What is the express image of God?
- Thread starter keypurr
- Start date
keypurr
Well-known member
How is anything mamifested?
Your not thinking Tambora.
I add nothing, I subtract nothing and I try not to assume anything.
You just gave an example of creating. Everything is a creation except the Father, who is the only true God. Christ is firstborn of all creation/creatures in Col 1:15.
I make up nothing, I just share what God put in his words. Truth hurts when you find out that you have been deceived all your life by false doctrines of men. Sorry that I had to be the one to tell you that.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Lets not muddy the waters.....
Lets not muddy the waters.....
I hear little kids chiming in saying "God made dirt so dirt don't hurt" :crackup:
Lets not muddy the waters.....
I hear little kids chiming in saying "God made dirt so dirt don't hurt" :crackup:
lifeisgood
New member
It was NOT a dove.
keypurr
Well-known member
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
The subject in this verse is the mystery of godliness.
So then the godliness of God was manifest in the flesh.
The godliness of God was justified in the spirit.
The godliness of God was seen of angels.
The godliness of God was preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Can you people really not read.
Keep reading it some more.
It says that GOD was manifest in the flesh.
And the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Did the Holy Spirit keep that form?
What happened to that form? Did it cease to exist when the Holy Spirit was through using it? Did it just fall to the ground, lifeless?
What about the form of the 'man' that ate with Abraham?
What happened to that form?
What about the form of flames in the bush that did not burn the bush at all? What happened to that form when God was finished using it on the bush? Did it just cease to exist anymore?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Yes, Paul is saying the same thing as John did.
Pay attention.
Paul was explaining the mystery of godliness same as John.
You need to read it as it is written, not how you want it to read.
Christ is called first of all creation because he has the preeminence over all creation.
Verse 16 explicitly says that everything created was created by Christ.
Colossians 1 KJV
(16) For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him [Christ], and for him [Christ]:
(16) For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him [Christ], and for him [Christ]:
If Christ were a created being, then it would be changing the truth of God by worshiping and serving a created being rather than the Creator.
Romans 1 KJV
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
You need to read it as written.
It plainly says what the mystery of Godliness is ----- GOD manifested in the flesh.
Not 'godliness' manifested in the flesh.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Sorry darlin' Jesus didn't worship himself.
Preemminence means he was first and of superior quality as to the rest.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
No one was being summoned to the father but through him. And the God it was a word. Logos, greek for word, has a plural form in Greek called logoi.
keypurr
Well-known member
What does "manifest" mean to you?
John really speaks of the seed in chapter 1.
That seed is a form of God. Not just a shell. Jesus is the shell.
keypurr
Well-known member
What is the express image of God?
Christ is called firstborn because he was firstborn. God created all things through his firstborn. I agree that God created through his express image spirit son. But Christ has a God who created him. He has a God he serves. He has a God he prays to. He has a God who made him Lord of all creation. Christ is the seed of the Father.
Consider that the Father was alone before he created his son in his exact image and gave him his fullness. This son has been given the power of the creator, did he not say that all power was GIVEN to him?
Christ is called firstborn because he was firstborn. God created all things through his firstborn. I agree that God created through his express image spirit son. But Christ has a God who created him. He has a God he serves. He has a God he prays to. He has a God who made him Lord of all creation. Christ is the seed of the Father.
Consider that the Father was alone before he created his son in his exact image and gave him his fullness. This son has been given the power of the creator, did he not say that all power was GIVEN to him?
lifeisgood
New member
Proof please that the Father was ever alone. Thank you.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Addressing 1 Tim. 3:16 - it simply speaks of Christ, not 'God'
Addressing 1 Tim. 3:16 - it simply speaks of Christ, not 'God'
Ok,...Lets address 1 Tim. 3:16 - first of all,...the word 'God' is NOT in the earliest manuscripts, and is scribal error or addition (whether intentional or accidental), since a small pen stroke or ink bleed thru a manuscript could alter the original words of "he who" or "he was" into the word "God" (videos below show/explain this clearly). The KJV translation has 'God', but many modern day translations (who know better) have the word 'who', 'which' or 'was' (not 'God') which is more correct to the earliest manuscript evidence. In this case, the manuscript evidence is AGAINST using the word 'God', because its just not in the earliest texts. The context is saying that the mystery of godliness (righteousness/piety) was manifested in Jesus, NOT that he was 'God'.
Even if the orginal word 'theos' was in the text (no proof in the earliest manuscripts),...it still does not prove Jesus is 'God',...for Jesus was manifesting 'God', and clearly states his Father who indwells him does the work, for Jesus is everywhere revealing God, manifesting God, expressing God. He is the 'representative' of 'God'. This is a given. Even that would not necessarily prove the Trinity. Those today using this verse to 'prove' Jesus is 'God' fail thru ignorance and an interpolated passage. It doesn't hold as a 'trinitarian' proof-text at all, let alone prove Jesus is 'God'.
The more correct rendering fully below -
&
Note that in the first 3 to 4th centuries, this verse was never mentioned by anyone to prove the Trinity even during major Christological debates such as the Arian Controversy, but was 'used' later when Trinitarian doctrine was more formulated and taught as the 'orthodox' view. If Trinitarians had access to earlier manuscripts where the word 'God' was in this passage, they'd eat it up like hotcakes, using such in their doctrinal debates. However this wasn't that case in the first 3- 4 centuries.
Brother Kel treats this passage here, and in the video below -
Apologist James White touches on this passage and the 'interpolation' of adding 'God' to the verse (and does so in another presentation on the validity of scripture). Note: the below is posted by a muslim using White's lecture to prove there is 'tampering' with biblical verses, which Dr. Shabir merely confirms. This is shared just to confirm the fact that 'God' was 'interpolated' into the text (whether intentional or accidental),...later scribal additions are apparent in the pictorial evidence shared in the videos.
Further corroboration of 'God' not being in at least 2 of earlier manuscripts, notably the 'Sinaiticus' and 'Alexandrius' revealed below. While the creator of these presentations is a Jehovah's Witness, who stands for the correctness of their translation of the passage as - " Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh,+ was declared righteous in spirit,+ appeared to angels,+ was preached about among nations,+ was believed upon in the world,+ was received up in glory." - NWT - this does not invalidate the evidence being shared, since their 'translation' agrees with many modern day Bible translations who recognize the 'textual evidence'.
Addressing 1 Tim. 3:16 - it simply speaks of Christ, not 'God'
Ok,...Lets address 1 Tim. 3:16 - first of all,...the word 'God' is NOT in the earliest manuscripts, and is scribal error or addition (whether intentional or accidental), since a small pen stroke or ink bleed thru a manuscript could alter the original words of "he who" or "he was" into the word "God" (videos below show/explain this clearly). The KJV translation has 'God', but many modern day translations (who know better) have the word 'who', 'which' or 'was' (not 'God') which is more correct to the earliest manuscript evidence. In this case, the manuscript evidence is AGAINST using the word 'God', because its just not in the earliest texts. The context is saying that the mystery of godliness (righteousness/piety) was manifested in Jesus, NOT that he was 'God'.
Even if the orginal word 'theos' was in the text (no proof in the earliest manuscripts),...it still does not prove Jesus is 'God',...for Jesus was manifesting 'God', and clearly states his Father who indwells him does the work, for Jesus is everywhere revealing God, manifesting God, expressing God. He is the 'representative' of 'God'. This is a given. Even that would not necessarily prove the Trinity. Those today using this verse to 'prove' Jesus is 'God' fail thru ignorance and an interpolated passage. It doesn't hold as a 'trinitarian' proof-text at all, let alone prove Jesus is 'God'.
The more correct rendering fully below -
&
Note that in the first 3 to 4th centuries, this verse was never mentioned by anyone to prove the Trinity even during major Christological debates such as the Arian Controversy, but was 'used' later when Trinitarian doctrine was more formulated and taught as the 'orthodox' view. If Trinitarians had access to earlier manuscripts where the word 'God' was in this passage, they'd eat it up like hotcakes, using such in their doctrinal debates. However this wasn't that case in the first 3- 4 centuries.
Brother Kel treats this passage here, and in the video below -
| 1 Tim. 3:16 revealed..... | |
Apologist James White touches on this passage and the 'interpolation' of adding 'God' to the verse (and does so in another presentation on the validity of scripture). Note: the below is posted by a muslim using White's lecture to prove there is 'tampering' with biblical verses, which Dr. Shabir merely confirms. This is shared just to confirm the fact that 'God' was 'interpolated' into the text (whether intentional or accidental),...later scribal additions are apparent in the pictorial evidence shared in the videos.
| 'God' being an 'interpolation' | |
Further corroboration of 'God' not being in at least 2 of earlier manuscripts, notably the 'Sinaiticus' and 'Alexandrius' revealed below. While the creator of these presentations is a Jehovah's Witness, who stands for the correctness of their translation of the passage as - " Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh,+ was declared righteous in spirit,+ appeared to angels,+ was preached about among nations,+ was believed upon in the world,+ was received up in glory." - NWT - this does not invalidate the evidence being shared, since their 'translation' agrees with many modern day Bible translations who recognize the 'textual evidence'.
| Codex Sinaiticus 1Timothy3:16 | |
| Codex Alexandrinus 1Tim 3:16 | |