Man - 'Created in the image of God'

[Thief]

No, actually...Can't find any of these in scripture
The only parallel I could find to these quotes is:

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;

Well now that's a problem....

The parables are indeed like unto stonework.
Foundations stones are set one against the other as neatly as possible.

If not...your enemy will come later....with his pry bar.
He will harm your foundation, fault the wall, and the fall of your house will be great.

I hope you realize, the book under you arm is like unto a crutch.
In this life it helps you to walk upright.

In the next life, that same crutch will be left behind.

 

[james2ko]

Well now that's a problem....

The parables are indeed like unto stonework. Foundations stones are set one against the other as neatly as possible. If not...your enemy will come later....with his pry bar. He will harm your foundation, fault the wall, and the fall of your house will be great.

I hope you realize, the book under you arm is like unto a crutch. In this life it helps you to walk upright.

Good point..that's why I prefer to walk with two--One under each arm.

 

[Thief]

Good point..that's why I prefer to walk with two--One under each arm.

And then leave both behind you...later on.

 

[Ben Masada]

In Genesis, it is written that God created man in His own image. The ministers that I have talked to, do not take this statement as meaning, "We look like God, or God looks like us". They interpret it as spiritual (ie. "holy", etc.). We know that we are created above all other living things on this earth. In the scriptures, angels appeared in similar form to humans. We know that Christ said, "If you see me, you see my father." If I just apply general logic, and look at the whole animal kingdom as well as man, and even call the young of animals 'sons/daughters', the young look the same as their 'parents' (ie. a newborn fish doesn't change into a turtle). If angels are 'sons of God', and we can become 'equal unto the angels', and angels look like man, then God must look like us????????? What are your thoughts?

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben:

And how do you justify this position with Gen 5:1-2 "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." KJV

 

[james2ko]

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben:

Let me see if I understand this correctly, according to your interpretation of the word image, the bible is telling us in 1Sam 6:5,11 that we should avoid taking on the spiritual attributes of mice and hemorrhoids ??

 

[Ben Masada]

Let me see if I understand this correctly, according to your interpretation of the word image, the bible is telling us in 1Sam 6:5,11 that we should avoid taking on the spiritual attributes of mice and hemorrhoids ??

If that represents your culture, I do not know what you are tallking about. Perhaps you would like to translated it in more civilized terms?
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

And how do you justify this position with Gen 5:1-2 "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." KJV

"In the likeness of God made He him?" Isaiah will explain it better to you. Read Isaiah 46:5."To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal, and compare Me, that we may be like?" So, the answer is found in my thread: That man was created according to the attributes of God.
Ben

 

[sandy whitelinger]

"In the likeness of God made He him?" Isaiah will explain it better to you. Read Isaiah 46:5."To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal, and compare Me, that we may be like?" So, the answer is found in my thread: That man was created according to the attributes of God.
Ben

I disagree. My take on it is here.

 

[Ben Masada]

I disagree. My take on it is here.

Congratulations! It means you have a mind of your own.
Ben

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Congratulations! It means you have a mind of your own.
Ben

Acts 17:11

 

[free spirit]

Ben Masada

In the likeness of God made He him?" Isaiah will explain it better to you. Read Isaiah 46:5."To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal, and compare Me, that we may be like?" So, the answer is found in my thread: That man was created according to the attributes of God.
Ben

It isn’t difficult to identify the spirit in us that bears the image of God; because He has not been hidden in some dark place, but He is in the most forefront of our lives. If anything it is His over-exposure that makes Him invisible as it were.
For with His essence we are able to think, formulate plans and be creative. To have the power of the Word means to be living souls. Just consider that without this Godly essence we would be like animals, living in the limitations of instinct, and not living from the essence of unlimited freedom and intelligent reason.
So the God given ability to formulate reason with words is what makes us in the image of God, for He created all things by the power of His word, and like Him we also plan and create things out of the reasoning power of our words. The ability to speak intelligent and creative words is truly what makes us living souls; therefore it is the breath of life itself. (Genesis 2:7.)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It isn’t difficult to identify the spirit in us that bears the image of God; because He has not been hidden in some dark place, but He is in the most forefront of our lives. If anything it is His over-exposure that makes Him invisible as it were.
For with His essence we are able to think, formulate plans and be creative. To have the power of the Word means to be living souls. Just consider that without this Godly essence we would be like animals, living in the limitations of instinct, and not living from the essence of unlimited freedom and intelligent reason.
So the God given ability to formulate reason with words is what makes us in the image of God, for He created all things by the power of His word, and like Him we also plan and create things out of the reasoning power of our words. The ability to speak intelligent and creative words is truly what makes us living souls; therefore it is the breath of life itself. (Genesis 2:7.)

Um. what does this personal opinion have to do with Genesis 2:7?

 

[free spirit]

Um. what does this personal opinion have to do with Genesis 2:7?

Well sorry it meant for you to read Genesis 2:7.

 

[Zadok]

In Genesis, it is written that God created man in His own image. The ministers that I have talked to, do not take this statement as meaning, "We look like God, or God looks like us". They interpret it as spiritual (ie. "holy", etc.). We know that we are created above all other living things on this earth. In the scriptures, angels appeared in similar form to humans. We know that Christ said, "If you see me, you see my father." If I just apply general logic, and look at the whole animal kingdom as well as man, and even call the young of animals 'sons/daughters', the young look the same as their 'parents' (ie. a newborn fish doesn't change into a turtle). If angels are 'sons of God', and we can become 'equal unto the angels', and angels look like man, then God must look like us????????? What are your thoughts?

It is interesting to me how different religions establish a doctrine and interpret the ancient scriptures to fit their pre-established doctrine. Contrary to popular belief Genesis is talking about a physical creation not a mystical un-understandable reference to stuff of non empirical nature. Also there are no scriptures that indicate that the spirit of G-d does not personify an image. Again in many places, the ancient scriptures talk about graven images – whenever the term of image is used the reference is to a physical model. This includes other ancient text initiated through Moses.

It is obvious that Genesis intends to communicate that G-d created man to be like him. Those that assert that man is like G-d is ways other than mere appearance have a lot of explaining to do concerning the history of mankind. I will accept the concept that man was created to be a G-d or G-d like creature – but most theist seem more inclined to reject that notion even more. This it appears to me that most do not have a consistent way of interpreting ancient scriptures.

Zadok

 

[james2ko]

If that represents your culture, I do not know what you are tallking about. Perhaps you would like to translated it in more civilized terms?
Ben

The Hebrew word for image [tselem], God used in Gen 1:26, is the same word He inspired in 1 Sam 6:5 and vs 11 to describe the hemorrhoids [tumors] and mice which afflicted the Philistines while the Ark was in their possession.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you implied the two nouns, image and likeness, used in Gen 1:26 are simply a personification of attributes and should not be literally translated as physical form and shape. Since neither hemorrhoids or mice have any spiritual attributes to personify, I'm curious to know how you reconcile these two verses?

 

[Ben Masada]

The Hebrew word for image [tselem], God used in Gen 1:26, is the same word He inspired in 1 Sam 6:5 and vs 11 to describe the hemorrhoids [tumors] and mice which afflicted the Philistines while the Ark was in their possession.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you implied the two nouns, image and likeness, used in Gen 1:26 are simply a personification of attributes and should not be literally translated as physical form and shape. Since neither hemorrhoids or mice have any spiritual attributes to personify, I'm curious to know how you reconcile these two verses?

The Hebrew word for image (tselem) implies no physical form, according to the Rambam in his "Guide for the Perplexed," but to the essence or nature of the davar spoken about. If the text had meant "tselem" in terms of physical form the Hebrew word used would be "toar" and not tselem. So, in Genesis 1:26, the reference is to the essence of God. I mean of what God is and not of what God has. Therefore, it is not a reference to the "toar" of God, because God has no "toar." In the case of I Samuel 6:5,11, the same term is used all right but with the same intent. Not a reference to the "toar" of the tumors but to the nature of the gravity that the tumors would cause. Suffering never experienced by the Philistines. True that the tumors did have "toar" (physical form) but the reference was to the tzelem or nature of the davar. I hope you understood what I mean.
Ben

 

[james2ko]

The Hebrew word for image (tselem) implies no physical form, according to the Rambam in his "Guide for the Perplexed," but to the essence or nature of the davar spoken about. If the text had meant "tselem" in terms of physical form the Hebrew word used would be "toar" and not tselem. So, in Genesis 1:26, the reference is to the essence of God. I mean of what God is and not of what God has. Therefore, it is not a reference to the "toar" of God, because God has no "toar." In the case of I Samuel 6:5,11, the same term is used all right but with the same intent. Not a reference to the "toar" of the tumors but to the nature of the gravity that the tumors would cause. Suffering never experienced by the Philistines. True that the tumors did have "toar" (physical form) but the reference was to the tzelem or nature of the davar. I hope you understood what I mean.
Ben

I'm all for bible commentaries and helps to help establish historical and grammatical context. But scripture should be our main source of establishing doctrinal views and beliefs. All 15 verses that contain the word toar are used to describe, or used in conjuction with, a particular type of look (comely, goodly, beautiful). Whereas all 17 instances of "tselem" describe the raw shape and outline of a person, place, or thing. For example, I wish God would have given me the "toar" of Brad Pitt but He didn't. I'll just have to settle for being made in God's "tselem". See the difference?

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm all for bible commentaries and helps to help establish historical and grammatical context. But scripture should be our main source of establishing doctrinal views and beliefs. All 15 verses that contain the word toar are used to describe, or used in conjuction with, a particular type of look (comely, goodly, beautiful). Whereas all 17 instances of "tselem" describe the raw shape and outline of a person, place, or thing. For example, I wish God would have given me the "toar" of Brad Pitt but He didn't. I'll just have to settle for being made in God's "tselem". See the difference?

You are entitled to go for anything you please. But remember that in the dialogue with the Samaritan woman at the Well of Jacob Jesus declared that God is Spirit, and that the only way to relate to Him is in a spiritual manner. (John 4:24) A Spirit has no "toar" or physical form, neither "tselem" in the way you understand of raw shape or with the outline of a person. To admit such a thing of God, you must discard what Jesus had in mind, as he did not see things the way you do.
Ben

 

[sniper762]

a spirit can not have a "son". as in god's case, he can create beings, angels or whatever but for something to be called "a son?"