Featured A Novel Soteriological Explanation in the Calvinism vs Arminianism Debate

So this is an interesting thing about language. I said it didn't matter, not because they are synonymous, but because BOTH are used. So if you have a problem with our being created in God's image, but not in His likeness, it is moot, because we are created both in His likeness (ok with you) AND in His image (not ok with you).

And I proved that point already by quoting Gen 1:26, twice now, if I haven't lost count. I'll do it again:
[Gen 1:26 KJV] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

This is, again, a red herring. The original discussion was about the characteristics communicated to us by God in His creation of us. I do not deny that we are in His image and His likeness--and I never have. What you seem not to grasp is that our being in His image means that we are His representatives. Our being in His likeness means that we share (or exhibit) certain characteristics similar to (but not exactly the same as) his.

You haven't proven anything because you're chasing a rabbit of your own invention.

The Archangel

 

The Archangel[/QUOTE]

Well, let's try to get back on track shall we? It's a bit roundabout, but stay with me.

You mean above that I haven't proven what you said I was trying to prove. My point is that I wasn't trying to prove what you thought I was trying to prove.

Shall we revisit?

You'll notice that I pointed out (with secular reference) that I'm not the only one that thinks "likeness" and "image" are synonyms. And I hope you realize that "synonym" doesn't mean the words have to have the same root, but just the opposite, they are usually words that don't share the same root.

Nevertheless, you made the statement that the meaning I was trying to pour into "image" is more like what "likeness" means. Whether they are synonyms or not, your statement affirms my assertion that one of the things God did when He made Adam "in His image and after His likeness" must include emotions. You affirmed this as well, here:

I think we're back on track now, and here's my response:

You affirmed what I said before, which was that God doesn't react the same way we do when we emote. So I'm having a hard time understanding how God's emotions (not the expression or reaction, but the emotions themselves) are different from ours.

 

You attacked Derf for no reason You could of just simply answered the question but no your to high and mighty. Your the type that trips and breaks there own neck because you can't see where you are going, with your nose stuck up so high.
MB

 

You still do not get it. You cannot equate image and likeness as they are different and refer to different things. Modern secular dictionaries cannot and do not approach the meaning contained in the Hebrew. You assigned something to “image” that is part of “likeness.” The difference matters. We go no where until you demonstrate understanding of this.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Let's try this again.

I will humbly concede that I have no idea what the difference between "image" and "likeness" is as used in Gen 1:26. I have a thread I started where I asked for help on this difference, where I tagged you, so that you can give me input on the difference. Personally, I don't think the difference matters for this conversation because, as I've pointed out repeatedly, both "image" and "likeness" are used in Gen 1:26.

Our conversation was about emotions, and we both acknowledge that both God and man have emotions. If you think that our emotions are "fundamentally different" than God's (you said as much in an earlier post), how are they fundamentally different? (please don't say "because we react to them differently, because that is not what "fundamentally" means in this case)

Can God hate?
Can God love?
Can God be disappointed?
Can God be frustrated?
Can God be angry?
If the answer to any of the foregoing is yes, then:
Can we hate, love, be disappointed, be frustrated, be angry?

If the answer to any of the second batch is yes, then aren't we agreeing that God can have emotions, the same ones as we have, yet without sin (His reaction is perfect, ours is corrupted)?

 

Here's a link to a thread I started to talk about this particular distinction, if it can be called that.
In God's image, or after His likeness?
I'm trying to demonstrate some understanding of this, at your suggestion.