FW: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.
mlculwell: Eve being made in the image of God does not destroy what I have said!
FW: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.
mlculwell: First, It seems you want your cake and eat it too. You have accused me of taking a metaphorical account of the creation and now you deny man being literally made in the image and likeness of God.
FW: Talk about isogesis. The "image" is obviously the communicable attritubtes that God has given human kind, not physical form.
mlculwell:
*Image* has to do with what is seen as well as what is not seen the Apostles used the term in NT to describe God being seen and the only way God was seen, was by the image or figure or physical likeness of Jesus(Col.1:15) Jesus is the image of the invisible God...
Of course it is "physical form" as he made man a "physical form"! The passage I submitted that is also an account of creation says the following: Adam who was the figure of him that was to come(Romans 5:14)
The Gen. 1:26 passage not only uses the word form but likeness which takes care of any and all uses but if that is not enough the Romans passage uses a third term;Figure from the Greek: Tupos a die struck,stamp or scar, a shape, a statue,style or resemblance,a sampler, or model,imitation,fashion,figure,form, print. I would like to point out that because you repeat something that has been said by trinitrians for so long such as image likeness and figure having nothing to do with the physical does not make it so you will have to actually prove that here!
The other terms from (Gen. 1:26) in the Hebrew tselme/image are as follows: figure, shade,phantom,illusion,resemblance,representative.
All having to do with things seen!
Likeness/demuwth:resemblance ,model ,shape fashion,manner similitude.
it should be pointed out two different Hebrew words were used and I do not believe it is an accident nor do I believe God's word is being redundant but driving home the point that it is much more than attributes and Paul drove the point home even further by stating man was made in the image of jesu who was not back there in Physical form but god had the physical form in mind when he made man Jesus being the first and only perfect man which image and likeness man was created.
Later our friend tries to make a point with the Greek word prototokos(firstborn) from (Col.1:15) the same passage I used to show Jesus was the Image of the invisible God, Folks two glaring contradictions stand out in this passage! One is; they really do not literally believe Jesus is the firstborn of every creature. That is a contradiction to their false view of an eternal son the two terms contradict each other. the other is the passage uses the term image to point our Jesus is what is seen of the unseen. more on this later.
FW: 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.
mlculwell: Jesus was God manifest in the flesh(1st.Tim.3:16,2nd.Cor.5:19) not just a man! God made man in *his own image* that coming image!(Romans 5:14) says so it is not something I pulled out of the air to accommodate my doctrine as you are doing! Adam who was the figure(image,Likeness) of him that was to COME.
God was invisible, Jesus was the image of the invisible God! It is just as ridiculous to say man was made in the image of an invisible God and simply assume man was made according to attributes only when we have scriptural witness that says man was made in the coming figure of Jesus from (Romans 5:14)
FW: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.
mlculwell: (II kings 1:2-3) Baalzebub is called elohim. I hope you are not suggesting there is more than one Satan? there most certainly is not! Satan my not be alone but there is not more than one Satan!
FW: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.
mlculwell: God did this many times where he spoke in the presence of his Angels and used the royal we or us by virtue of his kingly royalty in the presence of his subjects. Nothing you have said refutes this fact nor do we ever see God as a plural being. But we see plurality of attributes and majesty.
FW: 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.
mlculwell; The Angels were the subjects of the King(God) in his spiritual kingdom and included his subjects in the knowledge of his works by common courtesy as would have all kings. Nor was there ever a trinity of persons ever referred to in scripture that is your pompous forcing upon scripture based on a shallow reading of the text.
FW: 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.
mlculwell: That was never stated intended or said By me. God simply stated his intentions suing the royal we us our in the presence of his subjects(The Angels) i never stated they planned or had part in redemption. They most certainly knew about redemption and desired to look into those things.
FW: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.
mlculwell: I do not afford the other passages as I do (Gen. 1:26) because we have another view creation from (Romans 5:14) there is nothing saying God is plural in any passage anywhere and the usage of the plural pronouns most certainly does not prove anything of a plural God!
FW: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.
mlculwell: Um, This shows your blatant, willful, ignorance of scripture as Angels, rulers, and human judges, are also called gods we already talked about that in the word elohim/Elohim. Yes Angels know Good from Evil Satan chose to do Evil rather than Good and fell from his first estate.
FW:Now so far as the eternality of the Son of God:
mlculwell: There was no such thing in scripture ever taught!
FW: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.
mlculwell: The scriptures do this many times and proves nothing! In (Joshua 6:2) God also said I have given into thy hand Jericho(Past tense) before Joshua even went round the walls like he was instructed to do. if god says something you can take it to the bank! But a prophecy is a prophecy.
FW: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.
mlculwell: No, I think you might better go back and figure another argument as this does not work.
FW: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.
mlculwell: You blatantly ignore the context of the passage in verse nine looking foolish in doing so! I mentioned if the passage were talking about Jesus being a pre-existent person of God then there were more than Jesus the Holy ghost and God the father as God the father is talking in the passage and says he has anointed Jesus with the oil of Gladness(Holy Ghost) above his *fellows* now tell us about his fellow Gods?(The plural) the fact is that part of the passage is speaking about him being anointed with the Holy Ghost above all other men ass the son in the incarnation.
FW: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?
mlculwell: Actually it does "get clearer" as you look at the context further down in the passage and particularly in (verse 22) Jesus is giving them(The disciples) his glory (verse 24)
Father,I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am;(Present tense)that they(the future Apostles) may behold my Glory, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. What was the glory that the disciples were about to behold.
*His glory* had nothing to do with pre-existence of a fictitious "god the son." his GLORY HAD TO DO WITH HIS PASSION. that is what was meant by Jesus both giving them his glory and them beholding his glory as rev. 13:8 states: the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus was not literally slain back there but this passages makes it seem as though it was.
To further prove *his glory* he had with the father before the world was is his passion in the plan of God for future redemption we read In (John 7:39) The Holy ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet GLORIFIED. this is his glory, his passion that was planned from the beginning from the foundation of the world the glory the disciples were about to behold the glory they were also given from the father to behold.
FW: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.
mlculwell: Was he the firstborn of God according the flesh, are you denying that? That is the doctrine of Antichrist(1st.John 4:3) How many sons do you have? Do you have One Born, and One not born? The word prototokos does have to do with him being literally born to deny that is to deny his real humanity! You most certainly cannot have a redeemer(1st. Cor.15:21) nor a mediator(1st.Tim.2:5) with your view of hybrid.
FW: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.
mlculwell: I reject your term! "The only begotten God" which denies Jesus real humanity and makes Jesus hybrid new species. Begotten is a term you are denying is in relation to his humanity thus your doctrine is Antichrist! was he the only begotten according to the flesh?
FW: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.
mlculwell: That is just what I am going to do! You cannot deny my argument by ignoring it! The Septuagint of John 1:1 calls the Word/Logos "the creator!" But how? clearly by the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. I have not changed my argument. the day you can make the word by the breath of god's mouth a pre-existent person of God is the day you will have an argument from John 1:1 and again Tyndale calls the word an *it.* Paul uses the term logos of two individuals evil plans(2nd. Tim.2:17)
FW: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.
mlculwell: I am going to deal with your so called death blow in another post! and if you actually had a death blow you should have given in an argument here instead of simply giving a link to your so called death blow.
2 comments:
I am tired of your non answers.
The poetic devise called plural majesty was not invented until the 13th century by anglo-saxon kings. There is no biblical record of such a device and no extra-scriptural support for this device in antiquity.
You claim that man was made in the image of God by God's foreknowledge of Christ Jesus. First, let me say this; man and women were created in God's image. Jesus was a man. Therefore Jesus must have been a hermaphradite in your view. The human body is not the image of God because God at the time of creation was purley spirit. The account is of creation, the context has nothing to do with redemption. It is a historical narrative and the text does not lend itself whatsoever to your greivous view. What is a type to you? Passover was a type of the atonement. Circumsission was a type of baptism. The bronze snake in the book of Numbers was a type of Christ Crucified. The type precedes the fulfillment. Not the other way around. Adam was the federal head of fallen humanity (romans 5:12-13). Jesus was the fulfillment of that type in that He was the representitive of a new humanity. The text you keep qouting, calling it "another account of creation" has nothing to do with creation. The context is about original sin, justification, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Paul never intended your isogetical interpretation. In a phrase: ad hock.
"The scriptures do this many times and proves nothing!"
Another great non answer. The text is a prophesy in Psalms and a reality in Hebrews, that was the point. It is in the past tense and the author of Hebrews said "for which of the angels did God ever SAY." Not says or was going to say.
"for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."
You must be suggesting that God loved an idea. I see. Science fiction anyone?
Create a genuine logical response to the oneness problem of love, and then let me know. When you get tired of your war on the scriptures repent and believe the gospel (by the way, that means faith in the Son of God not baptism).
The "plural of majesty" may have been a device used in literary writings and not brought about until the 13th century but God was a king way before all other kings of His subjects the Angels.
Now for your nonsense on the image! Eve was taken from the man who was created in the image of God id you forget that fact yes you did! Jesus is the image of the invisible God if he were back there as another person then he was also invisible but this simply shows me your polytheism!
Thge psalms passage you refuse to deal with if it is speaking of multiple persons then God has FELLOWS tell us about those fellows in Hebrews 1:9 please get outta here unless you have some meaningful arguments to be dealt with! i am going to leave your posts to show you I have nothing from you to fear with your non- arguments!
Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world??? But you ignore Jesus was also slain from the foundation of the world neither is literal! That was the point of using (Rev. 13:8) m His glory was his passion and that is what John 17:5 speaks of.
Post a Comment