Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

[Ben_Masada]

“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

 

[anthony022071]

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image.

God,who is all-powerful and creates something from nothing,is incapable of imaging himself? Does he need permission from academic logic to do this? Is he limited to mere incorporeality?

 

[anthony022071]

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.

The attributes he gave to man are those of personhood.

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.

A clarification is not necessary. Anyone can figure out that the word “man” can refer to mankind,rather than just a single man. We all derive from Adam’s flesh,so all mankind partakes of the substance of the first man.

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.

What sense does it make to say that God speaks 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.

God doesn’t have dominion over the universe through man.

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.

You haven’t demonstrated that the writer of Genesis personified God’s attributes.

The Jews spoke of the Holy Spirit as well as the Father.

 

[John7]

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image.

Howdee,

Col 1:15 [Christ] “Who is the image of the invisible God…”

 

[Ben_Masada]

Howdee,

Col 1:15 [Christ] “Who is the image of the invisible God…”

But of course, it had to be from Pauline rhetoric!

 

[Ben_Masada]

The attributes he gave to man are those of personhood.

Agreed. The attributes of God are attributes of personhood.

A clarification is not necessary. Anyone can figure out that the word “man” can refer to mankind,rather than just a single man. We all derive from Adam’s flesh,so all mankind partakes of the substance of the first man.

**Yes, but still in the singular. **

What sense does it make to say that God speaks to his attributes?

He didn’t. His attributes spoke for Him in a personified manner. I hope you are aware of metaphorical language.

God doesn’t have dominion over the universe through man.

**Who does, the irrational animals who didn’t get a portion of God’s attributes? You are not making sense of what you say. Sorry! **

You haven’t demonstrated that the writer of Genesis personified God’s attributes.

**Isn’t God incorporeal? Incorporeality has no image. Therefore, there is here a personification of attributes. **

The Jews spoke of the Holy Spirit as well as the Father.

That’s just another name for the same God, as we have Elohim, Yahweh, Jehovah, El, HaElyon, Shadai, etc, etc.

 

[Ben_Masada]

God,who is all-powerful and creates something from nothing,is incapable of imaging himself? Does he need permission from academic logic to do this? Is he limited to mere incorporeality?

I agree with you that God is powerful enough to image himself without permission from Academic Logic, and that He is not limited to incorporeality; but why did He make Himself flesh, because that’s what you want Him to?
I mean, the NT? Ponder!

 

[anthony022071]

**Yes, but still in the singular. **

Adam had all of what was to be mankind within himself.

He didn’t. His attributes spoke for Him in a personified manner. I hope you are aware of metaphorical language.

The attributes in question are intelligence and free will,which are inseparable from having a personal nature. A being cannot be intelligent and have free will without being a personal being.

**Who does, the irrational animals who didn’t get a portion of God’s attributes? You are not making sense of what you say. Sorry! **

God has dominion over the universe by his own power. He gave man a secondary kind of dominion,or stewardship,over the Earth.

**Isn’t God incorporeal? Incorporeality has no image. Therefore, there is here a personification of attributes. **

We’re talking about God,not just any incorporeality. God can create an image of himself for us to know him. Also,Christians do not think the word “image” in Genesis refers to a sensible image.

That’s just another name for the same God, as we have Elohim, Yahweh, Jehovah, El, HaElyon, Shadai, etc, etc.

The Holy Spirit was known to be of the Father,as if it were a distinct being. The Father Son and Holy Spirit are one in being from eternity,yet they are distinct persons.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Adam had all of what was to be mankind within himself.

You are threading into Mysticism now.

The attributes in question are intelligence and free will,which are inseparable from having a personal nature. A being cannot be intelligent and have free will without being a personal being.

Intelligence and frrewill are not even the major Divine attributes shared by man. Intellect is. That’s the attribute man uses to strike a personal relationship with God.

God has dominion over the universe by his own power. He gave man a secondary kind of dominion,or stewardship,over the Earth.

**Men are only tools in the “hands” of God to exert dominion over the Universe. **

We’re talking about God,not just any incorporeality. God can create an image of himself for us to know him. Also,Christians do not think the word “image” in Genesis refers to a sensible image.

God can everything. But He did not do something just because you wish He did.

The Holy Spirit was known to be of the Father,as if it were a distinct being. The Father Son and Holy Spirit are one in being from eternity,yet they are distinct persons.

There is no such a thing as distinction in the Godhead. God is absolutely One and incorporeal.

 

[Lapell]

“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

Great! He made man in His image and likeness, and then He took the image and likeness of man!

 

[Lapell]

You are threading into Mysticism now.

Lapell: -What is the point of fulfilling God’s Commandments, if not to live in union with Him starting here on earth?

Intelligence and frrewill are not even the major Divine attributes shared by man. Intellect is. That’s the attribute man uses to strike a personal relationship with God.

Lapell: -The first and foremost divine attribute is His infinite Mercy

God can everything. But He did not do something just because you wish He did.

Lapell:-You can say that again!

There is no such a thing as distinction in the Godhead. God is absolutely One and incorporeal.

Lapell: -Such defined creatures, including mankind, and God would be but indefinite… NO! It’s IN-FI-NITE!!

 

[Lapell]

But of course, it had to be from Pauline rhetoric!

As long as “Pauline rhetoric” comes from Jesus the Christ Himself. But in fact it just happened to agree with what the Apostles were already preaching before, at he same time as, and after him!. Nothing doing, Ben! I am not going to disprove your point because you are on CATHOLIC ANSWERS FORUM, not JUDAISM 101, and since you are an outsider to Christianity YOU are the one having to demonstrate what you affirm. Otherwise, all you show is that you’re a faith hijacker!!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“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

That passage has as much to do with the Trinity as Exodus 3 has to do with GWB. There are better reasons to believe in a Trinity of Divine Persons than Gen. 1.26 ff. Fundamentalists may think Gen. 1.26 ff.refers to the Trinity, but most Christians are not Fundamentalists, so it is a serious misunderstanding to suppose that Fundamentalist exegesis is typical of Christianity has a whole: it represents an antiquated method, formerly in general use, that is now confined to a small if vocal segment of Christianity as a whole. To suppose that all Christian exegesis is Fundamentalist is a bit like supposing that all Jews are Lubavitchers - quite a few are, but most are not.​

 

[Wildkit]

Is one’s soul incorporeal? And as Lapell addressed, what is the purpose of your question?

But thank you for this piece as it has forced me to confirm things for me a bit further. In Gen 3:22, who is this “us” again? Or again in Gen 11:7? All I know that I don’t know what I would have done if I were a rabbi sitting in the chair of Moses and how I would have figured that one out.

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.

Why don’t we hear that angels are a creation in God’s image? This is not a philosophical argument, but I am lost with whatever explanation you are attempting to impose.

But then again is Isaiah 6:8, “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Who shall I send? Who will go for us?” This would not make a great deal of sense to me, especially back in BC………. I wouldn’t have a computer to parse all these words and related questions.

Yes, in the 26th verse of the bible, God gives us a first clue. It is amazing how many have a difficult time in 2009 with these statements and the other statements made for us all!

Yet Tertullian in 200 AD without the aid of a computer stated, "If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; " whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,” as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, “Behold the man is become as one of us,” He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make; "and, "in our image; "and, “become as one of us.” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.)

Yet, is it just coincidence that all these “things” Christians believe just happened to come together as they say they did? What about all the miracles that have happened since then,…or are they all explained away and corrupt? After a while, some may put two and two together.

You have your beliefs and I am not going to change them, but my questions remain!

 

[Ben_Masada]

Great! He made man in His image and likeness, and then He took the image and likeness of man!

You are making this more of a mystery than it is supposed to be.

 

[Ben_Masada]

As long as “Pauline rhetoric” comes from Jesus the Christ Himself. But in fact it just happened to agree with what the Apostles were already preaching before, at he same time as, and after him!. Nothing doing, Ben! I am not going to disprove your point because you are on CATHOLIC ANSWERS FORUM, not JUDAISM 101, and since you are an outsider to Christianity YOU are the one having to demonstrate what you affirm. Otherwise, all you show is that you’re a faith hijacker!!

I have demonstrated everything that needs to be demonstrated in the Scriptures. If the Scriptures don’t mean much to you, I guess we are wasting our time with each other. If you want me to give you a list of names of Scholars with their opinions confirming my views, there won’t be any problem; but how would this help you? For example, Moses Maimonides in his opus prima, “Guide for the Perplexed.” Now, tell me, how will this help you? So, I try to give Scriptures, because I am sure you have one. Unless it doesn’t mean a lot to you either.

 

[Ben_Masada]

That passage has as much to do with the Trinity as Exodus 3 has to do with GWB. There are better reasons to believe in a Trinity of Divine Persons than Gen. 1.26 ff. Fundamentalists may think Gen. 1.26 ff.refers to the Trinity, but most Christians are not Fundamentalists, so it is a serious misunderstanding to suppose that Fundamentalist exegesis is typical of Christianity has a whole: it represents an antiquated method, formerly in general use, that is now confined to a small if vocal segment of Christianity as a whole. To suppose that all Christian exegesis is Fundamentalist is a bit like supposing that all Jews are Lubavitchers - quite a few are, but most are not.​

Well, bring those better reasons to believe in a Trinity of Divine persons up for discussions and we will see if you are right in your assertion.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Is one’s soul incorporeal?

Soul is the condition of being alive. That’s when the breath of life is within the body. At death, when the breath of life is out there is no soul. According to the account of Creation in Genesis, when God made the body of man from the dirt of the earth, He breathed into it the breath of life, and it became a living soul. In Hebrew, soul means nephesh. Whenever there is an accident or terrorist act the first question asked is how many nephashote (souls) were at the site.

But thank you for this piece as it has forced me to confirm things for me a bit further. In Gen 3:22, who is this “us” again? Or again in Gen 11:7? All I know that I don’t know what I would have done if I were a rabbi sitting in the chair of Moses and how I would have figured that one out.

Again, personification of attributes. Several of the attributes of God took part in the formation of man. Therefore, in Genesis 3:22, man had become like one of us KNOWING good from evil. As you can see, not like one of us in image, shape or form, but in knowledge. Man had been granted several of God’s attributes. So, like the attributes of God man had become one of. In Genesis 11:7, we have an allegory for the origin of languages. In “let us go down” it means that at a certain point the people would not understand each other. It could never be God, because God is not subject to time. In going down is implied movement, and movement is an accident of time. Since God is not subject to time, He cannot be said of going down or up. Therefore, going down to confuse people with different languages, means that diversification of languages happened to men.

Why don’t we hear that angels are a creation in God’s image? This is not a philosophical argument, but I am lost with whatever explanation you are attempting to impose.

Because angels are emanations, influences, conditions, feelings, humours, anxieties. When Jacob had that dream of a ladder from the earth all the way up to the sky, angels would go up and then down. They were Jacob’s preoccupations and anxieties going up for an understanding of some kind of solution, and they would come down with a vote of confidence that everything would be okay.

But then again is Isaiah 6:8, “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Who shall I send? Who will go for us?” This would not make a great deal of sense to me, especially back in BC………. I wouldn’t have a computer to parse all these words and related questions.

Oh, that was in a vision that Isaiah had. In a vision or dream yes, everything is possible, even to see God and live. Angels can take any form, even of real people, or fly around like butterflies.

Yet Tertullian in 200 AD without the aid of a computer stated, "If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; " whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,” as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage,

Or He could have said, Let’s have man made with all it takes a man to be made of. Or majestic plurality. Only as long as we don’t assume that God is less than absolutely One and incorporeal at that.

however, “Behold the man is become as one of us,” He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son?

We acknowledge the son, but according to Exodus 4:22,23.

 

[anthony022071]

anthony022071;5331414:

Adam had all of what was to be mankind within himself.

You are threading into Mysticism now.

The attributes in question are intelligence and free will,which are inseparable from having a personal nature. A being cannot be intelligent and have free will without being a personal being.

Intelligence and frrewill are not even the major Divine attributes shared by man. Intellect is. That’s the attribute man uses to strike a personal relationship with God.

**Men are only tools in the “hands” of God to exert dominion over the Universe. **

We don’t have dominion over the universe,we have stewardshop over the Earth.

We’re talking about God,not just any incorporeality. God can create an image of himself for us to know him. Also,Christians do not think the word “image” in Genesis refers to a sensible image.

God can everything. But He did not do something just because you wish He did.

I say he created us in his own image because that is what scripture says and what the Church teaches.

There is no such a thing as distinction in the Godhead. God is absolutely One and incorporeal.

The Holy Spirit is distinct,which is why he is said to be of God,or of the Father,rather than just the Father himself. But this distinction is not separation. They are one in being.

 

[anthony022071]

Edit of my previous post:

You are threading into Mysticism now.

Adam had the genetic substance that we are composed of and have descended from.
When Adam was created,he was the whole human race in one individual human.

Intelligence and frrewill are not even the major Divine attributes shared by man. Intellect is. That’s the attribute man uses to strike a personal relationship with God.

Intellect is the same thing as intelligence,and it entails free will.

**Men are only tools in the “hands” of God to exert dominion over the Universe. **

We don’t have dominion over the universe,we have dominion over the Earth.

God can everything. But He did not do something just because you wish He did.

I say that he has an image because scripture says we are created in his image. I don’t take the word “mage” Genesis to mean somrthing visible,but rather a reflection,as it were,of God’s intelligence and free will and love.

There is no such a thing as distinction in the Godhead. God is absolutely One and incorporeal.

The Holy Spirit is spoken of as being of God,or of the Father,rather than just the Father himself. The Spirit is the essence of the Father,but also a person distinct in relation to the Father. This distinction is not separation. It is impossible for two human persons to be one in being because they are limited by physical and mathematical bounds. But God,being spirit,is not limited by those bounds.