Let US make man in our image.

[IncRus]

Was the God who was talking in Gen 1:26, talking to ANOTHER God?

[themuzicman]

God, being triune, is making the point that the image of God will also involve multiple persons. If you read verse 27, you see that first God made "him" (Adam), and then male and female he created "them" (both Adam and Eve.)

It is for this reason that I think the married couple is one major way that we image God.

Thus "we" is the Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

Michael

[barnasha]

God, being triune, is making the point that the image of God will also involve multiple persons. If you read verse 27, you see that first God made "him" (Adam), and then male and female he created "them" (both Adam and Eve.)

It is for this reason that I think the married couple is one major way that we image God.

Thus "we" is the Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

Michael

Really? Not a mention of that in the book.

[IncRus]

God, being triune, is making the point that the image of God will also involve multiple persons. If you read verse 27, you see that first God made "him" (Adam), and then male and female he created "them" (both Adam and Eve.)

It is for this reason that I think the married couple is one major way that we image God.

Thus "we" is the Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

Michael
Please answer the question: Was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God? You say that "we" is the Father/Son/Holy Spirit. Are these "Gods" who are separate and distinct from the God who said, "Let US make man in OUIR image?"

Please provide Biblical references to support your views. Thank you.

[themuzicman]

Oh, you didn't say you wanted a biblical proof of the trinity. God exists in three persons, The Father and Son (See John 5, Christ calls the Father to bear witness of Him, John 8, where Christ invokes "I am"), and the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent (John 16:13, Acts 2, etc).

That's the short version. While Christ is the acting agent in creation (See John 1:1-18), the trinue God is fully engaged in creation, as we see in Gen 1:26.

How do we know that this is the triune God, here? Well, it is intricately tied into creating "in God's image." And that which was created in God's image is "male and female" as He created them. Thus, most obviously from the creation of man and woman becoming one flesh (Gen 2), is the idea of God who is one, and yet more than one, as revealed throughout the remainder of the Bible.

You see, Genesis, and especially the creation story, leave a lot of questions and open ended items to be answered as history and Scripture unfolds. Gen 3:15 contains a promise for the seed of the woman to bruise the head of the seed of the serpent. These aren't explained here, but it is revealed as the path to the Messiah unfolds.

And, from our perspective looking back upon creation and this moment, the mysterious identification of the unity in one flesh between a man and a woman images the relationship within God between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Michael

[Shadow Phoenix]

Muz. I'd recommend instead of talking to Incrus who will just begin typing in caps to you and quoting John 17:3 incessantly, that you do something productive with your time.

Got any linoleum you can go watch curl?

[Spartacus]

Possibly the "Royal We."

[Sparko]

I want Incrus to answer his own question..

ps. Spacefoetus, the Royal "we" is an idiom that was not used until the victorian era.

In fact Queen Victoria was the one who "invented" it.

[Spartacus]

I want Incrus to answer his own question..

ps. Spacefoetus, the Royal "we" is an idiom that was not used until the victorian era.

In fact Queen Victoria was the one who "invented" it.

I'm not spacefoetus. It was also my impression that the royal we had a longer history. I could be mistaken, though :shrug: Do you have a source? :blush:

[Sparko]

I'm not spacefoetus. It was also my impression that the royal we had a longer history. I could be mistaken, though :shrug: Do you have a source? :blush:

I can't recall now. google "majestic plural queen victoria"

sorry bout the name mixup.

[barnasha]

Oh, you didn't say you wanted a biblical proof of the trinity. God exists in three persons, The Father and Son (See John 5, Christ calls the Father to bear witness of Him, John 8, where Christ invokes "I am"), and the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent (John 16:13, Acts 2, etc).

you're talking about an entirely different set of books written in a different generation, in different place, by different people of a somewhat different culture.

[John Goddard]

Was the God who was talking in Gen 1:26, talking to ANOTHER God?

I think it was angels since they helped God do a lot of things.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
...
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[barnasha]

Even in English, we have a "royal we", the "majestic plural".

There have been many things written about the term Elohim.

[IncRus]

Oh, you didn't say you wanted a biblical proof of the trinity. God exists in three persons, The Father and Son (See John 5, Christ calls the Father to bear witness of Him, John 8, where Christ invokes "I am"), and the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent (John 16:13, Acts 2, etc).

That's the short version. While Christ is the acting agent in creation (See John 1:1-18), the trinue God is fully engaged in creation, as we see in Gen 1:26.

How do we know that this is the triune God, here? Well, it is intricately tied into creating "in God's image." And that which was created in God's image is "male and female" as He created them. Thus, most obviously from the creation of man and woman becoming one flesh (Gen 2), is the idea of God who is one, and yet more than one, as revealed throughout the remainder of the Bible.

You see, Genesis, and especially the creation story, leave a lot of questions and open ended items to be answered as history and Scripture unfolds. Gen 3:15 contains a promise for the seed of the woman to bruise the head of the seed of the serpent. These aren't explained here, but it is revealed as the path to the Messiah unfolds.

And, from our perspective looking back upon creation and this moment, the mysterious identification of the unity in one flesh between a man and a woman images the relationship within God between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Michael Michael
I was not talking about the Trinity. Please answer the question. Was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God?

Granted without admitting that the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 is a "triune" God, was He talking to another God WITHIN Himself or was He talking to another God OUTSIDE Himself?

[themuzicman]

I already answered the question. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant.

[IncRus]

Muz. I'd recommend instead of talking to Incrus who will just begin typing in caps to you and quoting John 17:3 incessantly, that you do something productive with your time.

Got any linoleum you can go watch curl?
I bet you can't answer that simple question either!

[IncRus]

Was the God who was talking in Gen 1:26, talking to ANOTHER God?
I think it was angels since they helped God do a lot of things.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
...
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Angels aren't Gods, are they? Would "cherubims" fall under the category of "angels?"

I read in Gen. 3:24 that God placed cherubims at the east gate of Eden after he drove Adam and Eve out of the garden. Were cherubims created BEFORE or AFTER God created Adam and Eve?

If cherubims were created BEFORE Adam and Eve were created, then God must have been talking to them when He decided to created man in their image of "righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24).

[IncRus]

I already answered the question. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant.
Just to get it right, are you saying that the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 was talking to ANOTHER God? Yes or no only please.

[themuzicman]

You have my answer. I'm not playing your games.

[Sparko]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were talking to each other.

They are one God, revealed in three persons.

NOT three Gods. Incrus can't seem to grasp that distinction.

[IncRus]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were talking to each other.

They are one God, revealed in three persons.

NOT three Gods. Incrus can't seem to grasp that distinction.
I understand your position perfectly. But tell me, was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God WITHIN himself or ANOTHER God OUTSIDE himself?

["o,o"]

Hello,

Was the God who was talking in Gen 1:26, talking to ANOTHER God?

In Hebrew God is often addressed in a plural form. For example, the most common designation for God is Elohim which is the plural form of Eloah, a version of El, which just means god. Similarly, God is often addressed as "Lord" but in the Hebrew it is Adownaiy, the plural form of adown. David is addressed as adwon but God is addressed as Adowaiy. Similarly, when God speaks, He sometimes speaks of Himself in the plural. That is all that is involved for there is no god, but God.

[themuzicman]

(The plural in Hebrew is often used as emphasis or a greater form of the singular. Elohim is not an indicator of the trinity.)

[IncRus]

You have my answer. I'm not playing your games.
I am not playing a game muzicman. I want to play your muzic too but tell me, was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God OTHER than himself or was he talking to himself?

[IncRus]

Hello,

Was the God who was talking in Gen 1:26, talking to ANOTHER God?
Similarly, when God speaks, He sometimes speaks of Himself in the plural. That is all that is involved for there is no god, but God.
I understand what you are saying. But God was NOT speaking OF himself in Gen. 1:23. God was speaking TO someone about making man in THEIR image. My question is: Was the God who was talking in Gen 1:26, talking to ANOTHER God? Was this God talking to someone WITHIN himself or OUTSIDE himself? Tell me.

[themuzicman]

I am not playing a game muzicman. I want to play your muzic too but tell me, was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God OTHER than himself or was he talking to himself?

You ARE playing a game. It's the "let's stump the trinitarians" game, and I ain't playing. I've given the trinitarian position, and stated that the persons of the trinity were to be imaged in the duality of mankind, male and female, as they come together to be one flesh in marriage. In a sense, the trinity was speaking of itself, not to itself.

Michael

[Sparko]

I understand your position perfectly. But tell me, was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God WITHIN himself or ANOTHER God OUTSIDE himself?

the very question shows that you don't understand my position perfectly, or at all.

One PERSON of the Godhead was speaking to the other PERSONS of the Godhead. ONE God.

[IncRus]

I understand your position perfectly. But tell me, was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God WITHIN himself or ANOTHER God OUTSIDE himself?

the very question shows that you don't understand my position perfectly, or at all.

One PERSON of the Godhead was speaking to the other PERSONS of the Godhead. ONE God.
Gen. 1:26 states: "And God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image..." Tell me Sparko, is this ONE God within the "Godhead" talking to ANOTHER God within the "Godhead?"

Aren't you telling me that WITHIN the Trinitarian "Godhead" are THREE Gods who talk to each other? Isn't that what you are telling me?

[IncRus]

I am not playing a game muzicman. I want to play your muzic too but tell me, was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God OTHER than himself or was he talking to himself?
You ARE playing a game. It's the "let's stump the trinitarians" game, and I ain't playing. I've given the trinitarian position, and stated that the persons of the trinity were to be imaged in the duality of mankind, male and female, as they come together to be one flesh in marriage. In a sense, the trinity was speaking of itself, not to itself.

Michael
If I were a Trinitarian, I would neither play "let's stump the trinitarians game." I understand the precarious position that Trinitarians have placed themselves in. I know that Trinitarians CANNOT answer my question honestly and correctly WITHOUT realizing how foolishly they were hooked into believing a lie!

[themuzicman]

If I were a Trinitarian, I would neither play "let's stump the trinitarians game." I understand the precarious position that Trinitarians have placed themselves in. I know that Trinitarians CANNOT answer my question honestly and correctly WITHOUT realizing how foolishly they were hooked into believing a lie!

And the other shoe drops.

The trinitarian position is not precarious in any sense. You're simply playing a semantic game, taking an unscriptural presuppositional position, and then demanding that everyone play your game.

I said I wasn't playing, and I ain't. The only one who is in a precarious position here is YOU, since you claimed you weren't playing any games, and now you've exposed the fact that you ARE.

So much for your integrity.

[Sparko]

Gen. 1:26 states: "And God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image..." Tell me Sparko, is this ONE God within the "Godhead" talking to ANOTHER God within the "Godhead?"

Aren't you telling me that WITHIN the Trinitarian "Godhead" are THREE Gods who talk to each other? Isn't that what you are telling me?

are you just that unable to read english? maybe if I make the words bigger...


One PERSON of the Godhead was speaking to the other PERSONS of the Godhead. ONE God.

[Sparko]

So Incrus, who WAS God talking to?

[John Goddard]

Angels aren't Gods, are they? Would "cherubims" fall under the category of "angels?"

I'm not Trinitarian, so I understand your questioning that 3 persons of God are the same as 3 Gods. But do you believe that the Spirit of God can dwell alongside the spirit of a Christian in one body?

If so then you have 2 persons in one human entity acting in agreement with each other. Not 2 Gods, one God in Heaven, and then another God on earth dwelling with you. You don't become another God even though God may be expressed a different way through you, than He expresses Himself directly.

If you try to apply that to Trinity maybe you can see where they are coming from, just an idea.

I read in Gen. 3:24 that God placed cherubims at the east gate of Eden after he drove Adam and Eve out of the garden. Were cherubims created BEFORE or AFTER God created Adam and Eve?

If cherubims were created BEFORE Adam and Eve were created, then God must have been talking to them when He decided to created man in their image of "righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24).

Job says angels sang for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid, so it makes sense to me God was talking to them, and that they were already around at Genesis 1:1.

["o,o"]

Hello,

I understand what you are saying. But God was NOT speaking OF himself in Gen. 1:23. God was speaking TO someone about making man in THEIR image. My question is: Was the God who was talking in Gen 1:26, talking to ANOTHER God? Was this God talking to someone WITHIN himself or OUTSIDE himself? Tell me.

The text does not say "their" image but "our" image. God was referring to Himself in the plural. He was not consulting with other gods.

[IncRus]

Originally posted by IncRus
Gen. 1:26 states: "And God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image..." Tell me Sparko, is this ONE God within the "Godhead" talking to ANOTHER God within the "Godhead?"

Aren't you telling me that WITHIN the Trinitarian "Godhead" are THREE Gods who talk to each other? Isn't that what you are telling me? are you just that unable to read english? maybe if I make the words bigger...

One PERSON of the Godhead was speaking to the other PERSONS of the Godhead. ONE God.
Now you are talking! You are telling me that one PERSON of the GODHEAD is talking to the other person of the GODHEAD, aren't you? But where do we read the word "Godhead" in Gen. 1:26?

Moreover, where in the Bible does it say that "one PERSON of the Godhead is speaking to the other PERSON of the Godhead?

Then you add the words "ONE God." What does this phrase, "ONE God" refer to Sparko? Doesn't "ONE God" refer to the PERSON within the "Godhead" who is talking to the OTHER God within the "Godhead?" Aren't there more than ONE God within the Godhead Sparko?

[themuzicman]

Give it up, Sparko. Incrus is just bitter because he's on the outside looking in.

[IncRus]

Hello,

I understand what you are saying. But God was NOT speaking OF himself in Gen. 1:23. God was speaking TO someone about making man in THEIR image. My question is: Was the God who was talking in Gen 1:26, talking to ANOTHER God? Was this God talking to someone WITHIN himself or OUTSIDE himself? Tell me.

The text does not say "their" image but "our" image. God was referring to Himself in the plural. He was not consulting with other gods.
I know that the text says "OUR image." But going back to the original question which you haven';t answered, was the God who said "Let US make man in OUR image" talking to ANOTHER God? Let's not beat around the bush please.

[themuzicman]

LOL... Either deliberately obtuse, or completely stupid. Not sure which...

[IncRus]

Angels aren't Gods, are they? Would "cherubims" fall under the category of "angels?"
I'm not Trinitarian, so I understand your questioning that 3 persons of God are the same as 3 Gods. But do you believe that the Spirit of God can dwell alongside the spirit of a Christian in one body?

If so then you have 2 persons in one human entity acting in agreement with each other. Not 2 Gods, one God in Heaven, and then another God on earth dwelling with you. You don't become another God even though God may be expressed a different way through you, than He expresses Himself directly.

If you try to apply that to Trinity maybe you can see where they are coming from, just an idea.
I wish Trinitarians think like you do. But they don't! They say three PERSONS in ONE God. And they call each person God. Haven't you heard them say, "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?" That does not follow what you are saying to me, does it?

I read in Gen. 3:24 that God placed cherubims at the east gate of Eden after he drove Adam and Eve out of the garden. Were cherubims created BEFORE or AFTER God created Adam and Eve?

If cherubims were created BEFORE Adam and Eve were created, then God must have been talking to them when He decided to created man in their image of "righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24).
Job says angels sang for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid, so it makes sense to me God was talking to them, and that they were already around at Genesis 1:1.
I agree.

[Sparko]

Give it up, Sparko. Incrus is just bitter because he's on the outside looking in.

yup.

and to answer your later question, I say both obtuse and stupid. That explains why he belongs to a cult.

["o,o"]

Hello,

I know that the text says "OUR image." But going back to the original question which you haven';t answered, was the God who said "Let US make man in OUR image" talking to ANOTHER God? Let's not beat around the bush please.


Yes, as it turns out, I did answer that question.

In Hebrew God is often addressed in a plural form. For example, the most common designation for God is Elohim which is the plural form of Eloah, a version of El, which just means god. Similarly, God is often addressed as "Lord" but in the Hebrew it is Adownaiy, the plural form of adown. David is addressed as adwon but God is addressed as Adowaiy. Similarly, when God speaks, He sometimes speaks of Himself in the plural. That is all that is involved for there is no god, but God.

It is just a matter of understanding Hebrew grammatical conventions. God is not speaking to other gods who resemble God - an entirely unlikely situation, He is speaking of Himself.

[Teluog]

Apparently DinkRus is incapable of making a logical inference that the "us" is referring to the Godhead.

[Sparko]

Apparently DinkRus is incapable of making a logical inference that the "us" is referring to the Godhead.


I am curious who HE thinks God was talking to.

[Teluog]

I am curious who HE thinks God was talking to.

Probably the angels or another god, even the text is clear that God was talking to Himselves :wink:

["o,o"]

Hello,

I am curious who HE thinks God was talking to.

I believe that the original posting was attempting to imply that Israel had once been polytheistic / henotheistic/ monolatrist and that the Bible originally reflected this view but that later editors redacted passages that might be read in this fashion. The argument would be that the later editors were incomplete in their efforts and left remnants of this pervious non-monotheistic views here and there in the Bible. I am imagining that the writer of the original posting believed that when God was speaking of Himself in the first person plural, He was actually speaking with other gods of the pre-monotheistic Israel, as Zeus might confer with Apollo and Mars in Greek mythology. Presumably these gods all looked the same so that human being might made in all of their images, which is to say, "our image". Even if you wanted to make this "incomplete redaction" argument, this would certainly be the wrong passage to base it on.

[JAYMZ]

IncRus,
You know what trinitarians believe, you know the scriptures we use to back up the doctrine, and you know the arguments we use. This is just an attempt to TRY to show that its illogical. Our human minds may not comprehend the Godhead but we can apprehend it from scripture.

Any way, why do you trust Felix Manalo over Joseph Smith or Charles Russell. What makes your little sect better than theirs ?

[IncRus]

IncRus,
You know what trinitarians believe, you know the scriptures we use to back up the doctrine, and you know the arguments we use. This is just an attempt to TRY to show that its illogical. Our human minds may not comprehend the Godhead but we can apprehend it from scripture.
Of course, I know the scriptures Trinitarians use to back up their FALSE Trinity doctrine and the arguments they use. My post is intended to show the ABSURDITY of their use of Gen. 1:26 to defend the FALSE doctrine that Jesus is God..

Any way, why do you trust Felix Manalo over Joseph Smith or Charles Russell. What makes your little sect better than theirs ?
Joseph Smith believes that Jesus is God. Ditto with Charles Rusell. Felix Manalo believes that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

Felix Manalo's belief is supported by what Jesus said himself as recorded in John 8:40 and John 17:3. Smith' and Russell's belief that Jesus is God is AGAINST the doctrine of Christ written in the Bible.

Anyone who transgresses and does NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ has NO God (2 John 9). Therefopre, I trust Felix Manalo over Joseh Smith and Charles Russell.

[Sparko]

Of course, I know the scriptures Trinitarians use to back up their FALSE Trinity doctrine and the arguments they use. My post is intended to show the ABSURDITY of their use of Gen. 1:26 to defend the FALSE doctrine that Jesus is God..


Joseph Smith believes that Jesus is God. Ditto with Charles Rusell. Felix Manalo believes that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

Felix Manalo's belief is supported by what Jesus said himself as recorded in John 8:40 and John 17:3. Smith' and Russell's belief that Jesus is God is AGAINST the doctrine of Christ written in the Bible.

Anyone who transgresses and does NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ has NO God (2 John 9). Therefopre, I trust Felix Manalo over Joseh Smith and Charles Russell.


so now that you know our answers, Incrus, tell us who God was speaking to when he said "Leus US make man in OUR image"

[Pilgrim]

oh oh oh, Incrus is using capital letters! Now I'm really convinced!

[Sparko]

oh oh oh, Incrus is using capital letters! Now I'm really convinced!

It's the only way he can read what he types through the spittle on his screen.

[IncRus]

so now that you know our answers, Incrus, tell us who God was speaking to when he said "Leus US make man in OUR image"
Before I answer your question Sparko, please tell me, was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God?

You know very well that a straight answer to this question PROVES that the doctrine that Jesus is God is indeed FALSE, don't you?

If Trinitarians say that God was talking to ANOTHER God, that would prove that Trinitarians LIE when they say they believe in ONLY ONE God. If they say that God was NOT talking to ANOTHER God, then knowing WHO God was talking to becomes IRRELEVANT.

So, how do you answer my question Sparko? Are you going to tell me that God was talking to Himself and said, "Let US make man in OUR image?" No, I don't think so Sparko. I don't believe you would want to make yourself more foolish than you already are!

[Teluog]

:rofl:

[THIEF]

I'll answer these myself, though I don't know why I'm bothering. Perhaps, deep in the darkest reaches of my heart of hearts, I enjoy the pain.
Before I answer your question Sparko, please tell me, was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God?
Sparko alone has answered this three different times. The reason you're not getting a straight-up, unqualified yes or no is because neither does justice to the Trinitarian position. I mean, if you asked "Is Trinitarianism false or is Trinitarianism untrue?" then obviously I would say "neither." My refusal to choose one or the other would say nothing about Trinitarianism's tenability.

You know very well that a straight answer to this question PROVES that the doctrine that Jesus is God is indeed FALSE, don't you?
What I'm saying is that it proves nothing because, as I said above, the central question here is loaded.

If Trinitarians say that God was talking to ANOTHER God, that would prove that Trinitarians LIE when they say they believe in ONLY ONE God. If they say that God was NOT talking to ANOTHER God, then knowing WHO God was talking to becomes IRRELEVANT.
My answer, similar to the answers that others before me have posted, is that one person in the Trinity was talking to the other two. Three persons, one being. That's not being evasive or not answering the question, that's simply stating what Trinitarianism is.

So, how do you answer my question Sparko? Are you going to tell me that God was talking to Himself and said, "Let US make man in OUR image?" No, I don't think so Sparko. I don't believe you would want to make yourself more foolish than you already are!
We certainly wouldn't want to do that, would we.

[onefour1]

Of course, I know the scriptures Trinitarians use to back up their FALSE Trinity doctrine and the arguments they use. My post is intended to show the ABSURDITY of their use of Gen. 1:26 to defend the FALSE doctrine that Jesus is God..


Joseph Smith believes that Jesus is God. Ditto with Charles Rusell. Felix Manalo believes that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

Felix Manalo's belief is supported by what Jesus said himself as recorded in John 8:40 and John 17:3. Smith' and Russell's belief that Jesus is God is AGAINST the doctrine of Christ written in the Bible.

Anyone who transgresses and does NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ has NO God (2 John 9). Therefopre, I trust Felix Manalo over Joseh Smith and Charles Russell.


If Mr. Manalo did not believe that Jesus was God, then how did he reconcile these verses:

Gen. 1: 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

John 1:1-3,14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Eph. 3: 9
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Gen. 2: 3-4
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Who was the God who created the heavens and the earth and the God who rested from all his work?

[Sparko]

Before I answer your question Sparko, please tell me, was the God who was talking in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God?

You know very well that a straight answer to this question PROVES that the doctrine that Jesus is God is indeed FALSE, don't you?

If Trinitarians say that God was talking to ANOTHER God, that would prove that Trinitarians LIE when they say they believe in ONLY ONE God. If they say that God was NOT talking to ANOTHER God, then knowing WHO God was talking to becomes IRRELEVANT.

So, how do you answer my question Sparko? Are you going to tell me that God was talking to Himself and said, "Let US make man in OUR image?" No, I don't think so Sparko. I don't believe you would want to make yourself more foolish than you already are!


I already answered you, at least two times, once to correct your misquoting of me.

So, what is YOUR answer, Mr. Dodgy?

[Gatsby]

God, being triune, is making the point that the image of God will also involve multiple persons. If you read verse 27, you see that first God made "him" (Adam), and then male and female he created "them" (both Adam and Eve.)

It is for this reason that I think the married couple is one major way that we image God.

Thus "we" is the Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

Michael

The phrase 'Let us make man in our image and likeness' is reffering not to people, individual people but refers to the creative likeness of God.

This is where the basic knowledge of the spiritual in the Bible is faulty from the very start.

The image is what God has in His Divine Mind.
You could call it the idea or plan or blueprint, all would be correct. The female is the Intellegence which outcrops the image or idea in the Divine Mind and the 2 coming together, give birth to the Divine Son, which we call the Christ/ Atman or whatever name the particular religion uses.

This creative ablitity that we all posses is what 'the made in our image' means. We have the ability to create our reality and to become co-creators with God. The Holy Spirit of course is the Christ within. He is also called the Comforter in the Bible.

Regards
Gatsby

[John Goddard]

The phrase 'Let us make man in our image and likeness' is reffering not to people, individual people but refers to the creative likeness of God.

This is where the basic knowledge of the spiritual in the Bible is faulty from the very start.

The image is what God has in His Divine Mind.
You could call it the idea or plan or blueprint, all would be correct. The female is the Intellegence which outcrops the image or idea in the Divine Mind and the 2 coming together, give birth to the Divine Son, which we call the Christ/ Atman or whatever name the particular religion uses.

This creative ablitity that we all posses is what 'the made in our image' means. We have the ability to create our reality and to become co-creators with God. The Holy Spirit of course is the Christ within. He is also called the Comforter in the Bible.

Regards
Gatsby

The feminine aspect is biblically shown from the start to be God's creation, either as the faithful or adulteress wife of God who has the male role of the husband.

So it's God's active male force on passive female creation, which doesn't leave much room for a feminine goddess nature in God that you imply. Therefore, the plan or blueprint would also be God's creation and would be the feminine thing, not the intelligence creating it.

If you want to have a feminine nature in Genesis 1:26, it's much more consistent that it would also be a creation, which as I suggested, would be angels that were present with God as He created man, and also there at the earlier creation of Earth in Job 38.

[Gatsby]

The feminine aspect is biblically shown from the start to be God's creation, either as the faithful or adulteress wife of God who has the male role of the husband.

So it's God's active male force on passive female creation, which doesn't leave much room for a feminine goddess nature in God that you imply. Therefore, the plan or blueprint would also be God's creation and would be the feminine thing, not the intelligence creating it.

If you want to have a feminine nature in Genesis 1:26, it's much more consistent that it would also be a creation, which as I suggested, would be angels that were present with God as He created man, and also there at the earlier creation of Earth in Job 38.

God has NO wife, God is NOT a person nor is the passive Intelligence a woman. You misunderstand. Once you let go of the idea that God is like us, ie having form of Itself, which is doesn;t have, It is Light and Music, the music and sound being paramount in the scheme of things, and I dont mean rock and roll bands of today, LOL First there was the Word, the word was sound, not actually speaking English or French or Herbrew for that matter. Wrong understand generally negates the Bible because it is read with mortal eyes and it is a great spiritual book when it is read with the Spiritual eye, or third eye as it often is called.

To say that we were all angels when God created the world would be correct. We all have angelic birth long before we had human birth. We as souls, have gone where angels fear to tred.

You see you are trying to fit a litteral interpetation into the Bible which is not there. This is why Chistians are getting all het up about your God and my God, they names of what one religion call's them verses another religion that calls God by another name. It doesn't matter for all unconsciously know the name of God, but regardless of that for the moment there is only ONE God and One Life..

Regards
Gatsby

[John Goddard]

God has NO wife, God is NOT a person nor is the passive Intelligence a woman. You misunderstand.

The creation, in this case Israel, is like female wife to male God.

Jeremiah 3:20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.

There is no biblical precedent for God having male and female personalities. Creation came from God, Eve came from Adam, woman came from man. God is masculine, creation is feminine, simply put. That's how the chain goes, leading back up to an ultimately masculine source of God.

To say that we were all angels when God created the world would be correct. We all have angelic birth long before we had human birth. We as souls, have gone where angels fear to tred.

I never said we were angels. There is no biblical support for us to have pre-existed as angels when Adam was created. That just complicates this discussion anyway.

I said angels were angels (Michael, Gabriel, etc.) and present at creation of the earth per Job 38.

So the point is, why should anyone think God ignored presence of angels in Genesis 1:26, making man in the image of angels to be His servant like they are.

This seems much more biblical than God talking to different persons of Himself. But of course you have to look at it that way if you are a Trinitarian. It's just not the most biblical way, but rather, it's necessary to support the Trinitarian doctrine.

[IncRus]

If Mr. Manalo did not believe that Jesus was God, then how did he reconcile these verses:

Gen. 1: 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

John 1:1-3,14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Eph. 3: 9
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Gen. 2: 3-4
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Who was the God who created the heavens and the earth and the God who rested from all his work?
The God who created the heavens and the earth (Neh. 9:6) and the God who rested from all his work is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10). Jesus himself declared that the Father is the ONLY (alone and nobody else) true God (John 17:3).

Since the Father is the ONLY true God who created the heavens and the earth, then John 1:3 and Eph. 3:9 mean that God created all things BECAUSE OF Jesus and FOR Jesus.

Please note that the words "by" and "through" ALSO mean "because of" as in "lost BY default" or "lost THROUGH no fault of his."

[Gatsby]

The creation, in this case Israel, is like female wife to male God.

Jeremiah 3:20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.


John, this Israel does not mean the country we know as Israel today. Just ti clarify things here.

There is no biblical precedent for God having male and female personalities. Creation came from God, Eve came from Adam, woman came from man. God is masculine, creation is feminine, simply put. That's how the chain goes, leading back up to an ultimately masculine source of God.

God is not a personality, nor is the female a personality. Both of these are energy, creative energy. God is energy manifesting as Light. You are a spark of the Creator, within you are the male and female energies, which is the same as us all.




I never said we were angels. There is no biblical support for us to have pre-existed as angels when Adam was created. That just complicates this discussion anyway.

I know you didn't say that John, I said it because it happens to be true and I dont see how the Truth can complicate matters, they should give you more clarity if anything if you can understand what is being said here.


I said angels were angels (Michael, Gabriel, etc.) and present at creation of the earth per Job 38.

So the point is, why should anyone think God ignored presence of angels in Genesis 1:26, making man in the image of angels to be His servant like they are.


God didn't make man and ignore the angels, we were all angels and still are and we were ALL One with God when the world we know was created. Doesn't matter if that is in the Bible or not, it is the Truth and many now have understood this truth and acknowlege it to be so.

This seems much more biblical than God talking to different persons of Himself. But of course you have to look at it that way if you are a Trinitarian. It's just not the most biblical way, but rather, it's necessary to support the Trinitarian doctrine.

John, I dont support a Trinitarian approach, I have no position to defend. That is the work of the ego. But the trinity is a fact and again God is NOT a person ie a human being taking to another 2 human beings. All is energy and vibration and when you come to see that is the case it brings with it a new understanding of what the Bible is actually saying.

if you remain with the beleif that God is a person who has a body, head, arms, legs, torso etc then you will not come to know God the Real Self which is within you and is within all of us because God becomes the thing He Makes.

Regards
Gatsby

[John Goddard]

John, this Israel does not mean the country we know as Israel today.

I never said it was, I said that the relationship of creation to God is biblically depicted as wife to husband, as a metaphor.

Where in the Bible is God is depicted with feminine qualities Himself?

I know you didn't say that John, I said it because it happens to be true and I dont see how the Truth can complicate matters, they should give you more clarity if anything if you can understand what is being said here.

What text/teaching do you get the idea from that we were like angels before Adam existed?

if you remain with the beleif that God is a person who has a body, head, arms, legs, torso etc then you will not come to know God the Real Self which is within you and is within all of us because God becomes the thing He Makes.

Another strawman, I never said God has a physical body.

[apostoli]

Please note that the words "by" and "through" ALSO mean "because of" as in "lost BY default" or "lost THROUGH no fault of his."Would you support your assumption with lexical evidence. To my knowledge the lexical meaning contradicts you!

Greek: dia

1) through

c) of means

1) by
2) by the means of

The only time dia can mean "because of" is when the text is refering to a justification. Neither John 1:3 and Eph. 3:9 are giving justication but activity!

Greek: dia

2) through

a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done

1) by reason of
2) on account of
3) because of for this reason
4) therefore
5) on this account

You really should constrain yourself from adding to scripture. There are eternal ramifications for doing so.

[apostoli]

Was the God who was talking in Gen 1:26, talking to ANOTHER God?No! He was talking to the same God, but a different individual.

Given John 1:3,10; 1 Cor 8:6b; Col 1:16 & Heb 1:2 the Son was talking to his Father. Heb 1:3 says the Son is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis.

Thus "God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness"

[IncRus]

No! He was talking to the same God, but a different individual.

Given John 1:3,10; 1 Cor 8:6b; Col 1:16 & Heb 1:2 the Son was talking to his Father. Heb 1:3 says the Son is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis.

Thus "God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness"
You are saying, it's like a dog (pitbull) barking to the same dog but different breed (labrador), aren't you? And you are telling me that there is only ONE dog but two breeds, right?

Of course, you wouldn't believe me if I tell you that the pitbull isa the ONLY true dog, would you?

[Gatsby]

I never said it was, I said that the relationship of creation to God is biblically depicted as wife to husband, as a metaphor.

Right John it may well do this but it is still wrong. The reason I say that is that God created everything from his OWN substance. His own substance does not magically become a wife, it cant can it, no matter what is said.

Where in the Bible is God is depicted with feminine qualities Himself?

I haven't a clue, you tell me? I would find it odd if it did, but then there is much that is ambiguous in the Bible. There is much that is hidden from eyes that can see and a mind that cant understand, which is veiled in forgetfullness in this Shadow of the valley of death which we call Earth.



What text/teaching do you get the idea from that we were like angels before Adam existed?

The text is not from the Bible as far as I know. I wil check that up though. Jesus said before Abraham I AM. That means that He was with God as we ALL were before the Creation of this world andd BEFORE humankind were created all were angels. Therefore we were angels seeing as we were there before creation began.

Iam taking my information from the teachings of Dr Murdo MacDonald Bayne. I suggest you look up his work fro clearer insight into Bible teachings.

Another strawman, I never said God has a physical body.

Fine.

Regards
Gatsby

[IncRus]

Please note that the words "by" and "through" ALSO mean "because of" as in "lost BY default" or "lost THROUGH no fault of his."
Would you support your assumption with lexical evidence. To my knowledge the lexical meaning contradicts you!
No, I do'n't support my assumption with lexicon evidence because this is what a natural man does.

But I support my assumption by "comparing spiritual things with spiritual as the Holy Spirit teaches" (1 Cor. 2:13).

When God created the heavens and the earth (Neh. 9:6), God had NOT yet formed Jesus in the womb of Mary. When God created Adam and Eve (Gen 1:27; 2:7, 21-22) Jesus was not yet physically existent. There is NO solid scriptural evidence that Jesus indeed PHYSICALLY existed BEFORE Adam and Eve. But Jesus was "FOREORDAINED before te foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20) if you know what that means.

God created the world by the power of his SPOKEN word - NOT by means of Jesus. And this is what is found in the Bible - NOT in any lexicon. For example, God SPOKE the words, "Let there be light; and there was light" (Gen. 1:3). So is everything God created except man which God created from dust (Gen. 2:7) and woman which God created from the rib of the man (Gen. 2:21-22).

[Gatsby]

John, sorry I forgot a central theme. Of course we are angels and it is in the Bible. And, no it doesn't complicate things at all.

For WE ARE THE FALLEN ANGELS THAT THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF.
This btw does not mean we are bad in any way, we are doing God's bidding and going where the other angels fear to tred.

Hence is goes without saying that we had angelic birth.

Regards
Gatsby

[John Goddard]

"I never said it was, I said that the relationship of creation to God is biblically depicted as wife to husband, as a metaphor."

Right John it may well do this but it is still wrong. The reason I say that is that God created everything from his OWN substance. His own substance does not magically become a wife, it cant can it, no matter what is said.

God doesn't have any physical substance, it is all created, and creation is the wife/feminine aspect. Didn't you just complain you thought I was saying God has physical substance?

You are suggesting God divided a feminine physical substance from Himself as creation, much like Eve was divided from Adam. Rather than creating physical substance from nothing using the power of His spiritual Word.

In this initial state, the vacuum or nothingness is the passive feminine element, with God's Word going into it as the active/creative masculine element.

Like active male sperm going into passive female womb, to use a physical model.

"Where in the Bible is God is depicted with feminine qualities Himself?"

I haven't a clue, you tell me? I would find it odd if it did, but then there is much that is ambiguous in the Bible. There is much that is hidden from eyes that can see and a mind that cant understand, which is veiled in forgetfullness in this Shadow of the valley of death which we call Earth.

He doesn't have any feminine qualities as I can see, only masculine.

"What text/teaching do you get the idea from that we were like angels before Adam existed?"

The text is not from the Bible as far as I know. I wil check that up though. Jesus said before Abraham I AM. That means that He was with God as we ALL were before the Creation of this world andd BEFORE humankind were created all were angels. Therefore we were angels seeing as we were there before creation began.

Iam taking my information from the teachings of Dr Murdo MacDonald Bayne. I suggest you look up his work fro clearer insight into Bible teachings.

I interpret John 8:58 as I AM MELCHIZEDEK in the sense that God planned for Jesus to be in this role from the beginning and Abraham saw this role. Not that Jesus existed from the beginning. But that's another thread.

[apostoli]

You are saying, it's like a dog (pitbull) barking to the same dog but different breed (labrador), aren't you? And you are telling me that there is only ONE dog but two breeds, right??From your illusion I'd have to question your reading comprehension skills. Same does not mean different.

Originally posted by apostoli
No! He was talking to the same God, but a different individual.

Using your silly terms: Same breed. Different individual. Albeit, God is not a breed of anything but a corporate reality.

Of course, you wouldn't believe me if I tell you that the pitbull isa the ONLY true dog, would you?One of these days you'll learn to use scripture instead of making up ignorant statements. Just proves to all you have no interest in scripture.


The Father is the prototype (all father's are prototypes of their sons), thus he is the "only true" of whatever is said of him. However, according to A.Paul the Son is an exact copy of the Father's very hypostasis (the word A.Paul uses at Heb 1:3). Thus whether an individual is imprinted from the Father or the Son, the end result is identical. Jesus says if you see him you see the Father, if you don't believe this believe the works. As far as the world is concened their is nothing to distinguish their activity. Same with the Spirit. Thus there is three individuals but one activity by which we know one God.

It is a pity you'd rather run after men's philosophies rather than accept what scripture clearly says.

[apostoli]

No, I do'n't support my assumption with lexicon evidence because this is what a natural man does.

But I support my assumption by "comparing spiritual things with spiritual as the Holy Spirit teaches" (1 Cor. 2:13).

When God created the heavens and the earth (Neh. 9:6), God had NOT yet formed Jesus in the womb of Mary. When God created Adam and Eve (Gen 1:27; 2:7, 21-22) Jesus was not yet physically existent. There is NO solid scriptural evidence that Jesus indeed PHYSICALLY existed BEFORE Adam and Eve. But Jesus was "FOREORDAINED before te foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20) if you know what that means.

God created the world by the power of his SPOKEN word - NOT by means of Jesus. And this is what is found in the Bible - NOT in any lexicon. For example, God SPOKE the words, "Let there be light; and there was light" (Gen. 1:3). So is everything God created except man which God created from dust (Gen. 2:7) and woman which God created from the rib of the man (Gen. 2:21-22).In short you have just told us all, you make things up to suit yourself, relying on your own fabricated understanding, rather that inquire as to what the apostle actually wrote - which was in Greek not English! You even ignore every known translation, none of which supports your fabricated word /phrase meanings!

Thus, you have no credibility what so ever.

You are like atheists who say there is no historical record of Jesus outside of the bible. There is solid evidence that Jesus existed before the world was. Jesus says it of himself. And both A.John & A.Paul teach the Son is what the Father is, and the Father created all things by means of him.

Lexicons are dictionaries, they give you the full meaning of a word, rather the nearest pick, one word used in English translations. So you aren't reading the apostles or scriptures, when reading English translations. Merely a concisement of what the apostles etc actually say. Therefore you are missing out on a great deal. No wonder you fantacize so often.

[Gatsby]

God doesn't have any physical substance, it is all created, and creation is the wife/feminine aspect. Didn't you just complain you thought I was saying God has physical substance?

You are suggesting God divided a feminine physical substance from Himself as creation, much like Eve was divided from Adam. Rather than creating physical substance from nothing using the power of His spiritual Word.

In this initial state, the vacuum or nothingness is the passive feminine element, with God's Word going into it as the active/creative masculine element.

Like active male sperm going into passive female womb, to use a physical model.



He doesn't have any feminine qualities as I can see, only masculine.



I interpret John 8:58 as I AM MELCHIZEDEK in the sense that God planned for Jesus to be in this role from the beginning and Abraham saw this role. Not that Jesus existed from the beginning. But that's another thread.

John I understand what your saying and where you are coming from, so to speak. Now the substance of Creation is all the same substance, It differs only in degree of vibration. The substance comes from God and is not created by God. We are in effect mind materialised. All is mind stuff ie, the substance which God creates with. Everything is mind, the substance being Divine Mind.

I can only repeat what I know and that is that God is Consciousness (Awareness) and what He is aware of in His Divine Mind comes forth down through all the realms created and is acted upon by the Intelligence ( the female passive aspect of the Consciousness) that is the aspect that 'knows how to do) and thus creation which we see via our senses, in this case our eyes, becomes manifest in this the most dense of all the realms. I mean dense in the vibration because ours in the lowest vibration, I remove the animal and vegetable kingdoms from this at the moment.

God cannot manifest something from nothing anymore than we can. Therefore there has to be something that can be used for creation and that is consciousness within the Divine Mind.

You cant see consiousness, you can only see Light and within this Light is everything within the Divine Mind. The action is Love, this is the clue to what is coming from the Divine and what is not. All things are perfect as they are in the Divine Mind.

Regards
Gatsby

[John Goddard]

John I understand what your saying and where you are coming from, so to speak. Now the substance of Creation is all the same substance, It differs only in degree of vibration. The substance comes from God and is not created by God. We are in effect mind materialised. All is mind stuff ie, the substance which God creates with. Everything is mind, the substance being Divine Mind.

I can only repeat what I know and that is that God is Consciousness (Awareness) and what He is aware of in His Divine Mind comes forth down through all the realms created and is acted upon by the Intelligence ( the female passive aspect of the Consciousness) that is the aspect that 'knows how to do) and thus creation which we see via our senses, in this case our eyes, becomes manifest in this the most dense of all the realms. I mean dense in the vibration because ours in the lowest vibration, I remove the animal and vegetable kingdoms from this at the moment.

God cannot manifest something from nothing anymore than we can. Therefore there has to be something that can be used for creation and that is consciousness within the Divine Mind.

You cant see consiousness, you can only see Light and within this Light is everything within the Divine Mind. The action is Love, this is the clue to what is coming from the Divine and what is not. All things are perfect as they are in the Divine Mind.

Regards
Gatsby

Initially I think simply the desire to have creation is masculine, the absence of creation which caused the desire is feminine. In that sense I'd agree that awareness of this absence of creation comes from God, but not the absence itself.

The absence is everything not God, and feminine, and then when there is creation, it is also not God, and also feminine. Being creation of God, but not God.

So it's always God masculine acting on either the absence or presence of creation.

[Sparko]

why won't Incrus answer his own question for us?

Who was God talking to when he said "Let US make God in OUR image?

Incrus? are you afraid?

:chicken:

[Gatsby]

In short you have just told us all, you make things up to suit yourself, relying on your own fabricated understanding, rather that inquire as to what the apostle actually wrote - which was in Greek not English! You even ignore every known translation, none of which supports your fabricated word /phrase meanings!

Thus, you have no credibility what so ever.

You are like atheists who say there is no historical record of Jesus outside of the bible. There is solid evidence that Jesus existed before the world was. Jesus says it of himself. And both A.John & A.Paul teach the Son is what the Father is, and the Father created all things by means of him.

Lexicons are dictionaries, they give you the full meaning of a word, rather the nearest pick, one word used in English translations. So you aren't reading the apostles or scriptures, when reading English translations. Merely a concisement of what the apostles etc actually say. Therefore you are missing out on a great deal. No wonder you fantacize so often.

Apostoli, where is the solid evidence that the Father created all things by the means of him?
I wouldn't be so quick if I were you to try and point out Incrus's shortcomings or differences of opinions until you have or do know the truth yourself. And I see from your answers that you dont. You are parroting what the orthodox line is which means your not thinking for yourself. You have been, I think, spoon fed the 'truth' by the church, yet we know the church doesn't know the truth.

The world was made via the Father and Mother in Spirit. We are Spirit and at least IncRus acknowledges this, which means I feel he has more credibility than you have.

Every known translation does not mean that the Bible is Truth. It must be read as a spiritual book and not a litteral book, ie through spiritual eyes and not the eyes and mind of the senses.

The mind that is worldy is the intellect and that cannot know or understand Truth, it is the intelligence within that guides us to Truth. This comes from the Divine Mind and not the mortal mind. So instead of knocking someone who has thought things out for themselves via the 'spiritual eye' remember Jesus said 'let your eye be single', well this is what he meant. Try exploring some spiritual phillosophy and then you will have the right to agree to differ when you know what your actually differing about.

The Word was sound btw and not litteral words.

Regards
Gatsby

[Gatsby]

Initially I think simply the desire to have creation is masculine, the absence of creation which caused the desire is feminine. In that sense I'd agree that awareness of this absence of creation comes from God, but not the absence itself.

The absence is everything not God, and feminine, and then when there is creation, it is also not God, and also feminine. Being creation of God, but not God.

So it's always God masculine acting on either the absence or presence of creation.

John, we could also say that God is both masculine and feminine enegy and that would be correct. Or we could say that God is neither masculine or feminine and that also would be correct.

The masculine and feminine are principles of creation to put it another way that maybe is more easy to understand.

Regards
Gatsby

[apostoli]

Apostoli, where is the solid evidence that the Father created all things by the means of him?
I wouldn't be so quick if I were you to try and point out Incrus's shortcomings or differences of opinions until you have or do know the truth yourself. And I see from your answers that you dont. You are parroting what the orthodox line is which means your not thinking for yourself. You have been, I think, spoon fed the 'truth' by the church, yet we know the church doesn't know the truth.

The world was made via the Father and Mother in Spirit. We are Spirit and at least IncRus acknowledges this, which means I feel he has more credibility than you have.

Every known translation does not mean that the Bible is Truth. It must be read as a spiritual book and not a litteral book, ie through spiritual eyes and not the eyes and mind of the senses.

The mind that is worldy is the intellect and that cannot know or understand Truth, it is the intelligence within that guides us to Truth. This comes from the Divine Mind and not the mortal mind. So instead of knocking someone who has thought things out for themselves via the 'spiritual eye' remember Jesus said 'let your eye be single', well this is what he meant. Try exploring some spiritual phillosophy and then you will have the right to agree to differ when you know what your actually differing about.

The Word was sound btw and not litteral words.

Regards
Gatsby

Gatsby,

Pointedly I'm not parroting any Christian church, orthodox or otherwise. I'm parroting what scripture clearly teaches. Either one accepts scripture or one doesn't.

Apparently you are not aware of IncRus' modus operandi...

IncRus implies his opinion is based exclusively on scripture. On that basis "solid evidence" is whatever is affirmed by scripture. IncRus argues inflexibly, on an literal interpretation of isolated words/phrases taken from John 8:40 & 17:3 - his opinion relies on taking the words/phrases out of their context. Yet he denies what scripture clearly says concerning the Son, his pre-existence, hypostasis and his role in creation.

And even worse he makes up meanings for words, implying this is what the apostles meant without offering any evidence .

When it suits him he argues that his opinion is based on a literal interpretaion of scripture and when his opinion is refuted, he says he is interpreting the spirit of scripture. He has no consistency.

I assume from your comments you reject scripture and appeal to speculative philosophy. Your choice!

Peace

ps.Years back in innocence and nievity I looked into the Kabal, the gitas and theosophy (SP). The later demonstrated to me a want to be self fulfulled and independent of God = the self is all that exists, only "I" is reality all else is an illusion.

[Trusty]

When I was in Israel last month, I asked several Orthodox Jews off the street their idea on this.

They said there are two main contentions.

1. God is addressing His heavenly court.

2. God is speaking to His creation.

The ones I spoke with went with #2. I told them I believed in the Trinity view. In their politeness, they said that was cool with them if I thought that, but it would still be the Triune God speaking to his creation. :smile:

Then they said that is why they believe that being in that combined image of God and creation (the "us", not "Us") explains how we are a composite of God's "breath" and creation's "dust".

I have no problems with this idea concerning this verse really. Perhaps it is because I don't care much about this issue though... I have no idea how they square that with v. 27 either...so don't ask me. :wink:

[Gatsby]

Gatsby,

Pointedly I'm not parroting any Christian church, orthodox or otherwise. I'm parroting what scripture clearly teaches. Either one accepts scripture or one doesn't.

Apparently you are not aware of IncRus' modus operandi...

IncRus implies his opinion is based exclusively on scripture. On that basis "solid evidence" is whatever is affirmed by scripture. IncRus argues inflexibly, on an literal interpretation of isolated words/phrases taken from John 8:40 & 17:3 - his opinion relies on taking the words/phrases out of their context. Yet he denies what scripture clearly says concerning the Son, his pre-existence, hypostasis and his role in creation.

And even worse he makes up meanings for words, implying this is what the apostles meant without offering any evidence .

When it suits him he argues that his opinion is based on a literal interpretaion of scripture and when his opinion is refuted, he says he is interpreting the spirit of scripture. He has no consistency.

I assume from your comments you reject scripture and appeal to speculative philosophy. Your choice!

Peace

ps.Years back in innocence and nievity I looked into the Kabal, the gitas and theosophy (SP). The later demonstrated to me a want to be self fulfulled and independent of God = the self is all that exists, only "I" is reality all else is an illusion.

Peace to you also Apostoli,
No, I dont reject the scriptures out of hand. There is truth in the Bible and can be understood if viewed with spiritual eyes. This is what I said in my post. The problem is that the orthodoxy haven't viewed thte Bible in that light, from what I understand, hence they do not teach the truth, they cant, because they dont know it themselves. The Truth is something that comes to us from within and not without. God is within us and if we can turn our minds inwards then the Truth will be made known to us. I dont mean by that that the Truth will be known all at once, but it will be given to us at such times that we can understand it. All is within us, that which is outwith us is the illusion like it or not although it is quite real as we live it here.

Regarding your innocence and naivity in looking at other spiritual material, let me say that you dont understand it, for if you did you would realise that this self that those ones seek is not the lower self or the mortal self it is what is termed as the higher self, this is the God Self which is above and beyond any self. The premise is not to be independent of that higher self but to come to Know the God s self and be One with it.

Regards
Gatsby

[John Goddard]

John, we could also say that God is both masculine and feminine enegy and that would be correct. Or we could say that God is neither masculine or feminine and that also would be correct.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say God is masculine, while absence or presence of creation is feminine.

[apostoli]

Peace to you also Apostoli,
No, I dont reject the scriptures out of hand. There is truth in the Bible and can be understood if viewed with spiritual eyes. This is what I said in my post. The problem is that the orthodoxy haven't viewed thte Bible in that light, from what I understand, hence they do not teach the truth, they cant, because they dont know it themselves. The Truth is something that comes to us from within and not without. God is within us and if we can turn our minds inwards then the Truth will be made known to us. I dont mean by that that the Truth will be known all at once, but it will be given to us at such times that we can understand it. All is within us, that which is outwith us is the illusion like it or not although it is quite real as we live it here.
Imo, basically you have outlined the orthodox opinion (and every other opinion) in regard to revelation of truth. What I suspect you object to is the orthodox idea of corporate revelation (sum of experience) vs personal revelation. The RCC & EOC allow a lot of latitude in this respect with very few core premises. So I don't see your point.


Regarding your innocence and naivity in looking at other spiritual material, let me say that you dont understand it, for if you did you would realise that this self that those ones seek is not the lower self or the mortal self it is what is termed as the higher self, this is the God Self which is above and beyond any self. The premise is not to be independent of that higher self but to come to Know the God s self and be One with it.I'm well aware of the higher aim. Its just I've never met anyone that has gone beyond the exaltation of the lower self = all is selfishness.

Thats not entirely true, a couple of years ago I met one of Brandon Bays assistants, she had in my perception a persona that was at perfect peace albeit, she recently got married, is having a baby, resigned and is now in persuit of the lower self.

Peace

[IncRus]

why won't Incrus answer his own question for us?

Who was God talking to when he said "Let US make God in OUR image?

Incrus? are you afraid?

:chicken:
You haven't answered my question sparko. Was the God in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God?

If you say YES, then I have no further need to talk to you about this since you believe that there were TWO Gods talking to each other in the beginning.

If you say NO, then the question of WHO the God in Gen. 1:26 was talking to becomes irrelevant to any discussion. The more relevant question would then be, "What IMAGE of God is man made of?"

[Gatsby]

Imo, basically you have outlined the orthodox opinion (and every other opinion) in regard to revelation of truth. What I suspect you object to is the orthodox idea of corporate revelation (sum of experience) vs personal revelation. The RCC & EOC allow a lot of latitude in this respect with very few core premises. So I don't see your point.

I'm well aware of the higher aim. Its just I've never met anyone that has gone beyond the exaltation of the lower self = all is selfishness.

Thats not entirely true, a couple of years ago I met one of Brandon Bays assistants, she had in my perception a persona that was at perfect peace albeit, she recently got married, is having a baby, resigned and is now in persuit of the lower self.

Peace

Hi Apostoli, well if what I say agrees with the orthodox view, then fine, I most certainly wouldn't challenge that. However I perceive a difference in the orthodox chruch that maybe you dont, I dont know. It is the fact the the orthodoxy teach that only through them, meaning the orthodox church with its rituals a dogma's and church made rules, can one be 'saved'. They beleive they will save you from hell and damnation, which of course is not true. Neither are the rituals needed in any way, although on thier own, they make little difference to coming to know God.
Therefore on these 2 points alone I would have to disagree with you regarding that what Iam saying is the same as the orthodox church, it may be similar only. What Iam saying comes about through my own experience and not out of some book, although my teacher, as I call him is the late Dr Murdo MacDonald Bayne, who most likely you haven't heard of. You cannot serve two masters as the Bible tells us and that is true. That means we cant chase after the material world and try and posses as much as we can from it and chase after the spiritual realms at the same time This is something that the Christian orthodox church has done since ages past. They aren't compatible. I would dearly love the churches of any denomination to turn inwards for the Truth and teach it and of course there may well be some sincere practitioners in these orthodoxy, I certainly wouldn't say there weren't any who have not trod the spiritual path, but again as I said, all knowledge is given to us when our minds have reached a point where we would understand the Truth and we are all individuals in that respect and when the time is right, then we all will know the Truth, we are not in anyway special because we may know more of the Truth than others, I want to make that plain here, but we all will know it in the fullness of time.

I too have met one of Brandon Bay's practitioners, a lovely lady she was and what she is doing is basically what 'my teacher teaches' only she does it in a slightly different way. All that is in the mortal mind must be dissolved, all that opposes the Christ within must go and be replaced my the Christ Mind which see's no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil, in other words we are rendered harmless and have only love left in our hearts.

Regards
Gatsby

[Sparko]

You haven't answered my question sparko. Was the God in Gen. 1:26 talking to ANOTHER God?

If you say YES, then I have no further need to talk to you about this since you believe that there were TWO Gods talking to each other in the beginning.

If you say NO, then the question of WHO the God in Gen. 1:26 was talking to becomes irrelevant to any discussion. The more relevant question would then be, "What IMAGE of God is man made of?"


I answered your question several times Incrus. Why are YOU afraid to answer your own question?

[apostoli]

Hi Apostoli, well if what I say agrees with the orthodox view, then fine, I most certainly wouldn't challenge that. However I perceive a difference in the orthodox chruch that maybe you dont, I dont know. It is the fact the the orthodoxy teach that only through them, meaning the orthodox church with its rituals a dogma's and church made rules, can one be 'saved'. They beleive they will save you from hell and damnation, which of course is not true. Neither are the rituals needed in any way, although on thier own, they make little difference to coming to know God.
Therefore on these 2 points alone I would have to disagree with you regarding that what Iam saying is the same as the orthodox church, it may be similar only. What Iam saying comes about through my own experience and not out of some book, although my teacher, as I call him is the late Dr Murdo MacDonald Bayne, who most likely you haven't heard of. You cannot serve two masters as the Bible tells us and that is true. That means we cant chase after the material world and try and posses as much as we can from it and chase after the spiritual realms at the same time This is something that the Christian orthodox church has done since ages past. They aren't compatible. I would dearly love the churches of any denomination to turn inwards for the Truth and teach it and of course there may well be some sincere practitioners in these orthodoxy, I certainly wouldn't say there weren't any who have not trod the spiritual path, but again as I said, all knowledge is given to us when our minds have reached a point where we would understand the Truth and we are all individuals in that respect and when the time is right, then we all will know the Truth, we are not in anyway special because we may know more of the Truth than others, I want to make that plain here, but we all will know it in the fullness of time.

I too have met one of Brandon Bay's practitioners, a lovely lady she was and what she is doing is basically what 'my teacher teaches' only she does it in a slightly different way. All that is in the mortal mind must be dissolved, all that opposes the Christ within must go and be replaced my the Christ Mind which see's no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil, in other words we are rendered harmless and have only love left in our hearts.

Regards
GatsbyI was raised RCC. As a youth I was involved with the CYS. Our chaplin was head of the Catholic Education Centre here in SYD. There is probably not one controversy in RCC history we did not discuss. Ironically, when I was about 15yo, for vocational training, I was picked as a prime candicate for the priesthood, on the basis that in the interview I radically criticised the church but hadn't lost my faith (40 years later I'm still trying to figure out their reasoning.). The fact is, by then I'd discovered sex, so was disinclined to a contemplative life, but hadn't lost my "spirituality" so sought a compromise position. Aka, eastern ideas attracted me. As I matured I became more sceptical, hence my current attitude.

That aside, I came across a buddhist site that expresses my viewpoint on equanimity, which I've slightly edited to express my viewpoint...

Equanimity is one of the most sublime emotions of Christian practice. It is the ground for wisdom and freedom and the protector of compassion and love. While some may think of equanimity as dry neutrality or cool aloofness, mature equanimity produces a radiance and warmth of being. The Christ demonstrated a mind filled with equanimity as "abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill-will."

The English word "equanimity" translates two separate Pali words. Each represents a different aspect of equanimity.

The most common Pali word translated as "equanimity" is upekkha, meaning "to look over." It refers to the equanimity that arises from the power of observation, the ability to see without being caught by what we see. When well-developed, such power gives rise to a great sense of peace.

Upekkha can also refer to the ease that comes from seeing a bigger picture. Colloquially, in India the word was sometimes used to mean "to see with patience." We might understand this as "seeing with understanding." For example, when we know not to take offensive words personally, we are less likely to react to what was said. Instead, we remain at ease or equanimous. This form of equanimity is sometimes compared to grandfatherly love. The grandfather clearly loves his grandchildren but, thanks to his experience with his own children, is less likely to be caught up in the drama of his grandchildren's lives.

The second word often translated as equanimity is tatramajjhattata, a compound made of simple Pali words. Tatra, meaning "there," sometimes refers to "all these things." Majjha means "middle," and tata means "to stand or to pose." Put together, the word becomes "to stand in the middle of all this." As a form of equanimity, "being in the middle" refers to balance, to remaining centered in the middle of whatever is happening. This balance comes from inner strength or stability. The strong presence of inner calm, well-being, confidence, vitality, or integrity can keep us upright, like a ballast keeps a ship upright in strong winds. As inner strength develops, equanimity follows.

Equanimity is a protection from the "eight worldly winds": praise and blame, success and failure, pleasure and pain, fame and disrepute. Becoming attached to or excessively elated with success, praise, fame or pleasure can be a set-up for suffering when the winds of life change direction. For example, success can be wonderful, but if it leads to arrogance, we have more to lose in future challenges. Becoming personally invested in praise can tend toward conceit. Identifying with failure, we may feel incompetent or inadequate. Reacting to pain, we may become discouraged. If we understand or feel that our sense of inner well-being is independent of the eight winds, we are more likely to remain on an even keel in their midst.

One approach to developing equanimity is to cultivate the qualities of mind that support it. Seven mental qualities support the development of equanimity.

The first is virtue or integrity. When we live and act with integrity, we feel confident about our actions and words, which results in the equanimity of blamelessness. The ancient Christian texts speak of being able to go into any assembly of people and feel blameless.

The second support for equanimity is the sense of assurance that comes from faith. While any kind of faith can provide equanimity, faith grounded in wisdom is especially powerful. The Pali word for faith, saddha, is also translated as conviction or confidence. If we have confidence, for example, in our ability to engage in a spiritual practice, then we are more likely to meet its challenges with equanimity.

The third support is a well-developed mind. Much as we might develop physical strength, balance, and stability of the body in a gym, so too can we develop strength, balance and stability of the mind. This is done through practices that cultivate calm, concentration and mindfulness. When the mind is calm, we are less likely to be blown about by the worldly winds.

The fourth support is a sense of well-being. We do not need to leave well-being to chance. In Christianity, it is considered appropriate and helpful to cultivate and enhance our well-being. We often overlook the well-being that is easily available in daily life. Even taking time to enjoy one's tea or the sunset can be a training in well-being.

The fifth support for equanimity is understanding or wisdom. Wisdom is an important factor in learning to have an accepting awareness, to be present for whatever is happening without the mind or heart contracting or resisting. Wisdom can teach us to separate people's actions from who they are. We can agree or disagree with their actions, but remain balanced in our relationship with them. We can also understand that our own thoughts and impulses are the result of impersonal conditions. By not taking them so personally, we are more likely to stay at ease with their arising.

Another way wisdom supports equanimity is in understanding that people are responsible for their own decisions, which helps us to find equanimity in the face of other people's suffering. We can wish the best for them, but we avoid being buffeted by a false sense of responsibility for their well-being.

One of the most powerful ways to use wisdom to facilitate equanimity is to be mindful of when equanimity is absent. Honest awareness of what makes us imbalanced helps us to learn how to find balance.

The sixth support is insight, a deep seeing into the nature of things as they are. One of the primary insights is the nature of impermanence. In the deepest forms of this insight, we see that things change so quickly that we can't hold onto anything, and eventually the mind lets go of clinging. Letting go brings equanimity; the greater the letting go, the deeper the equanimity.

The final support is freedom, which comes as we begin to let go of our reactive tendencies. We can get a taste of what this means by noticing areas in which we were once reactive but are no longer. For example, some issues that upset us when we were teenagers prompt no reaction at all now that we are adults. In Christian practice, we work to expand the range of life experiences in which we are free.

These two forms of equanimity, the one that comes from the power of observation, and the one that comes from inner balance, come together in mindfulness practice. As mindfulness becomes stronger, so does our equanimity. We see with greater dependence on the grace of God and so, achieve freedom. And, at the same time, equanimity becomes an inner strength that keeps us balanced in middle of all that is.

Peace

[barnasha]

nothing about god being person(s) in bible.

[Gatsby]

I was raised RCC. As a youth I was involved with the CYS. Our chaplin was head of the Catholic Education Centre here in SYD. There is probably not one controversy in RCC history we did not discuss. Ironically, when I was about 15yo, for vocational training, I was picked as a prime candicate for the priesthood, on the basis that in the interview I radically criticised the church but hadn't lost my faith (40 years later I'm still trying to figure out their reasoning.). The fact is, by then I'd discovered sex, so was disinclined to a contemplative life, but hadn't lost my "spirituality" so sought a compromise position. Aka, eastern ideas attracted me. As I matured I became more sceptical, hence my current attitude.

That aside, I came across a buddhist site that expresses my viewpoint on equanimity, which I've slightly edited to express my viewpoint...

Equanimity is one of the most sublime emotions of Christian practice. It is the ground for wisdom and freedom and the protector of compassion and love. While some may think of equanimity as dry neutrality or cool aloofness, mature equanimity produces a radiance and warmth of being. The Christ demonstrated a mind filled with equanimity as "abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill-will."

The English word "equanimity" translates two separate Pali words. Each represents a different aspect of equanimity.

The most common Pali word translated as "equanimity" is upekkha, meaning "to look over." It refers to the equanimity that arises from the power of observation, the ability to see without being caught by what we see. When well-developed, such power gives rise to a great sense of peace.

Upekkha can also refer to the ease that comes from seeing a bigger picture. Colloquially, in India the word was sometimes used to mean "to see with patience." We might understand this as "seeing with understanding." For example, when we know not to take offensive words personally, we are less likely to react to what was said. Instead, we remain at ease or equanimous. This form of equanimity is sometimes compared to grandfatherly love. The grandfather clearly loves his grandchildren but, thanks to his experience with his own children, is less likely to be caught up in the drama of his grandchildren's lives.

The second word often translated as equanimity is tatramajjhattata, a compound made of simple Pali words. Tatra, meaning "there," sometimes refers to "all these things." Majjha means "middle," and tata means "to stand or to pose." Put together, the word becomes "to stand in the middle of all this." As a form of equanimity, "being in the middle" refers to balance, to remaining centered in the middle of whatever is happening. This balance comes from inner strength or stability. The strong presence of inner calm, well-being, confidence, vitality, or integrity can keep us upright, like a ballast keeps a ship upright in strong winds. As inner strength develops, equanimity follows.

Equanimity is a protection from the "eight worldly winds": praise and blame, success and failure, pleasure and pain, fame and disrepute. Becoming attached to or excessively elated with success, praise, fame or pleasure can be a set-up for suffering when the winds of life change direction. For example, success can be wonderful, but if it leads to arrogance, we have more to lose in future challenges. Becoming personally invested in praise can tend toward conceit. Identifying with failure, we may feel incompetent or inadequate. Reacting to pain, we may become discouraged. If we understand or feel that our sense of inner well-being is independent of the eight winds, we are more likely to remain on an even keel in their midst.

One approach to developing equanimity is to cultivate the qualities of mind that support it. Seven mental qualities support the development of equanimity.

The first is virtue or integrity. When we live and act with integrity, we feel confident about our actions and words, which results in the equanimity of blamelessness. The ancient Christian texts speak of being able to go into any assembly of people and feel blameless.

The second support for equanimity is the sense of assurance that comes from faith. While any kind of faith can provide equanimity, faith grounded in wisdom is especially powerful. The Pali word for faith, saddha, is also translated as conviction or confidence. If we have confidence, for example, in our ability to engage in a spiritual practice, then we are more likely to meet its challenges with equanimity.

The third support is a well-developed mind. Much as we might develop physical strength, balance, and stability of the body in a gym, so too can we develop strength, balance and stability of the mind. This is done through practices that cultivate calm, concentration and mindfulness. When the mind is calm, we are less likely to be blown about by the worldly winds.

The fourth support is a sense of well-being. We do not need to leave well-being to chance. In Christianity, it is considered appropriate and helpful to cultivate and enhance our well-being. We often overlook the well-being that is easily available in daily life. Even taking time to enjoy one's tea or the sunset can be a training in well-being.

The fifth support for equanimity is understanding or wisdom. Wisdom is an important factor in learning to have an accepting awareness, to be present for whatever is happening without the mind or heart contracting or resisting. Wisdom can teach us to separate people's actions from who they are. We can agree or disagree with their actions, but remain balanced in our relationship with them. We can also understand that our own thoughts and impulses are the result of impersonal conditions. By not taking them so personally, we are more likely to stay at ease with their arising.

Another way wisdom supports equanimity is in understanding that people are responsible for their own decisions, which helps us to find equanimity in the face of other people's suffering. We can wish the best for them, but we avoid being buffeted by a false sense of responsibility for their well-being.

One of the most powerful ways to use wisdom to facilitate equanimity is to be mindful of when equanimity is absent. Honest awareness of what makes us imbalanced helps us to learn how to find balance.

The sixth support is insight, a deep seeing into the nature of things as they are. One of the primary insights is the nature of impermanence. In the deepest forms of this insight, we see that things change so quickly that we can't hold onto anything, and eventually the mind lets go of clinging. Letting go brings equanimity; the greater the letting go, the deeper the equanimity.

The final support is freedom, which comes as we begin to let go of our reactive tendencies. We can get a taste of what this means by noticing areas in which we were once reactive but are no longer. For example, some issues that upset us when we were teenagers prompt no reaction at all now that we are adults. In Christian practice, we work to expand the range of life experiences in which we are free.

These two forms of equanimity, the one that comes from the power of observation, and the one that comes from inner balance, come together in mindfulness practice. As mindfulness becomes stronger, so does our equanimity. We see with greater dependence on the grace of God and so, achieve freedom. And, at the same time, equanimity becomes an inner strength that keeps us balanced in middle of all that is.

Peace

Hi Apostoli, what a excellent post. It is one I will read over and over again. You have just described one of the results of Spiritual Truth.

Wonderfull!!

Regards
Gatsby