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

[Katzpur]

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

No problem. I was just confused by your comments, that's all. Nice to see that we agree.

 

[Ingledsva]

"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?

You can repeat this as many times as you want, and it won't make a difference.


Read the whole thing in the Greek.


The first line uses "pros" meaning "by the side of."


Magistrates/Judges are called "gods" in the Bible.


In the Greek it is talking about ALL coming from God, and obviously John is the first sent from God - then the Messiah Jesus.


It is NOT actually saying Jesus is the ONE GOD, - and this is made very clear in all the other verses - where JESUS tells us GOD gives the power.


However, even if you don't translate this whole thing out, just choosing the mistranslations, - this whole thing was written after the fact - most likely by people that were not there, and did not know Jesus, thus making it fanciful thinking.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

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?

What am I saying that isn't in the Bible.


You are repeating "tradition."


Jesus never says he is God.


One would think he would say he was God, or part of a trinity, as that would be rather important to his disciples - don't you think?????


He does not say such nonsense.


The trinity is not in the Bible.


Jesus tells us he is the one spoken of in Tanakh - which means the awaited Jewish Messiah - whom is not God/trinity.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

Yep, and isn't needed when one accepts that it is talking in a metaphorical sense, rather then concrete.


"a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”

- Dictionary.com

*

 

[John Martin]

What is the image and likeness of God?
How can we describe God?
We can describe God as: Holiness, Wholeness, Eternal,Fullness, Unfolding and Love.
How can we describe the image and likeness God: wholeness, eternal,fullness,unfolding and love.
The difference is God's Holiness etc. is independent whereas human holiness is dependent on God.
God's energy is like Sun's energy and human energy is like Moon's energy. The Sun radiates from its fullness, whereas the Moon's radiance is received light from the Sun.
The difference between God and human beings is that God does not forget his or her fullness whereas human beings can forget their nature. This forgetfulness is called sin. It makes human beings to forgo the path of unfolding and take the path of becoming, which is the path of ignorance,fragmentation and sin. Human beings also have the possibility to remember their true nature. The whole drama of human spiritual life is played between these possibilities human beings have.This is what makes human beings different from the rest of the creatures.

 

[YmirGF]

'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.

I'm pretty stupid, but I've never taken that literally.
My delusional stance is that, in these terms, not mine, God is a spiritual being, man is made in the image of god means that man is also a spiritual being.
Not God, literally, but the same essence... if that makes any sense.

Perhaps I'm missing something though...

 

[John Martin]

In order to understand if Jesus is God, that we need to define or even describe who or what God is. There is one description in the Vedic tradition which is very useful to understand if Jesus is God or not and if he is God in what sense he is God.
Rig Veda says: ekam sat viprabahuthi vadanti. The word 'sat' means, self existing being. Its existence does not depend on any other thing. Ekam means one. Vadanthi means wise persons. Viprabahuthi means with many names or ways.
There is only one self existing being(God) but sages call it by many names.
The opposite of 'sat' is 'asat'. Asat is that whose existence is depend on another reality. Let us take the earth and a tree on the earth. The earth can stand by itself. Its existence does not depend on the tree. The tree cannot exist on its own. Its existence depends on the earth. The earth is symbol of sat or infinite or God and the tree is symbol of asat or creation or finite being. Sat has no beginning and end and asat has beginning and end.
Let us come back to Jesus. Is Jesus God? Jesus as a physical human being is not God or sat. He has the beginning and the end. He is not a self-existing being. Whether the consciousness of Jesus is God? It can not be God because Jesus prayed to God as any other human being. In this sense he was not God. He also said that 'the Father and I are one'. There are four 'I's in Jesus. One is the physical 'I' identification with his body. The second 'I' is the Jewish 'I' identification with his Jewish tradition. The third 'I' is the universal 'I' beyond time and space. The fourth 'I' is the divine 'I', experiencing identity with God.
The third 'I' is the word of God, the logos, the universal consciousness. It was there before the birth of Jesus. This logos is not identical with Jesus. The human consciousness of Jesus entered into the consciousness of logos, which was before Jesus. When we read in the John's gospel, In the beginning was the word. The word was with God and the word was God. The word is the first manifestation of God(not created by God). It is like the ray of the Sun. Once it is manifested it is little different from God and dependent on God. It is with God. To be with God is to be dependent on God. The word was God. Since it is the manifestation of God it has the possibility to return to God and realize being one with God. Just a piece of ice comes from the water, feels separate from water and when it melts it is water. When it is in the form of ice it is not water functionally(though essentially water) because it is dependent on water.
In the same way Jesus as a physical human being is not God. As a Jew he was not God. As the Son of God, he is the manifestation of God. The son of God means universal consciousness. It was there before the physical birth of Jesus. When Jesus said, 'before Abraham was I am', he was not referring to his physical body, which is impossible, but to his universal body. The universal consciousness of Jesus is not God because it is separate from God but dependent on God. Jesus' consciousness went beyond that and realized being one with God. At that level his human consciousness realizes being one with God. In the lower three levels Jesus was not God and in the fourth level he is one with God. In this way the Christian tradition says that Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine. He is fully human in the lower there levels,which are asat,which have a beginning and an end and the fourth level which is sat, he is God. It is better to say God is. It is like a ray of the Sun returning back into the Sun.

 

[Sonofason]

What am I saying that isn't in the Bible.


You are repeating "tradition."


Jesus never says he is God.


One would think he would say he was God, or part of a trinity, as that would be rather important to his disciples - don't you think?????


He does not say such nonsense.


The trinity is not in the Bible.


Jesus tells us he is the one spoken of in Tanakh - which means the awaited Jewish Messiah - whom is not God/trinity.


*

Apparently you are saying that Jesus is not God. And the Bible clearly says that He is God. Yet, although the Bible clearly states that Jesus is God, we can also find references that Jesus and God are not exactly one in the same being, unless you think that Jesus praying to the Father is simply Jesus talking to Himself. There are many examples to show this. It is obvious that Jesus sees Himself as being somehow separate from the Father. Yet Jesus is indeed One with the Father as well. You explain it.

I can't explain it. I don't care if we call it a Trinity or not. Just as I am mind body and spirit, and considering the fact that I am made in God's image, I believe that God is as well, mind body and spirit.

 

[Katzpur]

Apparently you are saying that Jesus is not God. And the Bible clearly says that He is God. Yet, although the Bible clearly states that Jesus is God, we can also find references that Jesus and God are not exactly one in the same being, unless you think that Jesus praying to the Father is simply Jesus talking to Himself. There are many examples to show this. It is obvious that Jesus sees Himself as being somehow separate from the Father. Yet Jesus is indeed One with the Father as well. You explain it.

I can't explain it. I don't care if we call it a Trinity or not. Just as I am mind body and spirit, and considering the fact that I am made in God's image, I believe that God is as well, mind body and spirit.

I'm really confused about just one thing... Would you mind sharing which Christian denomination you affiliate with (if you do), because, even though I share your opinion, I don't know of any Christians outside of my own denomination who believe as you do.

 

[Ingledsva]

Apparently you are saying that Jesus is not God. And the Bible clearly says that He is God. Yet, although the Bible clearly states that Jesus is God, we can also find references that Jesus and God are not exactly one in the same being, unless you think that Jesus praying to the Father is simply Jesus talking to Himself. There are many examples to show this. It is obvious that Jesus sees Himself as being somehow separate from the Father. Yet Jesus is indeed One with the Father as well. You explain it.

I can't explain it. I don't care if we call it a Trinity or not. Just as I am mind body and spirit, and considering the fact that I am made in God's image, I believe that God is as well, mind body and spirit.

Again - it does NOT say Jesus is God.



*

 

[outhouse]

How can we describe God?
.

Dont ask us.

All religious text every written on the abrahamic concept, describes "him"

What is the image and likeness of God?

For me. he is black ink. He exist only on paper or papyrus.


But since we know ancient israelites worshiopped a family of deities and yahwey was the son od El and had a brother Baal, before his wife Asherah, and since these same people drew a picture of him. amnd since they claim we are the same.

He IS very human looking. Since only humans wrote about him, I say they created him.

 

[Sonofason]

I'm really confused about just one thing... Would you mind sharing which Christian denomination you affiliate with (if you do), because, even though I share your opinion, I don't know of any Christians outside of my own denomination who believe as you do.

Honestly, I do not affiliate myself with any particular Christian denomination. I consider myself a Christian, (a follower of Christ). I believe that the Bible was written by men, who were inspired by God. I am not saying that every sentence in the Bible is a direct quote from God, (although I am not overly inclined to believe they weren't), but I believe that every sentence was written by men giving their utmost honest effort to convey the truth as they saw it, while under the inspiration of God.

I believe the Bible is true. I believe it is all true. So when I see conflict between the Bible and science for example, I am compelled to revisit the science to try and discover where the problem lies. If I see no problem in science, then I must revisit my understanding of scripture to see if I might perhaps be misinterpreting something.

I must say, it is nice to meet you, as I rarely meet other Christians who believe as I do as well. It is refreshing to know I am not standing alone with regard to at least some of my beliefs.

 

[Sonofason]

Again - it does NOT say Jesus is God.



*

In my opinion, it does.

 

[Katzpur]

Honestly, I do not affiliate myself with any particular Christian denomination. I consider myself a Christian, (a follower of Christ). I believe that the Bible was written by men, who were inspired by God. I am not saying that every sentence in the Bible is a direct quote from God, (although I am not overly inclined to believe they weren't), but I believe that every sentence was written by men giving their utmost honest effort to convey the truth as they saw it, while under the inspiration of God.

With respect to the Bible, I also believe much as you do.

I believe the Bible is true. I believe it is all true. So when I see conflict between the Bible and science for example, I am compelled to revisit the science to try and discover where the problem lies. If I see no problem in science, then I must revisit my understanding of scripture to see if I might perhaps be misinterpreting something.

Here's what I do when I see a conflict between the Bible and science: I recognize that our knowledge of spiritual truths and our knowledge of facts that can be scientifically proven are both incomplete at this point in time. In other words, I don't believe that religion and science are necessarily incompatible -- or at least won't be when all that can be discovered by science and all that can be revealed by God is complete.

I must say, it is nice to meet you, as I rarely meet other Christians who believe as I do as well. It is refreshing to know I am not standing alone with regard to at least some of my beliefs.

Nice to meet you, too!

 

[Sonofason]

Again - it does NOT say Jesus is God.



*

Let me try to explain it this way:

I've already explained some of this, but let me revisit it once again before giving you an example of what I mean.

In the beginning was the Word of God. John goes on to inform us that Jesus is the Word of God. He then goes on to say that the Word of God is God. There can be no doubt that John is telling us that Jesus is God.

an example:

Lets say you are walking with a friend. Your friend is on the telephone. You hear the voice of the person your friend is speaking with. Perhaps the voice sounds familiar, perhaps it doesn't. But you ask your friend,

"Who is that?"

Your friend responds,
"It's John"

Well lets stop for a moment. What you heard was a voice. You heard words perhaps, yet you are satisfied with your friends answer.

Why did she not say oh, that was the voice of John. Obviously, a person's voice is not a person, so how could it have a name?

But you understood that the voice you heard was John. You accepted her answer.

That is because you cannot separate an entity from it's voice.

If I am speaking, that voice is mine. It belongs to me and no one else.

It conveys everything I think, if I choose to convey what I think. If you hear my voice, you can know that what you are hearing, you are hearing from me.

Jesus is the Word of God. When God speaks, His Son moves. And it is all done in the Spirit of God. And that spirit is The Holy Spirit, because there is only one Holy Spirit, and that spirit is God as well.

 

[Ingledsva]

Let me try to explain it this way:

I've already explained some of this, but let me revisit it once again before giving you an example of what I mean.

In the beginning was the Word of God. John goes on to inform us that Jesus is the Word of God. He then goes on to say that the Word of God is God. There can be no doubt that John is telling us that Jesus is God.

an example:

Lets say you are walking with a friend. Your friend is on the telephone. You hear the voice of the person your friend is speaking with. Perhaps the voice sounds familiar, perhaps it doesn't. But you ask your friend,

"Who is that?"

Your friend responds,
"It's John"

Well lets stop for a moment. What you heard was a voice. You heard words perhaps, yet you are satisfied with your friends answer.

Why did she not say oh, that was the voice of John. Obviously, a person's voice is not a person, so how could it have a name?

But you understood that the voice you heard was John. You accepted her answer.

That is because you cannot separate an entity from it's voice.

If I am speaking, that voice is mine. It belongs to me and no one else.

It conveys everything I think, if I choose to convey what I think. If you hear my voice, you can know that what you are hearing, you are hearing from me.

Jesus is the Word of God. When God speaks, His Son moves. And it is all done in the Spirit of God. And that spirit is The Holy Spirit, because there is only one Holy Spirit, and that spirit is God as well.

None of which make him God.



*

 

[Sonofason]

None of which make him God.



*

You're right, nothing I can say can make Jesus God. He simply is.

And it certainly doesn't weigh too heavily on my heart if you should continue believing that Jesus is not God. We make our own beds.

 

[Ingledsva]

Honestly, I do not affiliate myself with any particular Christian denomination. I consider myself a Christian, (a follower of Christ). I believe that the Bible was written by men, who were inspired by God. I am not saying that every sentence in the Bible is a direct quote from God, (although I am not overly inclined to believe they weren't), but I believe that every sentence was written by men giving their utmost honest effort to convey the truth as they saw it, while under the inspiration of God.

I believe the Bible is true. I believe it is all true. So when I see conflict between the Bible and science for example, I am compelled to revisit the science to try and discover where the problem lies. If I see no problem in science, then I must revisit my understanding of scripture to see if I might perhaps be misinterpreting something.

I must say, it is nice to meet you, as I rarely meet other Christians who believe as I do as well. It is refreshing to know I am not standing alone with regard to at least some of my beliefs.

So you believe snakes and donkeys spoke?

Birds catered to a prophet, feeding him etc?

There was a world wide flood, covering mountains, only 4,500 to 10,000 or so years ago (depending on denomination asked)?

A too small Ark that carried two, or seven, of ALL critters?

That three males and three females created all the diversity of humanity in only a few thousand years from that landing date?

A man got swallowed by a big fish/whale, for three days, and lived?


How can you believe this myth?

How can you believe a God that murders the innocent for the crimes of others - is actually God?


*

 

[Sonofason]

So you believe snakes and donkeys spoke?

Actually, I do not believe that snakes spoke, and furthermore the Bible never suggests that snakes spoke. In the garden, it was a serpent that spoke.

And I do not believe that donkeys have the ability to speak, not at least without some outside help. I believe God spoke to Balaam and it had appeared to Balaam that the donkey was speaking. But it was God doing all the speaking. It was the voice of God that Balaam heard.

Birds catered to a prophet, feeding him etc?

Yes, I believe God has such power over animals.

There was a world wide flood, covering mountains, only 4,500 to 10,000 or so years ago (depending on denomination asked)?

Yes, I believe the entire earth was covered with water, however I don't know the time frame, and neither do you.

A too small Ark that carried two, or seven, of ALL critters?

Yes, I believe what the Bible says.

That three males and three females created all the diversity of humanity in only a few thousand years from that landing date?

Again, I don't know the time frame when Noah lived on this earth, but I believe what the Bible tells of this event.

A man got swallowed by a big fish/whale, for three days, and lived?

Yes, I believe the story of Jonah.

How can you believe this myth?

myths are only myths because of the uncertainty of the validity of the story being told. The fact that something is termed a myth in no way signifies that the story is not true. It simply means we have no knowledge of any means of knowing for sure whether or not it is true.

How can you believe a God that murders the innocent for the crimes of others - is actually God?

I know of no instance where God murdered an innocent person. But honestly, I would love to watch you flounder for an answer.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi Sonofason :


Though I agreed with you that early Christians did believe the pre-creation Jesus was directly involved in creation of created things (not all things), I have to agree with Ingledsva on the very specific point that, historically, in early Judeo-Christianity, the earliest textual histories where Christians themselves describe these doctrines (i.e. mishnas, psalms, hymns, lectionaries, romance and fiction, and sacred texts as a group), do not, thematically, interpret Jesus as being the same person as his father, the “Lord God”.

However, if you’ve looked at the thread “Was Judaism Originally Henotheistic?” you will see the discussion of early Judaic belief in multiple “lessor” divinities and a later move to strict monotheism. The model of early Henotheism is the currently accepted model (called the “concensus model&#8221 among scholars of early periods and early Judeo-Christian texts. The belief in Jesus as a divine entity fits into this model nicely.

It is within this second model that I can agree with your use of John 1:1-3 as evidence of Jesus as a having the characteristic of “divinity” (i.e. Jesus had qualities of divinity).

For example, NA-27 renders the English of this verse as :
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same verse in greek of GN-4, vs one, reads.
1 : Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο λογος.

You can see there are three clauses in this sentence. I typed each in a different color. Below, In each clause, I’ve underlined the subject (ο λογος/ ”the word&#8221 and the verb (ην / ”was&#8221

1 : Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο λογος.

Consider the underlined subject and verb are the same in each clause :
a) The subject : ο λογος / “the word” is the same in each clause and all are in the nominative case and are masculine.

b) The verb ην / “was” is also the same in each clause. (In this Greek, the subject/verb order doesn’t matter, ο λογος ην means the same as ην ο λογο&#962

Notice that ONLY the predicates change.


Now, instead of Subject and verb, I've underlined the predicates below. Each clause in John 1:1 now appears thus :

Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, The logos was in the beginning.
και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, and The logos was with the God (articulated)
και θεος ην ο λογος.and The logos was a God (inarticulated)

“God” (θεο&#962 in the last clause is inarticulated, and thus grammatically, this Greek written text reads that the word is “a God”. It is only the historical context and underlying theology of the era that indicates whether it actually meant : “a God” or “the God” to the writer.

As a relevant example, this specific historical context is very important, since, the thread in RF that is actively discussing the early Judaic belief in a “Lord God” who was over other divinities referred to as “gods” is discussing what this early historical context actually was. (thus it affects what John 1:1 would have meant to individuals living anciently.) The thread is : http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...s/164585-judaism-originally-henotheistic.html

Since such historical concepts affect interpretation of scriptures, the concept of Henotheism in early Judaism and Christianity is not merely academic, but has historical precedence and theological application.

For example :
Henotheism (the belief in a LORD God over other divinities) is perfectly fine with leaving the greek sentence in John 1:1 just as it is written is and rendering it “A God” whereas
strict Monotheism (the belief in only ONE being that is divine) must change the sentence, either textually or mentally or interpretationally, to have it mean “THE God” (or simply “God&#8221.


However, the Greek text makes further contextual distinctions that are not apparent in english versions.

For example, consider verse 18 of John, first chapter. The GN-4 (the Standard text for translators) reads :

“Θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεοςο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.” (John 1:18) Which means, in english :
“No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (declared him, explained him, etc.)(John 1:18)

Since God the Father was not, historically referred to as a "begotten God", verse 18 cannot refer to him as a "begotten God", but, instead must refer to a different individual who was "the only begotten God". In this case, Jesus fits into this position in early Christian textual worldviews, especially given the many descriptions that refer to him as "the only begotten" "of the Father".

post two of two follows