₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
1.So why does it take 9 months for this "single cell" in the womb to attain the human look and why did it take millions of years to achieve this same look .

2. Are we to expect new life forms in millions of years to come

3. Are humans going to evolve to an entirely different specie - homo habilis habilis transformalis - in million of years to come

I wonder why you peddle nonesense like Abiogenesis . It never happened and it cannot happen . That's why there's a more interesting theory like Panspermia - redirects to Abiogenesis (sadly).




There is no proof modern monkeys evolved from it .You are just assuming . Playing the similarity cards already ?





Something different like ?





I enjoy your romance with uncertainty ... your silly ideologies are precarious - they will fall flat when the time comes


Anyway read this and tell me what you think : https://www.nairaland.com/2305535/dealing-misconceptions-10-things-bible

From your first response (about the long years it takes a cell to attain the human complex structure compared to the short nine months it takes now) it's safe to conclude arguing evolution with you will be fruitless as what you just argued shows your ignorance in some elementary topics in Biology that being without the knowledge of will be easily possible to reject evolution, alltogether no matter what.

While, on the other side, having ample of such knowledge will make you see the possibilty in evolution, if not wholly (as a consequence of choice not to accept or lack of full understanding of evolution in whole, as my stand used to be sometimes)

Ok. According to what I read in Biology books and, hence, how reasonably I can say such conception you have about the discrepancy in the timeline of human formation in the womb and its macro-"worldwide"-evolution shows your illiteracy in this aspect of Biology and the nonsense you finally ended up spewing.

How best can I put this? Modification occured while evolution was going on. Genes (the principal carrier of the code that determines the formation of cells, hence the formation of organisms) were mutated, recombined in meiosis, resulting to a less obvious and/or significant difference in their functions and synthesis. These new characteristics became adaptive part of the affected species with the help of natural selection. Once part of it, it became the species' genotype and could pass on to its offsprings sexually or asexually(it's more efficient in the former) and either became part of the population or at most and reasonable times started a new population/deme. A million year apart between the species' "original" state (as ancestor) and it's new evolved state (as offspring) will definitely show a stark difference between the two in their genotype and phenotype. Then the idea of the offspring evolving from the ancestor at first glance would be unbelieveable, but not when one has come to understand the process that made it happen. This is just a rough basis of evolution.

My target is the part of genes. Genes have the DNA as their primary message bearing substance. The DNA determines the appearance, characteristics and behavour of an organisms. An alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA or a change in the DNA molecule will result to a change in the organism's aforementioned generalized properties. The alleles of genes (specific code of DNA) controlling our forms now is significantly different from what our ancestors had. When evolution got to humans (and other contemporary nonhuman animals) the system which genes operate has greatly changed. Homo sapiens didn't evolve directly as your argument helpless interpretes, but passed through modifications in their genotype so that they look and behave totally different from their ancestors, of course after millions of years.

Every living organism will reproduce. And they reproduce according to their kind. That's the normal law governing reproduction. When the offsprings drift away from the kind of their parents, a mutation or recombination has occurred, leading to evolutionary change and the law broken. The offsprings however still have most of their parents' genotype.

There are specialised genes in the germcells of living organisms. These genes work towards the production of another organism. Their mode and duration of production differ in different species. This is brought about by evolution/gene mutation. And that is why it takes seven to nine months for a cell to develop to a human form in humans and different duration in other species.

Your argument about the discrepancy in the timeline of human formation in the womb is as stupíd as it seems. The two are not comparable, at least in this aspect. Only a dumb biology-crank dummy would compare the two and shamelessly bring it up as an argument. It's just stupîd.

---

About abiogenesis and all, I can honestly agree to some of your rebuttals of the theory but when you resort to God of the Bible or any other religion in their books as your explanation for the cause of life and the universe I dismiss you at that point as I would to delusional naive weak fools, and I occassionally have time to help their madness.

SisterSister:
Let's say you had mighty weapons to pass on, would you give them to someone you could trust to use them properly or would you give them to someone who would abuse and misuse them?

Yes, Almighty God gave us the way to salvation and it is free to everyone who wants and accepts it. Each of us has to choose whether or not to accept spiritual life that comes through accepting Jesus Christ. (There is more to this) After accepting Jesus, one then becomes a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ.

A problem is without spiritual life, a person would naturally abuse and misuse so much meant for good against their neighbor to destroy.

And one accepts spiritual life through reading the Bible, right? And you also said only those with spiritual eyes can read the Bible... this is still sensible.

SisterSister:
How about looking at it like this?

Christians believe humans are made in the image of God. The one God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Mind, body and spirit = one person

Our mind is every much a part of us but is separate
Our body is a part of us but separate
Our spirit is a part of us but separate

Yet, still we are only one person

When people are referred to by name they are referred in whole. Just as it's wrong in logic and reality to call a proton an atom so also it's empty to call Paul's hand Paul. You don't separately call his hand by his name, you call his whole being, which may include your body, mind and soul, by his name, Paul.

Paul's spirit can't be called Paul separately, but the spirit of Paul. While Paul as a person can possess a kind of spirit that has a name, the spirit is never Paul as a person, but one of the whole constituent of Paul; body, mind and spirit.

When Paul's body possesses another spirit he ceases to be Paul as a person logically and in reality. He then becomes the person of that spirit.

Let's take Paul of the Bible as example. In one of his letters, in the last verses of Galatians 2, he says if the spirit of Christ lives in him then it's no longer him that lives but Christ living in his body, so that logically and in reality he becomes righteous (as Christ is) before God.

Where then is Paul's spirit? The answer is found in a verse in Col 3 where he says 'our life is hidden in Christ in heaven'.

Paul's person in his body is no longer Paul but Jesus, and that's why he is justified before God. Paul technically ceases to exist when his spirit is staying separately, but comes into existence when it possesses a body, at least in our world.

Here is the point... for a person to exist and be referred to as a person it NECESSARILY needs a body, mind and spirit. AND ONE OF THESE COMPONENT CAN NOT EXIST SEPARATELY AND STILL RETAIN THE QUALITIES OF A PERSON. For example, THE MIND CEASES TO EXIST WITHOUT A BODY. A SPIRIT IS NOT A PERSON WITHOUT A BEING/BODY. A BODY IS USELESS WITHOUT A SPIRIT AND MIND.

This explanation therefore proves the anology of a person's body, spirit and mind inconsistent with the nature of the Trinity. The three Godheads are said to be able to exists alone and still retain the qualities of a God, consequently making them three separated Gods. It doesn't follow the equation of a person, i.e

Person = body + spirit + soul

but

GOD = Yahwew = Jesus = Holy Spirit

where every entity is a God.. hence when they stay separate they become Gods

@FOLYKAZE

And the story tells he descended on a chain, not climbed on.

If it was something of the DNA structure then he would have used a 'descended or climbed on a twisted ladder' or simply 'ladder'. That would be understandable.

FOLYKAZE:
Thanks for the two pics. But to me it is not explaining anything.

Do you know the Yoruba creation story?

Do you understand Yoruba terminologies?

The account says Oduduwa is Atewonro.

The word atewonro means climbing down on a chain.

Ask this question, can you climb on that kind of Chain. I mean the chain pic?

Pls answer this

Oduduwa is the legendary progenitor of the Yoruba. There are two variants of the story of how he achieved this feat. The first is cosmogonic, the second, political. The cosmogonic version also has two variants. According to the first variant of the cosmogonic myth, Orisanla (Obatala) was the arch-divinity who was chosen by Olodumare, the supreme deity to create a solid land out of the primordial water that constituted the earth and of populating the land with human beings. He descended from heaven on a chain, carrying a small snail shell full of earth, palm kernels and a five-toed chicken. He was to empty the content of the snail shell on the water after placing some pieces of iron on it, and then to place the chicken on the earth to spread it over the primordial water. According to the first version of the story, Obatala completed this task to the satisfaction of Olodumare. He was then given the task of making the physical body of human beings after which Olodumare would give them the breath of life. He also completedthis task and this is why he has the title of"obarisa" the king of orisas. The other variant ofthe cosmogonic myth does not credit Obatala with the completion of the task. While it concedes that Obatala was given the task, it avers that Obatala got drunk even before he gotto the earth and he was unable to do the job...

http://www.oduduwa-ned.com/yaruba.html

Does the chain used there sensibly imply a handcuff or the first chain I posted? Oh he climbed down on this:

https://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/handcuff.jpg

And how does that resemble a DNA structure anyway?

FOLYKAZE:
Mystical account differs from plain account as the former tends to bring related object or character into explaining a phenomenon. Allegories are not described directly but closely and related entity are used to represent phenomenon.

Ifeness understand me because I believe he is a Yoruba. The word translated to chain there is ewon in Yoruba. It could mean chain, handcuff or shackle or prison. We dont have the word for DNA in Yoruba. So, when we look at DNA under a microscope, we have something that appears like double helix, which is similar to what the Yoruba people call chain.

There is nothing related between DNA and any of the types of chain talked about so far. In story, the purpose of the chain is starkly different from the DNA and its function. It's you forcing myth to parallel science. The double helix doesn't resemble any of the chains we've talked about. While there can be some points where the word 'chain' is applicable in describing some parts of the DNA like the two polynucleotide chains but never the DNA structure as a whole.

Prison is ruled out because thee account tells that Oduduwa climb down on this chain. The chain you have in that picture does not look like something that can be climb down on. So only the DNA does here.

You're apparently saying none of the two chains, and those mentioned too in your post, can be climbed on, but something of the DNA structure which is also called chain? It's absurd. Desperation is obvious there.

The second account said there was a body of water in the ealier stage of life which life started from. Some scientists call it primodial soup. What I know is that mystical account dont give direct description of a phenomenon. The pool of water from the account is the origin of life. From science life starts from the water.

If science ever said life started from the water it is now obselete so that the prevailing scientific fact is life started from mud.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4307-clays-matchmaking-could-have-sparked-life/?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C7377641602

SisterSister:
This is a very good illustration.
I would like to add, it takes spiritual eyes to see spiritual things. If one is spiritually dead, there is no way to gain proper understanding regarding the trinity.
Once one accepts spiritual life through Jesus Christ, then they will be able to see spiritually.

Now this sounds sensible..

An all-knowing God wrote down the ways/steps to salvation in a book... and then allows only those with spiritual eyes the ability to see and get saved... and these people with spiritual eyes are the Christians...


logically, in that way, none can be saved, and there are no Christians in reality.

Just see how sensible you post is.

FOLYKAZE Here are pictures of DNA and chain

https://media2.policymic.com/981505908359351bdbde29935f7067f6.jpg


https://darrenhardy.success.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/chain2-300x192.jpg

FOLYKAZE:
Oduduwa account is allegory, yet it is historical.

In the creation story, Obatala represent white light. Oduduwa is representation of first particle. The chain represent DNA. Remember the chain is in a pool of water. . .life began in water. Oduduwa has to come down through the chain to make living being.

Here is forcing myth to parallel science. The structure of the DNA is different from what a chain would look like. The DNA looks like a spiral ladder or twisted ladder which by no means equal chain in structure.

And you got it wrong. Life didn't begin in water, the scientific suggestion is in the mud.

WinsomeX:
I am a fundamentalist Christian. I regard the historical accounts of scripture to be true. The Moses story did occur. And there are achaelogical findings that buttress many biblical accounts.

Findings like?

Christians and Jews can have a hard time with this one as there is no archeological evidence to support the Exodus, but rather archeological findings that disprove it. No record of the remarkable 602,550 adult males excluding women and children being emigrated from Egypt is found in any of the Egyptian historical records, not even the Red Sea magic. The two treasure cities that were buildt by the Hebrews in Exd1:11 will turn out to be a fabrigated passage when you discover the cities never existed during the proposed chronological period of the Exodus.

There may be some surpressed truth in the story tho, nevertheless the probability of the story's actuality is 1 to 10,000.

plappville:
At the bold. Two Gods in this Verse. one was with the other one, this same one is also Called God .

Which I think is what we are saying.

KingEbukasBlog:
From a singled -celled organism ? Evolving into super complex life forms that have abilities like reasoning , emotions etc . Really laughable indeed . Theories , assumptions and more theories . There is no proof whatsoever that such a process ever took place . Its only logical to assert such .

I wonder why people find this particular part unbelieveable. What was your complex you when you originated in the womb? A mini-complex you or a singled-celled?

No I meant like we have homoerectus , homo habilis etc for man , so what's the evolutionary line for monkeys and apes ?

An oligocence primate, Aegyptopithecus. Which is also extinct.

Lol ... let's thread carefully . Ever heard of an uncaused cause ?

I have. How do you know such exists? And how was it an uncaused cause that caused the Big Bang and not something different?

Has life coming forth from non living been replicated in the labs?

At least one basic building block of life amino acids can be produced from inorganic compound, as proven in Milley-Urey's experiment. Such, and more not known yet, could have happened million years ago where the earth's atmospheric condition mostly allowed than now all 'subconsciously' working to the evolution of life.

Hebrew -English Translation ?

Yeah?

---

Just got the mention this evening, after arriving from work.

KingEbukasBlog:
Look bro ,Evolution is a theory that was made up to link fossils and modern animal life forms. God created every animal both in the "old earth" (millions of years ago ) and in the "new Earth" ( 6,000 -10,000 yrs ago)

It goes beyond that. It's about how the diverse life forms, modern and extinct, evloved through changes/biological mutation along side natural selection from a singled cell millions of years ago.. I wonder if that's what you're trying to say in the bold with God being the cause or you meant something else?

One quick question :

Can you provide the evolutionary line of apes or monkeys ?

We and they shared a common ancestor, which is now extinct.

So can I say God caused the big bang?

You'll have to prove it's God.

Life can come forth the non living only through 'supernatural intervention'. Only a designer can orchestrate creation or physical transformation - evolution . There is a blueprint which was followed.

The brilliant formation of crystals doesn't mean a supernatural intervention helped. It was a gradual process starting from a very small unit, same process with evolution. So don't feel the need for such intervention.

Can you list them so I can address these issues by God's grace

Like rabbits chewing their cud? Lev 11:6

KingEbukasBlog:
Are these theories testable - No

Were these theories witnessed - No

So Pr0ton you then shouldn't believe them. Why ? :

String Theory is different from evolution and Big Bang. The theory proposes that it's happening, even now. One has to observe this to agree with the theory. Evolution happened long ago. There's no way to observe how it happened, but there is evidence that it happened

Now you get why I don't apply the same creteria to both different theories?

1. there is no such thing as MACRO -EVOLUTION

This is not the right way to debunk a theory. You have to prove why. But if the criteria up there are what you use to judge what's right from what's wrong in the evolutionary sense, then there is no such thing as Genesis 1, or the Biblical creation.

2. WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG?

No one knows.

3. LIFE CAN NEVER COME FORTH FROM THE NON LIVING

I would prefer 'could' to replace the 'can never'.

"Misconception" is indeed a perfect word to describe what you hold of the bible

It's also the perfect word you hold of science that disagrees with your bible.

KingEbukasBlog:
Pr0ton ...

KingEbukasBlog:
Pr0ton

Anti-spam bot could misinterprete this you know.

FrancisTony:
It changed something.
He manifested in two nature i.e He changes to "any" anytime it pleases Him.
While praying, His human nature was manifesting and prayed to God.

Where did his God nature go to?

KingEbukasBlog:
Jesus was man and is God - "dual nature"

He is still God.

God is in a different dimension . Its understandable because the reality of one existing as three is above your perception

There is actually nothing like your defined Trinity in the Bible. It's inferred from what is noticed in the Bible, the Trinity I have been explaining. It's understandable how you would shift the embarrassment to the 'incomprehensive perception' of the Trinity, even when it is clear and glaring.

"Man trinity" is a bit intricate .

You don't mind explaining how.

One God not three Gods

GOD = God + God + God..

They are three distinct gods in one.

KingEbukasBlog:
Yup ,because they are one . 1 as 3

You agree they are separately called God..i.e

Yahweh is God
Jesus is God
Holy Spirit is God.

How are these not three Gods? Remember they do operate separately too.

KingEbukasBlog:
So you don't believe in evolution , abiogenesis and the Big Fraud Theory , right ?

You possibly can't compare those theories with the String Theory. Evolution and all happened in the past and have evidence that prove they did. Homology, fossils, works of DNA, anatomical vestiges all support the theory that we came from a common ancestor and evolve with time. Astronomical observation of the spreading universe, increasing space beween galaxies, microwave background detection points to the possibilty of the Big Bang. String Theory is like 'an idea' of what happens in some 'possible universe'. Most scientists, if not all, who are involved in the talks of the theory of do not claim its actuallity. The highest is a likely probability. It's not tested and observed yet. There is no evidence to support it, so why believe?

And how is the whole self-contradicting history-conflicting scientific-heretical Bible a stand to all the above?

KingEbukasBlog:
Do you know about parallel universes ? That you , pr0ton ,are existing in another universe maybe as a business man , pastor , doctor anything else possible . Will you call it mythical too ?

It's a proposed theory that's based on assumption. It's not testable. It's not witnessed. I don't believe it.

KingEbukasBlog:
You are desperately calling the trinity Gods . The three are one . The trinity is a better name not 'Godhead' . God existing as three entities - The Father , The Son and The Holy Spirit . They are ENTITIES . Do you know the meaning of entity ?

en·ti·ty- /ˈen(t)ədē/ noun
1. a thing with distinct and independent existence.

I've been arguing in line with that definition. And what I've been asserting is the three entities are separately called God in the Bible. Do you agree?

KingEbukasBlog:
Haha ..

I just hate it when someone calls the bible mythical . If its mythical why open a thread to argue a myth . If you are willing to learn ,simply ask me questions and stop forcefully making assertions .

How is my opening a thread to discuss something I know is mytical a problem? It's like a person telling you that he hates it when you strongly discuss fictional movies like Merlin, Primal Force, Tomatoes etc. with someone, espicially, who believes they are real.

Another thing is even if we accept the Bible is real there are some beliefs about it I believe wouldn't add up to logic on a normal day. And this is one.

FrancisTony:
Have you heard of Divinity of Christ?
He existed in two forms both human & divine.
While praying to God, He was manifesting in His human form to show example to mankind.
His human form prayed to God.
His human form ate.
His human form slept.
His human form endured pains.
His human form cried.

But His form as God healed the sick, bestowed power & authorities to heal, perform miracles et al to/on mankind.

It still doesn't change anything. A mere man won't heal and perform miracles. He was then God in man on earth.... and who prayed to another God in heaven.

KingEbukasBlog:
@bold This is another misconception - its called Arianism .

Let me agree it's a misconception again, so that still means one of the Godheads sent another entity of the Godheads, who are both called God, consequently Gods.

KingEbukasBlog:
@ bold this what I'm talking about ... why should I be discussing myths with you ... I thought you are a deist or muslim

KingEbukasBlog:
myth ? Oh Jeez I'm arguing with an atheist about the Trinity . You have to be kidding me . Anyways we'll continue this discussion when you become religious - muslim or christian .

I can't deal with your forceful assertions ,false perceptions and misconceptions right now . No no no I don't have that time to waste

You'll never have the time to because you'll never be able to prove it, but cite your reasons from papers, which is no near rational to convince another.

Arguing with a Muslim and a Deist won't change the argument (afterall I agreed to share the same belief of man's trinity with you)

So I'll take that as a run-away.

KingEbukasBlog:
Don't flatter yourself , your questions are not clear enough

1. The first question means you dont understand how three different persons can exist as one . Entities mean existing independently . Meaning they can communicate with each other but hey they are one ! Because they share one God-nature . It is

One of God's nature is He can't be tempted Num 23:19. But Jesus was someone who was tempted more than once as told in Matt 5. This draws a clear distinction between the person of God (say 'his father') and Jesus (say 'his son') with different nature. So they are different persons. You call the both God, consequently Gods ironically sharing same nature.

2. I was trying to introduce flair responding to your question . I created a scenario,which was :

Who is God ?

The Father says I am

The Son says I am

The Holy Spirit says I am

How is this possible ?

Because we three are one

^^^ That is creating a scenario . I was trying to elicit an imagination from you in a bid to make you understand what the trinity is all about

These are the words of Jesus himself:

John 17:3,"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Jesus separates himself from God as being the only God. He appears more of an inferior person (like a messenger) who is sent by someone he acknowledges to be the only true God. But you call both God, consequently Gods ironically sharing same nature.

3. That's why I preferred the word "entity" , because they exist independently but they share one nature , one divine essence , one mind of purpose and of being but of different individual mind .

None of the three created the other and they are one existing in three forms .

Three entities sharing the same nature, mind, essence and being collectively and saparately called God doesn't change the logic that the three are Gods, since you can separatly call them a God, too.

Even man is trinity - the body, soul and spirit - but these exist within one whole . YOU ! But the God trinity exist as three different entities.

Besides the part where you failed reality by using one myth to confirm the other, the introduction of man's trinity was also a failure to prove your point. If we accepted man's trinity myth as fact, then according to the myth God would actually be talking to himself. Man's spirit talks itself. It manifests in the body and without it in the body the body is nothing/dead. All thought going on in man is produced by the spirit and the actions this thought results to his done by the spirit through the body. The body is non-living. The spirit is the living thing in it.

So was he talking to Himself ? NO

Yes if the myth is followed.
No, but to another 'entity' who was also God, consequently Gods.

FrancisTony:
Jesus manifested as both God and man while on earth.

Go figure!

If he was God in man while on earth, who was the other God he prayed to?

KingEbukasBlog:
lolz ... you are forcefully asserting at bold .

I'm not. It's what the Trinity is.

"...and in their relations with one another, they are stated to beone in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and each is God, whole and entire"

Richirich713:
Do u believe John 1 is saying there are 2 gods?

Yh. The word is God who was with God in the beginning. They are both God.

malvisguy212:
does the bible teach the following?
1. the Bible teaches that the
Godhead is one in nature.
2. the Bible teaches that God the
Father is one personality of the
Godhead.
3. the Bible teaches that the Holy
Spirit is one personality of the
Godhead.
4. the Bible teaches that Jesus the
Son is one personality of the
Godhead.
Conclusion: Therefore, God is
composed of three personalities in
one
nature.

John 1:1
explains, “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. He was in the
beginning with God. All things were
made through Him, and without Him
nothing was made that was made.” Later in the first chapter of John we learn that the WORD (Jesus) “became flesh and dwelt among us.” Thus, the Word refers to Jesus, who was with God and was God and created all things along with the Father (John 1:14). We can see, then, that the oneness of the Creator must allow for at least some aspect of God to have a MULTIPLICITY of something.

Alright. In logical form,we could arrange the argument as follows. There is ONE God who created man. The concept of
oneness either means that nothing about God can have any type of plurality, or that some aspect of God is completely unified but at least one other aspect of God can have MULTIPLICITY to it. It cannot be the case that nothing about God can have any multiplicity since the Bible gives at least one aspect of God (the Father and the Son) that has multiplicity. Therefore, some aspect of God is completely unified, but at least one aspect of God can have, and has, multiplicity.

Psalm 90:2 say God is eternal from everlasting to everlasting and isaiah 9:6 say Jesus is eternal and also the book of Hebrew 9:14 say the holy spirit is eternal. BUT NEVER for once did the bible mention angels to be eternal.

Since the concept of eternality equally applies to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then we have successfully determined at least one aspect of God that is completely unified and applies equally to every aspect of God. Understand?

It's not just a particular unified aspect that makes them God. Verses in the Bible including John 1:1 don't give them the name God because of an aspect, but because they obviously say they are Gods in the real sense.. the word was with God and the word was God..

KingEbukasBlog:
In Heaven (a different dimension ):

God - Father
- Son
- Holy Spirit

Three of these entities are one person .

On earth (our dimension )

Emeka and Uche are two different persons and cannot exist as one

Isn't this cogent enough ?


Or Better explanation :

Who is God?

The Father says I am

The Son says I am

The Holy Spirit says I am

How possible ?

Because we three are one person. They are not three gods but One God existing as three entities ( in entirely different dimension) .

Not strictly three entities as you're saying. The Trinity says when these three 'entities' stay distinct/separate they retain the qualities of God, making them separate Gods

DoubleDeeX:
God only manifested in three offices for the redemption of man; God came in a man to pay the price of redemption that why Jesus was said to be justified in the spirit.

This shows you don't understand the concept of Trinity. You said there was no such thing as three persons in one but yet affirmed the opposite in your post. After helping you see how ridiculous you appeared take heed of jumping into threads you never care to understand. You may not meet a nice person then.

God coming in man means He is Jesus.
Your three offices would include the Holy Spirit in which God manifests.
The third is the Father.
All these are three persons in one (God),pointing to the Trinity.
It takes you to the OP.
Go reread it and come back and post something reasonable.

KingEbukasBlog:
Three entities exist as one but on earth three persons cannot exist as one @Pr0ton

Could you make your point more clear?

malvisguy212:
All the verses you quote has NOTHING to do with the nature of God. You are not a christian, how can you understand the nature of God ?what you and the jehovah witness guy is doing here is 'you both are comparing man and God.

I never said they were pointing to God's nature, but to how the Bible interchanges singularity and plurality for a single subject/object, which might be what is happening in Gen, so that us and his may mean the same person/thing, the Trinity.

This is what the bible teaches:
1. the Bible teaches that the Godhead is one in nature.
2. the Bible teaches that God the Father is one personality of the Godhead.
3. the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is one personality of the Godhead.
4. the Bible teaches that Jesus the Son is one personality of the Godhead.
Conclusion: Therefore, God is composed of three personalities in one
nature.

It's clever how you want to get around this, but unfortunately the Bible doesn't teach personalities but persons. Understanding that brings us back to the real meaning of three Godheads in one, the Trinity and consequently to the OP.

The Bible says that “one God” created us (Malachi 2:10).A closer look, however, at the Creation of man shows that some
type of multiplicity was involved. Genesis 1:26-27 states, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.… So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

We can use John 1:1 to clear that up.

In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God. And the word was God.

The word is Yahweh and Jesus (theos) Now you should understand the skill of singularity and plurality used in Genesis.