a created being AND divine???

[Eddi]

Can one be a created being BUT: also be divine in nature and share the status of "God" with God The Father???

Basically: Can God create an entity (such as Jesus Christ) who is God but who is also one of God’s creations???

I think this would be like God expanding himself or perhaps even reproducing asexually??? This would bring about a new meaning to “The Son of God”…

Sounds a bit polytheistic, I know…

I ask because I (currently) believe Jesus Christ was created (as opposed to always existed) BUT is divine in nature and a part of the Godhead.

I hesitate to use the word “trinity” as it comes with so much baggage but I don’t feel comfortable with “unitarian”

If he had always existed alongside God The Father then I think that would be polytheism, but I don’t think he did, I believe he was “begotten’ by God The Father (who always existed) - he is therefore not the equal of God The Father but a subservient being whose essence is divine and who was created by God The Father - but also a part of “God” which I think is the collective noun for divine beings (beings with a divine nature - of which I believe there are three)

To complicate things further: I also believe that he is both fully human and fully divine

Does all this make sense to people?

Can one be a created being but also be divine in nature and share the status of “God” with God The Father?

 

[Starlight]

Can one be a created being BUT: also be divine in nature and share the status of "God" with God The Father???

Basically: Can God create an entity (such as Jesus Christ) who is God but who is also one of God’s creations???

I think this would be like God expanding himself or perhaps even reproducing asexually??? This would bring about a new meaning to “The Son of God”…

Sounds a bit polytheistic, I know…

I ask because I (currently) believe Jesus Christ was created (as opposed to always existed) BUT is divine in nature and a part of the Godhead.

I hesitate to use the word “trinity” as it comes with so much baggage but I don’t feel comfortable with “unitarian”

If he had always existed alongside God The Father then I think that would be polytheism, but I don’t think he did, I believe he was “begotten’ by God The Father (who always existed) - he is therefore not the equal of God The Father but a subservient being whose essence is divine and who was created by God The Father - but also a part of “God” which I think is the collective noun for divine beings (beings with a divine nature - of which I believe there are three)

To complicate things further: I also believe that he is both fully human and fully divine

Does all this make sense to people?

Can one be a created being but also be divine in nature and share the status of “God” with God The Father?

The docterine you now believe in is called semi-arianism. hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Arianism

I think many trinitarian christians secretly believe this I don't think it polytheism because Semi-arianism believe God the Father is the highest and truest God. This doctrine makes better sense than the offical trinity. I like this doctrine very much.

 

[Eddi]

The docterine you now believe in is called semi-arianism. hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Arianism

I think many trinitarian christians secretly believe this I don't think it polytheism because Semi-arianism believe God the Father is the highest and truest God. This doctrine makes better sense than the offical trinity. I like this doctrine very much.

Is it though? According to Wikipedia:

Semi-Arians asserted that the Son was "of a similar substance" (homoiousios) as the Father but not "of the same substance" (homoousios).​

I think I believe that God The Father and Jesus Christ are of "the same substance" rather than "a similar substance"

 

[Starlight]

Is it though? According to Wikipedia:

Semi-Arians asserted that the Son was "of a similar substance" (homoiousios) as the Father but not "of the same substance" (homoousios).​

I think I believe that God The Father and Jesus Christ are of "the same substance" rather than "a similar substance"

Then you are trinitarian. The social trinitarian belief. The officaly trinity do in reality believe almost all you wrote in this tread.
Trinitarians do believe God the father was first, then he begotten the Son, and then God/or God+the son proceeded the Holy spirit. And after that The father, son and holy spirit togheter created the universe.

The only difference is that most trinitarian insist the son is begotten (and not created) I think this is strange. It is really similar to begotten and to be created. It sounds like the same.
And also the other differentence is that most trinitarians believe the father is not the truest God. They believe they all three persons is equally God, all the three persons is truest God.

But many trinitarians believe as you do. They believe God the father is the higest and truest God. It is the trinity belief really just interpreted a little differently. So yes you believe in the offical trinity in a way

 

[Eddi]

So yes you believe in the offical trinity in a way

Then I'm not a heretic after all

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

This primordial creature would still be dependent on God in order to exist right?

 

[Starlight]

Then I'm not a heretic after all

Yes thats true

 

[Eddi]

This primordial creature would still be dependent on God in order to exist right?

I believe the existence of everything is dependent on God, so yes...

But you've got me thinking, here are my thoughts:

Could God The Father terminate Jesus Christ? Make him no longer exist?

- Yes, I believe he could.

Could Jesus Christ terminate God The Father?

- No, I don't think so, because The Father can never go out of existence, that that is an impossibility as existence itself comes from God

But could God The Father die and Jesus Christ take his place?

- I have no idea. But a son taking the place of a father is something that happens between fathers and sons!

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I believe the existence of everything is dependent on God, so yes...

But you've got me thinking, here are my thoughts:

Could God The Father terminate Jesus Christ? Make him no longer exist?

- Yes, I believe he could.

Could Jesus Christ terminate God The Father?

- No, I don't think so, because The Father can never go out of existence, that that is an impossibility as existence itself comes from God

But could God The Father die and Jesus Christ take his place?

- I have no idea. But a son taking the place of a father is something that happens between fathers and sons!

Yes, but that would make God like His creatures. But God cannot be properly compared to anything created. Do you believe The Father Jesus spoke of was mortal?

 

[Eddi]

Yes, but that would make God like His creatures. But God cannot be properly compared to anything created. Do you believe The Father Jesus spoke of was mortal?

I'm sorry but I'd have to reject the assumption that "he cannot be properly compared to anything he created"

I think he can be: if his creatures are of the same substance of him, and have certain attributes, or powers - I believe that were they not "comparable" then they could not join together and collectively form the Holy Trinity

But of course, being "comparable" is not the same as being "equal"

And in answer to your question: I don't believe either Jesus or God The Father are mortal, I believe they are both immortal - and that us humans are too

 

[Hockeycowboy]

“Divine” means “of God”, “from God”, or “like God.”

Google it.

That still doesn’t mean “God.”

Angels are divine. Angels are “of the same substance”.... spirit.

Keep in mind, though, that words like “substance,” “nature,” and “essence” are Greek philosophical terms, and don’t appear in the Bible.
This is expressed by Catholic priest and scholar John L. McKenzie in his Dictionary of the Bible, pp.899-900,

 

[Katzpur]

Can one be a created being BUT: also be divine in nature and share the status of "God" with God The Father???

Basically: Can God create an entity (such as Jesus Christ) who is God but who is also one of God’s creations???

I think this would be like God expanding himself or perhaps even reproducing asexually??? This would bring about a new meaning to “The Son of God”…

Sounds a bit polytheistic, I know…

I ask because I (currently) believe Jesus Christ was created (as opposed to always existed) BUT is divine in nature and a part of the Godhead.

You know, I think it's kind of interesting how people seem to be almost afraid of the word, "polytheism." I can understand why. I mean it does have some very negative connotations and our God has commanded us to put no other gods before Him. I just think we get kind of hung up on making sure that we couldn't possibly be guilty of disobeying that all-important commandment. But here's something to consider.

Throughout the Old Testament, gods other than our God are mentioned. Two examples are:

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward…
Joshua 22:22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD…

People say these gods are "false gods," but what does that mean? Does it mean that they don't exist? Does it mean that they exist but are evil? I don't think any of us can say with absolute certainty who or what they are. In my opinion, they are, in fact, lesser beings, beings that evidently have certain divine qualities, but none of whom have any power over us. They did not create us, they cannot intervene in our lives, they cannot answer our prayers, they can not raise us from the dead, and we will never stand before them to be judged. They are only "false" gods if we attribute to them abilities they do not have. They are not "false" because they do not exist, because they do exist. The Bible tells us that our Father in Heaven, the Almighty God is "God of gods." If we were to insist that every reference to "gods" in the Bible is a reference to "false gods," then we are going to have to concede that "God is the God of false gods." I don't think any of us is going to feel comfortable in doing that. And if you stop to think about it, isn't someone who is a "God of gods" greater than someone who is just a "God of men"?

Even in the New Testament, Paul says (in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So there are some who are "called gods." Interestingly enough, they are not just "called gods" here on earth, but also in Heaven. That pretty much makes their existence non-debatable. As Paul says, though, "to us there is but one God." Okay, but that one God (with a capital 'G') is a Godhead comprised of three individuals who are all divine, two of them spiritually begotten by God the Father before the creation of the world began. The term "Father" isn't a meaningless one. It means exactly what it says. All life begets new life "after its kind" (as Genesis tells us). It is therefore entirely reasonable to conclude that our God begat a Son, who we also refer to as "God" because that Son, Jesus Christ, is, according to Hebrews 1:3, "the express image of His [Father's] person."

I hesitate to use the word “trinity” as it comes with so much baggage but I don’t feel comfortable with “unitarian.”

If he had always existed alongside God The Father then I think that would be polytheism, but I don’t think he did, I believe he was “begotten’ by God The Father (who always existed) - he is therefore not the equal of God The Father but a subservient being whose essence is divine and who was created by God The Father - but also a part of “God” which I think is the collective noun for divine beings (beings with a divine nature - of which I believe there are three).

Don't get too awfully hung up on words. Words are human constructs. We humans approve of certain words and get uncomfortable with other words, almost as if we think God is going to strike us down with a bolt of lightning if we use one of the forbidden ones when trying to understand who He is.

To complicate things further: I also believe that he is both fully human and fully divine

Does all this make sense to people?

Of course. Jesus had all of the attributes of divinity because He had a divine Father. He had all of the attributes of humanity because He had a human mother. It makes total sense.

Can one be a created being but also be divine in nature and share the status of “God” with God The Father?

Well, you already know what I think.

 

[Eddi]

“Divine” means “of God”, “from God”, or “like God.”

Google it.

That still doesn’t mean “God.”

Angels are divine. Angels are “of the same substance”.... spirit.

Keep in mind, though, that words like “substance,” “nature,” and “essence” are Greek philosophical terms, and don’t appear in the Bible.
This is expressed by Catholic priest and scholar John L. McKenzie in his Dictionary of the Bible, pp.899-900,

OK

Substitute where I said "divine" so that it instead reads "godly"

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I'm sorry but I'd have to reject the assumption that "he cannot be properly compared to anything he created"

Wasn't that the reason why the Israelites weren't allowed to make graven images of beasts or humans, because God wasn't like any of His creatures?

 

[1213]

Can one be a created being BUT: also be divine in nature and share the status of "God" with God The Father???
...

I think the status of God belongs to God only. But, still, people can be called God’s children by this:

...He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

 

[Eddi]

I think it's kind of interesting how people seem to be almost afraid of the word, "polytheism."

I've always been afraid of it, because for me it brings up images of the Greek Gods on Mount Olympus, who are all basically fallible and capricious humans but with extra powers - I don't think it's like that at all

In your opinion, would having multiple God-like beings who were all created by a single Supreme Being be Polytheism? Or Monotheism? Or somewhere in-between?

 

[Katzpur]

Is it though? According to Wikipedia:

Semi-Arians asserted that the Son was "of a similar substance" (homoiousios) as the Father but not "of the same substance" (homoousios).​

I think I believe that God The Father and Jesus Christ are of "the same substance" rather than "a similar substance"

And this is why we shouldn't get too awfully hung up on words. It doesn't really matter what "Semi-Arians" or anybody else thinks. The Bible doesn't use either "homoiousios" or "homoousios" to describe Jesus Christ, nor does it even attempt to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son in this way. The earliest Christians wouldn't have known what in the world such a discussion was even about.

 

[Katzpur]

I've always been afraid of it, because for me it brings up images of the Greek Gods on Mount Olympus, who are all basically fallible and capricious humans but with extra powers - I don't think it's like that at all.

Nor do I.

In your opinion, would having multiple God-like beings who were all created by a single Supreme Being be Polytheism? Or Monotheism? Or somewhere in-between?

I believe that, technically speaking, it would be Henotheism. (Now you just have one more word to further complicate things.)

 

[Eddi]

Wasn't that the reason why the Israelites weren't allowed to make graven images of beasts or humans, because God wasn't like any of His creatures?

I have no idea what reason God had for not allowing the Israelites to make graven images of beasts or humans

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I'm sorry but I'd have to reject the assumption that "he cannot be properly compared to anything he created"

I think he can be: if his creatures are of the same substance of him, and have certain attributes, or powers - I believe that were they not "comparable" then they could not join together and collectively form the Holy Trinity

But of course, being "comparable" is not the same as being "equal"

And in answer to your question: I don't believe either Jesus or God The Father are mortal, I believe they are both immortal - and that us humans are too

I don't think I can carry on this debate much further, as my arguments may wander too far from the Trinitarian Christian doctrine you follow. I myself am not a Christian after all.

Thanks for this conversation though.