Was Jesus the Image of God at the creation of Man? 2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Corinthians 4:3-5 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 4 (Whole Chapter) Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Colossians 1:14-16 (in Context) Colossians 1 (Whole Chapter) Colossians 3:10
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Colossians 3:9-11 (in Context) Colossians 3 (Whole Chapter) Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on
Its called the "Plurality of majesty"
If you walked into the presence of Queen Elizabeth....she would say to you..."You may come into OUR presence"
Is she more then one queen??? NO, its understood that when you get audience with the queen you get access to not only her...but eveything she represents.
"Let us make man in our image" means......down the line when man will be created they will get access to not only God...but everything that God represents.
WOW...I feel a shout coming on!!!!
Such substance.....Id better stop...might ruin my reputation.
Some people go so far trying to prove the oneness of God that they end up denying the humanity of Jesus.
Some people try so hard to avoid the "God the Son" error that they end up denying the Son of God (note the word order...BIG DIFFERENCE). The son of God was tempted in all points like as are we, yet without sin. Can God be tempted? Not according to scripture.
The son of God surrendered his will in the garden, saying to God, the Father "not my will, but thine be done". Who said that? Did God say "not my will?" That was the man--the human son of God.
And when he said on the cross "Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit". Surely no one is going to allege that God said that to himself ("God the acrobat?" putting his own spirit into his own hands?)
These are all major problems for trinitarian theology, but shouldn't present a problem for Oneness at all, as long as we understand that Jesus was a man as well as being God. Jesus was God in the flesh, but again, the flesh he came in was a man--not just a husk or a shell.
__________________
Don't be afraid to go out on a limb...that's where the fruit is.
Some people try so hard to avoid the "God the Son" error that they end up denying the Son of God (note the word order...BIG DIFFERENCE). The son of God was tempted in all points like as are we, yet without sin. Can God be tempted? Not according to scripture.
The son of God surrendered his will in the garden, saying to God, the Father "not my will, but thine be done". Who said that? Did God say "not my will?" That was the man--the human son of God.
And when he said on the cross "Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit". Surely no one is going to allege that God said that to himself ("God the acrobat?" putting his own spirit into his own hands?)
These are all major problems for trinitarian theology, but shouldn't present a problem for Oneness at all, as long as we understand that Jesus was a man as well as being God. Jesus was God in the flesh, but again, the flesh he came in was a man--not just a husk or a shell.
Good posts, Polaris.
When we celebrate Christmas, we are celebrating the birth of Christ, that is, the Son of God, or God manifesting Himself as a man, ultimately for our redemption. That occasion is worth celebrating, in my opinion!
I don't see how stating that we are celebrating the birth of Christ (and not "God") is denying that Jesus is God. It's just a way of defining the event. We can't celebrate the birth of the Spirit of God.
Some oneness folks are so phobic about trinitarianism, that they object to legitimate terminology and explanations. It's silly.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Some people go so far trying to prove the oneness of God that they end up denying the humanity of Jesus.
The convo originally started over debating Christmas and when the pagan argument wasn't working (because one of the people involved admitted to having birthday cake with candles and justifying it), then it turned into 'it's against oneness to celebrate God's birthday because He never was born'.
I stated that God wasn't born but Jesus was and that turned into me being anti-oneness, and the friendship was lost (because he didn't have room in his life for people like me).
So after receiving a PM from him today wanting me to go check out the convo in case my mind wasn't intact, I did just that, and noticed that I was in the majority! Of course, that doesn't make me right, but I'm the only one he's blasting for this belief.
This convo was on another forum that he only reads but doesn't post on any longer, so I brought it here to see the consensus of this forum for those who care to vote. Looks like I'm still in the majority!
Anyway, I'm waiting for him to get here and tell me what he really thinks, and I know he won't hold back!
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
When we celebrate Christmas, we are celebrating the birth of Christ, that is, the Son of God, or God manifesting Himself as a man, ultimately for our redemption. That occasion is worth celebrating, in my opinion!
I don't see how stating that we are celebrating the birth of Christ (and not "God") is denying that Jesus is God. It's just a way of defining the event. We can't celebrate the birth of the Spirit of God.
Some oneness folks are so phobic about trinitarianism, that they object to legitimate terminology and explanations. It's silly.
You said it, sister.
The first message that Paul preached after his vision was "Jesus Christ, the Son of God." I preach Jesus Christ the Son of God. It is the redemptive message. There is power in preaching the Son of God. Demons fear and leave, the sick are healed, the blood is manifested and soul are brought to the cross. You can preach Father, Father, Father, Jesus is the Father. While it is good theology it has little power since the blood is not revealed. The Son of God is the redemptive office.
I usually have to gag when a preacher mentions the Son and then has to pause to explain how he is both the Father and the Son. Silly indeed.
Hey Rico ... Sounds like H.O. is inviting you back into the octagon.
That's obvious. She still isn't getting it, Brother. I've told her repeatedly, both here and when this first came up last year, that regardless of what she believes, the way she was presenting her arguments made it look like she was denying oneness. This point has yet to sink in, even though it was more than myself who was trying to show her this.
In our yearly Christmas debate, I pointed out that, in my opinion, if we truly believed in one eternal God then it would be impossible for us to justify the celebration of Christmas, using the excuse of celebrating Jesus' birthday. Why? Because Jesus is God and how can we on one hand say we believe Jesus is that eternal God and then turn around and say we are celebrating His birthday? In other words, if Jesus is God and God is eternal, then how can God have a birthday?
It was at this point when things "went south" between H.O. and I. Her response was something to the effect of, "But I am not celebrating God's birthday. I am celebrating Jesus' birthday." From this point forward is when I started telling her she was making comments contrary to oneness doctrine, which is that Jesus is God and God is Jesus. She kept on and on, along this vein, until someone more learned than I in proper written English pointed out that from a grammatical standpoint she was making it sound as if she was separating Jesus from God.
H.O. absolutely refused to acknowledge that what she was being told was right. She did the same thing she does any time someone tries to point out an error, and she dug in her heels. It was at that point that I decided I wasn't going to respond to her posts anymore and the rest is history..........until the other day.
What I should have done was to ignore the comment she made about the magic hair doctrine only being taught in white churches, as if she would know what gets preached in black and hispanic churches, and can speak with any authority on whether this doctrine is excusively being preached only at the white churches. Had I simply ignored her comments, like I usually do, I could have saved myself a lot of wasted time.
Hogwash. In order for anyone to really understand how this whole thing came about they'd have to either have been there when it happened or read the threads that led to my split with her. Intentionally or otherwise, she made coments contrary to Oneness doctrine when she tried explaining her position. I was not the only one who saw that either.
Belief or disbelief in celebrating Christmas is not what led to our falling out. I have debated Christmas with people every year since I started coming to these forums and have never cut someone off over what they believed about the holiday. I realized a long time ago that there aren't many people with this conviction in the apostolic church. If I were to cut off everyone I know who celebrates this holiday and defends their belief in it, I'd have very few people to post with online.
Linear Mode
