The Image Of God

[Willamena]

It was referring to our natures (having a rational mind, free will, ability to love and pursue justice, etc.), not anything to do with appearance.

Those are appearances, too.

 

[Native]

"God" is imagined by humans to reside "in Heaven" and as "we are created in the image of God", there logically must be a heavenly i. e. a celestial image which looks like, or can be imagined as a human being.

In order to describe a human form an gender, such a heavenly image must have some significant human shapes. We then have several Star Constellations to consider as suggested here.

We also have to consider the very contours of the Milky Way on both hemispheres. For instants, in ancient Egypth, the Goddess Hathor resembles the Milky Way contours on the southern Sky and, for instants, in ancient Rome, their God Saturnus resembles the Milky Way contours on the northern Sky.

What then about the general OP question of "The image of God"?

It´s obvious that humans all over the world have described different celestial images with human names - even in BOTH genders. So we don´t just have One prime God as in the Abrahamic religions, but also One prime Goddess as noted by the Milky Way images above.

But if we humans have given names to the prime heavenly deities, are we then been made of these gendered deities? Oh, yes we are! The creative forces in our Milky Way galaxy (and beyond) have also created the entire Solar System and all its life on the Earth.

Regards
Native

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What is meant by the term Image of God? Does God have an image in your opinion? Is the term more comprehensive than we can imagine? What are your thoughts?

It means that we share some of the characteristics of God, such as knowing good from evil, being capable of love, compassion, justice, mercy, etc. We are even creative.

 

[PearlSeeker]

If this "image" was Christ, then what does Genesis mean when it says that we are created in His image?

I guess at the time Elohist creation story was composed they didn't know any concept of primal mediator/agent yet. Maybe it is explained in the context what was this image/likeness.

"... and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What I am seeing in many of the comments is the tendency to offer a modern interpretation of Adam being created in the “image” of God and the tendency toward metaphorization of this word “image”. In early Christianity the word “image” still meant “image” and the sentence of God making man in his own image is not particularly metaphorical.
DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TEXT : MODERN VS EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Genesis 1:27 “And God made man. According to the image of God he made him….”
Και εποιησεν ο θεος τον ανθρωπον κατ εικονα θεου εποιησεν αυτον αυτον...
The word used for “Image” is icon (Greek “εικονα” or english "Icon").
An “Icon” (εικονα) was a visual likeness.

A picture on the wall is an Icon.
To make man according to our image simply means that Adam was to be made in the visual likeness of God and his Son.

Early Christianity did not need to produce tenuous metaphorical connections but could let the words mean what they seem to mean.


The greek LXX uses the term “εικονα“ (“Icon” in english) for “image” of God.

Koine Greek used “εικονα“ (“Icon” in english) for “image” of God. This was the term for actual, physical, visual descriptions of individuals in official documents.

For examples:
In BGU IV. (1 B.C.), “εικονα” (icon/image) is used to describe actual visual characteristics of a female slave (ης τα ετη και αι εικονις θποκεινται).
In P. Tebt I 32:21 (approx. 145 b.c.?) one finds this same usage as a visual characteristic as well.
In P Ryl II. 156.33 (approx first century a.d.) it describes multiple individuals and their physical appearance (εικονα).

Early sacred texts use εικονα in an actual, visual context as well.
For example, when Barnabas explained that though “… Moses had commanded, “You shall not have a cast or a carved image for your God, nevertheless he himself made one in order to show them a symbol of Jesus.” (Epistle of Barnabas 12:6), this is an εικονα / icon or image he speaks of and it is clearly a visual and physical “image” and not a metaphor.

The point is that “image” in this sense was a word used to describe an actual, real, image and is not metaphorical or symbolic in vernacular usage.
I can't think of any single early koine greek example of εικονα that is clearly used in early texts in a metaphorical sense and not a visual representation. Can anyone else on the forum think of a single example? Even one?

I think the modern tendency is to use εικονα metaphorically as a mechanism to try to make the early texts harmonize to personal modern beliefs rather than to harmonize modern beliefs to what the texts said.

This repeated process of creating metaphors to explain the many similar disagreements between text and belief partially explains the multiplication of theories among Christian movements. In fact, the process of producing different metaphors encourages schisms and splits based on differing metaphors and theories while the Christianity that takes this specific example at face value can use such descriptions in the common vernacular and obvious meaning WITHOUT the same problem of coherence and their inherent coherence and harmony decreases schisms on this specific point (though schisms may occur on other points).

This process of “metaphorizing” texts repeats itself multiple times in multiple ways on multiple points of doctrine, in order to create coherence between text and belief. At some point, such spiritualizing and metaphorizing of the text may become a reflex and a standard refuge to which one finds sheltering explanations for difficult passages. It is however, difficult to make any firm rule regarding what is actual and what is metaphor (since metaphors certainly do exist in early texts…).


EARLY TEXTUAL USEAGE OF EIKONA / IMAGE WERE, USUALLY A VISUAL DESCRIPTION

In the case of Adam being made in the εικονα, icon or "image" of God, it is clear in much of the early sacred texts, this was not a metaphorical doctrine in early Christianity.

For example, an early Christian text describes a clear physical/visual meaning to the use of εικονα . / “image” when

“ God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. …. “ Cave of treasures text

Contextual descriptions in such texts are clearly describing an actual visual appearance of Adam before his “fall”.

Such description don’t just use εικονα (or "image") as an indication of visual context, but also forms of greek ομοιωμα (or "likeness") are often also used in such descriptions of Adams’ appearance. Ομοιωμα is distinguished from εικων since it implies an archetype, the “likeness” or “form”.

The great Greek linguist Moulton, uses the example of ομιοωμα, “as one egg is like another” (The eggs are not exactly the same, but so close to the same that one may not tell the difference in his example from OGIS 669.62 (from first century a.d.). This is another “visual” context since, In other, non-visual contexts, one may see ομολογεω used, indicating two individuals simply “agree with” each another (without the indication of a visual “sameness”).

A good example of both words being used in such a context is from the early Christian text Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1 when Adam is told : “…God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God….” And “the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.” Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1

These two terms forms of εικονα and ομοιωμα became ingrained not only in texts, but into the oral liturgies and prayers of early Christianity. For example, in one Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer, the prayer reads :

“...you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness”... 24 But when man was disobedient, You took away his deserved life. 25 You did not make it disappear absolutely, but for a time, ...27 You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope!(aposCon 7.34.1-8)

Such examples often seen in early textual traditions are so obviously and consistently a physical, visual context that one cannot mistake some descriptions for metaphor.

For example from Jewish Haggadah repeats this same theme of physical appearance :

“When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are your works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration... ” (The Haggadah)

Whether early traditions are correct or not, still, they did conceive of Adam having the same image (εικονα) and likeness (ομοιωμα) as his creator.

In fact, the most common post c.e. tradition that is common to all three Abrahamic religions (i.e. early Judaism and Christianity AND early Islam) IS the tradition concerning the fall of Lucifer, and it concerns the honoring of Adam, as the image and likeness of God. Though the story/tradition exists in multiple texts common to all three Abrahamic traditions, Christian Vita is a good example of this genre of literature.

When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God, Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness...’ (Vita) 12:1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3

My point is that "image" and "likeness" used in Genesis 1:27 (LXX) were not generally used in any metaphorical sense in any common usage anciently.

The ancient Christians had a different interpretation than modern Christians on many points. One difference was the early Christian belief that the “image of God”, still mean the “image of God” rather than the later metaphorical interpretations. THIS is why I suggested the O.P. ask about the meaning of "image" and be more specific to the time period of Christian worldview since interpretations have changed over the years.

Clear
φυακδρω

Genesis 1:26-27 is written in the Hebrew and Not in Greek.

 

[Clear]

URAVIP2ME claimed : "Genesis 1:26-27 is written in the Hebrew and Not in Greek." (post #45)

Last time I checked, the Jewish Septuagint, which was the most commonly used old testament in early Christendom, was written in greek.

Genesis 1:26-27 says : Και ειπεν ο θεοσ ποιησωμεν κατ εικονα ημετεραν και καθ ομοιωσιν και αρχετωσαν των ιχθυων τησ θαλασσησ και των πετεινων του ουρανου και των κτηνων και πασησ τησ γησ και παντων των ερπετων των ερποντων επι τησ γησ.
Και εποησεν ο θεοσ τον ανθρωπον κατ εικονα θεου εποιησεν αυτον αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτουσ.

It seems like greek to me.....

Remember, the Jewish Septuagint of approx 300 b.c. was written in GREEK.
It is the Masoretic of the middle ages (approx 900-1400 a.d.) that was written in HEBREW.

Clear
ακφιακω

 

[Native]

Katzpur said: ↑
And yet, today, nobody seems to care what the words meant when they were actually written.

I think that one problem with having historical insight is that we all are oriented to our own present just as we are oriented to our own language.

Another huge problem is that we read Stories of Creation without making the conscious cosmological connection to WHAT is created and how this is symbolized in ancient texts.

The ancient world view of our ancestors included the contours of the Milky Way and everything else visible as stars, star constellations, our Sun and Moon and the 5 visible planets, called "wandering stars". This is IMO what the numerois cultural stories of creation deals with.

These informations are not historical as such but astronomical and cosmological and this story is full of all kinds of human and animal "icons" i.e. symbols.

Read my post here for more information -
#42

 

[firedragon]

What is meant by the term Image of God? Does God have an image in your opinion? Is the term more comprehensive than we can imagine? What are your thoughts?

View attachment 45561

SO GOD CREATED THE MAN IN HIS IMAGE —in the type that was specially made for him, for everything else was created by a creative fiat, whilst he was brought into existence by a creative act (literally, by hand), as it is said (Psalms 139:5) “And Thou hast laid thy hand upon me.” He was made by a seal as a coin that is made by a die that is called in old French coin. It is similarly said, (Job 28:14) “it is changed as clay under the seal” (Sanhedrin 38a).

 

[shivsomashekhar]

It was referring to our natures (having a rational mind, free will, ability to love and pursue justice, etc.), not anything to do with appearance.

How would you know this - beyond wildly speculating? We have a wide range of natures across humans - saint to serial killer. Which one specifically is in the image of God? The answer to this question would be pure speculation too.

I am of the opinion that God can be seen in everything.

Thanks for clarifying that it is opinion and not fact. Refugee parents and kids drown together in the Mediterranean - people who lost everything, were displaced and were in search of a decent life for their kids...but the boat sank ending everything tragically. I am curious how you see God in this?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How would you know this? And we have a wide range of natures across humans. Which one specifically is in the image of God? The answer to this question would be pure speculation too.

Go ask the Christians as that's what they believe about it.