God's likeness?

[DPMartin]

This is a red herring fallacy. Your response has nothing to do with what I asked of you: 'You need to define what your understanding is of how human beings are made in the image of God'. We are dealing with the interpretation of Scripture. What does is mean to say that human beings are made in the image of God. What's your interpretation of its meaning?

Your can try to deflect to read the Bible and those who create their own gods. That was not the issue I raised with you. I'm asking for your understanding of what the Bible says when it makes the statement that human beings are made in the image of God. Since God is spirit, how can human beings be in his image?

Oz

Actually your original response didn’t answer the question nor address the issue originaly raised "Hence, does God identify that which is like Him? And truly, what is His likeness and image in the flesh?", dose it? Nor did you even try.

All you did was complain that the answer wasn’t easy for you. And insisted that I define God, in my own terms so that maybe you could contest that rather then actually make a statement to stand by on your own on a simple question.

You know so much you couldn’t figure out that Jesus is God’s image and likeness in the flesh. You’re a so called Christian with what I might add an arrogant attitude, and you don’t know the fulfillment of God’s image and likeness in the flesh to the satisfaction God the Father’s Judgement, is in Christ. And God identified Him as His Beloved Son therefore of Him like Him, in the case of John the Baptist and I do believe the transfiguration with Peter John and James. How hard was that? But just like the other responses you seek to correct, you see only what you think, and not what is there.

 

[ewq1938]

Father, Holy Spirit, Son = One Being.

They are not one being. They are one God. Three form one God but saying one being is basically a form of Modalism that believes God is one being or person who interacts with man in three different ways. That teaches a Trinity of interaction instead of a Trinity of origin.

 

[ewq1938]

Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").
There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.
The Great Heresies
That wouldn't be you, would it?

Firstly I don't care what the Catholic church has deemed as heresy. Secondly, Mary was the mother of God so this doesn't apply to what I said and believe in.

What I said is not a heresy but is exactly that Mary "carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh"). "

The heresy is to deny Jesus, the human child, was not created in Mary's womb.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually your original response didn’t answer the question nor address the issue originaly raised "Hence, does God identify that which is like Him? And truly, what is His likeness and image in the flesh?", dose it? Nor did you even try.

All you did was complain that the answer wasn’t easy for you. And insisted that I define God, in my own terms so that maybe you could contest that rather then actually make a statement to stand by on your own on a simple question.

You know so much you couldn’t figure out that Jesus is God’s image and likeness in the flesh. You’re a so called Christian with what I might add an arrogant attitude, and you don’t know the fulfillment of God’s image and likeness in the flesh to the satisfaction God the Father’s Judgement, is in Christ. And God identified Him as His Beloved Son therefore of Him like Him, in the case of John the Baptist and I do believe the transfiguration with Peter John and James. How hard was that? But just like the other responses you seek to correct, you see only what you think, and not what is there.

You started the thread, 'God's likeness', and didn't even provide us with a definition of 'image' or 'likeness'. Your OP was:

Since God originally made man to be in his own image, in the image of God. And needless to say that was not fulfilled at the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and was recreated or reestablished or fulfilled to God’s satisfaction, in the flesh Christ Jesus.

Hence, does God identify that which is like Him? And truly, what is His likeness and image in the flesh?

To be able to say that 'that was not fulfilled at the tree of knowledge of good and evil', you obviously have something in mind of what that 'image' is so that you could say that it was not fulfilled. All I asked was for you to define 'image' and 'likeness' so that I know what you are talking about when you say it was not fulfilled.

When you say that the 'image' was fulfilled and then you ask 'what is His likeness and image in the flesh Christ Jesus?' I thought it was appropriate that you clarify what you mean.

Isn't that a reasonable question?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Actually your original response didn’t answer the question nor address the issue originaly raised "Hence, does God identify that which is like Him? And truly, what is His likeness and image in the flesh?", dose it? Nor did you even try.

All you did was complain that the answer wasn’t easy for you. And insisted that I define God, in my own terms so that maybe you could contest that rather then actually make a statement to stand by on your own on a simple question.

You know so much you couldn’t figure out that Jesus is God’s image and likeness in the flesh. You’re a so called Christian with what I might add an arrogant attitude, and you don’t know the fulfillment of God’s image and likeness in the flesh to the satisfaction God the Father’s Judgement, is in Christ. And God identified Him as His Beloved Son therefore of Him like Him, in the case of John the Baptist and I do believe the transfiguration with Peter John and James. How hard was that? But just like the other responses you seek to correct, you see only what you think, and not what is there.

I have since provided ewq1938 with a more detailed response to demonstrate that the view of God having a physical body is a promotion of the heresy of Audianism (4th century) and of Mormonism (God is a man).

God the Father is NOT a human being because God is spirit (John 4:24 ESV). Jesus became a man for a short period of time, but he was eternally with the Father in spirit. Remember, 'Before Abraham was, I am' and NOT, 'Before Abraham was, I was a human being'.

I have since provided an exposition of Gen 1:26-27 (ESV) to refute the heresy of Audianism and Mormonism. Audius used the very verses ewq1938 used (Gen 1:26-27) to promote this false teaching of God having a body. We are not talking about Jesus in the flesh being in God's image. Gen 1:26-27 talks about Adam being in the image and likeness of God. I provided an exposition to refute the view that God has a body.

So you regard me as 'You’re a so called Christian with what I might add an arrogant attitude'. What causes you to say I'm only a 'so called Christian'. What proof do you have to come to that conclusion? When I pursue the meaning of 'image' and 'likeness' to try to obtain your meaning, you regard me as having 'an arrogant attitude'. Yours is the false view of my Christian relationship and attitude. Seems like you don't like it when I want further explanations from you!

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

I have since provided ewq1938 with a more detailed response to demonstrate that the view of God having a physical body is a promotion of the heresy of Audianism (4th century) and of Mormonism (God is a man).

God the Father is NOT a human being because God is spirit (John 4:24 ESV). Jesus became a man for a short period of time, but he was eternally with the Father in spirit. Remember, 'Before Abraham was, I am' and NOT, 'Before Abraham was, I was a human being'.

I have since provided an exposition of Gen 1:26-27 (ESV) to refute the heresy of Audianism and Mormonism. Audius used the very verses ewq1938 used (Gen 1:26-27) to promote this false teaching of God having a body.

It is not a false teaching as it is thoroughly proven using scripture. What Audianism teaches is not heretical except in the eyes of those that deny what the scriptures say. That God the Father has a body is scriptural fact. It is clearly not the use of anthropomorphism as you believe. The Father and Son have bodies, well described and witnessed in scripture. It is the Holy Spirit which is a bodiless spirit.

Here are the proof texts proving this issue:


Does the Father have a body? Yes:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Two words are used:

Gen_1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


There is no need to debate who the "we" are here but it definitely included God the Father and someone or more than one someone. Most believe it includes Angels so let's use that to simplify things.

image
H6754
???
tselem
tseh'-lem
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.


The underlined is not particularly important since that is the definition of this word's root word but the rest of the text is this words actual definition. Here we see that essentially the "figure" of something is is a physical representation of the original. It would be akin to a boy being extra tall like his father and maybe grandfather. That boy would be the "figure" of his male relative in a physical sense. Angels have the basic head, two arms and legs and torso...the basic "human" type design. God the Father has been seen and described in the scriptures and has the same physical design. It is then clear he used his own form, whether a permanent or a temporary form, as a pattern for much of his creations ie: Angels and Mankind.

likeness
H1823
??????
demu^th
dem-ooth'
From H1819; resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.


And this word has the same basic meaning as well.


So, if our physical image is after God's then we should not be surprised that the Father also has a body, as does his Son and Angels etc.



Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:


Here we see the same exact words and wording. The meaning is exactly the same: someone who physically resembled their parent.


Gill

man being the principal part of the creation, and for the sake of whom the world, and all things in it were made, and which being finished, he is introduced into it as into an house ready prepared and furnished for him; a consultation is held among the divine Persons about the formation of him; not because of any difficulty attending it, but as expressive of his honour and dignity; it being proposed he should be made not in the likeness of any of the creatures already made, but as near as could be in the likeness and image of God.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image,.... Which consisted both in the form of his body, and the erect stature of it, different from all other creatures

Here are some scriptures which show that the Father does have hands and arms and a head and hair....and....well you get the idea...he is not a spirit according to what Christ said, "a spirit hath not flesh and bones"

Dan 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and they don't have hair or clothes, but the Father does.

Clarke:

The Ancient of days - God Almighty; and this is the only place in the sacred writings where God the Father is represented in a human form.

Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.


"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and they don't have hands, but the Father does.


See, there is this view, as seen in the above scriptures and then there is another view that holds the Father is nothing more than "a bodiless spirit". This view would then suggest when we stand before God in heaven, there's only going to be one person there who is God. In my opinion this view of God is inaccurate and contradicts a great deal of scriptures.

I fully believe Jesus will be there as well as his Father and we will see the both of them just as we see in the above scriptures.


Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.


Adam and Eve could HEAR the sound of God walking! Does a bodiless spirit walk? Does a bodiless spirit make a sound when "walking"?


"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" nor does a spirit make walking sounds while walking.


Gen 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
Gen 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
Gen 32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
Gen 32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
Gen 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
Gen 32:29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Here Jacob not only wrestles with God physically, he also was allowed to see His face and live.

"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and they don't arms and hands and a face and certainly couldn't physically wrestle a human being, but the Father does and did.

Gill:

though he had wrestled with one so vastly superior to himself, who could have easily crushed this worm Jacob to pieces, as he is sometimes called; and though he had had such a sight of God as face to faces referring, as is thought, to a notion that obtained early, even among good men, that upon sight of God a man instantly died; though we have no example of that kind: but perhaps he observed this for his encouragement; that whereas he had met with God himself, and wrestled with him in the form of a man, and yet was preserved, he doubted not that, when he should meet with his brother and debate matters with him, he should be safe and unhurt.

(note: M.H. here believe this is Jesus Christ not the Father but the basic concept is still the same, God in a physical form. I believe it was the Father.)

Mathew Henry:

This was doubtless the Lord Jesus Christ, who, among the patriarchs, assumed that human form, which in the fullness of time he really took of a woman, and in which he dwelt thirty-three years among men. He is here styled an angel, because he was µe?a??? ß????? ???e???, (see the Septuagint, Isa_9:7), the Messenger of the great counsel or design to redeem fallen man from death, and bring him to eternal glory; see Gen_16:7.
But it may be asked, Had he here a real human body, or only its form? The latter, doubtless.

Barnes:

There are, then, three acts in this dramatic scene: first, Jacob wrestling with the Omnipresent in the form of a man, in which he is signally defeated; second, Jacob importunately supplicating Yahweh, in which he prevails as a prince of God; third, Jacob receiving the blessing of a new name, a new development of spiritual life, and a new capacity for bodily action.
Gen_32:31-32
Peniel - the face of God. The reason of this name is assigned in the sentence, “I have seen God face to face.” He is at first called a man. Hosea terms him the angel (Hos_12:4-5 (3, 4). And here Jacob names him God. Hence, some men, deeply penetrated with the ineffable grandeur of the divine nature, are disposed to resolve the first act at least into an impression on the imagination. We do not pretend to define with undue nicety the mode of this wrestling. And we are far from saying that every sentence of Scripture is to be understood in a literal sense. But until some cogent reason be assigned, we do not feel at liberty to depart from the literal sense in this instance. The whole theory of a revelation from God to man is founded upon the principle that God can adapt himself to the apprehension of the being whom he has made in his own image. This principle we accept, and we dare not limit its application “further than the demonstrative laws of reason and conscience demand.” If God walk in the garden with Adam, expostulate with Cain, give a specification of the ark to Noah, partake of the hospitality of Abraham, take Lot by the hand to deliver him from Sodom, we cannot affirm that he may not, for a worthy end, enter into a bodily conflict with Jacob.

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.


Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit and he was able to see what normally is not visible to us. He saw Jesus standing next to the Father. He saw two individuals, the same two we can see in many other scriptures. It is incorrect to erase the Father from all these scriptures and replace him with Jesus alone as a real visible "person".

"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" yet Stephen actually saw his body, recognizing the Father visually as well as the Son.


1 Kings 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

Many have seen God, the LORD, literally sitting on a literal throne. That is simply because God has a literal body and form and sits upon a literal throne.


2Pet 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The Father not only has a real body just as Christ does, but he is also fully capable of speaking audibly even though Christ is the Word of God. That doesn't mean the Father cannot speak for himself.



Exo_31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Deu_9:10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.

"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and they don't have fingers, but the Father does.


Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.


Here we see that he does have a face, has a hand, and has "back parts" of a body. Moses was not allowed to see his face, but he saw his hand and saw his "back parts".


"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and they don't have a face, and a hand, and "back parts", but the Father does.


Exo 24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
Exo 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
Exo 24:11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.


"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and they don't have a visible body with feet, but the Father does.

Gill:

and there was under his feet; which shows that there was a visible form

Clarke:

The seventy elders, who were representatives of the whole congregation, were chosen to witness the manifestation of God

Joh 5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Joh 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Joh 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Joh 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Joh 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
Joh 5:33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
Joh 5:34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
Joh 5:35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
Joh 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Joh 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.


Jesus said to the Jews that they have never heard the voice of the Father. Does that mean the Father has no voice? No. The Jews simply had never heard the Father's voice.

Jesus said to the Jews that they have never seen the shape of the Father. Does that mean the Father has no shape? No. The Jews simply had never seen the Father's shape.

This proves that the Father does in fact have a voice and a shape which is testified in many scriptures as truth.


Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Here God is in physical form and literally has a book in his right hand, which is attached to his right arm. Here we see the literal right arm as well as the figurative right arm, Jesus.

"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and they don't have hands or arms, but the Father does.

 

[OzSpen]

It is not a false teaching as it is thoroughly proven using scripture. What Audianism teaches is not heretical except in the eyes of those that deny what the scriptures say. That God the Father has a body is scriptural fact. It is clearly not the use of anthropomorphism as you believe. The Father and Son have bodies, well described and witnessed in scripture. It is the Holy Spirit which is a bodiless spirit.

Here are the proof texts proving this issue:


Does the Father have a body? Yes:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Is God a he-she hermaphrodite (based on Gen 1:26-27)?

I hope you understand how blasphemous it is to suggest that these two verses support God having a body because verse 27 states, 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them'. For God to have a human body, based on these 2 verses you use, he had to be both 'male and female', a hermaphrodite.

This is why the view you are promoting was regarded as heretical by the church in the fourth century where the Audians were promoting such a view. And the cult of Mormonism is promoting this heretical view.

This is how the Mormons support this heresy:

The Mormon Handbook, in the article, 'God Has a Body', states:

• 'Mormonism departs from the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) that all believe God is a spirit';
• 'This unique Mormon doctrine is an extension of the belief that God was formerly a mortal man.
  
• This unique Mormon doctrine constrains God:
  Christianity: God is omnipresent Mormonism: God is not omnipresent
  

Your teaching that God has a body thus departed from Christianity which believes that God is spirit (John 4:24).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

 

[ewq1938]

Is God a he-she hermaphrodite (based on Gen 1:26-27)?

No because being made in God's image is about a general physical likeness. Gender or hair color or how exactly tall or how much one weighs is not part of that basic likeness.

I hope you understand how blasphemous it is to suggest that these two verses support God having a body because verse 27 states, 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them'. For God to have a human body, based on these 2 verses you use, he had to be both 'male and female', a hermaphrodite.

You are badly incorrect.

This is why the view you are promoting was regarded as heretical by the church in the fourth century where the Audians were promoting such a view. And the cult of Mormonism is promoting this heretical view.

This is meaningless. The bible tells us outright God the Father has a body. Anyone that denies it is going contrary to the scriptures.

Your teaching that God has a body thus departed from Christianity which believes that God is spirit (John 4:24).

What I have quoted from scripture comes from God himself. You are defending teaching and beliefs that originate from man not from God.

God the Holy spirit is spirit. God the son is not a bodiless spirit. God the Father is not a bodiless spirit. The many scriptures I presented prove this. Your argument is with the scriptures not me.

 

[DPMartin]

No because being made in God's image is about a general physical likeness. Gender or hair color or how exactly tall or how much one weighs is not part of that basic likeness.



You are badly incorrect.




This is meaningless. The bible tells us outright God the Father has a body. Anyone that denies it is going contrary to the scriptures.


What I have quoted from scripture comes from God himself. You are defending teaching and beliefs that originate from man not from God.

God the Holy spirit is spirit. God the son is not a bodiless spirit. God the Father is not a bodiless spirit. The many scriptures I presented prove this. Your argument is with the scriptures not me.

ewg
Then what you are saying is an athlete is more God like then a crippled right? According to your interpretation the better the physical specimen, the more like God one is. Most people with any sense knows that someone with handicaps that is humble, is much more God like then a self absorbed athlete. The scripture in the hands of a deceiver doesn’t make the deceiver’s lies true.
Look at the statement that the devil said quoting scripture, yet it didn’t make what he was saying true, or of truth, did it?

Mt:4:3: And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4: But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
5: Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6: And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7: Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
　
The Son of God is the true likeness and image of God in the flesh, but the flesh has nothing to do with God’s likeness and image. The flesh is designed by God to accommodated the life given in that flesh. Hence cats are given the bodies they have to live the life that has been given them. Same for dogs, lions fish humans so on and so forth.

 

[ewq1938]

ewg
Then what you are saying is an athlete is more God like then a crippled right?

No.

According to your interpretation the better the physical specimen, the more like God one is.

No, that is false concept and has nothing to do with God creating man in his image and likeness.

but the flesh has nothing to do with God’s likeness and image.

That's wrong. Genesis is speaking solely about the body God was going to create for man. It was patterned after God's own body.

 

[OzSpen]

No because being made in God's image is about a general physical likeness. Gender or hair color or how exactly tall or how much one weighs is not part of that basic likeness.

You are badly incorrect.

This is meaningless. The bible tells us outright God the Father has a body. Anyone that denies it is going contrary to the scriptures.

What I have quoted from scripture comes from God himself. You are defending teaching and beliefs that originate from man not from God.

God the Holy spirit is spirit. God the son is not a bodiless spirit. God the Father is not a bodiless spirit. The many scriptures I presented prove this. Your argument is with the scriptures not me.

So does your God also have physical wings and feathers?

‘Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy! I look to you for protection. I will hide beneath the shadow of your wings until the danger passes by’ (Psalm 57:1 NLT). The psalmist continues this theme, ‘He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart’ (Ps 91:4 NIV).

Oz

 

[Raeneske]

Since God originally made man to be in his own image, in the image of God. And needless to say that was not fulfilled at the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and was recreated or reestablished or fulfilled to God’s satisfaction, in the flesh Christ Jesus.

Hence, does God identify that which is like Him? And truly, what is His likeness and image in the flesh?

Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

(image)

From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.

(likeness)

From H1819; resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

(express image)

From the same as G5482; a graver (the tool or the person), that is, (by implication) engraving ([“character”], the figure stamped, that is, an exact copy or [figuratively] representation): - express image.

The image of God does not only refer to the physical features, but that also of the character of God. Do we really think that when looking at the Father and The Son, though express image means exact copy, that we shall be utterly unable to discern the difference? Yes, Christ is also in the image of God, for God has said to Christ, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" and the Scriptures also declare that, "...Christ, who is the image of God..." (2 Corinthians 4:4). While the physical features of man are made noble, and with the likeness of his Creator, the character of Adam and Eve as well was made after the likeness of God. It is the character of Christ that is the exact image of the invisible God.

 

[ewq1938]

Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

(image)

From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.

(likeness)

From H1819; resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

(express image)

From the same as G5482; a graver (the tool or the person), that is, (by implication) engraving ([“character”], the figure stamped, that is, an exact copy or [figuratively] representation): - express image.

The image of God does not only refer to the physical features, but that also of the character of God.

The definitions you provided do not support that idea. Obviously Adam was not created with the moral character of God or he would not have rebelled and sinned. Keep in mind Adam was not deceived as Eve was so he willingly choose to do wrong going against the concept of the moral character of God proving being made in the likeness and image of God was physically only.

 

[Raeneske]

The definitions you provided do not support that idea. Obviously Adam was not created with the moral character of God or he would not have rebelled and sinned. Keep in mind Adam was not deceived as Eve was so he willingly choose to do wrong going against the concept of the moral character of God proving being made in the likeness and image of God was physically only.

Since Christ Jesus is the express image of God, the exact copy, are you saying that this only refers to His physical being. There is no physical difference between the two of them, since He is the exact copy?

 

[ewq1938]

Since Christ Jesus is the express image of God, the exact copy, are you saying that this only refers to His physical being. There is no physical difference between the two of them, since He is the exact copy?

I'm not talking about that at all. I am addressing this verse:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


The Hebrew words only address a physical likeness and image, nothing more. Adam's actions prove he was not created in the moral likeness of God.