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

[firedragon]

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 don't think from English in interpreting Hebrew. So I understand what it means. I say it only out of humility alone.

 

[idav]

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.

That is quite interesting thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

:clap

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The idea of an androgens Adam was a midrashic attempt to reconcile two different creation stories. It looses all credibility as soon as one accepts some variant of the Documentary Hypothesis.

 

[Clear]

Clear said

REGARDING THE EARLY JEWISH TRADITION THAT ADAM WAS BORN WITH BOTH SETS OF SEX ORGANS :

From THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Rabbinical literature knows both the mythical and the real hermaphrodite: the former in the Haggadah, the latter in the Halakah. The notion of bisexuality must have been derived from Hellenic sources, as the Greek form of the word proves. The other form, "hermaphrodite," never occurs in rabbinical writings. The principle of the sexual generation of the world is not of Greek origin: its phallic character pointing to India as its birthplace[/FONT][FONT=&quot]…..

In the Haggadah.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): "Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him 'double-faced,' then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second" (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan's Bere**** Rabbati ("Pugio Fidei," p. 446, Paris, 1651).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I might point out that medically, a hermaphrodite is a single individual who has both sexual characteristics (e.g. they may have both sets of organs, male and female), whereas the “double-faced” Jewish version seems to have two individuals of different sexes, melded into in one body, but facing different directions (like the mythical Janus, whose face looks both forward and backward).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Thus, the Jewish encyclopedia explains that : according to Jeremiah's opinion, Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense….[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
This represents ADAM as a hermaphrodite since, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, “Eve was created later”, after Adam and not at the same time.

The midrash in Stones Chumash (a printed Torah. Not a scroll) elaborates regarding the creation of Eve as a “companion” to Adam. “God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Jewish encyclopedia further explains that “In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam (bifrons, double-fronted), as, for example: 'Er. 18a, Ber. 61a, etc. (Jastrow, "Dict." s.v., p. 304, 1).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable";[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the "damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ." Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his "Bibliotheca Sacra" devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to "Adam androgynus," by Guil. Menens, "Aurei Velleris libri tres, Theatrum chemicum," vol. v., p. 275, Argent., 1660.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the Halakah.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In the halakic writings only "Androgynos" is used, never "duoprosopin" (bifrons), and always in the physiological sense of "bisexual." In the Mishnah Bikkurim, the whole of section iv. is devoted to the minute description of the legal position and abnormities of the Androgynos. In some particulars he is to be treated as a man, in others as a woman, as he partakes of both natures; not so the "ṭum-ṭum," an individual whose sex can not be determined. This Androgynos is a common figure in classical tradition. Pliny mentions him ("Historia Naturalis," vii. 34), and Gellius ("Noctes Atticæ," ix. 4, 16). Special attention was paid to the Androgynos in the old writers on physiognomy. Compare "Scriptores Physiognomonici Græci et Latini," ed. Foerster, Leipsic, 1893, under "Androgynos," in Index Græcus (ii. 368). For the further legal treatment of the Androgynos in Hebrew law, see Isaac Lampronti in his "Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ," s.v., and Löw, "Lebensalter."[/FONT]

Obviously the early and widespread Jewish tradition that an "andro / gynus" (male / female) adam had organs of both sexes was a very widespread and deeply footed tradition in orthodox Judaism. However, it does not exist in any detail in the tanakh (Hebrew bible) but is simply exegetal speculation and irrationality run wild.

This sort of irrational and illogical speculation that creates a bisexual/two-bodied adam with a tail (the tail is in other Jewish literature) is similar to the same sort of irrational and illogic that creates similar strange metaphors out of simple words and seeks to contaminate the early judeo-christian traditions with Jewish mythology. The forced marriage of the two theologies historically will not work in this way and Jews should NOT try to create this artificial relationship between two, differing theologies simply because one or two words are shared between them.

For example, When Christians use the words "Adam was created in the image of God", early Christians did NOT adopt a widespread tradition that Adam had both sex organs and that Adam could, by use of both sets of sex organs together, create children without eve. This may be Jewish, but it is not represented in any widespread fashion in sacred early Christian texts and, as the Jewish encyclopedia admits, "[FONT=&quot]we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"[/FONT]

If you ever take the time to read through the mishna or ordered midrashim concerning Genesis (or any other book), perhaps you will understand why I have wondered if this insistent Jewish tendency not to take God at his obvious word, but, rather to change his word by mythologizing and spiritualizing and metaphorizing Gods word so as to not even recognize the basic and simple meanings of words, was part of what angered God against the Jews and contributed to God taking away the prophetic Gifts from the Jews transfering prophecy and revelation to the early Christian movement. Perhaps this Jewish insistence contributed to the reasons God took away their temple and it associated worship out of the midst of the Jews and left them with synagoges instead, or why he took away their priesthood associated with the temple worship and left them with teachers (rabbis) instead.

There are certain things which God said fairly clearly and which the early Christians took much more at face value than the Jews, they did not add nor subtract to the text nearly so much as the Jews did with the creation of their many traditions and rules (which were never part of the Old Testament / Tanakh in the first place).


This was simply one of the early jewish traditions I asked jayhawker soule to discuss and explain. How did such a tradition originate and become so detailed and ingrained in Jewish tradition in the context of Tanahk (i.e. the hebrew bible / Old Testament). Deut 12:32 tells the Jews regarding the Torah, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".

How does one create such detailed and deep-seated traditions like this without adding speculations and illogical conclusions and irrational considerations to the text? It's obvious, the Jews had to add to Tanakh to create such traditions.

Jayhawker soule explained

: The idea of an androgens Adam was a midrashic attempt to reconcile two different creation stories. It looses all credibility as soon as one accepts some variant of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Jayhawker soule :
I agree that the Jewish doctrine and tradition that Adam was created with both male AND female sex organs was an attempt by rabbis to reconcile two creation stories that they felt were unreconciled (since this is the reason given in the rabbinic literature). I also very much agree with your claim that this complicated Jewish tradition from the Jewish Talmud has little “credibility” and I believe that the creation of this specific Jewish teaching and tradition was only made necessary due to Jewish rabbis who insisted on making the text and tradition conform to their unusual interpretation of the text.

However, how does a documentary hypothesis, designed to explain the origin and creation of hebrew biblical text by multiple authors, at varying times and from textual pieces, affect the credibility both of the Jewish rabbis who insisted on creating this Jewish tradition of an Adam with both male and female sex organs, and the tradition itself?

Clear
φιτζσισεω

 

[Sonofason]

If I remember correctly, man was created in the image of God and whoever else was around before the fall. So, humanity as we know it need no necessarily be the form we see today. It is also worth knowing that Jesus was not around or even thought up at the time Genesis was written. Further, God said "let us make man in our image", implying others were around who may have been humanoid physically.

Pretty flawed statement.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...John bare witness of him, and cried, This was he of whom I spake..." (John 1:14-15)

If all things were made through Christ Jesus, then how indeed could it be that
Jesus was not around when Genesis was written. I assure you, He was.

 

[Sonofason]

I don't see the distinction you are making - or why you are trying to make it.

Jesus was a man, that is the whole point of the New Testament story - God sends his son to earth as a man. If Jesus was not a man, the entire theology collapses.

I prefer to say it like this, The Word of God became flesh. The reason I make this distinction is to show that Jesus was much more than a man sent by God. He is a manifestation of God Himself.

If I were to speak in all honesty, being perfectly true to myself, then my words would be a perfect reflection of my own nature. They would indeed be a manifestation of myself, and my true nature. By them, you would know me.

 

[Sonofason]

When God spoke existence into existence, The Son was present. And nothing was spoken into existence without The Son, The Word of God.

 

[Bunyip]

I prefer to say it like this, The Word of God became flesh. The reason I make this distinction is to show that Jesus was much more than a man sent by God. He is a manifestation of God Himself.

I accept that to be your view, but it is not found in scripture. Jesus made no such claim, and the concept of the trinity is very different from what you describe.

If I were to speak in all honesty, being perfectly true to myself, then my words would be a perfect reflection of my own nature. They would indeed be a manifestation of myself, and my true nature. By them, you would know me.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

What does it mean, literally?

We have two legs because God has two legs?

We have hair because God has it too?

God has a mouth, tongue, tonsils, nails, liver, pancreas, and all the other organs too?

The G-d that is the likeness of man is Jesus, not an "invisible' god.

Since we're the likeness of God too, then we all are Jesus-es.

Jesus is The Creator G-d.

Doesn't follow from being a likeness.

 

[Sonofason]

I accept that to be your view, but it is not found in scripture. Jesus made no such claim, and the concept of the trinity is very different from what you describe.

Please be more specific, and specify exactly what is not found in scripture, because I assure you everything I said is backed by scripture.

 

[Sonofason]

Well then, please do so.


I know you didn't. The fact remains that an image is the representation of something's physical qualities.



Since my degree is in English, the answer to that question is yes.


No, not clearly. If it were clearly used metaphorically, we wouldn't hold opposite opinions, but would still agree.


Of course I've noticed it. I've also noticed that there is always a reason when a word is used metaphorically. In the case of God saying, "Let us create man in our image," no such reason exists. The entire chapter deals with the physical creation of the universe, and about the different life forms being created. It speaks of each species of animal being designed to reproduce "after its kind." In other words, a dog's offspring will always resemble that dog. When God says, "Let us create man in our image," why on earth would He suddenly -- mid-topic -- start speaking metaphorically?

If each plant and animal is a product of other plants and animals of the same kind, why is it that you feel compelled to put it on other words? Why do you feel compelled to suggest that these verses of the Bible are strictly speaking of a physical likeness?

Let me answer that. There is no other likeness in existence other than a physical likeness. Please, if I am wrong, please explain a likeness that is not completely dependent on the physical, material world.

If we are indeed created in the likeness of God, then that likeness can only be a physical likeness, because if it is not a physical likeness, if it is not rooted in physical reality, there can be no likeness at all.

All of reality is physical. Even a man's free will, if it exists, is completely a physical quality. It is utterly dependent on the particular chemical properties of that individuals mind. There is nothing non-physical about it.

 

[Katzpur]

If each plant and animal is a product of other plants and animals of the same kind, why is it that you feel compelled to put it on other words? Why do you feel compelled to suggest that these verses of the Bible are strictly speaking of a physical likeness?

I'm totally confused. Why are you addressing this question to me? It sounds as if you and I are are on exactly the same page.

 

[Sonofason]

I'm totally confused. Why are you addressing this question to me? It sounds as if you and I are are on exactly the same page.

Sorry, I believe you are correct. I should have addressed BruceDiLimber with my comment. My sincere apologies.

 

[Sonofason]

How quickly you forget:

​

So all you have in support of your claim is "it is what I believe"?

Not a single verse?


Your assumption here is most comical.
Especially given that my "religious affiliation" is clearly listed right next to my avatar....


So, are you going to support your claim with something other than "it is what I believe" or are you going to continue ignoring the request?

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
(John 1:1-3)

From these two verses, we can see, that the Word is God.
If we continue in John, we see that the Word became flesh.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..."
(John 1:14)

And that flesh was a man who had a name. In the English language, the name of that man is Jesus.

Is this the proof you were looking for?

 

[Sonofason]

Actually Jesus never claims to be God, or part of a Trinity.


He is actually claiming to be the awaited Jewish Messiah.


The awaited Messiah is a Special/Singular Son of God - but not God.


I'm not arguing from "outside" the religion. I am arguing from what the actual Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible say.



*

Honesty, from what I see you saying, you are not arguing from what the Bible texts say. It clearly says in the text that Jesus is the Word of God, and it clearly says that the Word was God. It clearly says the Word became flesh, and that flesh being the man Jesus the awaited Messiah.

So which texts are you excluding, because if you are not excluding certain texts, you could not possibly come to the conclusion that you have come to?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)

Bad translation. Carry on ...

 

[Sonofason]

[/I][/B][/COLOR]I agree with you as to the definition of the word "image." Certain words can not be used in every context in which we might find it convenient in which to use them. For instance, while it is meaningful to say that a person is spiritually wealthy, it makes no sense to say that he's carrying a wad of spiritual $20 bills. Likewise, there is no such thing as a "spritual image."

Image

What is 'image'? First, we think of physicality, not essence or personality. An 'image' of someone is their physical aspects, basically. We make idols in the 'image' of some 'god' etc. We create an 'image' to portray the basic physical attribution we are trying to ascribe to something else.

Plurality

Plurality of Deity. This is a basic understanding of the Genesis Deity description. Whether God and Angels, or a description we are not entirely sure of, it indicates a plural nature to the Creator. We essentially have two deities powerful enough to be Creator Gods, however 'they' are described as ONE deity, Jesus/God. 'To worship the Son is to worship the Father etc., and the son is the manifestation in physical form, basically descriptive rather than literal if we consider the Divine aspect as already one Godhead.
The Deity from Israel. It was outside the scope of the Israelites to choose to be the 'chosen people'. /Later to include Christians in the covenant.

We have a coherent description of Oneness in Godhead, yet apparent plurality in description. Jesus/God.
We have one inspired text for the Israelites, cohesive to Jesus/God
We have one Covenant that seems to 'change', yet is referred to as 'correct', an indication of parallel Covenant ordinances.
We have 'similarity' but not same in various practices of Israelites.

We are forced to consider the 'image' in which we were created.

Indeed, that is a good question. What is spirit?

It reminds me of a series of questions I once heard. They go something like this:

Q - What is that you have inside your shoe?
A - Well, it's my foot.
Q - And what is that you are holding that pencil with?
A - Well, it's my hand.
Q - And what is it that you are writing with that pencil?
A - Oh, those are my thoughts
Q - I see, well where do those thoughts come from?
A - Well, they are coming from my brain
Q - This is interesting, for all of these things belong to you, so what exactly are you?

 

[Sonofason]

Actually I don't think the NT Has Jesus saying he is God, Nor does it say anywhere, that Jesus is God.

Image of - power of - knowledge of - heir of - sent from, etc.


But nowhere that I know of does it say Jesus IS God.


Nor that there is a trinity.


Praying - or baptizing in the name of the Father (God) - the Son (sent human Messiah) and Spirit, - does not mean a trinity God.


Hear Oh Israel our God is ONE God.


Jesus speaking in the red -


Mar 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

Mar 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:


Here Jesus is referencing Deuteronomy 6:4.

Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel, YHVH our Elohiym, is YHVH only/alone.


Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Mar 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Mar 12:33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Mar 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered prudently (exercised sound judgment), he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

Mar 12:35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How can the scribes say that Christ is the Son of David?

Mar 12:36 For/Because David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.


This references Psalm 110:1 - which uses YHVH - not lord twice.


Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. YHVH said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psa 110:2 YHVH shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Psa 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Psa 110:4 YHVH hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.



Mar 12:37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.


He is very obviously claiming a linage through King David - who was told to sit at Gods right hand - until the enemies fall. He is claiming to be the Messiah from the line of David. Who will sit at the Right Hand of God. A human sent by God to bring the enemy/and age, to an end, generations later. He is not God. He very specifically tells us there is ONE God.


David and Solomon are called Sons of God - as are the Hebrew people.


Jesus is just claiming to be the Messiah - the SINGULAR/special Son of God - awaited from the line of David - whom will sit at the Right Hand of God.


*

"in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

Is it not clear from the following verses of John, chapter 1, that this Word of God was indeed Jesus the Messiah, at a date prior to His physical conception?

And if you determine that these scriptures do not imply divinity to Jesus, then please explain why you think that?

 

[Sonofason]

Bad translation. Carry on ...

Sad denial.

Perhaps you can provide a better translation for those of us reading such poor translations.