Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.

I think you have to get into the scheme of the chapter.All the creatures are said to be after their kind. Each is made after its particular kind. Now a difference occurs in the creation of man. Man is after the kind of God. This is what you have to grasp here.When it comes to humanity God says "Let Us make man in Our image ...". The phrase " in Our image, according to Our likeness " should be juxtapose against "according to their kind" in 1:11,12,12 again, 21,21 again,24,24 again,25, 25 again Now in verse 26 we come to the creation of Man. In no other creation act does it say it say "Let Us". A special council was convened and a decision was made within the Godhead. This is special. This is different from all that has gone before in terms of created beings.Now God convenes a special council and the Divine "Us" creates man not according to their kind but according to the likeness of the Divine "Us" and according the the image of the Divine Our image.Do you see the difference when it comes to humanity?Now none of the other creatures take part in the act of creation. God alone is the Creator of Man. While the first dialogue may be between God and humans, BEFORE this dialogue you have God speaking within God and to God saying "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Oule likeness ..."This conversation PRECEEDS the dialogue between God and man.I completely agree with your next obervation which is precisely why mystified theologians arrived at a word Trinity and Tri - une or Three - One. For they could not deny that the Scritpure only presents God as one - one God. Yet God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.Your observation simply confirms the mysterious nature of a God Who says "Let Us" and then tell us that the SINGULAR must refer to Him."And God created man in HIS own image; in the image of God He created him."It does not say "Their own image". Neither does it say "in the image of God THEY created him".Here you confirm my very point: It is well noted.So then WHO is "Us" in verse 26?Do you have any passage showing ANGELS participated with God in the creation of man?Do you have any passage showing OTHER life forms participated with God in the creation of man?Do you have any passage showing any other gods participated with God in the creation of man.I have none showing these things. But I do have Isaiah 9:6, for example, saying that the human child born shall be called Mighty God. And the same passage shows the Son given shall be called Eternal Father.A child, nine months in the womb of a woman, and coming out in natural birth like the rest of us is The Mighty God. And a Son is given to us. Yet such an unusual Son. This Son is simultaneously the Eternal Father.Here is a biblical source for our mysterious Divine "Let Us".I believe that the best Person in history to qualify to be the focus of Isaiah's prophecy is the Man Who claimed to be God come to us in the flesh as the Son of Man / the Son of God - Jesus of Nazareth: This One is God defined and God expressed. This One is God manifested. And He refers to the Divine "We". The Triune God created man in His image for a specific reason. It was mainly that He might dispense Himself into man to be man's eternal life. We were made like God to contain God.I said, we were made like God in order that God may come into us and be one with us in a united, blended, harmonious, interwoven way - an incorporation and a mingling of Divinity and humanity.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think we agree about the uniqueness of human speech here. Though it is not this alone which separates us from the animals.However, I think you might get something out of a certain article called something like "Who Taught Man [or Adam] How to Talk?" It is scientifically based and biblically related also.If you're interested "Arthur Custance Doorway Papers" arthur Custance a ancient language expert, linquist, and Bible scholar has this interesting article on Who Taught Adam to Speak?http://www.custance.org/...Part_VI/WhoTaughtAdamtoSpeak.html After the fall of man, you are correct, we have this passage:"And Adam lived ont hundred thirty years and begot [a son] in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth" (Gen. 5:3)You are quite correct. However if you back up to the first verse of the same chapter we have a reminder that Adam was made in the likeness of God:"This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God." (Gen 5:1) So I am of the opinion that the term "mankind" actually only becomes relevant after the fall of Adam. The descendents of Adam and Eve born after the fall and expulsion of Adam from his original created state may be said to be "mankind" - in the image and likeness of the fallen man Adam.Man is still made in the image of God. However he has been marred. He has been damaged. He has been defiled by the fall. No other life forms posses the propencity to worship God either. The worshipping organ (so to speak) is not in any of the animals. Man is created with a worshipping component. The Bible says that God has placed eternity in man's heart. There is something in man that hungers and reaches out to that which is eternal. God is eternal:"He has made everything beautiful in its own time; also He [God] has put eternity in their heart, yet so that man does not find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." (Ecc. 3:11) The Creator of man has placed eternity in the heart of man. This also speaks of man in the image of God. Man has a God shaped vacuum within him that only the Eternal God can fit into and fill.So I would highlight not only man's speaking ability as setting him apart from the other living creatures. I would also include man's "organ" which prompts him to worship - to seek fellowship with God and to communion with God.No animals erect temples or seek to pray as far as we know. Animals do not build places of worship as far as we know.I know that there is something called a "praying mantis" but that is just because his claws are folded to look as if the insect is praying.Man alone seeks to pray to God, talk to God, commune with God, and fellowship with God to love God. Interesting. Wait a minute. "Let Us make man ..." is the speaking of God.
Genesis is recording what was spoken by God. I concur with this not only based on Genesis but other passages as well. For example Zechariah 12:1

​

"The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. This declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." (Zech 12:1) The heavens is made for the earth.
The earth is made for man.
And man has a spirit within him and is made for God.The heavens are mentioned first. Then the earth is mentioned second. And man with the worshipping spirit within him is the benefitiary of the previous two. Man is made for God.The full impact of the meaning of the human spirit does not become clear until the New Testament. In the New Testament the purpose of the human spirit becomes the most clear. It is designed to be joined to God:"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)The Lord here is Jesus Christ the Lord.
Jesus Christ the Lord is God incarnate, died, resurrected, and become a life giving Spirit -"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)The man or woman saved by Jesus Christ through faith is JOINED in thier innermost being - the human spirit, with the life giving Spirit Who is God in Christ in a form in which He can enter into man.In the joining the spirit of the man or woman becomes "ONE SPIRIT" with the Lord. That is the Lord Spirit - the Holy Spirit becomes joined with the human spirit and the two become ONE mingled, united, blended spirit."He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit"No longer the two are separated: man's spirit and God the Spirit. But the two are joined and mingled together. This is why we say as Christians that Jesus Christ lives in us. It is not sentimental. It is actual. But there is more to it. He lives in our spirit and seeking to migrate out from there into our soul. As He moves out from the confines of our regenerated spirit into our soul the personality begans to express Christ. For the personality is seated in the soul of man.The joining of the Divine Spirit of Triune God with the comatose and deadened spirit of man causes the human spirit to be reborn: That which undergoes a new birth in salvation is the spirit in man. Remember, God steteched forth the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth and formed the spirit of man within him. Within man is the spirit of man.We when receive Jesus Christ into our being by invitation our human spirit is reborn of the Holy Spirit. The spirit is born of the Spirit. And the two spirits become one mingled spirit. For he who is joined to the Lord is "one spirit."The capital S Spirit causes the small s spirit to be enlivened, reborn, resurrected, and brought out of its comatose and deadened condition from the fall of Adam.So much more needs to be written about this. I have tried to show that it is not speech alone which marks us as unique. Although speech is no doubt a factor in man's particularity over the animals.I have tried to briefly show that man has a God receiver. Man has an "organ" for contacting God and being joined with God.This is like a radio antenna. The air is filled with radio waves. But if the radio has no antenna it cannot pick up the radio waves. On those waves are music, news, speech, etc.God is in a form in which man needs a divinely created antenna to pick Him up. The God substantiating organ is right within us. It is our human spirit. It is not our human soul. It is deeper than our personality. It is deep within as our human spirit.In that spot God has placed eternity as the Bible says in Ecc. 3:11.Much more needs to be said about the spirit of man. But God formed the universe. He laid the foundation of the planet earth. And upon earth he created man who within him has something called "the spirit of man within him."This spirit of man is the Divine antenna which can pick up the divine "radio waves" of the eternal God.Before another poster alluded to the temple as the outer court, the holy place, and the holy of holies. This also corresponds to the way man is created - outward body - inward soul - and more inward human spirit. It is in the human spirit where man is meant to be "one spirit" with the Lord God, where the glory of God dwells.We must be born anew. We must have out spirit born of the Spirit which is Jesus Christ and His Father. I emphatically see NO ONE Participating in the council except God Himself. Here is where we must have a difference of view. You seem to thing that the "Us" includes some others beside God. This is where we have a difference.It says "And God said, Let Us make man in our image, according to our likeness ..." (Gen 1:26)It is NOT the first time that Genesis has said that God said something. It is a repetition of what has been written before. For example:"And God said, Let there be light ..." (1:3)
"And God called the light Day ... " (1:5)
"And God saud, Let there be abd expanse ... " (1:6)
"And God called the expanse Heaven ... " (1:8)
"And God said, Let the waters under the heavens ..." (1:9)On and on we are told that God said something. Now we come to Genesis 1:26 and the same thing is repeated. Do you suggest that the others times it was God and someone else speaking?Verse 26 does not say "And God [ and the angles ] said". Nor does it say "And God [and the people] said ...".It is as in the previous verses of God saying, He alone speaks. "And God said, Let Us ..."WHO do you proport to be in on that council beside God Himself and what is your evidence of proof of the extra party being involved? Ah but I differ here.I await for you to tell me who is the Us that created man in the image of God.One thing I think we agree on is that the creation of man is different from the creation of all other things in Genesis. This council is not mentioned in connection with the creation of ANYTHING else. Man is special, because man is made in the image of God and according to the likeness of God.You say in essence "No council concept must be condoned" but you cannot erase the word "US". You cannot ignore the word "US".That is what is written. Who then is Us? If it is blasphemy then it is blasphemy according to what Moses wrote. You have to blame Moses for the blasphemy unless you come up with a plausible explanation as to who God and the other party is who share God's image. "Let Us make man in Our image"Face it Joseph. It does not even say "Let Us make man in [MY] image ...". Then you might have some ground to say God is speaking to angels. But the image belonging to the "Our" is the image of the image belonging to Us who is doing the making. And the next passage says that man was "in His [God's] own
image" [qs]And God created man in HIS OWN image, in the image of GOD He created him ..." (Gen. 1:27) Why does it not say "in the image [of God and the angels]?' Why does it not say "in [Thier] own image" rather than "in His own image"?Don't speak of blasphemy. Moses wrote this. If it is blasphemy then you have to say that Moses wrote blasphemy.I would not put it that way. I might put it this way: "Moses wrote mystery". Moses wrote something very mysterious. Moses wrote something mysterious to understand which needs the whole rest of the Bible including the New Testament oracles of God, to define and explain to us. That is a good point. However, God made an object called the ark of the covenant. If it was touched the wrong way God would take your life.In Genesis there is a tree of life. For Adam to eat of it was for Adam to receive the life of God Himself. No I do not believe that God is a tree or was a tree. But I can imagine that in order to make universal principles clear to all the human race, He could do things in a manner which communicates His truth. He had two trees with two kinds of fruit: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The tree of life was like the ark of the covenant. Somehow, to interact with it was to touch the life of God Himself. And to interact with the other tree, the forbidden one was to contact the evil spirit.Only God could give both the bios life and the eternal divine life. I agree if that is what you mean. The uncreated Life is the source of all created life. The uncreated life is God Himself. And He said "Let Us make man in Our image".Man in the image of God with eternity in his heart is designed to contain the uncreated and holy life of God Himself. That is that God and man could be united. He is the Head and Source of the relationship. Man is the recipient and gifted one of the relationship. For this much more than just speech is required.A parrot can imitate the speech of a human being. I think we have to look to more than speech. We agree on the uniqueness of speech. You wish to limit this uniqueness to speech. I think it goes beyond only speech.But speech is a component of this difference and uniqueness of man over the other creatures. We have to recognize that man is not an angel though as the angels of heaven. And they speak. They spoke in thier singing and celebrated at the creation accoding to Job 38: There is the speaking God. There are the speaking, shouting, and singing angels of God - "the morning stars" and "sons of God"[/b]. If speech is the key to fulfillment of the eternal purpose of God then why does God need man? He already had millions of angels who could speak.There must be something about man which not only set him apart from the other animals but even sets him apart from the angels in heavem also. Do you see my point?Millions of angels spoke and sang as God laid the cornerstone of creation. That us certainly before the creation of man. They already could speak. So why did God need more creatures who could speak if that is the ONLY trait of uniqueness valuable to the Creator? I think you draw at least a little closer. However, a decision was made by some angels to rebel against God. They knew it was wrong morally. Yet they chose to rebel.Is it only the New Testament that infers that angels rebelled against God by choosing? No indeed. Once again the Hebrew Bible informs us of wrong doing angels: In this oldest book of the Bible apparently the patriarchs knew that some of the angels had committed errors. Certainly the beginning of the book shows Satan coming with the other angelic sons of God choosing to blaspheme God by accusations. He wanted Jon to curse God to His face because Satan himself, even as one of the angelic "sons of God" (Job 1:6,13,38:7) wanted to do so.An angel and some angels chose to commit error and rebel against God and His moral authority.Thank God we have also the clarity of the teaching of Jesus: The Devil and his ANGELS chose to revolt against thier Creator. Not only so but they seek to join mankind to their rebellion that their eternal doom may not be suffered alone.I don't want to be their stooges to accompany them to the punishment prepared for them. We come closer to agreement in some of these things you say now. We agree here completely. I have been saying this. Interesting. We will come back to the law of Moses latter. Before the law of Moses God put the created man before the tree of life.The only real important command was that Adam should be careful of what he ate. That is Adam should be careful what entered into his being. Adam should be careful what got on the inside of him. We are what we eat. What we eat becomes the constitution of our being.Man was made in the image of God to take into himself God, as symbolized by the tree of life. There was no command how to worship. There was no command not to murder. There was no command not to make an idol or even break the Sabbath. There was only a command to be careful not to EAT the wrong fruit.If Adam would take in the fruit of the tree of life he would not only be a created man, he would be a God man - a man with God withing him. I hope to stress in the future the difference between a God created man and a God man.Before the new covenant age the rabbis probably taught that the tree of life was the word of God or the law of God. In that age I think that that is probably the best and most appropriate understanding that they could have had.For the word of God and the law of God proceed from God and express God. However, we have to realize that man was excluded from participation in the tree of life. So this cannot really represent the word of God or the Law of God since both are presented to the sinner.But the New Testament apostle teaches us rightly that man was "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18)When in history did man begin to be estranged and alienated from the very life of God? Where? It is recorded right here that this alienatation from the life of God commenced: At this time fallen human beings were "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). Even so God still delevers His law to Israel and to the world. And even so God speaks His word to man. These are to bring man back to the life of God.The barrier to the life of God is ultimately removed in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross of His redemptive salvation for mankind.
No one comes to the Father except through the crucified and resurrected Son.When we think of the word Father in relation to God, we should think of Him not only as the Creator but as the Source of the Divine and eternal life of God. He Fathers His saved people by imparting His own Spirit into them, dispensing the life of God into the redeemed and saved.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What verse are you quoting in Exodus? This sounds like Exodus 3:14: Of course this is in the passage where God mysteriously appears to Moses in a burning bush. Though the bush was aflame in fire it was not burnt up. This is significant.The flamable bush and the burning flame co-exist together in union which both are preserved. Very interesting. I think it may be a symbol of the eventual incarnation of the eternal God in the created man in the Messiah Who is the real Divine Deliverer sent by God.If that is too much for the non-Christian, we can at least take it as an indication that Moses the man would be on fire with the Divine authority and holiness of God. Though a sinner he would not be destroyed but would lead the children of Israel.However, we believers in Jesus Christ cannot ignore the powerful testimony He bore and words He spoke. He even claimed the I AM for Himself, prompting some of the Jews to stone Him: Here we do have a problem. Jesus a man claiming to be the great I AM who was even before Abraham, let alone Moses. But is this a change in God for God was not a man?I am not sure how to answer this problem. I know that you do not believe that God changed. Yet the prophet Isaiah said that the child born would be called the Mighty God and the Son given would be called the Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.Now if God changes not WHY would He have His prophet write that a born child, spending nine months in the flesh womb of a woman, being Himself flesh and blood, would be called Mighty God?And HOW could a Son be the Eternal Father?I anticipate that some would object that someone else, perhaps Hezekiah is refered to in Isaiah 9:6. That still does nothing to solve the problem of a born child being called Mighty God. The Mighty God is Jehovah. The proof being here: Can a little child curled up in the womb of a woman be called Mighty God? So the prophet of God tells us.Jesus not only said that He was the I AM. It may be easy to say. But He acted like Him. He behaved Himself as God come to us as a Man. The crowning achievement of this testimony was His resurrection from the dead after a cruel execution on the cross.Of course the Eternal Father cannot be ended. Of course the Mighty God cannot be destroyed. If ever a man acted like the great I AM THAT I AM it was Jesus of Nazareth.The other portion you quoted sounded to me like a reference to [b]Malachi 3:6: Some of us believe He is God-Man. But did God then change? It is a tough question.But I would ask the one who asks this. When God appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18 and had lunch with the patriarch - did that constitute a change for God? The rest of the chapter devulges how Abraham had a pleasant lunch with God in the heat of the day.Now did God change in this chapter of the Old Testament?Some have argued with me that one of those men was NOT Jehovah God at all. Rather they said that God appeared to Abraham apart from the three visitors. This makes no sense at all upon close examination. To believe this I must believe that Abraham was sitting and looking down and saw God. Then he would have lifted his eyes from looking at God and looked instead at the three men. Not only is this highly unlikely but it also calls for us the believer that Abraham looked up from seeing God, saw the three men, and LEFT the vision of God to run and meet the three men showing more respect for them, bowing his face to the ground."And Jehovah appeared to him bu tghe oaks of Mamre as he was sitting at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. AND HE LIFTED HIS EYES AND LOOKED, and there were three men ..."That God appeared to Abraham is the subject of what follows. How did God appear to Abraham? Abraham had to lift up his eyes from looking down and see the three men. The appearing of God had to be wrapped up in some way with the appearing of the men.Judging from the rest of the chapter and the 19th chapter, it was God plus two angels who came to visit Abraham.Did the great I AM change or not? I leave that for you to contemplate. All I know is that the New Testament tells us: I believe this the born child who is Mighty God and the given Son Who is the Eternal Father. Well, since God justified Abraham because of his believing in God, justification by faith would not be adding anything to the Old Testement. Would it? I say no, it would not be adding anything that was not already written there. [b]"And he [Abraham] BELIEVED Jehovah, and He [Jehovah] accounted it to him as RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Genesis 15:, my emphasis).Before LAW KEEPING = RIGHETOUSNESS we have Genesis 15:6 BELIEVING IN GOD = RIGHTEOUSNESS. So this is not adding anything to the Hebrew Scriptures.Abraham was justified because of his faith. And we have aleady seen that God placed the created man before the tree of life. So that God wants to dispense the divine and eternal life into man certainly is not adding anything to the Old Testament. Is it? I would say no, it is not adding anything that is not written there in Old Testament Scripture.Would it be to subtract anything to speak of justification by faith or the dispensing of God's life into man? Both the revelation of God dispensing life and man being justified by faith PRECEED the giving of the law of Moses on Mount Sanai. So to speak of theses original intentions of God is not to subtract. It is only to enumerate the matters of God in the sequence given to us in the Bible.If A + B + C + D + E is presented to me, and I point out that A + B + C PRECEEDS D + E, that is not to SUBTRACT D + E. There is no question that some ancients were pronounced righteous in the OT. One of the reasons was that they were forgiven. There sins were covered by their faith in the atoneing sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus of which Christ is the ultimate anti-type. He is the reality of all the old testament atoneing sacrifices.Being forgiven they were justified and declared righteous. But to be fair there were others who declared as righteous. But this must be taken on a relative scale.Look at it this way. You go into a pottery store. All the shelves have fallen over and all the pots are broken. Not one is left whole.Some are broken into 100 pieces. Some are broken into 30 pieces. Some are broken into 15 pieces. And some are broken into 10 pieces. Perhaps some are fortunate indeed. They are only broken into 2 or 3 pieces.Those broken in 2 pieces are less broken (or "more whole" ) then the ones broken in, say, 50 pieces. On a relative scale they are more whole. Yet the fact remains that they ALL are broken. Everyone of them is broken and none remain completely whole.This is the situation with mankind after the fall of Adam. Is it the New Testament that teaches this or the Old Testament itself? It is the Hebrew Bible which says so. The Apostle Paul only REMINDS us that this is what the Hebrew Scriptures taught: But Job was righteous. We all know that the man Job was righteous. Yes in a relative sense compared to his companions. That was until the more penetrating light of God shown deeper into his being. Then what did our "righteous" Job say? It only took him 42 chapters to come to the realization that he wasn't really that righteous after all.So we have to understand the ones declared righteous by OT Scripture in a comparative context. David was a man after God's own heart. Yet he said he was brought forth from the womb in inituity and in sin his mother conceived him. (See Psalm 51).Solomon confesses that God made man upright originally but all men have become subtle, tricky, and prone to seek out underhanded ways:"See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecc. 7:29) In the final analysis we are all compared to the Son of God. Compared to the Son in Whom the Father is well pleased, we all fall short. We are all in trouble of judgement. Only Christ was perfect. He was not only righteous. He was GLORIOUS. All fallen men are not glorious and have all fallen short of the glory of God.So I agree that some here and there were definitely said to be righteous. But all were and are in need of justification because God's perfection is absolute. And only the Son of God was the one pleasing to the Father to the uttermost. So He is the spotless Lamb who is the end of the law to rightouesness to everyone who believes. This is what Scripture says. God has affixed a time in which He will judge the living and the dead by the man Jesus. That makes Jesus applicable to all human beings so far as the One before Whom we all must stand to be judged: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And this is why some of us pay attention to what else God has said, for example here: Exactly. This is why some of us revere the promise of God to establish a new covenant with the house of Israel according the the prophecy of Jeremiah. The full extent of appreciation of the words of God demand that we respect His promise to establish after the old covenant a new covenant. "I AM THAT I AM" in the book of Exodus were far from the "first" two words spoken by God. Before He said this He said "Let Us make man in our image ..." in Genesis. And before that He said "Let there be light ..."Why do you say that "I AM" were the first of His words? This may be true incidently. However the directions of God was that this was the name that Moses was to tell the Israelites Who had sent him [Moses] to deliver them from Pharoah: I sense that you do love the word of God. I encourage you to be careful to check your facts in your debating Christians. This name "I AM" was given primarily for the sake of "the children of Israel" according to the passage. God made Himself known to the Egyptians through the ten signs which He had Moses perform as judgments. They grew encreasingly severe. They encreased in severity until the last sign caused the firstborn of Egypt to die if they did not heed the warning to place the blood upon the doorpost.The judging angel of death would passover ANY house that had the blood upon the lintel. So the believing Egyptions by that time seemed to be held responsible for recognizing that the God of Moses was God.We are told that they left Egypt a "mixed multitude" (Exo. 12:38). So we know that some of the Egyptians heeded the divine warning of the passover. Whether they went into the houses of Jews or protected their own homes with the blood, I am not sure. However, some of the Egyptians who obeyed the warning of Moses had their firstborn sons spared. They left Egypt with the Hebrews as a mixed multitude.Once again. I encourage you to check your biblical facts carefully, especially if you feel you have something with which to educate Christians, (or anyone for that matter). You're a little freewheeling and loose with some of your biblical information. Others have asked you to tighten up I think. As I pointed out, by the time of the tenth plague God did appear to hold the Egyptians responsible. Otherwise I do not think that ANY Egyptian would have participated in the leaving Exodus.Do you think that there is a problem with this logic? It was actually the stubburness of Pharoah which caused the misery of his countrymen. Before you accuse, get your biblical facts right, please. Otherwise you become guilty of the very charge that you are trying to level at Christians. Be careful of your biblical FACTS IamJoseph in your debates with Christians.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

IAJ, I tried to find out from the Bible if it says that Pharoah died or not in the Red Sea. So far I have not been able to determine definitely one way or another.From where do you get your information that Pharoah was spared and went to spread the faith of the Hebrews? I never heard that.Understand that I believe it is probable that some Egyptians did make Yahweh's acts known to the world. And the conspicious absence of this account from Egypt's own history suggest possibly the royal embaressment of seeing Pharoah and his kingdom so sorely defeated by the diety of thier slaves.Of course I knew that in the motion picture The Ten Commandments Pharoah is spared. But I never get my biblical facts from movies. I check the Bible.I am pretty sure that Jethro was NOT one of Pharoah's priests.Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses. But his relationship with Moses was amiable before the Exodus. Jethro's relationship with Moses preceeded the plagues and the Exodus which plagues were not directed towards the Midianites.Jethro was a priest of Midian (Exodus 3:1) with whom Moses was aquainted in the 40 years of his life before he returned to be God's savior to the Israelites in Egypt. Am I correct?I will have to take up the matter of Jeremiah's prophecy of the new covenant latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

IAJ, I believe that this refers to the the New Testament which is the new covenant enacted by Jesus Christ Who is its executor. Concerning this I have much to say.I have absolutely nothing to say to you about Mohammed. You are now speaking with a disciples of Jesus. So do not expect me to defend Islam.Now one thing that puzzles me is that you say the prophecy would make no sense to the people then. That to me makes no sense. Then you might as well say that NO prophecy of God made sense to the contemporary people.You might as well say that all the prophetic promises that God told Abraham made no sense to Abraham. That is absurd. I will grant you that they did not understand all the details. I will grant the neither did Abraham clearly know HOW God was going to accomplish the birth of a son from a childless couple, or how He would secure the land of Canaan for the Hebrews. But he UNDERSTOOD the basics of the promise.For you to say that the prophecy of Jeremiah would make no sense to the audience of Jeremiah is absurd. They had a general idea of a genral promise of God that the old covenant enacted at Sinai would be superceeded by some "new covenant" which was to come.That much they understood. Why could they not understand that?They probably understood that this new covenant would consist of four parts:1.) God will put His law into their hearts. And according to this inward installation of His law they would be His people.Now they must have had an idea that God would do something so that there was more of a subjective, inward, and intimate inclination to obey God.I will grant you that they did not know HOW God was going to do this or perhaps what it would be like. But I do not go along with you that the prophecy made no sense. It made sense because they knew that their WAS a problem with thier wayward hearts. Otherwise they would not have been disciplined to be carried off to Babylon if there were no problem with their heart and God's law.2.) No longer will each teach his neighber to know the Lord. For all shall have a inward and subjective knowledge of God -"... for all of them shall know Me, from the little one among them to the great one among them." Social status has nothing to do with this new inward knowledge of God. All ranks of people will know God inwardly in their hearts having no need to be taught outwardly and objectively only to know the Lord. As the priest so it will be with the carpenter, shepherd, school child, young woman, etc ... all of them shall know Me.Do you recall how Moses told Joshua that he desired that ALL the people of the camp of Israel could prophecy and that God would put His Spirit upon all of them? So it was an age old aspiration of the man of God that God would bless every level of status of the people with an intimate encounter with the Spirit of God.The new covenant is therefore really God intending to go back to His original purpose for Israel. He had wanted them all to be a kingdom of priests. Because of their overall failure He had to secure the tribe of Levi. He had to restrict the blessing to a single tribe which was orginally intended for the whole nation.The new covenant is God coming back to His original desire. Man was placed before the tree of life so that God might dispense His life into man.This dispensing of the life of God into man is the writing of His law in their hearts and inscribing it on their inward parts. Only what is LIVING can be written on the inward parts of living people.4.) According to this new covenant the sins of the people would be remembered no longer. This covenant not only causes God to forgive sins but to forget them. He would simply not remember thier sins."... for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins I will rememver no more." When God forgets something it is really gone forever. It is cast into the sea of His forgetfulness. This new covenant insures that the sins of the people will be fully forgiven and divinely FORGOTTEN forever by God.Perhaps I will show why we Christians are sure that this is the new covenant enacted in the blood of Christ and in the imparting of the Spirit of Christ in the New Testament Gospel.All four elements of the prophesied new covenant are clearly and strongly taught in the New Testament.The new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah is the impartation of the Son of God as the life giving Spirit - [b]"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45).[/qs] This covenant did indeed come to the house of Israel. But only a remnant now believe and the message went out to the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles is finished. Then Israel will turn to the Messiah Whom they largely missed.Jesus enacted the new covenant in His death and resurrection: Today God can forget our sins totally. He does so not because He is loose and permissive about our sins. It is because on the cross of Jesus Christ our sins were judged by God. Justice has prevailed against our sins. Justice has been imputed on man's behalf in the death of Christ.If we receive this plan of salvation it is as if God says " Your sins? I don't even remember your sins any longer. The problem of your sins was dealt with 2,000 years ago in Calvary where the Son of God, Jesus Christ, poured out His blood for your atonement."I'll write more latter, the Lord willing.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I would like to put a little more explanation to the law of God which He says He would write in the hearts of the people.In the New Testament this is Christ Himself coming into the believers and being a spontaneous "law of life" regulating them from within:"There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death." (Romans 8:1)The law of the Spirit of divine life in Christ Jesus is actually Jesus Himself in His pneumatic form dispensing His life into man.We must never forget that in His resurrection Christ transfigured Himself into a form in which He could enter into His disciples: [b]"the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit."The "Us" in Genesis 1:26 and the Divine "We" in John 14 are imparted into man through the life giving Spirit which the last Adam became in resurrection.When Christ comes into the participant of the new covenant, with Him comes the Father and the Holy Spirit. Or we might say that contained in the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son. In the same chapter of Romans 8 we find Paul using these titles quite enterchangeably:
"The Spirit of God,
The Spirit of Christ,
Christ,
The Spirit of Him Who raised Christ Jesus from the dead" These titles are used in an equivalent way enterchangeably showing the within Each lives the Other. The Spirit of God dwells in the believers. But the Spirit of God dwelling in the believers is also the Spirit of Christ dwelling in the believers. But the Spirit of Christ dwelling in the believers is also Christ Himself dwelling in the believers. Yet Christ Himself dwelling in the believers is also the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead dwelling in the believers:The Spirit of God = The Spirit of Christ = Christ = The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead.Here we have the divine and mystical "Us" in whose image we were made, seeking to be the indwelling One, coming to live within the saved. Here we have the Father and the Son coming as the Holy Spirit to give life.Now consider this sentence - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)What did Christ become? He became a life imparting, life giving Spirit. And we just read "He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also GIVE LIFE to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." The Triune God is a life dispensing God. God the Father was embidied in Christ. Christ the Son accomplished redemption. And Christ transfigured Himself to become a life giving Spirit to dispense God as life into man.When you think of me saying the Triune God dispensing life into man I wish you would remember Adam before the tree of life. He needed no redemption at that point because he had not become a sinner.But regardless, God's eternal purpose still was to dispense and impart the divine life of God into him. There is no need for blood. The tree of life had no blood.But after the sin of Adam the way to the life of God cannot be passed through without the shedding of blood for a propitiatory sacrifice."I wish all would be impressed with the new covenant - The impating of the law of God here is the dispensing of the Triune God as divine life into the redeemed. Before God can impart His life into man man first must be justified, redeemed, forgiven.This is exactly why Paul wrote -"the spirit is life because of righteousness"The small s spirit there is not the Spirit of God but the human spirit. Paul is saying that in the new birth the human spirit becomes the ZOE - divine life of God BECAUSE of justification and the imputed righteousness of Christ's redemptive work.First man's dead human spirit must be resurrected out of its comatose condition. The human spirit is enlivened the instant we receive Jesus as our Savior because it becomes LIFE because of righteousness. Christ Himself is our righteousness. And thusly the comatose and dead human spirit is resurrected - is reborn - is born from above - is born again - is born ANEW.Everyone knows that BIRTH is only the beginning of life. Birth is the initiation of a long process of growth and maturity. The law of the spontanaous and victorious life of Jesus is installed into the believer. He or she must then grow in that new life to learn to walk by the Spirit. That is to abide in that realm and sphere which is an indwelling and living Savior and Lord Jesus. And with Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit.The Triune God, the "Us" Who created man and made man in His image, comes into man.God on the INSIDE. This is reality. This is the New Covenant. God as life. This life embodied in the Son and conveyed through the life giving Spirit is the new testament.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

How do you change colors like that on this forum?That I could use.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That passage is in Malachi and not Exodus.It is in Malachi 3:6. And the context of the passage concerns more of His moral demand upon man and His desire to redeem people from being consumed by His judgement. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The Divine "Us" of the Triune God is the only factor which can bring about the true oneness of man. The Divine "Us" Himself must be infused as a living element into man. His oneness then perfects the different people's into oneness and His Triune being swallows up the divisions and factions causing walls of separation between the peoples.This fact is seen in the great prayer of Christ in John 17. We should not count this prayer lightly. This prayer of Christ is so powerful that it has eternal consequences. It will be answered. Even in the eyes of God it already has taken place for He has shown us a revelation of the New Jerusalem which John saw at the conclusion of the Bible.But here are the words indicating that the Triune God, the Divine "Us" infused and permeating His redeemed and deified people becomes the very factor oneness in glorified humanity in eternity future: In this part of Christ prayer He mentions both the Divine "Us" as well as the Divine "We". Both the The Divine "Us" and the Divine "We" refer to God. They refer to the One God. They refer to the mysterious Three - One God, the Trinity. They refer to the very same God Who said "Let Us make man in Our image".I will have to elaborate on this latter. This all the time I have this morning.But the oneness of the Triune God must be infused into His people, saturationg them and uniting them and organically mingling God with humanity. The Divine Us then becomes the eternal factor of oneness in the eternal city the New Jerusalem.On her foundations are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb Christ. And on her gates are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It is interesting that you should say that it made no sense.I had a very difficult time making sense of these paragraphs. I am not sure what you mean by "One-ness factor". I think you are refering to monotheism.A "fulcrum" belief for 2000 years ? I guess you mean that for 2000 years there was a belief in monotheism. "Existential wars?" What is that ? What is an existential war ? What does this mean ? What is the issue of dis-believers? Do you mean an issue at the time during those 2000 years where some people belived in polytheism ?What are the boundaries of the dates ? What do you mean can apply or cannot apply ??What is it for it to apply ? How does it apply when it does ? I am not sure what you mean here. It sounds like you mean that polytheists could not get monotheist to see thier view and vice versea.A proper presentation of the Triun God is monotheistic. And imporpoer presentation streesing too far the Three-ness aspect would lead to "tritheism" which means "thee Gods". Tritheism is a heresy because the Bible only and ever declares that there is one God.On the other side of the extreme of improper theology about the nature of God in the Bible is Modalism. Modalism would admit Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, however only One of Each can be in existence at one time. The three are in successive modes which makes the simultaneous and concurrent existence of the Threee of the Trinity impossible. Modalism is also a heresy because that Bible surely shows that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-existent and co-inherent. They live within one another and are in existence at the same time essentially.The best and most biblical presentation of the nature of God in Christian theology is monotheistic. On either side of an improper presentation of God's nature is Tritheism on one side of the extreme and Modalism on the other side of the extreme.But the Triune God as revealed in all the relevant verses in the Bible is monotheistic. There is only one God. He is essentially three-one. And in the unfolding of His operation, His economy (meaning household management or household dispensation) He, shall we say, three in operation?A thorough presentation of the Triune God is beyond the scope of this single post. There are many mysterious passages about God which are in the Old Testament. For example "Let Us make man in Our image ..." cannot be called an invention of Christians by any stretch of the imagination. That is the Hebrew Bible speaking.I don't know about "compulsion" but if anyone wanted to embrace ALL that the Bible has to say about God he or she would have to embrace this mysterious passage. And there are a number like it all in the Old Testament.The verses are not there because of "compulsions" on the part of New Testament beleivers. The passages were there in the word of God before Christians existed. It is not easy to follow your thinking here and its connection with what is written above. I think you are steering away from a Bible Study into a discussion about comparative religions or comparative faiths.I will be examining the Bible itself and putting forth my reasons for interpretation of various passages and what they amount to as biblical truth.I think you are concerned with God being broad enough to have loved and cared for everyone. That is a perfectly legitimate sentiment and I am convinced that all I need is to examine what the Bible itself says to know that man cannot improve upon His ways of salvation.If you want to break down my post and highlight what it was that made no sense to you I will attempt to clarify it for you.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It may be true that the Chirstian church split off from the mother religion of Judiasm. I would not argue that.However, it is the prophet Isaiah of the the Hebrew Scriptures who predicts that the "child ... born" shall be called "Mighty God". It is Isaiah of the Hebrew Bible that predicts the "Son ... given" ... shall be called "Eternal Father". Refer to Isaiah 9:6.The foundational passages for the "split" were ALREADY THERE in Judiasm's Bible which we Christians ALSO believe is the word of God.To my asking you what you meant by an "existential war" you wrote: Did you answer my question of what an "existential war" was ? The Islamic religion came some four centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ and the establishment of the Christian church.Islam's opposition to the Gospel of Jesus is as intense as its opposition to Judiasm. In fact it is probably more concerned with proclaiming that God never had and never will have a Son.The rest of Islame is pretty much inventing another Moses figure who is Arab rather than Jewish with another set of divine laws.Islam's strigent opposition to the idea of a Triune God Who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should cause you to link Islam together with Judiams much more readily than linking Islam together with Christianity.Mohammed thought any teaching that God has a Son or sons is a violation of monotheism. So your trying to lump Islam with Christianity is artificial and I think not intellectually accurate as far as the one god verses many gods dispute is concerned.You like to make the link. You are fond of the link. But in this case you don't have a good reason for the link. If you want to make a argument about unorthodox views about god verses gods you should be linking Islam and Judiasm togther over against the Christian Gospel. I have no comment on this because you still have not defined what an "existential war" is.And your repeated reference to how many people died is a good emotional appeal to the indecency of war. I don't see how or why you always force these statistics into this discussion on Bible interpretations of passages in Genesis.It is as if I were to repeatedly refer to the numbers of people who died in the slave trade either being transported from Africa or while slaves in America. Or it is like me refering again and againt to the horrendous number of young French boys who died in World War One. France nearly lost all her young marriagable men in that war.It is a horrendous and heart rending piece of historical information. Forcing it into a Bible study on the meaning of "Let Us make man in Our image..." is rather arbitrary use of these tragic facts.What exactly is the emotion that you wish me to have when you mention this? It is terrible that they died. Am I suppose to doubt the New Testament's testimony of the Divinity of Christ becuase of these sad facts ?Your connection between these frequently repeated statistics and the veracity of the New Testament as the truth about God's Son is lost on me. It seems some kind of appeal to my emotions. But the connection is weak.Is it the fault of Jesus that these Jews died, therefore Jesus cannot be the Son of God? Is that the jest of your complaint? Okay. in a broader sense of the term you cannot just say Jews are dis-believers.You have point there and I accept it. Point taken. In terms of the reality of God as Creator and covenant maker in the Hebrew Bible the believing Jews are believers. To say in a blanket way that they are unbelievers is not really accurate.In terms of the further revelation of the incarnation of God as Isaiah predicted, most of them are unbelievers. The first Christian disciples were Christ believing Jews.A Christ believing Jew named Paul authored 13 of the 27 New Testament documents. I think in the case of the believers in the New Testament, it is not that the 12 dicsiples believed something extra. It was that the rejecting priests, scribes, and Pharisees did not believe enough.The belief of the opposing Jews did not include the Scriptures of prophecy, for instance, in Isaiah 9:6. There the Old Testament prophet predicted that a child born would nonetheless be the very Mighty God Jehovah and the Son given would be the Eternal Father.The disciple of Jesus believed that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled those promises. They believed that He qualified to the referent to whom those passages refered to. And He taught them as much. Especially after the resurrection He emphasized the slowness of even His disciples to grasp that He [Jesus] was the fufillment of the OT promises of the Messiah Son of God to come: That would be "ALL THE PROPHETS" had spoken in the Hebrew Bible. And that would be "ALL THE SCRIPTURES" of the Hebrew Bible.The issue then is not that His disciples should believe in something additional and extra. It was largely if not exclusively that they should believe ENOUGH. And this was testified to and MADE BELIEVABLE by the life, death, and resurrection of someone like Himself - Jesus.Again, Jesus in resurrection points back to the predictions of the Jew's own Bible for grounds to believe in Him: These Jewish disciples of Jesus believed that they WERE witnesses of these things. Many of us Gentiles Christian disciples also believe that these things are there in the Hebrew Bible and that they were indeed witnesses of these things.I have to leave now for some errands. Talk with you latter and possibly continue my responses.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I guess you mean "all christian scholars" who serve on the commitee of the "Jesus Seminar".While you are at it could you also inform us that "all astrophysicists" also agree that the earth is flat? On your say so accept Isaiah 9:6 as not refering to the Messiah to come? Not a chance. Not a chance at all.Accept you and your "all christian scholars" on an interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 ?Not a chance I would be so deceived. Jesus not only taught that to see Him was to see the Father. He acted in a manner consistent with the teaching.Not a chance your delusive lie could deceive me that Isaiah was not prophecying about Christ. Wrong again.Most importantly the One who behaved as a Divine / Human taught so. And His life manifested such a reality too."Philip said to Him, Lord show us the Father and it is sufficuent for us.

​

Jesus said to him, Have I been so long with you, and you have not known Me Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:8,9) Jesus could have very well gone on to say:"Philip, don't you recall what the prophet Isaiah wrote, that the Son given shall be called the Eternal Father. Have I been so long with you now and you do not recognize Me Philip. You have been observing God in Me Philip. You have been seeing the Eternal Father manifested in Me Philip. How can you stand there and say 'Lord show us the Father.' Philip, its ME ... I AM RIGHT HERE. " All the writing of the New Testament confirm the mysterious nature of God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Where One is the Other is living also within Him.The co-inherance of the Three make it that within the Father is the Son and within the Son is the Father."Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works.

​

Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves." (John 14:10,11) Some of us have decided to believe that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, either because of the trustworthy words of the Lord Jesus or the works which manifest that He is the Eternal God become a man.Some unbelievers like yourself and your "all christian scholars" (from the Jesus Seminar or other skeptical Christ opposing committe) are deceived and leading each other around like the blind leading the blind.Who else in human history qualifies to be believed in as the Mighty God born in a woman as a "child" and as the given Son who manifests the Eternal Father?Who else would you submit as a candidate to be the referent to Isaiah 9:6?Hezekiah neither acted that way nor taught that way. Hezekiah is out.Perhaps someone yet to come on the scene is the referent? That is someone whose personality will have more impact than Jesus of Nazareth?Well until such a one comes (barring the Antichrist to come) my bets are on Jesus. He both lived as THE Mighty God and manifested the glory of the Eternal Father.You can follow your dubious "all christian scholars" to hope someone OTHER than Jesus is who the prophecy refered to.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

We are not even on the same page yet. Look up Isaiah 9:6. Do you have an English translation of the book of the Old Testament ?Nothing in that verse about maiden or virgin. That is ANOTHER verse in Isaiah which is not under discussion right now, by me at least.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.