Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't matter if you think it's a "cult" or not, if you read it all or not or that you get nothing after reading the entire thing. What matters most is that you'll come out knowing of Divine Love, if you get that far. Nothing else matters because nothing else will get you through the pearly gates. Even debating about who said what or where and how long ago something happened. It doesn't matter. Only Love matters because that is who we are and that is what created us. Our soul. Our material body is only for this life. After that, it is nothing. Our image is in the soul image of God.
For the record, I responded the way I did because you come across as wanting to be right about everything. None of us are right and none of us are wrong. We hold truths, even false truths, because that is where we are on our journey.
I don't see any information at that link on the primary texts of the individual you named.
Good Points! Then you have to ask, what image were women supposedly created in? Hmmm? The male image is different from the female image. Oh wait I forgot, women are just little helpers for poor lonely helpless men who can't stand to be alone....
In my opinion females are created in the image of the heavenly mother, which was very clearly an element of Israelite religion until around the 8th or 7th century BCE. I wouldn't say that women are just helpers. I think both men and women are equally incomplete without the other. Patriarchal society has emphasized the importance of the male to the detriment of the female, however.
Might very well be the only place where you will find this person mentioned.
This doesn't give me the primary texts or any information on the manuscript from which it comes. This is just a putative English translation. There are several reasons to reject the notion that it's legitimate. For instance, Abraham wouldn't have been known as a "Jewish" anything. That term derives from the name Judah, which was Abraham's grandson. The terms "Jew" and "Jewish" don't develop until the tribe of Judah becomes the almost exclusive inhabitant of the region later known as Judaea. That's 8th/7th century BCE at the absolute earliest. In the biblical text the designation isn't attested until even later. It's modern non-specialists who most often make the mistake of calling anything from the Patriarchal age "Jewish."
The tradition that the fruit mentioned in Genesis was an apple comes from the early modern period when Christian art began to incorporate imagery from Greek mythology (the story of the garden of Hesperides, to be specific). The early modern spiritualized worldview is even later (definitely post-enlightenment). This is all, as I said, based on the heavy influence of a Christian-Platonic worldview.
In my opinion females are created in the image of the heavenly mother, which was very clearly an element of Israelite religion until around the 8th or 7th century BCE. I wouldn't say that women are just helpers. I think both men and women are equally incomplete without the other. Patriarchal society has emphasized the importance of the male to the detriment of the female, however.
You'll have to excuse my sarcasm as I am a former believer and now in the atheist/agnostic camp. I love to joke about this stuff.
This doesn't give me the primary texts or any information on the manuscript from which it comes. This is just a putative English translation. There are several reasons to reject the notion that it's legitimate. For instance, Abraham wouldn't have been known as a "Jewish" anything. That term derives from the name Judah, which was Abraham's grandson. The terms "Jew" and "Jewish" don't develop until the tribe of Judah becomes the almost exclusive inhabitant of the region later known as Judaea. That's 8th/7th century BCE at the absolute earliest. In the biblical text the designation isn't attested until even later. It's modern non-specialists who most often make the mistake of calling anything from the Patriarchal age "Jewish."
The tradition that the fruit mentioned in Genesis was an apple comes from the early modern period when Christian art began to incorporate imagery from Greek mythology (the story of the garden of Hesperides, to be specific). The early modern spiritualized worldview is even later (definitely post-enlightenment). This is all, as I said, based on the heavy influence of a Christian-Platonic worldview.
None of that has anything to do with the OP. I showed you that link because you claimed it was only in the bible. The "image of God" is in various religious texts. I also gave you that link so that you would know that the original writer of Genesis knew that it was the soul of man that was created in His image and not the material body.
I don't care one bit about where things come from or who wrote them. I only care about my own soul and if it's bringing in Divine Love. All else is pointless. It does nothing for the soul including knowing what is or isn't the right place to find information or who did what when and where.
Our souls are born in God's image and we have the potential to transform our souls into the likeness so that we can become at-one with Him. I believe that is what the OP is about. What part of us is the image.
None of that has anything to do with the OP. I showed you that link because you claimed it was only in the bible. The "image of God" is in various religious texts. I also gave you that link so that you would know that the original writer of Genesis knew that it was the soul of man that was created in His image and not the material body.
I asked for the link because you brought up a text about which I knew nothing. I asked for more information so I could learn about the text, and my previous post is my assessment of it. You can respond to my assessment if you wish, but the above is just a flippant dismissal that indicates you're not interested in turning an objective eye on your own beliefs. There's a saying that anyone who isn't willing to subject his beliefs to public evaluation loves his opinion more than the truth. This response of yours is a perfect illustration of that maxim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
I don't care one bit about where things come from or who wrote them.
Clearly you do, otherwise you wouldn't assert that this text is legitimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
I only care about my own soul and if it's bringing in Divine Love. All else is pointless. It does nothing for the soul including knowing what is or isn't the right place to find information or who did what when and where.
If you don't care if the text is ancient or modern, and just care about whether or not the principles it teaches are edifying, that's fine, but don't assert it is historical if you're not willing to defend that assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
Our souls are born in God's image and we have the potential to transform our souls into the likeness so that we can become at-one with Him. I believe that is what the OP is about. What part of us is the image.
I don't think that's what the OP is about at all. It clearly addresses outward appearance.
I asked for the link because you brought up a text about which I knew nothing. I asked for more information so I could learn about the text, and my previous post is my assessment of it. You can respond to my assessment if you wish, but the above is just a flippant dismissal that indicates you're not interested in turning an objective eye on your own beliefs. There's a saying that anyone who isn't willing to subject his beliefs to public evaluation loves his opinion more than the truth. This response of yours is a perfect illustration of that maxim.
Clearly you do, otherwise you wouldn't assert that this text is legitimate.
If you don't care if the text is ancient or modern, and just care about whether or not the principles it teaches are edifying, that's fine, but don't assert it is historical if you're not willing to defend that assertion.
I don't think that's what the OP is about at all. It clearly addresses outward appearance.
I'm not saying my own beliefs are accurate or all truth. You can evaluate it all you want. What I gave you is the only information about the original author of Genesis. If you can find other text written by the same author, I'll gladly read it. However, I have found none in my own search. The only beliefs I hold are about Divine Love and that is the only Truth I will adhere to. All others is up for debate. That includes everything I have been taught about the bible and about what beliefs I do adhere to. And yes, I was dismissing you.
The original question of the OP was "It was said humans were "created in God's image" -- that brings us the question: who on earth looks like God?"
My answer is that we all look like God, maybe not as illuminating, at the soul of our being. Take away the material part of you and you look exactly like everyone else. The only difference between you and the rest of the world is your personality.
I'm not saying my own beliefs are accurate or all truth. You can evaluate it all you want. What I gave you is the only information about the original author of Genesis.
Here you assert again that the text is historical. You're saying that your belief is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
If you can find other text written by the same author, I'll gladly read it. However, I have found none in my own search.
That tends to happen with these kinds of pseudepigraphic texts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
The only beliefs I hold are about Divine Love and that is the only Truth I will adhere to. All others is up for debate.
You don't seem willing to debate the antiquity of the text to which you linked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend1111
That includes everything I have been taught about the bible and about what beliefs I do adhere to. And yes, I was dismissing you.
The original question of the OP was "It was said humans were "created in God's image" -- that brings us the question: who on earth looks like God?"
My answer is that we all look like God, maybe not as illuminating, at the soul of our being. Take away the material part of you and you look exactly like everyone else. The only difference between you and the rest of the world is your personality.
And this material/spiritual dichotomy is part of that Christian-Platonic worldview I was talking about.
Here you assert again that the text is historical. You're saying that your belief is correct.
That tends to happen with these kinds of pseudepigraphic texts.
You don't seem willing to debate the antiquity of the text to which you linked.
And this material/spiritual dichotomy is part of that Christian-Platonic worldview I was talking about.
That link I gave you was a channeled message. I don't know where else you would have me look for more information on the guy. If you really want to know, look him up, otherwise, dismiss the message and move on to someone else. Stop trying to bate me into an arguement in which I want no part of. I will answer with what I know but that is it. If you want more info about the author, look him up. Can we get back on topic? I believe I gave my answer to what I know to be true in my soul. If your looking for another answer, it's not here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
