What does God created mankind in his own image mean

a reply to: glend

What does God created mankind in his own image mean

it means man kind is beyond arrogant...

to believe the creator of all that there is looks like us

OP title is misleading.

Genesis 1:26 does not say -

Let ME make man in MY image.

Å99

First Consider There Are Many Gods....
Then Consider The Arrogance Of Your Chosen God.
And He Will Accord You Honor. You Get Made In His Image. See To Your Flag And Nationality.
Be Proud And Accept Your Charge. You Are A Soldier!

Image Is Flag! Be Made In The Name Of The Father (Master) And Of The Son (Apprentice) And Of The Holy Spirit (Craft)!

Or Not!


Keep In Mind I Am Pinocchio.... In All Honesty... I Shall Tell You A Lie!

originally posted by: akushla99
OP title is misleading.

Genesis 1:26 does not say -

Let ME make man in MY image.

Å99

When every passage before it is

* first person singular

...then at Gen. 1:26 is

* first person plural

...and flips back at Gen. 1:27 to

* first person singular

...you'd need to invent a compelling excuse that adequately glosses over it with something other than a passive-agressive insult to the intelligence that flipped the switch to prompt the translation to be reproduced in such an unequivocal fashion - and have it deemed 'his own word'...but not 'our own word'...without resorting to the fey discernment that is so conveniently used to unexplain such an obvious glitch in the script.

Å99

a reply to: glend

The Apocryphon of John isn't dissimilar to Buddha writings and if you read Judaism Zohar it appears our perception of the creator (or spirit acting as such) is filtered through various enlightenments from which we view different creators, if I understand it correctly.

It is my understanding that you do, and that makes me hopeful and gay.

I would add "aspects of the" between "different" and "creator".

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.

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.

The explanation of the self-imposed (whether royal we, or not) split personality is an obvious one - but for the purposes of homogeneity, a greater, whole-of-created-existences - managed by middle and lower management creations (US+OUR) - and all, and any ministrative agencies involved in doing the business at any locale anywhere in the manifested 'stage-set' to commission the work - is probably easier to ignore, in deference to a script that culminates with the blockbuster annihilation scenario involving another of the personalities that appears as the classic scapegoat/hedge - the whole psycho-drama being played out on the only planet in created existence - a little blue marble, 3rd from One sun, amongst so many more - implausible, in the extreme...

Å99

originally posted by: glend
It seems you can look at the statement two ways, either we are in Gods image (or dream) or are we Godlike?

This that is appearing is made of dream stuff.
What is it that is 'seeing and knowing' that there is a dream scene?

Look now at your direct experience - there is text appearing, reading happening - but what in your experience is seeing the text?

That which is all seeing/all knowing (aware) is God.
God is dreaming that there is a person reading text.

You are not Godlike - when you recognize that you are not something separate appearing in the dream - that you are the dreamer and the entire dream - it will be known that there is nothing but God.

God's image is what is seen and heard - it is this that is.
All that is appearing to the senses is the image of God. What can arise in the image that is ever present is an image of someone living in time - you as a person, a body imagined in past scenes and future scenes. The image of 'you in time' appears like a little subscreen within the image of God which is always present.
An idol has been created which appears to move outside of God's image - really there is nothing but God's image - with the illusion of some 'thing' other.
Is it ever possible to step outside of presence? Who could do that?

a reply to: Akragon

Very likely but from reading more it appears that Jews believe the spiritual nature of humans, not the flesh, has been mirrored from the Creator as described in the sephirot. Perhaps envisioned in Indian religions as chakra's.



The creation of our spiritual nature is then described symbolically within Genesis...

Let there be Light and there was Light (Kether)
Let there be a firmament in the midst of the Waters, and let it divide the Waters from the Waters (Chockmah)
Let the Waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear (Binah)

a reply to: glend
I thought this idea 'quabala' was borrowed (or lent) from the Egyptians when the Hebraic people were guests of Pharaoh; then abruptly left. Moses would know all about this; he borrowed the Arch of the Covenant at the very same time.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Possibly but Genesis itself could have been a combination of older writings ("These are the generations of") that were edited into a single volume called Genesis possibly by Moses. Even though there might be similarities between Genesis and other creation stories (egyptian, sumerian etc) that doesn't dictate they weren't written independently.

a reply to: wisvol

Yes thank you for correcting with the word aspects.

a reply to: glend
I think you missed my point. There are other writings that are not of the biblical texture that tell different stories than that of Genesis. Probably older more of an Arcane nature.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I thought this idea 'quabala' was borrowed (or lent) from the Egyptians when the Hebraic people were guests of Pharaoh; then abruptly left. Moses would know all about this; he borrowed the Arch of the Covenant at the very same time.

The Egyptians surely would have kept some record of this.

Guests of Pharaoh is an understatement: Joseph was sold then imprisoned, Israel was welcomed to Gessen yes, until the new Pharaoh decided to enslave the entire tribes, again.

Moses built the Ark and hasn't borrowed it either.

What is it with so many claiming these things originate from the neighbours when nothing other than wishful thinking indicates as much?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I thought this idea 'quabala' was borrowed (or lent) from the Egyptians when the Hebraic people were guests of Pharaoh; then abruptly left. Moses would know all about this; he borrowed the Arch of the Covenant at the very same time.

The Egyptians surely would have kept some record of this.
Guests of Pharaoh is an understatement: Joseph was sold then imprisoned, Israel was welcomed to Gessen yes, until the new Pharaoh decided to enslave the entire tribes, again.Moses built the Ark and hasn't borrowed it either.

I KNOW!? nor did they keep precise records of how or why they needed to enslave the Hebrews (why embrace Moses and allow him to become one of the Royal Household/trusted). Why would Moses betray Pharaoh and steal the Arch of the Covenant/secret sacred knowledge of the Quabala? This civilization did not use slaves; the people were devoted, they were of a higher dimension (an insert) deployed on Earth to raise its vibration. Why would they need slaves; the great pyramids were already built (12,000BC).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

why embrace Moses and allow him to become one of the Royal Household/trusted

Because Moses is the fourth generation from Joseph, who besides his ability to interpret Pharaohs' dreams had proven to be useful in ways including Pharaohs main interest, as evidence by the first and only recorded conversation between Pharaoh and Jacob/Israel.

Why would Moses betray Pharaoh and steal the Arch of the Covenant/secret sacred knowledge of the Quabala?

Because he didn't like seeing his brothers whipped and bossed around while their fathers came as free men and cattle farmers Moses "betrayed" Pharaoh, more like differed in opinion since he too was of royal rank in that civilisation.
He did not steal the ark or kabala. He had the ark built after arriving where Pharaoh would prevent him to go peacefully several times and kabala isn't part of the recorded religion of Egypt.

his civilization did not use slaves; the people were devoted

Devoted employees do not abandon their lifestyle to err in the desert for forty years.

Why would they need slaves; the great pyramids were already built (12,000BC).

By this logic, the pyramids were built when America had slaves, so why would they need slaves?
Not entering discussion as to how you date stone buildings, and besides, biblical record speaks of brick construction, not stone construction, as forced labour of Israelites, although higher office including agroeconomics, architecture and psychology was also delegated to them.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: vethumanbeing

vhb:
why embrace Moses and allow him to become one of the Royal Household/trusted

wisvol: Because Moses is the fourth generation from Joseph, who besides his ability to interpret Pharaohs' dreams had proven to be useful in ways including Pharaohs main interest, as evidence by the first and only recorded conversation between Pharaoh and Jacob/Israel.

Apparently this supposed "clarification" or "mindmeld" failed between the (6th) Sirians and the (4th)Annunaki.

vhb:
Why would Moses betray Pharaoh and steal the Arch of the Covenant/secret sacred knowledge of the Quabala?

visvol: Because he didn't like seeing his brothers whipped and bossed around while their fathers came as free men and cattle farmers Moses "betrayed" Pharaoh, more like differed in opinion since he too was of royal rank in that civilisation.
He did not steal the ark or kabala. He had the ark built after arriving where Pharaoh would prevent him to go peacefully several times and kabala isn't part of the recorded religion of Egypt.

How did he have an existing ark built (he would have to have uranium from UR to power it). The Quabala is of Egyptian origin.

vhb:
his civilization did not use slaves; the people were devoted

visvol: Devoted employees do not abandon their lifestyle to err in the desert for forty years

You read that as fact from a text that the writers of are speaking poetically or metaphorically.

vhb:
Why would they need slaves; the great pyramids were already built (12,000BC).

visvol: By this logic, the pyramids were built when America had slaves, so why would they need slaves?
Not entering discussion as to how you date stone buildings, and besides, biblical record speaks of brick construction, not stone construction, as forced labour of Israelites, higher office including agroeconomics, architecture and psychology was also delegated to them.

12,000 BC (Egypt). The Pyramids and the Sphinx were built long before the Hebrew tribe arrived. They were guests and very well treated by their hosts.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Oh, now I get it.

Carry on, good luck

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Edited. Too hot for me!!!!