Trinity is humanity's Father/Son Image!

Thread starter #1
I've been thinking about the Father and Son image that humanity was made of. I think that without that image, there is no Trinity regardless of how one views the Trinity. I hate to leave the Holy Spirit out so maybe we can work that persona into that image as well.

Can we even see humanity without the Father and Son image or relationship? Maybe part of humanity's purpose is to see that image and become as close to it as we can. Perhaps this is where the Holy Spirit comes in. To help us see that image.
 
Thread starter #2
The eternally begotten Son also became flesh(humanity). True His main purpose was as the Messiah but also to show us the image of His Father. He came to show us His Father's glory. He was the image of His Father. If you saw Jesus, you saw God.

In that respect, the Son became flesh to show humanity, God. Maybe to show humanity that that unity can be done. Not exactly like the Father and Son but something pretty close.

Again his main purpose was to make it possible for humanity to do this by Redemption but in a way he showed us it was possible for a human to do this.

To show us what humanity is suppose to look like.
 
Thread starter #3
Jesus was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. He was the Word that became flesh. In a way he was human before he actually became human. He was a Son before he actually became human.
God was a Father before His Son had a human Mother. Jesus was a Son before he had a human Mother.

Humanity has always been a part of that Word or plan of God. Humanity was made in that image. We are made in the image of the Trinity.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
With that mindset....... Adam was supposed to represent God's image/character/etc to the world. Yet he failed to do so and never could because he sinned. Jesus however did represent God to the world, so much so that he was credited with being the exact representation of his image. Jesus is said to be the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. But think about that. 2 things.... Did God plan for Adam to sin. Thus the plan all along, that poor Adam was just as Pharoah. Was Jesus actually slain [in the plan] before the foundation of the world at the fall of man? Was "the foundation of the world" or the fall of man first? Point being, Jesus was not actually slain in reality until he was 30+ years old. But it is spoken in terms of "fact" pointing back to a promise. These promises spoken of as fact from the OT are getting so messed up. The word became flesh is no different than slain before the foundation. He was no more slain before he was born than he existed before he was born
 
Thread starter #5
With that mindset....... Adam was supposed to represent God's image/character/etc to the world. Yet he failed to do so and never could because he sinned. Jesus however did represent God to the world, so much so that he was credited with being the exact representation of his image. Jesus is said to be the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. But think about that. 2 things.... Did God plan for Adam to sin. Thus the plan all along, that poor Adam was just as Pharoah. Was Jesus actually slain [in the plan] before the foundation of the world at the fall of man? Was "the foundation of the world" or the fall of man first? Point being, Jesus was not actually slain in reality until he was 30+ years old. But it is spoken in terms of "fact" pointing back to a promise. These promises spoken of as fact from the OT are getting so messed up. The word became flesh is no different than slain before the foundation. He was no more slain before he was born than he existed before he was born
I understand that he was slain before the foundation and was the eternally begotten Son could be viewed as only prophesy or promises.
Like you said everything was created in 7 days.
The Son and the Lamb slain were added to this Creation in time.

They were taken from Word and inserted into time. Still though in Word it already existed. The Son was and the Lamb was.

Does that really change anything about the Father and Son relationship already existing or that the Lamb was already slain?

That image was already in Word and we were Created in that image.
It's a part of who humanity would become.

I would say yes God did plan for Adam to sin. Adam was just like Pharoah in that respect. Otherwise there would have been no need for a Lamb slain before the foundation.

There would have been no need for a Son and with no Son, no Father either.
 
Thread starter #6
With that mindset....... Adam was supposed to represent God's image/character/etc to the world. Yet he failed to do so and never could because he sinned. Jesus however did represent God to the world, so much so that he was credited with being the exact representation of his image. Jesus is said to be the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. But think about that. 2 things.... Did God plan for Adam to sin. Thus the plan all along, that poor Adam was just as Pharoah. Was Jesus actually slain [in the plan] before the foundation of the world at the fall of man? Was "the foundation of the world" or the fall of man first? Point being, Jesus was not actually slain in reality until he was 30+ years old. But it is spoken in terms of "fact" pointing back to a promise. These promises spoken of as fact from the OT are getting so messed up. The word became flesh is no different than slain before the foundation. He was no more slain before he was born than he existed before he was born
I guess you are looking at it as there was no Son already and there was no Lamb slain already. Then and only then, after Adam failed the Son and the Lamb became a part of God's plan."From the foundation" could have been after Adam sinned?

Weren't they at least present in Word? So the moment Adam sinned God had a plan to send his Son that he didn't have yet? But at that moment in time, in Word, he had a Son.
At that very moment the Word was with God but more in a sense like at that very moment the Lamb was slain but only in Word?
 
Last edited:

Israel

Senior Member
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

The way of slaying the being of only child...is to have more.
But no matter how may children may follow, none other is ever the first born. But, someone is last.
Make every effort to find the joy in that.
 
Thread starter #8
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

The way of slaying the being of only child...is to have more.
But no matter how may children may follow, none other is ever the first born. But, someone is last.
Make every effort to find the joy in that.
Ours is becoming children by adoption.
Ephesians 1:5
For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love 6he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--

Weird but this was "before" the foundation of the world. Would this prove that the Jesus already existed? Maybe but only in Word.

Makes me wonder how much difference it makes. Really. If the Son already existed in Spirit or Word. If the Word only became the Son when he became human. If the Son was eternally subservient or if he became that way when he became a human.
The Lamb being slain at the foundation of the world or the Lamb being slain on the cross much later.

I mean it's a fun topic and all. It's definitely worth researching and debating, etc. But if God works beyond the extremes of time then perhaps we are all wasting our time trying to picture this concept in our human minds.

Regardless of that aspect of it, I still think humanity's mirror is somehow related to the Father and Son relationship.
Otherwise we could never be adopted as God's children before the foundation of the world.
No Father, no adoption. No Jesus, no adoption through him.
 
Thread starter #9
What Father and Son image came first? Does humanity mirror the Father and Son in Heaven or does that heavenly relation of Father and Son mirror humanity?

In other words which came first? If humanity, the heavenly Father and Son are just mirrors of Creation. Like God made man and after Adam sinned thought he'd get into the humanity game.

Like at that point God decides to use a human analogy of Father and Son instead of the other way around.
 
Last edited:

gordon 2

Senior Member
I will share a link to the explanation of two concepts of the use of signs or words in scripture. You might like it.

One view forms concepts within time and limited space and this is how humans who are bound by these use or employ words even in the spiritual realm. The other view of the use of signs or words is the formation of concepts possible to God who is not bound in expression or in the use of sign and communication by time or space but rather He is unbound by eternity or the eternal.

https://christianity.stackexchange....e-been-slain-before-the-creation-of-the-world
 
Last edited:

gordon 2

Senior Member
1 John 5: 11

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

So Art I think that since scripture seems to have been written within and in the signs of man, in the languages man uses, in order to communicate with man, prayer on the other hand might just be a better venue to the questions posed by your recent concerns on the nature of God. In Christ we do not pray as the world prays, we are not bound by its signs or in the conventions we ordinarily use them, but we pray within the eternal and within the cultures and signs of our kingdom.


Maybe praying in tongues( with its absence of worldly signs(y)) is really not that odd after all... :)
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #12
I will share a link to the explanation of two concepts of the use of signs or words in scripture. You might like it.

One view forms concepts out of time and limited space and this is how humans who are bound by these use or employ words even in the spiritual realm. The other view of the use of signs or words is the formation of concepts possible to God who is not bound in expression or in the use of sign and communication by time or space but rather He is unbound by eternity or the eternal.

https://christianity.stackexchange....e-been-slain-before-the-creation-of-the-world
From reading that link if Jesus wasn't slain before the creation, the glory he had with the Father as a Son may not have been so either.

Just one take I know there are many more. I still see the Father and Son as being more than a concept used that man understands.
 
answered Feb 16 '15 at 15:05

Radz Matthew Brown
… In time, it is long past; in eternity, it forever occurs.....When any Christian dies, he passes from the realm of time and space into timelessness, into the NOW of God...
Having read the entire link, I'm guessing that a debate between this fellow and myself, on this issue, would be over before you coffee got cold.
 
Thread starter #14
Having read the entire link, I'm guessing that a debate between this fellow and myself, on this issue, would be over before you coffee got cold.

Radz Matthew Brown
… In time, it is long past; in eternity, it forever occurs.....When any Christian dies, he passes from the realm of time and space into timelessness, into the NOW of God...

I think there is a member on here that believes one does this. I guess it's possible when one dies. To travel beyond time past the return of Christ.
Maybe a lot of what we can't define is how things are in time vs the out of time experience of God's spiritual world.

I can't say that i have committed to this concept but I can visualize it.
 
Thread starter #15
I will share a link to the explanation of two concepts of the use of signs or words in scripture. You might like it.

One view forms concepts within time and limited space and this is how humans who are bound by these use or employ words even in the spiritual realm. The other view of the use of signs or words is the formation of concepts possible to God who is not bound in expression or in the use of sign and communication by time or space but rather He is unbound by eternity or the eternal.

https://christianity.stackexchange....e-been-slain-before-the-creation-of-the-world
We had briefly discussed this from the link.

Quote from the link;
The question says "before the foundation of the world." But the Biblical text says "from the foundation of the world." The two are not the same. – Lee Woofenden Jul 21 '15 at 16:23

@LeeWoofenden's comment is why this would be better on BH.SE. As he notes, the NIV text says "from the foundation of the world." This could mean before, or it could mean as a result of the creation of the world (that is - as a result of Adam and Eve's transgression)

I guess what they may be saying is that it was "from the Foundation" in that it was the moment in time of Adam's sin, not "before the Foundation" that the Lamb was slain.

The passage I chose was;

Ephesians 1:5-6
For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love,6 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--

This definitely says "before the foundation" and "through Jesus Christ."

I can see it both ways. From an in time and out of time perspective.

I would think it has to be one or the other for both concepts though. The Son pre-existing and the Lamb slain before time. Those two concepts have to be explained the same way.

Either just in Word only or actually already eternally generated.
 

Israel

Senior Member
The mind of man muses. Your wife, my wife...all wives know this "in the earth".
She speaks to you...and knows, your mind is elsewhere. Oh, you listen...as best you can at times, and you may have even graduated to that place where you have learned that hearing her in singleness of attention is both your greatest service to her, and her greatest known pleasure.

But such is not easily learned, simple as it is. Interests in a man are easily divided. He seems to be able (in wrong understanding) to be invested in several things, at once. (But that wheel bearing is beginning to make noise, that rifle is not sighted properly for hunting season, that leak over the second bedroom...is getting worse...or "I wonder how much pie is left?")

As you are her head...she is your body. Your body tells you things, shows you things...about itself. And it is showing things...about yourself, being uninterruptively connected.

Treat your body cavalierly, and in time it will show its response in failing you. Lack heed to its signals, that only the head is given to rightly discern, and find calamity. Likewise...over indulge the body, and find no less calamity.

Were it not for a man being given to know his head, all is chaos. All must surrender to earthen gravity. Not all of the body's pleadings...are righteous. Many are quite...unrighteous. Not all of the body's seeming demands require attention to its own satisfying resolution. Sometimes the body must be told "there are matters of concern exceeding these you present". Happy is the man who can say this in discernment of his body, without reviling, for he has learned it from his head. Happier still is the head that finds no place in its body for rebellion against such discipline. And happy is the body when all taint of rebellion is excised by such discipline, it finds...health.

All is matter of right attention. To come to see the great difference, indeed, all the difference between being watched, and being watched over. O! The Lord sees!

Indeed.

Were we given to only know the former and restricted to it, all manner of concupiscence must arise. For no man can bear such staring, no, none, without the seeking of his own relief and release from such terror, and terrible unflinching.(Children "play" at this game, men in prison play the same...but with shanks) Every man...fails this contest and test. He will give himself to occupy a place that "is not" of his own mind's manufacture.

Watched...or watched over?

But the latter cannot be entered without knowledge of the former.

"I will show you whom you should fear..."

Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.

God...is fully invested "from the foundation". There is no hope in getting Him to blink or wink, or somehow "look away"...or see not. He has, in that sense, abandoned all other attentions. He has poured Himself completely into a place that once sought only relief from Him. And such unrighteousness...was borne...in patient giving of food and drink to enemies. Bread and wine, day in, day out to the enemy's sustaining. From the beginning.

Jesus opens eyes. To being first watched...the knowing of man. But gives entrance through His own body, to the being of watched over.

And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

What is of the body, is of the body.

And only that body is, can, and must put on immortality.

All things are simple that lead to ease. But easiness never leads to simplicity, nor ease.
 
Last edited:

Madman

Senior Member
St. Thomas Aquinas fine tunes the discussion by pointing to "being made in the image" image insinuates likeness but not the other way round. He also notes that image is not perfect image. Finally Aquinas uses a lingustic distinction based on the Latin Vulgate denoting that man is made to the image of God, denoting a later perfected state, rather than in the image of God.
 
Thread starter #18
St. Thomas Aquinas fine tunes the discussion by pointing to "being made in the image" image insinuates likeness but not the other way round. He also notes that image is not perfect image. Finally Aquinas uses a lingustic distinction based on the Latin Vulgate denoting that man is made to the image of God, denoting a later perfected state, rather than in the image of God.
How does Aquinas see the image or likeness Jesus to the Father?

Colossians 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

I could see it as the Son becoming visual for us to see God when he became human but the Son already existed before then. Did the Son "become" the image of the invisible God?
 

Madman

Senior Member
How does Aquinas see the image or likeness Jesus to the Father?

Colossians 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

I could see it as the Son becoming visual for us to see God when he became human but the Son already existed before then. Did the Son "become" the image of the invisible God?
The church sees Christ as the image we are to become.
"If you have seen me you have seen the Father"
Some believe we will never see the Father, only Christ.
 
If... when the anti christ comes on the scene, an impostor, posing as Jesus.... why then is it a shocker when he later claims to be God? It would seem that if he were posing as the Christ of today's Christians, that he would not need to claim to be God but rather be assumed to be God? The Christ of today's Christians has already claimed to be God. Hmmmm
 
Top