What is the symbolism and lesson regarding God creating Adams body in God's own likeness?

[Clear lens]

1) REGARDING THE LESSON UNDERLYING THE SYMBOLISM OF GOD HAVING CREATED ADAM IN HIS OWN IMAGE

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I'd say that it's because we are His children, his own offspring, and not merely another creation.
In Genesis 1:24-27, we read, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 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. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
God was clearly speaking of the physical creation of all life in these verses. He said that every form of life would reproduce "after its kind." Therefore, it would only make sense that God would reproduce after His kind.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The profound underlying symbolism and lesson regarding man’s nature to be found in God’s creation of Adam's body in his own shape and appearance is that it is not Adam's body that is in God's image and likeness. God is Spirit. It is the Spirit of Adam that gave him dominance over the earth. But he had to mature his Spirit as we all do. There's the rub.

Originally Posted by Michael Way

There are different views on just what 'created in the image of God' means. Some think it refers to our bodies being created just like God's body is (the assumption being that God has a body). Others think that being in the image of God means that the attributes of our soul - intelligence, volition, emotion, conscience, etc. are the same as God's, though on a lesser level. And still others think that being created in the image of God simply refers to having been given authority to rule over the earth - Gen. 1:26.

The Bible must be interpreted in the time and culture in which it was written. There was a time in ancient Hebrew thought that God did have a physical body. Perhaps whoever wrote the creation account in Genesis one held the belief that God had a physical body and that was the writer's intended meaning. After all, all the gods in ancient Near East culture were believed to have had physical bodies.

Originally Posted by saibot

It's an interesting question because the orthodox (small O) view has always been that God is a spirit, and does not have a body like men. Growing up in the church, we were taught that "in God's image" meant spiritual, moral and intellectual qualities, but not physical qualities.

I believe Mormans think that since we are God's offspring, and the offspring of a physical being is a small likeness of the parent, that we are all little gods. That is not a historical view of "in the image of God" at all.

In any case, as a Christian, I don't have any problem with the creation story being mythic. Mythic meaning of course that it contains profound truths, but is not literally word for word true (e.g. creation in six 24-hour days, etc., a literal Adam and Eve in a literal garden, etc.) Maybe the best way to express that is to say that I take the creation story too seriously to take it literally.

Originally Posted by Ken_N

The classic teaching is that being created in the image and likeness of God means that we are creatures with a rational soul and free will, and that is what distinguishes us from other creatures.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

So are we all. That doesn't preclude the fact that our spirits reside within our corporeal bodies.

2) ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE VERSUS THE DOCTRINES OF LATER CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS

I apologize.

I am so historically oriented that I forgot to explain my question in the Opening Post was asked in the context of the early Judeo-Christian belief and interpretation.

In the ancient Judeo-Christian literature, it was made clear that the ancient belief was that God the Father had an actual visual image after which the body of Adam was created and it is only in the later Judeo-Christian movements that an “imageless-image” (iconless-icon) doctrine appears.

Thus Michael Ways comment is very important historically when he pointed out: “The Bible must be interpreted in the time and culture in which it was written. There was a time in ancient Hebrew thought that God did have a physical body.” (Michael Way, post #5)

Thus, Katzpur, (as a restorationist); Michael and religious historians will have the advantage if we are discussing the ancient and early beliefs regarding this point while others, such as MysticPhD, Saibot, MeerKat2, Ken_N, et al will have an advantage in describing the later doctrinal theories of the later Judeo-Christian movements.

My point is that I am not really asking about the later Christian movements with their texts and their interpretations and their theories, but am asking about the symbolism of Adam having been created in the same visual image as God the Fathers visual image in the context of ancient and historical Judeo-Christian worldviews rather than in the context of any later Christian movements worldviews.


3) MAN CREATED IN GODS’ VISUAL IMAGE

For example, the OP uses as a premise : “Man was created in the image of G-d.”: “And God made man. According to [the] image of God he made him.” (gen 1:27)

The greek LXX uses the term “εικονα“ (“Icon” in english) for “image” of God.

Koine Greek used this term for actual, physical, visual descriptions of individuals in official documents and I cannot think of a single example where Icon was used in the metaphorical description of “a rational soul and free will” (as Ken_N described)

The early Papyri and Greek literature consistently use icon/εικονα as a visual reference.

For examples:

In BGU IV. 1059.7, εικονα (icon/image) is used to describe actual visual characteristics of a female slave (ης τα ετη και αι εικονις θποκεινται).

P. Tebt I 32:21 (145 b.c.?) is another example of this same usage as well.

In P Ryl II. 156.33 (approx first century a.d.) it describes multiple individuals and their physical appearance (εικονα).

Early sacred texts use εικονα in an actual, visual context as well.
For example, when Barnabas explained that though “… Moses had commanded, “You shall not have a cast or a carved image for your God, nevertheless he himself made one in order to show them a symbol of Jesus.” (Epistle of Barnabas 12:6), this εικονα / icon or image he speaks of is clearly a visual and physical “image” and not a metaphor.

The point is that “image” in this sense was a word used to describe an actual, real, image and is not metaphorical or symbolic in vernacular usage. I can't think of any single early koine greek example of εικονα that is clearly used in early texts in a metaphorical sense.
Can anyone else?

I think modern Christians started to use εικονα metaphorically as a mechanism to try to make the early texts harmonize to their beliefs rather than to harmonize their beliefs to what the texts said.

For example:


4) ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY VERSUS LATER CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS - AN EXAMPLE

Consider the way this word must be handled first, by ancient Christianity that believed God had an image (i.e. an appearance) in Gen 1:27 and a later Christian movement that does NOT believe that God had an image in Gen 1:27.

The ancient Judeo-Christian movement could take Genesis 1:27 at it’s “face value” and in it’s "standard vernacular" and in it's obvious meaning . There was no need to change the vernacular definition of the word "image" into a metaphor or to attempt redefine "image" in any way in early Judeo-Christian literature.

The later Christian movements that came to believe God had no icon; no appearance, and no “image” must change, and / or redefine the obvious meaning of the word "image" into a metaphor in order to create coherence and decrease disharmony between the obvious textual implication versus their own base belief on this specific point.

This repeated process of creating metaphors to explain the many similar disagreements between text and belief partially explains the multiplication of theories among Christian movements.

In fact, the process of producing different metaphors encourages schisms and splits based on differing metaphors and theories while the Christianity that takes this specific example at face value can use such descriptions in the common vernacular and obvious meaning WITHOUT the same problem of historical coherence and this inherent historical coherence and harmony decreases schisms on this specific point (though schisms may occur on other points).

This process of “metaphorizing” texts repeats itself multiple times in multiple ways on multiple points of doctrine, in order to try to create historical coherence between text and belief. At some point, such spiritualizing and metaphorizing of the text may become a reflex and a standard refuge to which one finds sheltering explanations for difficult passages. It is however, difficult to make any firm rule regarding what is actual and what is metaphor (since metaphors certainly do exist in early texts…).

This doesn’t mean that the answers that do not cohere with history have no value.

For example, while Mystic, saibot and Ken_N are describing the beliefs adopted by later Christian movements rather than earlier and ancient beliefs, still I think MysticPhDs thought that “It is the Spirit of Adam that gave him dominance over the earth. But he had to mature his Spirit as we all do.” is correct and meaningful. It simply doesn't tell us about why God created Adam having the same visual image as himself.

I like Katzpurs point that God may have been trying to tell us that we are “after his kind” in some way by creating Adams body in the same visual image as God had (in ancient Judeo-Christian belief).



5) EXAMPLES OF EARLY TEXTUAL USEAGE OF EIKONA / IMAGE WERE USUALLY A VISUAL DESCRIPTION

In the case of Adam being made in the εικονα, icon or "image" of God, it is clear in much of the early sacred texts, this was not a metaphorical doctrine in early Christianity.

For example, an early Christian text describes a clear physical/visual meaning to the use of εικονα . / “image” when

“ God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw(Fol. 5a, col. 2) the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal…. “

Contextual descriptions in such texts are clearly describing an actual visual appearance of Adam before his “fall”.

"And the angels and the hosts of heaven heard the Voice of God saying unto him, "Adam, behold; I have made thee king, and priest, and prophet, and lord, and head, and governor of everything which hath been made and created; and they shall be in subjection unto thee) and they shall be thine, and I have given unto thee power over everything which I have created." And when the angels heard this speech they all bowed the knee and worshiped Him. . Cave of Treasures (chapt on Creation of Adam)

Such descriptions remind me of the value of Mystic PhDs comment regarding what mankind's spirits are to become if and when they mature.

Such description don’t just use εικονα (or "image") as an indication of visual context, but also forms of greek ομοιωμα (or "likeness") are often also used in such descriptions of Adams’ appearance. Ομοιωμα is distinguished from εικων since it implies an archetype, the “likeness” or “form”.

The great Greek linguist Moulton, uses the example of ομιοωμα, “as one egg is like another” (The eggs are not exactly the same, but so close to the same that one may not tell the difference in his example from OGIS 669.62 (from first century a.d.). This is another “visual” context since, In other, non-visual contexts, one may see ομολογεω used, indicating two individuals simply “agree with” each another (without the indication of a visual “sameness”).

A good example of both words being used in such a context is from the early Christian text Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1 when Lucifer is describing to Adam, one main reason for his (Lucifers') fall from heaven. Lucifer tells Adam : “…God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God….” And “the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.” Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1

These two terms forms of εικονα and ομοιωμα became ingrained not only in texts, but into the oral liturgies and prayers of early Christianity. For example, in one Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer, the prayer reads :

“And the goal of the creative work – the rational living creature, the world citizen – having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness”... 24 But when man was disobedient, You took away his deserved life. 25 You did not make it disappear absolutely, but for a time, 26 having put (him) to sleep for a little (while), by an oath you have called (him forth) to new birth. 27 You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope!(aposCon 7.34.1-8)


Such examples often seen in early textual traditions are so obviously and consistently a physical, visual context that one cannot mistake some descriptions for metaphor.

For example from Jewish Haggadah repeats this same theme of physical appearance when the angels mistake adam for his Creator because Adam looked so much like his heavenly Father :

“When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are your works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration. But he spoke : “Why do you come to worship me? Nay, you and I together will acknowledge the majesty and the might of him who has created us all. ‘The Lord reigns,’ “ he continued, “‘he is appareled with majesty.’” And not alone the creatures on earth, even the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, “ when God caused sleep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.” (The Haggadah -Woman)

Whether early traditions are correct or not, still, the earliest Judeo-Christian literature describing their beliefs conceived of Adam having the same image (εικονα) and likeness (ομοιωμα) as his creator.

[godrestores]

God has an actual image & body. The difference is He is not flesh like human beings:

...he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." (Ex. 33:20-23)

[ShanaBrown]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

Genesis 1:26-27 says “And God said, Let us make man according to our image, and according to our likeness; and let them control the fishes of the sea, and the winged creatures of the heaven, and the cattle, and all the earth, and all the reptiles , those crawling upon the earth.

Presumably God could have created the body of man in another shape and appearance but instead, he chose to create the body of Adam in Gods own appearance and similitude.

Why did God create a theomorphic body for Adam?

What is the profound underlying symbolism and lesson regarding man’s nature to be found in God’s having created the body of Adam in his own shape and appearance?

I don't believe this refers to the physical body. As Mystic shared, God is Spirit. The Father is invisible. The last Adam, Jesus reflects or is the exact image or representation of the Father, the Only True God. Jesus does not reflect a physical body of the Father, as the Father is Spirit. The Father gave Jesus a physical body but Jesus reflects who the Father is, as this relates to the Father's true nature, character, essence.

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him. NAS


Luke 24:39


39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” ESV


God bless.

[Katzpur]

An image is the representation of something's physical appearance. It's nothing else. You look in the mirror and you see your image. Someone takes a picture of you with a camera; the result is an image of you. Identical twins are said to be the "spitting image" of each other. Even the image of non-physical qualities refers to appearance. For example, if someone is "the image of heath," that means they appear to be very healthy.

noun
a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.
Synonyms: representation, figure, likeness

Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.
form; appearance; semblance:
We are all created in God's image.

counterpart; copy:
That child is the image of his mother.

Synonyms: facsimile

Antonyms: original

a symbol; emblem.
the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., especially as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.
a type; embodiment:
Red-faced and angry, he was the image of frustration.

a description of something in speech or writing:
Keats created some of the most beautiful images in the language.

Genesis 1, as I said before, is speaking of the physical creation of all life. Why, in the middle of the discussion, would it suddenly be speaking of something else entirely.

Rhetoric. a figure of speech, especially a metaphor or a simile.
an idol or representation of a deity:
They knelt down before graven images.

Archaic. an illusion or apparition. (Source: Dictionary.com)

The only time I have ever heard anyone use the word "image" to mean anything other than one of these examples is when they try to insist that the word is used differently in the Bible than it is anywhere else.

Also, in Genesis 5:3, we are told that "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." So Adam had a son "in his own likeness, after his image." Now, we're back to accepting the actual meaning of the word, "image." We go back and forth because we have been conditioned to believe that when God made man "in His image, after His likeness," it doesn't really mean what it says.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

I think modern Christians started to use εικονα metaphorically as a mechanism to try to make the early texts harmonize to their beliefs rather than to harmonize their beliefs to what the texts said.

Yes, this is absolutely what happened.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by ShanaBrown

I don't believe this refers to the physical body. As Mystic shared, God is Spirit. The Father is invisible. The last Adam, Jesus reflects or is the exact image or representation of the Father, the Only True God. Jesus does not reflect a physical body of the Father, as the Father is Spirit. The Father gave Jesus a physical body but Jesus reflects who the Father is, as this relates to the Father's true nature, character, essence.

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him. NAS


Luke 24:39


39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” ESV


God bless.

If God is invisible, how could the Son have seen Him?

I can't recall the Greek work that was translated as "invisible" (perhaps Clear lens can help me out), but it really should have been translated as "unseen." God may be "unseen," but He is not "unseeable."

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

If God is invisible, how could the Son have seen Him?

I can't recall the Greek work that was translated as "invisible" (perhaps Clear lens can help me out), but it really should have been translated as "unseen." God may be "unseen," but He is not "unseeable."

To be seen at our macro level of existence, it must exist at our macro level. Our consciousness exists at the quantum level so it can perceive what is "directly projected" into it (as I believe Jesus did for His disciples in a closed room). The truth is that what we see and experience in Reality is "created" in icon form by our brain to facilitate our functioning. It would not be difficult for God who IS Spirit (consciousness) to directly project into our consciousness in a way that would be as "real" as what we experience through our senses.

[ShanaBrown]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

If God is invisible, how could the Son have seen Him?

I can't recall the Greek work that was translated as "invisible" (perhaps Clear lens can help me out), but it really should have been translated as "unseen." God may be "unseen," but He is not "unseeable."

Hebrews 1

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 [a]in these last days has spoken to us [b]in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the [c]world. (literally ages) 3 [d]And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact **representation of His nature, and [e]upholds all things by the word of His power.

Strong's Concordance
** representation=
charaktér: a tool for engraving
Original Word: χαρακτήρ, ῆρος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: charaktér
Phonetic Spelling: (khar-ak-tare')
Definition: a tool for engraving
Usage: an impression, representation, exact reproduction; a graving-tool.
HELPS Word-studies
5481 xaraktḗr – properly, an engraving; (figuratively) an exact impression (likeness) which also reflects inner character.

If you wanted someone to know who you were as a person, meaning your character, beliefs, thoughts, ideas, plans, but you were not physically present with the person, you might send a person as a representative or maybe , for example, write a letter that explains who you are. The person who represents you or the letter that represents you may explain who you are and the person or the letter, does not have to look like you physically to represent you.


John 6
46 not that any one hath seen the Father, except he who is from God, he hath **seen the Father.

Strong's Concordance
**horaó: to see, perceive, attend to
Original Word: ὁράω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: horaó
Phonetic Spelling: (hor-ah'-o)
Definition: to see, perceive, attend to
Usage: I see, look upon, experience, perceive, discern, beware.
HELPS Word-studies
3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception)


I believe that the scriptures teach that the Father is an invisible Spirit and that Jesus came to reveal the Father's true nature, character, essence to us. The Father gave Jesus, the Son, a physical body but when we look at, listen to Jesus, we "see" the Father because Jesus reveals and reflects the Father's true nature, character, essence. It is about seeing or knowing God spiritually. God bless.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by ShanaBrown

Hebrews 1

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 [a]in these last days has spoken to us [b]in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the [c]world. (literally ages) 3 [d]And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact **representation of His nature, and [e]upholds all things by the word of His power.

Strong's Concordance
** representation=
charaktér: a tool for engraving
Original Word: χαρακτήρ, ῆρος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: charaktér
Phonetic Spelling: (khar-ak-tare')
Definition: a tool for engraving
Usage: an impression, representation, exact reproduction; a graving-tool.
HELPS Word-studies
5481 xaraktḗr – properly, an engraving; (figuratively) an exact impression (likeness) which also reflects inner character.

If you wanted someone to know who you were as a person, meaning your character, beliefs, thoughts, ideas, plans, but you were not physically present with the person, you might send a person as a representative or maybe , for example, write a letter that explains who you are. The person who represents you or the letter that represents you may explain who you are and the person or the letter, does not have to look like you physically to represent you.


John 6
46 not that any one hath seen the Father, except he who is from God, he hath **seen the Father.

Strong's Concordance
**horaó: to see, perceive, attend to
Original Word: ὁράω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: horaó
Phonetic Spelling: (hor-ah'-o)
Definition: to see, perceive, attend to
Usage: I see, look upon, experience, perceive, discern, beware.
HELPS Word-studies
3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception)


I believe that the scriptures teach that the Father is an invisible Spirit and that Jesus came to reveal the Father's true nature, character, essence to us. The Father gave Jesus, the Son, a physical body but when we look at, listen to Jesus, we "see" the Father because Jesus reveals and reflects the Father's true nature, character, essence. It is about seeing or knowing God spiritually. God bless.

[Clear lens]

1) INSIGHTS FROM A LATER AND DIFFERENT CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS WILL NOT YIELD THE SAME INSIGHTS AS ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY

Originally Posted by ShanaBrown

I don't believe this refers to the physical body. As Mystic shared, God is Spirit. The Father is invisible. The last Adam, Jesus reflects or is the exact image or representation of the Father, the Only True God. Jesus does not reflect a physical body of the Father, as the Father is Spirit. The Father gave Jesus a physical body but Jesus reflects who the Father is, as this relates to the Father's true nature, character, essence.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him. NAS

Hi ShanaBrown. Thank you for your insight. I know very little about modern Christian movements and their various interpretations and beliefs.

However, as I explained in post #11, I was not asking so much about the lessons that modern theories or modern interpretations offer us as much as I was asking about the symbolism from the context of ancient Judeo-Christianity and from their interpretations and worldviews.

The insightful poster Michael Way, offered a profoundly important historical principle in post #5 when he correctly explained :
“The Bible must be interpreted in the time and culture in which it was written. There was a time in ancient Hebrew thought that God did have a physical body. Perhaps whoever wrote the creation account in Genesis one held the belief that God had a physical body and that was the writer's intended meaning. After all, all the gods in ancient Near East culture were believed to have had physical bodies.”

While your interpretation might be insightful in a study of how religion evolves and how doctrines do not remain static over periods of time, it’s meaning and subsequent insights stem from a later interpretive context where the word “icon” of Genesis, no longer refers to an actual image.

This different interpretation will not result in the same symbolism and meaning as that of early Jude-Christians who did believe an icon (grk εικων) was an image.

Thus, you will have to keep in mind that your interpretation on this specific point is not the same as that of the early Judeo-Christians.

I am not saying early Judeo-Christianity was better than your religion on this point, merely that it is not the same religion as yours on this specific point and thus we cannot expect your insights on this specific issue to be the same as that of early Judeo-Christianity.

Originally Posted by ShanaBrown

The last Adam, Jesus reflects or is the exact image or representation of the Father, the Only True God.

This is a good example of how words take on different meanings that they did not have in the early texts.

Keep in mind that there is no Greek source text that says Jesus is the “exact” image or representation of his Father.
Χαρακτηρ (eng: “Character”) in Hebrews 1:3 does not mean, and never meant “exact image”.

It simply referred to an image expressed (such as when a coin is made or a wax seal is impressed to make an impression).

The pure, modern, concept of exactness is not implied here by the Greek, instead, the addition of the word “exact” is an example of translational contamination by translator theology.


3) THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIANS BELIEVED A SPIRIT HAD THE SAME APPEARANCE AS A PHYSICAL BODY
[quote=ShanaBrown;66707327] Luke 24:39 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” ESV

While the scripture indicates a spirit does not have the flesh and bones of our physical bodies, this is something we can all agree on it indicates the apostles believed a spirit has appearance.

The apostles, seeing the physical, resurrected body of Jesus, believed they were seeing a spirit. This was a very, very common doctrine in the early texts (if anyone wants example, please let me know)

Verse 36 introduces the context where the apostles had been speaking about the resurrection of Jesus, when Jesus then appears to them and they mistake the appearance of his physical body for a spirit, indicating the typical ancient belief that a spirit, when seen, looked like a physical body. Luke 24:26-40 is below

36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” 40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet….

Thank you so much for your comments and interest ShanaBrown. Frequently I learn some things from your posts that I simply did not know.


4) GOD THE FATHER IS NOT “INVISIBLE”, BUT INSTEAD IS "UNSEEN" JUST AS SPIRITS ARE TYPICALLY "UNSEEN"

Just as the ancients believed that spirits were generally unseen but still had a visible appearance when they were seen, a similar belief applied to God the Father who was not seen, but who did have an image according wo which image Adam was created.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

If God is invisible, how could the Son have seen Him?
I can't recall the Greek work that was translated as "invisible" (perhaps Clear lens can help me out), but it really should have been translated as "unseen." God may be "unseen," but He is not "unseeable."

(post #16)

Hi Katzpur. It always amazes me at how connected to historical religious doctrines and ancient language you are.

You are correct. “Invisible” is the wrong translation in that it gives the wrong impression to this sentence.

For example : Colossians 1:15 in the KJV reads The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. The source Greek reads “Ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου προτοκος πασης κτισεως” (and there are no known important greek variants to this verse)

Αορατου in this sentence is a negation of “αραω”.

αραω is to be seen in both a bodily sense and sometimes metaphorically (e.g. I “see” what you mean.)

It is not merely a “visible” thing, but a thing that is actually seen.

This is especially clear since the word was later replaced by βλεπω θεωρεω which are based on physical vision.
Οραω was anciently associated with things “seen” or in an instruction on a papyrus to “εξω ορα” which meant “look on the back” (of the papyrus).

This is the meaning when Paul says he has physically seen Jesus in 1 Cor 9:1 (τον Κυριον ημων εορακα) and 1 Cor 15:5 when the Lord appeared to and was physically seen by Kephas (and later to many others) the verse uses οραω (και οτι ωφθη κηφα).

Many early Papyri also demonstrate this usage.

For example P. Par 51.8 (160 b.c.) speaks of a person saying “suddenly I open my eyes and see the twins….” (εξαι[φνης] ανυγω του οφθαλμους μοθ και ορω [ταδ] Διδυμας...)

Having pointed this out, it was also often used in Koine as “seeing” with the mind, or “perceiving” or “discerning”.

The importance of this last point has to do with ShanaBrowns quote of John 1:18.
John 1:18 says : “No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father hath declared him”. (John 1:18) Early versions of this text use “only begotten God”, later versions inserted “only begotten son” due to the discomfort of the implications of the original text. Thus you will see both versions depending upon the bible one reads.

However the point I want to make concerns the words “hath declared him” (grk εξηγησατο).

The base word here (εξηγεομαι) isn’t simply to "declare" or "explain", but it means “to lead or show the way”, to lead toward a goal, (in the case of “explain” or “exegesis” it means to point toward a meaning or lead to an understanding).

The sentence says that While the God who is unseen has not been seen by mankind, the begotten God “shows” or “leads the way” to the unseen God (literally), or leads the way to the understanding of the unseen God (metaphorically).

When someone says “I see what you mean”, it is a metaphorical use of vision and John 1:18 may be using εξηγησατο in this manner in John 1:18.

Proper translation of ancient documents is very dependent upon understanding what the original actually meant TO THE ANCIENTS and in THEIR context. However, what something means to an individual, including translators, is often not the same meaning it had to the ancients.

In any case, I hope your journeys are wonderful and insightful and wish you luck in coming to your own determination as to what these things meant to the ancients so as to more accurately apply these sacred texts to your own lives.