Man in gods image... How ?

Historicity of Jesus - WikipediaCan Archeology Prove the New Testament? by Ralph O. Muncaster

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

I am new to this forum, so please excuse me if I miss some protocols. It seems obvious that man being made in Gods image cannot refer to physical attributes, since God is spirit & man is flesh. It must then refer to spiritual, emotional & mental abilities. These abilities set humans above other earthly creation. Animals can adapt to a limited extent. They can express emotions to a limited degree. Only humans have the capacity for almost unlimited creativity. Only humans can continually build on previously acquired skills & knowledge. Only humans have an inate desire to worship. Only humans have the ability to knowingly plan for the future. Animals are driven mainly by instinct

Hi, fred. How's barney?Welcome to EvC. Doesn't seem obvious to me at all. God is described as walking, sitting, etc. in the Bible, all fleshly abilities. It seems clear that the authors described God in the fleshly image of man. Ever hear of Aesop's fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant? Even if that was true, it seems more like an affliction than an "elevation".

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

True the bible uses human terms to describe God. How else could we understand His abilities. He can do work as with hands etc.

Doesn't seem obvious to me. As you put it in another thread, there's no evidence that God is solely spirit. God is constantly described with physical attributes, so the safest assumption seems to be that God had physical attributes.

---

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

Then that's what "made in His image" means: The only way we can understand/imagine God is in human terms - i.e. as an image of us. When we look in a mirror, we see an image of ourselves. When God looks in a mirror, the image that He sees (as far as we can tell) is us.The woo-woo "spiritual" blather is unnecessary.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

You mean like:

quote:

---

The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." (Exodus 15:3)

---

I have a difficulty understanding a vision of God that describes God like a super war lord. This is clearly a God made in man's image.

quote:

---

The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." (Exodus 15:3)

---

I think that is a mistranslation. The Semitic languages like Aramaic and Hebrew, I believe, did not have articles. So clearly the literal meaning of the verse is that the Lord is a race horse. Okay. I'll stop now.

---

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

Also one has to consider that if God made man in his own image then consequently since Man and Chimpanzees are genetically 90% related this would make a monkey out of God - oh boy if there is a God the bible idolaters are going to have to answer for this one.

quote:

---

It seems obvious that man being made in Gods image cannot refer to physical attributes, since God is spirit & man is flesh. It must then refer to spiritual, emotional & mental abilities.

---

I agree. Here, 'IN HIS OWN IMAGE' refers to 'speech', according to the sages of the OT. Speech is a God-like trait, and was used to create the universe: 'AND GOD *SAID* LET THERE BE LIGHT' - this 'said' refers to speech. This is not so far fetched, when we consider the universe is finite [it had a 'BEGINNING'/Gen], which means all its components were also finite and did not exist when the universe was created. There were no tools and elements, which makes speech, which represents a thought/will/action, the only factor. Everything humans have done - is due to speech.IN HIS IMAGE cannot refer to souls, as all life forms possess souls, not can it relate to the mind or strength or speed - these are common to all life.

quote:

---

I have a difficulty understanding a vision of God that describes God like a super war lord. This is clearly a God made in man's image.

---

Grammar was introduced in the OT, as were the first alphabetical books. There are devices which must be used when understanding this most exacting and intergrated document. The one which applies to your question is this:'HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE' [OT]That is also a later adapted factor for Grammar: if you talk to a child, you must speak in the level of the child. Subjective and relative are applicable factors here. It does not mean any human impersonations apply:'GOD IS NOT LIKE MAN' [OT/Samuel]The second commandment of the Ten clarifies it best: no comparison with anything within the universe. Thus we see the verse you refer to is an appropriate expressionism. The verse you refer to is stated by a Prophet to the people, as an expression they can be saved by God in a war.

Yes but you don't act and think like a child. Yes saved by a "God of War" you worship a bronze-age Warlord God.In the Bible whenever the "spirit of the lord" came over Sampson what happened? Something or someone died.The OT is the machinations of evolved primates don't confuse it with God - that is blasphemy.

The criteria for blasphemy is in the OT - not what you conclude with. That man of war is an expression appriopritae in its context, and that the OT is speaking trith about war being part of humanity and history, is not negatable. It does not mean you just pointed out some deficiency here, nor in any of the stats of this document being incorrect. I explained to you what in his image refers to - but you don't want to know.

The expression "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." is not commensurate with creator of the universe. These are visions of god as a hero god, a war-lord God, in the manner of the Greek gods - gods made in our image.You are correct war is part of humanity and history - it is a human thing. Pugnacity is bred into our bone and marrow. Our closest animal relatives engage in antagonistic behavior that provide clues to our propensity. War is NOT a product or attribute of the divine it is a product of our evolutionary heritage. By understanding this we have the means to overcome. Religion, on the other hand, often sanctifies war and aligns it with the domain of god - blasphemy.

quote:

---

The expression "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." is not commensurate with creator of the universe. These are visions of god as a hero god, a war-lord God, in the manner of the Greek gods - gods made in our image.

---

Definitely not so. The variance with the greek/hellenism is pretty well illustrated in the OT laws, and in fact the basis for many wars with nations rejecting the premise of an invisibale, indescribable and unfathomable God. The aspect of 'POWER' is one of the given attributes of the creator, along with such paradigms as TRUTH, MERCY, FORGIVENESS, etc. In a war scenario, the usage of God's help is reasnable and not as per the greek.In the dispensing of justice, for example, we can say God is the judge, without alligning this to actual impersonification. this factor is correctly an exressionism, denoted by its context of reference being within the realm of justice.