The Holy Trinity in Genesis: How?

[chris62]

In Genesis 1:26 it reads: “Let us make man in our own image.”

This is written in the plural.

Is this God ( through the Holy Spirit to the writers) referring to the Holy Trinity?

If not, how did the writers of Genesis know of God being plural, a thousand years before Jesus told us?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

If God can create the universe and life, he has the power to inspire people to write in the way he intends.

Blessings

Eric

 

[chris62]

Eric, I love your signature, very inspiring.

I agree with you. This verse must be evidence of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Benadam]

An alternate explanation is that God was speaking to His court of angels. That view doesn’t make the meaning of our image any simpler to understand. We’re made in the image of God and his court of angels?

I see the Trinity here too.

In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

[2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters

In the beginning God created and the spirit of God moved over the waters

In the Son the Father created and the Holy Spirit moved over the waters

 

[chris62]

The spirit moved over the waters.

I sea. Sorry. I see.

But how did the writers know to write this?

My point is, is this evidence that the Holy Spirit was guiding the writers, by using the plural form?

It wasn’t 1000 years later that Jesus told us of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How did the early writers know about the Spirit?

 

[mwok]

An alternate explanation is that God was speaking to His court of angels. That view doesn’t make the meaning of our image any simpler to understand. We’re made in the image of God and his court of angels?

I see the Trinity here too.

In the Son the Father created and the Holy Spirit moved over the waters

That is an AWESOME insight!

I’m gonna use that in the mormon forums!

 

[Fink]

My point is, is this evidence that the Holy Spirit was guiding the writers, by using the plural form?

It`s strong evidence.

It wasn’t 1000 years later that Jesus told us of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How did the early writers know about the Spirit?

When inspired by the Holy Spirit, the writers didn`t necessarily have to understand everything they were writing.

 

[Fink]

An alternate explanation is that God was speaking to His court of angels. That view doesn’t make the meaning of our image any simpler to understand. We’re made in the image of God and his court of angels?

i`d steer clear of including the angels.

But how did the writers know to write this?

My point is, is this evidence that the Holy Spirit was guiding the writers, by using the plural form?

It`s strong evidence.

It wasn’t 1000 years later that Jesus told us of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How did the early writers know about the Spirit?

The Holy Spirit-inspired Scripture writers didn`t necessarily understand everything that they were writing.

Even though each writer was inspired, the Holy Spirit didn`t interfere with the individual writing style of each of the “scribes”: ie each writer penned the Truth, using his own natural choice of words.

 

[Benadam]

The Holy Spirit infuses a kind of knowing that compelled John the Baptist to point at Jesus and say “behold the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world” but later have to send diciples to ask Jesus if he was the one they were waiting for.

All Elizebeth saw with her earthly eyes was her cousin Mary, but through the kind of knowing infused by the Holy Spirit Elizebeth was knowing the Incarnation.

In the light of Christ’s transfiguration the diciples were able to recognize the two men Jesus was talking to even though they had never seen them before. It wasn’t their earthly eyes that informed them who the two others were.

I believe this kind of knowing may have inspired the authors to write it the way they did. Just as the Incarnation was revealed to Elizebeth yet wasn’t something that she was able reveal to anyone else, the writers may have recieved a kind of knowing that could only be revealed to others by the Holy Spirit.

 

[SeanTom]

In Genesis 1:26 it reads: “Let us make man in our own image.”

This is written in the plural.

Is this God ( through the Holy Spirit to the writers) referring to the Holy Trinity?

If not, how did the writers of Genesis know of God being plural, a thousand years before Jesus told us?

. Genesis 1:26: “God said, let us make man in our image after our likeness” The words “us” and “our” indicates others were with God before he created the world. Genesis 3:22: “Then the Lord God said: ’See! The man has become like one of us,’” - The word “man” refers to Adam. And who was God talking to when he said that? Who were the “us”? In my humble opinion, I would think they must have been the angels.

 

[scott122]

The other possibility is that God is using the “majestic plural.”

From Wikipedia: "The majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis/majestatis in Latin, literally, “the plural of majesty,” maiestatis being in the genitive case), is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, or pope. It is also called the royal pronoun, the royal “we” or the Victorian “we.” The more general word for the use of we to refer to oneself is nosism, from the Latin nos.[1] It is most commonly used to denote the excellence, power, and dignity of the person that speaks or writes.

If God were speaking to Man, He certainly would use “the plural of majesty” to refer to Himself.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The Holy Spirit inspires the writers. Nothing is impossible with God.

I disagree with the angel theory, because God said let us make man in our image. We are made in the image of God, not angels.

It is referring to the Holy Trinity - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

the Father creates in the Son through the Holy Spirit.

 

[TimothyH]

the Father creates in the Son through the Holy Spirit.

SG, I’m wondering where this assertion comes from?

I was taught that God the Father has a perfect image of himself, and his perfect self-image is his Son. It is the perfect intercahnge of love between God the Father and God the Son which creates the Holy Spirit. I think we state that in the creed at Mass.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceedes from the Father and the Son.

-Tim

 

[Swiss_Guy]

SG, I’m wondering where this assertion comes from?

I was taught that God the Father has a perfect image of himself, and his perfect self-image is his Son. It is the perfect intercahnge of love between God the Father and God the Son which creates the Holy Spirit. I think we state that in the creed at Mass.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceedes from the Father and the Son.

-Tim

I just read what I said in that post and I (hopefully - I can’t remember what I was thinking) meant something completely different :yup:. Thanks for catching it.

BUT, the Holy Spirit is uncreated, as he is the Third Person in the Trinity. But it’s possible you meant something else. The HS originates with the Father and comes from him, but the HS also comes from the Son, because everything the Father has the Son has, hence proceeding from the Father and/through the Son.

I think I might’ve meant the Father creates by the Son who uses the Holy Spirit, or something. It’s all a big mystery.

 

[Benadam]

The cognition of the Father is the Son.
God said " Let there be" and this He speaks through the Word.
The Word is the Son.
The Son is the beginning and the end.

In the beginning God created.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

In Genesis 1:26 it reads: “Let us make man in our own image.”

This is written in the plural.

Is this God ( through the Holy Spirit to the writers) referring to the Holy Trinity?

If not, how did the writers of Genesis know of God being plural, a thousand years before Jesus told us?

Examine the language in the versus.

“Let”. First and foremost, “let” is a proclamation said to those of equal value of authority. If God was speaking to created beings, or “lesser gods”, or even just speaking to Himself in a Unitarian sense He would’ve said: “I will make…”

“Us and Our”. A purality, but used in a equal sense.

“Image and Likeness”. I believe St. Aquinas said it perfectly when writing the Contra Gentiles:

[14] This idea even seems to find support in the Book of Genesis (1:26), where, after the statement, “Let us make man to Our image and likeness,” it is added: “God formed man of the slime of the earth; and breathed into his face the breath of life.” From this text some wished to infer that the soul is of the very nature of God. For, since he who breathes into another’s face puts forth into the latter numerically the same thing that was in himself, holy Scripture itself would here seem to imply that God put into man something divine in order to give him life.

[15] But the likeness in question is no proof that man is a part of the divine substance, for man’s understanding suffers from many defects—which cannot be said of God’s. This likeness, then, is rather indicative of a certain imperfect image than of any consubstantiality. And, indeed, Scripture implies this in saying that man was made “to the image” of God. And thus the “breathing” of which Genesis speaks signifies the pouring forth of life from God into man according to a certain likeness, and not according to unity of substance. So, too, “the spirit of life” is said to have been “breathed into his face,” for, since the organs of several senses are located in this part of the body, life is more palpably manifested in the face. God, therefore, is said to have breathed the spirit into man’s face, because He gave man the spirit of life, but not by detaching it from His own substance. For he who literally breathes into the face of someone—and this bodily breathing is evidently the source of the Scriptural metaphor—blows air into his face, but does not infuse part of his substance into him.

Also in Genesis, another chapter has clues of the Trinity, I ask you to read chapter 18 and dissect every word.

 

[arius325]

Examine the language in the versus.

“Let”. First and foremost, “let” is a proclamation said to those of equal value of authority. If God was speaking to created beings, or “lesser gods”, or even just speaking to Himself in a Unitarian sense He would’ve said: “I will make…”

“Us and Our”. A purality, but used in a equal sense.

“Image and Likeness”. I believe St. Aquinas said it perfectly when writing the Contra Gentiles:

[14] This idea even seems to find support in the Book of Genesis (1:26), where, after the statement, “Let us make man to Our image and likeness,” it is added: “God formed man of the slime of the earth; and breathed into his face the breath of life.” From this text some wished to infer that the soul is of the very nature of God. For, since he who breathes into another’s face puts forth into the latter numerically the same thing that was in himself, holy Scripture itself would here seem to imply that God put into man something divine in order to give him life.

[15] But the likeness in question is no proof that man is a part of the divine substance, for man’s understanding suffers from many defects—which cannot be said of God’s. This likeness, then, is rather indicative of a certain imperfect image than of any consubstantiality. And, indeed, Scripture implies this in saying that man was made “to the image” of God. And thus the “breathing” of which Genesis speaks signifies the pouring forth of life from God into man according to a certain likeness, and not according to unity of substance. So, too, “the spirit of life” is said to have been “breathed into his face,” for, since the organs of several senses are located in this part of the body, life is more palpably manifested in the face. God, therefore, is said to have breathed the spirit into man’s face, because He gave man the spirit of life, but not by detaching it from His own substance. For he who literally breathes into the face of someone—and this bodily breathing is evidently the source of the Scriptural metaphor—blows air into his face, but does not infuse part of his substance into him.

Also in Genesis, another chapter has clues of the Trinity, I ask you to read chapter 18 and dissect every word.

Reply,

As it appears that you do not know anthying about Hebrew or English grammar or syntax etc, let yourself be educated in empiricism (actual facts)!

The Hebrew term for the English, “create” is “bara”, whereas, the “let us make…” in Hebrew is “na-aseh”. One term denoting to, “create”, whereras, the other is, “let us make” the two terms are diametrically apart, one denoting a singularity and the other a duality, i.e. only One creates, whereas the other assists or participates in such creation (bara v na-aseh) i.e. God said, “let us make make…” not 'let us create…" ! man in our image…! Have you clocked on yet professor?

This is a basic theological mistake on your part, motivated by bias and obvious, but inoccent ignorance!

"Image and Likeness". I believe St. Aquinas said it perfectly when writing the Contra Gentiles:"

I’m not interersted in what “Aquinas” said, only in emprical fact, of which you have provided none, so-far!

Best wishes to all,

Letusreason

 

[T_More]

Reply,

As it appears that you do not know anthying about Hebrew or English grammar or syntax etc, let yourself be educated in empiricism (actual facts)!

The Hebrew term for the English, “create” is “bara”, whereas, the “let us make…” in Hebrew is “na-aseh”. One term denoting to, “create”, whereras, the other is, “let us make” the two terms are diametrically apart, one denoting a singularity and the other a duality, i.e. only One creates, whereas the other assists or participates in such creation (bara v na-aseh) i.e. God said, “let us make make…” not 'let us create…" ! man in our image…! Have you clocked on yet professor?

This is a basic theological mistake on your part, motivated by bias and obvious, but inoccent ignorance!

"Image and Likeness". I believe St. Aquinas said it perfectly when writing the Contra Gentiles:"

I’m not interersted in what “Aquinas” said, only in emprical fact, of which you have provided none, so-far!

Best wishes to all,

Letusreason

Your arrogance is such a great witness for the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Empirical (you could at least give us the decency of spelling it right if you’re going to throw it around all the time) Arius. Keep it up! You’re doing great!

I actually know Trevor personally. If I were you, Empirical Arius, I’d stay away from him if you want to stay a JW, lest you lose your faith in the WTBS.

Please humor the class and answer my question about the faithful & discreet slave that I asked on the thread I started.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum, arius.

As it appears that you do not know anthying about Hebrew or English grammar or syntax etc, let yourself be educated in empiricism (actual facts)!

Are you a scholar in these fields?

only One creates, whereas the other assists or participates in such creation

Are you stating that God shared his act of creation to created beings through participation?

What are your thoughts on Gen 18?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

In Genesis 1:26 it reads: “Let us make man in our own image.”

This is written in the plural.

Is this God ( through the Holy Spirit to the writers) referring to the Holy Trinity?

If not, how did the writers of Genesis know of God being plural, a thousand years before Jesus told us?

That’s explained in the sequel to the Bible.