FW:Your explaination of Genesis 1:26 is ridiculous, here is why. You must either believe that the Genesis narritive is a historic account or that it is in some way metaphorical in its writing.
Mlculwell: I believe it is a historical account of creation! I gave the passages why God had no image to make man from. Jesus was the image of the invisible God! If Jesus were that God then he was also invisible and had no visible image in which to make man!
(Romans 5:14)is also an account of the creation of Adam and further expounds the Genesis account Adam who was(created)the figure(Image, Likeness) of him that was to come. You can say whatever you like and this does not fit your view but I care not!
FW:Did God actual say that what is written? Of course He did.
mlculwell: I have not denied that I Like the Genesis 1:26 passage just like it is but it can be compared to the other creation passages, one of those being found in (Romans 5:14)
FW:Therefore since the fall had not yet occured and the context of the passage has nothing to do with redemption, your argument is one of little basis.
mlculwell: The fall had not yet occurred But God in his omniscience knew what was going to happen and already spoke that he knew such.
FW:Perhaps it might have stood a chance if that were the only time the plural was used in reference to God by God. But as you well know this was no isolated incident. (Genesis 1:1, 3:22, 11:7-8,Isaiah 6:8.) For a relativley brief overview I will refer you to my post titled "The Triune God of the Old Testament."
mlculwell: I am not interested in your false view of the passages! If there were such a thing as a "triune God" then we would have found evidence from the Apostles writing about it, but no such doctrine exists in scripture anywhere only that which you think teaches such a ridiculous view.
Gen. 1:1 is no passage to use to prove a trinity if you refer to Elohim Satan is referred to as *elohim* there is not more that one satan.
Gen. 3:22, 11:7 and Isiah 6:8 can easily refer to God and the Angels and is typically how the Jews explain the passages and even Gen.1:26 but I tend to disagree with the view of that passage since Romans 5:14 explains so much, I gave the reasons as to why partly above and in the last reply.
FW:Using the greek OT to derive word meaning may not be the best way to go. Why not use the Hebrew? Perhaps it is because your reading into words becomes far more difficult.
mlculwell:I understand you not wanting me to use it as it does not fit with your interpretation of (John 1:10 but even Tyndale called the word/Logos an *it* Paul used the term in (2nd Tim. 2:17) of two individuals evil plans and if Paul knew that the word/logos was the pre-existent persons of Jesus I do not think he would have soiled it's usage as he did of those two evil individuals, do you? The fact is both John and Paul being Apostles and Jews would have Known the meaning of the word only trinity folk attribute a new meaning to it that has never been and it is a false view of the word.
FW:Time and time again the scripture expounds upon the fact that the Son came from heaven. He was sent from heaven. Never does the scripture say that the Father has come to earth, or that the Father has been manifest in the flesh.
(Heb 10:5, John 3:16-17, Gal 4:4, John 6:33)
mlculwell: (Gal. 4:4) clearly tells us how the son was sent GOD SENT FORTH HIS SON(HOW?) MADE OF A WOMAN, MADE UNDER THE LAW.
Clearly You have ignored passages and falsely interpreted them according to your doctrine and not the word of God.
John 6:51 is the greatest of all the passages to tell us How Jesus was sent and takes care of all the so called pre-existent passages, this is in the same context of the passage you submitted in (John 6:33) Tell us how you were sent Jesus please?
(JOHN 6:51)I AM THE LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND THE BREAD I WILL GIVE(Which came from heaven) is my *FLESH*. Corruptible flesh(That which dies, neither goes there, or comes from there.) Jesus was saying *God provided his flesh as our sacrifice from heaven like he provided the manna in the wilderness.
FW:1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
mlculwell: Yes the above is a well established fact! John Knew the true God. he knew the word made flesh what he did not know is your false doctrine of a pre-existent "God the son." Jesus was made the true God because his flesh had a beginning.
(Acts 2:36) This same Jesus whom ye have crucified was M*A*D*E both Lord and Christ.
(1st.Cor.15:54) Jesus was M*A*D*E the life giving spirit.
(Math. 28:18) Jesus was G*I*V*E*N ALL power in both heaven and earth. If Jesus has it all nobody else can have any more because all, means all!
(John 3:34) Jesus Was G*I*V*E*N the Spirit by no measure. everything he had was given or he was made because his humanity had a beginning.
FW:So far as my use of Genesis 2:24; The verse was used to demonstrate the meaning of the Hebrew word one, and nothing else. Don't isogete my own writings please. I know it is hard, but contain yourself.
mlculwell: If you are referring to the Hebrew word *Echad* it is only used 65 times out of 965 times of a compound unity it is the first word a Hebrew child learns in counting just like our word is One you are interjecting your false doctrine.
FW:John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.
Tell me who walked with Adam, who appeared to Lot and Abram, who wrestled with Jacob?
Who spoke with Hagar? When was Christ at the side (or bosom) of the Father?
mlculwell: God in Theophany. God took upon him a temporary form that is all! That is the God though that incarnated the man or son Jesus. There was no "God the son."
FW:By the way, give me your expert exegesis on the verse below. After all your attitude suggests far superior wisdom to the likes of a simpleton like me.
Acts 7:55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
mlculwell: Okay! You just gave the passage that says "No man has seen God at *any time.*" There are plenty more passages that says the same thing. Stephen Saw Jesus at a place of Power and acceptance.. How do you get on the *right hand of a God* that is everywhere at the same time?
*Right hand of God* used in this passages shows that Stephen saw Jesus in his proper place, for it pleased the father that in him should all the fullness dwell(Col. 1:19) Right hand of God was used many times in the OT and taught it was a place of Power:
(Exodus 15:6-8,12-13) Right hand of God dashed enemies to pieces.
(Psalm 20:6,21:8) right hand of God shall find his enemies.
(Psalm 118:14-16) place of power.
It is also used of Jesus in the judgment Jesus sits on the throne Sheep Go to Jesus right hand(Acceptance... Math. 25:31)
4 comments:
Manny, if I may, concerning your view of Genesis. 1.26, Irenaeus says thus:
"for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father" (Ad. Hear. 4.6.6)
Joel, That is also what the scripture teaches in (Col. 1:15) so I have no problem with that!
"I gave the passages why God had no image to make man from."
The word image does not mean what you suppose. Your reverse logic doesn't add up simply because of the fact the Eve was also made in the image of God. You have choosen a wooden litteral interpretation that goes far beyond what the text implies. Again, the passage does not have anything to do with God's redemptive plan. It is the account of creation as you have admitted. Talk about isogesis. The "image" is obviously the communicable attritubtes that God has given human kind, not physical form. Your argument is circular and therfore a fallacy; You claim that man was created in the image of God which was created in the image of man. It is illogical and totally foreign to the account in Genesis.
Satan is referred to elohim? In what context? If that is true, it would make sense because satan is not alone and is the god of this world and rules with his angels.
You say that Genesis 11:7 refers to the angels? Lets examine that.
Genesis 11:7-8 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.” So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city
After God said "let us," who went? The text says "so the Lord," not the angels. There are no angelic references in any of those texts.The scriptural roll of angels takes two forms; receiving and delivering messages and proclamations, and protecting the garden. Isaiah 6:8 makes no mention of angels and the text says "who will go for us," thereby implying that the sender is soverign and has a plan for implementation. Angels don't plan things, and angels have no say in the redemptive purposes of God. Your willing to admit that Gen. 1:26 refers to God, but not the other us and our passages? Your not too objective in your thinking are you? Bringing subjective decision making into theology is a certain way to isogesis.
You also said that Genesis 3:22 refers to angels. Lets examine that as well:
Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”
Your assumptiom must be that angels too know good and evil in the sense the text implies. Not suprisingly the context of the passage has proven otherwise. Read below:
Genesis 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
Will be like who? God, not angels. Own up to the truth, you are so consumed with defending the oneness doctrine that you don't care how you have to bend the scriptures to do it.
Now so far as the eternality of the Son of God:
You said this " The passage is a prophecy of the coming incarnation," regarding Hebrews 1:8-13/Psalm 110:1. This however is not true. How can I prove this? Easily:
Hebrews 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.
Note the text says "you have loved. . . and hated. . .." This text is in the PASSED tense. Not the future tense as you suppose. The Son did these things while on earth and in pre-existence since He is divine. The time of the text is after the ascension.
If I were to send you something, does that mean that it came into being while on the way? No. The word for send is pempo. This word literally means to consign one thing or person to another thing or person. Not create, but to send. Don't draw inferences when the text doesn't imply as much.
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Does it get any clearer than this?
Paul calls Christ the "prototokos" or first born in Col.1:15-17. This word means the one who has pre-eminence. There is no inference to some sort of temperal generation of the Son.
So far as John 1:18 the text which you seemed to have ignored: the litteral interpreation of the word monogenes is the unique God, with the clear distinction from the Father. The Monogenes is by definition is eternal and distinct.
No getting past the pinnacle text that defies your doctrine sooo clearly; John chapter 1. The text clearly says that the Son pre-existed the incarnation. I defy you to argue otherwise.
Lets finish this. First let me admit, that I like this dialoge and that I personally don't hold anything against you. I think you can be somewhat abrasive at times, but I hope that we can ultimatley treat one another with respect even we differ drastically theologically. With that said, allow me to deliver the deathblow to your doctrine of God; you'll find it below.
http://onenessheresy.blogspot.com/2009/02/oneness-problem-of-love.html
"Allow you to deal the death blow"? LOL! Okay, but first you have to have a death blow to deal but as usual I am going to take your reply apart again!
Post a Comment