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.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen. 1:26,27)

If God made man in his OWN image and you that follow the bible and totally believe the bible is 100% truth and you do believe God made man in his own image

Tell me something then...

When Moses went up the mountain, why did God only appear to Moses, as the - Burning Bush...? Why not appear to Moses as man belives him to be..in human form?



So why NOT in a god like human forum??


Anyone??

god sends angels down to messengers, he never shows himself to humans.

It's interesting in that the ancient Sumerian writings, pertaining to their gods, forbid them laying eyes upon the deity(ies), as well. And yet satan could assume the guise of a serpent, and even appear to jesus in tempting him in the garden of Gesthemane . So I agree, that it's fascinating how god can't assume human form or any other than something distinguishable from the likeness of us, but yet doesn't appear in our likeness to us. But yet the devil can.

Actually, since Jesus is God, God did assume human form. Why did God appear as a burning bush that was not actually burning? Why did He appear like a giant column of smoke during the day and a giant column of fire during the night, instead of as a giant man? Who knows? Actually, there is a great deal of symbolism in the shapes God assumes.

And yet jesus on a number of occasions said he was not god. Which would mean god was not in his form. Such as in I John 5:37. So other than that, what other human guise has god assumed? Wherein he would be recognized as our likeness and image, of which we were created in that form!?

If God wanted to reveal himself i doubt anyone could actualy look into his eyes and live. Im shy around beautiful women. I couldn't fathom my reaction if i met GOD the creator of Space, Time and the Universe. Its too powerful a manifestation for man to be in the presence of i believe.

For the same reason(s) that those of us who are technically capable use avatars when communicating on forums like this one?

Seriously, I am not sure that , even though we contain elements of god within us, and thus are an image of "him" we are physically or psychologically capable of comprehending the totality of god. Thus we tend to see and communicate with elements of him in forms that are understandable and "culturally" relevant to us.

Not that I get regular communiques from god, and most of his messages to me have come in spoken form only, but two direct "visitations" have exactly matched biblical descriptions of angels. A two metre high, very bright column, of what an ancient might have called fire, but i would describe as a very powerful energy source, combined with an unforgettable and very powerful/authorative voice; and a man in a business suit who left me a bible in a hospital room, where bibles were banned, the day before a major operation, and who would have been indistinguishable from all the humans around us, except he exited the room through a wall, rather than use a door.

IAMS, you are speaking of TWO completly different stories within the bible...........Moses was long before Jesus

This topic is about how God appeared (according the the bible) to Moses as a burning bush

My question was...WHY??? and WHY not as a Godly human ..as it reads he mad man in HIS OWN IMAGE...so what has god got to hide??...Why not show himself then??


Not everyone see's Jesus as God..but only the Son of God...please understand..<--but nothing to do with this topic

What has avatars in forums got to do with this??

I mean..LOL ...we are made in the image of humans...but in forums we chose to place in different avatars that arent pics of us?? I dont understand you point?? EXPLAIN if you can

Why did God use a burning bush cause unless it was a miracle that the Lord spoke to Moses using a bush there must be an explanation.
It was holy ground where the bush was and it never burnt out God has a strange way of contacting his children through Moses he was able to free the Jews from Egypt and its fact that there were plagues and mass hysteria during the time of Moses it was proven by science.

The story of Moses is one of the mose far fetched stories there is

Killing 1st born to prove a point to a Pharaoh sending plagues?? LMAO come on..God the almighty has to go to these lenghs ...I dont buy it

Another thing..is the killing of the 1st born some kind of bible trend?? Was God a copy Cat Killer??

Sigh bible stories IMO are too much

Anyhoo back to the bush...still hoping for more answers

It was customary in ancient times (and still in some cultures) to genuflect and lower your eyes in the presence of your 'betters'. This has it's root in the primitive submissive gesture granting precedence to an alpha figure as well as indicating no challenge in the greeting.

I presume this tradition would have been commonly practised among the early Hebrews and so the tradition whereby to see God is to die. The substitution of the God the alpha for symbolic images such as burning bushes, columns of smoke/fire etc is simply a device to reinforce this tradition as well as impress upon believers and non-believers how potent this god is.

I suppose, if you believe the stories literally, God could present himself in whatever form he desired.... a burning lizard running around might have been more exciting though.

Maybe people were just as skeptical back in the day.

"I am the Lord thy God."
"Yeah, prove it."
"um dude, the bush is on fire and not burning and it's talking to you! Now shut yer pie hole and listen!!"

Or maybe gods occupy a higher dimensional space and would manifest differently in our 3-d world.

or maybe, just maybe the burning bush was a metaphor for something else.

There are FAR more disturbing events in history apart from Biblical stories that have been proven that would never be believed if it happened and there was no proof such as the rawanda Massacre. Everything has a price i think so God extracts payment for his intervention. The Bible even states that he says he is a jelouse and angry God.(The ten commandments) I think God is saying that he is just like us. He's realistic and extracts payment for his intervention. He is a God after all. Im sure he's not an all hairy faery mr nice guy I think God is a lot meaner then anyone can fathom. The devil himself may be a part of God and not some seperate entity.


I wonder why a burning bush and not a man however. Perhaps if it was a man Moses wouldn't believe it was a God. If God came as a man and had glowing eyes just to show that he was indeed God then that man wouldn't be a man because a man cant make his eyes glow. God probably wanted to make sure that Moses knew that it was God.

Wouldnt it be better just to appear as man says God is in the form of man...without glowing eyes LOL or maybe make it so that the glowing eyes not scare Moses??? If God can do anything, wouldnt that make more sense??


Yea but see..in history (real life) those things that we know of...a lot HAVE REAL PROOF of them happening....unlike the bible...IMO but I ma aware the bible is only a book based on faith/beliefs

Now you really got me thinking of the burning bush. I think God figured "i'll go as a man or a spirit. Perhaps he regarded the situation carfeully and chose a burning bush to talk to Moses for specific reasons we don't know of. Maybe fire meant something to Moses. I wonder if theres mention as to why the buring bush in some documentary out there somewhere.

OOPs! Apologies! I thought this was in reference to a STD thread. The burning bush stuff threw me off.

Clearly you have to start using discretion in the kind of bushes you make yourself aquainted with.

~backs away slowly~

Of all things to take this OT with, a moon visual of STD's!

The non-comsumable fire myth was "borrowed" from Zoroastrianistic legend, where Zarathushtra (a persian prophet) walked up a mountain that god had set on fire, it neither consumed the mountain nor burnt Zarathushtra. Non consuming fire, during that time in the Middle East was a well known supernatural thing, another thing I cam across a while ago was that it was a bush Moses saw, is kinda odd. The Hebrew word for thorny bush (sene) also means "Sinai" - the desert around Egypts border with Isreal, so maybe Moses saw the burning desert inwhich god spoke to him from - voice on the wind.



When jesus "walked on water" - inwhich he didn't, the greek text for the watery part means either "on the sea" or "on the sea shore". So when the apostles see jesus and are terrified... well... you would be too if you saw a white robed figure walking along the sea shore on a stormy night. Though when you bring in the "on the seashore" the miracle aspect vanishes, however the story "walking on water" was also an aspect that only the gods had, so having jesus 'walk on water' just says "look, look at how godly jesus is. He is the messiah". Which is why in the corrupted versions of the story you have jesus saving a drowning john, whereas in the 'uncorrupted' version the drowning john isn't there, so it was an obvious later entry into the bible.
Heck, jesus could have been swimming, the greek word for 'walking' also meant 'going', and so when the apostles saw jesus swimming they'd have been quite stunned, seeing as not many fisherman knew how to swim.

I'm sorry, when did Jesus say He was not God? If you read the verse in context, it becomes clear that He is making a point, He's not saying He's not God, but you have to read from verse 16 on, you can't just look at one verse and make an assertion without taking in the context.

John 14

Jesus tells His disciples right out that He is the Father, He is God.


John 11

Jesus said He IS the resurrection and the life. He is God.

Here is a link to a listing of verses where Jesus affirmed He is God. LINK

The Bible calls for faith in the Word of God, citing miracles in the stories it contains. To have faith in a 1700 year old collection of texts is no small feat. Look at some of the justices taken in texts throughout history. To declare that similar exagerations didn't take place in the text of the Gospels is bold to say the least. I wasn't alive 2000 years ago to hang out around Jesus', I don't know anyone that was. I didn't witness the events that take place in the Bible, so a great leep of faith would be required from me to believe that they are all 100% true and factual. One should not take the Bible at face value, for it was written by humans and humans err, to say the least. The message does come out, though, and it is the message that one should truly be concerned with. OT: God is great! NT: Love! To have faith in God doesn't require adherence to the stories presented in the Bible, just the messages.

Jesus consistently contradicts himself concerning his Godly status.

"I and my father are one." (John 14:28) Also see Philippians 2:5-6 Those verses lead us to believe that he is a part of the trinity and equal to his father being a manifestation of him.

Yet, Jesus also made many statements that deny he is the perfect men, much less God incarnate. Take the following for example: "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17). "My father if greater then I." (John 14:28) Also see Matthew 24:26 Clearly, Jesus is denouncing the possibility of him being the Messiah in those three verses



How Many Gods?

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)

(Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) “There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like thine.�

Matthew 24:26: (Jesus speaking) "Wherefore if they shall say to you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: Behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not."

This is in answer to a question put forth to Him by the disciples, concerning how the believers would recognize when the time of His return would be close: Matthew 24:3 - 5 "And as He sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said to them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

Matthew 24:26 is meant to convey that in the time before His return, there would be people claiming to be Him. People would be saying to each other, things like, Jesus has returned, He is in blank country, or He lives on blank mountain; or God lives in a cave in Asia, or something of that nature. Jesus was telling the disciples (and modern-day readers) how His return would be, and how it wouldn't be. It has nothing to do with establishing His divinity.

John 14:28 "You have heard how I said to you, I go away, and come again to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father: For my Father is greater than I." Jesus and The Holy Spirit are two distinct elements of God's personality. They are from Him, but God Himself is the greater element. The nature of the Trinity is difficult understand. It does not denounce the possibility of His being the Messiah.

If God is not real, then the Bible can only be a book written by humans, but if God is real, and He intends to use a book as a way of communicating with His Creation, then that book becomes more than something that can really be fraught with errors. So, the question really is not whether the Bible is potentially full of errors, but whether God is real or not. My personal experience tells me God is real, therefore, the Bible is more than a simple book, and, therefore, I must carefully research any perceived errors, to insure they are not simply my lack of understanding or my carelessness.

nice way to twist the scripture... but if you bother to read the whole thing... Jesus was talking about spiritual blindness... because they didn't recognize who He was... so how could they say they know God...

exactly...

When did this turn from The original question to something totally off the rail about jesus... The question is set way before jesus was even around...

In fact you have started on the right path...the Bible (koran, Torah...and whatever other holy books that there may be) was written, edited and arranged by people. Furthermore, each one of these persons had an agenda. The bible is not an historical document, the writers, editors and compilers of the myths and legends in the bible had another purpose....to set down ancient myths and symbols.

There exists no independant scientific proof of an exodus from Egypt...or of the kingdom of David and Soloman. These were written as myths to glorify the ancient Isreal/Judah civilizations which developed around 1200 BC from indigenous tribes in the Levant. There was no great kingdom of David...if he is real at all he was a local chieftan in charge of a few hills (the same can be said for King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table). The Burning Bush of Moses' time is simply another symbol, probably borrowed from Zorastorism as some other poster earlier on stated.

God does not communicate with us, orally, in writing, or in visions.....he doesn't make things that easy. What each one of us has to do is work at communicating with God, which is an internal private matter. Don't go looking for physical manifestations of God.....rather, look inside yourself and discover and develop the divine spirit (the christ if you like) that is within each one of us.

Thats not jesus contradicting himself............nope IMO...thats MAN that has written text about Jesus..and only MAN has made the contradictions...cuz the bible is man made

Put it this way...If the bible was only ever written by the hand of God...none of it would look like its contradicting..all would be worded perfect...but see this is not the case is it??

An avatar on a forum is usuallya symbolic representation of how we see ourselves or how we would like others to see us. It usually only represents a simplistic image of one element of our personality.

Some earth religions describe the earthly elements/ messengers of god as avatars of him. They have different godlike attributes and powers, but are much less than the totality of god. Their purpose is often to do physical tasks for god on earth plus impress followers ( the latter may be just my take on it)

The christian image of god has a slightly different philosophy; and angels, or perhaps jesus, are the nearest thing to an avatar we have. I meant that god may use avatars for the same reason we do. To communicate a simple and understandable representation of ourselves/himself. to make others feel at ease ,or perhaps even for fun.

For example, if a little green alien had appeared before me and said " I have taken away your nicotine addiction." I might have found it difficult to believe, even though at that moment an addiction of many years was totally and permanently removed. It was slightly more believable, even for a long time atheist, when this message was delivered by a two metre tall column of intense energy/light, which lit up the surrounding environment, and accompanied by a voice of great authority and power, such that one was really compelled to believe it even before the evidence arrived.

I find it interesting that all cultures have people who see and communicate with such avatars, but with each culture they appear in forms that are believable and powerful to members of that culture. In most cultures, within the last few thousand years, these avatars have been male, with some significant exceptions within the Hindu beliefs; but fertility symbols from neolithic times , and the worship of the earth goddess gaea suggest that not all cultures "see" an exclusively male god.

This is also my personal interpretation of "him," although the voices and images I have experienced over the years have been masculine in form and nature. (I put this down to my cultural and personal attributes.)

THe original post asks "Why a burning bush".
I'm going to throw out a slightly different question - Why not a burning bush?

Hee hee somehow I knew you where going to say that

Lets see what people say now

Well I could have gone into some depth on what it means to be made in God's image, but I tried that elsewhere and it didn't seem to go anywhere. I thought i'd try a new tactic here, see where things go.

maybe a real phenomenon was encountered;

The detailed study of volatiles of Dictamnus gymnostylis Steven. (Dictamnus albus L., original polymorphic species) considered by many to be the Burning Bush of the Bible, was conducted. In addition to methyl chavicol (~15%), (E)-anethole (~7%) and psoralen (~7%), the presence of over 60% of 1-allyl-4- (3-methyl-2-butenyloxy) benzene (dictagymnin) was confirmed. It was shown that this chemical rather easily decomposes into chavicol and very flammable hydrocarbon 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene = isoprene (b.p. 34°C). The secretion of isoprene, which can be especially intense on hot windless days, leads to formation of the isoprene cloud that may inflame without any harm to the source plant.

Key Word Index

Dictamnus gymnostylis, Rutaceae, gas plant volatiles, extract composition, dictagymnin.

Introduction
Over the years numerous attempts were undertaken to provide a rational explanation to the phenomenon of biblical Burning Bush and to establish the identity of the plant species which may "burn and not consumed" (Exodus 3:2-4). Among these, the 'gas-plant,' Dictamnus spp. (Rutaceae) was, probably, the most popular candidate (1).

Dictamnus gymnostylis Steven, (syn. D. albus L.) (2) grows abundantly in the Black Sea costal areas of North Caucasus and in Crimea peninsula. This species finds some use in folk medicine for the treatment of nervous complaints and intermittent fevers (3). Contact with any plant parts, especially flowers and seedpods with human skin followed by exposure to the sun, leads to dermatitis (4) sometimes so severe, that the victim required hospitalization (5). Intermittently, under yet unclear conditions, the plant excretes such a vast amount of volatiles that lighting a match near the flowers and seedpods causes the plant to be enveloped by flame. This flame quickly extinguishes without injury to the plant. Such observations have been made and described previously (6). Even spontaneous ignition of Dictamnus plants was reported previously (7).

In these circumstances, the plant gives off such a strong scent, that it may be detected from tens of meters away. This phenomenon was noted in 1968 by Kozhin (8). The result of the study initiated by Kozhin, was the identification of dictagymnin as the main volatile constituent of D. gymnostylus (9). It is a commonly accepted opinion that the oil emitted by Dictamnus spp. is the cause of the plant s flammability (1,6). Exploringthis idea, Kubeczka et. al. published the results of a detailed study of D. albus oil and also reviewed all of the previous investigations (10). These studies, however, did not reveal any particularly volatile or flammable constituents, but rather components typical of many essential oils. Also, it should be noted that oil content in Dictamnus spp. has not been found to be particularly high, (3,8,9). In fact, it is much lower than the oil content in many commonly known essential oil plants, such as lavender, mint, oregano, etc.

We felt, therefore, that the plausible explanation for the association of Dictamnus spp. with the "Burning Bush" phenomenon was yet to be found, hence the reason for this study.

Experimental

Fresh leaves and immature seed pods of D. gymnostylis were collected in july 2000 on the banks of Abrau Lake in the Novorossiysk (North Caucasus) region of Russia. The identity of an herbarium sample as D. gymnostylis Steven, was confirmed by A. Tucker and deposited at Claude E. Phillips Herbarium (# 020605) at Delaware State University, Dover, DE.

At the time of gathering, the plant material was tightly packed into a glass container and immediately preserved with methylene chloride. Extract was gently concentrated under nitrogen stream and used directly for further experimentation and analysis. The yield of volatiles was not determined.

About 0.3 g of D. gymnostylis extract was placed into a thin quartz ampule, sealed and thon exposed to a direct sunlight for five days. Both untreated and sun-irradiated samples of D. gymnostylis extract were subjected to GC/MS and GC analysis. The qualitative analyses of the oils were performed on a 5973 Hewlett-Packard MassSelective Detector coupled with a 6970 Gas Chromatograph. A SupelcoWax 30 m × 0.25 mm polar column with 0.25 µm film thickness was employed in the analysis. The temperature was programmed from 70°-240°C at 6°C /min with 10 min hold at 240°C. Helium was used as a carrier gas with a 1:80 split ratio. The quantitative results were obtained usine; an HP 6970 Gas Chromatograph equipped with an FID detector. A SupelcoWax 30 m × 0.25 mm polar column with 0.25 µm film thickness was employed in the analysis. The temperature was programmed from 70°-240°C at the 6°C/min with 10 min hold at 240°C. Helium was used as a carrier gas with 1:40 split ratio. Component identifications were made by mass spectra and confirmed by retention indices.

Results and Discussion

A rather simple composition of D. gymnostylis volatiles is presented in Table I.

These results differ considerably from those of the earlier studies of Dictamnus. spp. (9), not only by substantially lower content of the hydrocarbons (about 7% vs over 90%), but also by the composition of oxygenated constituents.

Nevertheless, the current results appear to be nearly identical to those previously published by Kozhin et. al., where dictagymnin was also found to be a major volatile component (9). To the best of our knowledge, this compound has not been found in a noticeable concentration in any other plant species.

We believe that its presence may explain the unique quality of D. gymnostylis spp. Dictagymnin (l-allyl-4-(3-methy1-2-butenyloxy)-benzene) is not a particularly stable chemical. Previously, it was shown that heating it at 260°C for 30 min lead to its complete degradation and formation of chavicol (9,11).

The mass-spectrum of dictagymnin (Figure 1) provides a clue for this phenomenon. The molecular ion of dictagymnin e/m 202 is a very small one. This molecule easily breaks through scissation of the ether bond forming two fragments e/m 133 and e/m 69; both can be seen on the mass-spectrum. However, the dominant peak of the spectrum e/m 134 is formed through migration of hydrogen from the fragment C^sub 5^H^sub 9^, - to the fragment CH^sub 3^CHCH-C^sub 6^H^sub 6^-O- and the formation of chavicol molecular ion. Simultaneously a neutral particle C^sub 5^H^sub 8^ is formed, which contains two double bonds.

Similar degradation of dictagymnin in vivo would explain both the concept of 'gas-plant' and inflammability of Dictamnus spp., since a C^sub 5^H^sub 8^ substance is obviously a low boiling, highly flammable chemical.

Validity of such an explanation is supported by the results of analysis of sun irradiated D. gymnastylis extract. It can be seen (Figure 2) that sun irradiation leads to a degradation of dictagymnin resulting in the formation of chavicol and isoprene, as identified by their MS and retention indices.

Previous study (8) and the results of current investigation indicate that only small amount of chavicol is present in the plant tissue. Most probably, dictagymnin degrades via photochemical process. However, chavicol is not being accumulated in plant tissue, but utilized in the biosynthetic path, while isoprene is being released to the atmosphere.

As mentioned above, the emission of isoprene is not a continuous, but rather occasional and a sometimes highly intense phenomenon. When it happens, the emitted isoprene, odorless byitself, carries with it a sufficient amount of other Dictamnus volatiles to provide characteristic anise-like smell, detectable from afar.

Dictamnus spp. are not found in the Sinai Peninsula. It should be noted after years of study, neither ourselves nor, to the best of our knowledge, any other investigators found dictagymnin or functionally similar chemicals in any other aromatic plants of Sinai. It is, therefore, highly improbable that any Dictamnus spp. was atrue "Burning Bush" despite such an attractive rational foundation.

References

1. H. N. Moldenke and A. L. Moldenke, In: Plants of the Bible, p. 23, Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1986).

2. Dictamnus gymnostilis Steven, (syn. D. albus L.), Bull. Soc. Naturalistes Moskou, 29 (1), 333 (1859). Flora Of USSR, V. 14, 227 (1949).

3. G. M. Balabas, R. A. Buiko, A. E. Grashenkov, I. F. Satziperova, I. B. Sandina, B. S. Sinitzki and B. S. Sokolov, In: Introduction of Medicinal, Aromatic and Technical Plants, pp 331-334, Nauka Publishing, Moscow - Leningrad (1965).

4. C. L. Cummer and R. Dexter, Dermatitis Caused by Dictamnus albus (Gas plant) an Example of Photosensitization, J. Amer. Mod. Assoc., 109, 213-217 (1937).

5. Personal observation by the authors.

6. K. Von Makilaun, In: Life of Plants Vol. II, p. 189, Translators note, Prosveshenie Co., St. Petersburg (1896).

7. Z. Kosidovski, In: Biblical Tales, p. 157, Political Literature Publishing House, MOSCOW (1975).

8. S. A. Kozhin, unpublished results.

9. S. A. Kozhin, A. Yu. Fleisher and I. O. Kostyuk, Dictagymnin, Main Constituent of the Essential oil of Dictamnus gymnostylis Steven, Z. Obzh. Chim, 45 (5), 1176-1180(1975).

10. K. H. Kubeczka, V. Koch and E. M. Ney, Das Geheimnis des brennenden Busches, DtSCh. Apoth. Ztg., 40, 2181-2185 (1990).

11. K. H. C. Baser, M. Kosar, H. Malyer, and T. Ozek , The Essential oil Composition of Dictamnus albus from Turkey Planta Med., 60, 481-482 (1994).

Alexander Fleisher

Artech International, Inc., 700 Gotham Parkway, Carlstadt, NJ 07072

Zhenia Fleisher*

J. Manheimer Inc., 546 U.S. Route 46 Teterboro, NJ 07608

* Address for correspondence

1041-2905/04/0001-0001 $6.00/0-© 2004 Allured Publishing Corp.

Received: January 2001

Revised: April 2001

Accepted: April 2001

Copyright Allured Publishing Corporation Jan/Feb 2004
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved



what this study does not discuss is that the bush is found also near lots of flint....
careless steps and campfires could possibly set one off.
hope this is worthy of the discussion

what i am trying to say here is,
tea leaves
tarot
bird skrying
drug induced altered states
trances
flame gazing
there are many ways inwhich people have tried to speak to god,
also natural phenomenon and events can be seen as signs from god, or a message.

to suggest that god manifested, or that the metatron was manifest through a burning bush, means that you believe-or are working from within a paradigm of belief which makes such things possible. If so then anything is possible, and the saying 'he works in mysterious ways' is valid. ours is not to question. how can we possibly understand his reasons.
perhaps there is some underlying symbolism here that has been forgotten, or that i am unaware of.
does anyone here know if there is?

Umm not really no...or should i say yea and no...look at PA's avatar...I dont think he see's himself as the Dark Lord Emperor LOL all that is EVIL in the dark side ha ha...I think its because he happens to be a fan of Star Wars??

I once had an avatar of 3 lil aliens with big eyes..ya know the lil green men..but not cuz I see myself as them..NO LOL I used it cuz I figured it suited the forum

Speaking of fans...lots of people are fans of cartoons...pop stars..movies..football players.....CARS <--many people have cars in their avatar..dont mean they see themselves as cars lol

I dont belive for a sec God is in our image ...i belive he is no image..just energy..God is all around us as energy...but not in a form of man...man only worote that cuz he belives we humans are the most advanced form of living creatures there is on this lil planet.....but dont forget this is just ONE planet god has created amomg the rest of the universe....whos to say, that in other planets, there is no life on them?? Why would God only place life, on one of the smallest of planets, in a big big universe?? Just because man has not got what it takes to prove it, don't mean its not true!! think about it...there could be a race of life forms on other planets that see the creator aka God as we know it...in their form...ever think of that??

Anyhoo I wanna see if people will answer PA's new TWIST to the question...and see what happens

[size="2"][/size]

Yes, it is all rather strange. We are made in the image of God. Is this a physical discription or a spritual one? It also goes on to discribe the differances,
Man is to God, as Woman is to Man. Now we all know that men and women are totally different, both physically and mentally, so is Man really in God's image.

As for the burning bush incedent; If a man appeared before you and said, "listen to me, I am God", would you? But a burning bush talking to you, if you did not
run away, you just might listen to what it had to say.

I have found it interesting that the God of creation made statements in a certian way and types of words. The God that Moses spoke too, had a differant sound to
his expresstions, in fact he sounds very much like the Egyption Gods in phresioligy. Look at the phresioligy in the Book of the Dead. Then if we read the about
the God of King David, it is differant again. They really are like totally different beings.
Whatever, the Bible is probably the most interest book there is to read. I do not think there is a writer anywhere today, that could write a book that could better it.
Is it true? Only in so far as to the people of those times understood the world around them,although I suspect that all of the stories have a basis in truth. The Bible
is a kind of history of a people, where they come from, what their beliefs were and why they are as they were, at the time the Old Testiment was put together.
As for the real truth. If you where to talk to a few remaining stonage peoples in parts of South America and listened to their stories of where they came from and
their beliefs, would you except them as the truth. Again there are eliments of truth as to their history, but their beliefs and a different matter. It is like the real
world and the imaganery world, walking down the same road, hand in hand. They have become tied together because their beliefs are also in their history and it
has become almost impossible to seperate them. The same applies to our religion, it is part of our history. Millions of people have died for it, which is perhaps the
bad side but it has also give us our sence of morality, which has to be the good side.
Jordeye.

Yes, I have. I think its quite logical and almost inevitably true. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of earth....its virtually impossible for there not to be other intelligent beings in the universe - and intelligent beings would have theories on god and the afterlife, and probably see God in their own image. (this does not mean I believe that we have been visited by aliens....the universe is a very immense place)

How about this.....after we die here on earth and our souls/divine spirit are returned to the energy/universal force/god from whence it came......could not this same piece of soul...this same piece of divine spirit....be sent down again into an intelligent alien being on another planet? If you believe in reincarnation, you shouldn't limit yourself to beings on earth.

A bit far from the burning bush of the topic. My two cents....it was yet another mythological symbol (moses didn't really exist, hence neither the burning bush)

What can I say? I am a dirtbag. But anyway, back to the funsies. The image of God and what I have learned about it is that it is spirit. So the spiritual part of mankind is made after God's image not the flesh. Say GD lets go the starbucks and watch all the people act cool drinking 4 dollar coffees!

bunk - according to Jesus himself he was to have returned while his apostle John and the rest were alive.


Jesus also made it clear that his own apostles , the ones he physically was talking to , would see his return. it would happen during thier lifetime.

Jesus falsely prophesies DIRECTLY to the high priest (Caiphas) that he would live to see his second coming. Jesus uses the term “coming on the clouds of heaven�. This clearly negates the “coming� as the resurrection but as a return to the earth on CLOUDS, not his return in human form from the dead. Matthew 26:64 & Mark 14:62.

"But I tell you: From now on you will see 'the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power' and 'coming on the clouds of heaven.'" (Matthew 26:64 NAB)

Then Jesus answered, "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" (Mark 14:62 NAB)
2) Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. Matthew 23:36 & 24:34

Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:36 NAB)

Jesus falsely prophesies that the end of the world will come within his listeners’ lifetimes.

Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Mark 13:30-31 NAB)

not to mention all the gosple writers thought the end of the world was going to happen on thier watch.

and we are all divine .

Maybe if God had come in the form of a man or women he would have been remembered to have a certain identity. That identity would obviously be extremely important and Moses might have made note of the appearance of the God-man. An image God didn't want to be known to humanity. If the God-Man image were known then any man or women with similar features of appearance as God-man would be considered devine or something.
Maybe God did not want large portions of the human race thinking they were Godlike because they had the same nose as God- Or the same colored eyes.

About Matthew 23:36

It was a warning to that generation of Jewish religious leaders, that God's judgement was about to fall on them because they had repeatedly cast away the warnings of the prophets, concerning turning from their wickedness. They had been given chance after chance, warning after warning, and killed prophets, and turned some away, and just rejected the message, which was to repent from their empty legalistic teachings, and seek the spirit of God.
It was in no way an indication that the world would end before that generation was over.


About Matthew 24:34

Matthew 24:3 - 14: "And as He sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said to them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: See that you be not troubled: For all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: And you shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that endure to the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matthew 24:32 - 39: "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; when his branch is yet tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near: So likewise you, when you shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say to you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
Jesus was describing the condition that the world would be in DURING the generation (a future generation from the one that He was addressing) that would see His second coming. He describes for many verses what it would be like immediately before His coming; then about the generation that He just described, He says, THAT generation will not pass but see the end. He was not referring to the generation of people that He was presently speaking to.

Mark 13 is the same story as Matthew 24, just told by a different witness to the same speech.

The story sounds so ridiculous.. a bush that's on fire and not burning out talking to a man? Geeze this Bible God is if nothing else a good comedian..

Texas, the story of Moses is much older than the stories of Jesus..this thread is about the burning bush

PA threw a spanner in the works when he wrote - Why not a burning bush??

I think he is on to something there...want to figure out what that could be??

In fact anyone else want to figure out what PA means??

As for me I know what he means...and figure its a good question

EXACTLY

See I fail to believe we are the be all and end all of the universe....Did you know that some early christians only believed that the earth was the center of the universe?? Well it's understandable as to why they thought that, after all back then, they wernt that advanced to learn all what we today know...Science helped us learn more about the universe and still what we do know now, has only gone to scratch the surface...there is still lots more to find out...but I doubt it will happen in my life time

All I know is, it would be rather ignorant to only believe we are the most advanced creatures that god has ever made, when he could well have created million of other living creatures much much more advanced than we are, therefore, who's to say, God made US in his image??

Thats why i only place God as some kind of energy...because I for one, don't know what God looks like, and I am not going to sit and just assume I know either

It sounds like Moses was burnin some bush if you know what I mean.

potty mouth

It was not just Christians BM, I believe that has been a common thought among any peoples who have given that much thought.



I know you don't believe in the Bible, but since we are talking about the burning bush, which happened in the Bible, then, for this conversation we must assume the text is valid (otherwise this is a completely senseless conversation). Anyway, I said all that to point out, that it wasn't man who said he was made in God's image, God said, "Let us make man in our image." Additionally, I don't believe that we are currently made in God's image, I believe we are in the process of being made in His image. I think to some degree we resemble God, we are body (physical, like God, the Son), mind (thought and intent, God, the Father), and spirit (the undefinable us which is not to be found in our mind or body, like God, the Holy Spirit).


I sort of agree with this, I don't see God as just some sort of energy, I see Him as a being who is infinitely more complex than anything we comprehend, but if He said He is making us in His image, then we are in some way made in His image. I don't think He's simply some sort of energy, because He has personality.

Hey IAMS


I was referring to the christian bible...cheers!


Annnnnd I didn't say that neither IAMS ...in fact if you read my OP you will see that this is what i actually said

Taken from an online bible....this is what I have been meaning the whole time...If you BELEIVE in your bible, and you take it as God true word, then, the statement which was in fact written by man, claiming - So God created man in HIS own image.....hence the reason as to WHY I ask..whats up with the burning bush? but you have to remember, the christian bible has been written by many different men..and each one are not alike...



EH?? LOL EVOLUTION then? so we are evolving into Gods image??? ummmm ok then..thats your opinion...good for you...i'll just stick with what I believe too...no offence?? however I do believe in evolution..but not evolving into Gods image...to me God dont have an image

SO WHY NOT a burning bush then?? <--see what I am now getting at...PA posted this too a few pages back...ever thought of it that way IAMS??