What does God created mankind in his own image mean

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: akushla99

OP title is misleading. Genesis 1:26 does not say - Let ME make man in MY image.

Never encountered a royal "we" before, have we?

Same book insists on unity of same character.

So do MPD sufferers 😉

Neither explains the anomaly of the appearance in the little golden book very well...

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

I concur and wish to add:

Multiple personalities of aspects of personality are common to all: ordering one's aspects of personality is an art recommended by Montaigne and the stone masons of Delphos as "gnothi seauton" to transliterate.

Enlightenment is nothing more than delegating the aegis to that aspect most benevolent and loving.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Oh, now I get it. Carry on, good luck

I have no idea to what you are inferring as needs any luck.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: akushla99

I concur and wish to add:

Multiple personalities of aspects of personality are common to all: ordering one's aspects of personality is an art recommended by Montaigne and the stone masons of Delphos as "gnothi seauton" to transliterate.

Enlightenment is nothing more than delegating the aegis to that aspect most benevolent and loving.

...and so they are...

My point though...How is anyone determining that the misquoted OP passage is of this nature?

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

I'll give you my personal guess then:

. God is by itself (maybe lonely, as per Indian Indian and American Indian accounts of genesis): "we" and "I" at this point mean the exact same

. God makes sapiens sapiens, whom he'd like to not have opinions on good and evil and eternal life (the two trees in the garden of Eden man wasn't supposed to eat the fruits of) to have them differ a tad

. There now is a difference between "I" and "we", contemporary royalty likes to remember this to feel godly: royal "we"

either that or there are five gods made of uranium and the ten commandments are stolen from egypt because mindfart, not sure yet

a reply to: glend

The trinity is a pagan crossover of the god head that Constantine included to appeal to Romans.

The word God, was actually plural originally.

We were modeled after beings we called gods. In body, and some in mind as well. The royalty or VIP of these beings added their own mix to some since we kept de-evolving....That pissed off allot of them and made them wrathful against all of us.

The entire founding texts of the OT were copied by Abraham who was a citizen of the city of Ur.

The seven books of creation became the seven days of creation.

Abraham wanted to bring his nomadic ethnic brothers out of the nomadic desert life and its ignorance.

a reply to: akushla99

If you (not personally) are wont to interpolate cross-meaning onto the 'word of God' to explain the word of God (as if He [note the masculine throughout] had conferred that necessity) - of what use to the 'faithful' is it, but sentences to be altered, reinterpreted and mashed to suit?

It is an unequivocal statement (especially contextually), that is hard to miss...

'I' created the heavens and the earth, everything that is seen and unseen...

'WE' should make man in 'OUR' image...

...followed by,

"So God created man in HIS own image..."

This is not a mistake, and neither is it of the unified splititness theory, referred to in other cosmologies...

Å99

a reply to: tadaman

Yep tadaman I 100% agree with you!

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: akushla99

I'll give you my personal guess then:. God is by itself (maybe lonely, as per Indian Indian and American Indian accounts of genesis): "we" and "I" at this point mean the exact same

God is not lonely as has billions of life forms it allowed to be; exist as
ITS proxy (describe Itself to Itself). It was not lonely; just curious.

wisvol: God makes sapiens sapiens, whom he'd like to not have opinions on good and evil and eternal life (the two trees in the garden of Eden man wasn't supposed to eat the fruits of) to have them differ a tad.

God/Creator allowed for free will regarding the human; including 'the eating of the tree of knowledge'.

wisvol: There now is a difference between "I" and "we", contemporary royalty likes to remember this to feel godly: royal "we"

There is no difference between a WE or I you are describing EGO or the more advanced version of the IAM Absolute: Individual Personality as it continues to define itself as a human being. Infinity would say Absolute is a dictator not allowing for growth.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

God is not lonely as has billions of life forms it allowed to be; exist as ITS proxy (describe Itself to Itself). It was not lonely; just curious.

I'd explain "chronological", but it has "logical".

Ask an Egyptian about it

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: vethumanbeing

God is not lonely as has billions of life forms it allowed to be; exist as ITS proxy (describe Itself to Itself). It was not lonely; just curious.

I'd explain "chronological", but it has "logical".
Ask an Egyptian about it

Not sure I understand what you are trying to express (your point).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

God is not lonely as has billions of life forms it allowed to be; exist as ITS proxy (describe Itself to Itself). It was not lonely; just curious.

Maybe another that was with God before all, posed a question, thus the ripple effects of said question.

originally posted by: jhill76
a reply to: vethumanbeing

vhb:
God is not lonely as has billions of life forms it allowed to be; exist as ITS proxy (describe Itself to Itself). It was not lonely; just curious.

jhill76: Maybe another that was with God before all, posed a question, thus the ripple effects of said question.

I may not have been clear/how can one be on such an esoteric topic: "God is an entity figure/form" man invented (in Mans own image of itself in order to relate to a very hard concept) to describe the Absolute Oneness that is a nebulous/binary being attempting to manifest. This Being is not in form but just an idea. In IT's wisdom/will was able to create matter that could think; function as a human. Crazy fun creativity. I know I am this Being particularized on a much smaller scale is all. I am a part of it; I describe its intent by existing and in so knowing this am also able to validate It's own existence. I exist/therefor so does my Creator as well as I am living proof.

a reply to: glend

What does God created mankind in his own image mean

morally and spiritually speaking. Since God is a spirit. John 4:24 (NW):

God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

Here's someone described who "is the image of the invisible God", perhaps it helps with understanding how someone with a physical body can be the image of someone who is a spirit (note that in John 4:24 two slightly different meanings or definitions for the word "spirit" count, are used or should be considered when trying to understand that verse, follow the link to figure out which is which):

originally posted by: glend
Are we like God. If so what is God.

The video below shows the possible definitions for the word that is used to translate to the english word "God" (or "gods") from a Hebrew dictionary. That Hebrew word being "Elohim" (in Greek: Theos, and grammatical variants), pay close attention to definition 4 which is very broad and can refer to both humans and angels, definition 7, but ignore "ghost" and everything that comes after "i.e." (that would be influenced by Platonic Pagan philosophy, my thread "One myth leads to another" has the details about how those examples could have ended up in that dictionary in my commentary about the words "soul" and "spirit") and definition 8, is the most applicable one to John 1:1c (regarding your other misunderstandings that I'm not gonna quote for you cause you should probably notice it if you watch the videos I've suggested so far). Allthough I'd say definitions 4 and 7 also somewhat applies or could apply at John 1:1c. The video:



There's a 2nd part that is not hard to find (included in my thread), but since it doesn't have those definitions I'll leave it out of this comment (still useful to hear the rest though if you haven't already).

Specificly regarding your question "Are we like God", I'd recommend Jesus' own answer to the Jews who accused him of 'making himself a god', quoted in this debate by someone who isn't a witness of Jehovah as the title of the video suggests (and who leaves out the definitions for the word "elohim"/"god(s)"/"theos" in his responses to James White, not clearing up the whole matter, especially definition 4 and another one in the quotation from Jesus hence I recommend watching the video above attentively, it's the crux of the matter and the answers to your questions and might prevent you from getting distracted with terms such as "ontologically" and "category of divinity", terms that might be misleading and I would have liked to have seen phrased differently). The responses and answers (and a bit of extra background info) I mentioned are from 30:30 - 34:00 (background), 34:17 - 38:30 and more at 1:16:12 - 1:26:40 (regarding what Jesus said and there may be some back and forth on the same subject later on with James White, but that's usually not very healthy or beneficial to your mind, especially if you take the wrong arguments seriously and because Greg Stafford himself already starts making mistakes such as after 38:30 where he mistakenly uses the word "deity" when he means "divinity". Later on after 1:26:40 he doesn't explain the word "worship" very well which can also leave a wrong impression. Long story again):



Paradox/contradiction alert! at 1:42:10..."trinitarian monotheistic sense"

Well, it's probably not the only one in the debate but I'm trying to avoid listening to James White again so I won't go into details. I'm sharing the video specificly for the timeperiods that I mentioned.

And because I brought up John 1:1, I can't quite leave that unattended and as vague as my short mention of it was:



Oh btw, definition 9 from the earlier mentioned dictionary could also apply at John 1:1c, but given the context I would expect the verse to be emphasizing definition 7 (they are related, or you could say different ways to describe or phrase something).

Oh, and more last thing about the video with Greg Stafford, take note of the keyword "significant" after 49:30 and compare with Matthew 7:13,14.

a reply to: glend

Man is a creation of man the child does not exit the womb a cat or a dog... though behavoirs of the man or child could be similar. There are different types of sperm with different jobs. some block other sperm some kill other sperm and some make a b line for the egg but all can fertilize the egg. sperm in man cannot fertilize each other but once in form it can still block still kill and still move to create and all have that creation potientail.

the ignored creator is the female the female in form rejects men of various types based on choice... a females egg however does not require a sperm to fertilize a womans egg when combined with another womans egg or even her own in releasing more than one egg as seen in twins can fertilze each other without the need of any sperm and the result? female every single time. spontanious birth does happen...

so male this male that is just dominance and control and frankly sexist... so women as the fabled Amazonians dont really need men... but as many women will tell you a good one is very hard to find. beyond this its just the power to create like art either life or understanding... or destruction, so think about it chaff in the wind? eventually youll be packing your $h!t. but that too is a choice because gender and preference is natural and the control stating otherwise is that male dominated control freak business. in all seriousness? why so serious?

Girls just want to have fun ~ Cyndi Lauper

But take head men, girls are not flowers for you to pluck and you being cause for them to wither and wilt? Hell hath no fury... like women scorned. Perversion and molestation also falls into that category regardless of gender.

When the fellas are tied of sword play, that can be made into a plowshear and actually grow something worth a damn.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: glend

Hell hath no fury... like women scorned.

Especially since hell is not what many people think and claim that it is:


Which is taught because "One myth leads to another", in this case the first myth mentioned as an example in that thread is involved again:
Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal

Just another wake-up call and because I saw a lot of threads and comments recently where there seems to be some confusion as to what the word "god" means and the verse where Jesus says "...you are gods...", since this comment and this comment also adress some aspects of that subject. As well as this comment in another thread (where the word "snare" is also used in the first video, perhaps it's best to watch that one before the one below)

Im honestly not concerned with what people conceptualize as a hell, when we in our greed hate and delusion create one pretty effectively that can be seen and experienced directly in objective reality... making it subjective and subjecting people to it due to ignorance? Is not really excusible... as in ignorance is not bliss.

We also create our own internal hells pretty good too, and well those are just as real... even the sociopath knows he or she is doing wrong, and yet self justifies trough cognitive dissonace or some other validation that hey its ok wink wink.

Having sat in meditation and died first out of body experience btw I went through several hells and mind you Ive lived as close to an honest life possible... every single tiny little thing arose like an egotistical laugh at someones misfortune, and there they were and well not only did I get the opportunity to feel their pain but also was stabbed with sharp needles gashed with blades dunked in boiling oil had hot iron balls dropped in my mouth I could neither swallow or spit out, frozen places naked and starving hot places parched and dry burning and mind you since age 18 years old 43 now in this life, I have been on the buddist path of purification and meditation, have given freely without want, practiced pure speech and positive intention and pretty much every precept... all that time and still got hell handed to me and well deserved. Some seemed like decades or even hundreds of years but between each experience of a hell the positive I did was echoed back in blissful elation and joy...

Now of course this was all consciousness experience like a dream, but I was dead... maggots in my mouth and anus upon regaining fom were a pretty clear indicator, of course completely changed and Im certinally not the only one that has experienced death for however long and returned to their form... I did get a golden orb buzzing alive with all living things like particles circling a neuclous in perfection all around without any collision and all in absolute harmony above my head a bit smaller than a volleyball and a voice asked if I "they had hurt me" I said a little... then recalled practice and reading that said blaming others for ones pain and suffering basically misses the entire point, as in spirit without form we are essentially one. This orb light hung around for what seemed like a few days coming and going, night seemed to be several days at times, day seemed to last several days at times and of course I didnt really understand that I was dead... of course beyond all the visions or what are called bardo states seeing different lights or hues appear and reality shift into different hells such as one of the orb weaver or spider where it is constantly twilight and everyone is basically a puppet danging like a bait to believe in a false reality instead of what was actually occuring...

Of course after however long I have no idea, I stirred muscles locked eyes dried and crusty but were shut felt like sand... and no hunger but a very obvious presence of maggots that I cleared out and felt them wiggling below too, I ent a showered and flicked those out of there and have been just having pure experience sense then, I did experience not only a life review that led to the hells but saw the rest of my life course in a flash along with future with two basic diviations but as it went for humanity one was better but the other not really bad either... later I contemplated the orb and realized after having avoided taking birth in about 5 wombs... it was like legs and a child head about to crest on either my right or left would appear and I could feel a pull of consciousness to enter that state of birth and I avoided it each time.

Its a bit difficult to give a linear event as to what all occured in order as there was really no concept of time nor space... I this could be the same thing occuring on some level of experience or reality, but at this point of non bias or differentation it doesnt really matter, as there is no ego of personhood to call these experiences mine they were just experiences that may or may not have been real like a dream, or like a bubble popping and the whole world of its existence vanished.

The reality experienced currently moment to moment arising has no thought attached to any form, there is obviously contact with matter in forms familiar and have a use and function but no mental attachment to them, I still have consciousness as a perceieving aspect and there are forms of people I recognize but the attachment is theirs I know they suffer and I obviously have great empathy to those suffering, of course when they willingly display ignorance with intent to harm? I realize it is only themselves threy are harming even though the intent in outward expression is an attempt to control something they have no control over, because tey cannot even control themselves... so a very painful existence to witness.

As long as this form can carry this conscious awareness of reality in and of itself beyong bias and distinctions of ego forms of self and other, as just a host while of course others attempt to be a guest, this form is obviously home or else it would not contain the conscious awareness it does and have access to memories and communication of a personality unique to that experience that can not only communicate on past levels as people experienced last we communicated but go beyond such attachments and point directly to whatever helps them ease suffering and their attachments that cause that suffering to arise from their attachments... and in doing so no dogma or complicated terms or concepts must be learned to convey with clarity specific to that individual or to the subject(s) people have failed to see objectivitely through the bias of an ego self.

Obviously not being the only person to experience such there is humility for all ones teachers that have pointed the way, and well even though there is essentially one current of energy there is a distinct polarity of positive and negative in direction in which the energy can flow when under a bias or duality without understanding beyond such attachments of a subjective nature. Many label it good or evil but in the middle without such this energy just moves up and down based on those attachments people are mired in or attached too and grasp after. But life still exists and goes on beyond those attachments of polarities... even attaching to what I have said here, does one a great diservice as there can be attachments and concepts to be grasped, differentiated and affirmed by those with such attachments unless there is a similar experience... yet then that can still be just an attachment and grasping when those thus gone, need not discuss such things nor have an affirmation of experience as it was just a moment that arose and passed that can have names and forms that allow a cognition of that experience as a concept, but in its essence immaterial and moot as experience is variable and not a constant state of being or basically just realative to the observer, if the observer is not subject to such experience and just a witness to its arising and passing, then the only expression witnessed comes from those experiencing a differentation and not the observation itself.

Much the same way the historical buddha gave a discourse on no coming and going... then the monks when on their daily rounds for food alms and Subhuti on return and as other monks ate, noticed the buddha was washing his feet customary after having went for food alms yet he did not see the buddha go yet he was still washing his feet as if he did, and in that moment subhuti was enlightened... which is the whole essence of zen in awakening, if memory serves it is in the great seal sutta but if not no matter as the story is the same no matter its location found.

My personal advice is to drop belief and examine experience itself... from whom or where does it arise and from whom and where is its perpetuation... is the good or bad of it or neutrality of it dwelling in oneself that recognizes it? Or in anothers perpetuation of the concept itself as existing or not existing... sure rotely as a concept it exists in memory, but is it present or existing until it arises to consciousness in that very moment? A doubt is a great friend on all paths as it is a chance to re examine what one has accept as the truth of reality when that is varibale and subject to change, impermament and only perpetuated by one so attached and recognizing it as it arises when it really is like a shadow one forgets is even there.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: jhill76
a reply to: vethumanbeing

vhb:
God is not lonely as has billions of life forms it allowed to be; exist as ITS proxy (describe Itself to Itself). It was not lonely; just curious.

jhill76: Maybe another that was with God before all, posed a question, thus the ripple effects of said question.

I may not have been clear/how can one be on such an esoteric topic: "God is an entity figure/form" man invented (in Mans own image of itself in order to relate to a very hard concept) to describe the Absolute Oneness that is a nebulous/binary being attempting to manifest. This Being is not in form but just an idea. In IT's wisdom/will was able to create matter that could think; function as a human. Crazy fun creativity. I know I am this Being particularized on a much smaller scale is all. I am a part of it; I describe its intent by existing and in so knowing this am also able to validate It's own existence. I exist/therefor so does my Creator as well as I am living proof.

Philosophy: Insight, Volume 2

PHILOSOPHY

The Greek word phi·lo·so·phiʹa means, literally, “love of wisdom.” In modern usage the term relates to human endeavors to understand and interpret through reason and speculation the whole of human experience, including the underlying causes and principles of reality.

The Greek words for “philosophy” and “philosopher” each occur only once in the Christian Greek Scriptures. (Col 2:8; Ac 17:18) Evidently when Paul wrote to the congregation at Colossae in Asia Minor, some there were in danger of being affected by “the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.” Greek philosophies were then quite prominent. But the context of Colossians 2:8 shows that of special concern to Paul were Judaizers who were trying to bring Christians back to observing the Mosaic Law with its required circumcision, festival days, and abstinence from eating certain foods. (Col 2:11, 16, 17) Paul was not opposed to knowledge, for he prayed that Christians be filled with it. But, as he showed, one must appreciate the role of Jesus Christ in the outworking of God’s purpose in order to obtain true wisdom and accurate knowledge. (Col 1:9, 10; 2:2, 3) The Colossians were to look out lest perhaps someone with persuasive arguments carry them off as prey through a human way of thinking or outlook. Such a philosophy would be part of “the elementary things [stoi·kheiʹa] of the world,” that is, the principles or basic components and motivating factors of the world, “and not according to Christ.”—Col 2:4, 8.

When in Athens Paul had an encounter with “the Epicurean and the Stoic philosophers.” (Ac 17:18) They termed the apostle a “chatterer,” using the Greek word sper·mo·loʹgos, which literally applies to a bird that picks up seeds. The word also carries the thought of one who picks up scraps of knowledge and repeats such without order or method. Those philosophers disdained Paul and his message. Basically the Epicurean philosophy was that the obtaining of pleasure, particularly mental pleasure, was the chief good in life (1Co 15:32); though it acknowledged gods, it explained these as being beyond human experience and concern. The philosophy of the Stoics stressed fate or natural destiny; one should be of high virtue but strive for indifference to pain or pleasure. Neither Epicureans nor Stoics believed in the resurrection. In his speech before such men, Paul highlighted the relationship and accountability of the individual to the Creator and connected therewith Christ’s resurrection and the “guarantee” this provided men. To Greeks asking for “wisdom” the message about Christ was “foolishness” (1Co 1:22, 23), and when Paul mentioned the resurrection, many of his hearers began to mock, although some became believers.—Ac 17:22-34.

In his inspired letters Paul emphasized a number of times that the wisdom and falsely called knowledge of the world is foolishness with God and is to be avoided by Christians.—1Co 1:18-31; 2:6-8, 13; 3:18-20; 1Ti 6:20.

Philosophy: Reasoning

How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)