Let There Be Man

so where does the bible talk about what jesus looks like? or god or anything, almost every version of what anything in the bible looks like is tradition, IMO no one really knows because it never says yes and the bible isn't much use for learning what anyone looked like in it

The oddest thing I find about the NT, Jay, is that nowhere is the slightest hint of the appearance of Jesus. Now you could understand Jerusalemites being familiar with his face, but when the apostles and Paul went to surrounding towns, I would think one of the first questions asked by prospective believers would be ' What did He look like'? While Paul may have been denied a peek in his vision, the visits to the apostles gave him full opportunity to get a description. But what do we find--gospels supposedly written by apostles or friends of same with nary a clue about the appearance of Jesus. It`s almost like they are making it up as they went.

And in putting the two sayings together the collector may have been suggesting, rather impishly, an ultimate point: that there is no right way to engage a fool. It's a waste of time to talk to one and a mistake to give one the floor. Fools are just a headache.__

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Well Archie, you been a pretty serious headache so far. We'll have to wait and see if God wanted you to be a fool.But, for now, let us just see if you can manage to stay on topic (if it's all the same to you).[Bring out the Royal Headache!!]

Yeah, silly me.Next thing you know I'll probably be doing something erratic like proposing three different thread titles in a single week..._

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The opening post is very simple and specific as to what is to be discussed even though the title isn't. Please refrain from useless oneliners. Post to further the discussion.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

Limbosis writes:I don't understand this at all... Does not compute! So if this response in some way violates this convoluted request, I only ask that it be hidden.That truely baffles my mind. How can we interpret what the question is without interpreting the Bible? Perhaps it's another joke I didn't get as per Arachnophilia.CatholicScientist said:Limbosis replied: I think you kind of hit it Limbosis...I personally think that the trinity is the solution, and I have thought about this extensively. I came to understand it to my own satisfaction with the help of C.S. Lewis.Take it for what it's worth... God did not create the Son, the Son was begotton.John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.And Lewis explains the difference very methodically. I'm not quoting his book, just going from memory. We create things that are simmilar to us, like cars and homes and anything you like really. They bear some image of us quite naturally. We create them for purposes and designs which reflect our thoughts and intentions. I assume you get the point.We beget that which is identical to us. Human begets human, lotus begets lotus, God begets God. Certainly we are distinct as individuals, but we cannot beget a pick/up truck or a kitchen knife.So when eternal God begets God, what we have is eternal Sonship.A key aspect in my own mind is in relation to time. Let's say God begot the Son two thousand years ago. But God is eternal. Therefore ethe Son is also eternal. I don't really think that is the case (that God created jesus two thousand years ago) as it has some theological difficulties, but it is in some sense important to notice.The Bible says that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.I think the difficulty in understanding the solution (as it has been in another thread on free will) is once again the difference between time and eternity.The fact that the Son was physically created only two thousand years ago really changes nothing. He was always there, and in fact the whole purpose of the universe was to be His. He in fact created the universe for Himself. We have the whole anthropic principle here with the added dimension of deity to the man equation.Man was created in the image of God! That is what it means to be fully human.That's my two cents on the issue, but I don't suspect it is the answer you are looking for.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : more context

Good question. Before we try to interpret the bible, let's just READ the bible. Yes, I know, reading is technically a form of interpretation, but only inasmuch as one decides which rules of grammar, spelling, context, syntax etc. to apply and how.You can get into allegory, simile, metaphor, fable and so on, as well. But that's a whole new level in a "hierarchy" of understanding. That would be Tier 2, as it were. And, it would be undue, because the challenge of faithfully reconciling apparent limitations of translating text verbatim from one language to the next has not even been met, much less overcome.If you read through this thread, you'll see that Arachnophilia makes remarkable progress to that end. Everyone else, including me, is just shooting arrows in the dark. What I'm also trying to do, though, is apply a scientific approach, yes I said scientific, in that the fundamental nature of science is to uncover what is NOT known (despite what some fruitloops on this forum would have you believe).So, I want to stick with READING, for now, and see if a particular hypothesis can withstand correlation to our knowledge base of scriptures, in terms of well-documented instances where the likelihood for errors in literal translation between languages is admittedly very high. I'd rather avoid doing THAT even. But, there doesn't seem to be a way around it.I wouldn't be interested in interpretations of interpretions, though. Message 108 on this thread is a prime example, and no, I don't want to discuss that either. I am genuinely pleased for you. I haven't read the "Narnia" books (did see the movie) so I wouldn't know how or where that might happen in the book(s). But, I have a few ideas of my own. Thanks for the nudge, though. I'm not sure where you're going with that. If you suggest that our bodies are vehicles, or temples for our true beings, I can kinda get behind that. But, there are a million possible explanations for reality, some more concrete than others. And, as glorious as my life is WITHOUT God, I'd be the first one to admit that the ACTUAL explanation isn't necessarily positive. That notion actually explains why the minds most, if not all people splinter off, even shatter, early on, when the gravity of it touches home.Picture this...There is a vast open space inside the earth, which is consistent with the simple laws of physics. There, in the interior of the planet, live creatures which we would call monsters. These creatures have been controlling events on the surface of the earth since day one. Some of these creatures feed--survive--off of human flesh. There is a whole race of humans within the earth that are used as farm animals, and are raised to be consumed. We have it good out here. But, I would never consider that a gift from god, if there truly IS nothing for us after our bodies expire, and especially if the knowledge of this abhorance can be detected by the process of elimination and deductive reasoning. Merry Belated Christmas, scottness.Sure, it's just a "theory" but, look into it before you say it can't be so.Anyway, yeah, let's stick to the reading. Edited by limbosis, : added message subtitle

i think that may be extracting too much for it, even if it's right. there is just so much conventional wisdom collected in proverbs that it seems odd for the editor to make a point using two verses like that.

---

Scottness writes: Limbosis says: Well yeah me too, but no, that was not the point. That's a different issue.I was trying to convey the difference between creating and begetting. We can create all manner of things. And in that creation, those things reflect who we are. Every artist understands that he/she is putting a bit of themselves (ideas, mood, values, culture, etc) into the art.But what we beget is identical to us. Man begets man, dog begets dog. I edited my original post to explain better. Rather than rehash it here, scroll up if you are interested. The existential questions are pervasive I agree. And when they really hit the nail, the nail bends. I can totally empathize with you there.And you said something else that is very keen of you. That actually reality has infinite explanations... So true! So true!So which one is the complete and total picture? They cannot all be wholly true can they? And certainly none are wholly false. No-one would believe a wholly false explanation of reality. it would be too obvious that it is false.Or are the questions irrelevant to the thread?What is it exactly you want to know?

i'm not too humble, so i'll take that as a compliment. even if i'm brutally honest enough to admit that it's not entirely true.i am by no means a bible scholar, nor am i anywhere near proficient in any of the three original languages the bible was written in, nor am i a student of archaeology or history. i just try to find these answers myself, because the questions both intrigue and plaque me, and i am happy to share what (little) i have learned in that pursuit. it is not really until one begins to gain a little knowledge about the bible that one realizes how much there truly is to know. fundamentalists sit in the dark with their eyes closed, content they know the extent of their worlds -- the insides of their eyelids. at least you're shooting arrows. what i'm doing may be more appropriately called "stumbling around with arms extended." i really suggest that this is a very good idea. too many people try to get ahead of themselves, and start with their conclusions. that hierarchy bit is, imho, entirely correct. we must first know what the text says to know what it means. as a side note, i would like to add that i could not even begin to appreciate how well the bible has been translated (in most instances) until i knew a (very) little hebrew. a lot of people talk about the shortcomings of and errors in literal translations, but this is generally an excuse, in my experience, to distort meanings. the shortcomings are generally not the in translation, but in the person reading that translation. it can be hard to understand what the text means by something without the linguistic context to understand figures of speech, idioms, and conventions.it turns out that idiomatic translations are actually far more susceptible to errors, because they "force" a kind of interpretation on the meaning of those figures of speech and idioms and conventions. and their forced readings -- rendered in OUR figures of speech and idioms -- are not always correct. though a few such translations are actually spectacularly well-translated, with tons of research reflected in their choices, and are very, very easy to read and understand. for instance, i happen to prefer the new JPS edition of the OT, which is idiomatic. well, here's a primary example of the shortcomings of language in general. i can't tell if you're kidding, or not. supposing you're not, i would tell you that he means the other writings of c.s.lewis, the ones blatantly (as opposed to metaphorically) about christianity.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

I am interested in hearing more about this when you get the time. I suppose it is why you hear the phrase 'in the image and likeness of God' rather than just the image.Any thoughts on how this would tie in supposing a polytheistic background? What would be the 'image' or the 'personality' of God if we were looking at many gods? In most mythologies the gods have different attributes and different images, and most are already thought to look like men. I have always assumed that ancient mythologies had made god/s in OUR image. Is this still putting the chicken before the egg? In other words, could the Bible authors have used a polytheistic set of gods which were already known to look like men, and would this make sense when the story was about the initial creation of man?Men imagine god/s to look like them
other men use the 'known' image of these gods to say;
god made man in his image?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Arachnophilia writes:I am impressed Arachnophilia... (just for the record). Not trying at all to imply that we are in agreement on interpretations themselves. Just that I firmly agree with your analysis, but arrived there from a more immediate route. Well spoken again...The book I refered to is 'Mere Christianity' and is theological in nature, not metaphoric.

it's somewhat standard hebrew style to repeat things in near synonyms for emphasis or poetic sound, even in prose. generally, one word has on emphasis, and the other expands on it. really, the both mean very similar things. i think they just mean that we are very much like god.you have to remember that these other mythologies surrounded judaism as it was forming. that was just the local idea of what a god was: humanlike in personality and form. you'll find that different sources have slightly different senses of just how human the god of the bible is. the yahwist tends to be more human (and more polytheistically influenced), and the elohist tends to be more abstract.for the careful observer, that means the passage in question here is actually one from the abstract document. though god becomes increasingly more abstract as we head towards moses. more or less. they might also be meaning to make a separation between man and animal (genesis 2 does this in a different manner). in sense, explaining what makes us a peculiar, upright walking animal, one with intelligence and language, etc. we are more like god than our flock of sheep or goats.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

Actually Mere Christianity was a series of BBC propaganda broadcasts designed to help the spirit of Londoners during the Blitz. Only later were they compiled first into pamphlets and then into book form.The underlying purpose was like the KJV, political correctness. It was to outline those things which are common to Christianity in general and initially tried to address three areas, the basic case for Christianity, Behavior and perhaps the least successful of the three, Beyond Personality.I found that the problems so many of us found with Mere Christianity 50 years ago when we first studied his writings still stand out when a few years ago I reread it for the brazillionth time.CS Lewis is constantly creating False Dilemmas. They work well when used in the spoken format originally used, but do not stand up well in the slower written format.CS Lewis is definitely an apologist who produced a worthwhile body of work, and I suggest everyone read all of his work, not just Mere Christianity, but he does a better job as an introductory source than an in depth one.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion