Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Oh dear... I didn't mean it. :hugkiss: Can you ever forgive me?Ouch :thud:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oh dear... I didn't mean it. :hugkiss: Can you ever forgive me?Ouch :thud:
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.
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.
Oh dear... I didn't mean it. :hugkiss: Can you ever forgive me?
The feeling is 100% mutual, Jay. :yes:I love you, my friend. Truly.
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?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.
*
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.Our being in the "image" of God is metaphorical - perhaps as in knowledge of good and evil...
Yes, but you see, I believe that God, too, was talking about a father-son relationship.Whereas the Seth verse is talking about a father-son relationship.
The statement had nothing to do with Jesus. It was written centuries prior.'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.
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....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.
Okay... whatever.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.
What the hell did I say to prompt that remark?Sorry if you find the Bible disappointing. Many people do.
What the hell did I say to prompt that remark?
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.
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:If god has a body how do you reconcile "god is spirit"?
And from that you have concluded that I find the Bible disappointing? Man, it takes all kinds.I quoted it in my response.
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