Anthropomorphisms of Jesus

mojobadshah said:
So the God of the Zoroastrians is described as having human characteristics, eyes, mouth, tongue, hands, and body. The god of the Old Testament is described as having created man in his own image, but all I've been able to find as far as physical characteristics of Jesus in the New Testament are that he was fleshy. Can anyone do better?
Click to expand...


Oh yes! I can do much better, but only as the One God Who is mentioned by the Tanach as having created man in His own image. Well, He didn't. It would be anthropomophism to interpret the creation of man in the image of someone or something that has no image. Even logical it is not to admit such a possibility. Here is the truth of the matter:

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben
 
Ben Masada said:
I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.
Click to expand...

Was Adam even a personal name or was it used in the plural sense e.g. "man[kind]"?
 
The names "Adam and Eve" are from the poetic phrases ben Adam "son of clay" for a man, and em chawwah ("w" shifts to "y" in later form chayyah) "mother of life" for a woman. So in the origin story, the original man is named Clay, and the original woman is named Life. This indicates the poetical and metaphorical nature of the whole story.
 
mojobadshah said:
Was Adam even a personal name or was it used in the plural sense e.g. "man[kind]"?
Click to expand...

The original text said Human was Created in the Image of the Creator(s) : In the Image of The Creator(S) They created Them: One male and one female that even though two were also one as well as well as three. Meaning the two were one complete entity consisting of two bodies that were one being , very complex. This is from the original language which has been made to reflect only the male aspect , leaving out the female counterpart.
 
Ben Masada said:
Oh yes! I can do much better, but only as the One God Who is mentioned by the Tanach as having created man in His own image. Well, He didn't. It would be anthropomophism to interpret the creation of man in the image of someone or something that has no image. Even logical it is not to admit such a possibility. Here is the truth of the matter:

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben
Click to expand...

GODS name is JEHOVAH the female counterparts name is HAVOHEJ. All the others in the family Like Michael have the fathers name as a sir name. So his name I Michael JEHOVAH.
 
Allelyah said:
You can understand and experience how God causes Jesus to go around now. He is using himself as a business person right now understanding "do something different." Jesus does this and then he goes over to do what He loves. When He does what He loves the form is of what life in this area would call superfluidity or Helium II (when it is placed without interruption). Jesus is aware in areas like this, where there is computers, when God causes it to be interesting to Him and His existence area. His information (images and words that he understands with) continues to be placed in some areas even when he is not aware. He is an existence that God causes to rupture areas of pressure ("This is unacceptable at this location mark"). God's causation of life to do what they will always do is interesting.
Click to expand...

I dont know what JESUS is doing right now but I do know hes not in human weak condtion and he really is Michael the Archangel.
 
mojobadshah said:
Was Adam even a personal name or was it used in the plural sense e.g. "man[kind]"?
Click to expand...


That's a good mataphorical point this of yours but, how could have God formed "mankind" in His own image if God is absolutely One and has no image? See Deuteronomy 4:15-19.
Ben
 
bob x said:
The names "Adam and Eve" are from the poetic phrases ben Adam "son of clay" for a man, and em chawwah ("w" shifts to "y" in later form chayyah) "mother of life" for a woman. So in the origin story, the original man is named Clay, and the original woman is named Life. This indicates the poetical and metaphorical nature of the whole story.
Click to expand...


Indeed, the whole Genesis account of Creation is a huge allegory to be interpreted metaphorically. Therefore, we are all free to draw our own metaphorical concept of what it is supposed to mean, according to what we are trying to convey. Literal interpretation is of the realm of religious myth.
Ben
 
bob x said:
The names "Adam and Eve" are from the poetic phrases ben Adam "son of clay" for a man, and em chawwah ("w" shifts to "y" in later form chayyah) "mother of life" for a woman. So in the origin story, the original man is named Clay, and the original woman is named Life. This indicates the poetical and metaphorical nature of the whole story.
Click to expand...

Ok this is another one of my totally non-expert mass comparison linguist hypothesis. But is it impossible that a lot of the anomalies in the Hebrew Bible were actually antidotes based on the expressions that originated with the cultural heritage of the Persians. For example, and some of these points I've brought up before, is it possible that:

1. Adam was derived from the Persian word Adam "man" and not the other way around maybe confirmed through Zoroastrian Azam "I am" and Eve's name is derived from the Zoroastrian Avalon "First" cf. one

2. Abraham did actually mean non-Brahman, and was a term used by the monotheist Persian Zoroastrians to describe non-brahmin-like behavior. And Sarah's name is not derived from the Hindu Sarasvati but really her Zoroastrian counterpart Sura as in Ardvi Sura Anahita.

3. Moses who is described as having spoken to God in the form of a fire was a semi-anthropomorphism of Mazda [Ahura] "God" whose name is akin to forms like Mashyo and Mashye "the first man and woman" and Manuchihar cf. Manu "the lawgiver" and who is represented by fire and the luminaries in Zoroastrianism.

"Scholars have puzzled on the fact that they can find no documented sign of Moses in Judaism before the Babylonian Captivity, and that some cynics actually believe that the Jews taken to Babylon were fascinated by and so simply latched onto the Moses Legends there and brought them home to Judah later after their Persian Liberation (it would explain the scriptural references to finding “Lost” scrolls after the return from Babylon… it may have been the first time that these ‘People of David and Solomon’ had ever heard of Moses)." - Zoroastrianism and Sufism

Maybe the Cainanites were the Kayumars of Kaynian dysnasty taking its name from Gayomaretan being the first mortal to have been slayn by the Devil who is already alluded to in the Gathas just as Cain was the first to slay his brother.
 
Yep, mojobadshah. But it is also possible that the terms "daat'si" (Navajo for perhaps) and "datsun" (a Nissan-original term coming from the British comment "that soon?" refering to a competative car-design effort in the 1960s) are connected.

Just not very likely. Homophones (like carrot and caret) are notoriously poor indicators of meaning-relatedness.
 
I'm not just talking about the phonological resemblance here. I've described the semantic resemblance as well, and maybe if it was just one of these Zoroastrian homophones that resembled the Hebrew homophone then I would expect the burden of proof to be on me, but the fact that its not just one Zoroastrian homophones that also shares this semantic resemblance to the Hebrew homophone I would expect the burden of proof to be on the other to show that there is no morphological relationship here beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top