Recently, I have been discussing man being made in the image of God. Some say that God's essence is spirit and, therefore, that image is mind, will, and emotions (or similar variations) and cannot include anything physical like a body.Some put forth that the image is spirit, soul, and body. But even most of those admit that the body is looking forward to Jesus as God in the flesh. My question for you is, why couldn't the Word have had a spiritual/physical body before the incarnation and, thus, man being made in God's image would be body, soul, and spirit?
Please don't be alarmed by my question. I am doing some research, and some questions are coming to light. Here are a few:
We have a couple of Santa's in the house. After reading James Melton's tract on it, should we throw them away; and also, should we not give them as gifts to the nursing home residents?
Why is there such a recent surge in the popularity of movies and TV shows dealing with "messages from the dead?" Why is the practice of consulting with psychics, such as Sylvia Brown or John Edwards (who claim to talk to the dead and consult spirit guides) becoming spiritually acceptable to so many?
In Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, there is no meaning of the word culture as it can be used at times today. The 1828 meaning basically defines it as any labor for improvement or growth. When did this word change its meaning? The reason I was thinking about this is because some people who call themselves Christian refer to the Bible's "culture" at the time. Someone has told me that in the culture at the time of the Bible women couldn't be a pastor. I have heard others refer to a "Southern" culture or a "Northern" culture. In these times when diversity and tolerance is stressed in and outside of the "church", this word is used (or misused) frequently. Another phrase used is "culturally relevant". It may be culturally relevant at one time but not another. Of course it is comforting to know that the Bible transcends all so-called "cultures"!
