Clarification on the Creation

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Scripture doesn’t say the third person of the trinity created the world, or mankind

Really? What Scripture do you refer to? Read this

Job 33:4, “The Spirit of God has made [heb, ‘ʻâsâh’, make, create, produce] me”

The Hebrew, ʻâsâh, is used in Genesis 1:7, 16, 25, In 2:4, it is used for the whole of Creation, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made (ʻâsâh) the earth and the heavens". "used of God, i.q. to produce, to create, as heaven, earth" (Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon)

"rûwach", "Spirit" here cannot ba taken to mean the "breath or wind", because ver 4 goes on to say, "and the breath ("neshâmâh",breath or wind) of the Almighty hath given me life."

 

[Inkfingers]

Well, my point is that God the Father owns all things.

In Heb. 1:2 we learn that God the Father has appointed Christ the heir of all things.

Which is interesting because the Appointer is superior to the Appointed, as the role of Apponter is a position of authority over a situation by definition.

 

[DamianWarS]

Genesis 1:1 begins by the words, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The word "God" in Hebrew, is "Elohim", which is masculine in gender, and plural in number. This means that The Godhead is NOT singular. Genesis 1:26 says. "Then God said, “Let US make man in our image, after OUR likeness...". This does NOT mean as some suppose, that God was here speaking to His angels, or any other heavenly being. Humans are made in the "image of God" (1 Corinthians 11:7).

Jesus Christ is Creator WITH The Father, Who also created, "For it was fitting that He (The Father), for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering" (Hebrews 2:10). And, WITH The Holy Spirit, ""The Spirit has made (ʻâsâh, same word used for the whole of Creation in Genesis 2:4) me and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." (Job 33:4). The Three Persons of the Holy Trinity were TOGETHER active in the Creation of the entire universe.

It's plural in number as a majestic plural in a way to give honor and respect not to assume number. The way we do it is capitalize the first letter for the closest match as saying "god" and "God" are very different things. Hebrew didn't care about case (nor did they have it) and honor was given through a majestic plural. The Qur'an does the same thing but Islam is vehemently unitarian and so are Jews (especially ancients).

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

It's plural in number as a majestic plural in a way to give honor and respect not to assume number

is that right? and your evidence for this is exactly what?

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Well, my point is that God the Father owns all things.

In Heb. 1:2 we learn that God the Father has appointed Christ the heir of all things.

so you don't believe that the Holy Bible Teaches The Holy Trinity? Which is, One Godhead (God/Being), Who is Three Persons, known as The Father, and The Son and The Holy Spirit. The THREE being coequal, coeternal and coessential. This is Bible FACT, anything else is plain WRONG!

 

[chad kincham]

Yes it does.Here He is before the crucifixion. The identity and description are identical.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.The Father and the Holy Spirit have never been seen, for they are invisible. Jesus on the other hand we saw, we heard and we touched Him.

You have been made in the image of YHWH, the Word, Jesus.

In the spiritual sense we are converted into His spiritual image.

Romans 8:29
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

Yes it does.Here He is before the crucifixion. The identity and description are identical.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.The Father and the Holy Spirit have never been seen, for they are invisible. Jesus on the other hand we saw, we heard and we touched Him.

You have been made in the image of YHWH, the Word, Jesus.

In the spiritual sense we are converted into His spiritual image.

Romans 8:29
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

Your Daniel 10 citation is a very well known passage where an angel appears to Daniel.

It can’t be Jesus, because the figure tells Daniel he was delayed 21 days trying to get to him, but the prince of Persia prevented him, and he had to get Michael the archangel to help him break through.

Jesus is God, no fallen angel could hold him up 21 days, nor would he need Michael to help him.

It helps to put scriptures in context. Try it sometime.

 

[klutedavid]

Your Daniel 10 citation is a very well known passage where an angel appears to Daniel.

The text does not mention angel but it does mention Lord.

Daniel 10:16-17
Then I opened my mouth and spoke and said to him who was standing before me, “O my lord, as a result of the vision anguish has come upon me, and I have retained no strength. For how can such a servant of my lord talk with such as my lord?

Men are not servants of angels!

It can’t be Jesus, because the figure tells Daniel he was delayed 21 days trying to get to him, but the prince of Persia prevented him, and he had to get Michael the archangel to help him break through.

Jesus uses angels in warfare, we also are involved in warfare.

Jesus is God, no fallen angel could hold him up 21 days, nor would he need Michael to help him.

It helps to put scriptures in context. Try it sometime.

I believe you need to obey the context and show me where 'angel' is mentioned.

The graphic appearance is none other than the apperance of Jesus in Revelation 1.

We crucified God.

 

[Charlie24]

so you don't believe that the Holy Bible Teaches The Holy Trinity? Which is, One Godhead (God/Being), Who is Three Persons, known as The Father, and The Son and The Holy Spirit. The THREE being coequal, coeternal and coessential. This is Bible FACT, anything else is plain WRONG!

Yes, I most certainly do believe that, it is as you said, a fact!

Let's take it a step further so I can explain my previous statement.

When Adam fell all mankind fell with him. Man lost the dominion God gave him.

Satan gained this dominion by deceiving man, he is called the God of this world. He was given this title by gaining dominion of this world in mans place.

Before the Godhead created man they knew this would happen. The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit decided the "Word" would become the "Second Adam" and redeem once again this dominion and perfect standing with God.

When Jesus became man He carried out this plan in perfection, thereby gaining back mans dominion, as a man.

So how can Jesus inherit all things from the Father, when Jesus is the One who created it and is already the owner?

He did it in humanity, being a man. He has inherited the lost dominion previously owned by man. He will sit on the throne of His dominion one day, but for now, the Father has said, "sit on my right hand until I make your enemies my footstool.

 

[chad kincham]

What is a Jesus-only Christian?

The doctrine is that there is no trinity, only Jesus, who plays the roles of father, son, and Holy Ghost - like wearing three different hats: when He puts on the Father hat, He gives Himself as His only begotten son; when He puts on the Son hat, He prays to the Father hat, as if it were a separate being from Him, etc.

 

[chad kincham]

The text does not mention angel but it does mention Lord.

Daniel 10:16-17
Then I opened my mouth and spoke and said to him who was standing before me, “O my lord, as a result of the vision anguish has come upon me, and I have retained no strength. For how can such a servant of my lord talk with such as my lord?

Men are not servants of angels!Jesus uses angels in warfare, we also are involved in warfare.I believe you need to obey the context and show me where 'angel' is mentioned.

The graphic appearance is none other than the apperance of Jesus in Revelation 1.

We crucified God.

Scripture is pretty clear that Jesus did not have a body until His incarnation as a man.

Thus even if it were Jesus He saw, it would be the risen Jesus transcending time, and making an OT Christophony.

Jesus had no body until He came into the world and the Father made Him one:

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

 

[klutedavid]

Scripture is pretty clear that Jesus did not have a body until His incarnation as a man.

Thus even if it were Jesus He saw, it would be the risen Jesus transcending time, and making an OT Christophony.

Jesus had no body until He came into the world and the Father made Him one:

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

So who was walking and talking in the garden of Eden?

 

[Thomas White]

The doctrine is that there is no trinity, only Jesus, who plays the roles of father, son, and Holy Ghost - like wearing three different hats: when He puts on the Father hat, He gives Himself as His only begotten son; when He puts on the Son hat, He prays to the Father hat, as if it were a separate being from Him, etc.

That's not much different from the trinity belief. It still recognizes Jesus as God and vice versa.

 

[DamianWarS]

is that right? and your evidence for this is exactly what?

majestic plural hebrew - Google Search

It's fairly common knowledge, despite people enjoying your version.

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

majestic plural hebrew - Google Search

It's fairly common knowledge, despite people enjoying your version.

created by those who cannot accept the Bible teaching on The Holy Trinity!!!

 

[DamianWarS]

created by those who cannot accept the Bible teaching on The Holy Trinity!!!

it's not about a rejection of the trinity and if you think that then you've missed the point. it's about an understanding of the words used in their context... not ours.

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

it's not about a rejection of the trinity and if you think that then you've missed the point. it's about an understanding of the words used in their context... not ours.

I accept what the Holy Bible, the ONLY Infallible Word of Almighty God, says. In the Hebrew there is another word for "God", which is "'ĕl", this is masculine in gender, but singular in number. If, as you and others argue, that "ʼĕlôhîym" is nothing more than "plural of majesty", which really means nothing, as the Name of God is already Majestic, then surely the Bible would only have used "'ĕl", which is used for The God of the Bible, and no less "Majestic" than the plural "ʼĕlôhîym"!

It is ONLY after the Jews, who reject the Bible Teaching of the Holy Trinity, saw that the Hebrew "ʼĕlôhîym" is plural, and that pasages like Genesis 1:26 clearly shows that God is NOT a single Person, and that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, both also in the Old Testament, are also "ʼĕlôhîym", that they invented this rather pointless and foolish "plural of majesty"!!!

 

[DamianWarS]

I accept what the Holy Bible, the ONLY Infallible Word of Almighty God, says. In the Hebrew there is another word for "God", which is "'ĕl", this is masculine in gender, but singular in number. If, as you and others argue, that "ʼĕlôhîym" is nothing more than "plural of majesty", which really means nothing, as the Name of God is already Majestic, then surely the Bible would only have used "'ĕl", which is used for The God of the Bible, and no less "Majestic" than the plural "ʼĕlôhîym"!

It is ONLY after the Jews, who reject the Bible Teaching of the Holy Trinity, saw that the Hebrew "ʼĕlôhîym" is plural, and that pasages like Genesis 1:26 clearly shows that God is NOT a single Person, and that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, both also in the Old Testament, are also "ʼĕlôhîym", that they invented this rather pointless and foolish "plural of majesty"!!!

well, I've shown you some of my sources, albeit a google search, but it shows very wide acceptance of the majestic plural. Now it's time to show me your sources.

 

[Biltong65]

I accept what the Holy Bible, the ONLY Infallible Word of Almighty God, says. In the Hebrew there is another word for "God", which is "'ĕl", this is masculine in gender, but singular in number. If, as you and others argue, that "ʼĕlôhîym" is nothing more than "plural of majesty", which really means nothing, as the Name of God is already Majestic, then surely the Bible would only have used "'ĕl", which is used for The God of the Bible, and no less "Majestic" than the plural "ʼĕlôhîym"!

It is ONLY after the Jews, who reject the Bible Teaching of the Holy Trinity, saw that the Hebrew "ʼĕlôhîym" is plural, and that pasages like Genesis 1:26 clearly shows that God is NOT a single Person, and that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, both also in the Old Testament, are also "ʼĕlôhîym", that they invented this rather pointless and foolish "plural of majesty"!!!

Let the Hebrews be the judge of their own language:

ONENESS OF GOD - The Meaning of 'Elohim

This is not an argument against the Triune God (on my part), but it seems clear that there is a usage of a plural (for whatever reason) for a singular. It is still possible for us to believe in the Trinity, without "tilting at windmills".

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Let the Hebrews be the judge of their own language:

ONENESS OF GOD - The Meaning of 'Elohim

This is not an argument against the Triune God (on my part), but it seems clear that there is a usage of a plural (for whatever reason) for a singular. It is still possible for us to believe in the Trinity, without "tilting at windmills".

and exactly what would you expect the JEWS to say on this? That the plural actually teaches that the God of the Old Testament is a TRINITY? How do the Jews translate "Almah" in Isaiah 7:14? "Virgin", or "young woman"? Your reasoning is moot!