A perfect Image reflects only own its source - but what if the image becomes corrupt?

[Soapy]

When YAHWEH GOD created mankind He did so making man an Image of Himself. And, indeed, for a long while that image, Adam, perfectly reflected his creator God and no sin was found in him.

But soon, corruption crept into the image by way of a rogue Angel who sought to be glorified by the man against the command of the creator God. And so the man now did not perfectly reflect his creator God.

Since this now corrupted image (I’ll say ‘Adam’ from now on) up till now had not procreated, all his offspring from then on inherited his image alongside the creator God image. This meant that Adam’s children all were very highly engendered sinning in opposition to the sinless creator God.

The creator God set about restoring His image in the children of Adam but most were so corrupted that they continued to reflect the ‘Father of the lie’ who corrupted Adam.

Over time, no one of mankind was found fully justified in his reflection - man came close but always faultered at some point. God highly praised these ones but still was ultimately displeased about something the individual did that was very sinful.

God had known there might be corruption of his man and his offspring throughout time so He had set a contingency promise in place: a restoration by ANOTHER PERFECT IMAGE.

In the fullness of time God saw that this promise should be fulfilled - and created ANOTHER MAN IN HIS IMAGE just as he had done with the first man: ‘This one will certainly do my Will… I will uphold him and give him powers (put My Spirit on him) after he shows he has remained sinless, righteous, and holy in accordance with my commands’ in other words, that this SECOND and LAST ADAM, will be a perfect reflection of his creator God.

And, indeed, we read about him, and believe in him, from the scriptures. He is the man: Jesus the Christ (The Christ of God, the suffering servant, the perfect image: the SON of God)

In the scriptures we must understand that ‘Father’ means ‘CREATOR’ and that ‘Son’ means ‘He who does the works of the Father… he who is the reflection of the Father’.

And thus this Jesus says to his disciples: ‘If you have seen me you have seen my Father (my creator… remember that Jess did not come by way of a procreation from a sinful Father and so he rightly attributed his ‘Father’ as the creator God)

Jesus is NOT his Father… he is a reflection of his Father. This means Jesus was ‘doing the works of the Father’ as he says several times in his life beginning rather prematurely when he was 12 years old: ‘Mother, did you not know that I must be about my Father’s business!!?’ And later to the Jews who falsely accused him of claiming Godship: ‘I did not call myself God - I said only that God is my Father… if I am not doing his works then do not believe me!’

There are other occasions when Jesus shows he is the perfect image of his creator God - fully carrying out the works of God to the extent that in the end Jesus prayed in the presence of his disciples ‘Father, it is done, I have given them the words you gave me to give to then and they have received them….’ And ‘The words you hear me speak are it mine but from HIM who sent me!’

This is incredible perfection from man’s point of view: Jesus, always credited the Father God with all the things of a miraculous nature that he carried out, including the all the wise words of truth that raked against the corrupt nature of those he was sent to bring back to Sonship to God.

There is more but since this is for debate I leave open the inbetweenies for you to comment.

Thank you.

 

[shunyadragon]

I consider this an ancient tribal view based on a world view of a culture thousands of years old like many other ancient religions with limited reference to the diverse cultural and religions of today's world, and in contradictions with science..

I prefer a more universalist perspective Not (UU),

 

[exchemist]

When YAHWEH GOD created mankind He did so making man an Image of Himself. And, indeed, for a long while that image, Adam, perfectly reflected his creator God and no sin was found in him.

But soon, corruption crept into the image by way of a rogue Angel who sought to be glorified by the man against the command of the creator God. And so the man now did not perfectly reflect his creator God.

Since this now corrupted image (I’ll say ‘Adam’ from now on) up till now had not procreated, all his offspring from then on inherited his image alongside the creator God image. This meant that Adam’s children all were very highly engendered sinning in opposition to the sinless creator God.

The creator God set about restoring His image in the children of Adam but most were so corrupted that they continued to reflect the ‘Father of the lie’ who corrupted Adam.

Over time, no one of mankind was found fully justified in his reflection - man came close but always faultered at some point. God highly praised these ones but still was ultimately displeased about something the individual did that was very sinful.

God had known there might be corruption of his man and his offspring throughout time so He had set a contingency promise in place: a restoration by ANOTHER PERFECT IMAGE.

In the fullness of time God saw that this promise should be fulfilled - and created ANOTHER MAN IN HIS IMAGE just as he had done with the first man: ‘This one will certainly do my Will… I will uphold him and give him powers (put My Spirit on him) after he shows he has remained sinless, righteous, and holy in accordance with my commands’ in other words, that this SECOND and LAST ADAM, will be a perfect reflection of his creator God.

And, indeed, we read about him, and believe in him, from the scriptures. He is the man: Jesus the Christ (The Christ of God, the suffering servant, the perfect image: the SON of God)

In the scriptures we must understand that ‘Father’ means ‘CREATOR’ and that ‘Son’ means ‘He who does the works of the Father… he who is the reflection of the Father’.

And thus this Jesus says to his disciples: ‘If you have seen me you have seen my Father (my creator… remember that Jess did not come by way of a procreation from a sinful Father and so he rightly attributed his ‘Father’ as the creator God)

Jesus is NOT his Father… he is a reflection of his Father. This means Jesus was ‘doing the works of the Father’ as he says several times in his life beginning rather prematurely when he was 12 years old: ‘Mother, did you not know that I must be about my Father’s business!!?’ And later to the Jews who falsely accused him of claiming Godship: ‘I did not call myself God - I said only that God is my Father… if I am not doing his works then do not believe me!’

There are other occasions when Jesus shows he is the perfect image of his creator God - fully carrying out the works of God to the extent that in the end Jesus prayed in the presence of his disciples ‘Father, it is done, I have given them the words you gave me to give to then and they have received them….’ And ‘The words you hear me speak are it mine but from HIM who sent me!’

This is incredible perfection from man’s point of view: Jesus, always credited the Father God with all the things of a miraculous nature that he carried out, including the all the wise words of truth that raked against the corrupt nature of those he was sent to bring back to Sonship to God.

There is more but since this is for debate I leave open the inbetweenies for you to comment.

Thank you.

An image does not reflect anything. An image is the reflection.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When YAHWEH GOD created mankind He did so making man an Image of Himself. And, indeed, for a long while that image, Adam, perfectly reflected his creator God and no sin was found in him.

You present a narrative of man having been made in God's image, but gradually slipped away beginning with original sin. Is that what being in God's image means - sinless? That can't be right, since the beasts are that, and we never hear that they were made in God's image.

I don't see much overlap between how this deity is described and the human condition. One might say that reason and conscience make man in God's image, but at the same time, we are told that we can't understand either. I was just told that God is supra-rational, meaning transcending (human) reason. And of course, apologetics if full of admonitions to not second guess what God means by good - that if some divine act seems evil superficially, it's not. Eternal damnation for unbelief or disobedience, for example, is somehow an act of unconditional love, justice, and mercy. Does it sound like the opposite to you? 'Stop trying to understand God's ways. You can't, even though you are made in His image.'

What do you or I have in common with an entity that is said to be invisible, immaterial, immortal, perfect, infinite, lives outside of space and time. God is omniscient, omnipresent, supernatural and has magical power, but man is none of those things. God never had a spouse, never had sex, never experienced lust, divorce or a broken heart; was never born, never had parents, never raised children and never had a sibling or a friend; never slept or had a nightmare, never had a headache, has never had the flu, felt hot or cold or been hungry, never had to support himself, never had to study or learn, has never been humiliated or felt guilt, blame or shame, and has never been afraid.

How could two life forms be more different? Should God - pure disembodied mind - even be called living?

Maybe you can explain what that phrase actually means and why man should feel honored by this. In my Christian experience, the main implication was that man is not part of the animal kingdom, that he was different by virtue of having an immortal soul and an afterlife. We still see this in creationist apologetics when some apologists indignantly object to being called apes ("I'm no monkey's uncle!"), or the suggestion that human beings evolved from the same ancestors as the other apes. Perhaps that's what meant - man has a soul, but I still don't see much resemblance if that's the basis for the claim.

 

[Soapy]

You present a narrative of man having been made in God's image, but gradually slipped away beginning with original sin. Is that what being in God's image means - sinless? That can't be right, since the beasts are that, and we never hear that they were made in God's image.

I don't see much overlap between how this deity is described and the human condition. One might say that reason and conscience make man in God's image, but at the same time, we are told that we can't understand either. I was just told that God is supra-rational, meaning transcending (human) reason. And of course, apologetics if full of admonitions to not second guess what God means by good - that if some divine act seems evil superficially, it's not. Eternal damnation for unbelief or disobedience, for example, is somehow an act of unconditional love, justice, and mercy. Does it sound like the opposite to you? 'Stop trying to understand God's ways. You can't, even though you are made in His image.'

What do you or I have in common with an entity that is said to be invisible, immaterial, immortal, perfect, infinite, lives outside of space and time. God is omniscient, omnipresent, supernatural and has magical power, but man is none of those things. God never had a spouse, never had sex, never experienced lust, divorce or a broken heart; was never born, never had parents, never raised children and never had a sibling or a friend; never slept or had a nightmare, never had a headache, has never had the flu, felt hot or cold or been hungry, never had to support himself, never had to study or learn, has never been humiliated or felt guilt, blame or shame, and has never been afraid.

How could two life forms be more different? Should God - pure disembodied mind - even be called living?

Maybe you can explain what that phrase actually means and why man should feel honored by this. In my Christian experience, the main implication was that man is not part of the animal kingdom, that he was different by virtue of having an immortal soul and an afterlife. We still see this in creationist apologetics when some apologists indignantly object to being called apes ("I'm no monkey's uncle!"), or the suggestion that human beings evolved from the same ancestors as the other apes. Perhaps that's what meant - man has a soul, but I still don't see much resemblance if that's the basis for the claim.

• Jesus said: “Though you do not know [GOD], I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know [God] and obey his word.” (John 8:55)
• ““I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you.” (John 27:6-7)
• “If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:7)

And the apostle concurred with that which Jesus brought to mankind:

• “We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know [God] who is true. And we are in [God] who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. [God] is the true God and eternal life.”(1 John 5.20)

So if you are insisting that we STILL do not know God then you make the assignment and sacrifice of Jesus null and void!

 

[Soapy]

An image does not reflect anything. An image is the reflection.

Ummm.., are you sure about what you just said?

The ‘image’ here is not like a passive ‘mirror’. It is a living entity who actively pursues the act of mimicking what it sees the source do.

IT, the entity, therefore acts as a REFLECTION of the source.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

• Jesus said: “Though you do not know [GOD], I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know [God] and obey his word.” (John 8:55)
• ““I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you.” (John 27:6-7)
• “If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:7)

And the apostle concurred with that which Jesus brought to mankind:

• “We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know [God] who is true. And we are in [God] who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. [God] is the true God and eternal life.”(1 John 5.20)

I asked in what sense is man considered to be in God's image, and that was your answer. I mentioned multiple ways in which the two differ and found almost no overlap. You've written nothing to address much less attempt to falsify that claim, so I must assume that that is because you can't. Perhaps you didn't understand what was asked, or perhaps you can't answer and so chose to deflect instead. The commonest reason for a falsifiable claim not being successfully rebutted is that it is correct. Correct claims, though falsifiable, cannot be falsified.

If that's confusing, recall that falsifiable doesn't mean can be falsified. That's the definition of demonstrably incorrect. Falsifiable means that one can conceive of a possible finding that would falsify an incorrect statement. I'll illustrate. Suppose I claim that I am in Europe now. That's a falsifiable claim whether correct or incorrect, because if it is incorrect, one can conceive of evidence confirming that fact (falsifying evidence) - evidence that does not and cannot exist if the claim is correct.

if you are insisting that we STILL do not know God then you make the assignment and sacrifice of Jesus null and void!

Is that what you thought my post was about? I guess that explains your response. My post was not about whether anybody knows God. I'm an agnostic atheist. In my opinion, no human being knows whether any deities exist nor what they would be like if they did. My post was about the discordance between the claim of like images between God and man, and the features of men and those attributed to the Christian deity that are radically unalike.

 

[Soapy]

I asked in what sense is man considered to be in God's image, and that was your answer. I mentioned multiple ways in which the two differ and found almost no overlap. You've written nothing to address much less attempt to falsify that claim, so I must assume that that is because you can't. Perhaps you didn't understand what was asked, or perhaps you can't answer and so chose to deflect instead. The commonest reason for a falsifiable claim not being successfully rebutted is that it is correct. Correct claims, though falsifiable, cannot be falsified.

If that's confusing, recall that falsifiable doesn't mean can be falsified. That's the definition of demonstrably incorrect. Falsifiable means that one can conceive of a possible finding that would falsify an incorrect statement. I'll illustrate. Suppose I claim that I am in Europe now. That's a falsifiable claim whether correct or incorrect, because if it is incorrect, one can conceive of evidence confirming that fact (falsifying evidence) - evidence that does not and cannot exist if the claim is correct.



Is that what you thought my post was about? I guess that explains your response. My post was not about whether anybody knows God. I'm an agnostic atheist. In my opinion, no human being knows whether any deities exist nor what they would be like if they did. My post was about the discordance between the claim of like images between God and man, and the features of men and those attributed to the Christian deity that are radically unalike.

Then continue believing what you believe.

The post is concerning those who do believe in what is called ‘The image of God’. I thought reading the intro would have told you that.

But even f you Don not believe in God or a God you could at least talk about the term ‘Image of…’

The term is to say that a perfect son truly is an image of his Father. The son does only what he sees the Father doing… like a craftsman training a trainee - if the trainee does exactly what the trainer shows him to do then this is then the trainer’s “SON in Spirit”… which is the point I am making….

 

[Joshua Pryce]

An image can only become corrupt when we mess about with it, or perceive it as something its not. This works spiritually. Our warped view of God makes God corrupt in our minds but it doesnt change Who He Is or His intentions.