What does in God’s image mean? He created Adam & Eve without a moral sense.

I take, in God’s image, to refer to God’s and our mental image and not the physical. God does not look like us in any way. He and his form is quite alien to us.

Genesis shows that Adam & Eve were created without the moral sense that would make them like Gods. That being the case, they had to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be in God’s mental image. That is without a doubt a requirement to the development of a moral sense and is confirmed by God after Adam and Eve disobeyed his command to stay dumb and without a moral sense.

If they were created in God’s image then they would have already had the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil and would therefore not have been tempted by Satan to eat of the tree of knowledge because they would have had that knowledge already. This would also mean that God was punishing them unjustly.

One must conclude from these biblical facts, that God did not make mankind in his image.

The only other logical alternative is that God does not have a moral sense and that he too, like Adam and Eve, was basically as dumb as a cow.

Could that be why God is shown as doing other immoral things in scriptures?

The two main ones that come to mind is God having his own son murdered for the forgiveness of sin when there was no real need to and the genocide of Noah’s day.

Does being in God's image mean not having a moral sense?

Regards
DL

From Wikipedia

Old Testament

The phrase "image of God" is found in three passages in the Old Testament, all in the Book of Genesis and all in Priestly portions of the Primeval History (Genesis 1-11):

Gen 1:27–28

And God said: Let us make mankind in our image/b’tsalmeinu, as our likeness/kid’muteinu. And they will have dominion over [the animals]…․And God created humankind in His image /b’tsalmo, in God's image/tselem He created him, male and female He created them. And God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitfull and multiply, and fill the land and occupy it, and have dominion over the sea’s fish and the skies’ bird and every animal crawling over the land.

Gen 5:1–3

This is the book of Adam’s generations: On the day God created Mankind, in God's likeness/d’mut He created him; male and female He created them, and He blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day of their being created. And Adam (Man) lived a hundred and thirty years and bore in his likeness/bid’muto like his image/k’tsalmo and called his name Seth.

Gen 9:6

One who spills the blood of man, through/by man, his blood will be spilled, for in God's image/tselem He made man.

---

Based on the above passages relating to the subject, to whom is God talking (himself or others)?

Well, in "our" image, there is clearly more than one god-like creature, unless god refers to himself in the plural. And, "Male and Female", refers to the gods as having gender.

So even if there is one God split into three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, at least the Ghost must have the female gender, otherwise to what image or likeness is this "male and female" referring?

These passages make no sense, not even metaphorically, unless the Creator God doing the talking has a physical countenance capable of being distinguished at least by gender, as there is not just the "image" but the "likeness" (as in - "like a female" etc.).


I don't think image and likeness can adequately refer to inherent knowledge such that we have all God's knowledge or we are not like Him. Your kid can be "just like you" but not in the sense of having all your knowledge. So I prefer to think of likeness and image as "type" instead of "mirror image inside and out".

And since you also can create, you too are a creator... just "like" god, whereas a lower animal, for example, might not have such an easy go at it.

@Aces

You have provided an excellent example of one of the things that has always confused me about christianity: it does appear that most christians make up their own version of the faith - making it "mean" whatever they want it to mean. It is truly an amazing phenomenon.

What you have done is provide an example of the phenomenon. Specifically you have given your analysis on what the bible "means' in Genesis where your analysis has no biblical basis whatsoever. In fact, I have yet to encounter a christian who does not do this regularly - especially when faced with one of the many contradictions or inconsistencies that the bible is so famous for.

Would love to have your take/explanation of the phenomenon......maybe even clarify it for me so I can find some way to understand/see that when two people say they are "christian" that there is some objective way to determine if they actually believe the same things.

thanks

Thanks A L.

I do not think the Jews ever bought into the Trinity doctrine. They may be too bright to do so.

I have this you might be able to help with.

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Do you know which law is being referred to here?

Regards
DL

David Shank wrote:

---

I simply took what a literal interpretation would mean.

Let "us" make man... = plural
in "our" image = plural
In his (god's) image "male and female" = both genders

In other words, nothing fancy, just a straight "it means what it says".

@DavidI think you are absolutely right. This is what I call the "Do good, feel good, God of no consequence." I used to be very guilty of interpreting the bible to mean what I needed it to mean to get what I wanted out of it and others. I stretched the truth to allow me to do what I wanted to do and then I could feel like I was a "good person". In hindsight I'm ashamed of it.

However, it is obvious that the bible is to be interpreted in a way that doesn't cause contradictions. Simply given the infallibility of God, if the bible is true, it should be interpreted in a way that doesn't cause contradictions. So this would explain why you haven't found a Christian who interprets the bible to have contradictions. To interpret it in such a way is to presuppose the bible is false and anyone with this presupposition isn't what I would call Christian. Sorry for the elitist statement but I don't see how someone who believes the bible is false can call themselves a Christian and mean it. But you do make a good point that everyone doesn't agree on what it means to be a Christian. To me it means they have some desire to follow Christ's ministry.

@DLI understand the trinity to be a Christian doctrine. If someone bought into the Trinity doctrine wouldn't that make them Christian and not Jewish?

@DL to John 10:34
The verse refers to Psalm 82:6
"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."
From Clarkes Commentary
"That is, judges, who are called אלהים elohim. That judges are here meant appears from Psalm 82:2, etc., and also from what follows here. And this is probably the only place where the word אלהים is applied to any but the true God. See Parkhurst under the root אלה."

I hope that sheds some light on the verse at least the word usage.

Shawn writes:
Christianity borrows from many of the older (non-Abrahamic [a.k.a. Pagan]) religions, from the story of Moses, to many features of the gospel story itself.

"Hinduism is generally regarded as the world's oldest organized religion. It consists of "thousands of different religious groups that have evolved in India since 1500 BCE."

Hindu Trinity

Lord Brahma is the first member of the Brahmanical triad, Vishnu being the second and Shiva, the third. Brahma is the god of creation and he is traditionally accepted as the Creator of the entire universe. [source: www.rudraksha-ratna.com/hindu_trinity.php ]

The Trimurti (English: ‘three forms’; Sanskrit: (symbols wouldn't post) trimurti) is a concept in Hinduism "in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver, and Shiva the destroyer or transformer,"[1][2] These three deities have been called "the Hindu triad"[3] or the "Great Trinity",[4] often addressed as "Brahma-Vishnu-Maheshwara." [ source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti ]

Not in the least because there are dozens of verses that show Jesus saying about the same thing.

Are you not a son of God and do sons not eventually replace the fathers?

IMPOV, Jesus was trying to free men from bondage to the God notion, not enslave them to it.
Like any good Gnostic, he knew that God or access to him was from within us.

Some of us are here to rule ourselves. Others are here to be ruled.
Seems you want to be ruled.

Regards
DL

@Aces
That's your opinion on the origin of Christianity thanks for sharing it however that doesn't make it factual. Nor if it were true would it make Christianity wrong. If I come up with a philosophy, the fact someone else once had a similar philosophy wouldn't make mine wrong. Every religion in history came from ideas and events that inspired some prophet of the faith to relay a message. Even atheism falls into this pattern. Someone states there is no God based on their experiences or lack there of if that person gains enough fame and a following they are a prophet for atheism. If someone claims God is not necessary due to a force such as gravity like Hawking did he gains a following. He never proved God was unnecessary (after all what created gravity) but people wanted to believe him.

Back to the topic Christianity came from Judaism and Judaism didn't have a trinity. The trinity isn't the same as Tritheism or any polytheism. Its a monotheistic doctrine one God who takes three forms Father, spirit, son. He referred to the trinity doctrine which implies the doctrine that Jesus, the holy spirit, and God the Father are one entity. This doctrine is solely Christian especially when speaking in the specific sense.

@DL
>>Are you not a son of God and do sons not eventually replace the fathers?

I am not a BEGOTTEN son of God. Thats why I don't recomend people use the NIV over KJV

KJV:For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16 kjv
NIV:For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 niv

Its closer to the original greek also eternal means without beginning or end (dictionary.reference.com/browse/eternal)
Everlasting means without an end. Its more accurate in the KJV. So unless its too archaic I would use the KJV or a non-Alexandrian translation.


>>IMPOV, Jesus was trying to free men from bondage to the God notion, not enslave them to it.

Well Read 14:25-33 Cost of discipleship. Also consider "If you love me you would keep my commandments" or "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul with all your mind and with all your stregth" and "So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple."


>>Like any good Gnostic, he knew that God or access to him was from within us.

Jesus wasn't Gnostic he was Jewish.


>>Some of us are here to rule ourselves. Others are here to be ruled.
Seems you want to be ruled.

Doesn't matter what I want. It is the way it is.

@Shawn

But there is still a problem. By definition where there is a "contradiction" you have two (or more) things that are mutually exclusive. So saying that they must be interpreted in ay way you can find so there is no contradiction, removes the presence of a contradiction - by definition.

Put more simply - if you have two statements that cannot both be true then you have a contradiction. And by definition you can't "interpret" the contradiction away......even though this is what you (and christians in general) do.

Off the top of my head a few come to mind:
1. Jesus Ministry lasted one year (Mark, Matthew)
Jesus Ministry lasted three years (John)

2. After Jesus was born his family fled to Eqypt to escape the slaughter of the innocents.
After Jesus was born the family returned to Nazareth (no slaughter of the innocents occurred).

3. At your judgement at the end of time your ability to get into heaven is a function of your deeds/actions (works) on earth while alive (Revelations)
At your judgement at the end of time your ability to get into heaven is a function of what you believe (grace) and your works are irrelevant (Paul)

4. When you die you go to heaven (typical christian)
When you die you do not go to heaven but you must wait until Jesus returns for the final judgement (Revelations)

5. God created all the plants and animals as they exist in and as their final form. (Genesis)
God did not create the plants and animals as they exist in and as their final form (Common sense)

6. God made the sun stand still in the sky to prolong the length of the day of the battle so the jews could kill more.
God did not make the sun stand still to prolong the length of the day (Modern Astronomy - even assuming you could command the sun to stop its movement - that would do nothing to change the length of the day as that is determined by the earth's rotation and not the sun's movement).

7. Lucifer was called the "morning star" because he appears in the morning.
Lucifer was called the morning star because the OT reference to "Lucifer" was capturing a mythical story about the stars and planets - specifically that the "morning star" refers to Venus (look it up) and it rises just ahead of the sun and then appears to "fall" back to earth as it descends as the sun continues to rise.

8. After Jesus was baptized he began his ministry.
After Jesus was baptized he went into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights to have a debate with Venus. (sorry, a debate with Satan - cum Lucifer - named after Venus, the "morning star")

You get the idea.

You get the idea.

@ Aces

But you did it again. I think it is so common that you do this without even thinking about it.

Specifically, you are now saying that there are multiple gods and that christianity is not a monotheistic religion? Am I reading you correctly. That some group of gods (that concluded at least one female) were all together creating Adam and Eve? That is not what your church claims. One of you is wrong. (And fwiw - please do not say that this is an obvious reference to the trinity. As you know, there is nothing in the bible that says the trinity even exists - and it was only in the furious debates after Jesus died that the early church came up with the notion of the trinity to resolve what would otherwise be irreconcilable differences. Jesus certainly never spoke of himself as god or as one who was god but then became human but will soon be god again. etc.

When you throw 8 things out there this is called shotgunning. Its throwing lots of information in hopes that some of it will stick.

I can't find anywhere in Mathew and Mark that say Jesus's entire ministry was only one year.
1. In fact using some math and knowing what day the Passover falls on and the given age of Jesus you can narrow the ministry down to 3 years with great certainty

www.gotquestions.org/length-Jesus-ministry.html

I can get to more when I have time but 4 you cited "typical christian" as your source

8 isn't a contradiction.

7 Morning star refers to venus because it is the brightest celestial body in the sky in the morning sometimes it is the only one. It is compared to Lucifer the fallen angel who was once the most glorious angel. It isn't a stolen concept its a literary comparison between a star and an angel. Venus in Greek mythology did the same thing to name the most beautiful Goddess.

5 You proposed to know the beginning by "common sense" common sense would say cause preceeds effect and therefore there must be an uncaused cause or an infinite timeline. The laws of thermodynamics (the second specifically) applied to the universe as a closed system show that an infinite timeline is impossible.

Shawn wrote:
If all three heads are one, then why do they not all share the same attributes?
Scriptures say that I can curse 2 of the heads and be forgiven while saying that if I curse the third head I will not be forgiven.

If they are not equal then there cannot be three head in the one God.

Regards
DL

>>If all three heads are one, then why do they not all share the same attributes?
You haven't proven they would have to.

>>If they are not equal then there cannot be three head in the one God.
This is a faulty conclusion. What you said before doesn't point to this ultimatum.

Shawn wrote:
Thanks for showing your slave mentality and willingness to follow a half breed chimera that was produced through bestiality and or incest.

Jesus using his own mother to produce himself. Give your head a shake.

Regards
DL

@DL
Thats nonsense. Why do you even post? Inventing your own religion on my behalf is nothing but a strawman.

David Shank wrote:
----

You write:
Are you referring to these quotes?:

---

I simply took what a literal interpretation would mean.

Let "us" make man... = plural
in "our" image = plural
In his (god's) image "male and female" = both genders

In other words, nothing fancy, just a straight "it means what it says".

---

Gen 1:27–28

And God said: Let us make mankind in our image/b’tsalmeinu, as our likeness/kid’muteinu.

I dunno. How would it be interpreted if uttered by anyone else? To whom is God talking since he is clearly talking in the plural? In OUR image is plural. In MY image is singular.

You tell me. Why did God say "let us" instead of "I shall" or "let me"? Why did he say in "our" image, instead of in "my" image? Was he talking to his other counterparts, Jesus and the Holy Ghost? If not, then who is the "us"? I don't suppose he had pockets. In "our" image "male and female" .... again, who has the female image in "our"?

You write:
I don't know who it refers to. It's just a story. And in this story, God is talking to someone other than himself (because he refers to "us" and "our" instead of "me" and "my". So you tell me, at the creation of Man, who else was there???

If one assumes God and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in the same, it's a no-brainer... OR.... there was someone OTHER than the 3/1 god. So, you tell me who? According to the text "they" created Man "LIKE" themselves, male and female.

Does it SAY anything different? Never mind what Christianity teaches, or how you wish to interpret it (there are thousands of interpretations) but I only care about what it actually SAYS!

So you tell me. Does it say what you say? Or does it say what I say?

And finally, you write:
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm just trying to answer "What does in God's image mean?" in the creation of Adam of Eve by going by what the bible actually says. Could it be possible that the writers of that portion of the bible actually meant what they wrote? It's possible!

It might seem that if they meant something else (other than what they wrote) they would have wrote that instead. Wouldn't they?

Shawn wrote:
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.



They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus


Jesus Camp 1of 9


Promoting death to Gays.



For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to your fellow man.

Regards
DL

Shawn wrote:
You write:
You are right. My opinion is based on the many parallels of previous religious stories. It's possible Christianity could be uniquely original. And, to have countless other older religions tell the same (or very close to the same) stories, certainly doesn't make Christianity "wrong". Heck we celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25th, "as if" that was Jesus' birthday. In fact it was incorporated into the Christian holiday from the celebration of the Winter Solstice. Was it borrowed? Or was it really Jesus' birthday?

As one Apologist (I'm paraphrasing) puts it, "those other stories were put there by the devil to confuse people about the 'real' story." Absolutely they were, if you believe that sort of thing.

But I only wanted to point out that the statementas somewhat myopic since other older religions had the trinity long before Christianity ever existed. That's all.

No biggie.

@DL again you post off topic and with no flow of your logic. You misrepresent your opposition inventing an argument on their behalf and attack that position. That is why I called it nonsense. Not because of your personal beliefs.

Your statement is as nonsensical as this:

Your (insert insult) book (referring to the bible) says"(insert something the bible doesn't say)" therefore Christianity is wrong.

The conclusion is wrong for one. Your representation of the opponent isn't his argument it is one you invented and you are NEVER speaking in topic. What does your post have to do with GEN 1:26-27

@Aces>>My wife's birthday is Feb 29th. It comes every 4 years.On other years we celebrate it on Feb 28 and there is a reason. She would rather keep her birthday in the same month.
If I adopted a child and didn't know their birthday I would probably let them choose when to celebrate it and offer the suggestion of the day they were adopted. It isn't their birthday maybe not even close but its still important to remember such an event.
The winter solstice isn't Dec 25th either that is just the closest pagan holiday. Theories exist that this was close to the time of the conception of Jesus by the holy spirit. It therefore might be when Gabriel speaks to Mary marking what some consider the beginning of the Advent story. The fact is in the 4th century for whatever reason they decided to celebrate the Advent season which includes the birth of Christ but according to Luke begins with the story of the conception of John the baptist and the news the angel brings Zachariah and Mary (two separate events that happened to relatives 6 months apart) so the Christmas story spans a timeline of about a year.

To the topic at hand>>
When Christians read "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:"
"Us" refers to the Godhead. (which I find prophetic because the concept of the Godhead isn't well known until Christ's time another possible preincarnation of Christ can be seen in Daniel 3:25 many theologians discuss who the 4th figure might be)
Barnes' Notes on the Bible says this as well
"Image" is a word taken from sensible things, and denotes likeness in outward form, while the material may be different. "Likeness" is a more general term, indicating resemblance in any quality, external or internal.
I read it as man is made different from animals that he possesses a specific type of eternal spirit where as the consensus is that animals don't posses a spirit in this sense. Though it isn't stated if animals have a soul or not, if they have a soul it isn't created in the same nature as the soul of man.

@DL
Again to your videos
This is like if I went and found every evil person who believed in atheism and paraded them here like you're doing. There are people who don't believe in God who do good things. There are people who say they believe in God who do terrible things. You have taken extremists and tried to misrepresent the Christian community with a handful of people. The only thing you show is that a handful of people are misguided and that you are dishonest. It has nothing to do with the beliefs of Christianity. In fact, the Jesus camp video is showing "Assembly of God Church" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_God) it is a branch that believes baptism of the holy spirit is ONLY shown through speaking in tongues. It can actually be disproven that these people are baptized by the holy spirit. 1 Because they are being trained to speak in tongues. 2 It can be shown that their language doesn't follow. 3 There is no interpretation of tongues here as there is in Acts. 4 These people don't stop sinning after they are supposedly baptized by the holy spirit, which is the true evidence. This isn't shown in the bible to be the only evidence of baptism by the holy spirit its a dogma specific to a small sect of Christians. This is just more strawman propaganda. Read about this logical fallacy please or I'll know you are doing it on purpose because you can't address the actual Christian faith's position. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Shawn wrote: