What is the express image of God?

[StanJ]

Did he not say Why do you call me good?

Yes He did, and He didn't get an answer did He? The point Jesus was making was to identify that He wasn't just a good teacher, but that He was their God and Messiah/Savior. Now if you look a little further on in Mark 10, you will see that many disciples fell away from following Him that day as they said "who then can be saved?" for which He replied, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
Now again, He shows that God saves so as Jesus is our savior, then He has to be God, because man can NOT save.

No man has seen God, that includes Jesus. It was the spirit Christ who came down from God, not Jesus. That spirit is the son of man.

Actually it doesn't, as John 1:18 (NIV) clearly demonstrates. You really need to stop cherry picking parts of the scriptures and read it ALL in context keypurr.

Why do you assume so much?

I don't

Yes, God is a spirit, so is his express image Christ. Christ spoke through the body prepared for him. Christ is the son that God sent, not Jesus.

You're back to that word again that we already established is NOT the proper rendering of the Greek.

Suggest you look over Hebrews 10:5. See what is there for you to digest.

Yes, Christ, not Jesus. Jesus was the body Christ was incarnated in. It's all clearly spelled out in John 1, which you seem to avoid like the plague. Could that be because it refutes all your Unitarian beliefs? Not surprising as many Unitarians I have debated shy away from John 1.

 

[StanJ]

Stan there is only one true God, the Father. Every other being is a creation. Jesus was born human, Christ was a created spirit. Your as bad as the Jews who thought that Jesus was saying he was God because he said he is the son of God.

You just do not see what the good book is telling you. God is not made up of three pieces Stan, the Trinity is false. Jesus Christ tells you that he is not God. Why do you listen to men instead of God? The word "godhead" has deceived most folks. God is one and only one. Did not Paul say that we have one God AND one Lord? What do you think he meant?

I think I've already refuted that keypurr. Yes, Jesus was born human, AS God incarnate. Christ was created, He IS the Word made Flesh. Again John 1 explains all this. I'm pretty sure as the Jews were there, they knew exactly what Jesus was saying, and their anger aside, they were correct.
He is the PHYSICAL son of God. That's what am son is. You treat Jesus as if He had no spirit which of course is understanding seeing as His hypostatic spirit is what defines Him as God.

I see EXACTLY what the GOOD Book is telling me, and always have. Sadly I can't say the same for you. I have no back slid into apostasy from my confession of salvation. Jesus NEVER said He is not God and I gave you tones of scriptures that show He said it and IS. This type of deliberate prevarication only proves you are NOT open to the Truth.
Your assertion about "godhead is just that, and you can't back it up, as usual, because there is NO support for your assertion.
What did Paul say keypurr? Cite the verses if you know them. I have, so please don't pussyfoot around the issue. Your tendency to NOT cite the actual scripture indicates a certain amount of apprehension about what it will actually show you. That's called cognitive dissonance.

 

[daqq]

Yes, breaking the first of the Ten Commandments, and even more dangerous now because of the Testimony of Yeshua, which says that those to whom the Logos of Elohim has come are called "elohim" and likewise Yeshua says "and the scripture cannot be broken" in that same John 10:34-35 passage where he quotes the Psalm. Therefore anyone who claims the name of Messiah and says he or she has the Word, (Logos) is called an "elohim" and any such one who puts himself/herself before the Most High has also broken the first commandment, (first of the Ten Words, i.e. Exodus 20:3). But aside from all this I wanted to ask you Keypurr if you have already addressed Romans 1:25 in this thread? The same word for "creature-creation" is employed there by the same writer Paul:

Romans 1:22-25 KJV
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Colossians 1:15 KJV
15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Same Greek word and usage: ktisis-creature-creation.

No, I have not used that verse, but it is a good one to use.

I do not think they want to see it and relate it to their trinity.

I do use Colossians a lot.

Context is everything too!

Romans 1:1-4 YLT
1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God -
2. which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings -
3. concerning His Son, ( who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh,
4. who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead, ) Jesus Christ our Lord;

Romans 1:1-4 Paul, a bondservant of Messiah Yeshua, appointed an apostle, separated unto the good news of Elohim which He promised of old through his prophets in holy writ, concerning of His son, having come from the spermatos of David according to the flesh, declared [a] son of God in power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Yeshua Messiah our Master:

Hmmm, Paul starts off what would become his proverbial opus magnum, (Epistle to the Romans) with the emphatic statement that Yeshua is come from the spermatos-seed of David according to the flesh. :chuckle:

 

[Jacob]

Yes I do, they only teach half the truth and they distort that.

They teach the Trinity which is false, they do not teach the commandments as they are in scripture.

.

You should have nothing against the church. You are rejecting God on account of what you believe to be false, whether it is or not.

Many think there is a church and the church's teaching. But I am talking about the church spoken of in the Bible.

 

[Ardima]

Did he not say Why do you call me good?

Does anyone ever get the reason for context?

(Matthew 19:16-17) And, behold, one came and said unto him, "Good Master, what good thing must I do, that I may have age-abiding life?" (17) And he said unto him, "Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if you are determined to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Look at the way Jesus responds to this person. Jesus is not saying that he is not good. It was a rhetorical question to make the person think of the implications of what he was saying. Note how Jesus was quick to put in the "but" indicating that the question preceding it was rhetorical.

"Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God," is really Jesus way of saying, either call me good because you believe I am God or don't call me good at all. The emphasis is on the "why".

Stan there is only one true God, the Father.

Amen!

Every other being is a creation. (emphasis mine)

This is also true; but, Jesus being, that is, state of existence, was not contingent. As I pointed out in the "Do you think God the Father can whip Jesus??" thread here:

Your soul (your very being) is directly linked to your flesh by your spirit. This makes you 100% man and 100% spirit. God (the Father) was linked to the flesh (the Son) by the Holy Spirit. This made Jesus 100% man and 100% God. Also note that it was the Holy Spirit that caused Mary's pregnancy.(Matthew 1:18) It wasn't a coincidence... Jesus gave up the nature of God to put on the nature of a servant and was found in the fashion (not nature) of a man.

(Philippians 2:6-8) Who existing in the nature of God, did not think equality with God something to be treasured: (7) but made himself of no reputation, accepted the nature of a servant, and was kept in the likeness of men: (8) and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Notice that the nature of God was exchanged for the nature of a servant, not the nature of man. He was kept in the likeness of, and found in the fashion as, a man (by willful humility).

Jesus was born human, Christ was a created spirit. Your as bad as the Jews who thought that Jesus was saying he was God because he said he is the son of God.

Christ was God kept in the likeness of men by willful humility. (see my quote above)

You just do not see what the good book is telling you. God is not made up of three pieces Stan, the Trinity is false.

How most people view the Trinity is false. Do you believe that you possess a body, soul, and spirit? The only way you can reject the Trinity is if you reject your own body, soul, and spirit because we are created in that the Image of God. The same one of which Jesus is the express Image.

Jesus Christ tells you that he is not God. Why do you listen to men instead of God?

Where exactly does Jesus make the claim that he isn't God?

The word "godhead" has deceived most folks. God is one and only one.

Yes, God is one and only one; just as you are one and only one living soul.

Did not Paul say that we have one God AND one Lord? What do you think he meant?

It is clear that he meant that there is one God and one Lord, meaning that the one God and one Lord are one and the same. It is an inclusive "and" not an exclusive one.

 

[patrick jane]

Colossians 1:15 KJV - Colossians 1:16 KJV - Colossians 1:17 KJV -


Colossians 1:18-19 KJV - Colossians 1:20-21 KJV -


Colossians 1:22 KJV -


Colossians 1:23 KJV - Colossians 1:25 KJV -

Colossians 1:26 KJV -


1 Timothy 3:16 KJV -


Hebrews 1:1 KJV - Hebrews 1:2 KJV -


Hebrews 1:3 KJV -

 

[daqq]

Does anyone ever get the reason for context?

(Matthew 19:16-17) And, behold, one came and said unto him, "Good Master, what good thing must I do, that I may have age-abiding life?" (17) And he said unto him, "Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if you are determined to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Look at the way Jesus responds to this person. Jesus is not saying that he is not good. It was a rhetorical question to make the person think of the implications of what he was saying. Note how Jesus was quick to put in the "but" indicating that the question preceding it was rhetorical.

"Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God," is really Jesus way of saying, either call me good because you believe I am God or don't call me good at all.

Again this is another argument that falls flat on its face when one only digs a little deeper, (and isn't it funny how the Ten Commandments were just mentioned). But first the statement you have quoted includes "God" only in the Textus Receptus:

Matthew 19:17-19 KJV
17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [agathos] there is none good [agathos] but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 19:17 ASV
17. And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.

However Luke quotes this statement also, and in that passage all manuscripts do include "God", (ho Theos) but then the same writer follows up with multiple statements, using the same word in the same kind of context, yet concerning multiple different people. This fact immediately disproves the reasoning you have offered for your understanding of the statement:

Luke 18:19 KJV
19. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [agathos] none is good, [agathos] save one, that is, God.

Luke 23:50 KJV
50. And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good [agathos] man, and a just:

Acts 11:22-24 KJV
22. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
23. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
24. For he was a good [agathos] man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

Is Joseph of Arimathaea also God according to your reasoning?
Is Barnabas also God according to your reasoning?
Luke says that both of them are agathos-GOOD.
Or are they simply elohim sons of Elohim?

 

[Ardima]

Again this is another argument that falls flat on its face when one only digs a little deeper, (and isn't it funny how the Ten Commandments were just mentioned). But first the statement you have quoted includes "God" only in the Textus Receptus:

Matthew 19:17-19 KJV
17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [agathos] there is none good [agathos] but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 19:17 ASV
17. And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.

However Luke quotes this statement also, and in that passage all manuscripts do include "God", (ho Theos) but then the same writer follows up with multiple statements, using the same word in the same kind of context, yet concerning multiple different people. This fact immediately disproves the reasoning you have offered for your understanding of the statement:

Luke 18:19 KJV
19. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [agathos] none is good, [agathos] save one, that is, God.

Luke 23:50 KJV
50. And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good [agathos] man, and a just:

Acts 11:22-24 KJV
22. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
23. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
24. For he was a good [agathos] man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

Is Joseph of Arimathaea also God according to your reasoning?
Is Barnabas also God according to your reasoning?
Luke says that both of them are agathos-GOOD.
Or are they simply elohim sons of Elohim?

Context is key. This is a frail argument against a strawman when you look at the context. The word describing the men might be the same, but the men are not. Jesus is the one asking the question about himself as to why the person was calling him good. You have to understand what the object is being described as good. Jesus was referring to his very own nature. As for the other two men Luke was using the word to describe the works that the men were doing. When discribing someone contingent as "good" you are only able to pass judgment on what you have experienced through a person's actions. The very nature of God is good; therefore only God can be good, and it was this state of being in which Jesus was referring in context.


Notice also that when luke calls joseph and barnabas "good," there are reasons that directly follow. By this we know that they were Godly men because all good things come from God for He is good.

 

[Cross Reference]

On Topic:

God expressed perfectly in a form was the pre-incarnate "Word of God" in whose image man was formed.

 

[keypurr]

You should have nothing against the church. You are rejecting God on account of what you believe to be false, whether it is or not.



Many think there is a church and the church's teaching. But I am talking about the church spoken of in the Bible.

I will not break the commandments of God to follow the established churches. The church of the Bible is not an organized religious club house. The church in scripture in written in the hearts and minds of the folks that love God and the son he sent. I do not reject God, I reject the man made false teaching that have crept into the established churches. There is no other true God than the Father. Christ is not God, he is the son of God.

The son of a plumber is not a plumber. He is the son of the plumber. So it is with the son of God. He is a servant of his Father. He obeys his Father out of love for his Father. That does not make him God or his Father.

Christ is the spiritual son of the most high God. He is a created form of God for it was given the fullness of the Father, and the Father was pleased with that.

Tho shall have no other Gods before me says the Lord your God. Ex 20:1-17

 

[keypurr]

Colossians 1:15 KJV - Colossians 1:16 KJV - Colossians 1:17 KJV -


Colossians 1:18-19 KJV - Colossians 1:20-21 KJV -


Colossians 1:22 KJV -


Colossians 1:23 KJV - Colossians 1:25 KJV -

Colossians 1:26 KJV -


1 Timothy 3:16 KJV -


Hebrews 1:1 KJV - Hebrews 1:2 KJV -


Hebrews 1:3 KJV -

What are you trying to say friend?

 

[keypurr]

Does anyone ever get the reason for context?

(Matthew 19:16-17) And, behold, one came and said unto him, "Good Master, what good thing must I do, that I may have age-abiding life?" (17) And he said unto him, "Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if you are determined to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Look at the way Jesus responds to this person. Jesus is not saying that he is not good. It was a rhetorical question to make the person think of the implications of what he was saying. Note how Jesus was quick to put in the "but" indicating that the question preceding it was rhetorical.

"Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God," is really Jesus way of saying, either call me good because you believe I am God or don't call me good at all. The emphasis is on the "why".

Amen!



This is also true; but, Jesus being, that is, state of existence, was not contingent. As I pointed out in the "Do you think God the Father can whip Jesus??" thread here:



Christ was God kept in the likeness of men by willful humility. (see my quote above)



How most people view the Trinity is false. Do you believe that you possess a body, soul, and spirit? The only way you can reject the Trinity is if you reject your own body, soul, and spirit because we are created in that the Image of God. The same one of which Jesus is the express Image.




Where exactly does Jesus make the claim that he isn't God?

Yes, God is one and only one; just as you are one and only one living soul.

It is clear that he meant that there is one God and one Lord, meaning that the one God and one Lord are one and the same. It is an inclusive "and" not an exclusive one.

Have you ever read John 17:3? He tells you that his Father is the ONLY true God.

God is NOT a trinity, God is the creator of all things. Including the spiritual son he created through. Paul was quite clear that we have ONE GOD and one Lord. Why do you wish to cling to the man made doctrines from the folks that thought the world was flat? Put on your thinking cap and seek the Lord with all your heart or you will not find him.

 

[StanJ]

Colossians 1:15 KJV - Colossians 1:16 KJV - Colossians 1:17 KJV -
Colossians 1:18-19 KJV - Colossians 1:20-21 KJV -
Colossians 1:22 KJV -
Colossians 1:23 KJV - Colossians 1:25 KJV -
Colossians 1:26 KJV -
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV -
Hebrews 1:1 KJV - Hebrews 1:2 KJV -
Hebrews 1:3 KJV -

I'm not really sure how many times these verses have been shown, but, I have concluded that the blind don't/can't really see them.

 

[Ben Masada]

On Topic:

God expressed perfectly in a form was the pre-incarnate "Word of God" in whose image man was formed.

God has no image and, here is why:

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

 

[daqq]

Context is key. This is a frail argument against a strawman when you look at the context. The word describing the men might be the same, but the men are not. Jesus is the one asking the question about himself as to why the person was calling him good. You have to understand what the object is being described as good. Jesus was referring to his very own nature. As for the other two men Luke was using the word to describe the works that the men were doing. When discribing someone contingent as "good" you are only able to pass judgment on what you have experienced through a person's actions. The very nature of God is good; therefore only God can be good, and it was this state of being in which Jesus was referring in context.


Notice also that when luke calls joseph and barnabas "good," there are reasons that directly follow. By this we know that they were Godly men because all good things come from God for He is good.

Your argument was that because "there is none good except God" it implied that "Jesus is God" but your argument is circular because you need to start off with the premise that "Jesus is God" to come to the conclusion that you come to and justify two different meanings for the same word in the same type of context. What it seems you have done, and as many seem to do, is to make certain words into hybrid words that have a special meaning when applied to Yeshua that do not apply when speaking of anyone else. Examples of such hybrid words would be prototokos-firstborn, monogenes-only-begotten, ktisis-creature-creation, hypostasis-essence, charakter-stamp-image, and on and on and on, and the likes of which are essentially employed to carve out new meanings for a new religion extracted from within the existing text by changing the meanings of certain words to affect the outcome of the overall understanding. God is no respecter of the persons of men. If you want to make up "super special meanings" so as to reinvent your favorite charakter in the story while applying different "lesser brethren meanings" to other individuals concerning the usage of the same words then that is your business. But as well as favoritism, and showing respect to persons, which is bias when it comes to rendering judgments concerning the meanings of words in statements; I also am warned about calling evil good and calling good evil, which very statement contains the word "good" which is in the statement under discussion. Two different meanings for the same word in the same context which then make the statements and or laws apply to one group but not to another is preferential treatment and a tactic used by elitist totalitarian regimes and cults.

 

[Ardima]

Your argument was that because "there is none good except God" it implied that "Jesus is God" but your argument is circular because you need to start off with the premise that "Jesus is God" to come to the conclusion that you come to and justify two different meanings for the same word in the same type of context.

No, my argument was only God is Good. The premise I start off with is God is Good, which then leads to the conclusion that Jesus is claiming to be God as he does at other times in scripture.

What it seems you have done, and as many seem to do, is to make certain words into hybrid words that have a special meaning when applied to Yeshua that do not apply when speaking of anyone else.

What special meaning? Either good is good or it is not. As I have said, the meaning of the word does not change; the object that it describes in each instance is different.

The two verses about Joseph and Barnabas that you presented me with have the same object that "good" is describing, man. It says that each was a good man. In case you haven't taken grammar classes, "man" is the object receiving the description of good. Joseph was a good man. Barnabas was a good man. God is good, period.

Examples of such hybrid words would be prototokos-firstborn, monogenes-only-begotten, ktisis-creature-creation, hypostasis-essence, charakter-stamp-image, and on and on and on, and the likes of which are essentially employed to carve out new meanings for a new religion extracted from within the existing text by changing the meanings of certain words to affect the outcome of the overall understanding.

You are right, many do change the meanings to fit their ow "religion;" however, I find that the original meaning of the words as written in context never contradict the Nature and Character of God.

God is no respecter of the persons of men. If you want to make up "super special meanings" so as to reinvent your favorite charakter in the story while applying different "lesser brethren meanings" to other individuals concerning the usage of the same words then that is your business. But as well as favoritism, and showing respect to persons, which is bias when it comes to rendering judgments concerning the meanings of words in statements.

First, I will state outright that I will ignore the last part of your post because it is just a needless rant used to distract from the "super special meanings" bit.

Second, there is no way that you can claim that I am reinventing the meaning of the Greek word "khar-ak-tar." Name one instance in all of scripture that this word is used to describe someone other than Jesus. Or even better, name one other instance in all of scripture that it is used at all.

 

[Ardima]

Have you ever read John 17:3? He tells you that his Father is the ONLY true God.

Yes I have. In fact, it substantiates my position. As I have said, the Father is the Truth, the Soul of God; which makes the Father the only true God. Why is it so hard for you to understand? Are you not body, soul, spirit? Are you not made in the image of God?

God is NOT a trinity, God is the creator of all things. Including the spiritual son he created through.

The only contingent thing about Jesus was the flesh that housed the express image of the Eternal One.

Paul was quite clear that we have ONE GOD and one Lord.

And one God and Savior, Jesus Christ...

Why do you wish to cling to the man made doctrines from the folks that thought the world was flat? Put on your thinking cap and seek the Lord with all your heart or you will not find him.

I do not cling them. I understand perfectly that God is One. I also understand that God has chosen to make us in the singular image of himself which is comprised of a body, soul, and spirit. I have even stated outright that there is not three co-equal persons of the Godhead. Perhaps you are trying to fight a strawman that does not exist in my theology.

 

[daqq]

No, my argument was only God is Good. The premise I start off with is God is Good, which then leads to the conclusion that Jesus is claiming to be God as he does at other times in scripture.



What special meaning? Either good is good or it is not. As I have said, the meaning of the word does not change; the object that it describes in each instance is different.

The two verses about Joseph and Barnabas that you presented me with have the same object that "good" is describing, man. It says that each was a good man. In case you haven't taken grammar classes, "man" is the object receiving the description of good. Joseph was a good man. Barnabas was a good man. God is good, period.



You are right, many do change the meanings to fit their ow "religion;" however, I find that the original meaning of the words as written in context never contradict the Nature and Character of God.

First, I will state outright that I will ignore the last part of your post because it is just a needless rant used to distract from the "super special meanings" bit.

Second, there is no way that you can claim that I am reinventing the meaning of the Greek word "khar-ak-tar." Name one instance in all of scripture that this word is used to describe someone other than Jesus. Or even better, name one other instance in all of scripture that it is used at all.

Okay, so you have answered the question by stating that the meaning of the word does not change and only God is good. Therefore you do in fact believe that Joseph of Aramathaea and Barnabas are God because according to your understanding of the statement only God is good and Luke says of both of them that they are good. It would have been much easier though if you would have simply relinquished your false understanding of what Yeshua was saying to begin with because if he is claiming to be God by that statement then clearly Joseph and Barnabas are also God.

God has no image and, here is why:

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 Ben, you did not answer the question after the first time posting the same above comments a few pages back. Is "Elohim" in fact a personal name or not? And if it is not a personal name then why is it used as such in the opening creation account wherein we find the word Elohim employed without the definite article as if it were a personal name? And if it is in fact a personal name then it directly impacts our understanding of John 1:1. Also does YHWH know good and evil or does that statement concern only [the] Elohim? :think:

Perhaps you are not one who believes the apostolic writings but most here do, (including myself) so it is a critically important and pertinent question.

 

[daqq]

Hi Ben, you did not answer the question after the first time posting the same above comments a few pages back. Is "Elohim" in fact a personal name or not? And if it is not a personal name then why is it used as such in the opening creation account wherein we find the word Elohim employed without the definite article as if it were a personal name? And if it is in fact a personal name then it directly impacts our understanding of John 1:1. Also does YHWH know good and evil or does that statement concern only [the] Elohim? :think:

Almost forgot to post the two basic options concerning that passage:

Genesis 3:21-23 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton)
21 And the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and clothed them.
22 And God [Elohim] said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and so he shall live forever—
23 So the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] sent him forth out of the garden of Delight to cultivate the ground out of which he was taken.
http://biblehub.com/sep/genesis/3.htm

Genesis 3:21-23 KJV Restored Name
3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did YHWH Elohim make coats of skins, and clothed them.
3:22 And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen3.htm

Who do you suppose is telling the truth Ben? Was it the Levite-Jews who rendered the Hebrew Torah into the Greek Septuagint 250-300 years before the advent of Messiah or was it the non-believing Masorete Khazars who compiled the Masoretic Text a thousand years later with a heavy monotheistic bias because of the advent of Messiah and what "Christianity" had begun to devolve into? :crackup:

 

[keypurr]

Daqq, I wish I had your ability to retain things like you do.