If Jesus is God . . .

[웃 910]

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Who did "our" include?

You have 2 options.

1) Ask the idiot who wrote that garbage.

2) Ask God in a prayer and NEVER get a response.

How about this. Why did God create everything, outerspace, every planet, the sun, the 100s of sextillians of stars, the earth, the universe all in the dark? It is a huge contradiction as we know the stars give off light. Did He make the stars sort of with the light switch set to off and then He flipped the switch on? Or is it just a bunch of non-sense? As you'll see the first line of Genesis says God created the Heavens and the earth (sounds to me like whoever wrote this had no idea about other planets, other earth-like planets, size of universe, etc.). And then afterwords God creates light...

¹ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. ³ And God said, “Let there be light,”

[BishopM 114]

These are sincere questions, and not intended to offend. They are not meant to be mocking of Christianity in any way. Jesus is a great prophet in Islam, one who will return on the Day of Judgment, so no observant Muslim would ever disrespect Him. However, because I am a scholar and a perpetual student of religion, I'm always curious about such matters. I've asked these questions of laymen and scholars alike for years, and it's always interesting to see what individuals think. So. . . .

If Jesus is God,

- does that mean He worshipped Himself?

- does that mean He killed Himself?

Quick Thoughts to your great questions, Sister Sofiyaa, so please forgive my 'shortness' on these answers as volumes have be written.

- does that mean that He worshipped himelf: Nah... Jesus washed his disciples feet, settled hierarchial disputes between his disciples John and James regarding who was greater before God, and told them (on multiple occasions) that he who is least is greatest in the eyes of God. Jesus was 'selfless' and taught humility and a life of servitude. So, no need for him to worship his 'selfless self'. As 'God-Man' living both in full humanity and divinity, yet lacking any duality, through the concept of hypostatic union (same essential substance/essence - Trinitarian point of view), I like to think that when Christ prayed (such as he did always) that he was setting the example for others to follow (though this is somewhat shallow minded on my part and I should put more thought into this...).

- does that mean He killed himself? God 'emptied himself' (again, being 'selfless' in the same manner as the question above) during His incarnation in order that he could become incarnate in the fleshy body of Jesus, the man. When Jesus (the man) died on the Cross for the expiation of mankind's sins, it was the flesh that died. God did not die.

Honestly, as a Western person, I never could understand/attempt to answer these types of questions because we tend to be so rationally minded and have no interest in things that we can't 'touch/feel/explain'. It was really only when I started reading from the Hindu/Buddhist scriptures that I came to a new type of understanding which enabled me to grasp (even if only lightly!) the meaning behind the life of Christ. As an example, it is an interesting parallel between the life of Christ and the enlightened life of Siddhartha Qautama (the Buddha). For the Buddha, once he gained enlightenment he thought to himself to just live the remainder of his life in bliss. But, instead he decided to teach and to 'confront the sins' of others in order that some may find the same peace that he'd found. He didn't have to do this, but he did, and changed the world. For Christ, he bore the weight of sin for the past/present/future world through his incarnation/death/resurrection. At times I am amazed by the strength this must have taken! At times, I am bothered with my own family members and their trivial pursuits, not to mention my own trivial pursuits! I know what it means to love, but I imagine that God's love is much greater than my own, but when I think of my own powers of love I like to believe that I would be willing to 'die' for my wife/children/others. Yet, in the reality of my experiences I often find that I am easily bothered by the smallest of what I would deem 'their faults', which become my pet peeves per se. In short, I don't really have the shoulders to bear the weight of my own sins, much less the weight of my sins plus even one other person's sins, no matter how much I proclaim to love them! Yet, Christ shows us tremendous strength in his willingness to shoulder the sins of all mankind...and Buddha showed great strength is his love of mankind by teaching his 8 fold path for the remaining 45 years of his life when he probably could have just sat in a cave and been 'blissful'. Anyways, that is one reason why I admire the men, and one reason why I realize the absolute strength annd blessing of Christ's love which he demonstrated through his short life in Jesus, and on the cross.

Blessings and...as usual...I have rambled for far too long...it probably would have been better to be silent on such deep yet seemingly simple questions! <haha>

BishopM

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Some religions teach that there are many paths to Enlightenment, but some are more satisfying than the others. If one could quickly find simple answers all the the questions he or she could ask, that would be the shortest, but least satisfying path of all. Perhaps it is the journey, and not the destination that provides some meaning to Existence.

Was Jesus God? Perhaps a better question is, was He unique? In some beliefs, that is a given. In others, one cannot always distinguish between Creator and Creation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Some religions teach that there are many paths to Enlightenment, but some are more satisfying than the others. If one could quickly find simple answers all the the questions he or she could ask, that would be the shortest, but least satisfying path of all. Perhaps it is the journey, and not the destination that provides some meaning to Existence.

Was Jesus God? Perhaps a better question is, was He unique? In some beliefs, that is a given. In others, one cannot always distinguish between Creator and Creation.

Mysticism.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Mysticism.

Muslims have one of the more significant sects.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Muslims have one of the more significant sects.

There's a lot of mysticism in Shia Islam, too. They are the Catholics of Islam.

[faust-yusov 103]

Was Jesus God? Perhaps a better question is, was He unique? In some beliefs, that is a given. In others, one cannot always distinguish between Creator and Creation.

A rather more modern resolve, however, especially within Christianity. Pantheism as advocated by the likes of Spinoza and Bruno was traditionally reviled.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A rather more modern resolve, however, especially within Christianity. Pantheism as advocated by the likes of Spinoza and Bruno was traditionally reviled.

To name something, is to own it. Can one truly own God?

ETA: It is interesting to think the Pope would think I am a heretic.

The Vatican gave Pantheism further prominence in a Papal encyclical of 2009[9] and a New Year's Day statement on January 1, 2010,[10] which criticized Pantheism for denying the superiority of humans over nature and "seeing the source of man’s salvation in nature."[9]

Edited December 27, 2010 by Some Old Guy

[BishopM 114]

There's a lot of mysticism in Shia Islam, too. They are the Catholics of Islam.

My opinion, but it is unfortunate that the word 'mysticism' has come to mean a deflection of 'reason' in our times. From antiquity to the present, 'mythos' has been the most creative use of 'reason' which is utilized to help people 'step outside' of their normal range of literal reasoning. That is why it is sometimes disappointing to hear literal interpreters of 'mythos' discount anything 'God-proclaimed' simply because they haven't had their prayers answered or had God appear before them. They discounted the 'mythos' which is the interiorization of God...so it becomes impossible for them to 'hear' outside of their own intellectual confines; in short it doesn't push the mind to the brink of that which is unknowable and which cannot be answered. This is the transcendence which can be achieved through reading the sacred texts, but when read from a literal point of view the mythos is stripped and the meaning is lost, and it becomes all quite silly, which is a shame.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

There's a lot of mysticism in Shia Islam, too. They are the Catholics of Islam.

and then there's this bunch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Edited December 27, 2010 by charles!

[faust-yusov 103]

To name something, is to own it. Can one truly own God?

Oh you Dabashi-esque provocateur, you.

I would probably say that this is the pretension of most organized religion.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

My opinion, but it is unfortunate that the word 'mysticism' has come to mean a deflection of 'reason' in our times. From antiquity to the present, 'mythos' has been the most creative use of 'reason' which is utilized to help people 'step outside' of their normal range of literal reasoning. That is why it is sometimes disappointing to hear literal interpreters of 'mythos' discount anything 'God-proclaimed' simply because they haven't had their prayers answered or had God appear before them. They discounted the 'mythos' which is the interiorization of God...so it becomes impossible for them to 'hear' outside of their own intellectual confines; in short it doesn't push the mind to the brink of that which is unknowable and which cannot be answered. This is the transcendence which can be achieved through reading the sacred texts, but when read from a literal point of view the mythos is stripped and the meaning is lost, and it becomes all quite silly, which is a shame.

That's certainly not what I was referring to in my two sentences.

[BishopM 114]

That's certainly not what I was referring to in my two sentences.

Ya, I realize that Sofiyya.

My post was more of a general 'statement from personal experience' than anything else...

[DEDixon 39]

I'd rather not create a new post to ask another bible question so here goes: when God said that he created man in his own image, what does that mean?

I have a friend that is constantly saying that since he isn't so good and since God created him in his own image then God can't be so good either.

[BishopM 114]

I'd rather not create a new post to ask another bible question so here goes: when God said that he created man in his own image, what does that mean?

I have a friend that is constantly saying that since he isn't so good and since God created him in his own image then God can't be so good either.

Hey Brother DEDixon,

I have to admit that when I read your friends quote that "since he isn't so good and since God created him in his own image then God can't be so good either", that it gave me a lighthearted chuckle! In my mind I picture (rightly or wrongly!) that your friend is quite good natured, and probably pretty clever! I may have to steal his line the next time I dig myself into another hole!

Anyways, I remember when I was taking a class on Genesis in college way back when...I had to write a brief summary on this same question which you've asked in your post. I still have that paper and I've posted it below, for whatever it is worth, in its entirety below... ... I don't know if I would answer the same question today as I answered at the time of this paper, but, I gave it a shot!

"As a young child I often wondered why God created the earth, and specifically why he created mankind. I often thought that God created mankind because he was lonely in Heaven, all by himself. I also believed he made the world for us to have a place to live with him. In my childhood home we also had a picture of Michelangelos Creation of Man from the Sistine Chapel. I often wondered why Michelangelo painted God to look like an older man and why Adam looked so young. Truly, a childs mind is wondrous! Now that Im an adult who studies the bible, when I read Genesis 1:26, Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness… I realize that God did not make us because he was lonely. Likewise when I read Genesis 1:27, God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him… I realize that God didnt create mankind in his physical image, but rather in his spiritual image.

As an adult, when I began reading the bible seriously I was amazed that God said, Let Us make man in Our image. Why did God not continue with the same pattern of thought He utilized during His first five days of creation, by simply saying, Let there be…? There is a definite change of language in the sixth day regarding the creation of man. God seems to be conferring with someone regarding the creation of man, whereas the first five days of creation God appears to work alone. There is a special somberness reflected biblically with the creation of man in Gods image, exhibited through this consultation with this assembly of celestial beings, or heavenly council. According to the Interpreters Bible Commentary, What seems to be significant is the idea that for the creation of man it was fitting, if not necessary, that there should be something like cooperation on the part of the whole company of Heaven. Obviously my boyhood thoughts were incorrect! God did not make man because He was lonely, for He was with the celestial beings which comprised the whole company of Heaven. Specifically though, I considered this to be the first Biblical reference to our God of the Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, from whence we would receive mankinds image. The Interpreters Bible Commentary agrees, A further possibility should be considered: whether there is not here an attempt to give expression to the feeling that God could not be adequately expressed as a bare unity. The Wesley Notes of the Bible also agrees that Genesis 1:26 points to the Trinity, Let Us make man in Our image…the three persons of the Trinity consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made was to be dedicated and devoted to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is this spirit of our Triune God which truly encapsulates the image of God which mankind will receive. The biblical evidence that God was not alone at the moment of mans creation is further evidenced in Genesis 3:22. Following Adam and Eves betrayal, God spoke, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever. Clearly, God again refers to other celestial beings at this point. The fact that God is referencing other celestial beings is again proven two verses later in Genesis 3:24, So He drove the man out; and at the east of the Garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. This realization that the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did not create mankind out of his own loneliness, as I thought when I was a child, brought me great comfort.

As I continued to study the bible, I still wondered exactly why God created mankind in His own image. As Genesis 1:26 clearly states, after God conferred with the Heavenly Council it was agreed that He will create man, in Our image. One might then determine that the other celestial beings were already made in the image of God as well, which mankind must share to some extent. Yet, in Genesis 1:27 God clearly states that He, God alone and only God, created mankind, God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary agrees that God communicated with other celestial beings prior to His own act of creating man, The Bible accepts the picture of the assembly, but Yahweh alone makes the decision. This exemplifies the sovereign nature of our Triune Lord, as he creates mankind through His own creative act and in His own image of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, endowing mankind with His nature and His image.

Like many youngsters, I also wanted to touch God. The Interpreters Bible Commentary states, The early thinkers about God thought of him as corporeal. So does the child. As an adult, I realized that Gods creation of mankind in His image means much more than corporeal identity. The Interpreters Bible commentary continues to elaborate, The image included likeness to Him in spiritual powers the powers of thought, the powers of communication, the power of self-transcendence. Therefore my picture of God was expanded from my childhood vision; He created mankind in His image at the soul level, not simply corporeally. God created mans body first to serve as the vessel for the soul which He would breathe into us as the breath of life. It is in this manner that we are able to holy, because we are endowed with His Image of holiness. The New Interpreters Bible Study elaborates on the thoughts of church father Augustine, Augustine, for example, believed that the image of God referred to the rational soul, placed by God in the human body, which was created out of the ground. Wesleys Notes on the Bible concurs with Augustines thoughts, Gods image and After his likeness are two ways to express the same thing. Gods image upon man consists: 1) In his nature, not that of his body, for God has not a body, but that of his soul. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent, immortal spirit, an active spirit, herein resembling God the Father of the spirits and the soul of the world. 2) In his place and in his authority. Let us make man in our image and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is as it were Gods representative on earth.

As a child, I had a great heart for God. As an adult, I still have a great heart for God. However, as an adult Ive now the ability to read Gods word and understand in a more faithful and intellectual manner. Truly, mankind has been blessed with the image of God. It is a responsibility we should joyfully accept!"

Bibliography

George Arthur Buttrick, Nolan B. Harmon. The Interpreters Bible, a Commentary in Twelve Volumes. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1952.

John Wesley, G. Roger Schoenhals. Wesley's Notes on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987.

Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, Roland Murphy. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Company, 1990.

Walter Harrison, Donald Senior, Abraham Smith. The New Interpreters Bible Study. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2003.

Blessings!

Edited December 27, 2010 by BishopM