The above statement "To love another person is to see the face of God" is entirely correct, for "Let Us make man in Our Image" ought to give one the key, to pause and reflect. Contradicting that Genesis statement is refuting the Bible, all of it, at the outset, and is taking the part of that old liar, the Devil. Is it not?
Not even close to being contextually correct. Please Hugo’s book then we can talk.
I suggest that you look completely at the portion of Genesis....it includes a masculine noun ‘image’ and a feminine noun ‘likeness’. The commentaries are very clear and the explicit...man was created as a semblance as something that was like God but not God. After the fall man’s sin left him separated from his maker....no longer was he ‘in God’s image’ he was fallen and needed restoration.
Not even close to being contextually correct. Please read Hugo’s book then we can talk.
I suggest that you look completely at the portion of Genesis....it includes a masculine noun ‘image’ and a feminine noun ‘likeness’. The commentaries are very clear and the explicit...man was created as a semblance as something that was like God but not God. After the fall man’s sin left him separated from his maker....no longer was he ‘in God’s image’ he was fallen and needed restoration.
From Matthew Henry
“That man was made in God’s image and after his likeness, two words to express the same thing and making each other the more expressive; image and likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator; yet still between God and man there is an infinite distance. Christ only is the express image of God’s person, as the Son of his Father, having the same nature. It is only some of God’s honour that is put upon man, who is God’s image only as the shadow in the glass, or the king’s impress upon the coin....”