Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Jor-el

The Woman clothed with the Sun...

177 posts in this topic

Jesus said the kingdom is inside you.

Thank you for reviewing the written words and please forgive some aspects as preemptive text changes or mods things.

But I return this love to you and God Bless also.

We are all sealed under Jesus if we believe, as was shown by the sinner on the right of Jesus.

The city is another symbolism. 4 sides , and so on... It's a description of the very core of Gods plan. Just like Garden of Eden was a symbolism, the tree of life , the 12 trees surrounding the 2 trees in the middle.

The bible is a code book, a very good one because it confuses many including the devil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One must take the bigger picture into account; therefore, please keep in mind John 18:36: "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'" Also, Luke 17:22 states, "He said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see 'it.'" And last, here's John 14:6: "Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me."

Authentic love in one's heart for Jesus Christ is the way to the Kingdom of God, and one must accept Him as one's Lord and Savior and follow His commandments.

Thank you for the kind words, Irrelevant.

Peace to you, always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In reference:

It's not of this world because its not material in that you can touch it. Like love, it's not of this world.

The disciples never did see the kingdom of heaven on earth, that's why we must pray for it to come!

The disciples never did see one of the days of the son of man ( but I will point out Jesus is not taking about himself! so the very same Jesus is not what we should expect, rather like John and Elijah he will come in the spirit of Jesus, and Jesus was a mission not a man)

The son of man whomever he will be will have to come through Jesus. ( not Mahabad, Buda, or any of the other lamp stand before the throne of God, yes they are the other lamp stands and God did found those religions, he doesn't only work in Christianity )

Why don't you quote the rest of Luke 17 ? Particularly 24 & 25 because that is exactly what I'm putting to those here, you already know this passage is a prophesy about the Son of man.

Nobody has countered why John the Baptist said he's Not Elijah or even a prophet either , yet all have been dismissive.

I would say barley anybody is being watchful even though Jesus gave this warning.

" oh Jerusalem how I would have gathered you..."

( I don't bother to quote scripture like the others, I know those who know , know the scripture passages I refer.however if ever there's any i mention somebody doesn't know please state it)

This line shows what was really in Jesus heart, and what was in Jesus heart was also in Gods heart.

I would encourage people to understand and seek to know Gods heart rather than serving some doctrine or preconceived understanding...as I pointed out, the Catholics made a big mistake about Mary being a prostitute..sadly they have made many more, but its not for me to judge them.

Edited by Irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In reference:

It's not of this world because its not material in that you can touch it. Like love, it's not of this world.

The disciples never did see the kingdom of heaven on earth, that's why we must pray for it to come!

The disciples never did see one of the days of the son of man ( but I will point out Jesus is not talking about himself! so the very same Jesus is not what we should expect, rather like John and Elijah he will come in the spirit of Jesus, and Jesus was a mission not a man)

The son of man whomever he will be will have to come through Jesus. ( not Mahabad, Buda, or any of the other lamp stand before the throne of God, yes they are the other lamp stands and God did found those religions, he doesn't only work in Christianity )

Why don't you quote the rest of Luke 17 ? Particularly 24 & 25 because that is exactly what I'm putting to those here, you already know this passage is a prophesy about the Son of man.

Nobody has countered why John the Baptist said he's Not Elijah or even a prophet either , yet all have been dismissive.

I would say barley anybody is being watchful even though Jesus gave this warning.

" oh Jerusalem how I would have gathered you..."

( I don't bother to quote scripture like the others, I know those who know , know the scripture passages I refer.however if ever there's any i mention somebody doesn't know please state it)

This line shows what was really in Jesus heart, and what was in Jesus heart was also in Gods heart.

I would encourage people to understand and seek to know Gods heart rather than serving some doctrine or preconceived understanding...as I pointed out, the Catholics made a big mistake about Mary being a prostitute..sadly they have made many more, but its not for me to judge them.

I may be wrong, and if so I'll take it up with God when the time comes, but what you are stating here sounds alot like how we were taught to expect the person of the anti-christ. I'm sorry if you get upset with that statement but Jesus uses warnings that go directly against that kind of speak.

As for John the Baptist, could you do me the favour of showing us where in the bible John the Baptist denies or admits any association to Elijah?

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In reference:

It's not of this world because its not material in that you can touch it. Like love, it's not of this world.

The disciples never did see the kingdom of heaven on earth, that's why we must pray for it to come!

Hello Irrelevant,

Isaiah 66:22 tells it exactly (I totally believe this): "For as the new heavens and the new earth (a tangible reality), which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain." Besides, the moment Jesus Christ walked on earth, His Kingdom..."behold is suddenly upon you," for to be with Jesus Christ's "unconditional love" presence and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit keep one within His Kingdom. Also, as Christians on earth, the fact remains that we are flesh and blood, and yet, Jesus "authentically" remains in our hearts, the way to salvation.

Luke 17:24 proves my point that it can be seen, corporeal...or I should say that we will be able to see His "presence."

So again, no; the kingdom of Heaven is not automatically inside of us, as in the soul being that "kingdom." I know this as a fact, not just a theory.

I am, however, not telling you that you shouldn't believe your take when it comes to your own salvation.

Peace.

Edited by braveone2u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The soul being perpetrated as Heaven, itself, is one massive lie, just like man having the sole power to make himself perfect like God. "Be perfect" is not the same as perfect like God, for God (the "uncreated") is the only One who is "good." I agree, however, that one should strive to be upright, a "real" human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, John had no training in astrology, at least in any more detail than the rest of the people of his time.

Well, it is common knowledge among the masons and similar groups; when they say adept it includes astrology, cabala, alchemy, tarot, etc.

They reject the theory that astrology evolved from something like shepherds gazing at the sky. When I heard 40,000 years I thought WTF? but star gazing is a long involved process. Priests passed on their records up to Babylonian times when they finally scientifically tested them. I don't know how long it took but they kept extensive astrological records for generations to confirm its validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's a theory for all of you to shoot down on sight: Jesus was also a trained adept--as was Moses, Solomon, and probably a few others--who broke his vows when he began to speak openly about their long held secrets (parables etc. were not sufficient disguise). The Jews were so p***ed off they set a criminal free just to watch Jesus tortured to death as a result of his "lack of discretion". They take their vows very seriously. (pretty evil IMO)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The twelve stars are concerning the year 2012

This is the mark of the shift in consciousness

When the goddess can come out from hiding

The seven heads are the seven major "religions" or perhaps politcal/wordly authorites

A transision from the previous seven spirits of god

After all God uses the devil as his footstool

Seven has become twelve, what is ultimately holy has become more inclusive but at the same time will trample the former

The woman in hiding is the mother god

She is associated with the beast because they would have trampled her name and MADE her a prostitite

And caused her to hide for milinea

She is large and has every right to be angry/red/firey

The son is the Redeemer/ The Christ/ The Savior / Messiah, he was taken up immediately because the TRUTH is always protected, IT cannot be destroyed dispite evil attempts to lay hands on it (as told in Jesus birth story) this concept is eternal, it existed before Jesus of Nazareth and will continue to exist as long as there are children of God.

The child of God

The son of the Mother

Is the savior of the world.

The beast is the destroyer

All gods have righteous anger

God has a feminine side

She is emerging again now

And is associated with the dragon

Red=blood/menstration/birth

Dragon=advanced version of the serpant, associated with water/sealife/scales, fire/middle of the earth/lava, bird/wings/triumphant over the serpant

I have more theories on this but I havent totally articulated them even in my own mind so cant really express them.

Thanks for the post OP ;))

:)

Also think symbols have many meanings, which is the reason they are symbolic and not plain. 2012 could have something to do with it, so could the twelve tribes, as well as a host of other things. Some people think that it can only be one way but I dont see it like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's a theory for all of you to shoot down on sight: Jesus was also a trained adept--as was Moses, Solomon, and probably a few others--who broke his vows when he began to speak openly about their long held secrets (parables etc. were not sufficient disguise). The Jews were so p***ed off they set a criminal free just to watch Jesus tortured to death as a result of his "lack of discretion". They take their vows very seriously. (pretty evil IMO)

The worst thing with kabbhala is finding yourself in a hell and squirming yourself out of it with paralysis. I read a guy died while the other went insane. The fellow who passed it along in europe didn't reach heaven or he wouldn't have lived to tell about it. :tu: Jesus didn't need it. Your right the god who handed it down is pretty evil. It ain't God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One must take the bigger picture into account; therefore, please keep in mind John 18:36: "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'" Also, Luke 17:22 states, "He said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see 'it.'" And last, here's John 14:6: "Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me."

Authentic love in one's heart for Jesus Christ is the way to the Kingdom of God, and one must accept Him as one's Lord and Savior and follow His commandments.

Thank you for the kind words, Irrelevant.

Peace to you, always.

The kingdom can be inside and still of another place.. there is a lot inside of us and much discovery theirin.. a lot....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I may be wrong, and if so I'll take it up with God when the time comes, but what you are stating here sounds alot like how we were taught to expect the person of the anti-christ. I'm sorry if you get upset with that statement but Jesus uses warnings that go directly against that kind of speak.

As for John the Baptist, could you do me the favour of showing us where in the bible John the Baptist denies or admits any association to Elijah?

I have already given the reference to that passage. John 1:21 and the reason If you will accept it?

But let me say that there was a exchange of doctrines between the the Christian and Muslim leaders, that the new Pope was chosen in part on the hope that he will reform the church in some ways, that the feet washing ceremony also included woman and a Muslim. There is a shift! A growing wish for acceptance between all religions based on tolerance. We should love our Muslim brothers.

What some don't know ( including those who practice Islam) is that these are the descendants of Esau, and Jacob his brother hugged him! Both have the right to claim they are descendants of Adam and Eve, however Christians are there Abel.

People have been very quick to talk about how only Christians go to heaven, actually they go to paradise, Muslims go to the garden which is there Paradise. The Spirit world is broken up in community's just like it is here.

Since I'm now telling you such things you ask how may I know, likewise I have already said.

Edited by Irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The soul being perpetrated as Heaven, itself, is one massive lie, just like man having the sole power to make himself perfect like God. "Be perfect" is not the same as perfect like God, for God (the "uncreated") is the only One who is "good." I agree, however, that one should strive to be upright, a "real" human being.

Man is created at the level of image.

Creation is created at the level of symbol

No man can ever be same or greater than God, but for a person like Jesus, perfected Adam who did not fall, God and only God lives inside along with that mans own mind or will.Since that is the same as God there is no separation.

Since Mankind is created in the image, he is created male and female. God is a being of harmonised male and female qualities. When a man and woman are together in complete harmony with God they are in likeness of or level of Symbol of God because God dwells right at the core, however we fallen beings posses characteristics that we inherited through the Fall, Jesus was the second Adam, the son of man is the Third Adam and as Jesus baptised in the spirit, this Adam will baptise in the Flesh in that he will remove the linage of Satan from mankind, Therefore those who receive him shall be true sons and daughters of God, and not reborn into God.

Edited by Irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kingdom can be inside and still of another place.. there is a lot inside of us and much discovery theirin.. a lot....

Hi,

"...is the way to the kingdom of God ("Heaven")" is not the same as Heaven being attached to the soul, nor the soul, itself. I once believed in Nirvana, "awakening," being one with the "soul," etc., and even taught the concepts during my kundalini (meditation teacher) years; alas, that belief system didn't get me to "Heaven." I have proven that to myself -- well defined, "fini." Thankfully, Jesus Christ was there to take me out of "that" accursed reality, the Void. There's so much to say, and nothing in this world will ever convince me about going back to that "BIG LETDOWN" belief system. My first-hand knowledge is a hard act to follow compared to theories and book knowledge. Plus, there are consequences for switching from one god to Jesus Christ -- believe you me. Remember when a certain god offered Jesus the world? Something to think about, and I'm piecing my life together again through the grace of Jesus Christ, let me put it that way. I was on top of the world, once upon a time.

I respect your belief system, SpiritWriter.

Peace to you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man is created at the level of image.

Creation is created at the level of symbol

No man can ever be same or greater than God, but for a person like Jesus, perfected Adam who did not fall, God and only God lives inside along with that mans own mind or will.Since that is the same as God there is no separation.

Since Mankind is created in the image, he is created male and female. God is a being of harmonised male and female qualities. When a man and woman are together in complete harmony with God they are in likeness of or level of Symbol of God because God dwells right at the core, however we fallen beings posses characteristics that we inherited through the Fall, Jesus was the second Adam, the son of man is the Third Adam and as Jesus baptised in the spirit, this Adam will baptise in the Flesh in that he will remove the linage of Satan from mankind, Therefore those who receive him shall be true sons and daughters of God, and not reborn into God.

Hello Irrelevant,

As I have said, I respect the narrative you follow. It is not, however, the one in which I put my trust and salvation.

Good morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi,

"...is the way to the kingdom of God ("Heaven")" is not the same as Heaven being attached to the soul, nor the soul, itself. I once believed in Nirvana, "awakening," being one with the "soul," etc., and even taught the concepts during my kundalini (meditation teacher) years; alas, that belief system didn't get me to "Heaven." I have proven that to myself -- well defined, "fini." Thankfully, Jesus Christ was there to take me out of "that" accursed reality, the Void. There's so much to say, and nothing in this world will ever convince me about going back to that "BIG LETDOWN" belief system. My first-hand knowledge is a hard act to follow compared to theories and book knowledge. Plus, there are consequences for switching from one god to Jesus Christ -- believe you me. Remember when a certain god offered Jesus the world? Something to think about, and I'm piecing my life together again through the grace of Jesus Christ, let me put it that way. I was on top of the world, once upon a time.

I respect your belief system, SpiritWriter.

Peace to you.

There's no one I know like Jesus I respect your belief system too and glad you are here to share. I dont know anything about kundalani system except for a little that I read about vibrating and meeting a snake... I know that vibrating is also apart of astral travel so wonder if this is the same... and is that being awakened? I dont know but I feel like ive been awakened or am wakening in a certain way but still accredit Jesus to my "restoration" and my spiritual rebirth and this happened for me more than once. I agree with you about knowing more from your personal walk than by reading. I was really into reading, or should I say picking out books and thumbing through them, but right now I am really more about walking it out than trying to understand another persons beliefs. God deals with us individually. Sure we can learn from others but we have a real life to live as well, and THIS is the most telling...

Oh... and explain Jesus vs. The One God. In my view Jesus leads one to the one God, or ushers him in to relation with him. Yes he is God but deeper in comprehension than that point and simple, that the one true god would be inaccesable without this ushering for he is to broad to conceive.

Just wondering what you meant about the difficult transition between Jesus and the one god... is it perhaps because The One God would include All - darkness and light, but the Christ is pure light?

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In reference to Brave1:

And I respect that you have a different understanding, can you tell us what that is?

because as will be known to some I have given reference to Genesis in the scripture "God created them in his image, male and female" thereby restating as it does that God is both male and female since we were created in his image.

And,

to Jesus words of the son of man "he will baptise in the flesh"

And that Jesus being born sinless is not like fallen man in that we are not born sinless, therefore we must be reborn through the true Son of God Jesus.

I have also mentioned that the old world will pass away by giving reference to the scripture regarding the baptism of the flesh by the Son of Man at the time of the 2nd Coming. Yes it will be the end of the world! But not the physical world, rather the fallen world that as Jesus said Satan is the ruler of this world...once again I repeat that the kingdom is not come with signs to be observed, and this lord will come like a thief in the night, take what he can and leave. That being two girls sleeping in one bed, one will be taken and the other left. In this way you may receive The Lord of the second advent but your your sister/brother may not,

And this prophesy from Jesus ,

In that time one greatest enemy will be in there own house" so your own family may come,being left behind by this thief , like the sister who is left, not receiving the returning lord and oppose you should you receive the lord of the second Advent. And it is a scripture that only 144000 thousand that will do this..so clearly he is rejected by nearly all as Luke 17 24:25 states the Son of Man will be. Those are Jesus own words I might add, not some obscure OT prophet.

However I do wish to understand your beliefs so if you be willing tell us. I can understand you may not have a position on many things or be willing to talk about them with us as there your own personal understanding, to trust in God, and that alone is enough, Just to believe in God shall save you, and since you do you are.

But as Jesus said whomever receives a prophet gets a prophets reward..since the Jews did not by in large receive Jesus they did not get the reward of Jesus...

I would like to once again convey my love and admiration to those here who show faith in God, and wish you to be blessed according to his will.

Edited by Irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I dont know anything about kundalani system except for a little that I read about vibrating and meeting a snake... I know that vibrating is also apart of astral travel so wonder if this is the same... and is that being awakened? I dont know but I feel like ive been awakened or am wakening

There is no "snake" when it comes to kundalini. That's just a smokescreen. Bottom line: There's an outside power that engulfs the conduit or "teacher" during a darshan. Is that power the "binitarian monotheism" God? No. At any rate, there are those who are in constant state of being "possessed," if you will. Therefore yes, kundalini is a finely tuned form of channeling. Conduits are highly "gifted" beings, even if they are merely "its" servants. Make no mistake: Those things you've heard about rituals and manipulation of power and so on, are valid in this world. There's another word for this power manipulation: It's called "spiritual cannibalism." Among "spiritual" cognoscenti, the "universe" is god -- interesting. The world is not what it seems. Sons of God are still around us. The biggest lie is that the industrial revolution has conquered "superstition." Not only was I a kundalini conduit, I was also a Feng Shui high wizard. Was is the keyword.

"Awakening" has nothing to do with astral travel. True "Awakening" has an element of Lazarus Syndrome, a "switch on," and so much more. Most people who think that they have "awakened" are lying to themselves. Most of them just had a dream or daydream.

Oh... and explain Jesus vs. The One God. In my view Jesus leads one to the one God, or ushers him in to relation with him. Yes he is God but deeper in comprehension than that point and simple, that the one true god would be inaccesable without this ushering for he is to broad to conceive.

Just wondering what you meant about the difficult transition between Jesus and the one god... is it perhaps because The One God would include All - darkness and light, but the Christ is pure light?

I believe my reply to Irrelevant will answer your question.

God bless, SpiritWriter.

Edited by braveone2u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reference to Brave1:

And I respect that you have a different understanding, can you tell us what that is?

Hi Irrelevant,

Aside from being a "born again" Christian and having that uncompromising first-hand meeting with Jesus Christ in the Void, my life nowadays is mostly about studying, and connecting with like-minded people, regarding the Christian religion. Being reborn makes a big difference in my life but not as a romanticized way. It has urgency in the mix, for a person's life is really that short -- I'm no spring chicken.

Please check out the links if you wish to find out more info:

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com [Michael S. Heiser]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=130219&st=765#entry2428731 [Please read Jor-el's posts. He's a wealth of knowledge.]

http://www.case.edu/affil/GAIR/cba/penchansky.html?nw_view=1367131457&

Peace to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you for your testimony. I agree with some of the points you mention about your previous faith.

Post edit: reading those links.

Edited by Irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, it is common knowledge among the masons and similar groups; when they say adept it includes astrology, cabala, alchemy, tarot, etc.

They reject the theory that astrology evolved from something like shepherds gazing at the sky. When I heard 40,000 years I thought WTF? but star gazing is a long involved process. Priests passed on their records up to Babylonian times when they finally scientifically tested them. I don't know how long it took but they kept extensive astrological records for generations to confirm its validity.

Astrology didn't come about from something like shepherds gazing at the sky, it a system that was taught to us, we didn't develop it. The "sons of God" of Genesis 6 taught mankind astrology along with other things like necromancy. What was taught is a corruption of knowledge that we have had since our creation as human beings. The stars were put in place by God as signs of his unfailing word. God announced the Messiah using these signs, some say the entire Gospel is written out in the sky. The great Dragon (Scorpio and libra), the seed of woman (Virgo), and the coming king (Leo) among many others.

As the bible says, The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Edited by Jor-el
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already given the reference to that passage. John 1:21 and the reason If you will accept it?

But let me say that there was a exchange of doctrines between the the Christian and Muslim leaders, that the new Pope was chosen in part on the hope that he will reform the church in some ways, that the feet washing ceremony also included woman and a Muslim. There is a shift! A growing wish for acceptance between all religions based on tolerance. We should love our Muslim brothers.

What some don't know ( including those who practice Islam) is that these are the descendants of Esau, and Jacob his brother hugged him! Both have the right to claim they are descendants of Adam and Eve, however Christians are there Abel.

People have been very quick to talk about how only Christians go to heaven, actually they go to paradise, Muslims go to the garden which is there Paradise. The Spirit world is broken up in community's just like it is here.

Since I'm now telling you such things you ask how may I know, likewise I have already said.

John 1:19-27

John the Baptist Denies Being the Messiah

19 Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.”

21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”

He said, “I am not.”

“Are you the Prophet?”

He answered, “No.”

22 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’”

24 Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

26“I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. 27 He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”

Do you know why he denied that he was Elijah?

His answer in the last line tells us why. His only calling and ministry was to prepare the way of the one who would come after him. This imagery is absolutely clear to the Jews who were questioning him, he is taking on the mantle of Elijah without calling himself Elijah. They understood this because that was indeed their expectation. They expected Elijah to announce the coming of the Messiah.

As I said earlier, he worked on their expectations but not once is Elijah supposed to announce the coming of the Messiah. There is not a single verse in the bible that defends this idea. So where did the Jews get the idea from?

They got it from a verse I quoted earlier but will copy paste here so that you can see it again and realize its importance and that John the Baptist did nothing in denying that he was Elijah. It would have been a falsehood and God does not do falsehood.

Malachi 4:5

5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.

So will Elijah come, to announce the coming of the Messiah or is it rather as the verse states, that he will come before that great and dreadful day, the Lord comes?

Some people thought that this verse meant the Messiah, but it doesn't mean that at all. It is a reference to something known throughout the bible as "The Day of Wrath", mentioned by prophets throughout the entire Bible. We are better acquainted with the idea under another term... the Great Tribulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image or "imager"...

Have you ever wondered what that term might really mean. Most of us take for granted that the term is to be applied to physcial resemblance. Therefore to be ones image and likeness (both terms are intrerchangeable) one would actually be a representation of an original obeject. Given that the terms have a visual element, we would naturally ussume that we are talking of a physcial shape. This would apply to the Genesis 1:26-27 text as well as thGenesis 5:3 text as well.

That assumption of course is what causes the confusion, because it can mean something entirely different.

Let's 1st look at the Definition of the Words "image" or "likeness".

noun

1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.

2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.

3. a mental representation; idea; conception.

4. Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.

5. form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in God's image.

verb (used with object)

6. to picture or represent in the mind; imagine; conceive.

7. to make an image of; portray in sculpture, painting, etc.

8. to project (photographs, film, etc.) on a surface: Familiar scenes were imaged on the screen.

9. to reflect the likeness of; mirror.

10. to set forth in speech or writing; describe.

11. to symbolize; typify.

12. to resemble.

13. Informal. to create an image for (a company, public figure, etc.): The candidate had to be imaged before being put on the campaign trail.

14. to transform (data) into an exact replica in a different form, as changing digital data to pixels for display on a CRT or representing a medical scan of a body part in digital form.

Synonyms:

Image, icon, idol refer to material representations of persons or things. An image is a representation as in a statue or effigy, and is sometimes regarded as an object of worship: to set up an image of Apollo; an image of a saint. An icon, in the Greek or Eastern Orthodox Church, is a representation of Christ, an angel, or a saint, in painting, relief, mosaic, or the like: At least two icons are found in each church. An idol is an image, statue, or the like representing a deity and worshiped as such: a wooden idol; The heathen worship idols. It may be used figuratively: to make an idol of wealth. 2. likeness, figure, representation. 3. notion. 6. facsimile.

Since both words are actually interchangeable in meaning we can also ascribe a 3rd term that will clear this up. The term is a representation.

Representation

1. the act of representing.

2. the state of being represented.

3. the expression or designation by some term, character, symbol, or the like.

4. action or speech on behalf of a person, group, business house, state, or the like by an agent, deputy, or representative.

5. the state or fact of being so represented: to demand representation on a board of directors.

6. Government . the state, fact, or right of being represented by delegates having a voice in legislation or government.

7. the body or number of representatives, as of a constituency.

8. Diplomacy .

a. the act of speaking or negotiating on behalf of a state.

b. an utterance on behalf of a state.

9. presentation to the mind, as of an idea or image.

10. a mental image or idea so presented; concept.

11. the act of portrayal, picturing, or other rendering in visible form.

12. a picture, figure, statue, etc.

13. the production or a performance of a play or the like, as on the stage.

14. Often, representations. a description or statement, as of things true or alleged.

15. a statement of facts, reasons, etc., made in appealing or protesting; a protest or remonstrance.

16. Law . an implication or statement of fact to which legal liability may attach if material: a representation of authority.

As we can see: the concept of representation, is at once visible in the wording of Genesis 1:26-27 and clearly implied in terms of the continuity of a bloodline which applies it to Genesis 5:3.

This brings us to a text by Michael S. Heiser, PhD, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages.

I hope you’ll like it, it certainly helped to clear things up for me.

Image or Imager?

If you’ve been studying the Bible for even a little while you’ve probably wondered about what the image of God is. Chances are you have heard a sermon or two on the topic. I’ll also bet that what you’ve heard is something along the lines of the image of God being intelligence, rationality, emotions, the ability to commune with God, self-awareness, language capability, the presence of a soul, a conscience, or free will. If that’s the case, and if what you heard sounded good, prepare for another jolt: the image of God means none of those things and if it did, there would be no reason to talk about the sanctity of human life in the womb, at least in the early stages of development. Genesis 1 and 2 teach us several things about the image of God, and all of what we learn from the text must be accounted for in any discussion of what “the image” means. First, both men and women are equally included in what I’ll call for now “divine image bearing.” Second, divine image bearing is what makes humankind distinct from the rest of the Genesis creation (i.e., plants and animals). Note, however, that the text of Genesis 1:26 does not inform us that divine image bearing makes us distinct from heavenly beings, those sons of God who were already in existence at the time of creation. The plurals in Genesis 1:26 mean that, in some way, we share something with them when it comes to bearing God’s image. Third, there is something about the image that makes mankind “like” God in some way. Fourth, there is nothing in the text to suggest that the image has been or can be bestowed incrementally or partially. You’re either created as God’s image bearer or you aren’t. One cannot speak of being “partly” created in God’s image or “potentially” bearing the image.

Among the list of proposed answers to what the image is are a number of abilities or properties: intelligence, rationality, emotions, communing with God, self-awareness, language capability, and free will. The problem with defining the image by any of these things is that, on one hand, non-human beings like animals possess some of these abilities, albeit not as fully, which would mean they are not unique to humans. On the other hand, the conceived contents of a woman’s womb, when composed of little more than cells or tissue prior to brain development, has none of them. Animals can learn to do things contrary to their nature, they can show emotion, and they have language (we have no reason to assume language must be across species, as opposed to within species). Artificial intelligence has achieved some of these properties as well. The pro-life position is based on the assertion that human life (and so, personhood) begins at conception (the point when the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm). The simple-celled zygote inside the woman’s womb, which we believe to be a human person, is not self-aware; has no intelligence, rational thought processes, or emotions; it cannot speak or communicate; it cannot commune with God; and it cannot exercise its will or conscience. If you want to argue that those things are there potentially, then that means that its personhood is only potential, which is the pro-choice position. A potentially human person is not an actual human person, and so abortion in the early stages would not be murder. Since there is no hint in Genesis that the image comes in stages, defining the image of God in such terms raises the spectre that, to base personhood on the image, the image must be actually present. This is a precarious ethical position.

Even the presence of a soul fails these tests. The former doesn’t work because animals also possess the nephesh, the Hebrew word translated “soul” in Genesis 2:7 (“and the man became a living soul”). For example, in Genesis 1:20 when we read that God made swarms of “living creatures,” the Hebrew text underlying “creatures” is nephesh. The term means “conscious life” or “animate life” as opposed to something like plant life, and there are other clear examples where animals are described with the same word. My point here is not that humans don’t have a soul. They certainly do, and it is linked to personhood in biblical theology. My point is only that the soul isn’t the image.

My view of what the image means is based on a point of Hebrew grammar, specifically a special function of the preposition “in” with respect to the phrase “in the image of God.” In our own English language—and we don’t often think about our own language in such detail—we use the preposition “in” to denote many different ideas. That is, “in” doesn’t always mean the same thing when we use that word. For example, if I say, “put the dishes in the sink,” I am using the preposition to denote location. If I say, “I broke the mirror in pieces,” I am using “in” to denote the result of some action or accident. If I say, “I work in education,” I am using the preposition to denote that I was as a teacher or principal, or some other administrative capacity.

This last example is the key to understanding what the Hebrew preposition usually translated “in” means in Gen 1:26—and that will in turn unlock the meaning of image bearing. The idea I want to put forth is that humankind was created as God’s image. In other words, the preposition tells us that humans work as God’s imagers—that they work in the capacity of God’s representatives. The image is therefore not a thing put in us; it is something we do or are. It is not a thing; it is a function or status. Don’t think of it as a noun; think of it as a verb. Being created as God’s imagers means we are God’s representatives on earth. Humans were created to rule and care for the earth as God would if he were physically present. It is as though we are “Him” when it comes to overseeing His earth. This duty is part of being human, and you are human (by virtue of your DNA) from conception. This is why Genesis 1:26-27 are followed by what theologians call the “dominion mandate”—that these humans are now to “subdue the earth” (1:28). Verse 28 helps define verses 26-27.

If you are human, then, you are an imager of God, regardless of your abilities. You use your abilities to steward the planet in whatever way you can wherever you are. For some that means farming, bringing forth the earth’s abundance. For others it’s being a scientist, learning what makes the earth and the universe tick. For still others it’s being in business, creating wealth, goods, and services for human work and wellbeing. Every moral form of gainful employment carries out some task that benefits the earth and its inhabitants—that seeks to fulfill the purpose of the earth in God’s mind as he intended it. All such jobs have God’s blessing. Being in the ministry is no more sacred than anything else done in God’s will. That is what imaging means. Even the stillborn baby or severely retarded person is an imager (since they are human, by definition). The status of imager is passed on to every human. Every human therefore has the dignity of being God’s stand-ins on this planet. We may not understand how human lives such as these can image God and serve the creation, but they do. Perhaps their purpose is to compel us to appreciate “normal” creation or creation before the Fall brought such tragic consequences to life as God intended.

How do we share this function or status with the members of God’s council? We share this status in general in that they, too, are God’s administrators. They do as God wills as though he were there. Like us, they are the conduits for God’s actions on behalf of (or in spite of) people. However, when it comes to earth, we outrank them, for it was to humanity God gave the earth for stewardship, not to any other being. This sweeping “status promotion” is critical for understanding the flow of biblical theology. In the ancient world outside of Israel, the idea of being God’s earthly human representative was reserved only for kings.

You might recall the notion of the Pharaoh being “God on earth” as an example. In fact, the idea that royal bloodlines were also divine bloodlines survives even to today. In Europe, the absolute monarchies of France and England operated on the assumption of “the divine right to rule.” Before World War II, Japanese Emperors were thought of in such terms. In non-western cultures, the same idea still survives. The amazing thing about Genesis 1:26 is that it tells us that, from the very beginning, God intended all humans to be His royal representatives. The image of God idea is thoroughly democratic in biblical theology. Like the members of God’s heavenly family, we are all God’s children—and God made us His imagers in this place. We were not created as God’s slaves. We are His children and members of his royal household. We were intended to rule the earth together as Father and sons and daughters.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/Chapter%203.doc

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/ETS%202009%20Heiser.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet All Israel was blind at the time of Jesus Birth with only the magi who having that knowledge knew

Since you do Jor-el, do you concur with the Parable of the Fig tree or know of it?

The title of this Thread to me Suggest this, and if so at what point on Gods Timetable (according to your review of all scripture) do you think the world is at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image or "imager"...

Have you ever wondered what that term might really mean. Most of us take for granted that the term is to be applied to physcial resemblance. Therefore to be ones image and likeness (both terms are intrerchangeable) one would actually be a representation of an original obeject. Given that the terms have a visual element, we would naturally ussume that we are talking of a physcial shape. This would apply to the Genesis 1:26-27 text as well as thGenesis 5:3 text as well.

That assumption of course is what causes the confusion, because it can mean something entirely different.

Let's 1st look at the Definition of the Words "image" or "likeness".

noun

1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.

2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.

3. a mental representation; idea; conception.

4. Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.

5. form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in God's image.

verb (used with object)

6. to picture or represent in the mind; imagine; conceive.

7. to make an image of; portray in sculpture, painting, etc.

8. to project (photographs, film, etc.) on a surface: Familiar scenes were imaged on the screen.

9. to reflect the likeness of; mirror.

10. to set forth in speech or writing; describe.

11. to symbolize; typify.

12. to resemble.

13. Informal. to create an image for (a company, public figure, etc.): The candidate had to be imaged before being put on the campaign trail.

14. to transform (data) into an exact replica in a different form, as changing digital data to pixels for display on a CRT or representing a medical scan of a body part in digital form.

Synonyms:

Image, icon, idol refer to material representations of persons or things. An image is a representation as in a statue or effigy, and is sometimes regarded as an object of worship: to set up an image of Apollo; an image of a saint. An icon, in the Greek or Eastern Orthodox Church, is a representation of Christ, an angel, or a saint, in painting, relief, mosaic, or the like: At least two icons are found in each church. An idol is an image, statue, or the like representing a deity and worshiped as such: a wooden idol; The heathen worship idols. It may be used figuratively: to make an idol of wealth. 2. likeness, figure, representation. 3. notion. 6. facsimile.

Since both words are actually interchangeable in meaning we can also ascribe a 3rd term that will clear this up. The term is a representation.

Representation

1. the act of representing.

2. the state of being represented.

3. the expression or designation by some term, character, symbol, or the like.

4. action or speech on behalf of a person, group, business house, state, or the like by an agent, deputy, or representative.

5. the state or fact of being so represented: to demand representation on a board of directors.

6. Government . the state, fact, or right of being represented by delegates having a voice in legislation or government.

7. the body or number of representatives, as of a constituency.

8. Diplomacy .

a. the act of speaking or negotiating on behalf of a state.

b. an utterance on behalf of a state.

9. presentation to the mind, as of an idea or image.

10. a mental image or idea so presented; concept.

11. the act of portrayal, picturing, or other rendering in visible form.

12. a picture, figure, statue, etc.

13. the production or a performance of a play or the like, as on the stage.

14. Often, representations. a description or statement, as of things true or alleged.

15. a statement of facts, reasons, etc., made in appealing or protesting; a protest or remonstrance.

16. Law . an implication or statement of fact to which legal liability may attach if material: a representation of authority.

As we can see: the concept of representation, is at once visible in the wording of Genesis 1:26-27 and clearly implied in terms of the continuity of a bloodline which applies it to Genesis 5:3.

This brings us to a text by Michael S. Heiser, PhD, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages.

I hope you’ll like it, it certainly helped to clear things up for me.

Image or Imager?

If you’ve been studying the Bible for even a little while you’ve probably wondered about what the image of God is. Chances are you have heard a sermon or two on the topic. I’ll also bet that what you’ve heard is something along the lines of the image of God being intelligence, rationality, emotions, the ability to commune with God, self-awareness, language capability, the presence of a soul, a conscience, or free will. If that’s the case, and if what you heard sounded good, prepare for another jolt: the image of God means none of those things and if it did, there would be no reason to talk about the sanctity of human life in the womb, at least in the early stages of development. Genesis 1 and 2 teach us several things about the image of God, and all of what we learn from the text must be accounted for in any discussion of what “the image” means. First, both men and women are equally included in what I’ll call for now “divine image bearing.” Second, divine image bearing is what makes humankind distinct from the rest of the Genesis creation (i.e., plants and animals). Note, however, that the text of Genesis 1:26 does not inform us that divine image bearing makes us distinct from heavenly beings, those sons of God who were already in existence at the time of creation. The plurals in Genesis 1:26 mean that, in some way, we share something with them when it comes to bearing God’s image. Third, there is something about the image that makes mankind “like” God in some way. Fourth, there is nothing in the text to suggest that the image has been or can be bestowed incrementally or partially. You’re either created as God’s image bearer or you aren’t. One cannot speak of being “partly” created in God’s image or “potentially” bearing the image.

Among the list of proposed answers to what the image is are a number of abilities or properties: intelligence, rationality, emotions, communing with God, self-awareness, language capability, and free will. The problem with defining the image by any of these things is that, on one hand, non-human beings like animals possess some of these abilities, albeit not as fully, which would mean they are not unique to humans. On the other hand, the conceived contents of a woman’s womb, when composed of little more than cells or tissue prior to brain development, has none of them. Animals can learn to do things contrary to their nature, they can show emotion, and they have language (we have no reason to assume language must be across species, as opposed to within species). Artificial intelligence has achieved some of these properties as well. The pro-life position is based on the assertion that human life (and so, personhood) begins at conception (the point when the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm). The simple-celled zygote inside the woman’s womb, which we believe to be a human person, is not self-aware; has no intelligence, rational thought processes, or emotions; it cannot speak or communicate; it cannot commune with God; and it cannot exercise its will or conscience. If you want to argue that those things are there potentially, then that means that its personhood is only potential, which is the pro-choice position. A potentially human person is not an actual human person, and so abortion in the early stages would not be murder. Since there is no hint in Genesis that the image comes in stages, defining the image of God in such terms raises the spectre that, to base personhood on the image, the image must be actually present. This is a precarious ethical position.

Even the presence of a soul fails these tests. The former doesn’t work because animals also possess the nephesh, the Hebrew word translated “soul” in Genesis 2:7 (“and the man became a living soul”). For example, in Genesis 1:20 when we read that God made swarms of “living creatures,” the Hebrew text underlying “creatures” is nephesh. The term means “conscious life” or “animate life” as opposed to something like plant life, and there are other clear examples where animals are described with the same word. My point here is not that humans don’t have a soul. They certainly do, and it is linked to personhood in biblical theology. My point is only that the soul isn’t the image.

My view of what the image means is based on a point of Hebrew grammar, specifically a special function of the preposition “in” with respect to the phrase “in the image of God.” In our own English language—and we don’t often think about our own language in such detail—we use the preposition “in” to denote many different ideas. That is, “in” doesn’t always mean the same thing when we use that word. For example, if I say, “put the dishes in the sink,” I am using the preposition to denote location. If I say, “I broke the mirror in pieces,” I am using “in” to denote the result of some action or accident. If I say, “I work in education,” I am using the preposition to denote that I was as a teacher or principal, or some other administrative capacity.

This last example is the key to understanding what the Hebrew preposition usually translated “in” means in Gen 1:26—and that will in turn unlock the meaning of image bearing. The idea I want to put forth is that humankind was created as God’s image. In other words, the preposition tells us that humans work as God’s imagers—that they work in the capacity of God’s representatives. The image is therefore not a thing put in us; it is something we do or are. It is not a thing; it is a function or status. Don’t think of it as a noun; think of it as a verb. Being created as God’s imagers means we are God’s representatives on earth. Humans were created to rule and care for the earth as God would if he were physically present. It is as though we are “Him” when it comes to overseeing His earth. This duty is part of being human, and you are human (by virtue of your DNA) from conception. This is why Genesis 1:26-27 are followed by what theologians call the “dominion mandate”—that these humans are now to “subdue the earth” (1:28). Verse 28 helps define verses 26-27.

If you are human, then, you are an imager of God, regardless of your abilities. You use your abilities to steward the planet in whatever way you can wherever you are. For some that means farming, bringing forth the earth’s abundance. For others it’s being a scientist, learning what makes the earth and the universe tick. For still others it’s being in business, creating wealth, goods, and services for human work and wellbeing. Every moral form of gainful employment carries out some task that benefits the earth and its inhabitants—that seeks to fulfill the purpose of the earth in God’s mind as he intended it. All such jobs have God’s blessing. Being in the ministry is no more sacred than anything else done in God’s will. That is what imaging means. Even the stillborn baby or severely retarded person is an imager (since they are human, by definition). The status of imager is passed on to every human. Every human therefore has the dignity of being God’s stand-ins on this planet. We may not understand how human lives such as these can image God and serve the creation, but they do. Perhaps their purpose is to compel us to appreciate “normal” creation or creation before the Fall brought such tragic consequences to life as God intended.

How do we share this function or status with the members of God’s council? We share this status in general in that they, too, are God’s administrators. They do as God wills as though he were there. Like us, they are the conduits for God’s actions on behalf of (or in spite of) people. However, when it comes to earth, we outrank them, for it was to humanity God gave the earth for stewardship, not to any other being. This sweeping “status promotion” is critical for understanding the flow of biblical theology. In the ancient world outside of Israel, the idea of being God’s earthly human representative was reserved only for kings.

You might recall the notion of the Pharaoh being “God on earth” as an example. In fact, the idea that royal bloodlines were also divine bloodlines survives even to today. In Europe, the absolute monarchies of France and England operated on the assumption of “the divine right to rule.” Before World War II, Japanese Emperors were thought of in such terms. In non-western cultures, the same idea still survives. The amazing thing about Genesis 1:26 is that it tells us that, from the very beginning, God intended all humans to be His royal representatives. The image of God idea is thoroughly democratic in biblical theology. Like the members of God’s heavenly family, we are all God’s children—and God made us His imagers in this place. We were not created as God’s slaves. We are His children and members of his royal household. We were intended to rule the earth together as Father and sons and daughters.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/Chapter%203.doc

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/ETS%202009%20Heiser.pdf

I will reply to your previous post however in regards to this one,

I prefer not cut and paste...

Genesis 1:27

So God created human beings,making them to be like himself.

He created them male and Female,

( please note this line illustrating clearly he is a being with dual characteristics and this is shown all through nature that is created in symbol with male and female or positive and negative as in particles )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.