Anthropomorphism or Theomorphism?

[Rosenritter]

Yes.

Ezekiel 1:26 26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.​

Are you willing to consider that perhaps the image of God may include our physical appearance?


The Bible says God can love and man can love.
Are there any other beings that can love?
Could the capacity to love be the deeper meaning of the image of God?

If I believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth then I must also believe that God preceded the heavens and the earth. If I understand the heavens and the earth to mean all of physical creation, then that would mean that God isn't a physical being in essence. A physical appearance is a physical attribute, which is why I have trouble considering our physical form as a reflection of the image of God.

I might be able to imagine that our physical attributes were chosen as to properly serve the image of God. For example, we we can manipulate objects with greater ability than any created beast with our hands. But the monkey also has hands as well as a manlike face and bipedal body and we assume that the monkey isn't created in the image of God. This is the gap that keeps me from being able to consider the image of God as being relational to our physical form.

I am inclined to think this is more to do with our spiritual attributes, including the ability to obey or disobey, to love or hate, or even the ability to comprehend or relate to spiritual issues. I have had pets that demonstrated the ability to obey or disobey, that chose to love or hate people or other animals, but you could not have a spiritual relationship on that level. A dog may have loyalty for its pack or even love its master, but can it understand a concept like "love thy enemies?"

 

[genuineoriginal]

What does a physical appearance look like on a non-physical being?

The non-physical being on the likeness of the throne had "the appearance of a man"

Yes, I think others can, but it would help to have a definition of love. Can you provide one?

This one is from the Bible, but it may not be the most helpful definition for identifying what it is about love that makes the capacity to love a primary piece of being created in the image of God.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 NIV 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

I am inclined to think this is more to do with our spiritual attributes, including the ability to obey or disobey, to love or hate, or even the ability to comprehend or relate to spiritual issues. I have had pets that demonstrated the ability to obey or disobey, that chose to love or hate people or other animals, but you could not have a spiritual relationship on that level. A dog may have loyalty for its pack or even love its master, but can it understand a concept like "love thy enemies?"

The angels are spiritual beings with the spiritual attributes that include the ability to obey and disobey, but I can't remember ever seeing any verses that state that angels can love or hate.
There are many verses about God loving and hating.

 

[Rosenritter]

The angels are spiritual beings with the spiritual attributes that include the ability to obey and disobey, but I can't remember ever seeing any verses that state that angels can love or hate.
There are many verses about God loving and hating.

The devil is a fallen angel, and surely he has demonstrated the ability to hate? While not a direct scriptural reference, I immediately think of Luther's hymn that speaks of "cruel hatred" being the weapon of our foe.

1Jn 3:8 KJV
(8) He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Lies and unrighteous anger are also attributed to the devil, does not that type of anger imply hatred?

Eph 4:25-27 KJV
(25) Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
(26) Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
(27) Neither give place to the devil.

And what about murder?

Joh 8:44 KJV
(44) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Hate is the opposite of love, so if the angels are capable of hatred, I would think they are also capable of love.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The devil is a fallen angel, and surely he has demonstrated the ability to hate? While not a direct scriptural reference, I immediately think of Luther's hymn that speaks of "cruel hatred" being the weapon of our foe.

1Jn 3:8 KJV
(8) He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Lies and unrighteous anger are also attributed to the devil, does not that type of anger imply hatred?

Eph 4:25-27 KJV
(25) Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
(26) Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
(27) Neither give place to the devil.

And what about murder?

Joh 8:44 KJV
(44) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Hate is the opposite of love, so if the angels are capable of hatred, I would think they are also capable of love.

There is no clear statement that says that angels are capable of love or of hatred.
I am not swayed into thinking that angels can hate by the passages you posted.

 

[Rosenritter]

There is no clear statement that says that angels are capable of love or of hatred.
I am not swayed into thinking that angels can hate by the passages you posted.

Can you tell me what point (below) you no longer follow?

1) Angels are created beings
2) Cherubs are a subset of angels
3) The devil is a fallen angel, even called a covering cherub
4) The devil was a murderer from the beginning
5) Murder is the sin of hatred in action

 

[genuineoriginal]

Can you tell me what point (below) you no longer follow?

1) Angels are created beings
2) Cherubs are a subset of angels
3) The devil is a fallen angel, even called a covering cherub
4) The devil was a murderer from the beginning
5) Murder is the sin of hatred in action

I can't be sure on "the" devil being a cherub.

I believe that murder can be done without hatred.

 

[Rosenritter]

I can't be sure on "the" devil being a cherub.

I believe that murder can be done without hatred.

Ezekiel 28 speaks to a "prince of Tyrus" (verses 2-10) and then to a "king of Tyrus" (verses 12-19). While the speech to the prince of Tyrus says that he shall be slain by men at the hands of strangers, the message to the king of Tyrus indicates that this is an entirely different person who shall be ultimately destroyed by different means.

Spoiler

Eze 28:12-19 KJV
(12) Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
(13) Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
(14) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
(15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
(16) By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
(17) Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
(18) Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
(19) All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

It was the reference in Ezekiel 28 from which I refered to the devil as a covering cherub, as it used that designation itself in verse 14.

I suppose that murder might be accomplished without emotion but the devil doesn't seem like one that is void of such emotions. 1 Peter 5:8 describes him as a 'roaring lion" for example, and he seems to vent frustration when he appeals to God for the permission to cause harm in the book of Job. And when the devil(s) turned on the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19 (verses 14-20) does that seem like an emotional response or a response devoid of emotion?

While not directly a biblical reference, when considering additional instances of ghosts and apparitions and possessions, do these always behave rationally? Or with anger, fear, rage, and a host of other unhealthy emotions?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I suppose that murder might be accomplished without emotion but the devil doesn't seem like one that is void of such emotions. 1 Peter 5:8 describes him as a 'roaring lion" for example, and he seems to vent frustration when he appeals to God for the permission to cause harm in the book of Job. And when the devil(s) turned on the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19 (verses 14-20) does that seem like an emotional response or a response devoid of emotion?

While not directly a biblical reference, when considering additional instances of ghosts and apparitions and possessions, do these always behave rationally? Or with anger, fear, rage, and a host of other unhealthy emotions?

We know that the devil is filled with pride and has other emotions.
That is not in question.

What is in question is whether the devil or any of the angels can love.
If being able to hate is dependent on the ability to love, then a being devoid of love would by necessity be devoid of hate as well.

There has to be something that God created in humans that is more valuable to Him than anything He created in the angels.

 

[Rosenritter]

We know that the devil is filled with pride and has other emotions.
That is not in question.

What is in question is whether the devil or any of the angels can love.
If being able to hate is dependent on the ability to love, then a being devoid of love would by necessity be devoid of hate as well.

There has to be something that God created in humans that is more valuable to Him than anything He created in the angels.

"Devoid of love" does not mean "devoid of hate" in any normal usage of the phrase that I've heard before, but we are told so little of the angels that we lack solid passages to prove these points. I am inclined to understand the devil as ruled by his vanity and anger and hatred, and in this framework do his actions seem to have some explanation. Related to this, I understand the image of God to include free moral agency and the ability to relate to our Creator (including love). But the angelic realm isn't our main concern, I figure if we were meant to know more we would have been told.

 

[genuineoriginal]

"Devoid of love" does not mean "devoid of hate" in any normal usage of the phrase that I've heard before, but we are told so little of the angels that we lack solid passages to prove these points. I am inclined to understand the devil as ruled by his vanity and anger and hatred, and in this framework do his actions seem to have some explanation.

I agree, we lack solid passages to prove these points.

Related to this, I understand the image of God to include free moral agency and the ability to relate to our Creator (including love).

The image of God is having free-will and forming personal relationships?

 

[Derf]

The non-physical being on the likeness of the throne had "the appearance of a man"

Why do you say "non-physical being"? Is it because you think it was all a vision? If Ezekiel's eyes were accustomed to only see physical things, would he have understood if he saw non-physical things? I don't know the answer, but I can see how God would create the vision just for Ezekiel, and Ezekiel would understand it in terms of what he was accustomed to see. So it might not actually be telling us anything about how God "looks" (which is a physical ability to see). It gets very confusing to talk about "seeing" the "invisible" God.

[Eze 1:26 KJV] And above the firmament that [was] over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne [was] the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
[Eze 1:27 KJV] And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.
[Eze 1:28 KJV] As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so [was] the appearance of the brightness round about. This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw [it], I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

Notice how many times words like "look", "appear", "see", and "likeness" are used?

This one is from the Bible, but it may not be the most helpful definition for identifying what it is about love that makes the capacity to love a primary piece of being created in the image of God.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 NIV 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails.​

You've just described a faithful dog.

 

[Derf]

I agree, we lack solid passages to prove these points.


The image of God is having free-will and forming personal relationships?

Can we not even dispense with the "having free-will" and focus on "forming personal relationships? After all, one can't really form a personal relationship by force, can one?

It makes me wonder if the eating of the fruit was an act of messing up, or rejecting, a personal relationship, which God stated was them "becoming like one of us".

[Gen 3:22 KJV] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So God made them in His image, and then they "became like one of us". Did we become more like God than just His image? Maybe, if setting our own path is being a god unto ourselves.

I still have difficulty with how we "became like" God by eating the fruit.

 

[Derf]

hate to bow out of this great conversation, but I'm heading out on vacation, and I'm not sure how much access to TOL I'll have.

 

[Rosenritter]

Can we not even dispense with the "having free-will" and focus on "forming personal relationships? After all, one can't really form a personal relationship by force, can one?

It makes me wonder if the eating of the fruit was an act of messing up, or rejecting, a personal relationship, which God stated was them "becoming like one of us".

[Gen 3:22 KJV] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So God made them in His image, and then they "became like one of us". Did we become more like God than just His image? Maybe, if setting our own path is being a god unto ourselves.

I still have difficulty with how we "became like" God by eating the fruit.

They decided good and evil for themselves, instead of trusting God's word of what would be good and evil and trusting that decision. Since then mankind has been reaping the results of his own actions, as we rejecting having God as our king over us. Gods decide for themselves, one who rejects God sets himself up as his own god. "Like gods."

 

[genuineoriginal]

Why do you say "non-physical being"?

John 4:24 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. ​

Is it because you think it was all a vision? If Ezekiel's eyes were accustomed to only see physical things, would he have understood if he saw non-physical things? I don't know the answer, but I can see how God would create the vision just for Ezekiel, and Ezekiel would understand it in terms of what he was accustomed to see. So it might not actually be telling us anything about how God "looks" (which is a physical ability to see). It gets very confusing to talk about "seeing" the "invisible" God.

[Eze 1:26 KJV] And above the firmament that [was] over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne [was] the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
[Eze 1:27 KJV] And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.
[Eze 1:28 KJV] As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so [was] the appearance of the brightness round about. This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw [it], I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

Notice how many times words like "look", "appear", "see", and "likeness" are used?

Ezekiel was shown someone or something that had the appearance of a man.
We are not told whether it was God Himself appearing to Ezekiel or if God provided Ezekiel with a vision.
Either way, the appearance of a man was seen by Ezekiel with the implication that it was what God "looked" like.

Ezekiel saw God in the image of man.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Can we not even dispense with the "having free-will" and focus on "forming personal relationships? After all, one can't really form a personal relationship by force, can one?

Stockholm syndrome?

It makes me wonder if the eating of the fruit was an act of messing up, or rejecting, a personal relationship, which God stated was them "becoming like one of us".

[Gen 3:22 KJV] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So God made them in His image, and then they "became like one of us". Did we become more like God than just His image? Maybe, if setting our own path is being a god unto ourselves.

I still have difficulty with how we "became like" God by eating the fruit.

I don't have an answer.