It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A rather simple question about Genesis.

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: waarheid




if God could create man from dust, why did he need Adam's rib to create woman?
The best way to answer this is to look at the types and put Jesus in the mix . Just as God took a rib from Adam causing a wound and later brought Eve his bride to him ,so too did Jesus receive a wound in His side that would create a bride (the church) for Him .




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Kalren



The question that you have put forward is one that no one can answer to your total satisfaction. Since, no such scripture exists.


That is true, thank you.

Turning Jesus into GOD Almighty is a Christian thing. It makes no sense and it goes against the creation story that states that mankind was made in God's image, and destined to become like God. God would not have needed to magically enter his creation through a virgin to provide an example of human perfection, because it is embedded within us already.

Therefore there is no need for a savior, who is God Almighty himself, entering his creation in order to pay a ransom for the souls of mankind to Satan (The Serpent) or to to himself.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific


When the bible says that God created Adam in his own image is it supposed to be interpreted literally? Does it mean that he created him physically in his own image or does it imply that he created him with specific values and abilities, a moral code as it were?

It all depends upon what you are taught to believe. If you will, this is my understanding.

The celestial realm was created first by the Creator. The Creator created all of the orders of the angelic entities in a visible structure with the Creator being of invisibility to them. In order to create understanding, He then brought forth Himself into an image. This image was twofold in that it was both visibility and Himself (Spirit). This visible image was called His "Word."

Moses called the "Word" His image and likeness.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: (in part)--

The Creator then created this universe in a different substance than that of the celestial substance. This substance is not everlasting but was designed with a lifespan. As the Creator designed man He made man's image from the pattern of His "Word" (Himself) but with the substance of this universe. Man was also made twofold just like his Creator with a portion of the Creator's spirit which we call life. So man was created with the Creators image or pattern (Word) and the Creators likeness (Spirit of Life).

This showed Moses that as the Creator has two celestial portions of Spirit (likeness) and Word (image) so man also has two portions of His pattern. The problem that most have is that of understanding death of the image of man. As a man dies the image returns to its source while the spirit of life remains and if worthy is given a place in the celestial world. When that man's spirit ascends to its celestial estate it is then given a celestial body just as the other celestial angelic host has. This shows us that the celestial host is also created in two portions. One being a celestial image and the celestial spirit of life or likeness. The substance change applies only to the image.

This explains the Apostle Johns understanding of the image.

John 1:1-4
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
(4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede




Moses called the "Word" His image and likeness.


There you go again, making up biblical history as you go. Moses NEVER called God "The Word". He called him "I AM".

"The Word" doesn't appear in the Bible until the New Testament, in John's epistle, and was borrowed from Plato, and then it was used by Philo first, before John, in the 1st century, to describe "The Angel of the Lord".



edit on 6-1-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


There you go again, making up biblical history as you go. Moses NEVER called God "The Word". He called him "I AM".

I made it clear from the onset did I not?

Quote " If you will, this is my understanding." Unquote

Quote "Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: (in part)-- Unquote

We all make mistakes in understanding what we read and in that light I forgive you for not understanding. You do seem confused as to not understanding the Apostle John intent.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Here is a version I have never heard...

"Let ME make man in MY image"

I say, deal with the elephant in the room...

Å99



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede




You do seem confused as to not understanding the Apostle John intent.


I have much more respect for Plato's intent when he shared his imagery of "The LOGOS" and Philo's work on the subject in regards to the role of the LOGOS through the "Angel of the Lord", which was hijacked by the author of John's epistle and donned it upon the head of dead man.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: akushla99
Here is a version I have never heard...

"Let ME make man in MY image"

I say, deal with the elephant in the room...

Å99


That's just looking for a trinity debate...

Funny that the jews don't believe in a trinity, yet its actually their book, not Christianity's... but they know best




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Funny that the jews don't believe in a trinity, yet its actually their book, not Christianity's... but they know best



I'm not sure what you mean. Trinities are all over ALL the ancient religions and represent a kind of "family of concepts", in my opinion. But, the Jewish god is 4 fold, YHVH, not a trinity.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Although I Do Lie Alot... I Try To Make Sense.

Dominion. Over The Seas... And All That Is In Them. Over The Skies... And All That Is In Them. Over The Fields... And All That Is In Them. Dominion!

In His Image... IS... The "Standard" / "Banner" / "Flag" aka Spirit!
You Are Designed To Have Dominion.... Yet Morality Won't Allow It.
So... You Must Eat Of The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil.... Conquer.
For Her Desire Shall Be For You.


edit on 6-1-2016 by Pinocchio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Oh I realise there are trinities all over the place... Hinduism has one, the Egyptians had something similar...

The Hebrew God was purely monotheistic, The Shema was also reaffirmed by Jesus, who was also not a "Trinitarian"

Though Christians turn him into one

I don't know about 4 fold though...


edit on 6-1-2016 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Of course the Hebrew god is ONE. One god that expresses its omnipotence in a fourfold manner. Fivefold when plural.

LOL



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I get the fourfold expressed as the letters in the Tetragrammaton

Yet this isn't meant to be four entities that equal one... They still considered YHWH to be ONE entity


Perhaps ye might explain further... or provide a link or two?




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: akushla99
Here is a version I have never heard...

"Let ME make man in MY image"

I say, deal with the elephant in the room...

Å99


That's just looking for a trinity debate...

Funny that the jews don't believe in a trinity, yet its actually their book, not Christianity's... but they know best



No it's not Akra...

First person singular would have removed the implication of the hedge to a trinity debate...that short passage cannot have an implication...and as far as I'm aware, there is no passage that specifically uses the royal We, and Our - without nomination to sons or holy spirits...so, no, not a trinity debate... and to paraphrase many a 'christian', it is the word of God - who vascilates between these modes of speech to create debate(?)...one would have thought that Supreme Intelligence would definitively remove the doubt from all references to itself, from the beginning of Genny onwards...

...another passage I have not seen -

"We are the alpha and the Omega..." - I could go on (so could everyone)...the question of 'image', under these conditions is a moot point...

Å99



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99


First person singular would have removed the implication of the hedge to a trinity debate...that short passage cannot have an implication...and as far as I'm aware, there is no passage that specifically uses the royal We, and Our -


The issue here is that there isn't a first person implication... the verse says "let US make man in OUR image"

Both of which imply a plural "god"... at the very least more then one

Though I've read that said passage has always been mistranslated... purposely or otherwise im unsure




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Yet this isn't meant to be four entities that equal one... They still considered YHWH to be ONE entity


Ezekiel's vision of God included 4 faces.

On the surface, it appears that ancient Jews worshiped an entity. But, the mystical view of the Tetragrammaton is that YHVH is a "force", a literal LAW of existence.



Love this guy ^^





posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: akushla99


First person singular would have removed the implication of the hedge to a trinity debate...that short passage cannot have an implication...and as far as I'm aware, there is no passage that specifically uses the royal We, and Our -


The issue here is that there isn't a first person implication... the verse says "let US make man in OUR image"

Both of which imply a plural "god"... at the very least more then one

Though I've read that said passage has always been mistranslated... purposely or otherwise im unsure




Correct, correct and correct...



Å99



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kalren
a reply to: windword
The question that you have put forward is one that no one can answer to your total satisfaction. Since, no such scripture exists. The problem is that the Old Testament did not reveal the true identity of the Messiah saying that He is God in the flesh or any specifics that would zero in on Jesus except provide clues to lead one to find Him. Your question is like trying to guess what a letter contains without having read it. Unless the New Testament is read no one can identify the person indicated as the Messiah in the Old Testament. The Pharisees and Sadducees were the top Jewish authorities of those times and they could not see or identify Jesus as the Messiah simply because they weren't looking in the right place for the clues. The Three Wise men were led to the Child Jesus and so were the Shepherds. When King Herod wanted to know where the prophesied King was to be born the scribes checked the scriptures. The Messiah is portrayed in two aspects in the Old Testament 1. as the suffering Servant 2. as the coming King. The people in those times were looking for the coming King, being under the tyranny of the Roman Empire, but alas G-D sent the suffering Servant. This was what angered the scribes that Jesus in His speech equated Himself with G-D. Had Jesus said He was the King maybe just maybe they would have responded differently. They would probably checked His genealogy to start with and then so on and so forth.

Today we look forward to the coming King and one verse which speaks of Jesus (second Man) being God directly in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 15:47.

So, please wait no longer open the letter and read it and then find out if the Scriptures have been fulfilled or not. Another problem you will face is that G-D as represent by the different words in the Hebrew text is not written of in the same form in the New Testament since it was written in Greek. So, rather then looking for exact words, look for the clues given in the Old Testament and see for yourself. We have a saying in my circles of study: The Old Testament is the New Testament hidden and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. Hope you find your answers. G-D Bless



GOD in flesh?

What sort of review is this.....since when does God have a form?

GOD is a concept.....occultism is forming concepts to pose theories and those theories were factored circular reviews of pi and PHI involving LETTERS with numerical factors.....forming the WORD OF GOD as a theory.

The theory imposes the cause and effect realization, which is what the document was written for, for evidence of the BIBLE in English as a format of PHI informs the reader that it was written as one document in one moment doing a COMPLETE REVIEW of another condition......THE BOOK OF THE DEAD unholy occult scientific practice of the ancients.

CAUSE AND EFFECT a spiritual self realization after you get attacked by the evil spirits.....hence the documentation attests that it is reviewing the REVELATIONS of changing/abominating the nature of Earth...the atmospheric veils and also the nature of animals.....which any human being would review is correct especially as the Islamic review also demonstrates the same considerations.

The book reviews the condition of the VOID....knowing that the atmospheric outer body had been voided by their science....and that it had fallen out.

So they reviewed by PHI FACTORING as the LETTERED EQUATIONS to inform by WORD the CAUSE AND EFFECT outcomes as Revelations.

The Revelations revealed to them that they had destroyed the natural atmospheric oxygenated regeneration process and caused the murder of their own SPIRIT.....CALLED THE CHRIST.

This was factored by evidence to be JESUS.....why it is stated that JESUS was the STIGMATA by evidence on the Shroud of Turin.....held in the order of the sacred brothers for evidence itself.

Realize that the ancient brotherhoods had 2 orders....the occultists who used and believed in the Satanic practices of alchemizing and changing the nature of Earth life.....and the wise.

Our brother formed ancient occult science through a somatic drugged mind state and gained information to levitation of stone....which was an origin evil UFO attack against life on origin Earth.

He reactivated this attack so that he could use levitation.....and modern day Earth has since been under UFO attack ever since he committed our new life to the same ancient circumstance. Several times through his own personal spiritual re-evolution of his intelligence....he regained the levitation informaiton reapplied it and human life was again incinerated.

Archaeological evidence supports this review.

Planet Earth has since been reattacked with the UFO condition, which is why our DNA had not healed and we were taught that by the YEAR 2012....the satanic anima attack cause would cease because the ancient brothers believed that they had stopped the occultist practice.

Instead science was reinvented.

The UFO attack regained its amount of manifesting bodies....involved in modern days as nuclear fuel creation.

The only reason we are all still alive is that modern day science decided to use the information for the creation of nuclear fuel....and only a few human lives suffered the consequence of self combustion.

Luckily for us......ICE melts in the condition of the nuclear interaction with the UFO converting upper atmospheric attack....when ICE can no longer replace the coldnes in the upper atmosphere, scientists of the occult will be more than sorry for ever believing in occultist practice....for the occult has always been known to be evil itself.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


I have much more respect for Plato's intent when he shared his imagery of "The LOGOS" and Philo's work on the subject in regards to the role of the LOGOS through the "Angel of the Lord", which was hijacked by the author of John's epistle and donned it upon the head of dead man.

That is your prerogative as a human and I respect that you have that right but I also have the same prerogative to understand differently than you understand. I believe we have both gone over this same disagreement before and neither of us have changed our theology. I cannot emphatically say that you are wrong but only that I believe you are mistaken. After all it is a guessing game at the least.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
It's telling, that, from the OP onwards - the passage being discussed has not only been skirted in its written form, but, the words used have been duly altered to be read differently than It Is Written.

This is the passage:

"Let US make mankind in OUR image" (or variations that do not change the possessive sense).

The word 'Image' may be up for debate - but in the interests of intellectual honesty, the passage should be quoted correctly by xtians and non, alike...if it is not (and it hasn't been referenced correctly) the discussion is an exercise in excuse-making and outright shimmying.

The use of 'Our' and 'Us' is no mistake...and the fact that all versions do not alter this is not a mistake, otherwise 'the word of God' would have been corrected, like many other passages...as if 'the word of God' needed correcting...

Å99



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join