The best evidence for Creationism

[Inan3]

Well I'd consider that more saddening than interesting. As humans we have evolved to the point where we manipulate our environment to survive rather than adapting to the environment, so it only makes sense that the human population is huge.

It may be saddening in some ways but in many more ways it is wonderful. I am not talking about the lowering population of apes I am talking about the differences between man and ape. The debate was that I thought there were VAST differences and others suggested there were few.

 

[Keachian]

It may be saddening in some ways but in many more ways it is wonderful. I am not talking about the lowering population of apes I am talking about the differences between man and ape. The debate was that I thought there were VAST differences and others suggested there were few.

Theologically speaking the ONLY difference between man and other animals is that man is Imago Dei, that is in the Image of God, what does this mean? Well to me it means that God condescends to interact with us on a personal level, first with Adam and Eve, then with Enoch, Noah and Abraham and so on culminating in his putting on of flesh and entering into the world as a helpless babe, taking our sins upon his shoulders and showing us what it truly means to be Imago Dei and dying on that wonderful Cross.

 

[AV1611VET]

Theologically speaking the ONLY difference between man and other animals is that man is Imago Dei,

Since you're making a big issue about this being the 'ONLY difference', what about being in the 'likeness of God'?

How did that get swept from the equation?

Genesis 1:26a And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

I get the impression that, in your zeal to promote evolution, you're sweeping some things under the carpet, which is what evolutionists have to do.

 

[Keachian]

Since you're making a big issue about this being the 'ONLY difference', what about being in the 'likeness of God'?

How did that get swept from the equation?

Genesis 1:26a And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

I get the impression that, in your zeal to promote evolution, you're sweeping some things under the carpet, which is what evolutionists have to do.

...

Progmonk talks about humans being in the Image of God, AV then asks him why he missed the doctrine of humans being in the Image of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

...

Progmonk talks about humans being in the Image of God, AV then asks him why he missed the doctrine of humans being in the Image of God.

Suit yourself ... you're not fooling anyone who really knows his Bible though.

I believe God threw those little verbal 'monkey wrenches' into the pot to keep evolutionists from creating a runaway philosophy in the end times.

 

[Keachian]

Suit yourself ... you're not fooling anyone who really knows his Bible though.

I believe God threw those little verbal 'monkey wrenches' into the pot to keep evolutionists from creating a runaway philosophy in the end times.

So tell me how someone with a physical body can be made in the physical likeness of one who is not physical (God is spirit) and why would it be so bad for those who see God in all his glory if he looks like us (Ex 33:20) and why are there warnings about people making images to represent God based on human form when God looks like us (Ex 20:4) again as I'm talking to you about this in another thread, this is talking about God being emmanuel, leading up to 2:3

 

[TLK Valentine]

Suit yourself ... you're not fooling anyone who really knows his Bible though.

I believe God threw those little verbal 'monkey wrenches' into the pot to keep evolutionists from creating a runaway philosophy in the end times.

Perhaps you should consult someone who really knows his Bible on that one?

 

[AV1611VET]

So tell me how someone with a physical body can be made in the physical likeness of one who is not physical (God is spirit) and why would it be so bad for those who see God in all his glory if he looks like us (Ex 33:20) and why are there warnings about people making images to represent God based on human form when God looks like us (Ex 20:4) again as I'm talking to you about this in another thread, this is talking about God being emmanuel, leading up to 2:3

I don't need to explain all that, progmonk.

I don't know what it all entails, but God does, and He said we are created not only in His image, but in His likeness as well.

So please don't think I'm going to just dismiss someone who emphasizes ... will all capital letters, even ... that we are 'ONLY made in His image.'

In addition, calling it Imageo Deo ... or whatever that term is ... is not impressing me enough to overlook the fact that we are in His likeness as well ... (like it apparently impresses you).

As far as His 'image and likeness' is concerned ... as I said, I don't know what all it entails.

I know that we are trichotomous, with a mind, will and emotions; and I know that God has two types of attributes, natural and moral; and that He imparts His moral attributes on to us at salvation, but in no wise does He impart His natural attributes on to us (omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, etc.).

With respect to your point about Emmanuel, or 'God with us' ... that hasn't happened yet, and won't happen in this dispensation.

There are 333 prophecies concerning the LORD Jesus Christ. He fulfilled 109 of them in His first advent, and will fulfill the other 224 in His second advent.

This is one of the major reasons for His Millennial Reign ... He hasn't fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah 9:6 yet, but will do so during His millennial reign.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The part in red was fulfilled in His first advent ... the part in blue will not be fulfilled until His second advent.

 

[Keachian]

I don't need to explain all that, progmonk.

I don't know what it all entails, but God does, and He said we are created not only in His image, but in His likeness as well.

So please don't think I'm going to just dismiss someone who emphasizes ... will all capital letters, even ... that we are 'ONLY made in His image.'

In addition, calling it Imageo Deo ... or whatever that term is ... is not impressing me enough to overlook the fact that we are in His likeness as well ... (like it apparently impresses you).

Imago Dei is the name for the doctrine, as you rightly say we don't really know what it entails, in much the same way as Trinity is the name for a doctrine, it doesn't appear in scripture however it is built up from all throughout scripture, in the case of Imago Dei the first place it is expounded upon is Gen 1:26 as you point out. I assumed that your objection was that you felt that likeness meant physical likeness, I probably should have explained instead that the doctrine treats image and likeness as the same thing. I don't really care for the name but I would much rather use an already agreed upon term in the history of the Church for an orthodox doctrine than reinvent the wheel.

As far as His 'image and likeness' is concerned ... as I said, I don't know what all it entails.

I know that we are trichotomous, with a mind, will and emotions; and I know that God has two types of attributes, natural and moral; and that He imparts His moral attributes on to us at salvation, but in no wise does He impart His natural attributes on to us (omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, etc.).

So another place to understand the doctrine is in looking at Christ's life right? After all he was the Second Adam and we are to imitate him? We are now in Christ as we once were in Adam, are we not?

With respect to your point about Emmanuel, or 'God with us' ... that hasn't happened yet, and won't happen in this dispensation.

Are we not the Temple of the Holy Spirit? Is not Christ with us when two or three are gathered? While I do look forward to the full coming of the Kingdom of God the entrance and setting up of it happened back in AD 33 when our Lord cried tetellestai "It is finished" As when God talked to Elijah not through the forces of nature but through the still small voice has the Kingdom of God entered as prophesied in Isaiah 52-53. We who are of Christ are no longer slaves to this world, no longer people of the night but are slaves to righteousness, children of the morning.

There are 333 prophecies concerning the LORD Jesus Christ. He fulfilled 109 of them in His first advent, and will fulfill the other 224 in His second advent.

Yes.

This is one of the major reasons for His Millennial Reign ... He hasn't fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah 9:6 yet, but will do so during His millennial reign.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The part in red was fulfilled in His first advent ... the part in blue will not be fulfilled until His second advent.

If we are a part of his Kingdom then the govenment of his Kingdom is surely upon his shoulder.

Do you not call him, Wonderful, or Counsellor, or The Mighty God, how about Everlasting Father? Prince of Peace.

 

[SkyWriting]

Theologically speaking the ONLY difference between man and other animals is that man is Imago Dei, that is in the Image of God, what does this mean? ....

Then your premise is off. Jesus offered no salvation for any "thing" besides man.
If your going to exclude Jesus being here only for humans, then you're way off base.
Theologically speaking, what we look like is a minor matter. Where we come from is critical.

 

[Keachian]

Then your premise is off. Jesus offered no salvation for any "thing" besides man.
If your going to exclude Jesus being here only for humans, then you're way off base.

...

Progmonk talks about God's action in the Cross in terms of us being Imago Dei, Skywriting wants Progmonk to link the Cross only to humans.

Skywriting what other "thing" would you attribute to being Imago Dei?

Theologically speaking, what we look like is a minor matter. Where we come from is critical.

Um, let's do a small study on where we came from:
Creation of Man easy, that'd be 2:7;
The LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Creation of all the other animals, we might as well go with 2:19
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

I think we have a problem here...

 

[SkyWriting]

...Progmonk talks about God's action in the Cross in terms of us being Imago Dei, Skywriting wants Progmonk to link the Cross only to humans.Skywriting what other "thing" would you attribute to being Imago Dei? Um, let's do a small study on where we came from:Creation of Man easy, that'd be 2:7;The LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.Creation of all the other animals, we might as well go with 2:19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.I think we have a problem here...

Its not what I want. Jesus did not teach salvation for animals.
The Father gave us permission to eat them. There should be
nothing wrong with eating humans for food. Especially if they
are given the choice. That would allow us to be centered and
complete if we ate our parents.

You have an affection for beauty of the body....
the part that burns up. Not gets cooked.

 

[Keachian]

Its not what I want. Jesus did not teach salvation for animals.

I'm not saying there is, I'm specifically tying the doctrine of us being in the Image of God to the Cross, so it basically boils down to which animals do you think qualify to be in the Image of God apart from humans.

 

[Inan3]

Theologically speaking the ONLY difference between man and other animals is that man is Imago Dei, that is in the Image of God, what does this mean? Well to me it means that God condescends to interact with us on a personal level, first with Adam and Eve, then with Enoch, Noah and Abraham and so on culminating in his putting on of flesh and entering into the world as a helpless babe, taking our sins upon his shoulders and showing us what it truly means to be Imago Dei and dying on that wonderful Cross.

I get the image of God part but what I don't get is the "theologically speaking the ONLY difference between man and other animals..."

So please tell me "theologically" where do you get that idea?

 

[Inan3]

...

Progmonk talks about God's action in the Cross in terms of us being Imago Dei, Skywriting wants Progmonk to link the Cross only to humans.

Skywriting what other "thing" would you attribute to being Imago Dei?



Um, let's do a small study on where we came from:
Creation of Man easy, that'd be 2:7;
The LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Creation of all the other animals, we might as well go with 2:19
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

I think we have a problem here...

When you understand what the cross was for, you will understand that the cross was for man only! It was not necessary for Jesus to die for the animals ... they had no sin. Jesus' death was the penalty for sin. He died for us so that we would be free.

 

[Inan3]

I'm not saying there is, I'm specifically tying the doctrine of us being in the Image of God to the Cross, so it basically boils down to which animals do you think qualify to be in the Image of God apart from humans.

How is Jesus dying on the cross tied to man being created in the image of God? And where is the logic of that tied to qualifying ANY animal to being in the image of God? Let me just answer that for you here. There are NO animals made in the likeness and image of God. There are animals that God designed with similar characteristics but the most definitive way we are like God is that we are able to speak and therefore able to have dominion over the earth and to create and to choose.

 

[Metal Minister]

Its not what I want. Jesus did not teach salvation for animals.
The Father gave us permission to eat them. There should be
nothing wrong with eating humans for food. Especially if they
are given the choice. That would allow us to be centered and
complete if we ate our parents.

You have an affection for beauty of the body....
the part that burns up. Not gets cooked.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but are you saying cannibalism should be ok?

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Keachian]

I get the image of God part but what I don't get is the "theologically speaking the ONLY difference between man and other animals..."

So please tell me "theologically" where do you get that idea?

Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19 where God creates both man and animals using the same process. In fact the Hebrew word nephesh translated as soul in the KJV in verse 7 is also used in verse 19 to describe what Adam is naming. I've also loaded the idea of being Imago Dei towards God's relationship with us rather than how we are created/what we look like.

When you understand what the cross was for, you will understand that the cross was for man only! It was not necessary for Jesus to die for the animals ... they had no sin. Jesus' death was the penalty for sin. He died for us so that we would be free.

Again, me tying the miracle of the Cross into how we are to be in the Image of God deals with any misconception that the miracle of the Cross was for anybeast other than man.

How is Jesus dying on the cross tied to man being created in the image of God?

I did it, but also this is largely me pulling from Romans 5, Paul's discussion of new life in Christ as the second Adam and 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul describes Christ as the first fruit of creation. I think C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright have also made similar arguments.

And where is the logic of that tied to qualifying ANY animal to being in the image of God? Let me just answer that for you here. There are NO animals made in the likeness and image of God. There are animals that God designed with similar characteristics but the most definitive way we are like God is that we are able to speak and therefore able to have dominion over the earth and to create and to choose.

I don't say that anything other than the animal of man qualifies for being in the Image of God. I was merely trying to point out to SkyWriting that to continue to question about my linking of the Cross with the doctrine of Imago Dei while holding the creation of man and animals in a literal/semi-literal sense of them being created in identical ways calls the idea that only man is Imago Dei.

 

[Keachian]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but are you saying cannibalism should be ok?

May God Richly Bless You! MM

I thought that too, strange world eh?

 

[Metal Minister]

I thought that too, strange world eh?

Very strange apparently...@___@

May God Richly Bless You! MM