What Does It Mean to Be Created “In God’s Image”?  🔗 **Source:** [What Does It Mean to Be Created “In God’s Image”?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkJcbee_8c) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [imago-dei, biblical-anthropology, genesis, image-of-god, divine-council, ancient-near-east] > author: [MISSING] > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkJcbee_8c > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: What does it mean to be created "in God's image"? > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Genesis 1 (Bible Gateway)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1) - [Genesis 3 (Bible Gateway)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3) - W. Randall Garr, *In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism* - J. Richard Middleton, *The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1* - Yair Lorberbaum, *In God's Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical Judaism* - Catherine McDowell, *The Image of God in the Garden of Eden* - Stephen Herring, *Divine Substitution: Humanity as the Manifestation of Deity in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East* ## 📝 Summary - A biblical-studies commentator does a running critique of a devotional YouTube video that claims humanity being "made in God's image" is about interior faculties (reason, will, speech, spirit) set against sinful "flesh," and that Genesis 1:26's plural ("Let us make") proves the Trinity. - The commentator argues the scholarly-consensus reading is nearly the reverse: in the ancient Near East a deity's *tselem* (image) and *demut* (likeness) referred first to outward form, and by extension to a physical object that represents and manifests a god's presence, power, and agency on earth. - Applied to Genesis 1 (a priestly, exilic/post-exilic text), the point is a democratization of Mesopotamian royal ideology: not just kings but all humanity function as God's living representatives, God's "images," on earth. - Why it matters: it reframes a heavily preached doctrine away from a body/spirit dualism and away from proof-texting the Trinity, toward representation, vocation, and divine presence — with real stakes for anthropology, ethics, and how believers read Genesis. - Key stakeholders: lay Christian audiences, pastors and content creators, biblical scholars, and Jewish interpreters of the imago Dei. - Risks and tradeoffs: the critique is sharp and at times contemptuous of the target creator's motives, which can read as ad hominem even where the textual arguments are strong. - Bottom line: "image of God" is primarily about representation and manifested presence, not physical resemblance to a body-God alone and not interior faculties versus flesh; the Trinitarian and anti-flesh readings are later theological/philosophical frameworks retrojected onto the text. ## 📖 Main Content - **Core claim 1 — God is depicted anthropomorphically in the Bible.** The commentator holds that biblical authors fundamentally conceptualize God as a human-shaped, male-presenting, corporeal being located at a point in space and time. Non-anthropomorphic descriptions are treated as figurative, rhetorically bounded, or later philosophical overlays. This matches the ancient West Asian norm, where gods were anthropomorphic (and anthropopathic — human in thought, perception, speech). - **Core claim 2 — anthropomorphism is cognitively intuitive.** Citing research associated with Justin Barrett, he argues even orthodox Christians default to anthropomorphic God-talk when not actively policing their theology; the non-anthropomorphic ("reflective") concept has to override the intuitive one, and philosophically trained thinkers push back hardest against the "gravitational pull" of intuition. - **Core claim 3 — *tselem* and *demut* are image/likeness terms rooted in appearance.** Hebrew *tselem* (image) parallels Akkadian *ṣalmu*; *demut* denotes likeness, appearance, outward form. The primary sense is that an image *indexes* or *represents* its subject the way a statue represents a person. - **Core claim 4 — the image is a functioning representative, not just a resemblance.** Ancient divine images (idols) were not merely objects of worship; they manifested a god's presence, power, and agency for petition, gratitude, worship, communion, punishment, or monitoring. Genesis 1, written in the exilic/post-exilic period, borrows Mesopotamian and Egyptian royal ideology in which the *king* is called the image of a god — and democratizes it so that all humanity bears that representative status. As the video puts it, "we are God's representatives on earth." - **Core claim 5 — the plural "let us make" is the divine council, not the Trinity.** The commentator argues the cohortative in Genesis 1:26 is a vestigial reference to the divine council (the other *elohim* / *bene elohim*), supported by Genesis 3:5, 3:22 ("like one of us"), and Genesis 6. He dates formal Trinitarian doctrine to the mid-to-late 2nd century CE, so it cannot be the author's intent. - **Core claim 6 — the "flesh versus spirit" reading is middle-Platonic/Gnostic, not Genesis.** The target video's framing of flesh as inherently sinful and something to transcend is identified as a first-to-third-century philosophical idea. He connects the early Christian defense of bodily resurrection to the development (~170 CE) of *creatio ex nihilo*, which resolved both the sovereignty problem (matter co-eternal with God) and the moral status of the material world. - **Contested / uncertain points to flag:** the strong claim that God is *uniformly* anthropomorphic in the Bible is itself a scholarly position, not universal consensus; the dating of Trinitarian development and the priestly authorship of Genesis 1 reflect mainstream critical scholarship but are disputed by more traditional interpreters. The commentator himself notes he "quibbles" with parts of Garr's framing of monotheism. ### 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkJcbee_8c?t=0) The question and the "we literally look like God" misconception - Sets up the popular assumption: the image means humans physically resemble a body-God. - Commentator: this is "fundamentally incorrect" — and possibly the opposite of true. #### ⏱️ [00:00:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkJcbee_8c?t=45) Three points on biblical anthropomorphism - (1) God is conceptualized as anthropomorphic, human-shaped, male-presenting, at a point in space/time; exceptions are figurative or later philosophical impositions. - (2) Anthropomorphic deity was the ancient West Asian rule down to the New Testament period. - (3) Deities are unseen agents, so they are intuitively conceptualized as anthropomorphic. #### ⏱️ [00:02:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkJcbee_8c?t=150) Intuitive vs. reflective cognition (Barrett) - Even orthodox believers retreat to anthropomorphic God-talk when not consciously guarding doctrine. - Non-anthropomorphic concept is "reflective" and must override the "intuitive" default. - Philosophically oriented thinkers resist the intuitive pull most. #### ⏱️ [00:05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkJcbee_8c?t=300) Vocabulary and the scholarly literature - *tselem* = divine image; Akkadian *ṣalmu* = divine image; *demut* = likeness/appearance/outward form (Genesis 1). - Recommends Garr (most thorough), Middleton (measured), Lorberbaum (Jewish tradition), Crouch and Schüle (papers), McDowell, Herring, and his own open-access monograph. #### ⏱️ [00:08:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkJcbee_8c?t=480) Majority view: image as representative - Primary sense is appearance/resemblance, but a second layer democratizes royal ideology. - Kings in Mesopotamia and Egypt were called the "image" of a god; Genesis extends this to all humanity. - "A lot of people think they are just objects of worship, which is simply not true." Idols manifested divine presence and agency. #### ⏱️ [00:10:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkJcbee_8c?t=630) "Let us make" — Trinity claim rebutted - Target creator reads Genesis 1:26 plural as Father, Word/Son, and Spirit. - Commentator: this is anachronistic; the plural is a vestigial divine-council reference (Gen 3:5, 3:22, Gen 6, *bene elohim*). - Trinitarian doctrine is a mid-to-late 2nd-century CE innovation. #### ⏱️ [00:12:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkJcbee_8c?t=750) Reason, will, and word as image - Target creator equates the image with authority, reason, imagination, and speaking things into existence. - Commentator: these interior faculties drift from authorial intent toward a modern Christian overlay; human "word" is not divine fiat as in Genesis 1. #### ⏱️ [00:14:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkJcbee_8c?t=840) Flesh vs. spirit and creatio ex nihilo - Target creator frames flesh as sin and the obstacle to God. - Commentator: that is middle-Platonic/Gnostic; the debate over bodily resurrection helped produce *creatio ex nihilo* (~170 CE), which made matter God-derived and therefore good, and preserved divine sovereignty. ## 📚 References - [Genesis 1 (Bible Gateway)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1) - [Genesis 3 (Bible Gateway)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3) - [Genesis 6 (Bible Gateway)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6) - W. Randall Garr, *In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism* (Brill) - J. Richard Middleton, *The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1* (Brazos) - Yair Lorberbaum, *In God's Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical Judaism* (Cambridge) - Catherine L. McDowell, *The Image of God in the Garden of Eden* (Eisenbrauns) - Stephen L. Herring, *Divine Substitution: Humanity as the Manifestation of Deity in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East* (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) - Carly Crouch, "Made in the Image of God: The Creation of Adam, the Commissioning of the King and the Kavod of YHWH" (2016) - Andreas Schüle, "Made in the Image of God: The Concepts of Divine Images in Genesis 1–3" (2005) - Justin Barrett — cognitive science of religion on intuitive anthropomorphism ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The everyday assumption that "God's image" means we look like God's body gets the ancient meaning backwards. In the biblical world an image is first about outward form, but its deeper job is to stand in for and make present a being who cannot be seen directly. - Ancient idols were not decorations or mere worship-objects; they were where a god's presence, power, and agency were made available to people. Calling humans God's image says humans do that job for the unseen God. - Genesis 1 comes from priestly writers during or after the Babylonian exile, and it reworks royal propaganda that called kings the image of a god. Instead of one king, everyone is enrolled as God's royal representative on earth. - The plural "let us make us in our image" is not an early hint of the Trinity; it echoes an older picture of a divine council of gods. Reading the Trinity into it imports a doctrine that did not exist until roughly the second century CE. - Treating flesh as the enemy of the spirit belongs to Platonic and Gnostic thought, not to Genesis. Early Christians pushed back so hard on that view that they developed creation-out-of-nothing to affirm that the material world comes from God and is good. ## 📰 Newsletter - Not applicable to this source. This is faith/biblical-studies content with no WordPress angle. No newsletter blurb is generated so the pipeline does not invent a WordPress-focused item where none exists. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Not applicable to this source. Reason: theological explainer video with no developer-advocacy, tooling, or software-community dimension. #### OSPO - Not applicable to this source. Reason: no open-source program, licensing, or governance content. #### Community - Not applicable to this source. Reason: no software or maintainer community context; the only "community" is a religious audience, outside this framework's scope. #### WordPress - Not applicable to this source. Reason: no WordPress core, plugin, theme, docs, or ecosystem content is present. No WordPress actions invented. #### The WPCC - Not applicable to this source. Reason: no funding, fellowship, or maintainer-stipend content. ### FAIR - Not applicable to this source. Reason: no technical-independence, provenance, or governance-artifact content. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - If Genesis 1's image language derives from ancient Near Eastern royal image ideology, then its closest textual and iconographic parallels should cluster in Mesopotamian and Egyptian king-as-image formulae rather than in generic "resemblance" language. - If anthropomorphic God-concepts are cognitively intuitive, then experimental subjects (including committed non-anthropomorphists) will default to anthropomorphic descriptions under time pressure or cognitive load. - If the "flesh versus spirit" reading is a later philosophical import, then its vocabulary and logic will map onto documented middle-Platonic/Gnostic sources rather than onto Genesis's own terms. - If Genesis 1:26's plural is a divine-council vestige, then intertexts (Gen 3:5, 3:22; Gen 6; wider Northwest Semitic *bene elohim* material) will cohere better with a council reading than with a Trinitarian one. - If the imago Dei is primarily representational/vocational, then interpretive communities that adopt this reading will emphasize human agency and stewardship ethics over body/spirit dualism. ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative philology and iconography: catalog *tselem*/*ṣalmu*/*demut* usages against king-as-image inscriptions and cult-image ritual texts (mīs pî / wpt-r). - Cognitive-science-of-religion experiments (Barrett-style narrative-recall and reaction-time tasks) across religious and philosophical subgroups. - Source and redaction analysis dating Genesis 1 to the priestly/exilic layer; intertextual mapping of council references. - Reception-history tracing of anti-flesh dualism through patristic and Gnostic corpora and the emergence of creatio ex nihilo (~170 CE). ### ❓ Questions - Does "primarily appearance, secondarily representation" hold, or do some scholars invert the priority so representation is primary and resemblance derivative? - How much does the democratization claim depend on the exilic dating of the priestly source, and what happens to it under alternative datings? - Can a Trinitarian reading be defended as canonical/theological interpretation without claiming it as authorial intent — and does the video conflate those two moves? - Where is the line between legitimate figurative anthropomorphism and the "later philosophical overlay" the commentator dismisses? ### 🔮 Future Research - A synthesis integrating cognitive-science findings on intuitive anthropomorphism with philological work on ancient image ideology. - Comparative study of Jewish (Lorberbaum) and Christian receptions of the imago Dei to isolate where interior-faculty readings entered each tradition. - Empirical reception study: how audiences respond to representational versus resemblance versus faculty framings of the image. ### 💡 Implications - Practice (teaching/preaching): shifts imago Dei sermons from "your soul/reason mirrors God" toward vocation, representation, and stewardship. - Policy/ethics: a representational imago Dei grounds human dignity in shared divine-representative status, with implications for how "all humanity" (not just elites) is valued. - Education: models a method — read Genesis in its ancient Near Eastern context before applying later theology — useful in any scripturally engaged curriculum. - Interfaith: foregrounds Jewish scholarship on the imago Dei and resists reading distinctively Christian doctrine into shared Hebrew scripture. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - Reading level estimate: Flesch–Kincaid Grade roughly 13–15 (upper undergraduate). Long, subordinated sentences and technical vocabulary (anthropopathic, cohortative, cognitive dimensions) push it into college-plus range. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: none — audio-only dialogue with no on-screen diagrams described beyond a book list and a "Black Panther" background image. - Improve: a timeline (council → exilic Genesis → 2nd-century Trinity → 170 CE creatio ex nihilo), a *tselem*/*ṣalmu*/*demut* term table, and a king-versus-all-humanity "democratization" graphic. #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: strong — the whole piece is spoken dialogue. - Improve: a 2–3 minute audio recap distinguishing "resemblance," "representation," and "faculty" readings. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: strong — definitions, analogies (statue indexing a subject), and worked contrasts. - Improve: a short glossary callout for anthropomorphic, anthropopathic, cohortative, divine council, creatio ex nihilo. #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: none. - Improve: a "read Genesis 1:26–27 and 3:5,22 and label the council references" exercise. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: moderate — claims build in sequence with dated milestones. - Improve: an explicit argument map separating textual claims from motive-attribution claims. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: moderate — the critique-of-a-creator format models dialogue. - Improve: discussion prompts pairing the two readings for group debate. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: moderate — dense enough for solo study with the cited bibliography. - Improve: reflection prompts on where one's own imago Dei assumptions came from. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: light — the material-world/embodiment theme touches creation and flesh. - Improve: tie the "flesh is good because God made it" point to embodiment and ecological theology. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: N/A to a video; this note uses headings and landmarks. - Improve: ensure the published note keeps one H1 and ordered headings. #### Keyboard navigation - Present: N/A to source. - Improve: n/a for the note beyond standard markdown. #### Contrast and readability - Present: unknown for the video UI. - Improve: if captions are burned in, verify 4.5:1 contrast. #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: N/A to source. - Improve: n/a. #### Media and captions - Present: an auto-style transcript exists (this analysis is built on it), but transcription artifacts ("celm," "demoot," "Genesis 126," "x nilo") suggest no clean human-checked captions. - Improve: publish a corrected transcript with proper transliterations and verse references, plus a downloadable version. #### Forms and interactions - Present: N/A to source. - Improve: n/a. #### Standards reference - Caption accuracy maps to WCAG 2.2 AA 1.2.2 (Captions) and 1.2.4 (Live captions if applicable); a corrected transcript supports 1.2.1. ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: strong — pulls in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, and broader Northwest Semitic contexts, plus Jewish scholarship. - Improve: name and briefly represent traditional Christian and confessional readings fairly rather than only as foils. #### Inclusive language - Present: mostly technical and neutral; notes the "male-presenting" framing of the ancient God-concept as a descriptive historical claim, not an endorsement. - Improve: flag that "male-presenting deity" is a claim about ancient texts, not a normative theological statement, to avoid misreading. #### Neurodiversity support - Present: consistent argumentative structure helps. - Improve: chunk the long monologue with on-screen headers; the sentences are very long for working memory. #### Representation - Present: cites a range of scholars including Jewish interpreters and a named teacher (Stephen Herring). - Improve: include women scholars already cited (Crouch, McDowell, Schüle) more prominently in the spoken framing. #### Psychological safety - Present: weak toward the critiqued creator — motives are attacked, not just claims. - Improve: separate "your reading lacks textual support" from "you are chasing audience approval"; the latter risks reads as contemptuous and lowers safety for viewers who hold the critiqued view. ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Analogical/comparative (image indexes a subject like a statue indexes a person): strong because it is grounded in documented ancient image ideology and cult practice, not just intuition. - Historical/deductive (Trinitarian doctrine postdates Genesis, therefore it cannot be authorial intent): valid given the dating premise; the conclusion follows if the mid-to-late 2nd-century CE dating holds. - Inductive (cross-cultural anthropomorphism plus cognitive research supports an intuitive-anthropomorphism generalization): reasonably supported, though it leans on a specific research program. #### Fallacies - Ad hominem / appeal to motive: the repeated claim that the creator is "plunking the tuning fork in the loins of the dogmatism of the audience" attacks motive rather than the argument. Fix: retain the textual rebuttal and drop the motive attribution, which is not needed and is unfalsifiable. - Genetic fallacy risk: arguing a reading is wrong *because* it originates in later philosophy can slide from "not authorial intent" to "therefore false as theology." Fix: distinguish historical-critical intent from constructive theological validity explicitly. - Possible false dilemma: framing the image as either ancient-representational or modern-faculty overlay understates that later readings can be developments rather than errors. Fix: acknowledge a spectrum of legitimate reception. #### Tone of voice - Authoritative, scholarly, and at times sardonic/derisive toward the target creator ("doesn't that sound cool?"; "material pigsty of the flesh"). Confident on textual matters, dismissive on motive. ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: not applicable — the commentator is the critic, not a party defending against an accusation; no denial or minimization of wrongdoing is at play. - Attack: present in a rhetorical sense — the commentator attacks the target creator's credibility and motives (chasing audience approval, dogmatism), which functions as credibility-undermining beyond the textual critique. - Reverse victim/offender: not present; there is no attempt to recast an accused party as the victim. - Emotional cues/rhetoric: derisive metaphors and appeals to consensus ("the strong majority of scholars"); the main logical risk is appeal-to-motive rather than a DARVO pattern. ## 🎯 Conclusion - Bottom line: "image of God" in Genesis is best read as representation and manifested presence — humans as God's living, royal-representative images on earth — rooted in ancient Near Eastern image and royal ideology, and democratized by exilic priestly authors. It is not primarily physical resemblance to a body-God, not interior faculties versus sinful flesh, and not a proof-text for the Trinity. - Next steps for readers: read Genesis 1:26–27 alongside 3:5, 3:22, and 6 with the council reading in view; consult Middleton for an accessible treatment and Garr for depth; and, when evaluating popular theology videos, separate the textual-historical question ("what did the author intend?") from the constructive-theological question ("what may the church rightly confess?"). ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — What does it mean to be created "in God's image"? > Density: 2–5 Literature atoms (H3), 0–3 Permanent candidates (H4). > Defaults: 3 Literature, 1 Permanent. Resonance filter: if you can't > articulate in one line why a claim matters, drop it. > > Konik claim-header rules: present tense, declarative, ≤10 words when > possible, searchable, unique, mirrors annotation focus if present. > > Atomicity: one declarative sentence per atom. "and"/"also" → split. > > Tag pool: #bmf · #addendum · #xref · #articleseed · #storystem · #share · #aphorisms ### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3) #### [H1] The image represents an unseen deity's presence > [!quote] ID:rw_h1 > We are the outward sign of the presence and the power and the authority of the deity who is unseen, who is not directly accessible through other means. **Context & use**: - Video segment ~08:00–10:00, on how divine images functioned. - Grounds the imago Dei in representation/manifestation, not physical resemblance alone. **Tags**: #xref **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H2] Idols manifest a god, not merely receive worship > [!quote] ID:rw_h2 > The divine image was there to manifest the presence, the power, the agency of the deity for whatever needs existed. **Context & use**: - Video segment ~09:00, correcting the "idols are just worship-objects" assumption. - Reframes what "image" does in the ancient Near East. **Tags**: #xref **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H3] Divine images were not just objects of worship > [!quote] ID:rw_h3 > A lot of people think they are just objects of worship, which is simply not true. **Context & use**: - Video segment ~09:00, the pivot from resemblance to function. - Useful one-liner for teaching the corrective. **Tags**: #xref #share **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) #### [P1] Imago Dei is vocation, not resemblance **Claim** (one sentence, Courtney's voice): Being made in God's image names a vocation to represent and make present the unseen God on earth, not a claim about physical resemblance. **Evidence pointer**: [[#H1]] > [!quote] > We are God's representatives on earth. **Scope & conditions**: Holds under the ancient Near Eastern representational reading of Genesis 1 (exilic priestly context); breaks if one privileges a purely resemblance-based or interior-faculty account of the image. **Links**: - [[Biblical anthropology]] — because extends - [[Trinity is later doctrine, not Genesis 1]] — because contrasts on authorial intent - [[Human dignity and stewardship ethics]] — because applies-in ethics **Optional**: — <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Check whether scholars invert the priority (representation primary, resemblance derivative) versus the video's "appearance first, representation second." — Genesis 1 imago Dei debate #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Note the transcript artifacts to fix before any republish: "celm/selm," "demoot/demut," "Genesis 126" → Gen 1:26, "x nilo" → ex nihilo. — caption QA #fleeting #inbox ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Read Middleton, *The Liberating Image*, for an accessible representational account of the imago Dei — reading #things - [ ] Compare the divine-council reading of Genesis 1:26 across Gen 3:5, 3:22, and 6 — study #things ``` Processed: What does it mean to be created "in God's image"? - Literature atoms: 3 / 5 cap - Permanent candidates: 1 / 3 cap - Fleeting items: 2 - Things 3 actions: 2 / 2 cap - Konik tags used: [#xref, #share] - Triage callouts populated: [Cross Reference, Article Ideas (via fleeting)] - Quality gates: [verbatim ✓, atomicity ✓, link-annotation ✓, YAML hygiene ✓ (author [MISSING] per template allowance in frontmatter only), Konik triage ✓, version-diff n/a — native maker run] - Override conditions triggered: none ``` <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Articles/What Does It Mean to Be Created “In God’s Image”.md|What Does It Mean to Be Created “In God’s Image”? by youtube.com]] ## Highlights - We are the outward sign of the presence and the power and the authority of the deity who is unseen, who is not directly ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kwj97vf60asn6r392bg1jv9w)) - Note: Imago Dei = humans as the visible sign of an unseen deity's presence/power/authority - Tags: atom/literature/h1 - of people think they are just objects of worship, which is simply not true. The ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kwj97zv7vrtnjshhm6m19tbe)) - Note: Correction: images weren't merely objects of worship - Tags: atom/literature/h3 - divine image was there to manifest the presence, the power, the agency of the deity for whatever needs existed. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kwj97xhtgak46qtdt43a4wpe)) - Note: ANE background: a divine image manifested the deity's presence/power/agency - Tags: atom/literature/h2 - demut the likeness of God. We are God's representatives on earth. And by ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kwj981xw6sfdbymm93cx1sy8)) - Note: Core claim: humans as God's representatives on earth (demut = likeness) - Tags: atom/zettel/z1 ## Links - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Imago Dei Names Human Vocation Before It Names Human Traits]] — promotes the ancient representational reading into a claim about shared human vocation.