Genesis 1:26

[nPeace]

Why would a "God" that claims to be only God refer to what looks like others like him (as if he was one of many; "our likeness")?
Collossians 1:15 says the only begotten son is the image of God.
We can understand that to mean reflecting God's personality, or qualities.
So we can understand that God would want to make his creatures like himself - with his qualities.

 

[9-18-1]

So my question is: why does "God" refer to himself in plural? (Let us create...)

I did some research, and the Trinity isn't even mentioned in the Bible (at least not as "Trinity", there are hints of it). Why would a "God" that claims to be only God refer to what looks like others like him (as if he was one of many; "our likeness")?

*I'm an atheist (just in case)

It has nothing to do with the Trinity, it has to do with the masculine/feminine nature(s) of Elohim.

What many people do not understand about both 'creation' and 'creator god' is it involves a relationship between two polarities: masculine (male) and feminine (female). It is thus written that Elohim has an image (+) and a likeness (-) that is male and female.

'El' is the general "towardness" or active principle. Example: "towardness" in sperm.
'im' is the general "medium" or passive principle. Example: moisture in womb.

So the word/name Elohim is the conjunction of seed and womb: where one and one come together to produce another one. This is why Elohim, when speaking, address themselves as "us" however when referenced from the outside (such as in Genesis 1:1 the preceding 'bara') it is treated as singular.

When man and woman are united under a shared will: such that will to bestow (phallus) and will to receive (ovum) are wholly balanced, they culminate into one 'thing' which, by virtue of there being both polarities that sustain each other, leads to creation ad infinitum: the eternal life.

That is the nature of the creator god Elohim: both male and female as one. This is why the primordial Adam was made both male and female in the image and likeness of Elohim. They then undergo the separation of sexes such that these two polarities are embodied in unique bodies.

Now of course they don't teach this in the Abrahamic religions because such religions are progressive perversions of such notions that bind adherents into adopting Patriarchal idols such as Jesus and Muhammad. The former had their wife disregarded by the Church, whereas the latter had many many wives and sex slaves. This is why the world is f*cked - people need to stop worshiping these idols and understand how creation actually works.

 

[Tumah]

The Hebrews were not strictly monotheistic early on if you want to concentrate on them.. They probably shared the Canaanite pantheon of gods. There are hints that they did.. Yam, as in Yam Suf, Yam or Yamm was a god of the sea.. Yam was the champion of El and was hostile towards Baal .. Yamm's palace was in the "abyss".

You got it backwards. The Canaanite pantheon often names its deities after natural entities. Over half of the deities listed here, take their name from their domain. "Yam" literally means "sea". To the best of my knowledge, there is no other Biblical Hebrew word that means "a large body of water". IMO it's wrong to say that you can see hints of the Canaanite pantheon in the Tanach because it uses everyday words that have also been used to name Canaanite gods. Imagine some religion named their solar deity "Sun", and then someone is accused of believing in this deity simply because he was the sun was very bright. That's basically what you're saying.

 

[sooda]

You got it backwards. The Canaanite pantheon often names its deities after natural entities. Over half of the deities listed here, take their name from their domain. "Yam" literally means "sea". To the best of my knowledge, there is no other Biblical Hebrew word that means "a large body of water". IMO it's wrong to say that you can see hints of the Canaanite pantheon in the Tanach because it uses everyday words that have also been used to name Canaanite gods. Imagine some religion named their solar deity "Sun", and then someone is accused of believing in this deity simply because he was the sun was very bright. That's basically what you're saying.

Nope. I said what I was saying. The Hebrews were just unaffiliated Canaanite Bedouin,

 

[Tumah]

Nope. I said what I was saying. The Hebrews were just unaffiliated Canaanite Bedouin,

You did say what you said. It's just that at least some of what you said is demonstrably wrong as above.

 

[sooda]

You did say what you said. It's just that at least some of what you said is demonstrably wrong as above.

What exactly do you think is wrong?

 

[Faithofchristian]

So my question is: why does "God" refer to himself in plural? (Let us create...)

I did some research, and the Trinity isn't even mentioned in the Bible (at least not as "Trinity", there are hints of it). Why would a "God" that claims to be only God refer to what looks like others like him (as if he was one of many; "our likeness")?

*I'm an atheist (just in case)

Ok, let's take that of Genesis 1:26 here we find God said ( Let us make man in our image, after our likeness)

So who is the ( Us ) well we can find throughout the bible that angels have the image and likeness of man.

So the ( us ) would be the angels that God is speaking to.

 

[sooda]

Ok, let's take that of Genesis 1:26 here we find God said ( Let us make man in our image, after our likeness)

So who is the ( Us ) well we can find throughout the bible that angels have the image and likeness of man.

So the ( us ) would be the angels that God is speaking to.

The Hebrews or Apiru were just another tribe of Canaanites and they worshipped the Canaanite pantheon of gods.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The Hebrews or Apiru were just another tribe of Canaanites and they worshipped the Canaanite pantheon of gods.

What exactly, does that have to do with Genesis 1:26.
Seeing that God was starting to created male and female, so how can the Canaanites be in existence when God hadn't even created man and woman yet.

 

[sooda]

What exactly, does that have to do with Genesis 1:26.
Seeing that God was starting to created male and female, so how can the Canaanites be in existence when God hadn't even created man and woman yet.

The Hebrews were just another Canaannite tribe.. They were poor, lawless and landless and they had no history so they invented one by borrowing from cultures around them.. Like Egypt, Babylon and what is now Ras Shamra.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The Hebrews were just another Canaannite tribe.. They were poor, lawless and landless and they had no history so they invented one by borrowing from cultures around them.. Like Egypt, Babylon and what is now Ras Shamra.

You still haven't proved how the Canaanites fits into Genesis 1:26,
When it's so evidence that God hadn't even created no one as of yet.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Original question. Why does God refer to himself as "us" in Genesis 1:26?
Answer - God is not referring to himself. Why assume he is when no scripture says that? He obviously is addressing another.
The reason we can scripturally conclude that God is addressing his only begotten son, is because...
Colossians 1:15-17; Revelation 3:14; John 1:14-18; 3:16
1. God's first creation was his only begotten son, who is called the Logos (Word), and later, on earth, Jesus.
2. The only begotten son was alongside the father in bringing all things into existence - including all the angelic beings.

OK my friend. I think maybe we got off to a bad start. Sorry for any misunderstanding. So the Word (logos) was with God at the creation. Was the Word also created or did it exist before all else existed? In other words, what scripture tells where or how the Word came to be? I think we agree on much of this but need to work out a few details. Thanks.

 

[nPeace]

OK my friend. I think maybe we got off to a bad start. Sorry for any misunderstanding. So the Word (logos) was with God at the creation. Was the Word also created or did it exist before all else existed? In other words, what scripture tells where or how the Word came to be? I think we agree on much of this but need to work out a few details. Thanks.

I appreciate that, thanks.
I repeated the answer to that question, a number of times.
Sorry you missed them. Here there are...
Post #15
Post #35
Post #39

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I appreciate that, thanks.
I repeated the answer to that question, a number of times.
Sorry you missed them. Here there are...
Post #15
Post #35
Post #39

OK thanks again. I can start to see some of it. But you say in one place that Jesus is an angel and in another place that he was with the Father when all things were brought into creation, including the angels. So I am having trouble seeing how Jesus can be an angel if he was there when the angels were created. When it says that Jesus is God's firstborn son that is not saying Jesus was created. If think it means Jesus was the firstborn in human form. But Jesus existed before he was born as a human. I do not see a verse that specifically says Jesus was created or the Word was created. It seems like the Word was always there with the Father.

 

[sooda]

It has nothing to do with the Trinity, it has to do with the masculine/feminine nature(s) of Elohim.

What many people do not understand about both 'creation' and 'creator god' is it involves a relationship between two polarities: masculine (male) and feminine (female). It is thus written that Elohim has an image (+) and a likeness (-) that is male and female.

'El' is the general "towardness" or active principle. Example: "towardness" in sperm.
'im' is the general "medium" or passive principle. Example: moisture in womb.

So the word/name Elohim is the conjunction of seed and womb: where one and one come together to produce another one. This is why Elohim, when speaking, address themselves as "us" however when referenced from the outside (such as in Genesis 1:1 the preceding 'bara') it is treated as singular.

When man and woman are united under a shared will: such that will to bestow (phallus) and will to receive (ovum) are wholly balanced, they culminate into one 'thing' which, by virtue of there being both polarities that sustain each other, leads to creation ad infinitum: the eternal life.

That is the nature of the creator god Elohim: both male and female as one. This is why the primordial Adam was made both male and female in the image and likeness of Elohim. They then undergo the separation of sexes such that these two polarities are embodied in unique bodies.

Now of course they don't teach this in the Abrahamic religions because such religions are progressive perversions of such notions that bind adherents into adopting Patriarchal idols such as Jesus and Muhammad. The former had their wife disregarded by the Church, whereas the latter had many many wives and sex slaves. This is why the world is f*cked - people need to stop worshiping these idols and understand how creation actually works.

The purpose of multiple wives was their survival. Muhammed told them to stop exposing infant girls.. and allowed for 4 wives so that every widow, spinster, old maid would belong to a family, tribe and clan, They couldn't have survived in Arabia without a family.

 

[nPeace]

OK thanks again. I can start to see some of it. But you say in one place that Jesus is an angel and in another place that he was with the Father when all things were brought into creation, including the angels. So I am having trouble seeing how Jesus can be an angel if he was there when the angels were created. When it says that Jesus is God's firstborn son that is not saying Jesus was created. If think it means Jesus was the firstborn in human form. But Jesus existed before he was born as a human. I do not see a verse that specifically says Jesus was created or the Word was created. It seems like the Word was always there with the Father.

Is the Word the only begotten son of God? John 1:3; 14-18; 3:16
Is the Word the first of God's creation? Colossians 1:15, 16
Was the Word the only begotten son of God, and the first born of all his creation, while in heaven?
Could you give reasons for your answers please.

 

[9-18-1]

The purpose of multiple wives was their survival. Muhammed told them to stop exposing infant girls.. and allowed for 4 wives so that every widow, spinster, old maid would belong to a family, tribe and clan, They couldn't have survived in Arabia without a family.

Now take it the next step further - why were there more men than women?

It is because men kept dying in war. Who is waging war? Well, just read the Qur'an and understand the whole purpose of Islam is to install Sharia globally and make Islam the only acceptable religion. That requires war, and it necessarily follows that women are made an object of attainment in the form of sex slaves.

The sexual objectification of women in Islam; and in general is all rooted in sexual degeneracy which alludes to the initial Edenic state: Eve giving the fruit to Adam. In other words, when sexual desire / lust commands the conscience, degeneration (death) begins, which is precisely what happened to Muhammad and likewise happens to Muhammadans - sexual degeneracy leading to overall degeneration.

So this notion that they did it for "survival" is rather shallow and silly - they did it and do it because they wage war against "unbelievers" and covet the women. This is one of the principle motivations for war in general (not only in Islam): do whatever one wishes with the women. It's always been that way and it always will be this way in Islam, because it is based on the model of Muhammad (idol worship) who had the same degenerative illness which can be reduced to the overall pathology of 'projection' - projecting ones own internal issues.

This is why Islamophobic Muslims who can not stand criticisms of Islam call everyone else Islamophobes - they label the thing that triggers their own phobia as the thing that has it. That is the general pathology of Islam and why it is a humanitarian crisis - projection. It's the same as the Clinton Foundation projecting collusion with Russia (when they themselves did) on to Trump who did not collude. Blame the other side for what one is doing - that is precisely what Islam does. If one is ignorant as to the connection the Clinton Foundation has to Islam and the global human trafficking network - you're still asleep.

 

[sooda]

Now take it the next step further - why were there more men than women?

It is because men kept dying in war. Who is waging war? Well, just read the Qur'an and understand the whole purpose of Islam is to install Sharia globally and make Islam the only acceptable religion. That requires war, and it necessarily follows that women are made an object of attainment in the form of sex slaves.

The sexual objectification of women in Islam; and in general is all rooted in sexual degeneracy which alludes to the initial Edenic state: Eve giving the fruit to Adam. In other words, when sexual desire / lust commands the conscience, degeneration (death) begins, which is precisely what happened to Muhammad and likewise happens to Muhammadans - sexual degeneracy leading to overall degeneration.

So this notion that they did it for "survival" is rather shallow and silly - they did it and do it because they wage war against "unbelievers" and covet the women. This is one of the principle motivations for war in general (not only in Islam): do whatever one wishes with the women. It's always been that way and it always will be this way in Islam, because it is based on the model of Muhammad (idol worship) who had the same degenerative illness which can be reduced to the overall pathology of 'projection' - projecting ones own internal issues.

This is why Islamophobic Muslims who can not stand criticisms of Islam call everyone else Islamophobes - they label the thing that triggers their own phobia as the thing that has it. That is the general pathology of Islam and why it is a humanitarian crisis - projection. It's the same as the Clinton Foundation projecting collusion with Russia (when they themselves did) on to Trump who did not collude. Blame the other side for what one is doing - that is precisely what Islam does.

Islam doesn't blame Eve for the Fall or claim she tempted Adam. They also don't believe in original sin.

In that part of the world tribes lived by either caravan trade or raiding each other for livestock.

Muhammed destroyed all the idols and Icons at the Kaaba with the exception of the virgin Mary.

Where on earth did you learn about Islam and Muslims?

 

[9-18-1]

Islam doesn't blame Eve for the Fall or claim she tempted Adam. They also don't believe in original sin.

Culturally yes they do: if a woman is raped (especially if not wearing the hijab) the fault is hers owing to her so-called immodesty. But this immodesty is a male-centric projection in which the modesty of a woman is determined by the man. Eve tempting Adam is a symbol: it is when the sexual desire/lust commands the brain. When the brains "eats" the fruits of this: fornication, orgasm which can become a sole object of being (nymphomaniac) a being degenerates ie. "dies". That Muhammadans don't understand the basis of this story is only further testament to their hypocrisy in claiming to be following the god of Abraham: they are not. If "fake Jew" applies anywhere, it is the Muhammadan by virtue of the fact they claim all Jewish prophets were actually Muslims (?) despite the term "Muslim" never having even existed when Muhammad himself was alive - only to come much later.

In that part of the world tribes lived by either caravan trade or raiding each other for livestock.

Right - Muhammad was such a person.

Muhammed destroyed all the idols and Icons at the Kaaba with the exception of the virgin Mary.

...which is precisely what Akhunatun more or less did in Egypt: reserving all worship for his Aten, who was both male and female. That Muhammad left the idol of Mary, if anything, is a testament to his own ignorance: Mary being herself based on Isis or the 'divine mother' of creation.

Where on earth did you learn about Islam and Muslims?

Many places: I don't just take information from a single source. I research anything/everything that sheds light on such topics. In the case of Islam and Muslims (the latter I learned from dating one) the former is from many books: starting back to about 1500 BCE as all of this Abrahamic nonsense started happening pre-Akhunatun. I read about the history of Egypt and studied their architecture and religions, their writings and reliefs that outlined political matters, read about the history of Christianity and how there was no historical Jesus (the same being a reinvention of Horus much to the same extent Mary is Isis) and the entire lie surrounding that (along with its proper solar basis) to the history of Islam, the compilation of the Qur'an, the history of the various rulers and conquest etc. I also learned to read Biblical Hebrew so as to understand the language (therefor worldview) of the ancient Hebrews and how it has evolved. I studied the basis for the various pseudo-sciences like astronomy (which was held as a legitimate science, and technically is one) to masonry, kaballah and the study of shape/form, music (musician) etc. I go all over the place and only absorb what conforms to reality as opposed to "belief"-based recounts of old tales.

I could ask a similar question to you but will refrain - I don't study "Muslims" as first and foremost I see them as victims to an oppressive ideology. I therefor focus on the ideology, and found it is rooted as firmly in falsehood as Judaism was/is along with Christianity. I don't have any problems with Muslims (they might have problems with me criticizing their "beliefs") - even if they want to kill me for not worshiping their idol Muhammad as they do (and they do, they just don't realize it because they are distracted with the notion that idols are physical objects) I still see them as victims. However that doesn't refrain me from stating that Muslims are essentially an evolved version of the nomadic Jew: wandering, envious of established states therefor desiring to build their own. This is why Muslims *hate* the Jewish State of Israel - Muslims want their own state of Palestine precisely in the same way Jews wanted (and eventually got) their own state of Israel. It's the same overall pathology in both religions, which is why I actually don't distinguish too much between Jews and Muslims - and if that offends them, then they are proving my point that they are fundamentally rooted in tribal hatred and envy for the Jews having a state and Muslims not - with exception to the Muslims' projected Palestine which doesn't exist.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Is the Word the only begotten son of God? John 1:3; 14-18; 3:16
Is the Word the first of God's creation? Colossians 1:15, 16
Was the Word the only begotten son of God, and the first born of all his creation, while in heaven?
Could you give reasons for your answers please.

My main question is - did the Word have a beginning or was he created at some point? Colossians 1:16 says that all things were created by Him. That seems to say that the Word existed before anything else and had no beginning. I believe that the Father and the Word are both eternal, they have no beginning or end. No scripture says that the Word had a beginning. Yes, Jesus was the first born of God's children but that is talking about the human Jesus who did have a beginning. But when he was the Word there is nothing that talks about a beginning. Why can't the Father and Word both be eternal. God is eternal and God consists of the Father and the Word. Can you find a scripture that exactly says the Word was created? Or Jesus was created? Being the first born is not the same as being created. Any ideas?