The Biblical ONENESS of God

[Free]

I said 1:27

But you can't just appeal to 1:27 and ignore 1:26. They clearly go together. I've put this to you previously and you simply said there was a translation error, or something to that effect. When I asked for evidence, you gave none.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

You say in post #18: "Makes sense to me to lean on what the Bible says."

But here with Gen 1:26-27, you don't. God, in speaking of himself and his plan to create humans in his image, clearly uses plural personal pronouns. Verse 27 then clearly switches to singular personal pronouns in describing God creating humans in his image.

Humans aren't made in the image of anything or anyone else but God. So, we see a plurality and unity within the one God.

Care to address post #38 which deals with this and John's mention of plurality within the one God, in which he also refers to Gen 1:1?

 

[Free]

There's nothing logical about God, the Holy Bible or faith.

Yikes! That says it all. I think you need to read Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought, by Vern S. Poythress. Or any other book on logic by a Christian philosopher.

The Truth is silliness to the natural (logical) man.

"... the natural (logical) man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
1 Cor. 2:14

Every single Truth of the Bible is spiritual, not logical.

And, yet, here you are trying to use logic from Scripture to prove your case. You shot your own argument in the foot.

Jesus IS the Father makes more sense than God has a God.

And, yet, a son is never his own father nor a father his own son. So how does Jesus being the Father make sense?

 

[theWind]

But you can't just appeal to 1:27 and ignore 1:26. They clearly go together. I've put this to you previously and you simply said there was a translation error, or something to that effect. When I asked for evidence, you gave none.

Nonsense.

I pointed out that Job 38:7 proves that the angels were present and angels are the same in appearance as mankind.

Referring to the very next verse of Genesis (1:27) doesn't ignore anything, it shows that whatever is meant in 1:26 doesn't necessarily mean what trinitarians claim it means as verse 1:27 shows unmistakably that God created man "in His own image".

 

[theWind]

Care to address post #38 which deals with this and John's mention of plurality within the one God, in which he also refers to Gen 1:1?

Gen. 1:1 shows no plurality whatsoever.

 

[theWind]

Yikes! That says it all. I think you need to read Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought, by Vern S. Poythress. Or any other book on logic by a Christian philosopher.


And, yet, here you are trying to use logic from Scripture to prove your case. You shot your own argument in the foot.


And, yet, a son is never his own father nor a father his own son. So how does Jesus being the Father make sense?

I don't study extra-biblical books about the Bible written by fallible men.

God's Word is good enough for me.

If one doesn't have the Holy Spirit giving them discernment throughout their study of the Bible, the book is useless to them. They can study it for a lifetime and receive no Truth from it.

 

[theWind]

Many believe that Jesus wasn't glorified until He ascended.

We see in John 13:31-32 that He was glorified much earlier than that. When we look at the Greek definitions for glorification there, we see that Strong's Greek 1392 Doxazo carries the meaning of 'to render or esteem glorious'. That definition further elaborates that glorification means 'to properly ascribe weight by recognizing real substance.'

And to be specific:

"Glorifying (1392 /doksázō) God" means valuing Him for who He really is. For example, "giving (ascribing) glory to God" personally acknowledges God in His true character (essence).

Emphasis mine.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1392.htm

I personally find this to be strong evidence for Jesus being the Father God Almighty, but it undoubtedly destroys the argument that Jesus is not God at all.

 

[JasonLickliter]

Sorry my phone died and I went to bed.

I think gen 1:26 uses US and OUR because it implies more than 1.

I do believe in the trinity so I dont reject a 1 true god. I just think that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are diffrent and all them is the 1 true god.

So 1:27 made humans in the image of the 1 true god that has 3 separate sprits.

Now honestly im more than likey not as studied as you are. So I did find a very in depth study that I do belive in and ill post that.

If you have a very in depth study supporting your ideas please post as well. I will read it and we can together discuss and compare our studies if you like.

A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity | Reasonable Faith

“Let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring;...

www.reasonablefaith.org

 

[JasonLickliter]

I said 1:27

Yeah your right. I miss read what you posted before.

So i explained it to the best of my knowledge in my previous post.

 

[theWind]

Sorry my phone died and I went to bed.

I think gen 1:26 uses US and OUR because it implies more than 1.

I do believe in the trinity so I dont reject a 1 true god. I just think that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are diffrent and all them is the 1 true god.

So 1:27 made humans in the image of the 1 true god that has 3 separate sprits.

Now honestly im more than likey not as studied as you are. So I did find a very in depth study that I do belive in and ill post that.

If you have a very in depth study supporting your ideas please post as well. I will read it and we can together discuss and compare our studies if you like.

A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity | Reasonable Faith

“Let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring;...

www.reasonablefaith.org

My very in depth study is the Word of God and the Bible says "His".

His cannot mean three persons. It can only mean one person, by definition.

It's okay if you can't understand it now, though.

Just keep praying and studying the Bible.

There is no trinity anywhere in Scripture. For any verse, anywhere in the entire Bible, to be referring to God as a trinity, there must first be a teaching of God being three persons somewhere in the Bible.

There is not.

 

[theWind]

Yeah your right. I miss read what you posted before.

So i explained it to the best of my knowledge in my previous post.

The entire Bible says God is ONE.

MAN says God is three, but we don't construct our doctrine from what man says.

We construct sound doctrine only from what the Bible says.

The Bible is God's Words.

The Bible says God is ONE.

 

[Free]

Nonsense.

I pointed out that Job 38:7 proves that the angels were present and angels are the same in appearance as mankind.

Referring to the very next verse of Genesis (1:27) doesn't ignore anything, it shows that whatever is meant in 1:26 doesn't necessarily mean what trinitarians claim it means as verse 1:27 shows unmistakably that God created man "in His own image".

Since you have appealed to Job 38:7, then please show how we are made in the image of angels, when Gen 1:26-27 clearly state we are only made in the image of God.

Gen. 1:1 shows no plurality whatsoever.

I never said it did. John first references Gen 1:1, then continues to state that the Word was with God (the Father), and then states that "the Word was God," which is only a reference to his deity, not that he is the Father (John's grammar purposely avoids this).

John's reference to Gen 1:1 brings us down to Gen 1:26-27, where we see what? God speaking of himself in plural personal pronouns and then the singular personal pronouns are used. This is what John 1:1 mirrors.

 

[Free]

I don't study extra-biblical books about the Bible written by fallible men.

God's Word is good enough for me.

Numerous people on these forums before you have said the same, and yet they all disagreed on various issues. Why? Because it is a position that cannot be supported from the Bible.

 

[Free]

The entire Bible says God is ONE.

MAN says God is three, but we don't construct our doctrine from what man says.

We construct sound doctrine only from what the Bible says.

The Bible is God's Words.

The Bible says God is ONE.

Care to address my rebuttal which proves this wrong? You haven't even tried despite several attempts to have you do so. You say that "God's Word is good enough" for you, but then ignore what it actually says in some instances, as I've shown with the Hebrew. If I'm wrong, then it should be simple to prove.

 

[theWind]

Since you have appealed to Job 38:7, then please show how we are made in the image of angels, when Gen 1:26-27 clearly state we are only made in the image of God.

Angels are made in God's image.

John's reference to Gen 1:1 brings us down to Gen 1:26-27, where we see what? God speaking of himself in plural personal pronouns and then the singular personal pronouns are used. This is what John 1:1 mirrors.

As I've stated many times, your continued return to claiming verses are referring to God being plural hold not a single drop of water without a specified teaching of God being multiple persons somewhere in the Bible.

You may continue to speak as eloquently, and seemingly-knowledgeable, as you like, but your message still has no force behind it without Scripture to create a foundation for your claims. There is no "specifically laid out" teaching anywhere in the Bible that God is multiple persons. Your claim that it is to be found by reading between the lines, and by selecting this idea from this passage and that idea from another, is just a nonsense claim of a man with no support from Scripture whatsoever.

Numerous people on these forums before you have said the same, and yet they all disagreed on various issues. Why? Because it is a position that cannot be supported from the Bible.

It is excessively supported and the Bible says many times that God is ONE. Your position is the woefully inept position that is lacking any foundational teaching whatsoever.

You are fighting for an empty doctrine that is completely unsound and is an imaginary concept within Christendom.

Care to address my rebuttal which proves this wrong? You haven't even tried despite several attempts to have you do so. You say that "God's Word is good enough" for you, but then ignore what it actually says in some instances, as I've shown with the Hebrew. If I'm wrong, then it should be simple to prove.

It's very simple and I've proved it many times. You are very stubborn and refuse to accept what is presented to you straight from God's Word.

Here's a little secret: that doesn't make you right. Ssssshhhhhhhhhhh.........

 

[JasonLickliter]

My very in depth study is the Word of God and the Bible says "His".

His cannot mean three persons. It can only mean one person, by definition.

It's okay if you can't understand it now, though.

Just keep praying and studying the Bible.

There is no trinity anywhere in Scripture. For any verse, anywhere in the entire Bible, to be referring to God as a trinity, there must first be a teaching of God being three persons somewhere in the Bible.

There is not.

There is no word of trinity in the bible. Yes i do agree with you that humans put that label on the 3 person idea of god.

That dosnt mean there is no evidence of a trinity in the word of god.

Like there is no evidence of the apostles that did baptism in jesus's name. There is evidence of old chuch writing that instructed churches to do baptism in the father, son, and holy ghost.

If i remember correctly that was dated around 24ad.

 

[JasonLickliter]

actually no.

The Didache is a very old document that was written probably between the year of 65 and 80 A.D. It is also called the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles.” The Didache is not Scripture, but it is clearly an ancient document and sheds light on what the early church was doing in the first century and what the baptismal formula was.

“But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water,” (Didache 7:1).

 

[Free]

Angels are made in God's image.

Where is that stated in the Bible?

As I've stated many times, your continued return to claiming verses are referring to God being plural hold not a single drop of water without a specified teaching of God being multiple persons somewhere in the Bible.

They certainly do hold water. It's about evidence and taking it all into account. A specific teaching is irrelevant if there are numerous pieces that when put together, show that the teaching is there.

You may continue to speak as eloquently, and seemingly-knowledgeable, as you like, but your message still has no force behind it without Scripture to create a foundation for your claims. There is no "specifically laid out" teaching anywhere in the Bible that God is multiple persons. Your claim that it is to be found by reading between the lines, and by selecting this idea from this passage and that idea from another, is just a nonsense claim of a man with no support from Scripture whatsoever.

There is no reading between the lines. It's about gathering all the evidence, all that God reveals about himself, and looking at the conclusion towards which it points. The doctrine of the Trinity came about precisely because this is what theologians did. It wasn't made in a vacuum.

It is excessively supported and the Bible says many times that God is ONE. Your position is the woefully inept position that is lacking any foundational teaching whatsoever.


You are fighting for an empty doctrine that is completely unsound and is an imaginary concept within Christendom.

It's very simple and I've proved it many times. You are very stubborn and refuse to accept what is presented to you straight from God's Word.

Here's a little secret: that doesn't make you right. Ssssshhhhhhhhhhh.........

Then please address what the Hebrew actually says, because according to what it says, I am quite right. If I am wrong, it should be easy to show.

 

[theWind]

There is no word of trinity in the bible. Yes i do agree with you that humans put that label on the 3 person idea of god.

That dosnt mean there is no evidence of a trinity in the word of god.

Like there is no evidence of the apostles that did baptism in jesus's name. There is evidence of old chuch writing that instructed churches to do baptism in the father, son, and holy ghost.

If i remember correctly that was dated around 24ad.

There is no "teaching" of God being three persons anywhere in the Bible.

The term trinity is not as important as the fact that the concept is "taught" nowhere in Scripture.

As Free stated, it would be one of the most important concepts in all of the Bible.

It is found nowhere.

 

[theWind]

Where is that stated in the Bible?


They certainly do hold water. It's about evidence and taking it all into account. A specific teaching is irrelevant if there are numerous pieces that when put together, show that the teaching is there.


There is no reading between the lines. It's about gathering all the evidence, all that God reveals about himself, and looking at the conclusion towards which it points. The doctrine of the Trinity came about precisely because this is what theologians did. It wasn't made in a vacuum.


Then please address what the Hebrew actually says, because according to what it says, I am quite right. If I am wrong, it should be easy to show.

I have very much enjoyed our discussions, Free.

I will not be addressing you any further on this topic.

God bless.

 

[JasonLickliter]

There is no "teaching" of God being three persons anywhere in the Bible.

The term trinity is not as important as the fact that the concept is "taught" nowhere in Scripture.

As Free stated, it would be one of the most important concepts in all of the Bible.

It is found nowhere.

The apostles that did baptism in jesus's name is also found no where in the bible.

What is found is a commandment from jesus in mathew on how to do baptism and the apostles did follow that commandment.

I think you said they never followed that commandment.