is not the same flesh: there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds, (and therefore likewise yonah-doves). There are somata-bodies celestial, and somata-bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another: if there is a soma psuchikon, there is a soma pneumatikon [1 Corinthians 15:39-40, 44b].

And Yeshua having been praying immersed, and by and by ascending from the water he sees the heavens being torn, and the Spirit of the Holy One descending in somatiko-corporeal-bodily form as a dove and entering into him: and a voice coming from heaven, "You are My Son: This day have I begotten you." [Luke 3:21b-22 Codex Bezae] And thereupon shone a great light roundabout that place. And Yochanan seeing the great light, and having gone through, (several plunges of the immersion) prevented him, saying, "Who are you, Master? I have need under the name of you to be immersed: and you come to me?" And Yeshua answering says unto him: "Allow it for now: for in this way it is fitting for us to fill up all righteousness." Then he allowed it. And by and by ascending up from the water, behold, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of Elohim descending as if a dove and alighting upon him: And, lo, a voice from the heavens, saying, "This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I delight." [Matthew 3:13-17, Epiphanius, Aramaic-Hebrew Matthew Gospel of the Ebionites] And the Memra tabernacled in the heart of the man Yeshua: and the Father, that Princely Power of the Empire, remained upon his shoulder [Isaiah 9:6 YLT] as Yeshua walked among his talmidim and all the people: Emmanu'El.

 

[keypurr]

Daqq, like you, I have been waiting for someone to see what I have been given. It is such a pleasure to see your posts. They support my thoughts about the son being a spirit that God created and sent to us. It supports the fact that there is only one true God, the Father.

The problem is most folks do not want to hear that. They live by their tradition.

Thanks again my friend.

 

[Jacob]

Daqq, like you, I have been waiting for someone to see what I have been given. It is such a pleasure to see your posts. They support my thoughts about the son being a spirit that God created and sent to us.

Do you think you have one Bible verse that says that?

It supports the fact that there is only one true God, the Father.

The problem is most folks do not want to hear that. They live by their tradition.

Thanks again my friend.

 

[Jacob]

Actually the so-called church fathers admit that it was there in the "original Matthew", (which was in Hebrew-Aramaic) which they also then freely admit that they translated into Greek. Whatever happened to the original work nobody knows. Epiphanius calls "the Gospel of the Ebionites" instead the "Hebrew Gospel", but he is now assumed to have confused the matter, either that or he was correct and the issue has been purposely confused to hide what was done, for "the Gospel of the Hebrews" is now thought to possibly have been the original Gospel of Matthew which fairly clearly appears to have been written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. It almost appears that the Gospel of the Hebrews, (original Matthew) was so heavily redacted and mutilated that it had to be translated into Greek by the guilty so as to destroy the innocent. The companion passage in question is Matthew 3:13-17 which in the Gospel of the Hebrews, (or Ebionites) is now suggested to have been a conflation of Mark and Luke, because of what is believed to have been originally written in Luke 3:22 by not a few scholars, as exhibited in the Codex Bezae [D].

Blue emphasis mine:

Concerning the Gospel of the Nazoreans, (which they also say is the Gospel of the Ebionites) we find these statements from Jerome:

And Eusebius:

Surely there was an original Matthew in Hebrew-Aramaic and surely the early "church fathers" got their hands on copies of it and fully admit that they translated it into Greek. Hmmm, I wonder what ever happened to the Hebrew copies? When someone says to me, "Hey, that's heretical, let me fix it for you", I know for certain that indeed the fix is in and I ain't in on it. Lucy, somebody gonna have some splainin to do! :devil:

You are speaking with many words about the gospel of Matthew. I have it that it was either written originally in Hebrew or in Greek. That is enough for me to know and I am not troubled by it.

 

[keypurr]

Do you think you have one Bible verse that says that?

Define the word IMAGE.

Christ is the express IMAGE of the Father. A spirit.

Firstborn of all creatures, Col 1:15, Heb 1:3.

Jesus was BORN, he is a creation also.

You do not understand that, do you.

Sometimes we must study what is written and reason as to what is being said.

 

[Jacob]

Define the word IMAGE.

Christ is the express IMAGE of the Father. A spirit.

Firstborn of all creatures, Col 1:15, Heb 1:3.

Jesus was BORN, he is a creation also.

You do not understand that, do you.

Sometimes we must study what is written and reason as to what is being said.

I know Jesus was born, but as the Christ that does not make Him a spirit.

You are using the words "express image" while I am aware of the words "exact representation". That is who the man Christ Jesus is. He reveals God to us. He is the exact representation of His (God's) being.

 

[daqq]

Daqq, like you, I have been waiting for someone to see what I have been given. It is such a pleasure to see your posts. They support my thoughts about the son being a spirit that God created and sent to us. It supports the fact that there is only one true God, the Father.

The problem is most folks do not want to hear that. They live by their tradition.

Thanks again my friend.

It appears you have taken some Berean time to inspect the passages which were quoted, and yes, they support and enhance what you appear to have also received. Also a form of the same word from where Memra derives is likewise found in the Wisdom passage just before the large section which I previously quoted. This is in plural form but from the same root found also in Proverbs 30:5 which was also quoted together in the same post:

Proverbs 8:8 ASV
8. All the words [HSN#0561 'imrey] of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverse in them.

Original Strong's Ref. #0561
Transliterated: 'emer
Phonetic: ay'-mer
Text: from 559; something said:
KJV--answer, X appointed unto him, saying, speech, word.

Original Strong's Ref. #0565
Transliterated: 'imrah
Phonetic: im-raw'
Text: or memrah {em-raw'}; feminine of 561, and meaning the same:
KJV--commandment, speech, word.

It was also enlightening to find that verse thirty from the same passage appears to say the very same thing as the opening line of the Gospel of John. It is as if John 1:1 is based on the statement from Wisdom personified when she says, "I was by Him", (i.e. with or beside the Creator just as in the opening line of the Gospel of John). I am quoting the ASV for the specific reason that herein we see, in verse thirty, that Wisdom is called a Master Workman or Craftsman and this no doubt speaks of creation:

Proverbs 8:23-30 ASV
23. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was.
24. When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water.
25. Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth;
26. While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world.
27. When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep,
28. When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong,
29. When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth;
30. Then I was by him, [Re: John 1:1] as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him,

Wisdom is the Memra-Logos, (there is neither male nor female in Messiah).

 

[daqq]

Originally Posted by keypurr Daqq, like you, I have been waiting for someone to see what I have been given. It is such a pleasure to see your posts. They support my thoughts about the son being a spirit that God created and sent to us.

Do you think you have one Bible verse that says that?

What about these clear emphatic statements from Yeshua himself?
Do you honor them by incorporating them into your doctrine?

John 14:24
24. He that loves me not keeps not my words: and the Logos which you hear is not of me, but-contrariwise, [it is] of the Sender of me, the Father.

John 5:22
22. For the Father judges no one, but-contrariwise, the judgment of all He has given to the Son:

John 8:15
15. You judge according to the flesh: I judge no one.

John 8:50
50. And I seek not mine own glory: one there is, the Seeker and Judge.

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but-contrariwise that the world be saved.
48. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos which I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

1) The Father judges no one.
2) The man Yeshua judges no one.
3) The Father has given all judgment to the Son.
4) The man Yeshua seeks not his own glory: there is one Seeker and Judge.
5) The Logos which the man Yeshua spoke is the Seeker and Judge.
6) The Logos is the Son according to the Testimony of Yeshua.
7) Heaven and earth shall pass but the words of Yeshua will not pass away.

 

[Jacob]

I accept the Bible and the words of Jesus found therein. Do you recall Jesus saying anything about His own judgment?

 

[keypurr]

I know Jesus was born, but as the Christ that does not make Him a spirit.

You are using the words "express image" while I am aware of the words "exact representation". That is who the man Christ Jesus is. He reveals God to us. He is the exact representation of His (God's) being.

What is the difference between express image and exact representation? An exact representation of a spirit is a spirit, not a man. A spirit can in dwell and takeover a man. Christ was just that, a spirit that took over a body, Jesus. A man could be the representation of God, but not the EXACT one. God is a spirit not a man. The word "express" in the KJV was the key to understanding the truth about the son that was with God before the world was created.