Can anyone confirm; I have the same doubt in different languages... Do humans look like God ? What is "our" image ? Who are 'our' ? God "said" : who heard that ? "Likeness" ?

Edited April 21Apr 21 by Externet
Added image

Ambiguous statements can be interpreted multiple ways. That’s something that religion leverages. Is it physical? Is it spiritual? Is it general, or specific? Whatever you want the answer to be, is the answer you use.

There must be a distinction between "image" and "likeness" if you don't like a redundant god. Image seems straightforward, a visual depiction, to imply that this god looks like us. Likeness may imply characteristics other than sensory ones, such as character, behavior, and demeanor. We're supposed to share this god's joyfulness, patience, desire for peace, kindness, generosity, love, and compassion for others. Unfortunately, this god is no great mentor when it comes to responsibility and self-control, more aspects of its "likeness" we were allegedly created in.

2 hours ago, Externet said:

Can anyone confirm; I have the same doubt in different languages... Do humans look like God ? What is "our" image ? Who are 'our' ? God "said" : who heard that ? "Likeness" ?

I think the modern Christian interpretation would be that it refers to the concept of an immortal soul and of moral awareness. I don’t know what the Jewish interpretation would be.

9 hours ago, Externet said:

Can anyone confirm; I have the same doubt in different languages... Do humans look like God ? What is "our" image ? Who are 'our' ? God "said" : who heard that ? "Likeness" ?

is the formula

'i am that'

or

'i am I'

or

'i am'

this formula is found in various teachings

the meaning is that everything is one

how far your consciousness can afford to conform to this formula will determine your conscious view of what you are asking about

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

I think the modern Christian interpretation would be that it refers to the concept of an immortal soul and of moral awareness.

So, God's image has nothing to do with how He looks? In Hebrew, tselem (image) basically means representation, or copy, or shadow, something imitating the original.

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So, God's image has nothing to do with how He looks? In Hebrew, tselem (image) basically means representation, or copy, or shadow, something imitating the original.

In Judaism there is an image of Adam Kadmon reflected in the earth's ocean and disintegrated into many images

of sorts

you can interpret it any way you want

2 hours ago, 0340 said:

In Judaism there is an image of Adam Kadmon reflected in the earth's ocean and disintegrated into many images

of sorts

you can interpret it any way you want

So, worthless then, in terms of discussion.

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

So, God's image has nothing to do with how He looks? In Hebrew, tselem (image) basically means representation, or copy, or shadow, something imitating the original.

Yes, it’s obviously nothing to do with physical appearance.

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

So, worthless then, in terms of discussion.

value of the information is determined by the observer

2 hours ago, 0340 said:

value of the information is determined by the observer

The value of the information is determined by the understander, for instance, when one understands the "bible", then one doesn't need a God; whilst, simultaneously, understanding why other people do need a God.

The value of information is determined by the teacher... 😉

Nearly all of my teacher's were roughly humanoid looking...

Edited April 22Apr 22 by dimreepr

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

In Hebrew, tselem (image) basically means representation, or copy, or shadow, something imitating the original.

I think one has to also consider that language changes over time, that the Old Testament was based on oral stories that were eventually written down, and errors are made in copying/retelling. What they meant when they told the story ~4000 years ago might not be what we interpret today.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

I think one has to also consider that language changes over time, that the Old Testament was based on oral stories that were eventually written down, and errors are made in copying/retelling. What they meant when they told the story ~4000 years ago might not be what we interpret today.

Indeed, it's cancel culture writ large...

The bible followers and devotees that follow their religious beliefs are then, interpreting and learning wrong/different meanings of the scriptures from a defunct language from ~4000+years ago and from ~2000 years ago.

Setting aside the modern meaning; if worth accepting the phrase

Who are "us" above ? God and who else ?

Who are "our" above ? God and who else ?

And God is humanoid ? Any witnesses of that ?

And who heard God saying that above speaking to no one ?

The above phrase by about page one; followed by hundred of pages of zillion more asseverations constituting the foundations of a religion. Can any hyper educated professional theologist doctorate master explain at least that first Genesis 1-26 ?

The priests during my 12 year duration catholic school -with mandatory daily mass- never touched it.

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes, it’s obviously nothing to do with physical appearance.

I missed the obvious part completely.

So making man in god's image is interpreted in modern teachings as giving him a soul that can't be destroyed (I was also unaware that the Abrahamic god has a soul - who gave Him that?!), and an awareness of right and wrong? Again, I wasn't aware of this. I thought knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil were obtained when Adam and Eve ate the apple. Was that part of God's plan, is He claiming credit for giving the original humans His "likeness" in terms of moral awareness? Each time I've read the Bible, it was the snake who urges the humans to gain moral awareness by eating the apple, which made God angry enough to kick them out of Eden.

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

I think one has to also consider that language changes over time, that the Old Testament was based on oral stories that were eventually written down, and errors are made in copying/retelling. What they meant when they told the story ~4000 years ago might not be what we interpret today.

To me, this is part of the weakness of religions. What was originally meant is allowed to change with the times so it's never wrong or out of touch. It's good for the religion, but bad for those taking it all on faith or trying to find reason in their beliefs. It reminds me of George Carlin's observation, that even though the Catholics decided they don't have to eat fish on Fridays, there are still people in Hell doing time on the meat rap.

11 minutes ago, Externet said:

Who are "us" above ? God and who else ?

Who are "our" above ? God and who else ?

Other gods? He did command His followers to put no other gods before Him.

58 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I missed the obvious part completely.

So making man in god's image is interpreted in modern teachings as giving him a soul that can't be destroyed (I was also unaware that the Abrahamic god has a soul - who gave Him that?!), and an awareness of right and wrong? Again, I wasn't aware of this. I thought knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil were obtained when Adam and Eve ate the apple. Was that part of God's plan, is He claiming credit for giving the original humans His "likeness" in terms of moral awareness? Each time I've read the Bible, it was the snake who urges the humans to gain moral awareness by eating the apple, which made God angry enough to kick them out of Eden.

To me, this is part of the weakness of religions. What was originally meant is allowed to change with the times so it's never wrong or out of touch. It's good for the religion, but bad for those taking it all on faith or trying to find reason in their beliefs. It reminds me of George Carlin's observation, that even though the Catholics decided they don't have to eat fish on Fridays, there are still people in Hell doing time on the meat rap.

Other gods? He did command His followers to put no other gods before Him.

Sorry, yes you're right about the moral awareness bit. But the whole story is allegorical anyway.

On 4/22/2025 at 4:45 PM, exchemist said:

Sorry, yes you're right about the moral awareness bit. But the whole story is allegorical anyway.

Indeed +1 God really gets in the way, sometimes...

I watched one video about the book "City of God" by Augustine Aurelius. And in this book Augustine says "And we indeed recognize in ourselves the image of God, that is, of the supreme Trinity, an image which, though it be not equal to God,or rather, though it be very far removed from Him,—being neither co-eternal, nor, to say all in a word, consubstantial with Him,—is yet nearer to Him in nature than any other of His works, and is destined to be yet restored, that it may bear a still closer resemblance. For we both are, and know that we are, and delight in our being, and our knowledge of it"

As an author of the video explains: 1) We have our being 2) We know about our being 3) We love our being and our knowledge of it.

And the the book goes "But, without any delusive representation of images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am, and that I know and delight in this. In respect of these truths, I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians, who say, What if you are deceived? For if I am deceived, I am. For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by this same token I am."

So, Descartes wasn't original in his statement.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

"And we indeed recognize in ourselves the image of God, that is, of the supreme Trinity, an image which, though it be not equal to God,or rather, though it be very far removed from Him,—being neither co-eternal, nor, to say all in a word, consubstantial with Him,—is yet nearer to Him in nature than any other of His works, and is destined to be yet restored, that it may bear a still closer resemblance. For we both are, and know that we are, and delight in our being, and our knowledge of it"

This seems to say, "The way we imagine god, humans look the most like him, even though we're not even close. That means it's our destiny to be just like him."

1 hour ago, m_m said:

"But, without any delusive representation of images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am, and that I know and delight in this. In respect of these truths, I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians, who say, What if you are deceived? For if I am deceived, I am. For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by this same token I am."

So, Descartes wasn't original in his statement.

Except Descartes mentioned thinking as part of his statement. Isn't your faith sort of the opposite of thinking?

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

This seems to say, "The way we imagine god, humans look the most like him, even though we're not even close. That means it's our destiny to be just like him."

Except Descartes mentioned thinking as part of his statement. Isn't your faith sort of the opposite of thinking?

Agree apart from your “therefore”. Augustine (of Hippo, writing in about 200AD) just says mankind is destined to resemble God more closely, not that this is because of any current resemblance. What he writes seems consistent with the Christian teaching that Man possesses an immortal soul that can enjoy eternal life with God in heaven. (But I must admit that these early Fathers of the Church wrote in terms of abstract theology that are not always obvious in meaning to those of us who have not studied theology.)

The fact that Augustine says this image is that of the Trinity makes clear the image he is talking about is a theological abstraction, rather than a physical resemblance.

Edited June 30Jun 30 by exchemist

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This seems to say, "The way we imagine god, humans look the most like him, even though we're not even close. That means it's our destiny to be just like him."

No, I think he says that man's mind can not comprehend God. And he explains the very fundamental aspects of our existence in terms of Trinity.

and is destined to be yet restored

And I think that the words "to be yet restored" should be emphasized.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Except Descartes mentioned thinking as part of his statement. Isn't your faith sort of the opposite of thinking?

On my mind Augustine gives a very rich explanation of our being. Because he says that we love our existence and we love the knowledge of our existence. Not only we exist, but we know this! And we love our knowledge.

Descartes's "I think.." refers to mind, whereas we not only think, we also feel. Maybe Descartes made his statement, knowing about Augustine, who knows. He just removed heart from his thought.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

is a theological abstraction, rather than a physical resemblance.

Let's not talk about abstractions? And about physical resemblance, "God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.", John 4:24.

25 minutes ago, m_m said:

No, I think he says that man's mind can not comprehend God.

So you're ignoring Augustine? I'll assume he's right and move on to something else. Thanks.

5 hours ago, m_m said:

No, I think he says that man's mind can not comprehend God. And he explains the very fundamental aspects of our existence in terms of Trinity.

And I think that the words "to be yet restored" should be emphasized.

On my mind Augustine gives a very rich explanation of our being. Because he says that we love our existence and we love the knowledge of our existence. Not only we exist, but we know this! And we love our knowledge.

Descartes's "I think.." refers to mind, whereas we not only think, we also feel. Maybe Descartes made his statement, knowing about Augustine, who knows. He just removed heart from his thought.

Let's not talk about abstractions? And about physical resemblance, "God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.", John 4:24.

The original question asks for an explanation of the difference between an image and a likeness which is a technical question.

This thread seems to me to have now taken a definitely proselytising turn.

Consider your left hand and your right hand.

The are alike or they have a likeness. but they are not the same.

They are only an image in a mirror.

Edited July 1Jul 1 by studiot

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

So you're ignoring Augustine? I'll assume he's right and move on to something else. Thanks.

He says "though it be not equal" and "or rather, though it be very far removed from Him".

And in the other chapter he also writes "For we are not to conceive of this work in a carnal fashion, as if God wrought as we commonly see artisans, who use their hands, and material furnished to them, that by their artistic skill they may fashion some material object. God’s hand is God’s power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results. But this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure by customary and everyday works the power and wisdom of God, whereby He understands and produces without seeds even seeds themselves; and because they cannot understand the things which at the beginning were created, they are sceptical regarding them—as if the very things which they do know about human propagation, conceptions and births, would seem less incredible if told to those who had no experience of them; though these very things, too, are attributed by many rather to physical and natural causes than to the work of the divine mind."

Indeed, Augustine is right.

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

The original question asks for an explanation of the difference between an image and a likeness which is a technical question.

This thread seems to me to have now taken a definitely proselytising turn.

Consider your left hand and your right hand.

The are alike or they have a likeness. but they are not the same.

They are only an image in a mirror.

But notice, that Augustine doesn't list qualities of God, because they will limit God, whereas He is limitless. But he speaks about our being -the Father, our knowledge - the Son, and our love to both - the Holy Spirit.

And aren't these words in Genesis "And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” likeness? That man can rule over something?

I think, we take all these our abilities for granted. And it is sad.

Edited July 1Jul 1 by m_m

Just now, m_m said:

He says "though it be not equal" and "or rather, though it be very far removed from Him".

And in the other chapter he also writes "For we are not to conceive of this work in a carnal fashion, as if God wrought as we commonly see artisans, who use their hands, and material furnished to them, that by their artistic skill they may fashion some material object. God’s hand is God’s power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results. But this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure by customary and everyday works the power and wisdom of God, whereby He understands and produces without seeds even seeds themselves; and because they cannot understand the things which at the beginning were created, they are sceptical regarding them—as if the very things which they do know about human propagation, conceptions and births, would seem less incredible if told to those who had no experience of them; though these very things, too, are attributed by many rather to physical and natural causes than to the work of the divine mind."

Indeed, Augustine is right.

But notice, that Augustine doesn't list qualities of God, because they will limit God, whereas He is limitless. But he speaks about our being -the Father, our knowledge - the Son, and our love to both - the Holy Spirit.

And aren't these words in Genesis "And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” likeness? That man can rule over something?

I think, we take all these our abilities for granted. And it is sad.

I notice that this has nothing to do with either the original post or my reply.

It is preaching pure and simple.

Edited July 1Jul 1 by studiot