'Man was created in the image of G-d'

[Katzpur]

Ouch … :thud:

Oh dear... I didn't mean it. :hugkiss: Can you ever forgive me?

 

[Ingledsva]

Well, not according to you maybe.

It may not mean that Seth "looked just like Adam," but it definitely meant that Seth was the same kind of being as Adam. To me, that's just one more piece of evidence that God does have a physical appearance. You insist on not taking the passages about God creating man in His own image and after His likeness literally, and are convinced that He looks nothing like us. But Seth obviously resembled Adam to the extent that we're told he was in Adam's likeness and image. You've got virtually identical word usage in passages just a few chapters apart, and yet you want to say that they mean entirely different things.

Actually the same word has both meanings - so they can be used differently in both verses.


Our being in the "image" of God is metaphorical - perhaps as in knowledge of good and evil, - or being above the animals, as God is, - or his Spirit indwelling in us, etc.


Whereas the Seth verse is talking about a father-son relationship.- Or - it too could be metaphorical, for humans outside the Garden of Eden.


Don't forget that Gen 4 had just told us about Cain's children.


Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Gen 4:18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.


Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:


*

 

[Ingledsva]

I think we're pretty much all guilty of that, don't you?

I believe that He looks essentially like us. Nobody's a clone of God, but we're all created in His image, after His likeness. We are the same species as God, and we have the potential to eventually become like Him in all respects.

The first chapter of Genesis deals with the physical creation of this earth. Once the earth itself was created, God created each of the thousands kinds of life. It is emphasized that all life will reproduce "after its kind." And then the account ends with God saying that man will be "in our image, after our likeness." I don't believe the account went from literal in one sentence to symbolic in the next.

But did you read your paragraph - which I highlighted?


That means exactly what we have been saying - it is being used in a metaphorical sense - not an image/copy.

It could mean imbued with his Spirit, or created to rule at the top, like God, and unlike all other animals, etc.



*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh dear... I didn't mean it. :hugkiss: Can you ever forgive me?

I love you, my friend. Truly.

 

[Katzpur]

I love you, my friend. Truly.

The feeling is 100% mutual, Jay. :yes:

 

[Katzpur]

But did you read your paragraph - which I highlighted?


That means exactly what we have been saying - it is being used in a metaphorical sense - not an image/copy.

It could mean imbued with his Spirit, or created to rule at the top, like God, and unlike all other animals, etc.



*

Of course I read my paragraph. I just disagree with you. I don't believe that we are exact replicas of God. I do believe that we are the same kind of being as God. The Bible tells us that we are His sons and daughter. We're not merely His creations. Just as kittens physically resemble cats (of which they are the offspring), we resemble God (of whom we are the offspring). Can you think of a single kind of being which does not bear offspring in its own image?

 

[Katzpur]

Our being in the "image" of God is metaphorical - perhaps as in knowledge of good and evil...

But God didn't create Adam and Eve with a knowledge of good and evil. That is something they gained through eating the forbidden fruit. If God had given them with the inborn knowledge of good and evil, they wouldn't have had to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to receive it.

Whereas the Seth verse is talking about a father-son relationship.

Yes, but you see, I believe that God, too, was talking about a father-son relationship.

 

[columbus]

'Man was created in the image of G-d'.
The G-d that is the likeness of man is Jesus, not an "invisible' god.

Jesus is The Creator G-d.

The statement had nothing to do with Jesus. It was written centuries prior.

Nor did it mean "humans". It meant adult male members of the tribe.

Adam was the first person. He was created in the image of God, as the audience of Genesis understood God. Not women, children, servants, or foreigners, only persons.



It is hard for modern people to grasp the world view of the day. But Adam was the original person. Other humans weren't people.

That's why Adam's sons didn't have to commit incest by marrying their sisters. They did what people did when they needed women. They went out and got some.

Its a whole different world view, but common at the time.

Tom

 

[Katzpur]

...Adam was the original person. Other humans weren't people.

That's why Adam's sons didn't have to commit incest by marrying their sisters. They did what people did when they needed women. They went out and got some.

Excuse me, but are you saying that Adam's sons copulated with beings who weren't real "people"? Actually, that is exactly what you said. You might want to rephrase your statement.

 

[columbus]

Excuse me, but are you saying that Adam's sons copulated with beings who weren't real "people"? Actually, that is exactly what you said. You might want to rephrase your statement.

Nothing to rephrase. Women and children weren't real people, especially foreign ones. It was a fairly common world view at the time.

Take a good look at the last part of Judges. The Benjamites lost and the other People killed their chattel(women and children). So they went out and got some new ones. Then "everyone" lived happily ever after.

Tom

 

[Katzpur]

Nothing to rephrase. Women and children weren't real people, especially foreign ones. It was a fairly common world view at the time.

Take a good look at the last part of Judges. The Benjamites lost and the other People killed their chattel(women and children). So they went out and got some new ones. Then "everyone" lived happily ever after.

Tom

Okay... whatever.

 

[columbus]

Okay... whatever.

Sorry if you find the Bible disappointing. Many people do.

Tom

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry if you find the Bible disappointing. Many people do.

What the hell did I say to prompt that remark?

 

[columbus]

What the hell did I say to prompt that remark?

I quoted it in my response.

The authors and audience of the OT were primitive people. That's why I don't take them as moral guides.
Tom

 

[idav]

If god has a body how do you reconcile "god is spirit"?

 

[idav]

But God didn't create Adam and Eve with a knowledge of good and evil. That is something they gained through eating the forbidden fruit. If God had given them with the inborn knowledge of good and evil, they wouldn't have had to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to receive it.

Yes, but you see, I believe that God, too, was talking about a father-son relationship.

What I see there was it was the line that was chosen, dubbed righteous. Something to do with their spirit.

 

[Clear]

Katzpur said in post # 218 : ”I'll tell you what I find interesting. Most Christians I've talked to will readily acknowledge that God is often depicted as having a human form. They even say that He can take on a human form if He so desires. What's the big deal with believing that He naturally has a human form? If Jesus Christ was said to be "the express image of His [Father's] person," why are Christians so insistent that the Father is anything other than that? I seriously see people react almost with horror at the suggestion that the Father could have a human form, and yet they're fine with God (in the person of Jesus Christ) having one.”

That is quite interesting. Any claim that says both that God can take on a human form, yet cannot retain a human form seems quite illogical. I’ve not seen any written justification as to why such a theory became/becomes necessary in modern Christian theory since it was certainly not needed in ancient Christian tradition. It sounds like the Jewish criticism of illogically hyper-spiritualizing everything can apply to Christians as well.


Regarding early historical traditions of Adam, being created in the image of God. One early Jewish tradition in this regard comes from Gen. Rabba 14 and it says that man “resembles spiritual beings by walking upright, by his power of speech and thought, and by being able in some degree to see behind him without need of turning his head round; which facility is given to man alone and not to the lower animals.” -Gen. Rabba 14.

Other than the Jewish doctrine of “seeing behind him without turning his head”, the Jewish claim and the ancient Christian claim both are quite similar in basic elements. The specific Jewish claim that Adam had non-visual characteristics (free will, intelligence, power of speech, etc.) and the Christian claim that Adam had BOTH visual characteristics (having God’s image) AND non-visual characteristics are NOT mutually exclusive but are synergistic.

For example though Adam looked like his creator in these early Judeo-Christian texts (having been created in God’s image), still, this does not mean that he does not have other characteristics which are also similar to Gods characteristics. However, non-visual characteristics of Adam are not described in visual imagery.

For example : After having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, (Genesis 3:22 LXX) God said : “Behold, Adam has become as one of us…” (ιδου αδαμ γεγονεν ως εις εξ ημων...). The great Jew Rashi says this verse in the masoretic tells us Adam became “like the Unique One among us” (notice the Hebrew flavors it differently&#8230. This rabbi explains that this means that at that point, Man had acquired the ability to discriminate between good and evil; a characteristic God already had but which Adam had just acquired. Since this is a non-visual characteristic, Adam “becomes able", rather than "appears able" to discriminate. The verb matches the characteristic being described (whether visual or non-visual).

My point is that though it is quite clear that the early Judeo-Christian tradition existed that Adam was created in God’s image, this does not mean that man was not created with other characteristics that are not like God’s characteristic, nor that man is not gaining other characteristics that are like God’s characteristics. These points are synergistic and not mutually exclusive.


Early Anthropomorphic Descriptions of God
Whether God the Father simply Chose to appear in the material Shape and visual appearance of man temporarily, or whether he chooses to retain that shape is unclear. What is very clear is that the early traditions describe him as having anthropomorphic qualities. This makes perfect sense from a context of efficient communication. When I visit Germany, I speak German. When God appears to man, it makes sense that he would use language and visual cues of mankind.

Clear
δρνεφθειω

 

[Katzpur]

If god has a body how do you reconcile "god is spirit"?

The Greek word "pneuma" is translated John 4:24 as "spirit" but in Revelation 13:15 as "life." The late Reverend Christopher Stead, formerly Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University, widely cited by Patristic scholars for his 1977 book, Divine Substance, put it like this:

"By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body... but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and him possesses this energy in the fullest measure."

The Bible tells us that God is light, that He is love, and that He is spirit or life. These statements describe his relationship with mankind; none of them in and of themselves defines God.

Even the noted early Christian Father, Irenaeus said, "But man He fashioned with His own hands, taking of the purest and finest of earth, in measured wise mingling with the earth His own power; for He gave his frame the outline of His own form, that the visible appearance too should be godlike -- for it was an image of God that man was fashioned and set on earth."

The idea of a corporeal, anthropomorphic God is far, far older than most people realize.

 

[Katzpur]

I quoted it in my response.

And from that you have concluded that I find the Bible disappointing? Man, it takes all kinds.

 

[firedragon]

Firedragon :

I am curious, do you know if the early Muslims believed in the Jewish interpretation God, creating Adam with both sets of sexual organs and capable of sexual reproduction without the need for a female? I do NOT get this impression from reading the Holy Quran or from the few hadith I am familiar with.

thanks in advance for the information.

Clear

I have heard of this. But no Jewish scholar I have met ever conforms with this belief. According to them, this is not a true story. And of course there is nothing like that in the Quran nor any other book that I have read.