Are we really created in God's image

[URAVIP2ME]

Where would you be following God to?

I would be as Adam could have been following God to 'everlasting life on a beautiful paradisical Earth'.
I find Scripture promises the time is coming, under Christ, when mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' according to Revelation 22:2. Then, we would be following God to see the healing of earth's nations.
All this is in fulfillment to God's promise to father Abraham at Genesis 12:3; 22:18 that ALL families of Earth will be blessed, and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed. Blessed with the benefit of healing when Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth takes place.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What IS the "image of love"? I never knew love had an image before...

In Scripture I find the ' image or reflection of love ' is contained in the self-sacrificing love that Jesus has for us.
Jesus gave us a New commandment at John 13:34-35 to have that same self-sacrificing love for others as he has.

As far as the ' image of love ' in connection to being made in God's image or likeness, that is in connection to God's main attributes or qualities of: love, justice, wisdom and mercy which qualities we all can reflect to various degrees.

 

[Katzpur]

I know you've been around since the first page, but let me recap for you...

Hey, I appreciate the recap. I did post once near the beginning of the thread, but I haven't really followed it since. I probably would have done, had anybody responded to my post, but I just kind of lost interest. (Usually, a post like mine results in my being accused of heresy or blasphemy. This time my heretical, blasphemous beliefs just got ignored. )

In either case, we can not ALL have been created in God's literal physical image--so "image" must mean something else here.

Okay, I can appreciate what you're getting at, but I disagree. As I said before, "I believe that God has the form of a man. The word "image" is a visual representation of something's physical qualities. If you look at yourself in the mirror, you see your image. A photograph is a digital image of its subject. We often say that a little boy who looks like his father is his "spittin' image." Even when we say that someone is the image of health, we mean that he appears to be healthy." Looking at this a bit closer, no little boy looks exactly like his father, but we say he's his "spittin' image," anyway, in order to make a point. Even a little girl could look a lot like her male parent. In all of her facial features, she could resemble him more than she does her mother. Even identical twins look different enough that people who know them really well can tell them apart, just by looking at them, without hearing them speak or taking note of their body language. So basically, we say they are the mirror image of one another even if that's a slight exaggeration.

Here's my reasoning...

The entire first chapter of Genesis is dealing with the physical creation of the earth and its inhabitants. Verses 24 and 25 (KJV) state: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Verses 26 and 27 continue: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Verses 26 and 27 seem to have a direct correlation to verses 24 and 25. It's hard for me to imagine that someone who had never been told that God doesn't have a form would read those verses for the first time and come to any conclusion other than God created dogs who would reproduce and bear dogs, cats who would reproduce and bear cats, and humans who would reproduce and bear humans.

In our image, after our likeness. And that's exactly what happened. In Genesis 5:3, we're told that "Adam... begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth..." The same words exactly (except reversed from "in our image, after our likeness" to "in his... likeness, after his image") are used when referring to man reproducing after his kind. I suspect that most people reading the Bible would assume that Adam had a son who bore a physical resemblance to him, at least to the degree that they were "the same kind" of being. I don't know of anyone who believes Seth was a clone of Adam. Go to a dog park and you may see a dozen or more different breeds of dogs. But you would instantly recognize all of them as having the image of a dog. You wouldn't mistake any of them for a cat.

More to come in a little while. Thanks for the respectful debate. Respect and tolerance are kind of novel concepts around here sometimes.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

We werent created by god but properly planned monkey sex.

 

[Axe Elf]

As I said before, "I believe that God has the form of a man. The word "image" is a visual representation of something's physical qualities. If you look at yourself in the mirror, you see your image. A photograph is a digital image of its subject. We often say that a little boy who looks like his father is his "spittin' image." Even when we say that someone is the image of health, we mean that he appears to be healthy."

That's one definition of the word "image." The first definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "a reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing." That definition makes a lot more sense when we're talking about something that is incorporeal and omnipresent, like God. To assume that humans, with or without penises, look physically like God is kind of like saying that a flag looks like the wind. (Which is actually kind of a good example, in that no one thinks that the flag "looks like" the wind, but there's a very real sense in which the flag is shaped into the image of the wind).

Just "looking like" God would be kind of a superficial "likeness" anyway, and a lot of monkeys would also "look like" God too, and could be said to have been created in His image. To me, it's much more profound that we were created to share in the form of God as a triune being like Him--and existing as the only created beings on Earth or in heaven to share that form makes it even more special.

Verses 26 and 27 continue: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

In our image, after our likeness. And that's exactly what happened.

To me, the key word there is "OUR" image. The only aspect of God that could be said to have a physical form is Jesus, so what would be the visual image of the Holy Spirit or of the mind (Father) of God? Again, it makes sense here to think of God talking about "Our" image as being a triune likeness, rather than a physical copy.

I'm not particularly troubled by the use of the word "image" in other parts of the Bible, or even Genesis, to be more clearly regarding a physical image; lots of words have more than one connotation or meaning, even in the Bible. The word "cleave" for instance is used to indicate joining ("Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." --Genesis 2:24) and dividing ("You did cleave open [the rock bringing forth] fountains and streams" --Psalm 74:15a). The word "hate" is used in the typical sense ("These six things the Lord hates" --Proverbs 6:16), as well as in the sense of "loving less" ("If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." --Like 14:26). So I have no problem with the word "image" being used to indicate a reproduction of form or structure in some places and a physical representation in others.

Thanks for the respectful debate. Respect and tolerance are kind of novel concepts around here sometimes.

A teacher who didn't respect his students wouldn't be much of a teacher.

 

[Punta Piñal]

We are dealing, then, with a primordial Archetype and Firstborn, perfect and immortal, the Intermediary between the Source and the world. This is the Sun-bearer and Impregnator of the “soul.” The Logos chisels away at the superficial to reveal perfection. The issuance of sperm from the invisible Firstborn brought the universe into being. The Logos is the Source of the perishable royal office, yet the Offspring of the imperishable one. “...[I am] the Source and Offspring of the Davidic line.”

The Logos is the product of celestial marriage, the allegorical union of Sun and Moon, Father and Spirit, masculine and feminine. The Logos is their Offspring. He is the Image and Son, Reflector of Sunlight. The Logos sends forth the Spirit by whose power He inseminates the “soul.” In doing so He becomes the identifier of the Spirit, whose valence changes from feminine to masculine. He reveals Himself to be above culture, but expresses Himself through it. “Do not ask for a sign—think!” Only the long view of history can disclose Him.

Two serpents: the serpent of death and the Serpent of life. One promises life, but brings death; the other signifies life through His death. For a short while He takes on the mortal life, only to shed it and be reborn. The latter Serpent conquers the former, by being lifted up on the pole (tree). His role and appearance is Apollonian, His (contextual) ID and history Judaic. The incarnate Logos, as to character, acts as a divine hero, befitting a pagan athlete, strong and beautiful, while clarifying Judaic content.

The cycle of fertility: the sowing in the spring, the death in the winter (=passageway to the coming transformation), and the rebirth in the spring. According to Philo, the Logos is an ever-virgin high priest. “In the fullness of time the Source sent forth His Offspring, (was) made of the royal sperm, by whose Spirit (was) conceived carnally in a woman (lit. parthenos), that is, (was) come in the likeness of flesh.” Ever-virgin Wisdom came about virginally. Virginally He took on a temporal body, and having graced it, sanctified it.

A mirror to human beings and a portal to the truth, the Logos lifts the veil of allegory, for He is "Sperm of the woman (parthenos)." As the very imprint of the transcendent realm, He also makes an impression on the material universe. "Let us fashion the pre-material, spiritual Forms in our image" (these became material through the "Fall" or Big Bang). He represents the enduring product of time, encapsulating past, present, and future, yet is above and beyond time, though He defines health, life, and nature.

Fittingly, the One who is to rule shall exhibit “grace, physical beauty and ... intelligence” (Keegan, Mask of Command, 90), and is to shepherd with “a rod of iron,” that is, immutable constancy, and to govern by “the sword of His mouth,” the gushing forth of word and deed as one substance from within Him. He is the Instrument of creation, the universal Mind. The Image seeks kenosis, a pouring out, by taking on a body of which its endowment is He. He prepares the temporal for eternity, and in Him the two cohere.

 

[dfnj]

When a person makes a voluntary choice how is that a delusion.
God forces No one to follow or Not follow him.

Unless a person has omnipotent powers so they can define their own choices, the choices we can possibly make are predefined by our life circumstances, hence, we do not have free-will because we have no control over our choice possibilities. Sometimes people are force to make choices they would not prefer to make. How is that free-will? When you are forced you are not free.

 

[dfnj]

Sure, the God of the Bible has limits or limitations:
Such as Titus 1:2 the limit or limitation is that > God can Not lie.
The gift of free-will choices also places limits on God.
Meaning God does Not interfere with our choices.
But God does forewarn us that wicked people will be ' destroyed forever ' at Psalms 92:7.

I don't believe in most of what you've posted here. The Bible was written by men not God. My faith is in an omnipotent God with no limitations. In terms of Titus 1:2, I don't believe in an afterlife because once you experience looking into the face of God time stops and you become absorbed into God's consciousness. This is what it means to experience eternal heavenly bliss. What it means to be alive, that is to have "life", requires you have a body that needs food and air. Life means you have a metabolic processes. If we do not have a body, then we are NOT life as we know it. I think as the brain expires during our last few moments of living we experience God and then we are gone. Who we are lives on in everyone else who is still alive on the planet.

I agree God does not interfere with our choices. There is no amount of evil God will not tolerate in order to preserve our free-will.

In terms of Psalms 92:7, I believe the Bible was written by men. The idea of what is evil and what is wicked was and is invented by men. I don't think anyone can buy absolution from the Church or from holding certain words as idols. I think our salvation comes from getting forgiveness from people we have sinned against. Once we die it is too late.

Pretending to speak for God is very manipulative of weak minded people. I do not pretend to speak for God. But it seems to me an omnipotent God needs absolutely nothing from us. I don't believe in Hell. The idea of eternal suffer is way too sadistic. A God of love is not sadistic. Sadism is evil. My faith is in a God of unconditional love. Judging everyone's sins as a test for entering the gates of Heaven is conditional love. I don't not believe God judges people this way. Our omnipotent God loves every facet of His creation equally. My faith in a God of unconditional love means my God allows everyone to enter the gates of Heaven to experience eternally Heavenly bliss regardless of our Earthly sins or how we practiced our religion. What difference does it make to God if we've sinned. It's not like God is going to die if there are too many sinners.

If you are one of those people who idolize the words of the Bible you probably think I'm insane. But that is the point of having faith. My faith in an omnipotent God of unconditional love is just STRONGER than yours.

 

[dfnj]

To me, the key word there is "OUR" image.

I think the key word is "image". 2000 years ago paper copy of pictures did not exist. I think what the word image means in this context is a vision of an ideal. Man is created with imperfections but seeking to be like a vision of God's perfection. The image we are created from is not something we will ever achieve in our lifetimes. The spire on the church points to God symbolizing our striving to achieve perfection in our lives. And the gargoyles on the church eaves are laughing at us for even trying.

Another way of thinking in God's image is a commentary on our imaginations. Just like our omnipotent God has no boundaries, our imaginations have no boundaries. The idea of "in the image of" can only exist in our imaginations.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Unless a person has omnipotent powers so they can define their own choices, the choices we can possibly make are predefined by our life circumstances, hence, we do not have free-will because we have no control over our choice possibilities. Sometimes people are force to make choices they would not prefer to make. How is that free-will? When you are forced you are not free.

We all need to deal with the ' cards we are dealt ', so to speak.
We are Not forced to immoral people in heart and mind.
Even if a person has to make a choice they would now prefer to make ( take a job they rather not, deal with a sickness ) that does Not mean they don't have free-will choices. It is a moral issue involved. Christians are to make their choices on what is moral or not. Having a job making cheese would Not be a wrong choice, but taking a job that involves lying, cheating or other unethical behavior would be out of the picture for a Christian.
When Jesus said the ' truth would set you free ' it was about being set free from what is false.
Following Jesus sets us free from false religious practices, free from immoral practices.
The reward will be the benefits that will come when Jesus' begins his 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth.
Such benefit as righteous mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' for the 'healing' of earth's nations according to Revelation 22:2. We will all be free to have our own home and garden as per Isaiah 65:21-25.
Earth will be a beautiful paradisical place with health benefits as described in Isaiah 35.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think the key word is "image". 2000 years ago paper copy of pictures did not exist. I think what the word image means in this context is a vision of an ideal. Man is created with imperfections but seeking to be like a vision of God's perfection. The image we are created from is not something we will ever achieve in our lifetimes. The spire on the church points to God symbolizing our striving to achieve perfection in our lives. And the gargoyles on the church eaves are laughing at us for even trying.
Another way of thinking in God's image is a commentary on our imaginations. Just like our omnipotent God has no boundaries, our imaginations have no boundaries. The idea of "in the image of" can only exist in our imaginations.

I find the idea of ' image ' exits in Scripture.
God's image is Not about a physical appearance but a spiritual or moral appearance.
God's main attributes or qualities are: love, justice, wisdom and mercy.
Although we are now imperfect we can still reflect those attributes or qualities to varying degrees.
There is No law, No boundaries, No borders against cultivating the fruit of God's spirit as found listed at Galatians 5:22-23
- Love. joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, and self control.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It means that we share spiritual qualities with God such as reason, will and so on. It's saying that humans have the most qualities shared with God and are the jewel of God's creation...........

I like how you say we 'share spiritual qualities' with God because being made in God's image means we can reflect God's qualities or attributes of Love, justice, wisdom and mercy to varying degrees.
Also, we can all cultivate the fruit of God's spirit (His spiritual qualities) as listed at Galatians 5:22-23.

 

[1213]

"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

So if we are created from the image of God, does that mean God is man or woman? Or both at the same time. I think an omnipotent being can be more than one thing at the same time. So I will go with both.

But gender identity is not my biggest issue with the idea we are created from God's image. If we were really created from the image of God we would all have omnipotent powers. Without omnipotent powers, we are very much NOTHING like the image of God.

Why would you assume that image is equal to the source of the image? Would you pay as much for the image of house than for the real house that is in the picture?

Bible tells God is spirit. So, if we are image of God, we are image of a spirit. The similarities are in spiritual level, not in physical. But the difference between image and its source is vast.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

 

[paarsurrey]

Are we really created in God's image

"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

I believe this is symbolic, please.
Regards