coloradoatheist

Not sure if this is the right forum so it can be moved whereever it needs to be.

But I'm having a discussion with a jewish rabbi (so he should know more than me) but I am curious about the ancient interpretation of Genesis 1:26

The concern is over the our image and our likeness and the person I am arguing with, and I've seen it elsewhere, says that it only means something like spiritual image and not a physical image. But my argument, and I want to know if I am completely off base is that the ancient Israelites would probably have seen it as human or the physical form because of the comparison of other religions who had animals or half animals as God such as Baal who was the bull. So my question is do we have any artifacts, writings (in or out of Bible) that showed that it was meant as spiritual image since the author(s) penned Genesis?


Mike

Anat

Well, you can find plenty of places where God's body parts are mentioned in the Tanakh, especially his right arm, and there is mention that Moses actually saw God, though only from behind. Most of the time it is easy to interpret these instances metaphorically. The creation story in Genesis 1-2:3 is attributed to author P, which is the latest source and tends to have the most abstract perception of God, so I don't think the author of this story had a physical image of God in mind.

Chris Weimer

Elohim/

Crazy Liz

I don't know much about what the ancient Israelites thought it meant, but I find the interpretation of Orthodox Christians very intriguing. It has to do with not making any graven images.

The two greatest commandments were, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind," and "Love your neighbor as yourself." The lack of graven images of God was intended to call attention to the fact that each and every other human being is the image of God, much more perfect than any image a human could create.

We make no images of God because our neighbors are our only images of God.

If you get a chance to ask the rabbi what he thinks of this idea, I would be interested in hearing his response.

kciredor reprah

That is a most interesting answer, I never looked at it that way.

Peace

mrzyphl

The concern is over the our image and our likeness and the person I am arguing with, and I've seen it elsewhere, says that it only means something like spiritual image and not a physical image.

Mike[/QUOTE]


This is the old 'it means what it sez but doesnt sez what it means' double fake crap. Of course the God(s) of Genesis were anthropomorphic. The God walked thru the Garden searching for Adam & Eve. The aroma of sacrifices were pleasing to it. Having legs and a nose are obvious physical attributes that couldnt possibly be misinterpreted as metaphysical.

Andy

coloradoatheist

Thanks for the replies.

I agree with you but an actual image of God probably changed through time because there are problems like how is God everywhere if he is a body or does he die in human form, etc...

Crazy Liz,
While I agree with your reasoning I think he would disagree because he believes in a transcendal god that really is only spirit but what makes up part of humans, but he also believes a human is made up of 5 parts (he's from the kabballah understanding). But I also found it funny that it also said God was jealous at these other idols, but why care? Also I've seen people argue that judaism only gradually over time became more monotheistic and other Gods were accepted as existing but with lower powers which could be made for the case elohim because it's an extension of El a caananite God.


Mike

Anat

Mike, the various authors of the Torah had different views of what God was and how he interacted with humans. The J source has the most anthropomorphic view, with God walking through the garden of Eden and talking to people directly. E has anthropomorphisms, but God only appears in visions and dreams. Angels may interact with people in God's name, though. P, much later than the others, has a transcendal deity who commands from above but otherwise doesn't interact with humans.

(The rabbi may disagree with the idea of multiple authorship, though)

seebs

Lots of early commentators, at least, tended to interpret this stuff mostly metaphorically. I don't know about the really ancient Jewish beliefs, but the Orthodox I know don't think that "in our image" makes God a hairy biped.

PatrickHays

On a recent History channel program a theologian and an anthropologist expressed this statement of "us" as being the start of the foundations of the Judaic faith which was based upon Sumerian polytheism with a father/mother god and minor gods, similar to the various City gods of Sumer and regional gods, yet with each of these gods being a descendent or creation of the father/mother god. Thus it is the main god or father/mother god talking to all the gods. They also went on to explain the transition from polytheistic belief to monotheistic belief and how it is described through the Judaic texts (first five books of the bible).