I just have 1 question ...

[SkyWriting]

Ummm---that is what this thread was about.

But you sited no such persons or groups and none have turned up.

 

[mmksparbud]

But you sited no such persons or groups and none have turned up.

From the OP

is that view/teaching biblical, that only men are created in the image of God, and women are not?

Thanks! I think my congregation (most of the leadership, sadly) is trying to spin this angle (I mean the order of creation) due to some underlying misogynist Bible interpretation (like all women are evil, and they just want to ruin the world etc, etc ... and they are actually serious about it). I am rather upset, sorry, this was just the last piece of this series performed yesterday by one of our best pastors, so I am extremely disappointed (to say the least).

 

[SkyWriting]

From the OP

So they didn't actually say "all women are evil, and they just want to ruin the world etc, etc" but you imagined this enemy for us all to battle. OK.

 

[mmksparbud]

So they didn't actually say "all women are evil, and they just want to ruin the world etc, etc" but you imagined this enemy for us all to battle. OK.

What part of this escapes you????

"Thanks! I think my congregation (most of the leadership, sadly) is trying to spin this angle (I mean the order of creation) due to some underlying misogynist Bible interpretation (like all women are evil, and they just want to ruin the world etc, etc ... and they are actually serious about it)."

 

[Dave-W]

I have believed that it takes both genders to fully express God's image in human form. I base that on the Genesis 2 passage. I mean, this is God we are talking about.

Indeed. While He is addressed as Father, a masculine term, most of the descriptors are feminine.

The best example is the Name, El Shaddai; usually rendered the All Sufficient God. But "shad" is the Hebrew word for breast.

 

[Small Fish]

is that view/teaching biblical, that only men are created in the image of God, and women are not?

You will notice that when Adam was created in the image of God that Eve was still in Adam. Male and female created He them. One unit.

The same thing with Jesus Christ (the second Adam). He had both male and female in Him. Like Adam fell in a deep sleep and out of his rib a woman was made, the same way on the cross Jesus was speared on his side and water and blood came out of His body and after that He gave up the Ghost. Water, Blood, Spirit.

Water, blood and spirit is the formula for life. Out of His side came His Bride (Church) through justification (water), sanctification (blood) and babtism of the Holy Spirit (spirit).

The earth goes through this same process. Water by Noah, Blood by Jesus and Spirit at the end time.

 

[Ken Rank]

21 and~he~will~make~FALL(Verb) (וַיַּפֵּל / wai'ya'peyl) YHWH (יְהוָה / YHWH) Elohiym (אֱלֹהִים / e'lo'him) TRANCE (תַּרְדֵּמָה / tar'dey'mah) UPON (עַל / al) the~HUMAN (הָאָדָם / ha'a'dam) and~he~will~SLEEP(Verb) (וַיִּישָׁן / wai'yi'shan) and~he~will~TAKE(Verb) (וַיִּקַּח / wai'yi'qahh) UNIT (אַחַת / a'hhat) from~RIB~s~him (מִצַּלְעֹתָיו / mi'tsal'o'taw) and~he~will~SHUT(Verb) (וַיִּסְגֹּר / wai'yis'gor) FLESH (בָּשָׂר / ba'sar) UNDER~her (תַּחְתֶּנָּה / tahh'te'nah)

and YHWH the Elohiym made a trance fall upon the human and he slept, and he took a unit from his ribs and he shut the flesh under her,
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mtt/G2.html

RIB (fem. צלה / צלע / tsa'la / tsey'la) Any of the paired bony or cartilaginous bones that stiffen the walls of the thorax and protect the organs beneath. A ridge of a hill from its similar shape to a rib. Also, the side. | Strong's: #6763

And yes--when God took the rib he shut the flesh under her---thst is what the original reads, Adam was referred as a her in the 2nd part of that verse. ~him (masc. ו / o) Third person masculine singular pronoun (him) also used as a possessive pronoun (of him or his). | Alt. Trans.: his

Hebrew is a fun language.

It is... but, just to throw this in, Brown Driver Briggs and Gesenius both have as the first definition "side" and second "rib." It can be rib and the point doesn't change that Chavah was genetically a female Adam because she did come from inside of him.... but I wanted to share this because if she comes form the "side" of Adam... then there are other pictures involved. So, here is how that word (tsal'ah) has been used in other places:

H6763
צלעה / צלע
tsêlâ‛ / tsal‛âh
Total KJV Occurrences: 48
side, 24
Exo_25:12 (2), Exo_26:20, Exo_26:26-27 (3), Exo_26:35 (2), Exo_36:25, Exo_36:31-32 (2), Exo_37:3 (2), 2Sa_16:13, Job_18:12, Eze_41:5-9 (7), Eze_41:11, Eze_41:26
chambers, 8
1Ki_6:5, Eze_41:6-9 (5), Eze_41:11, Eze_41:26
sides, 4
Exo_25:14, Exo_27:7, Exo_37:5, Exo_38:7
chamber, 3
1Ki_6:8, Eze_41:5, Eze_41:9
boards, 2
1Ki_6:15-16 (2)
corners, 2
Exo_30:4, Exo_37:27
beams, 1
1Ki_7:3
leaves, 1
1Ki_6:34
planks, 1
1Ki_6:15
rib, 1
Gen_2:22
ribs, 1
Gen_2:21

Notice out of 24 times only in Genesis 2 is it used as rib(s). Anywhere and everywhere else, in the 22 other times it is used, it is not used as rib.

 

[Ken Rank]

But back to your one question.
Nobody seems to claim only men are in God's image. (God is Spirit)

The word for image in Genesis is tselem (H6754) and Strong's says: "From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol." Brown Driver Briggs says, " 1) image 1a) images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods) 1b) image, likeness (of resemblance) 1c) mere, empty, image, semblance (figuratively)." And the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon says, "An outline or representation of an original as a shadow is the outline of the original."

God is a Spirit, yes.... but God has an image that is His own and Adam was made in that image. I submit that the Son is that image:

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

If Christ is the image of God (God, a Spirit, manifested in the flesh) and Adam was made in God's image... then the second Adam was the pattern of the first Adam.

 

[ak77]

You might want to mention to these people that Eve was deceived--but Adam wasn't. That is why scripture reads

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

instead of by one woman all have sinned. He did it knowingly.

1Ti_2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Adam knew ad yet chose to follow her. Had he stuck to the word of God, this world wouldn't be in this mess! Eve did not seduce Adam. ​

I tried to mention something like this (not this exact verse though), but they shut me down (asked me why am I still attending the services if I do not agree with the teaching ... ). Also, these pastors interpret the verses above as is this were a big minus for Eve, and a huge plus for Adam - because Eve was deceived and Adam was not, period (leaving out Rom 5,12). According to them Adam practically was tricked by Eve, because Eve was bad/evil etc.

 

[ak77]

So far as I've seen in the last year plus some, every use of the word misogynist has been from a viewpoint in error. The 'school' that teaches words like that and the views associated with them is (apparently) very large and wrong and growing.
Not that some of the things you noted after 25 "good years"? (I think you posted)
are not something to be concerned about......
just the wording / adjectives used in describing it are not Scripturally sound I think.
(and thus also, potentially, the views expressed and the attitudes may not be as well)

"....get back to normal..."

Raising the dead, healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind,
laying down each one their lives for one another daily,
preferring other's needs are met well before their own ?
unlimited peace, joy and righteousness daily without measure ?

i.e. Scriptural "normal" ?

Yep, I meant scripturally normal (biblical) Apologies for any errors is wording, English is not my 1st language. The church (congregation) has been founded roughly 30 yrs ago, I joined 17 yrs ago, and for the first 5-6 yrs everything was perfect (and I was living in that big, happy bubble with God), then I got a few reality checks at church, but it was still manageable (I was able to process it), but the teachings that are being preached nowadays just do not reflect anything I know of God (e.g. we should forget that He is merciful, stop whining, He does not care about the petty problems we have here, we must support corrupt politicians because they have been chosen by God ... and one more thing from last week - I am still trying to wrap my head around it - that the Old Testament gives a deeper and more accurate revelation about the thoughts and emotions of God, just because it is longer than the New T. I do not have any problems with the OT, really, but I will go with Jesus anytime, even if the NT text is shorter

 

[ak77]

Be careful with that POV. It can be taken to support same sex marriage.

That ONLY applies to how we get saved and that we have equal standing before HIS throne.

I would never in a million years link that Bible verse to same sex marriage ... and I very much hope that I will never hear a teaching making this association ...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No.

There is definitely a human added bias in scripture toward maleness.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No.

It's strictly a Spiritual Image, so is free of gender choices.......

 

[Ron Gurley]

Genesis 1:27
God created man in His own (SPIRITUAL) image, in the (CHARACTER) image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 5:2
He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man(KIND) in the day when they were created.

 

[SkyWriting]

No.

God is Spirit and not a fleshy guy sitting on clouds.

When man was re-created in the Image of God
is was a Spiritual conversion of natural or animal
man. Not a self portrait like

 

[Imagican]

Why is this such a difficult topic?

We, (all of us), have been informed that it is not up to the clay to determine it's shape. That it is the potter that determines it's final form.

The Bible pretty much states that man was created for Christ and that woman was created for man.

THE image in which man was created was the 'image of God'.

It is my opinion, based solely on the Bible itself, is that the 'image' referred to has nothing to do with our 'physical form'.

While many artists over time have chosen to depict God in 'human form', nothing in the Bible indicates that God has any such 'form'.

So we have absolutely NO idea what God 'looks' like or if He even has a 'form' that we can visibly comprehend.

Can God even take 'physical form'?

I would offer that if we, in physical form, cannot even gaze upon God and 'live', it would be difficult to understand how the 'human form' could contain the 'glory of God' without being destroyed.

The 'Spirit' of God? That is a different question. For there is also much indication that the ESSENCE that is God may well be 'different' than The Spirit of God. But then we are still left with the question of whether a 'spirit' has any specific 'visible' form.

So, with these things in mind, neither male or female 'shapes' are in the IMAGE of God. They are merely vessels of flesh designed to hold the 'spirit' of each. And it is that 'spirit' or 'soul' that was created in the image of God. The word 'image' not determinate of 'sight'. Little different than using the term 'image' to describe something like 'love' or 'hate' or something that cannot be literally 'seen' but can certainly be determined in existence. For in truth, we were created in the 'image of love'. For that IS what God IS: LOVE. And all He has ever attempted to teach us from the 'beginning' is: Love.

But we DO KNOW this: God is the HEAD of Christ, Christ is the HEAD of man, man is the HEAD of woman. For from Adam, a part of him was used to create Eve. Man was created FIRST and then woman was created FROM him/FOR him. This IS what the Bible says and there is nothing confusing about it unless one simply CHOOSES confusion over truth.

And if one is capable of submitting themselves to God through Christ, how hard should it be to submit oneself, in love, to others? In other words, why would ANYONE insist that they have the RIGHT to be whatever they choose so far as independence is concerned? For that is certainly not the 'spirit of God' living within the individual that chooses SELF over a sharing of love with God and each other.

Christ's message was clear. It will not be those that serve SELF that will inherit the Kingdom of God. It will be those that choose to serve God and each other. And those that serve others the MOST will inherit the greater PLACE in God's Kingdom.

Yet we constantly see many proclaiming to be followers of Christ insisting that they can be their 'OWN' entity and insist upon their own INDEPENDENCE and still be followers. I certainly don't see this option offered in the Bible. For how does one insist upon being 'themselves' and consider that any form of FOLLOWING?

We are suppose to strive to be 'Christlike'. And that REQUIRES that we be followers instead of the leaders that many insist they have every RIGHT to be. That requires that we be 'servers' instead of insisting upon 'being served'. For how could one possibly learn what love is if they insist upon being SERVED by others?

This is the MAIN reason that we have been encouraged to shun the WEALTH that would separate us from TRUE love and lead only to SELF LOVE.

Each of us is offered the opportunity to either accept or deny the TRUTH. And that includes the natural order created by God through Christ.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Christie insb]

Why is this such a difficult topic?

We, (all of us), have been informed that it is not up to the clay to determine it's shape. That it is the potter that determines it's final form.

The Bible pretty much states that man was created for Christ and that woman was created for man.

THE image in which man was created was the 'image of God'.

It is my opinion, based solely on the Bible itself, is that the 'image' referred to has nothing to do with our 'physical form'.

While many artists over time have chosen to depict God in 'human form', nothing in the Bible indicates that God has any such 'form'.

So we have absolutely NO idea what God 'looks' like or if He even has a 'form' that we can visibly comprehend.

Can God even take 'physical form'?

I would offer that if we, in physical form, cannot even gaze upon God and 'live', it would be difficult to understand how the 'human form' could contain the 'glory of God' without being destroyed.

The 'Spirit' of God? That is a different question. For there is also much indication that the ESSENCE that is God may well be 'different' than The Spirit of God. But then we are still left with the question of whether a 'spirit' has any specific 'visible' form.

So, with these things in mind, neither male or female 'shapes' are in the IMAGE of God. They are merely vessels of flesh designed to hold the 'spirit' of each. And it is that 'spirit' or 'soul' that was created in the image of God. The word 'image' not determinate of 'sight'. Little different than using the term 'image' to describe something like 'love' or 'hate' or something that cannot be literally 'seen' but can certainly be determined in existence. For in truth, we were created in the 'image of love'. For that IS what God IS: LOVE. And all He has ever attempted to teach us from the 'beginning' is: Love.

But we DO KNOW this: God is the HEAD of Christ, Christ is the HEAD of man, man is the HEAD of woman. For from Adam, a part of him was used to create Eve. Man was created FIRST and then woman was created FROM him/FOR him. This IS what the Bible says and there is nothing confusing about it unless one simply CHOOSES confusion over truth.

And if one is capable of submitting themselves to God through Christ, how hard should it be to submit oneself, in love, to others? In other words, why would ANYONE insist that they have the RIGHT to be whatever they choose so far as independence is concerned? For that is certainly not the 'spirit of God' living within the individual that chooses SELF over a sharing of love with God and each other.

Christ's message was clear. It will not be those that serve SELF that will inherit the Kingdom of God. It will be those that choose to serve God and each other. And those that serve others the MOST will inherit the greater PLACE in God's Kingdom.

Yet we constantly see many proclaiming to be followers of Christ insisting that they can be their 'OWN' entity and insist upon their own INDEPENDENCE and still be followers. I certainly don't see this option offered in the Bible. For how does one insist upon being 'themselves' and consider that any form of FOLLOWING?

We are suppose to strive to be 'Christlike'. And that REQUIRES that we be followers instead of the leaders that many insist they have every RIGHT to be. That requires that we be 'servers' instead of insisting upon 'being served'. For how could one possibly learn what love is if they insist upon being SERVED by others?

This is the MAIN reason that we have been encouraged to shun the WEALTH that would separate us from TRUE love and lead only to SELF LOVE.

Each of us is offered the opportunity to either accept or deny the TRUTH. And that includes the natural order created by God through Christ.

Blessings,

MEC

I found this comment puzzling:

Can God even take 'physical form'?

What is Jesus if not God in physical form? To me it's a three part miracle: first Jesus, being in very nature God, took human form. Then -- He died. How could God die? Makes no sense. Then, the widely recognized miracle, He rose from the dead.
So we don't know how God could take physical form. But then, that's why He is God and I am not.