Instigator / Con
3
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#5250
Is man being in the image of the invisible spirit of God a biblical contradiction?
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Pro
7
1709
rating
564
debates
68.17%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Firstly, greetings to the opposing side.
I don't believe I've interacted with this individual for some time.
Now by the PRO side taking the positive stance that this is a biblical contradiction of man being made in the image of God and God is invisible, I'll follow argumentation based on their first round presentation adding applicable rebuttals along the way.
Just for the sake of clarity and the audience, I will make clear what this topic is basically.
Is man being made or in being the image of God a contradiction/biblical contradiction?
We or man is very much visible.
I'll quickly reference this with a biblical scripture that comes to mind while putting in this text.
Man or the flesh is a very visible thing.
In the book of Luke , Jesus said to those around him, his apostles, handle him and SEE.
See what? Flesh and bone of him a man , a body for a spirit, a SPIRIT, have not , flesh and bone as you SEE me have .
So man is very much physical and what you can see.
God , however is a spirit, an invisible spirit. THE GOD , invisible as it says in the book of Timothy I believe. A spirit is invisible and non physical so how is man the image of invisibility?
Could this be a contradiction that spawned from Genesis?
This will be the case the opposing side will be arguing that it is a contradiction. So I figuratively hand the mic over to the opposing side to get started.
Lady/ladies and gentlemen of the reader audience, let us welcome the PRO side.
Hello Mall, greetings aside let's focus on the debate.
Con has decided to essentially sacrifice their Round 1 but no such structural thing was laid out in the description, therefore I do not currently intend to sacrifice my final Round in exchange but we will see. If this costs me a Conduct vote, I don't think that's fair.
==
What is a contradiction and how can one prove it?
Contradiction is defined as:
a combination of words that is nonsense because some of the words suggest the opposite of some of the others:
I shall back this up with another dictionary.
a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something
The burden of proof on Pro in this debate is to prove that under the Bible's logic as well as direct statements, there is nonsense in its statements due to clashing truths that shouldn't be coexisting with falsehoods declared in others.
Alternatively, two things could be saying they are true, without directly claiming the other false but via logic, for one to be true the other has to be false, this also will qualify as contradiction.
Is it not the burden of proof on Pro to prove it impossible that God made so-called 'man' in his image, it is only necessary to prove it nonsensical due to one or more clashes with other statements in the Bible.
==
Singular vs Plural, is God of multiple personalities and forms?
To begin with, before analysing the statements in the Bible, God can't possibly make multiple men, women or any set of plural creatures, in his/her/its own singular image. No matter how you twist it, there's already a significant problem there.
This problem even occurs depending on translation of the Genesis verse you happen to read:
Genesis, OT
26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. 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.”27 So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.
The 'h' in the same source states:
The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam
So, it's perhaps the angle of Con that we're all part of the image and all added together represent God but there is a major issue.
Who is 'our' what on Earth does a monotheistic God mean by 'our' making multiple in his singular image? Are women in his image too?
There is already one example of contradiction here, I can think of. What was Jesus in human form then and what was his significance?
It's fine to say we are all made in the image of God (though 'our' is questionable for God to say about a singular), however Jesus is meant to be the only human being that was actually in the image of God.
Jesus himself says something that makes absolutely no sense if we are all made in God's image:
This is from John 14, NT
5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
'b' in the quoted source refers to:
If you really knew me, you would know
being more applicable than 'will know'.
The statement by Jesus is that none of us get to God except through him and that he is genuinely shocked that Philip need any reassurance since it should be so obvious to Philip that Jesus is made by God, in God's image. However, if we are all made in God's image how on Earth can Jesus say it should be obvious and what does Jesus even mean by saying 'no one comes to the Father except through me' if he's just as much in God's image as the rest of us are, not more so or less so?
This entire dynamic with Jesus not only makes no sense while he's a human but makes even less sense if in his ghost form he's still in God's image because then why are live humans in God's image if we're meant to be ghostly ressurrected spirits?
Something really doesn't add up.
John 1: 18
18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
What does this even mean? Either God has no visual self to see and nobody has seen him or we've all seen God because we were all made in his image (excluding blind people who haven't seen other humans at all).
===
Races, genders/sexes, heights and more.
It is simply completely untenable to hold the position that all humans are made in God's image because the image has barely any consistency. If God was making a metaphorical point that since God has no real image, we are all equally that image, then why does Genesis specifically state:
So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.
This makes no sense. You can't, in the image of God, create beings that have a form that has absolutely nothing to do with God.
We vary so much that no height, racial feature, sex or any of it can be like god. How can females be made in the image of God if god is seen as The Father and not the Mother? This is utter nonsense!
Isaiah 63:16 – “For you are our father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O Lord, are our father; our Redeemer from of old is your name.”1 Corinthians 8:6 – “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.”Luke 6:35-36 – “But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
Ephesians 4:4-6 – “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.”
Isaiah 64:7 – “Yet, Lord, you are our father; we are the clay and you our potter: we are all the work of your hand.”
1 John 3:1 – “See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.”
How can girls, boys and women, let alone men without children who aren't fathers, be said to be made in his image when to be made in his image you have to be a Father? He is a Father, to be made in his image is to be made in the image of the Father of all reality, then what exactly is God's image if mothers, girls and boys and men who aren't fathers are also in his image?
As I say, there is too much variation amongst humankind for 'man' to be made in God's image, this is a nonsensical assertion.
===
It cannot be metaphorical, or else animals and plants would be included as well.
If the statement that we are made in God's image is some elaborate metaphor that his creation is made in the image of his spirit, wish and essence then why is it only humankind that's included in that? Why aren't the fish, plants or even inanimate mountain ranges also made in God's image? Something doesn't add up there.
Round 2
"If this costs me a Conduct vote, I don't think that's fair."
Very simple. You state your case to support what was said in round 1 to be a contradiction.
"What is a contradiction and how can one prove it?"
You can start with the Bible being that I referred to it in round 1.
Now after reading over what the opposing side had to say, it came off as a bunch of just questioning what has been written, confusion and hard to understand.
So I'm going to elaborate on this round to help the other side understand if possible.
From there the Pro side can ask questions on things that still may be unclear.
I'm going to start with what Jesus said to Phillip.
In the book of John chapter 14 and at verse 9:
" Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Jesus explains that the Father whom is Father God which is a spirit which is invisible they can see. How can they see?
Well through the works. It's the works of the Father the work of the spirit that was seen in Jesus. Those works of an invisible force were made physical and manifest as we learn in 1 Timothy 3.
"11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."
As we read on, because it was made possible for the image to be made in the flesh, it applies to others.
We learn about that expressed image in Chapter 1 in the book of Hebrews.
That the Father may be glorified it says in verse 13 of John 14.
I read somewhere about those made for his glory.
Hello somebody.
First Corinthians 10
"31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. "
Here's what you get adding all this up.
The image of God are the works done in flesh of man that it was made in. This is what it means by God being glorified.
Back over to the other side for any questions or challenging points.
Burden of Proof of Pro
The BoP on Pro is not to prove that it's impossible that man is made in the image of God in some metaphorical sense that Con is capable of explaining away. The BoP is:
to prove that under the Bible's logic as well as direct statements, there is nonsense in its statements due to clashing truths that shouldn't be coexisting with falsehoods declared in others.Alternatively, two things could be saying they are true, without directly claiming the other false but via logic, for one to be true the other has to be false, this also will qualify as contradiction.
===
Singular vs Plural, is God of multiple personalities and forms?
This has had absolutely no reply from Con at all. We are in the dark on if God is multiple beings and how on Earth God could be every human in existence. Which humans are in his image and which aren't?
Is Jesus the only human made in God's image or is this a lie?
The Word is identified by John as also being the “Son”. This is important because over and over in John’s Gospel, Jesus is referred to or refers to himself as the “Son”, or the “Son of God”, and sometimes the “Son of Man”. Verse 14 is the key that will help us know what this Gospel is talking about as to what “the Word” did on earth. So the Word is “the only Son from the Father”. This is part of the language of distinction, like what we saw in verse 1: “the Word was with God”. But how does it show the Son is God? Well first, it is a matter of kind. My son John Michael and I are distinct, but we are the same in the sense we are human. The God the Father and the Son are distinct, but they are the same in the sense they are God. John confirms this in verse 18:John 1:18
“No one has ever seen God; but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”... John in verse 14 makes it clear that the Word is “the only Son”. But verse 1 tells us this about the Son: and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John is stressing how the Word is both distinct from God. Of course, this can be very confusing for us. How is someone with someone else, but also is that someone else. It is statements like this in the Bible that led the early church to formulate what we now know as the doctrine of the Trinity. This idea simply explains how the Father is God, the being who is made up of three distinct persons....Jesus is “The Word” who “was God” (John 1:1) and then. “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). Between these two statements, John says, “He was in the world and the world was made through him” (John 1:10). Now if the Word was God. And the Word became flesh, then surely God became flesh, and that’s who Jesus was ---God in the flesh, God in the world, God on earth, God in Christ.
Even if the 'our' is explained as being God, Jesus and the holy spirit, to explain the contradiction with a monotheistic god saying mankind is made in 'our' image, it doesn't explain what Jesus was or what makes him significant.
Jesus is said to be the only human who saw God and the only human truly made in the image of God, yet if we are all made in God's image, we all saw God and are all equally made in the image of God, with Jesus incapable of being unique in that manner.
This contradiction isn't explained away anywhere in the Bible and is something Con has yet to properly address.
Remember this in Round 1:
5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
Absolutely none of this can be true if we are all made equally in God's image, Jesus can neither be the only one who saw God nor the one made in God's image more than the rest of us.
===
Races, genders/sexes, heights and more.
Which race is the image of God? How can the female gender refer to a God referred to as a father and son?
This does not add up. Which height is God? Which body shape? Which of us is made in his image? Are people born without the usual amount of fingers, toes or limbs also made in God's image?
This is a fundamental contradiction inherent to the statement.
Round 3
I want to get down to the point so I'm not going into things tangential that have come up.
So cutting through all these other things from the opposing side, let's start here :
"This has had absolutely no reply from Con at all. We are in the dark on if God is multiple beings and how on Earth God could be every human in existence. Which humans are in his image and which aren't?"
The scripture doesn't teach God is multiple beings. God fills heaven and earth according to the scripture.That's not even the topic. It teaches man is made in the image. When it says " man " , that's mankind. Otherwise it say this man or Adam specifically or any specifically.
Another reason Jesus was called the second Adam, he had the image of the heavenly. Looks like I need to open up a whole biblical lesson for folks that have all these questions that demonstrates their misunderstanding.
"Is Jesus the only human made in God's image or is this a lie?"
Let me answer it this way because the question is coming off kind of loaded. Jesus the Son was the only one that had the expressed image of God as taught in the book of Hebrews chapter one. The only one mentioned there.
Then in 2 Corinthians 3 we learn of those being changed into the image and reconciled to God as we learn in the same book in chapter 5.
So in answering holistically, it's both Jesus and all others reconciled. All sons and daughters of God.
Now the opposing side may not like the answer because it's not an either or.
But the scripture teaches both are reconciled one to the other.
"Which race is the image of God? "
I'm just going to repeat what should be simple without complicating it. Scripture speaks of inventions to complicate things.
The book says MAN was made in the image. To try to dissect it more than that is not just unnecessary but it's beyond the topic.
Is it a contradiction for a visible being to be the image of an invisible one?
The opposing side is coming up with all these other facets like the topic alone is insufficient to discuss.
"How can the female gender refer to a God referred to as a father and son?"
I don't get what this question is asking. Again MAN was made in the image. I've explained how the visible works of God were made manifest in the flesh. The mirror image of God, God's glory the glory of God.
The opposing side is adding on all these other elements instead of absorbing or challenging this.
"This does not add up. Which height is God? Which body shape? Which of us is made in his image? Are people born without the usual amount of fingers, toes or limbs also made in God's image?"
Hopefully the image has been made more clearer to the opposing side this round with man.
The scripture doesn't teach God is multiple beings.
Then why does it say 'our image':
Genesis, OT26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. 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.”27 So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.
It teaches man is made in the image. When it says " man " , that's mankind. Otherwise it say this man or Adam specifically or any specifically.
Which man is in the image? We all look different.
Another reason Jesus was called the second Adam, he had the image of the heavenly.
We all do yes only Jesus and Adam do, see the problem?
Round 4
"Then why does it say 'our image':"
Boy this is going to be a nice Sunday school lesson.
I can ask and will ask why does it say what it does in verse 27?
Look at the passage you posted.
"27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him"
It says God created. But the verse before says let us. Well which is it?
Is it one God or multiple gods?
First off just because it says "our", it doesn't exactly say "let multiple gods". This is a good example of reading things in that aren't there.
There's one God.
We learn this in Malachi 2 have we not all one Father.
Let's go there.
Malachi 2 and at verse 10
"Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?"
So one God , what does it mean by "our" there in the "let us make man in our image"?
We have an "us" and "our". That's more than one right. More than one what?
Hold it, don't say GOD. It didn't say that. It didn't say that.
Scripture says line upon line, here a little there a little. So we have a line here, let's look at another line over there over in John 1:1
It says in the beginning was the Word.
That lines up with the beginning in Genesis 1:1 , in the beginning .
God created the heavens and the earth.
We read on in John 1 the word was with God. So another was with God. It says "with". One with the one. That's more than one. Again , more than one what?
We have one word with one God. It just mentioned one(singular). The one word, the word was with God.
Let's do another line.
Going back to the book of Hebrews, this time in chapter 11 and at verse 3.
"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God"
So ONE God created us according to the scripture. What else was with him to make it "us" "our" or as I understand the plural elohim? His word . Him and his word.
"Which man is in the image? We all look different."
Why are you asking this? I just said mankind. So there is no "which man" being more than one. But let's say I were to answer it like that in a "which one" specification. It's the man that has been reconciled to God via Christ the Lord as any other that has been as well so you still come back to mankind. Full circle.
You're stumbling with this because you're still thinking in terms of physical exclusive bodily looks which I explained further what the scripture means by image last round in the book of Corinthians.
The problem is, when you continue to read things into biblical text with a personal carnal thinking and interpretation, you reject what it teaches and go with your own meaning.
"We all do yes only Jesus and Adam do, see the problem?"
I see the problem you're having. I mean it just takes study and understanding on your part. I don't expect you to get this right in this here topic. Scripture says great is the mystery of godliness.
See Adam was made good but then he fell. Then the second or last man Adam was set to redeem and reconcile mankind. See there are timelines. So it's all of the above. All are based on the different times. All are true at separate times. Even altogether if you have knowledge and understanding of what it means as being fulfilled even before the foundation of the world according to scripture.
Scripture says when the fullness of time has come. There is an appointed time for every event under heaven.
Every minute people are dying and being born.
This means that plus burn victims and changing faces and bodies means there is no overall consistency in humankind's image. So even that is a huge internal logical contradiction.
We see that Con changes our to his and back and doesn't realise the issue. He thinks he's corrected me, he has just admitted a contradiction. Is in 'our image' for God or in 'his image'? If in his image how are all females on Earth in the image of a father or son?
None of this has been sufficiently addressed.
I still do not understand what Con is saying regarding Jesus and Adam (not to mention, Moses). If they are unique in being made in God's image, the rest of us can't be. Both can't be true at once. Either they are just a tiny part of the overall so-called image or they aren't. Then Jesus is lying saying he has truly seen God but the rest of us can't and should realise we need to through him.
Round 5
"I still do not understand what Con is saying regarding Jesus and Adam"
That's correct. Due to you not understanding the scriptures, not understanding what is being said, no matter what I say, it's just conflicting to you.
Scripture says of all thy getting get understanding. Having ears they hear not having eyes they see not.
It doesn't matter what I say, it'll never suffice.
I've explained what "image" means in this context of the scriptures. However the opposing side is either ignoring this or just plain obtuse with all due respect.
I continue to explain it's not about the specific physical exclusive look to any one individual. It is the image of works, image of works, image of works.
Now if you understand this , be honest and concede that you do understand it. Don't try to play dumb.
But I don't know. If you're not talking a science book, it's like you understand nothing else.
Furthermore the opposing side compounded the topic with other elements such as variable physical looks.
The actual topic was on how can man a visible entity take the image of an invisible one?
I guess that wasn't interesting and the opposing side decided to add all these other things to argue about and got corrected on.
If the opposing side says I didn't correct the opposing statements, how do you know I didn't when you admit you lack understanding here?
Sometimes people don't want to understand and then claim you're hard to understand knowing they're fighting hard against or resisting an agreement in any event.Can't be sure right now the opposing side is not included in those people.
Especially when you don't make a huge effort with questions and answers to get understanding.
Case closed.
We are left at a complete loss on the idea of which of us is made in God's image and how this can reconcile with Jesus and Adam being more in his image than others are. We are also left at a complete loss as to how girls and women can be made in the image of a father and son.
He loved slavery and never wanted negros (his words) to mingle with whites. It will come in my confederacy debate.
Initial thoughts:
Neither side uses the phrase Imago Dei. Even if you don’t like that phrase, it lends credibility… kinda like a debate over that guy in a top hat who liked the theater and didn’t like slavery; knowing the name Abraham Lincoln can condense so far much.
Timothy should not be used as biblical evidence. If you’re going to use fan fiction, why not hot erotic fan fiction?
It took me a bit to understand what con is going for. I’ll probably come back and finish reading then vote, after I’ve had a beer or two.
easy vote hopefully, enjoy the read.