"Image" and "Likeness" question

[KATHXOYMENOC]

is it perhaps a language issue btwn Greek and Hebrew? I'm just guessing here, I know nothing about it.

Not in a basic sense. Both the Hebrew of Genesis 1:26 and the Greek of Genesis 1:26 use two different words for "image" and "likeness." For some reason, at some point (according to Wenham, beginning with Irenaeus) some Church Fathers saw or sought to make a distinction, and developed an anthropology and soteriology based on such a distinction. Whether or not this distinction is crucial to Orthodox soteriology is I guess what I'm trying to find out. If it is, then what are the ramifications if it is found to be a false distinction?

 

[gzt]

re: James. I hadn't actually read the verse during this discussion yet. A simplistic reply would be that we dont' deny men were "created in the likeness" as St James says. It is, after all, exactly what Genesis says.

 

[gzt]

[note that that's more likely a clever reply than a good one, I recommend looking at what people actually say, a better argument would probably be what I said earlier plus an argument along the lines of neither St James nor Genesis speaking with the precise meanings the terms later acquired, just as St Peter's "partakers of the divine nature", various other biblical and early patristic citations of the word "nature" and such may disagree slightly with the post-nicene patristic sense in which "nature" was taken, as well as differences between later readings of the distinction between episkopos and prebuteros: again, a case of the Bible providing terminology which is not taken in the exact sense the Bible uses them while still being used to present other Biblical - in the broad sense - truths]

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

[note that that's more likely a clever reply than a good one, I recommend looking at what people actually say, a better argument would probably be what I said earlier plus an argument along the lines of neither St James nor Genesis speaking with the precise meanings the terms later acquired, just as St Peter's "partakers of the divine nature", various other biblical and early patristic citations of the word "nature" and such may disagree slightly with the post-nicene patristic sense in which "nature" was taken, as well as differences between later readings of the distinction between episkopos and prebuteros: again, a case of the Bible providing terminology which is not taken in the exact sense the Bible uses them while still being used to present other Biblical - in the broad sense - truths]

Interesting thoughts.

 

[Philothei]

According to the Fathers of our church the image refers to our souls the way we are fashioned after God. Our likeness is attributed to the virtues, we are created with the possibility to be like God, we bear his attributes. Read St. Basil on the Image and Likeness, if you can find it on the internet that is great! If not try a theological library. It is a great read. There is some refference to St. Basil ...

"First, to paraphrase St. John Chrysostom, a human body cannot be changed into a donkey’s body, how then can a human spirit be changed into something so different as a demon or a Ghost? We were created in the image and likeness of God, not the devil. The Soul, not the body is in the image of God, according to St. Basil the Great. The soul is the core of our identity. The soul is what each of us is as a human being. Our bodies belong to us, but material possessions do not belong to us (and this is important for our text). The body is a wondrous and awesome vehicle which has been created to house that which is in the image of God. For St. Basil, we are created in the image and likeness of God. The image of God in the soul is the free choice and rationality we have. The likeness is the Christ-like virtues we get from God when we cooperate with Christ and the Holy Spirit with our freedom. Only we, of all God’s creatures have been honored by God by giving us the ability to fashion the divine image within ourselves."

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=...ording+st+basil&d=QzG9suxsONqJ&icp=1&.intl=us



It is a great topic. God be with you in your search...
God bless,
Philothei

 

[Lotar]

St. Maximus the Confessor wrote a lot on this subject. He said that man was created in the likeness of God as part of his volative faculty, or something like that.

 

[buzuxi02]

A good book which covers this is called "The Divinization of the Christian", According to the Greek Fathers, by Jules Gross.

I'll give you a few small excerpts from the book, typing the whole thing out would be too much.

pg 61-62 "Beggining with St, Ireneous, many fathers concluded from the account of the forming of Adam that a certain deification of the latter exists. Distinguishing between image (eikon) and likeness (omoiosis), they understood this latter item in the sense of a more perfect similarity, which would surpass by far what humankind possess in their nature.
In reality the sacred writer (Irenous) employs the two terms like synonyms, perhaps with the slight difference that the second should clarify the first.........

pg. 221 "Consequently Cyril (of alexandria) distinguishes a twofold divine likeness in Adam: The one given with his reasoning and free nature; the other due to the prescense of the Holy Spirit in him. The latter is far superior to the former because it makes mankind partkae of incorruptibility, which is an essential property of the divine nature.
Basically therefore Cyril takes up again the distinction of Irenious, but with the difference that he vigoriously affirms the perfect synonymy of the biblical terms eikon and omoiosos........"

The book analyzes a few other fathers on their distinction between the terms. For me after reading the quotes from the Fathers supplied by the book its more for the sake of exegesis rather than doctrine between the two terms

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

A good book which covers this is called "The Divinization of the Christian", According to the Greek Fathers, by Jules Gross.

I'll give you a few small excerpts from the book, typing the whole thing out would be too much.

pg 61-62 "Beggining with St, Ireneous, many fathers concluded from the account of the forming of Adam that a certain deification of the latter exists. Distinguishing between image (eikon) and likeness (omoiosis), they understood this latter item in the sense of a more perfect similarity, which would surpass by far what humankind possess in their nature.
In reality the sacred writer (Irenous) employs the two terms like synonyms, perhaps with the slight difference that the second should clarify the first.........

pg. 221 "Consequently Cyril (of alexandria) distinguishes a twofold divine likeness in Adam: The one given with his reasoning and free nature; the other due to the prescense of the Holy Spirit in him. The latter is far superior to the former because it makes mankind partkae of incorruptibility, which is an essential property of the divine nature.
Basically therefore Cyril takes up again the distinction of Irenious, but with the difference that he vigoriously affirms the perfect synonymy of the biblical terms eikon and omoiosos........"

The book analyzes a few other fathers on their distinction between the terms. For me after reading the quotes from the Fathers supplied by the book its more for the sake of exegesis rather than doctrine between the two terms

That seems to be what the Hebrew reflects as well. I.e., "likeness" in Genesis 1:26 clarifies/emphasizes "image," or the two words are basically synonyms.

 

[Kristos]

Answer: see The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Lossky.

lol - Beat me to it