I agree. But what I'm wondering about in terms of the Son eternally existing and the fall is if man had never sinned...then Jesus would not have been sent to Earth...and there would be no eternally existing Son? So would that mean God knew that the fall would occur?

Well with any religion you have to remember that these gods and goddesses were based on mythology and lore of the time. Today things have changed somewhat and we have science that has explanations of many things that there was no knowledge of when these gods and goddesses were originally "created". I still think of each god or goddess as a representation of the whole. My biggest issue is how today in most of the major world religions the female aspect is completely cut out of religion. In the world you can't have male without female so why try and cut it out of part of the whole of your beliefs (look at how Mary Magdelene was erased and cut out of the history and called a whore when many studies back now think she was the wife of Jesus).

I strongly disagree, knowing what someone will do is not the same thing as forcing them to do it. Hence, we choose our actions but God knows our choices before we make them. In the end, God as a whole is beyond our comprehension, so this age old arguement of "free will" vs. "Fate" is a non issue as far as facts go because we have no facts concerning the subject, it's all a leap of faith. Agree to disagree;^]

It’s very important when quoting the Bible to not take it out of context. You can’t quote one line and leave out the next. Even more important is to ask good questions and not just give up, but seek answers.

Lets tackle the issue at hand:

Gen 1:26 “And G-d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

Rashi explains that “us” refers to G-d consulting with angels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi

“The humility of the Holy One, Blessed is He, we have learned from here. Since man is in the likeness of the angels and they would be jealous of him, - for this reason, He consulted them…

…Although [the angels] did not assist [G-d] in [man’s] creation, and there is room on the basis of this phrase for the heretics to claim supremacy by saying that the bible itself indicates that many gods participated in the creation of man – the verse did not refrain from teaching us proper conduct and the trait of humility that the greater one should consult and take permission from the lesser one.

And if it had written, “I shall make man,” we would not have learned that He was speaking with His court; rather we would have thought He was addressing Himself, and we would not have learned from G-d’s example that the greater should consult with the lesser one.

The rebuttal to the heretics it wrote next to the verse which gives them room for error. It is “And He created man,” which uses the singular verb; it did not write, “and they created.”

End of quote.

Gen 1:26 “And G-d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

Gen 1:27 “And G-d created Man in his image, in the image of G-d He created him…”

You can clearly see that when G-d is discussing making man He uses the plural but when He actually creates man He uses the singular. Which fits beautifully with Rashi’s explanation that G-d consulted with the angels but Created man Himself as only He could.

turtle stated:

I strongly disagree, knowing what someone will do is not the same thing as forcing them to do it. Hence, we choose our actions but God knows our choices before we make them. In the end, God as a whole is beyond our comprehension, so this age old arguement of "free will" vs. "Fate" is a non issue as far as facts go because we have no facts concerning the subject, it's all a leap of faith. Agree to disagree;^]


<<<<<<< I agree that knowing what someone will do is not the same thing as forcing them to do it.... It is not that simple though turtle.

The truth of the matter is clear... crystal clear...

To adopt the notion of God having an omniscient sense of all that is... was... and ever will be, and having this 'plan'... God's will as it is called often... makes HIM guilty of all that mankind has ever done...

That sounds like it would make sense...but it's not very clear that the "us" refers to a court of angels.

As I said, God as a whole is beyond our comprehension, using logic only gets you so far. Who are we to say where negativity balances out positivity and how bad things happening can lead to much more important good things happening? In electricity, you can't power an appliance with two positive charges, you need that negative charge for the positive charge to work. Again, Gods plan is beyond our comprehension but I have faith in it regardless;^]

Turtle stated:

As I said, God as a whole is beyond our comprehension, using logic only gets you so far. Who are we to say where negativity balances out positivity and how bad things happening can lead to much more important good things happening? In electricity, you can't power an appliance with two positive charges, you need that negative charge for the positive charge to work. Again, Gods plan is beyond our comprehension but I have faith in it regardless;^]

<<<<<<< Here, here, my friend I am in absolute agreement with this notion... all the way up to the 'God's plan' part...

THAT, I believe, is and has been a man made tool which makes a feeble attempt at gaining an 'understanding' by looking through the fingerprint of this world... the truth of all matters lie within. >>>>>>>

Lets put on our detective hats. Look at the end of the sentence. “...in our image, after our likeness.”

Rashi explains that the angels were also created in G-d’s image. So when G-d says “our image our likeness” He is referring to beings that He created as well in His likeness – ergo He was talking about the angels.

Wouldn't Aquinas say that He was referring to the Trinity?

Then why would the Bible use a plural expression in Gen 1:26 and the singular in Gen 1:27 if it is referring to the exact same thing – the Trinity? Wouldn’t it use the same expression for both?

If Gen 1:26 is referring to G-d and angels, and Gen 1:27 is referring to G-d alone, then it makes sense for one to be plural and one to be singular.

Aquinas was a student of the words.

He saw that three words for 'god' in the Old Testament and saw the concreteness of the original thought. el, eloah, and elohiym(a plural distinction requiring a conjunctive to give definity to such a reference) i.e. " the LORD God" or "JHWH elohiym"

Likewise, where the OT uses elohiym for god or gods, the NT uses theos, or 'diety', to express it. Jesus would reference the Father and the Son as the necessary distinction and offered that man , likewise, can be viewed as 'elohiym' in doctrinal subjugation to the singular source as 'el' or 'the Father and the Son'.


Psalms 82:1-8.( god and gods here is the word elohiym-a plural derivative of the singular 'el'.)

1. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the person of the wicked? Selah.

3. Defend the poor and fatherless : do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4. Deliver the poor and needy : rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5. They know not, neither will they understand ; they walk on in darkness : all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6. I have said, Ye are gods ; and all of you are children of the most High.

7. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8. Arise, O God, judge the earth : for thou shalt inherit all nations.



Then Jesus is quoted by John as having said......

John 10: 33-38.

33. The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not ; but for blasphemy ; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?

35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scriptures cannot be broken ;

36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest ; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.


What comes of this is up to you, the reader.

Exactly, becasue then Jesus would be a 'God' =) and God would be a 'God' =) lol

God is within all of us, my friends... those who look outward will find Him not... those who look within themselves... at themselves... will surely then be able to 'chip away' what the world has placed between.

What a "religious" answer Creative. interesting, deep post there. However we arnt talking about the same God i dont believe

@creative, God is within us no question, but he is also outward and all around us. Again on my humble, but I see God when I look both inward and outward, everywhere I look I see a piece of God;^]

i interalize it, God is my success in life, without him walking my in the right direction i would be lost, in all honesty

Of course 'we' aren't... that does not, however, make it any less true, my friend...

three words for you...

Personification of God...




Turtle:

I could not agree with you more...

obviously there are other gods or we could not break the commandment. everything that distracts us from God could be considered a small g god. Football, Christmas, bowling, ect. Whatever we are doing when we should be doing Gods work is our false god.

has anyone really read and compared the old-new testament to the book of revelation?