First, let me congratulate you on contributing the 1000th posting of this thread.
Second, let me point out that the “body of Jesus” is special because of the mind, spirit and/or soul of Jesus… not because he has 2 arms, 2 legs, and a beard.
There are many non-human primates that make for a credible case for 2 arms, 2 legs and a beard!
I fully agree George:
The body of Jesus is special because it is the body of the Son of God.
However, this is not the question.
The question is:
Why is your body (George’s body) special?
My answer:
Because you share a body like Jesus’ body, i.e.: a human body.
Surely.
Nonetheless your body is clearly different from a gorilla’s body, isn’t it!
Thanks George! All contributors of the thread deserve congratulation, in particular you as original poster.
And I profit from this occasion to thank the staff of BioLogos too for ensuring the high level of this blog.
I confess that I don’t think so. I dont think the differences between thd human body and the body of a gorilla amounts to anything important.
But the difference in our minds make all the difference!
Are you claiming that mentally disabled humans do not deserve more rights than gorillas?
Excellent question. However, isn’t there a big difference between a gorilla and a mentally deficient human? It seems the difference between a club and a Swiss watch–but the watch has been damaged. It’s a damaged mental capacity, not the original one. Once repaired in Heaven, the brains will be different even more.
Thanks 
No … I’m claiming that some humans and some gorillas are not different enough that their image should not be considered different.
The “image of God” is in the MIND … not in the body.
I am a bit confused by your claim.
If I understand well you are claiming the following:
Some humans and gorillas are not different enough to the extent that their image cannot be considered different.
But then, how can you distinguish that some are humans and some gorillas?
I assume you are asking how we differentiate between the BODIES of the two creatures?.. if they are both dead or sleeping, or without any resort to including their behavior?
Well, firstly, that is my point. In ancient days, not knowing what a gorilla was, some socieities thought they were simply a tribe of wild humans.
Secondly, is it acceptable to you that God’s image should be defined by a heavier grow and more body hair?
Thirdly, you can’t imagine a more satisfactory definition based on something OTHER than appearance?
Does your perception of Yahweh include a physical appearance? How big are his feat? What is the weight of his sexual organs? And if a deity can be represented in both human and some other form, how does this help us identify what is God’s so-called “image”?
In order to give a fitting reply I would be thankful to have more information about these “societies” that “thought [gorillas] were simply a tribe of wild humans”.
Could you please give us some reference we can read?
My pleasure:
At the [end] of Hanno’s voyage, the explorer found an island heavily populated with what were described as hirsute and savage people. Attempts to capture the males failed, but three of the females were taken. These were so ferocious that they were killed, and their skins preserved for transport home to Carthage. The skins were kept in the Temple of Juno (Tanit or Astarte) on Hanno’s return and, according to Pliny the Elder, survived until the Roman destruction of Carthage in 146 BC, some 350 years after Hanno’s expedition.[5][6] The interpreters travelling with Hanno called the people Gorillai (in the Greek text Γόριλλαι). When the American physician and missionary Thomas Staughton Savage and naturalist Jeffries Wyman first described the gorillas in the 19th century, the apes were named Troglodytes gorilla after the description in Hanno.[7][8] :
In its inmost recess was an island similar to that formerly described, which contained in like manner a lake with another island, inhabited by a rude description of people. The females were much more numerous than the males, and had rough skins: our interpreters called them Gorillae. We pursued but could take none of the males; they all escaped to the top of precipices, which they mounted with ease, and threw down stones; we took three of the females, but they made such violent struggles, biting and tearing their captors, that we killed them, and stripped off the skins, which we carried to Carthage: being out of provisions we could go no further.
— The periplus of Hanno, [9]
.
.
.
George,
I warmly thank you for this valuable piece of information.
I have attentively read The periplus of Hanno and related References, and reach the following surprising conclusion:
Hanno’s account supports the claim that ancient aboriginal people had already the idea of common descent .
In Hanno’s account a tribe of hairy great apes are referred to as “wild men” (ανθρπων αγριων) by Hanno and called “Gorilla” by the native Lixitae interpreters accompanying him [see here, p. 36]. Lo and behold, “Gorilla” derives from the root gor, kor or gur, which mean “man” in several present languages in South-Senegal [enter ‘gorille’ in http://atilf.atilf.fr/], precisely one of the regions Hanno circumnavigated. Thus, “Gorilla” has seemingly the same meaning as the word Orang-utan, which is derived from Malay and Indonesian words and means “man of the forest”.
On the other hand, Hanno (in his account) uses the terms “human beings” and “Ethiopians” to refer different tribes of negroes and other humans of dark color [see here, p. 13].
All this make clear that the interpreters accompanying Hanno, while clearly distinguishing humans from great apes, acknowledged a common ancestry of humans and great apes by means of the word “Gorilla”. In fact, their description and the term “Gorilla” was used later by Thomas S. Savage to classify the species Troglodytes gorilla.
Most interestingly, calling apes by names like “orang-utan” and “gorilla” where the root “man” appears, clearly support my thesis of “the origin of the species by means of natural deletion ”: If all extinct intermediate varieties were still alive, it would be impossible to define the concept of ‘species’ and distinguish between humans and non-human animals.
In a next post I will answer your question whether my perception of Yahweh includes a physical appearance.
As argued in my previous post:
Ancient aboriginal societies distinguished very well gorillas from human beings.
The term “gorilla” relates to “wild man” in South-Senegal languages, very much like Orang-utan means “man of the forests” in Malay. Such terms indicate that aboriginal societies were aware of the common descent from humans and great apes, while clearly distinguishing between humans and non-human animals.
Yes, my perception of Yahweh does include physical appearance:
The body of Jesus Christ.
From this the answers to your other questions follow.
This is plain from Colossians 1:15:
The Son [our Lord Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
[For further development see the Greek Fathers of the Church, in particular St. Irenaeus]
THE image? The meaning is more reasonable when translated as AN image.
The New Testament thinks mustard seeds are the smallest seeds; this is wrong too.
Just to clarify where we may find common ground:
The New Testament states that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Would you claim “this is wrong too”?
First off, having the same image does not mean of the same genetic source. Even if the claim is that Seth had Adam’s image did not mean God created Seth or was the biological source.
Nor can we assume that giving two different entities a similiar name, does not mean it has the same common ancestry or genetic makeup. A name is similiar to that of an image, in the point where two things are similar in appearance, their name may be linked in the root image associated with that name.
I am a Unitarian.
If you deny the incarnation of the Son of God, then “being in the image of God” seems to become meaningless and we can stop our debate.
However, if God did not become human, why should we assign to humans more dignity and rights than gorillas?
If the Word of God did not become human flesh then the boundary between humans and non-human animals becomes completely arbitrary, and mental disabled humans should be considered to have lower dignity than gorillas, as Peter Singer suggests.
I am a Unitarian. And you think the image of God has to do with how hairy is skin is, or how thick his eye brows are.
We probably should have ended this discussion months ago.
Thais is exactly the point!
Human bodies are created by God to go to Heaven and thus become divine bodies.
This is only possible because the Son of God incarnated and made it possible for human flesh to become God’s flesh.
In conclusion:
All human bodies, also those of disabled people, are image of God and thereby have a dignity and deserve rights gorillas don’t.
I don’t think human bodies of flesh become divine bodies.
I think the soul is a divine body.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.