read this, then please tell me do you still believe that god exist ?

I mean, tragic... but also kind of hilarious? Maybe not the best example of the problem of suffering?

You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial. 

You are.

Which word have I invented? Which one? I will repeat, the literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. You are arguing with the dictionary here. 

Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion. 

Again with your appeal to popularity. This is the attitude slave holders adopted. 

When God does something great, it is always literal - when he does something evil, it is always a "lesson", a "proverb", an "interpretation". 

Stop talking nonsense.  I never take anything in the bible literally.  

If the bible is never literal, then is it fiction? 

The Bible has no literal genres.  Literalism is not a genre.

I did not say literalism was a genre - stop putting words in my mouth. 

To be theological is merely to study the nature of God and religious belief - my engagement in this topic is in itself theological. I am using pure logic and reason to deconstruct the validity of the bible - something you have yet to refute. 

No it is not. You are merely supposing things. Speculation.

Again - label my arguments what you want - they are substantiated by logic whereby each premise follows the last trivially. 

Of course I am discrediting every theologian in the world, just as how Galileo disapproved of every "scientist" in his day. 

But the whole point is - you are not.  Everyone knew Galileo was a scientist. No one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a theologian. 

But in the day, some skeptic could have given Galileo a look of incredulity and stated "you are not a scientist, no one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a scientist"

You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial. 

You are.

Which word have I invented? Which one? I will repeat, the literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. You are arguing with the dictionary here. 

Your working definition for being made in the image of God is one which you have invented.  Do you understand the idioms used by the Jewish language? I am not arguing with the dictionary here. I am arguing with you.   You refuse to accept that the language written has local geographical and time specificities and are in fact trying to interpret it according to a measure delineated by yourself.  

Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion. 

Again with your appeal to popularity. This is the attitude slave holders adopted. 

Sorry old chap. It is not an appeal to popularity. It is an appeal to authority.  It is not even me saying they are right and you are wrong. It is me saying to you - you ought to engage with the experts in the field rather than ignore them. 

A while ago, you stated you were interested in truth.  Now it seems you just want to go ahead and do things your own way. 

But in the day, some skeptic could have given Galileo a look of incredulity and stated "you are not a scientist, no one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a scientist"

And ....  You are not a theologian, are you?  

@ Bones;  You have not studied and found yourself approved in the sciences of theology or language or historical literature. 

"I am a lawyer.  There you go

But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications". 

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4948-matthew-27-52-53?page=1&post_number=20

"I do  understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church". 

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4953-apostasy-from-true-christianity?page=4&post_number=91

" Hebrew teacher" #45

" I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek".

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/325-talking-to-god?page=3&post_number=52

" I study the original languages, translate them to English",  #25

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5083-the-god-topic?page=1&post_number=25

"You would need to demonstrate that perfection is equivalent to without a flaw. #34" My view is that humans were created very good.   

You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial. 

You are.

Which word have I invented? Which one? I will repeat, the literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. You are arguing with the dictionary here. 

Your working definition for being made in the image of God is one which you have invented.  Do you understand the idioms used by the Jewish language? I am not arguing with the dictionary here. I am arguing with you.   You refuse to accept that the language written has local geographical and time specificities and are in fact trying to interpret it according to a measure delineated by yourself.  

Repeating yourself does not strengthen your argument. Like I stated, the words I am using are not controversial, the tautological definition of resemble is to "be similar". This is the definition of resemble. 

Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion. 

Again with your appeal to popularity. This is the attitude slave holders adopted. 

Sorry old chap. It is not an appeal to popularity. It is an appeal to authority.  It is not even me saying they are right and you are wrong. It is me saying to you - you ought to engage with the experts in the field rather than ignore them. 

Imagine if we were to be debating and you attempted to dismiss an entire by saying "okay good point I don't have enough intellect to dismiss your argument but I will say, you haven't gone through the month long process of peer reviewing your paper". How do you think that will work? 

A while ago, you stated you were interested in truth.  Now it seems you just want to go ahead and do things your own way. 

I have already given you an argument if which is logic, valid and sound. I am interested in truth - you are interested in preserving the bible. 

But in the day, some skeptic could have given Galileo a look of incredulity and stated "you are not a scientist, no one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a scientist"

And ....  You are not a theologian, are you?  

I could be Joe Biden for all I care - my argument doesn't care about it's deliverer. 

@ Bones;  You have not studied and found yourself approved in the sciences of theology or language or historical literature. 

And we only have the unreliable word and your own poor memory in all things biblical that says that you yourself are approved, accredited and qualified, don't we, Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecret?

"I do  understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church". 

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4953-apostasy-from-true-christianity?page=4&post_number=91

Tutored by your ;

" Hebrew teacher" #45

Not to mention your extreme power of memory and your own dogged, thousands of hours reading and memorising the bible.

" I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek".

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/325-talking-to-god?page=3&post_number=52

 And crow;

" I study the original languages, translate them to English",  #25

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5083-the-god-topic?page=1&post_number=25

And while we are speaking languages and the translation of, tell me Reverend "Tradey" once you have translated these ancient scriptures into English do you rely your own English version of the bible?

   

You argue the meaning of the word - perfection - saying ;

"You would need to demonstrate that perfection is equivalent to without a flaw. #34" My view is that humans were created very good.   

As I have already explained to you, the word - perfect / perfection means "without flaw" in any dictionary that I know. But of course, we now know that you don't accept the universally accepted definition of  - perfect - but without any sound reason  you refuse to accept it and dismiss it (because it was written by humans, suspect).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect#:~:text=1a%20%3A%20being%20entirely%20without,the%20original%20specifically%20%3A%20letter%2Dperfect

. 

So lets try this;

KJV Dictionary's version , which also happens to agree with the universally accepted version.

PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]

1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.

So that then  the KJV bible dictionary's definition.  Are you refusing this definition too? 

But thanks for the commendation

"You would need to demonstrate that perfection is equivalent to without a flaw. #34" My view is that humans were created very good.   

As I have already explained to you, the word - perfect / perfection means "without flaw" in any dictionary that I know. But of course, we now know that you don't accept the universally accepted definition of  - perfect - but without any sound reason  you refuse to accept it and dismiss it (because it was written by humans, I suspect).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect#:~:text=1a%20%3A%20being%20entirely%20without,the%20original%20specifically%20%3A%20letter%2Dperfect

. 

So lets try this;

KJV Dictionary's version , which also happens to agree with the universally accepted version.

PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]

1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.

So that then is  the KJV bible dictionary's definition.  Are you refusing this definition.

Why???????

You make it sound like I am operating on some obscure definition. The fact that you disagree with the statement that to create X in the image of Y requires X to bear some resemblance to Y is honestly quite astounding. The literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. The terms I am using are not controversial. 

You are.

Which word have I invented? Which one? I will repeat, the literal tautologically english definition of resemblance is to have similar qualities or appearance. You are arguing with the dictionary here. 

Your working definition for being made in the image of God is one which you have invented.  Do you understand the idioms used by the Jewish language? I am not arguing with the dictionary here. I am arguing with you.   You refuse to accept that the language written has local geographical and time specificities and are in fact trying to interpret it according to a measure delineated by yourself.  

Repeating yourself does not strengthen your argument. Like I stated, the words I am using are not controversial, the tautological definition of resemble is to "be similar". This is the definition of resemble. 

I never said your words were controversial. I said that they were a wrong usage of language. 

You want to use a literal word according to the dictionary.

Try and find some commentators who agree with you and then we can have a discussion. 

Again with your appeal to popularity. This is the attitude slave holders adopted. 

Sorry old chap. It is not an appeal to popularity. It is an appeal to authority.  It is not even me saying they are right and you are wrong. It is me saying to you - you ought to engage with the experts in the field rather than ignore them. 

Imagine if we were to be debating and you attempted to dismiss an entire by saying "okay good point I don't have enough intellect to dismiss your argument but I will say, you haven't gone through the month long process of peer reviewing your paper". How do you think that will work? 

I'm not saying you have made a good point.  I am saying you have missed the point altogether. Your argument is not only weak it is irrelevant.

I say use peer reviews

A while ago, you stated you were interested in truth.  Now it seems you just want to go ahead and do things your own way. 

I have already given you an argument if which is logic, valid and sound. I am interested in truth - you are interested in preserving the bible. 

No, you have given only your own position based entirely upon flawed reasoning. 

I admit I am biased with the bible - but having said that - preserving the bible - means implicitly preserving the integrity and TRUTH of the bible including its usage of idioms. 

 I have demonstrated that by drawing your attention to the distinction between literalism and metaphor and language idioms. 

But in the day, some skeptic could have given Galileo a look of incredulity and stated "you are not a scientist, no one including yourself knows or accepts that you are a scientist"

And ....  You are not a theologian, are you?  

I could be Joe Biden for all I care - my argument doesn't care about it's deliverer. 

This is the point though.  You want to be able to interpret the bible in the way you want. You don't care about the original author's intentions.

I never said your words were controversial. I said that they were a wrong usage of language. 

Which word. 

You want to use a literal word according to the dictionary.

Ok, if you want to be smart, then tell me what your definition of "resemblance" is. 

I'm not saying you have made a good point.  I am saying you have missed the point altogether. Your argument is not only weak it is irrelevant.

Weak? Yet you cannot address a single premise. Do you want to debate? You won't go far, I promise. 

I say use peer reviews

I don't see you peer reviewing your claims. 

I admit I am biased with the bible - but having said that - preserving the bible - means implicitly preserving the integrity and TRUTH of the bible including its usage of idioms. 

See? You start with a conclusion and work backwards - in the scientific method, you are supposed to conduct your experiments then make a conclusion. 

 I have demonstrated that by drawing your attention to the distinction between literalism and metaphor and language idioms. 

I recall that you have once stated 

 Genesis’ genre is not symbolic, even though it contains some symbolism. It is historical narrative, and this is clearly the intention of the author. 

I would think that something as major as the creation of human beings would count as a historical narrative? Or are you going to use the "but you are misinterpreting" card?

This is the point though.  You want to be able to interpret the bible in the way you want. You don't care about the original author's intentions.

The Gospels were written 50 years after Jesus' alleged death. This would be akin to writing a report on the JFK assassination without the use of security footage,  journalists, Walter Cronkite and with only a handful of witnesses, none of whom were actually documenting these events as they happened.  

People nowadays cannot even agree on the nature of 9/11, despite the security footage, instantaneous journalism, eye witnesses,  presidential testimony, the thousands of dead people and the fact that possibly the world's most capable secret agents were testifying that this event was not an inside job - and this was merely 20 years ago (without adding that the conspiracy took substantially less than 20 years to formulate). We cannot even agree on the nature of an event which occured 20 year ago, even with our level of technology. Do you think the peasants of the bible era could have done better? 

Actually there is good evidence to suggest every book in the NT was written prior to AD 70.

  The point is most were written by people with eye witness testimony.

    Mark is basically a cooperation between both himself and Peter. 

  Luke travelled with Paul-  but as a doctor was quite elegant in his notetaking.

the gospel of John was traditionally written by the apostle John or perhaps Lazarus.

 Historians are in consensus that there is more documentary evidence for the NT and its accuracy than there is for almost any other ancient document. 

I happen to have a certain trust in the way our historians document and understand things.

  I think the scientific method and the historical understanding and basis of these documents is pretty solid.

  People of course cannot prove anything happened 5 minutes ago.

People will believe what they want to believe - when it suits them.

 

I am merely asking you to find some corroboration for your position

"You would need to demonstrate that perfection is equivalent to without a flaw. #34" My view is that humans were created very good.   

As I have already explained to you, the word - perfect / perfection means "without flaw" in any dictionary that I know. But of course, we now know that you don't accept the universally accepted definition of  - perfect - but without any sound reason  you refuse to accept it and dismiss it (because it was written by humans, suspect).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect#:~:text=1a%20%3A%20being%20entirely%20without,the%20original%20specifically%20%3A%20letter%2Dperfect

. 

So lets try this;

KJV Dictionary's version , which also happens to agree with the universally accepted version.

PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]

1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.

So that then is  the KJV bible dictionary's definition.  Are you refusing this definition.

Why???????

So man has no resemblance to God?

Coming from the person who does not understand that the term "you" is understood from the perspective of the narrator, I don't think it'll go down well for you. Also, stop hiding behind "idiom", change the m for a t and you'll see my perspective on you. 

I say use peer reviews

I don't see you peer reviewing your claims. 

I don't need to.

Special pleading fallacy. 

I admit I am biased with the bible - but having said that - preserving the bible - means implicitly preserving the integrity and TRUTH of the bible including its usage of idioms. 

See? You start with a conclusion and work backwards - in the scientific method, you are supposed to conduct your experiments then make a conclusion. 

Nonsense.    You obviously have no idea how the scientific methodology works within the field of language and semantics.  

Big words don't prove a point. 

Do you even know what historical narrative is?  By the structure of your argument - you don't see to. 

Still yet to see you address that one. 

Genesis is historical narrative. That includes poetry and symbolism. 

Find me a historical paper which delivers its thesis in idioms and riddles. 

God owns the cattle on a 1000 hills.  What does that mean to you?  It could mean God only owns cattle on 1000 hills.   But is that the intent of the author or is he saying something more profound?   Could we go and find the bill of sale for each cattle?  Where would we look?  How would we know which are God's and which are not?  Is the author telling us that God's wealth is limited? Or is he saying that God only owns cows - and not sheep or birds.  Is the author telling us that God believes in private property? 

Dunno it's up for interpretation, which makes it an absolutely source.  

This is the point though.  You want to be able to interpret the bible in the way you want. You don't care about the original author's intentions.

The Gospels were written 50 years after Jesus' alleged death. This would be akin to writing a report on the JFK assassination without the use of security footage,  journalists, Walter Cronkite and with only a handful of witnesses, none of whom were actually documenting these events as they happened.  

Actually there is good evidence to suggest every book in the NT was written prior to AD 70. 

Source. 

This back and forth is clearly getting us no where. Let's debate. I propose: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist. I doubt you'll accept - I know you only operate within the safety of the forums, but you seem convicted of your belief. 

I don't think you know what an idiom is. Idioms such as "once in a blue-moon" still bear a resemblance to the words in the phrase - that is, a blue-moon is rare. What you are attempting to assert is that the phrase "man (X) was made in the image of God (Y)" has no bearing, I repeat, no bearing to X and Y having similarities. Utter ignorance. 

Idioms may or may not relate to the words within their phrases.  In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers. 

1. It is reflective of Wally's personality. 
   
2. Grout rhymes with shout. 
   

So man has no resemblance to God?

My intention was to ask - how is resemblance to be understood?  

Big words don't prove a point. 

They do

Find me a historical paper which delivers its thesis in idioms and riddles. 

LOL! this is your baby. I am not going to do your homework for you. 

Would you take the assertive position - or the defensive one?  In other words, would you attempt to put the burden of proof on me or would you concede that the burden ought to be shared

 In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers.

 Idioms do not have to relate directly to the words contained in the phrase.

 Yet God is invisible[ ..........................]  For God has no visible face.

Actually there is good evidence to suggest every book in the NT was written prior to AD 70. 

Source. 

There are lots of sources -

 go and read Dr Kenneth Gentry

 In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers.

That is not an idiom.

"Wally Grout" = Shout.

That is rhyming Slang  for -  "its your shout (round)"  rhyming with - Grout.  As is  Tom - foolery  rhyming with - Jewellery. Frog `n` toad rhyming with - Road.  Skin and blister rhyming with - Sister.  There is no rhyming slang in the scriptures I can assure you of that! Stop taking everyone for the dunce that you yourself are.

 Idioms do not have to relate directly to the words contained in the phrase.

But they do , its just that you do not understand what an idiom is. I have myself have pointed out AND explained some the idioms in the New Testament  many times since the day I joined here.

 Yet God is invisible[ ..........................]  For God has no visible face.

Jacob said; please tell me your name. But he replied, why do you ask my name?  Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, it is because

I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”Genesis 32:24-30.. 

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day.  (Genesis 18:1). And they went on to eat and drink. With no visible mouth , I take it!

 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).

 What about The Adam and Eve? And what about the 1 Chronicles 16:11, does it not tell them to "seek his face"? OR Ezekiel 39:29 "I will not hide My face from them any longer"? 

Why does this verse always  leapt to my mind when YOU - of all people -  make theses silly claims;

“You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures". Matthew 22:29

  Could it be that "god" was  just a highly intelligent  man at the end of the day? And we in his likeness and image? 

Actually there is good evidence to suggest every book in the NT was written prior to AD 70. 

Source. 

There are lots of sources -

It is generally accepted by secular scholars that the dating of the gospels were written at least 35/50 – 100 years after the crucifixion. 

 go and read Dr Kenneth Gentry

Have you?

You see for the best part of his work Gentry mainly focusses on the NT Revelation End Times i.e. John's "visions", dreams and nightmares.  He doesn't even date the NT to the time that the Christ was alive (unless as I  believe, that Jesus actually did survive the cross). And I could be wrong here but  isn't he the same person in agreement with those that have in the past called for the imposition of Old Testament laws upon modern society!? And you have the nerve to call me a "dill".

"Made in the image and likeness of God."  That is the idiom.  What is the Hebrew idiom.  

Explain the Idiom in the bold underlined above.

  The point is most were written by people with eye witness testimony.

Well Paul, the self confessed liar  that some believe to be the founder of Christianity wasn't an eyewitness to the life and times of Christ, was he?

    Mark is basically a cooperation between both himself and Peter. 

Would this be Simon Peter the fisherman one of the Christ's close disciples? 

  Luke travelled with Paul-  but as a doctor was quite elegant in his notetaking.

So Luke not being a disciple took dictation from Paul the self confessed liar that  had never met the Christ . And can you or anyone confirm  that it was  Luke that  actually accompanied Paul at any time, anywhere?

And let me tell you, of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, of those Matthew's Gospel uses about 600 and Luke’s Gospel uses about 300. There are also about 200 verses which are very similar in Matthew and Luke, but which are not in Mark. Biblical scholars argue for these verses; Matthew and Luke must have used another written source, which is usually referred to as "Q". The existence of Q is also in dispute, however, almost all agree that Matthew and Luke knew of, and used, Mark.

 Historians are in consensus that there is more documentary evidence for the NT and its accuracy than there is for almost any other ancient document. 

Do you mean docu- MENTED?

Which historians? What "more documentary" evidence"?

I happen to have a certain trust in the way our historians document and understand things.

Who do you mean when you say " our historians"?

  People of course cannot prove anything happened 5 minutes ago.

 That seems to go against every single thing that you have said on this thread.

I am merely asking you to find some corroboration for your position

Such as?  It is astounding that you  say -  "I don't need to" #72-  when asked yourself to corroborate anything that you say or claim!? 

I don't think you know what an idiom is. Idioms such as "once in a blue-moon" still bear a resemblance to the words in the phrase - that is, a blue-moon is rare. What you are attempting to assert is that the phrase "man (X) was made in the image of God (Y)" has no bearing, I repeat, no bearing to X and Y having similarities. Utter ignorance. 

Idioms may or may not relate to the words within their phrases.  In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers. 

Do you even understand how the Wally grout saying arose? In sports, prominent athletes often receive nicknames that  become widely used once they meet with popular approval.Wally's personality added his last name as a rhyming slang for a "Shout", thereby allowing this poetic colloquialism arises in the context of drinking in a drinking establishments such as a pub. 

There is a causal link between Wally Grout and "shouting" at the pug - that is:

1. It is reflective of Wally's personality. 
   
2. Grout rhymes with shout. 
   

What you are asserting is that when speaking on the term "resemble", that there is no causal relation between the two entities which are supposed to resemble each other. This is completely nonsensical. 

So man has no resemblance to God?

My intention was to ask - how is resemblance to be understood?  

To have a similar appearance to or qualities in common with (someone or something); look or seem like.

Find me a historical paper which delivers its thesis in idioms and riddles. 

LOL! this is your baby. I am not going to do your homework for you. 

So you're telling me that you get to make claims and I have to fact check for you? Come on now. 

Would you take the assertive position - or the defensive one?  In other words, would you attempt to put the burden of proof on me or would you concede that the burden ought to be shared

If I were to be technical, the burden regarding the topic of God lies solely on that who asserts there is a supernatural being. But as I am nice and I am not technical, I am willing to share the burden - I will argue that atheism is more likely whilst you will argue that theism is more likely. How does this sound?

 In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers.

That is not an idiom.

"Wally Grout" = Shout.

Yes it is an idiom.  Yes it is rhyming slang.  But shout is not taken literally.  Shout itself is an idiom.  

That is rhyming Slang  for -  "its your shout (round)"  rhyming with - Grout.  As is  Tom - foolery  rhyming with - Jewellery. Frog `n` toad rhyming with - Road.  Skin and blister rhyming with - Sister.  There is no rhyming slang in the scriptures I can assure you of that! Stop taking everyone for the dunce that you yourself are.

It is an Aussie Idiom.  Just like Hebrew has its own idioms. 

 Yet God is invisible[ ..........................]  For God has no visible face.

Jacob said; please tell me your name. But he replied, why do you ask my name?  Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, it is because

I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”Genesis 32:24-30.. 

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day.  (Genesis 18:1). And they went on to eat and drink. With no visible mouth , I take it!

 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).

 What about The Adam and Eve? And what about the 1 Chronicles 16:11, does it not tell them to "seek his face"? OR Ezekiel 39:29 "I will not hide My face from them any longer"? 

Why does this verse always  leapt to my mind when YOU - of all people -  make theses silly claims;

Seeing God face to face - was an idiom.  God is invisible.  No one can see God at any time - lest they die.   One is a physical thing and one is an idiom. 

“You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures". Matthew 22:29

  Could it be that "god" was  just a highly intelligent  man at the end of the day? And we in his likeness and image? 

LOL @ you.   God is not a man.   

Actually there is good evidence to suggest every book in the NT was written prior to AD 70. 

Source. 

There are lots of sources -

It is generally accepted by secular scholars that the dating of the gospels were written at least 35/50 – 100 years after the crucifixion. 

Yes.  35 years after the resurrection - was AD 70. 

 go and read Dr Kenneth Gentry

Have you?

You see for the best part of his work Gentry mainly focusses on the NT Revelation End Times i.e. John's "visions", dreams and nightmares.  He doesn't even date the NT to the time that the Christ was alive (unless as I  believe, that Jesus actually did survive the cross). And I could be wrong here but  isn't he the same person in agreement with those that have in the past called for the imposition of Old Testament laws upon modern society!? And you have the nerve to call me a "dill".

Gentry dates Revelation to prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.   

"Made in the image and likeness of God."  That is the idiom.  What is the Hebrew idiom.  

Explain the Idiom in the bold underlined above.

Why? You are not my keeper. 

    Mark is basically a cooperation between both himself and Peter. 

Would this be Simon Peter the fisherman one of the Christ's close disciples? 

Yes. 

  Luke travelled with Paul-  but as a doctor was quite elegant in his notetaking.

So Luke not being a disciple took dictation from Paul the self confessed liar that  had never met the Christ . And can you or anyone confirm  that it was  Luke that  actually accompanied Paul at any time, anywhere?

Luke did not dictate from Paul.  Paul did meet Christ - on the road to Damascus. 

 Paul was not the founder of Christianity - Christ was. 

And let me tell you, of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, of those Matthew's Gospel uses about 600 and Luke’s Gospel uses about 300. There are also about 200 verses which are very similar in Matthew and Luke, but which are not in Mark. Biblical scholars argue for these verses; Matthew and Luke must have used another written source, which is usually referred to as "Q". The existence of Q is also in dispute, however, almost all agree that Matthew and Luke knew of, and used, Mark.

So what? 

 Historians are in consensus that there is more documentary evidence for the NT and its accuracy than there is for almost any other ancient document. 

Do you mean docu- MENTED?

Which historians? What "more documentary" evidence"?

Do your own homework.  I have also shown this prior to now. 

I happen to have a certain trust in the way our historians document and understand things.

Who do you mean when you say " our historians"?

Our historians - being the wide ranging historian of all ilks - whether christian, or not. 

  People of course cannot prove anything happened 5 minutes ago.

 That seems to go against every single thing that you have said on this thread.

I was merely responding to the point that proving any history ABSOLUTELY is impossible. 

I am merely asking you to find some corroboration for your position

Such as?  It is astounding that you  say -  "I don't need to" #72-  when asked yourself to corroborate anything that you say or claim!? 

I am not addressing you. 

I don't think you know what an idiom is. Idioms such as "once in a blue-moon" still bear a resemblance to the words in the phrase - that is, a blue-moon is rare. What you are attempting to assert is that the phrase "man (X) was made in the image of God (Y)" has no bearing, I repeat, no bearing to X and Y having similarities. Utter ignorance. 

Idioms may or may not relate to the words within their phrases.  In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers. 

Do you even understand how the Wally grout saying arose? In sports, prominent athletes often receive nicknames that  become widely used once they meet with popular approval.Wally's personality added his last name as a rhyming slang for a "Shout", thereby allowing this poetic colloquialism arises in the context of drinking in a drinking establishments such as a pub. 

Yes, I know where this idiom arose.  I understand rhyming slang. Shout is still an idiom.  I figured that in America you would still find "shout" inexplicable so I put into language you could understand.

Yes, there is causal link - between Wally Grout and shout.

So you're telling me that you get to make claims and I have to fact check for you? Come on now. 

Ok. You made an assertion. 

Would you take the assertive position - or the defensive one?  In other words, would you attempt to put the burden of proof on me or would you concede that the burden ought to be shared

If I were to be technical, the burden regarding the topic of God lies solely on that who asserts there is a supernatural being. But as I am nice and I am not technical, I am willing to share the burden - I will argue that atheism is more likely whilst you will argue that theism is more likely. How does this sound?

I don't think God is a supernatural being. 

I think birds are birds and animals are animals.  

Be technical. This is your baby - not mine.  

I'm Australian and very likely a third of your than you - I understand slang. 

Yes, there is causal link - between Wally Grout and shout.

Exactly so your point is null and void. If you concede the same thing between man and God, then your point fails. 

So you're telling me that you get to make claims and I have to fact check for you? Come on now. 

Ok. You made an assertion. 

Wrong, as usual. You made an assertion, I asked for evidence, you said find it yourself. 

Would you take the assertive position - or the defensive one?  In other words, would you attempt to put the burden of proof on me or would you concede that the burden ought to be shared

If I were to be technical, the burden regarding the topic of God lies solely on that who asserts there is a supernatural being. But as I am nice and I am not technical, I am willing to share the burden - I will argue that atheism is more likely whilst you will argue that theism is more likely. How does this sound?

I don't think God is a supernatural being. 

Use a descriptive word to describe God. 

I think birds are birds and animals are animals.  

Yes birds can be birds, but there are other ways to refer to them - they are natural, they are mortal, they aren't omnipotent etc. Try and expand your vocab. 

Be technical. This is your baby - not mine.  

So no to the debating? Thought so. I did share the burden just to make it easy on you. 

  I provided the name of a study which agrees with me that it is a Hebrew Idiom. 

Yes, there is causal link - between Wally Grout and shout.

Exactly so your point is null and void. If you concede the same thing between man and God, then your point fails. 

The link between Grout and Shout is rhyming slang.  Yet not between "you pay for the next beer" and "shout".

So you're telling me that you get to make claims and I have to fact check for you? Come on now. 

Ok. You made an assertion. 

Wrong, as usual. You made an assertion, I asked for evidence, you said find it yourself. 

Hold on Bones, I am not making an assertion here - well except to say it is a Hebrew Idiom

Would you take the assertive position - or the defensive one?  In other words, would you attempt to put the burden of proof on me or would you concede that the burden ought to be shared

If I were to be technical, the burden regarding the topic of God lies solely on that who asserts there is a supernatural being. But as I am nice and I am not technical, I am willing to share the burden - I will argue that atheism is more likely whilst you will argue that theism is more likely. How does this sound?

I don't think God is a supernatural being. 

Use a descriptive word to describe God. 

God is God.  He is Divine. He is immortal.  He is the creator of everything.  He is not supernatural.  He is entirely natural so far as divine beings go. 

I think birds are birds and animals are animals.  

Yes birds can be birds, but there are other ways to refer to them - they are natural, they are mortal, they aren't omnipotent etc. Try and expand your vocab. 

Birds can fly. This is natural.  If a human flies - it is considered supernatural.  Flying itself is not supernatural except as it is applied to beings who do not naturally fly.  If God flies - it is not supernatural.  If God does divine things it is not supernatural.  It is divine - it is Godlike.  

Be technical. This is your baby - not mine.  

So no to the debating? Thought so. I did share the burden just to make it easy on you. 

I was pleased you did that. 

I don't want to debate though. I was tempted.  

Look into Gnosticism. Gnosticism is the belief that human beings contain a piece of God (the highest good or a divine spark) within themselves, which has fallen from the immaterial world into the bodies of humans. All physical matter is subject to decay, rotting, and death. Gnostics focused on eradication of ignorance.

Jesus is identified by some Gnostics as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnōsis to the earth.