Us

[Miles]

.

In Genesis 1:26 one reads

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

What I get from this is that making man wasn't a solo task, but a cooperative effort of god and, at a minimum, someone/thing else. So, who is this us, and our, and what's the reason for your choice?

Secondary question: being the almighty god he is said to be, why do you think he needed help in making man?

.

[William]

[Replying to MissKate13 in post #90]

The thread is about who the “us” is in Genesis 1:26, and not about how we apply it to modern world knowledge.

That is besides the point.

We are in a modern world and have knowledge that was not availably to the old-world minds who wrote their version of events.
Indeed, the thread creator (Miles) has not restricted the question to how such ideas applied to old-world minds, but appears to be asking how we modern minds should understand it.

I answered you according to what the Scriptures teach, and the Scriptures do not change.

The scriptures are using old world language of old world minds. Minds should change as information is discovered, and thus it is acceptable and within the scope of debate to evaluate the product of old ways of thinking in relation to how we now think, based upon what we now know.

It is not a case that "the scriptures do not change" so much as it is a case that some minds refuse to change and grow and adapt with the newer knowledge.

John 1:1-2. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

The "God" the "Word" and the "Sound in action" ("Spirit") are definitive aspects of one entity - one being the mind, the other being the thoughts of said mind and the other being the actions of the thoughts of said mind.

Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

There you have it. God, the Word and the Spirit of God were present at creation.

I have not argued otherwise. I have simply pointed out that at the beginning or initial state, those are aspects of the ONE entity (Source Creator) not individual and separate entities. What I argued was that a lot had already happened between that initial state and the creation of the earth and that a lot had happened between the initial state of the creation the earth and of human beings.

When God said, “ “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;…” (Genesis 1:26) Moses, the author of Genesis, is revealing that the “Us” is God, the Word and the Spirit of God.

That is one interpretation, but given what we know about the formation of the universe, it is very unlikely that is what is being told.

The three are one entity.

That is what I was implying when I wrote that "God" the "Word" and the "Sound in action" ("Spirit") are definitive aspects of one entity - one being the mind, the other being the thoughts of said mind and the other being the actions of the thoughts of said mind.

I don’t know where you come up with the term “source creator,” but it is not Biblical. If you’re going to discuss Biblical topics, you need to use Biblical language.

Not at all, unless you are saying that "God" as spoken of in the Bible, is not the Source Creator.

Your entire post is without any Biblical references.

Untrue.

I am commenting re the biblical references and critiquing your interpretation of those - which is what debating is about.
In return you are questioning my right to do so, implying that I have no right to do so, and or/if I do so, I have to do so under rules which you are pulling out of your hat - rather critiquing the the actual words I have written, re actual debating.

You’re relying on human wisdom rather than Scripture.

Biblical script is largely made up of individual testimony re their relationship with the Source Creator, not their relationship with biblical scripture.
Said another, the claim that the bible is "The Word of God" comes from those who have a relationship with scripture rather than with the Source Creator.

It is a form of idolatry, imo. False.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to William in post #91]

We have no common ground for discussion. The Scriptures, though written by men, are God breathed. Obviously, you don’t believe that, which leaves you to your own interpretation. Therefore, I will be moving on.

[theophile]

You've called my position both Materialist and Supernaturalist as well given its starting conditions and reliance on spirit, i.e., a separate, non-material, emergent substance. So wouldn't my philosophy also be a 'bridge'?

Clearly it is an attempt at being a bridge. However, the hard problem of consciousness is not solved through having on the one hand, the eternal nature of matter but not of consciousness.
It is the same the other way around, where Supernaturalism has it that Mind is eternal, and matter is not.

The problem is you are only focused on two terms - mind and matter, and resolving some difference you see between them. You keep leaving spirit out of it, or you conflate it with mind. I think this is a mistake because of the connotations mind brings (e.g., consciousness), and because spirit is a substance in its own right - separate from matter and mind - and needs to be factored in.

So along the lines of Genesis 1, I would lump mind, matter, and spirit in all its various forms (i.e., a cosmic multitude of beings) into the concept of the deep, and then juxtapose this 'chaotic sea' to spirit, or in this particular case the spirit of God, the real problem being how to 'bridge' these...

And by spirit, per comments I've made before, I mean something akin to idea, or all those things that can persist on a non-material plane, whether basic ideas like the number one, or more complex ideas like capitalism, and how we should organize ourselves economically. Such things have an eternal aspect to them - they exist irrespective of the ephemeral minds that think them, and materials (like paper or sound waves) that carry them. Spirits are those particular ideas that take on a life of their own, ebbing and flowing across time (and minds), calling upon us, taking hold of us, and bringing us to their cause (like the spirit of capitalism, for example, which we could trace across time and subscribers, even if it went under different names or wasn't recognized as such - we can still see its activity).

So this I think is the more important problem to solve: what is the spirit of God? How do we denizens of the deep join in it, and become one with it? What does it call us to?... It's not the problem of consciousness we should care about, which I think is relatively trivial in comparison (and more a problem for computer science and biology to solve), but rather the problem of how we should shape our lives and the world around us. It's the problem of direction and end, more than anything else.

All mind / consciousness does is provides a bridge between matter and spirit, and the ability to perceive, form, and exchange ideas from the spiritual realm. And don't get me wrong: that's incredibly important and necessary. But I see no need for there to be one eternal conscious being because of it, or why mind / consciousness should be treated as the highest order term as a result. When looked at this way, mind / consciousness is all in the service of spirit, and exists for no other reason I can tell than for spiritual pursuits...

So that, I think, is the difference between us. For me, if there is an eternal one (or 'Source Creator') that matters in all this it would be just the spirit of God, with no mind or matter to speak of. The deep, and all the mind and matter it contains may be 'eternal' insofar as it has always existed (and always will exist), but it is not eternal insofar as it is unchanging, or outside time, like the spirit of God is. And it certainly isn't 'one', even though the whole point is for it to eventually become one, over time, with the Spirit.

While to a materialist, a mindless process appears to have given rise to human consciousness, this is inferred - in your own particular philosophy - as "God-Breathed", is it not?

If not, then why even have a creator involved in the existence of humankind, or the universe altogether? Why not just be a full Materialist and reject the idea of the existence of a creator/existing in a creation?

Because a creator (spirit) gives direction to things (i.e., a creative intent). Otherwise it would just be the unfolding of mechanical processes and accidental occurrences, and I don't think we should let that be our fate if we have the power to change it.

I just don't think this creative intent has been active across time, or that it needs to be. It's more a process taking control of itself than one that has always been under control.

This fits with concepts explained through the BNP – and is explained without resorting to either mind or matter being subservient, as both are aspects of The Same Thing and are regarded as eternal – naturally.

You will also need to explain why your philosophy accepts the creation of mind through the mindless process as not also being an “accidental occurrence” – if indeed that is how you view the event.

The creation of mind was an accidental occurrence. It wasn't intended by some mindful being, nor does its creation require one so far as I can tell. That said; by definition, spirit has intentionality baked into it. It's about direction and end. This allows us to trace a spirit's intention across past occurrences and to deem whether or not such occurrences are in the spirit based on whether or not they contribute to that end. It doesn't matter if the occurrence was mindfully intended or the accident of some mindless process, the result is the same: the spiritual intention is fulfilled.

This is no different from what I said above, and how we can see, for example, the spirit of capitalism active before anyone even formulated the idea, like in a group of apes taking control of the best fruit-bearing trees... Or in a virus co-opting a cell to produce more versions of itself.

Similarly, I have no problem tracing the spirit of God to a time before minds existed, or seeing it 'active' in the creation of mind or even more basic occurrences (like light, or dry land...). It's just how spirits work.

I don't sit cleanly in one camp or the other even though if pushed, I would indicate a materialist origin of things. This does not mean I see everything as some sort of mechanical process unfolding, or just matter and motion...

You’re appearing to be siding with Materialism re the initial state is indication you are a Materialist at heart. This contrasts with you’re appearing to be dedicated to the idea of a Creator and having a foot in the Theist camp as well. You resolve the conflict of position by reinventing the creator as a temporal entity (or at least one which has a beginning) and thus your creator image cannot be accused of being “supernatural” but the inference remains that contrasted with the idea that matter itself is eternal (otherwise explain where it derives) this implies matter is eternal but not mind.

Where I stand, is on the Bridge over the chasm created by the unresolved differences. I have also referred to the “bridge” as a “wall” which both sides have built together to create what appear to be a permanent separation between the warring factions.

This conversation we are having is partly why I created a thread and wrote the summary explaining The Bridging Natural Philosophy.

No, I am a theist at heart, even if I accept a materialist origin of things. Hopefully that's a bit clearer now.

[Data]

.

In Genesis 1:26 one reads

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

What I get from this is that making man wasn't a solo task, but a cooperative effort of god and, at a minimum, someone/thing else. So, who is this us, and our, and what's the reason for your choice?

Secondary question: being the almighty god he is said to be, why do you think he needed help in making man?

.

I haven't had time to read all the way through this thread, and I'm pretty sure someone answered as I would, but just briefly my two cents: the us is Jehovah and Michael. God created Michael and Michael created everything else with Jehovah's holy spirit. Just because God chooses a course of action doesn't necessarily imply he needs to.

[William]

[Replying to MissKate13 in post #92]

I accept your act of conceding and wish you well in your journey.

[theophile]

When God says “ “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;” He has to be speaking of the Word and the Spirit of God. We know that God created the universe and everything in it through the Word.

We know also that the Spirit of God was involved in creation. Psalm 33:6 says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” The breath is the Spirit (ruach - wind, breath, spirit)

All three were present at creation: God, the Word and the Spirit. It seems very obvious who the “us” is.

I've said as much before, but it's ultimately just God talking to God in your view, which is what makes the 'Us' part hard to swallow for me, or feel like a bit of a cop out. i.e., there's no true plurality or separate, non-God being involved. It's as if God is asexual in creation, which flies in the face of other creative acts we see in the bible, like the conception of Jesus, which involved Mary along with the Holy Spirit, right?

So where is Mary in your view, or are you saying she is non-essential in all this, or that Genesis 1 is somehow different, and doesn't follow this NT parallel and involvement of a female form?

I suggest you can find her in Genesis 1:2 and the primordial presence there you want to ignore, i.e., the deep / sea and its uncreated waters.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #93]

The problem with your thinking I am conflating mind and spirit is that there is no differentiating these re their attributes, so it is obvious that they are/should be regarded as the same thing.

I am open to being shown why they are not, but even that you have attempted to show there is fundamental difference between these, those examples you gave above are things we know are “of the mind” – can be attributed to mindfulness. Forcing a supernatural aspect to the mind by referring to it as “Spirit” would also mean that all minds are “supernatural”.

The Bridging Natural Philosophy I mentioned, accepts the Source Mind is eternal and therefore all subsequent minds breathed into functional forms are also eternal but regards this as natural rather than supernatural.

Did you read the summary re the BNP I linked?

Summary of our interaction so far:

You and I are engaged in a discussion about the nature of mind, spirit, and the framework of "The Bridging Natural Philosophy" (BNP).

You argue for distinct entities—mind, matter, and spirit—each with unique attributes, while emphasizing the eternal and spiritual aspects of the latter.
I, on the other hand, maintain that mind and spirit lack differentiation in their attributes and express skepticism about introducing a supernatural element re the mind.

Importantly - the BNP as proposed, also states that matter is not distinct from mind.

BNP offers a holistic perspective that recognizes the interconnectedness of mind/spirit and matter, within a naturalistic framework. The debate centers on whether mind/spirit and matter, can be reconciled as aspects of a unified entity and how BNP provides a bridge between materialist and supernaturalist ideologies.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to MissKate13 in post #92]

I accept your act of conceding and wish you well in your journey.

I’ve conceded nothing. I simply don’t wish to have a Bible discussion with someone who doesn’t believe the Bible to be God breathed. We have no common ground.

[William]

[Replying to MissKate13 in post #92]

I accept your act of conceding and wish you well in your journey.

I’ve conceded nothing. I simply don’t wish to have a Bible discussion with someone who doesn’t believe the Bible to be God breathed. We have no common ground.

I see. You don't wish to debate in a debate setting because - essentially - I do not agree with the way you interpret the bible?

If that is not an act of conceding to the critique I have done re your argument so far, then perhaps you might want to address my critique and debate what I have written.
(Simply declaring "We have our differences" and "moving on" isn't adequate re debating anything) Moving on signals an act of conceding.

[MissKate13]

I've said as much before, but it's ultimately just God talking to God in your view, which is what makes the 'Us' part hard to swallow for me, or feel like a bit of a cop out. i.e., there's no true plurality or separate, non-God being involved. It's as if God is asexual in creation, which flies in the face of other creative acts we see in the bible, like the conception of Jesus, which involved Mary along with the Holy Spirit, right?

So where is Mary in your view, or are you saying she is non-essential in all this, or that Genesis 1 is somehow different, and doesn't follow this NT parallel and involvement of a female form?

I suggest you can find her in Genesis 1:2 and the primordial presence there you want to ignore, i.e., the deep / sea and its uncreated waters.

Do you ever talk to yourself? Do you devise plans? Do you carry out your plans?

It’s no different with God. He has a logos, which is His written and spoken message to the world, and He has a Spirit to carry out His plans. Yet, He is ONE God, just as you are one. Though the Scriptures present Him as three persons, He is still ONE God.

I think the difference between you & I is I have faith in what God’s word says, even though sometimes the things I read seem illogical. I mean, it’s by faith that I believe Lazarus could be raised from the dead three days after he’d died. It’s also by faith that I believe Jesus is God. The Bible says He is (John 1:1). By faith I accept every word that proceeds from the mouth of God as truth.

All through chapter 1 of Genesis, the term God in the Hebrew language is Elohim. According to the lexicons I have looked at, Elohim is said to be a plural noun - masculine.

Truthfully, I know little to nothing about the Hebrew language. I doubt you do either. I have read that the idea of Elohim being both masculine and feminine is highly controversial. Whether Elohim is masculine or feminine has nothing to do with who the “us” is in Genesis 1:26, nor does it change the fact that God created everything through the Word and the power of the Holy Spirit. No one can deny the presence of the Word or the Spirit at creation. When God said, “Let us make man in our image,” the logical conclusion is that He is referring to the Word and His Spirit as they were present during every act of creation.

You will need to prove with Scripture your theory about Mary. I see no connection to Genesis 1:2 whatsoever.