Made in God’s image. Yuk. Not me thanks.

[MagsJ]

If Yahweh was not a creator god, then what is he bestowed with having done, to be so revered? I don’t know much at all about Judaism, but I know about the Kabbalah.. due to it’s increased popularity in recent decades.

In Genesis 1 humankind is made in the image of Elohim.

The Image of God (Hebrew: צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים‎, romanized: tzelem Elohim; Latin: Imago Dei) is a concept and theological doctrine in Judaism, Christianity, and Sufism of Islam, which asserts that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God.

This goes with my research and current thinking, that man, is descended from god, who was also (hu)man, meaning.. modern man, but I’m more intrigued by the period of time between then and prior, of the time when primitive man suddenly became sentient homosapien man and the prior gods to then were much more than men.

26 And G-d said, Let Us make man in Our tzelem, after Our demut: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon ha’aretz (the earth).

27 So G-d created humankind in His own tzelem, in the tzelem Elohim (image of G-d) created He him; zachar (male) and nekevah (female) created He them.

Per Wikipedia in the Hebrew Bible, elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים [(ʔ)eloˈ(h)im]) sometimes refers to a single deity,particularly (but not always) the God of Israel, at other times it refers to deities in the plural.

As with all mythology, the inexhaustible richness of the symbolic narrative lies in its capacity to generate multiple meanings. [polysemy]. The creation and Garden of Eden stories certainly instantiate this phenomenon. Thus, the Gnostics saw the OT God as the evil demiurge. Theosophy identified Elohim with the Archons, evil spiritual beings who wish to deny the human race knowledge and immortality. And yet, the principle that humans contain the Divine image, was transmogrified by Enlightenment writers into the principle that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Wholism attempts to transcend the dichotomous thinking implied in the literal adherence to a single interpretation without denying that some interpretations may be better than[i.e. more complete than] others.

The point where the Semites and Indos parted ways, and also parted religiously too.. in indifference, over their differences.

The New Testament always reminds me of a soap opera.. drama, drama, drama, and men at the whim of womens’ whims.

[felix dakat]

If Yahweh was not a creator god, then what is he bestowed with having done, to be so revered? I don’t know much at all about Judaism, but I know about the Kabbalah.. due to it’s increased popularity in recent decades.

In Genesis 1 humankind is made in the image of Elohim.

The Image of God (Hebrew: צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים‎, romanized: tzelem Elohim; Latin: Imago Dei) is a concept and theological doctrine in Judaism, Christianity, and Sufism of Islam, which asserts that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God.

This goes with my research and current thinking, that man, is descended from god, who was also (hu)man, meaning.. modern man, but I’m more intrigued by the period of time between then and prior, of the time when primitive man suddenly became sentient homosapien man and the prior gods to then were much more than men.

26 And G-d said, Let Us make man in Our tzelem, after Our demut: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon ha’aretz (the earth).

27 So G-d created humankind in His own tzelem, in the tzelem Elohim (image of G-d) created He him; zachar (male) and nekevah (female) created He them.

Per Wikipedia in the Hebrew Bible, elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים [(ʔ)eloˈ(h)im]) sometimes refers to a single deity,particularly (but not always) the God of Israel, at other times it refers to deities in the plural.

As with all mythology, the inexhaustible richness of the symbolic narrative lies in its capacity to generate multiple meanings. [polysemy]. The creation and Garden of Eden stories certainly instantiate this phenomenon. Thus, the Gnostics saw the OT God as the evil demiurge. Theosophy identified Elohim with the Archons, evil spiritual beings who wish to deny the human race knowledge and immortality. And yet, the principle that humans contain the Divine image, was transmogrified by Enlightenment writers into the principle that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Wholism attempts to transcend the dichotomous thinking implied in the literal adherence to a single interpretation without denying that some interpretations may be better than[i.e. more complete than] others.

The point where the Semites and Indos parted ways, and also parted religiously too.. in indifference, over their differences.

The New Testament always reminds me of a soap opera.. drama, drama, drama, and men at the whim of womens’ whims.

According to the creation myth of ancient Babylon, the Enuma Elis, the cosmic order is the result of the hero God Marduk defeating Tiamat the engulfing mother Goddess and dragon of chaos and chopping her into pieces.

The Genesis creation story is certainly less violent. However, there seems to be traces of the earlier creation story reflected in Biblical texts like Psalm 74 which says:

For God is my king of old, working salvation in the midst of the Earth.
Thou didst divide the Sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Thou brakest the heads of Leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness

[MagsJ]

According to the creation myth of ancient Babylon, the Enuma Elis, the cosmic order is the result all of the hero God Marduk defeated Tiamat the engulfing mother Goddess and dragon of chaos and chopped into pieces.

Tiamat is ultimately defeated by Marduk, who incapacitates her with his "Evil Wind" and then kills her with an arrow. Marduk splits her in two, creating heaven and earth from her body, the Tigris and Euphrates from her eyes, mist from her spittle, mountains from her breasts and so on. An interesting creation story, if ever I heard one.. very creative indeed.

I guess national pride gave rise to the various bible and creation variants, even between neighbouring Nations, as well as the distant..

The Genesis creation story is certainly less violent. However, there seems to be remnants of an earlier creation story reflected in Biblical texts like Psalm 74 which says
For God is my king of old, working salvation in the midst of the Earth.
Thou didst divide the Sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Thou brakest the heads of Leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness

I must have missed that one in religious studies.. good observation and catch, Felix.

https://biblehub.com/psalms/74-12.htm That’s a lot of bible variants..

787C8A0B-C600-43FD-A40C-F5BB9115B6BE.jpeg (130.82 KiB) Viewed 673 times

A Catholic Bible is a Christian Bible that includes the whole 73-book canon recognized by the Catholic Church, including the deuterocanonical books ..most of the quotations from the Old Testament appearing in the New Testament books are from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew scriptures.. the Septuagint being the earliest extant Koine Greek translation of books from the Hebrew Bible, various biblical apocrypha, and deuterocanonical books. There’s a Greek addition, to the standard Catholic bible

[promethean75]

At the request of the prussian government, the French shut down Vorwärts (news paper) and exiled marx from France.

News flash: that doesn't happen to 'weak' thinkers. Weak thinkers get ignored, or banned from a philosophy forum.

No but you really just said that. You totally just compared yourself to karl marx. You are aware of that, right? I want to make sure you know what you're doing.

[felix dakat]

According to the creation myth of ancient Babylon, the Enuma Elis, the cosmic order is the result all of the hero God Marduk defeated Tiamat the engulfing mother Goddess and dragon of chaos and chopped into pieces.

Tiamat is ultimately defeated by Marduk, who incapacitates her with his "Evil Wind" and then kills her with an arrow. Marduk splits her in two, creating heaven and earth from her body, the Tigris and Euphrates from her eyes, mist from her spittle, mountains from her breasts and so on. An interesting creation story, if ever I heard one.. very creative indeed.

I guess national pride gave rise to the various bible and creation variants, even between neighbouring Nations, as well as the distant..

The Genesis creation story is certainly less violent. However, there seems to be remnants of an earlier creation story reflected in Biblical texts like Psalm 74 which says
For God is my king of old, working salvation in the midst of the Earth.
Thou didst divide the Sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Thou brakest the heads of Leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness

I must have missed that one in religious studies.. good observation and catch, Felix.

https://biblehub.com/psalms/74-12.htm That’s a lot of bible variants..

787C8A0B-C600-43FD-A40C-F5BB9115B6BE.jpeg

A Catholic Bible is a Christian Bible that includes the whole 73-book canon recognized by the Catholic Church, including the deuterocanonical books ..most of the quotations from the Old Testament appearing in the New Testament books are from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew scriptures.. the Septuagint being the earliest extant Koine Greek translation of books from the Hebrew Bible, various biblical apocrypha, and deuterocanonical books. There’s a Greek addition, to the standard Catholic bible

Right. Surprisingly, although we may reasonably suppose the Hebrew scriptures were originally written in the Hebrew language, the earliest extant manuscript is the Septuagint which is written in Greek koine as you said. So the existing copies of the Hebrew Bible all came after the Septuagint which therefore has greater prima facie authority everything else being equal. The eminent first century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria who interpreted the Hebrew Bible in terms of a platonic hermeneutic, relied on the Septuagint almost exclusively. As you correctly noted the New Testament writers did too even though there are apparent anomalies in the text.

[MagsJ]

Right. Surprisingly, although we may reasonably suppose the Hebrew scriptures were originally written in the Hebrew language, the earliest extant manuscript is the Septuagint which is written in Greek koine as you said. So the existing copies of the Hebrew Bible all came after the Septuagint which therefore has greater prima facie authority everything else being equal. The eminent first century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria who interpreted the Hebrew Bible in terms of a platonic hermeneutic, relied on the Septuagint almost exclusively. As you correctly noted the New Testament writers did too even though there are apparent anomalies in the text.

It appears that the Greek version was made for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC and adopted by the early Christian Churches, so the OP is correct when he says that he is not made in god’s image, so we then become curious, in who’s image we really are made in and descend from.

[felix dakat]

My impression is that the OP implies that the Creator was a demiurge. Such was proposed by Plato. Some ancient gnostics thought that Yahweh was the demiurge. Others propose that Sophia was the demiurge. According to Genesis 1 the Creator was Elohim who created humans in His image or their image depending on how one reads the verse.

I think it's significant that the book of Genesis has generated so many interpretations. Which interpretation is correct? Can we say with certainty that any is?

The notion that we are created in God's image does have moral implications. How should we treat someone who bears the image of God? Of course if you think that the Creator was an evil demiurge, the positive moral implication of being created in the image of God is reversed.

During the European American Enlightenment the image of God became identified with reason. God had ordered the universe according to laws that Newton and others had discovered. Every human was thought to have at least the potential to comprehend the lawful order of things by reason and to live accordingly. Shall we discard this interpretation? Does anyone have a better one?

Of course it's all a kind of mythology which modern science dismisses as pre scientific nonsense. But cognitive science shows that we structure reality in terms of narrative. So storytelling about origins is not going to go away.

[Greatest I am]

I think it's significant that the book of Genesis has generated so many interpretations. Which interpretation is correct? Can we say with certainty that any is?

If the most accurate interpretation belongs to the authors, Jews saw Eden as where man was elevated and not where he fell. They use the term Original Virtue of man. IOW, both man and god look like winners.

Christians reversed that to Original Sin and make both Yahweh and man look like losers who screwed up.

At the same time, Christians are conflicted as the keep singing that Adams sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan. See their Exsultet hymn.

At the same time Christians, when asked if they would follow Adam's lead, they say no, which would derail Yahweh's plan. Too stupid for words that.

Christians are conflicted to the point of idiocy in this issue.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

My impression is that the OP implies that the Creator was a demiurge. Such was proposed by Plato. Some ancient gnostics thought that Yahweh was the demiurge. Others propose that Sophia was the demiurge. According to Genesis 1 the Creator was Elohim who created humans in His image or their image depending on how one reads the verse.
.

Gnostic Christians do not read our myths literally and we just invented them to put against the bible when everyone accepted the bible as a myth.

The more recent and stupid literal reading of myths is a modern idiocy and is idol worship.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

Origen introduced the distinction between three meanings of the scripture. Just as human beings consist of body, soul and Spirit so scripture edifies by a literal immoral and a spiritual sense.

First is the somatic, literal or philological sense. Everybody can understand the somatic sense. It's identical with the literal historical meaning.

Second there's the psychic or moral sense. This refers to the application of the biblical texts to our situation, it's existential application to ourselves.

Third is the pneumatic or spiritual sense. There are some cases in which the biblical text has only a mystical meaning. In such cases the mystical meaning coincides with the literal sense.

Ordinarily however the mystical sense has to be distinguished from the literal meaning. The mystical sense is to be found through the allegorical method which entails finding the hidden meaning behind the texts.

Origen understood the spiritual sense to refer to the fate of human souls who have their true home in the Platonic realm of the forms--the archetypes, the world of spiritual realities, compared with which the physical world is only a shadow.

[Greatest I am]

Origen introduced the distinction between three meanings of the scripture. Just as human beings consist of body, soul and Spirit so scripture edifies by a literal immoral and a spiritual sense.

First is the somatic, literal or philological sense. Everybody can understand the somatic sense. It's identical with the literal historical meaning.

Second there's the psychic or moral sense. This refers to the application of the biblical texts to our situation, it's existential application to ourselves.

Third is the pneumatic or spiritual sense. There are some cases in which the biblical text has only a mystical meaning. In such cases the mystical meaning coincides with the literal sense.

Ordinarily however the mystical sense has to be distinguished from the literal meaning. The mystical sense is to be found through the allegorical method which entails finding the hidden meaning behind the texts.

Origen understood the spiritual sense to refer to the fate of human souls who have their true home in the Platonic realm of the forms--the archetypes, the world of spiritual realities, compared with which the physical world is only a shadow.

Thanks for the insightful post.

"Just as human beings consist of body, soul and Spirit"

Defining body and spirit is easy, if you see spirit as life force.

How do you define soul without believing in some supernatural fiction?

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

The soul is the psyche. Variously thought of as the personality, emotions, mind and will, the conscious and unconscious, the ego, superego and id, anima. To use your expression of "Life Force", when the life-force animates a body the product is the soul. Or so we imagine. There is nothing more indicative of the soul then the imaginal. The soul may be the animated body itself. I don't know. What do you think?

[Dan~]

The soul is the psyche. Variously thought of as the personality, emotions, mind and will, the conscious and unconscious, the ego, superego and id, anima. To use your expression of "Life Force", when the life-force animates a body the product is the soul. Or so we imagine. There is nothing more indicative of the soul then the imaginal. The soul may be the animated body itself. I don't know. What do you think?

I think the soul is the core of the living energy system of nano biological structures.
It is so fine and thin that it can pass through walls.
Therefor it is hard for it to effect matter.

[Ecmandu]

The soul is the psyche. Variously thought of as the personality, emotions, mind and will, the conscious and unconscious, the ego, superego and id, anima. To use your expression of "Life Force", when the life-force animates a body the product is the soul. Or so we imagine. There is nothing more indicative of the soul then the imaginal. The soul may be the animated body itself. I don't know. What do you think?

I think the soul is the core of the living energy system of nano biological structures.
It is so fine and thin that it can pass through walls.
Therefor it is hard for it to effect matter.

You’re partly correct. The soul is mind itself. It can easily effect matter. In a quantum universe, mind travels faster than anything (including light).

[Dan~]

The soul is the psyche. Variously thought of as the personality, emotions, mind and will, the conscious and unconscious, the ego, superego and id, anima. To use your expression of "Life Force", when the life-force animates a body the product is the soul. Or so we imagine. There is nothing more indicative of the soul then the imaginal. The soul may be the animated body itself. I don't know. What do you think?

I think the soul is the core of the living energy system of nano biological structures.
It is so fine and thin that it can pass through walls.
Therefor it is hard for it to effect matter.

You’re partly correct. The soul is mind itself. It can easily effect matter. In a quantum universe, mind travels faster than anything (including light).

This is uncommon knowledge.
How did you learn of it?

[Ecmandu]

Dan wrote: This is uncommon knowledge.
How did you learn of it?

Scientists have proven that twin particles act upon each other instantly more than light years away from each other. That means something is faster than light.

What is that? Me? Mind. Fastest thing in existence.

[Greatest I am]

The soul is the psyche. Variously thought of as the personality, emotions, mind and will, the conscious and unconscious, the ego, superego and id, anima. To use your expression of "Life Force", when the life-force animates a body the product is the soul. Or so we imagine. There is nothing more indicative of the soul then the imaginal. The soul may be the animated body itself. I don't know. What do you think?

I accept your definition.

I do not think our souls are our bodies. I think our bodies, as you say, produces it.

While here, let me bend your ear to how Gnostic Christians see things.

Gnostic Jesus was questioned as to what sees the vision?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /mary.html

The Saviour answered and said, 'He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind which [is] between the two - that is [what] sees the vision...'

For where the mind is, there is the treasure.

----------
Felix

Without mind, we may as well be dead.

We see the spirit/life force animating soul, which we see kind of as a link to the godhead and do not generally use, because we have a hard time getting out of our own psyche or ego.

Most sages and gurus say that the key to enlightenment, is to switch from our talking egos, so to speak, to our listening souls.

Having had my apotheosis and first contact with the godhead, I can confirm that such is possible, but that it was impossible for me to know if I was listening and communicating with an outside godhead, or if I just found my Father Complex.

My gut tells me that what I found knew a lot more than I. This does not mean that I was not just reading my own DNA, so to speak.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Dan wrote: This is uncommon knowledge.
How did you learn of it?

Scientists have proven that twin particles act upon each other instantly more than light years away from each other. That means something is faster than light.

What is that? Me? Mind. Fastest thing in existence.

Wow. Telescopes must be a hell of a lot more accurate these days for them to see sub atomic particles light years away.

Something seems wrong here. Even I as know of short range effects as you describe.

Do you have anything peer reviewed.

Regards
DL

[Ecmandu]

Dan wrote: This is uncommon knowledge.
How did you learn of it?

Scientists have proven that twin particles act upon each other instantly more than light years away from each other. That means something is faster than light.

What is that? Me? Mind. Fastest thing in existence.

Wow. Telescopes must be a hell of a lot more accurate these days for them to see sub atomic particles light years away.

Something seems wrong here. Even I as know of short range effects as you describe.

Do you have anything peer reviewed.

Regards
DL

Things move faster than light but carry no information (because light is information by these ‘definitions’), but I add, if no information is carried past light speed, then how do we have information about it!?!?! Fucking absurd right?

Read this in full while contemplating that!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

[Greatest I am]

Yes. Notions of faster than light speed is fucking absurd.

As the text you offered shows.

You might read it again for the first time.

Regards
DL