First Word of Jesus was repent
- Thread starter Blik
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Your tortured argument is just dictating to the text what it must read. You assert what Jesus believes while not addressing what He states in the gospels about who He is.
The thing about your claim to being persuaded demonstrates the disingenuous manner in which you are engaging. Rather than asking to demonstrate what trinitarianism teaches, that is the full deity of Christ, you insist on having something else entirely proven to accept Trinity. Trinity does not teach that Jesus worshiped God as three persons but that Jesus is the second person of Divinity.
It is your view of what Jesus states that is false doctrine. And you have done nothing to address the multiple Scriptures I brought out that show Jesus spoke of Himself as God and that the messianic expectation was for God in the flesh.
The thing about your claim to being persuaded demonstrates the disingenuous manner in which you are engaging. Rather than asking to demonstrate what trinitarianism teaches, that is the full deity of Christ, you insist on having something else entirely proven to accept Trinity. Trinity does not teach that Jesus worshiped God as three persons but that Jesus is the second person of Divinity.
It is your view of what Jesus states that is false doctrine. And you have done nothing to address the multiple Scriptures I brought out that show Jesus spoke of Himself as God and that the messianic expectation was for God in the flesh.
My argument is that Jesus knows and says plainly who the one God is.
Yes.
He says in the Gospels that he is the Messiah, the Son of God.
I don’t need a demonstration of what trinitarianism teaches.
That Jesus himself believes the one God is the Trinity.
That’s right. Jesus worshiped God as one person. (That’s what unitarians do.)
That is what is taught in the doctrine of the Trinity.
My view of what Jesus states is that his God is the one God.
My view of what Jesus states is that his God is our God.
My view of what Jesus states is that he himself is the Messiah, the Son of God.
Diakonos pointed out that Jesus is referred to as God a total of nine times in the NT. If you’ve read what I’ve said in conversation with him then you know that, while I disagree that Jesus is called God that many times in the NT, I agree that he is called God several times in the NT.
If you’ve read what I’ve said to him in our conversation about the incarnation of God’s logos then you know that I believe the word became flesh when Jesus was begotten by God/conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary, as described in the birth narratives in Matthew 1 and Luke 1.
If you haven’t read it then I encourage you to do so.
Yes.
He says in the Gospels that he is the Messiah, the Son of God.
I don’t need a demonstration of what trinitarianism teaches.
That Jesus himself believes the one God is the Trinity.
That’s right. Jesus worshiped God as one person. (That’s what unitarians do.)
That is what is taught in the doctrine of the Trinity.
My view of what Jesus states is that his God is the one God.
My view of what Jesus states is that his God is our God.
My view of what Jesus states is that he himself is the Messiah, the Son of God.
Diakonos pointed out that Jesus is referred to as God a total of nine times in the NT. If you’ve read what I’ve said in conversation with him then you know that, while I disagree that Jesus is called God that many times in the NT, I agree that he is called God several times in the NT.
If you’ve read what I’ve said to him in our conversation about the incarnation of God’s logos then you know that I believe the word became flesh when Jesus was begotten by God/conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary, as described in the birth narratives in Matthew 1 and Luke 1.
If you haven’t read it then I encourage you to do so.
Your statement on the logos becoming something else doesn't comport with Scripture any more than the rest of your doctrine. After all, it is stated "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. "(Heb. 13:8)
You state Jesus is Messiah but you haven't addressed the prophecies I put forth that show Messiah is God, nor have you addressed the multiple statements I put forth demonstrating Jesus claimed something far more than simple humanity.
Your use of "son of God" seems entirely lacking in understanding of the Hebrew concept of sonship that is not about progeny but about nature. When the Bible speaks of the Israelites being "sons of God" it speaks of them sharing in His nature, the same is true when it speaks of Jesus but it goes a step further to say He is the unique son of God. Even further, if John 1:1 isn't enough to establish not only the pre-existence of the Logos as God John 1:18 describes Jesus as "monogenes theos" which somewhat inappropriately (because of the connotation of the word begotten) is translated to English as "the only begotten God."
Your entire argument is nothing more than continually restating your assertion, which is why I made the comment about it being like playing chess with a pigeon. All you're doing is crapping all over the board and then you strutted around like you'd won.
You state Jesus is Messiah but you haven't addressed the prophecies I put forth that show Messiah is God, nor have you addressed the multiple statements I put forth demonstrating Jesus claimed something far more than simple humanity.
Your use of "son of God" seems entirely lacking in understanding of the Hebrew concept of sonship that is not about progeny but about nature. When the Bible speaks of the Israelites being "sons of God" it speaks of them sharing in His nature, the same is true when it speaks of Jesus but it goes a step further to say He is the unique son of God. Even further, if John 1:1 isn't enough to establish not only the pre-existence of the Logos as God John 1:18 describes Jesus as "monogenes theos" which somewhat inappropriately (because of the connotation of the word begotten) is translated to English as "the only begotten God."
Your entire argument is nothing more than continually restating your assertion, which is why I made the comment about it being like playing chess with a pigeon. All you're doing is crapping all over the board and then you strutted around like you'd won.
-
1
- Show all
Why did the voice from the cloud say, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to him!” (Luke 9:35 GWT)?
Why did Paul say, “... we [Christians] have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16 GWT)?
Introduce me to someone who doesn’t believe like Jesus believes and I’ve been introduced to someone who believes something that Jesus doesn’t believe. In other words, I’ve been introduced to someone who isn’t a Christian.
Introduce me to someone who believes like Jesus believes and I’ve been introduced to someone who has listened to him, believed him, obeyed him and has his mind. In other words, I’ve been introduced to a Christian.
Why did Paul say, “... we [Christians] have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16 GWT)?
Introduce me to someone who doesn’t believe like Jesus believes and I’ve been introduced to someone who believes something that Jesus doesn’t believe. In other words, I’ve been introduced to someone who isn’t a Christian.
Introduce me to someone who believes like Jesus believes and I’ve been introduced to someone who has listened to him, believed him, obeyed him and has his mind. In other words, I’ve been introduced to a Christian.
Option 1. Christians who don’t believe as Christ believes = Christians who listen to Christ and have his mind.
Option 2. Christians who don’t believe as Christ believes = Christians who don’t listen to Christ and don’t have his mind.
Option 3. Christians who believe as Christ believes = Christians who don’t listen to Christ and don’t have his mind.
Option 4. Christians who believe as Christ believes = Christians who listen to Christ and have his mind.
Evangelist A. I believe in Jesus but I don’t believe as he believes.
Evangelist B. I believe in Jesus and I believe as he believes
Option 2. Christians who don’t believe as Christ believes = Christians who don’t listen to Christ and don’t have his mind.
Option 3. Christians who believe as Christ believes = Christians who don’t listen to Christ and don’t have his mind.
Option 4. Christians who believe as Christ believes = Christians who listen to Christ and have his mind.
Evangelist A. I believe in Jesus but I don’t believe as he believes.
Evangelist B. I believe in Jesus and I believe as he believes
I was building on the scripture contained in my previous post to you. I expect no response from you to this post. (Neither your post nor mine contain scripture.) I agree that that is nothing further for you and I to discuss.
************************************
There it is again. The gentle whisper of Professor Mackintosh. “We are not called to believe as [Jesus] believed, we are called to believe in him.”
Professor Mackintosh doesn’t want us to believe as Jesus believed.
Does Jesus want us to believe what he believes? Or does he want us not to believe what he believes?
If the former, listen to him express his mind, believe him, obey him, let his thoughts be our thoughts, his beliefs our beliefs.
If the later, believe whatever. What Jesus believes means little, if anything, to us. I hear Buddha had some good things to say. Check him out.
************************************
There it is again. The gentle whisper of Professor Mackintosh. “We are not called to believe as [Jesus] believed, we are called to believe in him.”
Professor Mackintosh doesn’t want us to believe as Jesus believed.
Does Jesus want us to believe what he believes? Or does he want us not to believe what he believes?
If the former, listen to him express his mind, believe him, obey him, let his thoughts be our thoughts, his beliefs our beliefs.
If the later, believe whatever. What Jesus believes means little, if anything, to us. I hear Buddha had some good things to say. Check him out.
You're building on something that simply is not in Scripture. I don't need to have Scripture in my post to tell you have your position is not based on Scripture.
He said nothing of the sort. You're twisting his words.
Fallacy: false dichotomy. Jesus didn't make any imperative statement about what He believes.
Now you're just being silly.
He said nothing of the sort. You're twisting his words.
Fallacy: false dichotomy. Jesus didn't make any imperative statement about what He believes.
Now you're just being silly.
Of course we are to believe what Jesus believed. His teaching was not his own. It was from his Father and our Father. It was from his God and our God.
When the feast was already half over, Jesus went up into the temple area and began to teach. The Jews were amazed and said, “How does he know scripture without having studied?” Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not my own but is from the one who sent me. Whoever chooses to do his will shall know whether my teaching is from God or whether I speak on my own. Whoever speaks on his own seeks his own glory, but whoever seeks the glory of the one who sent him is truthful, and there is no wrong in him. (John 7:14-18).
When the feast was already half over, Jesus went up into the temple area and began to teach. The Jews were amazed and said, “How does he know scripture without having studied?” Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not my own but is from the one who sent me. Whoever chooses to do his will shall know whether my teaching is from God or whether I speak on my own. Whoever speaks on his own seeks his own glory, but whoever seeks the glory of the one who sent him is truthful, and there is no wrong in him. (John 7:14-18).
-
2
- Show all
I showed you why I believe it is in scripture.
Of course not. But if you’re going to say no further discussion is warranted because a post doesn’t contain scripture and then continue the discussion...
After saying that we are no where admonished in scripture to believe what Jesus believed, you think he wants us to believe what Jesus believed? You said previously that what he said was “essentially straight from scripture”.
I believe God did - when he commanded that we listen to his son. I believe Christ did - when he taught.
Not intentionally. What I said is lost on you, it may not be lost on others.
Of course not. But if you’re going to say no further discussion is warranted because a post doesn’t contain scripture and then continue the discussion...
After saying that we are no where admonished in scripture to believe what Jesus believed, you think he wants us to believe what Jesus believed? You said previously that what he said was “essentially straight from scripture”.
I believe God did - when he commanded that we listen to his son. I believe Christ did - when he taught.
Not intentionally. What I said is lost on you, it may not be lost on others.
You can believe it's there all you like, but you are unable to demonstrate it to me.
Nothing new has been added to the discussion yet. You have merely repeated your errors, and I have repeated my corrections.
Go and learn what a fallacy is.
Again, you can believe what you like, but you can't prove it from Scripture.
Arrogant quips aren't helping your position.
Nothing new has been added to the discussion yet. You have merely repeated your errors, and I have repeated my corrections.
Go and learn what a fallacy is.
Again, you can believe what you like, but you can't prove it from Scripture.
Arrogant quips aren't helping your position.
Mattathias said:
That’s right.
Joel: So when I pointed out that The Father spoke to Jesus in Psalm 110, your response was "It was the Davidic ruler"....which doesn't make sense if you agree with me here. But you have already cleared up what you meant because you said that the Father spoke this prophetically. I actually agree with this.
Mattathias said:
You’ve also said that we must have at least two passages of scripture as a witness.
Joel: I typed that sentence wrong. What I meant to say was "When I say 'we know this by faith', I mean that we don't have to understand God's way or design for something to be true". (We can apprehend what Scripture postulates before it makes sense to us).
Mattathias said:
Thomas Jefferson also used this analogy. Every time I hear Craig, I remember Jefferson.
Joel: I am aware that others have used this as an analogy, but I knew that Dr. Craig had expanded its explanation beautifully. Since he came up already in our discussion I thought I'd reference him too. I added the color-coded part for simplification.
Mattathias said:
I’m currently reading “Making Sense of the Trinity” by Millard Erickson. Have you read it?
Joel: Never heard of it. How is it? What led you to undertake this literature?
I would modify that just a bit: "Always avoid using bad analogies for the Trinity..."
....and in the image of angels (according to you)
I would like to point out an important distinction Before I give my answer:
Unitarianism is not the same as Monotheism.
Monotheism speaks of what God is. (God exists as one)
Unitarianism speaks of who God is. (God subsists as one)
Both Unitarianism and Trinitarianism fit into the category called "Monotheism". The question you and I are discussing is which one of these subcategories is Biblical?
My answer: I disagree. Jesus' faith was monotheistic, but not Unitarian.
When Thomas called Jesus his "Lord and God", he was making a predicate statement, not an identity statement. He was predicting the fact that Jesus possessed the properties of divinity and lordship, just as the Father and the Spirit do.
As for the Name we baptize people, notice that it is one name, not three. They are identified as a unity of 3.
Which was seen as blasphemy, clarifying exactly what Jesus meant when they said that. "You make yourself out to be God".
Ok, I'll leave out my commentary, and let the plain text guide you to the obvious conclusion.
"The LORD is a man" (Exodus 15:3) (iysh="man")
It certainly wasn't the only thing He hid from them. That is for sure. So this isn't outside the realm of things God does. "It is the Glory of God to conceal a matter."
I'm sure He intended a more specific reason... But from my experience and what the Scriptures tell us, God hides things from us so that we will seek Him. This draws out faith. As we would seek to know someone, build our relationship with them, or intentionally want to get to know someone we are romantically interested in, so will our pursuit of God reveal new hidden mysteries about him. Jesus is the key, "in whom are hidden all the mysteries of wisdom and knowledge". The Trinity is not the only mystery, It is one of the first of many. It is foundational to the others, just as Jesus' first parable was foundational to understanding the rest of the parables.
I judged the statements you said you were taught. I didn't judge the entire denomination that taught you those statements.
Really? So who other than the One true God shall we worship?
I suppose it would have been better for me to say that "other than the day the Father has set, He knows all things". This is because The Father has to approve the house before He can come to get His bride. We could discuss the possibility that it was only true while Jesus was on the earth, and maybe now He does know. But It's not worth the time and isn't a critical point in my position.
Again, "one God" is a monotheistic statement, not necessarily a Unitarian statement. Regardless of whether unitarianism or trinitarianism is true...monotheism is undeniable.
They were seeking who they thought they were supposed to seek. In Acts 3 and 7, Peter and Steven made it crystal clear that the Jews missed who Jesus was, otherwise they wouldn't have crucified Him.
That’s right.
Joel: So when I pointed out that The Father spoke to Jesus in Psalm 110, your response was "It was the Davidic ruler"....which doesn't make sense if you agree with me here. But you have already cleared up what you meant because you said that the Father spoke this prophetically. I actually agree with this.
Mattathias said:
You’ve also said that we must have at least two passages of scripture as a witness.
Joel: I typed that sentence wrong. What I meant to say was "When I say 'we know this by faith', I mean that we don't have to understand God's way or design for something to be true". (We can apprehend what Scripture postulates before it makes sense to us).
Mattathias said:
Thomas Jefferson also used this analogy. Every time I hear Craig, I remember Jefferson.
Joel: I am aware that others have used this as an analogy, but I knew that Dr. Craig had expanded its explanation beautifully. Since he came up already in our discussion I thought I'd reference him too. I added the color-coded part for simplification.
Mattathias said:
I’m currently reading “Making Sense of the Trinity” by Millard Erickson. Have you read it?
Joel: Never heard of it. How is it? What led you to undertake this literature?
I would modify that just a bit: "Always avoid using bad analogies for the Trinity..."
....and in the image of angels (according to you)
I would like to point out an important distinction Before I give my answer:
Unitarianism is not the same as Monotheism.
Monotheism speaks of what God is. (God exists as one)
Unitarianism speaks of who God is. (God subsists as one)
Both Unitarianism and Trinitarianism fit into the category called "Monotheism". The question you and I are discussing is which one of these subcategories is Biblical?
My answer: I disagree. Jesus' faith was monotheistic, but not Unitarian.
When Thomas called Jesus his "Lord and God", he was making a predicate statement, not an identity statement. He was predicting the fact that Jesus possessed the properties of divinity and lordship, just as the Father and the Spirit do.
As for the Name we baptize people, notice that it is one name, not three. They are identified as a unity of 3.
Which was seen as blasphemy, clarifying exactly what Jesus meant when they said that. "You make yourself out to be God".
Ok, I'll leave out my commentary, and let the plain text guide you to the obvious conclusion.
"The LORD is a man" (Exodus 15:3) (iysh="man")
It certainly wasn't the only thing He hid from them. That is for sure. So this isn't outside the realm of things God does. "It is the Glory of God to conceal a matter."
I'm sure He intended a more specific reason... But from my experience and what the Scriptures tell us, God hides things from us so that we will seek Him. This draws out faith. As we would seek to know someone, build our relationship with them, or intentionally want to get to know someone we are romantically interested in, so will our pursuit of God reveal new hidden mysteries about him. Jesus is the key, "in whom are hidden all the mysteries of wisdom and knowledge". The Trinity is not the only mystery, It is one of the first of many. It is foundational to the others, just as Jesus' first parable was foundational to understanding the rest of the parables.
I judged the statements you said you were taught. I didn't judge the entire denomination that taught you those statements.
Really? So who other than the One true God shall we worship?
I suppose it would have been better for me to say that "other than the day the Father has set, He knows all things". This is because The Father has to approve the house before He can come to get His bride. We could discuss the possibility that it was only true while Jesus was on the earth, and maybe now He does know. But It's not worth the time and isn't a critical point in my position.
Again, "one God" is a monotheistic statement, not necessarily a Unitarian statement. Regardless of whether unitarianism or trinitarianism is true...monotheism is undeniable.
They were seeking who they thought they were supposed to seek. In Acts 3 and 7, Peter and Steven made it crystal clear that the Jews missed who Jesus was, otherwise they wouldn't have crucified Him.
He struggles with it. He says elsewhere that the rules and logic of language are violated when the Trinity is defined.
I have a large collection of books on the subject of theology in my private library. Maybe it was just a coincidence that I picked it out to read. Maybe it was prompted subconsciously by our conversation. Maybe it was
I would modify that just a bit: "Always avoid using bad analogies for the Trinity..."
The point I was making is that angels and men are both created in the image of the One God, Yahweh. We haven’t yet discussed what being created in the image of the one God means. I will say here that, while it may include some physical resemblance to the one God, it primarily has to do with non-physical characteristics.
I agree.
So we are agreed then on the fundamental point that Jesus himself is a monotheist.
We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Moses.
We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Israel.
We should be able to agree that there is no God besides the one God, Yahweh.
We have agreed that Jesus himself has a God.
We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Moses.
We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Israel.
We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, because besides him there is no other God.
The Father is the God of Jesus.
The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The Father is the God of Moses.
The Father is the God of Israel.
There is no God besides the Father.
By definition, a monotheist whose God is only one person, the Father, is a unitarian.
Jesus by definition, is a unitarian.
So in this view, Thomas was not identifying Jesus as God, nor as the second person of the Trinity.
So you believe Thomas was predicting something that he was not identifying. You, and trinitarianism, supply the identity.
A triad. A triad which much later trinitarianism will go on to say is the Trinity.
I’m not opposed to baptizing in the name of the triad. I would ask why there are no examples in scripture of people being baptized in the name of the Trinity but that came in post-biblical times. I will ask, why are there no examples in scripture of people being baptized in the name of the triad?
Yahweh isn’t a man. He is the Father. So, how do I resolve this apparent contradiction?
I see this, as do many commentaries, as being an anthromorphism, as do many translations of the Bible. I offer a few examples:
”Yahweh is a warrior! Yahweh is his name.” (NOG)
”The LORD is a warrior, LORD is his name.” (NABRE)
”The LORD is a warrior; The LORD is His name.” (NASB)
”The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name.” (NIV)
”The LORD goes into battle. The LORD is his name.” (NIRV)
Thanks. I can see that from the trinitarian perspective. What I can’t see from the trinitarian perspective is how some trinitarians sometimes claim that those whom it was hidden from (everyone living in biblical times) were trinitarians.
You later said you agreed with the statements I was taught.
I worship the one true God and the Messiah. The Israelites worshiped the one true God and David (1 Chronicles 29:20). The Messiah will cause people who don’t belong to him to worship those who do (Revelation 3:9).
I commented previously concerning the limitation/restriction you place on worship.
I have a large collection of books on the subject of theology in my private library. Maybe it was just a coincidence that I picked it out to read. Maybe it was prompted subconsciously by our conversation. Maybe it was
I would modify that just a bit: "Always avoid using bad analogies for the Trinity..."
The point I was making is that angels and men are both created in the image of the One God, Yahweh. We haven’t yet discussed what being created in the image of the one God means. I will say here that, while it may include some physical resemblance to the one God, it primarily has to do with non-physical characteristics.
I agree.
So we are agreed then on the fundamental point that Jesus himself is a monotheist.
We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Moses.
We should be able to agree that the one God is Yahweh, the God of Israel.
We should be able to agree that there is no God besides the one God, Yahweh.
We have agreed that Jesus himself has a God.
We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Moses.
We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, the God of Israel.
We should be able to agree that his God is the one God, Yahweh, because besides him there is no other God.
The Father is the God of Jesus.
The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The Father is the God of Moses.
The Father is the God of Israel.
There is no God besides the Father.
By definition, a monotheist whose God is only one person, the Father, is a unitarian.
Jesus by definition, is a unitarian.
So in this view, Thomas was not identifying Jesus as God, nor as the second person of the Trinity.
So you believe Thomas was predicting something that he was not identifying. You, and trinitarianism, supply the identity.
A triad. A triad which much later trinitarianism will go on to say is the Trinity.
I’m not opposed to baptizing in the name of the triad. I would ask why there are no examples in scripture of people being baptized in the name of the Trinity but that came in post-biblical times. I will ask, why are there no examples in scripture of people being baptized in the name of the triad?
Yahweh isn’t a man. He is the Father. So, how do I resolve this apparent contradiction?
I see this, as do many commentaries, as being an anthromorphism, as do many translations of the Bible. I offer a few examples:
”Yahweh is a warrior! Yahweh is his name.” (NOG)
”The LORD is a warrior, LORD is his name.” (NABRE)
”The LORD is a warrior; The LORD is His name.” (NASB)
”The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name.” (NIV)
”The LORD goes into battle. The LORD is his name.” (NIRV)
Thanks. I can see that from the trinitarian perspective. What I can’t see from the trinitarian perspective is how some trinitarians sometimes claim that those whom it was hidden from (everyone living in biblical times) were trinitarians.
You later said you agreed with the statements I was taught.
I worship the one true God and the Messiah. The Israelites worshiped the one true God and David (1 Chronicles 29:20). The Messiah will cause people who don’t belong to him to worship those who do (Revelation 3:9).
I commented previously concerning the limitation/restriction you place on worship.
-
1
- Show all
Man is made in the image of the one God, Yahweh - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God of Moses; the God of Israel; the God of Jesus.
Man is made in the image of one person, the Father, “the invisible God”.
“He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God. He is supreme over all creation,” (Colossians 1:15 CJB)
When we see a fallen human person we see a tarnished, in varying degrees, image of the one God.
When we see the sinless human person (Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of God) we see the glorious, untarnished image of the one God.
Man is made in the image of one person, the Father, “the invisible God”.
“He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God. He is supreme over all creation,” (Colossians 1:15 CJB)
When we see a fallen human person we see a tarnished, in varying degrees, image of the one God.
When we see the sinless human person (Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of God) we see the glorious, untarnished image of the one God.