Personification of Attributes

[Ben Masada]

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26


"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben

 

[Lloren]

Are wolves all crazy? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Ben Masada]

Are wolves all crazy? Inquiring minds want to know.

No, they are not. I mean, depends on whom or what is cornered them against
any way of escape. Law of cause and effect. Have I cornered you against being man made in the attributes of God?

 

[Durruck]

I think you're reading too much into it. "man" and "them" are not contradictory. We use the word to identify gender, but the implication was "mankind" or "human". If we had a different set of words, you would have never bothered to post this because it would be pointless.

Look at chickens. They are roosters and hens. If God had called us "chicken" instead of "man" there would be nothing to talk about here.

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

This bugs me. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. He chose the words for the writers to use. The Bible says what it means and means what it says.

Either way, I'm not sure that I understand your point in this post. The Trinitarian view is still a strict monotheistic stance.

 

[Patriot]

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26


"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Wait a minute, before you start your victory dance. Let's take a look at your argument.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Agreed. We are not the physical representation of God but bear His attributes.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

Man can refer to humanity in general hence the plural reference. Your premise is flawed, therefore you conclusion is flawed.

EDIT: A little digging and found this: http://biblos.com/genesis/1-26.htm Click on the Strong's number next to man and you get this: http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/120.htm

It is never wise to build a doctrine on a single verse. So please realize that that verse is not the only place trinitarians see evidence of the Trinity. http://carm.org/plurality-god-old-and-new-testaments

 

[Bowser]

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26


"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben

As far as I can tell, the usage of man in this context is actually plural. Man meaning humankind, mankind, people.

edit: looks like I was beaten to the point. And Durruck; I'm not sure if it's just an implication. I think it is explicitly plural.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H120&t=KJV
My Strongs essentially says the same thing.

 

[Durruck]

I didn't have time to dig around on Strong's, and didn't want to state an assumption as fact (especially one that I couldn't back up, due to time constraints)

 

[Lazarus]

Come on, people, you heard the man: the issue is settled. And the spiritual cruelty evident in your posts is literally making me cringe.

 

[Stc95]

I'm not sure what version of the Bible you're reading. But I do know that is not the complete verse quoted correctly and completely. Here is Gen. 1:26 in the King James Version, the NIV has the same clarification, if not worded more familiar, so I know that the meaning behind these passages has not been altered between versions.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 1:26, as you have said earlier in your version of the passage, is slightly vague as to who or what the "them" refers to. However, "man" has dual meanings, both plural and singluar. "There is a man," is a single man. "There, man has been" refers to mankind, humankind if you want to be PC, which is plural. Perfectly understandable to reason that "them" refers to "mankind" instead of God's attributes, which every human posses.

However, there is a problem two passages later with your theory, where the "them" clearly refers to Adam and Eve having dominion over the whole earth. There is no reason for God to tell His attributes to multiply and be fruitful and replenish the earth. And if this "them" is referring to humanity, than it is logical to assume the aforementioned "them" also refers to humanity as there has not been enough subject change to signify "them" refers to a different subject.

Furthermore, what is your point in this thread? To simply prove that God has dominion over the Earth? That is debatable, as Satan currently holds the Principality of the air, temporarily. But I am sure there are few who would disagree that God is not in control. Revelation and Jesus makes it fairly obvious to believers that God wins in the end.

So, if that is not your point, then it seems your objective is to disprove the Trinity. Which begs the question, what do you believe? What is your spiritual background. Most of us know our own history and what we believe, you are a wild card as you are new to our community. What are your beliefs? Because the Trinity issue has been resolved in the Council of Nicaea when Christianity first became the state religion of the Roman Empire. From then on Christians have believed, without question, that God is three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Gen 1:26 is not the major passage that Trinitarians use. Personally I find the Baptism of Jesus to be a defining illustration of the Trinity.

 

[Simonedes]

Alright so what youre saying is this: that the trinity does not exist.

Interesting since it would be nigh on impossible to prove this. Let's begin where you began in Genesis.

"Let us make man in our image."

You are correct God does not have a physical form that we are endowed with his attributes which create our being not our physical form. AKA God isn't a white man with a flowing white beard that looks like us. That is not His natural state if it was then he couldn't be omnipresent. I mean I dont know about you but I have yet to be in multiple places at once.

However, you go WAY overboard. I think we need to clean up some of your hermeneutics. First you say that THEM was a gross misjudgement. Let me remind you that God is also omniscient, y'know all knowing... and not knowing the future is ummm y'know a problem with the whole... omniscient thing. So he knew ahead of time, since HE CREATED US, that we would procreate and have more men running around the place.

So there you go trinity present and accounted for. Again we see them in genesis 18 where God appears under a tree as three men. Accounting for all of the trinity. So let's unpack this a bit. God is omnipotent so he can do whatever he wants. He makes himself in the form of men so to speak with Abram. I'm pretty sure this is to make abraham more comfortable. I mean suddenly having GOD talk to you would be a pretty frightening thing. So does him limiting his form cause anything else? Well it doesn't look like it. God seems to be able to do whatever else he wants and not limiting His power in any way.

Lastly, and this is the biggie God appears as Trinity in the baptism of Jesus. Father as voice, Son as Jesus, and Holy Spirit as the dove. Its very important that we realize the implications of the picture and meaning behind it.

So up to the point of Jesus' baptism his public ministry had yet to begin. The implications of this are enormous. Jesus sought the Father's blessing on His ministry before beginning His work. Could Jesus preach the pants (read robes) off of the high priest in Jerusalem? Well do you know more about yourself than someone else? Yes Jesus could preach it because he is the gospel. At no point is Jesus at a loss for his purpose. I mean, we never see him asking for direction for himself, he knows full well that His life would be about his death. Instead his prayer constantly is to get through whatever strife and struggle that he is going through. We ultimately see this on the cross. Jesus yells, "My God My god why have you forsaken me!" So, if we go through this with your statement of God being a single entity it makes no sense. Jesus forsook himself? He barred himself from himself? He stopped his communion with himself?

Do you see the problem? Then at that moment on the cross God killed himself. So he wouldnt be God, because God cant die. However, because God is Trinitarian he forsook communion with Christ to propitiate for our sins, if this didn't happen our worship and way of life is meaningless.

What you have outlined is heretical and completely destroys the idea of Christianity, you are at this moment expressing ideas based off of Mormonism and Jehovah's witnesses. It makes no bloody sense! Your onto an entire different subject of works based salvation. Quit jumping on the band wagon of every false prophet you read. Read stuff from Spurgeon and Luther. Anything with a date not of this century, since the majority of heretical texts don't make it to the next century.


Ben I've read multiple posts of yours, and I am not going to lie, every time I read one of your "discussions" I think you're trolling, AND that's with me picking my best option for what you're doing. The worst being a complete fraud and as mentioned above a wolf.