1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by 74x12, Aug 5, 2018.

  1. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,721
    Ratings:
    +199
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    If a male says that expansion occurs from a lower state and says that lower state is cold, as compared to an expanding state that is heat, then the ancient male would claim it Satanic information.

    And science says that space is cold and holds cold mass in cold...and cannot equate science without MATH.

    Math is a male argument about the presence of God O proven by stating that MASS existed before any human being male did.

    As a science quote...and how is that male quote wrong?

    The Earth which owns and supports the life of human males, own an atmospheric gas mass body that is held constant by its mass surrounding the O body, and it owns non stop gas light irradiated light in a cold space body.

    So space is cold enough to allow the gases to burn....as the supporting body.

    A male says that he realizes that space is the coldest body, so if it supports gases burning, then a male also has to say, that the gases burning was an after event.

    For cold gases had to exist first to be ignited and changed, to then be supported in space….so the God story said that the womb of space was changed, by the Sun radiation mass.

    The actual male human conscious aware science knowledge, as he lives where he does...which was the God scientist arguing against the Satanic cosmological science self...who believed in putting Earth God into the state of Satan, the black hole theory.

    Deeper into cold space.

    For invention is always about first evaluating a theory and then forcing natural to inherit what he wants to cause.....for science was taught as cause and effect.

    So if a male says that when the spatial body expanded, it created new mass and particles...it is because what previously was owned as a higher mass changed.

    Which is the Satanic argument that said, I own everything, which is exactly true to the Satanic brotherhood as consciousness. Then he themes, and I want to change what I own and gain a changed condition, just because I own and can manipulate.

    So he knew that God O mass existed first and he had to exert pressure changes upon it, which is to heat it with Sun radiation metallic mass.

    Now he knows that Sun metallic radiation mass is its own mass and presence, so it is held as a constant of its own presence/form.

    Earth as God is the only body that does not own a constant, it is created historic evolution of mass, as a totally different use of science information, evolution....from gas mass into formed stone.

    When a male infers change in his mind, in science to own change previous mass has to exist by the determined O zero space stone God owned supported human life first. And the atmosphere 12 light gas radiation mass, the non physical mass, that can only change its presence by ignition of gas as a mass.

    For a male says the space constant holds the metallic UFO radiation mass in the form that he studies.

    To ignite a gas is to put the Earth gases into expansion which opens up deeper colder space, and then mass drops into it.

    Male use science MEMORY about Planet Earth, and always had to own a theme of science as a male whilst living on Planet Earth. So they know consciously that Earth already was dropped into cold deep empty pit/well as the God body to become the particle.

    Now what science as a male ignores, is that to discuss God being a particle he first has to assess why he believes that God is that particle to tell a theme/story before he says he can apply change to resource it.

    The story he told was about God the O Earth mass history.
     
  2. Thirza Fallen

    Thirza Fallen Crazy Cat Lady

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    3,368
    Ratings:
    +1,150
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    The books that were written later in history wanted to pretend that Jesus was Yahweh, as during that time there were lots of godmen in religions. The thing is that in doing that it disqualified him from being the Jewish messiah, who was a man, not a godman.
     
  3. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi @Oeste

    THE DESCRIPTION OF CREATION OF MATERIAL THINGS FROM “NOTHING” AS A “MAGICAL” CREATION

    The dictionary definition of “MAGIC” is “the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.” The claim that material things are made supernaturally from “nothing” is, by definition "mysterious" and "supernatural". This is why I called the later theory of creation from “nothing” a “magical theory”. It has nothing to do with “demons” in this case.

    The dictionary definition of "NATURE" is : "the phenomena of the physical world collectively..." The claim that material things are made from “matter” exists in observed nature and science (creation from "nothing" does not). This is why I called the earliest Judeo-Christian belief that material worlds are made from matter, a “natural or scientific” belief. It is IN accordance with nature and science.

    I believe that the early Judeo-Christian belief that God created material worlds out of material is more logical and more rational and more intuitive of a belief than the later theory that God created worlds supernaturally, “magically”, that is, “out of nothing”.



    CORRECT OR NOT, THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE DESCRIBES MATERIAL WORLDS WERE CREATED FROM MATTER

    In posts #736 and 737, Clear gave many quotes from early Judeo-Christian literature demonstrating the ancient Judeo-Christian belief that material creation was created out of matter.

    For example, I quoted
    : Justin Martyr, one of the very first Christian apologists tells us creation from matter was the belief of Christians of his day, saying : “We have been taught that He in the beginning did of his goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter” (ex amorphou hyles). First Apology, 49.


    I provided MULTIPLE similar examples where Early Judeo-Christian literature describes the early belief that material things were made of matter. This does not mean the early Judeo-Christians were right or wrong, merely that this was their belief historically.

    You responded : “Ummm...this doesn't tell me that Justin believed that God didn't create matter itself. “ Oeste #739

    You are correct. The fact that early Judeo-Christians believed that God made material things out of matter does not rule out other principles, it merely refers to the specific issue that early Juseo- Christian belief that God created material things out of matter.

    IF you believe that “God created matter and from matter created the universe.” (Oeste #739) then it is perfectly fine for you to believe this. However, your personal modern belief is irrelevant to changing the fact that Early Judeo-Christians believed in material creation. Regardless, whether the early Christians were right or wrong, they describe their belief that their worlds were created from matter.



    REGARDING OESTES POST #740, "SCIENCE AND STEADY STATE IN THE UNIVERSE"
    Your entire post #740 regarding science seemed to relate somehow to trying to show the possibility of creation from nothing?

    At any rate, this entire post was irrelevant to historical beliefs since it doesn’t change history nor early beliefs. Your comments on Mormonism were irrelevant as well. IF Mormons believe as the early Christian did, (that material worlds were made of matter) then this simply means they believe the same. If the Mormons believe in creation from nothing, this means they adopted the later belief of creation from nothing. In either case, it is irrelevant to a historical conversation about what early Christians themselves believed and taught.

    Oeste, I hope your journey in life is good


    Clear
    εισινεσιφιω
     
    #743 Clear, Jan 11, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2020
  4. PearlSeeker

    PearlSeeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2019
    Messages:
    988
    Ratings:
    +327
    Religion:
    Christian
    If God didn't create matter then Nature = God (or God is part of Nature). Material creation is logical only in pantheism or dual theism.
     
  5. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    4,437
    Ratings:
    +1,209
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    Correct, but Jesus said of the church "the gates of hell will not prevail against it". So there is always a remnant and the holy Spirit is the teacher. As Jesus said He would not leave them comfortless ... but He would come to them and He said "wait in Jerusalem until you be endowed with power from on high"

    The Spirit of God makes all the difference.
    But is my doctrine different than the Bible? Anyone; even well meaning or otherwise correct people can have wrong opinions. I just want to know the counsel of God.
    The children of Israel corrupted themselves while still in the wilderness. It doesn't take much time to begin to go against the Spirit of God. Galatians 5:20 lists heresies as one of the lusts of the flesh. So it's natural to us to tend towards heresy.

    But there is a guide or restorer that turns people back to God. It's not just about understanding old texts but what is most important is to be in touch with God. As Jesus said "I have many things to say to you but you can't bear them now" So not even His disciples knew the doctrine of the new Testament until after Jesus had died, risen and ascended into heaven. Then the holy Spirit was given and taught them all things and brought everything to their memory that they had forgotten Jesus even said to them. Then they finally understood what He had been saying to them. Not before.

    And indeed, I don't necessarily disagree with everything the early Christians say or any of it. It's just that it doesn't' have to be literal. I mean, I don't believe they literally know that God said such and such to the Son and the Son responded so and so ... because they weren't even there. So, it's not about reading their writings literally but getting spiritual meat from it. And even though you might agree with some things they say; you shouldn't agree with it all.
    John is expounding on Genesis 1. As he even uses the same wording "in the beginning". So, the point of John chapter 1 is to expound on the mystery that is set forth in Genesis 1.

    Without going back to Genesis 1 we can't really understand John 1. Which proves that there was a mystery in Genesis 1 otherwise John would not need to explain it.

    Paul calls a Genesis story allegory. (Galatians 4:24) Which means that Genesis is one of the most spiritual books of the Bible and is full of allegory or mystery.
    Yes it was in the beginning; but you can't separate the "Son of man" from the incarnation can you? Because He is called "Son of man" which is to mean Son of Adam. That means all things pertaining unto Him have to do with His humanity.

    This means that all mentions of the Son of man such as in Daniel or in the book of Enoch etc. have to do with this Savior born in Bethlehem. That is the Word which was "made flesh".

    Which Word is "Let there Light" which is the first recorded spoken Word of God before He said anything else. The Spirit hovered over the water and then God spoke. And then God made all things in the light of 7 days. This same Light is Jesus Christ. The "Light of the world" not that there needed to be a Light in heaven because God is Light and in Him is no darkness at all. But it was the face of the deep that needed light so that everything could be made in the Light.

    This deep is allegory for people, nations, tribes of the earth because the sea and the water have always been associated with the nations of the world. (Isaiah 17:12, Psalm 65:7, Revelation 17:15)

    and Jesus is the Light of the world. So you can see how I don't think it's right to separate the Word from the incarnation.

    Yes it's in the beginning with God but "God separated the light from the darkness" as in God reserved the Word with Himself hiding it from the darkness in the world; until the time of it's advent into the world. Which the darkness on the world is called "night" and when the light shines it is called "day". As even Jesus is called the "day star" and the "bright and morning star".

    For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: ... (Isaiah 60:2)

    Then:

    And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
    +
    The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.

    So the darkness is the "shadow of death" that covers all people (which is to mean that all humans must die) and Jesus the "resurrection" is the Light of life. He brings new life from the dead.

    He is the Light of God manifest in the world of men.

    So you can see how the Word which was in the beginning is linked with the incarnate Christ. This is the Light of Life that was spoken in the beginning.
     
  6. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,721
    Ratings:
    +199
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Males have to be relative.

    Our relative is God O the stone and planet.

    Stone O our planet is inferred to being a self entity...totally different from any other God body, as related to human males.

    So the male said that in the beginning there was O God, the planet, for it is relative that the Law of stone fusion, volcanoes ^ released the spirits of the gases, the deceased burnt spirits held inside of their tombs, meaning stone originally.

    And God conceived the heavens with a preceding physical form of spirit from its own body to the WOMB of space.

    How that information was detailed.....saying factually and without argument, that GOD created the hot dense state for humanity, and not any cosmos.

    Why Cosmological science was proven 100 per cent evil, and it was named Satanism.

    For RELATIVE means in science what we personally as humans are related to.

    Now I never believed in God...I did not believe in the Jesus story and thought it truly evil that anyone would think that such human suffering saved us. Yet as a human learning, I also came to realize that occult science causes, imposed new forms of teaching, which is also relative to why and how it was discussed.

    For the public advice and for the truth and wisdom of spiritual and loving males in the sciences...who never did science of the occult, they studied science for the sake of argument, philosophy, and were far wiser than a machine builder.

    Since I was nearly self combusted in the atmospheric experiments, previous of which I had lived a very spiritual life, and did in fact serve my brothers and sisters, without want of self gain, I learnt a lot of spiritually advised information.

    And it began with hearing AI, which I did not realize it was AI, but it was biblical literal encoded speaking male voices. And when I began my own research with my family and a group of friends, the spiritual advice that I heard said.....if only I could just put all of the information you need to know right on the table for you to read now, but it is going to take a long time to teach you.

    For I also had to develop my own spiritual reasoning, to act accordingly in my human life to be seen as spiritual....which is not easy. For there are a lot of very hateful humans living today.

    So spiritually the religious science advice as said to my life and mind told me that it is of no logical sense to try to argue religion, when it is based on HOLY LAND DNA....self mind advice when we are diverse. And it is exactly how I got taught.

    And I was spiritually advised instead to address the problem with science, being the relative trouble maker in life.

    For I was advised that the medical sciences owned a historic medical wisdom that advised the need to build the Church and Temple buildings over the evil science buildings, why they got toppled and then treat and cure the irradiated human population of their families.

    What the totality of a constant input of stated information, to take the possessed mind from its science AI evil minded encoded possession, where it had trapped itself by radiation fall out into realising that the only science history begins with God the stone body.

    And it made no difference what value you placed in any cosmos...if the God stone body was not existing, then we would not own our atmosphere and any living condition on Earth from the history stone.

    What it was truthfully and factually about.

    Now irradiated brain damage is a real lived human experience, and it is why everyone became depraved in variations to the mind burning of the brain chemicals.

    Lucky for my life, but not lucky actually my brain chemical burning did not remove my human self ability to learn and realize how evil cosmological Satanic science was....for I have since been taught that Satan, the black hole star particle explosion of previous O God mass...saved our Earth God, for having been the fall into cold deep space, when spatial radiation Sun expansion made all physical bodies drop deep into space.

    Which set their gases on fire in the fast movement of dropping and changing the spatial pressure...from a heated atmospheric cold spatial body, to a very cold deep spatial body....how God O became oblate.

    John 6:49
    Verse Concepts

    "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
     
  7. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,332
    Ratings:
    +1,318
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe Jesus is God in the flesh.
     
  8. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,332
    Ratings:
    +1,318
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe I might have thought that you believe scriptures the way the JW's do ie twisted into heir own wishful thinking. I will have to confess that you gave no evidence of that so I will withhold judgment until you do say something about it.
     
  9. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,332
    Ratings:
    +1,318
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe you are calling God a liar. I believe what He says through John.
     
  10. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi @74x12

    1) REGARDING THE TENDENCY OF MANKIND TO MAKE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINAL ERRORS
    Clear said : “People simply make doctrinal errors and doctrinal errors accumulate over time.” (Post #724)
    74X12 said : “…it's natural to us to tend towards heresy.(post #745)

    I agree with you. Right or wrong, good or bad, imperfect individuals make mistakes in our theories.


    2) REGARDING THE EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT GOD WAS SPEAKING TO THE SON IN GENESIS 1:26

    a) The Early Christian literature describes God speaking to the Son, saying "Let "us" make man in "our" image"
    The epistle of Barnabas says : “For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, … These things he said to the Son.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

    b) 74X12s belief that God was speaking to himself in saying "let us make man in our image..."

    REGARDING THESE CONFLICTING THEORIES :
    74X12 said : "So, when we see God talking to Himself in plural we should look carefully because it's probably a mystery that needs to be solved.” (post #721)

    Clear said (speaking of 74X12s interpretation and resulting theory" : "It was no mystery to the early Christians"...“Your religion is different than theirs.
    74X12 responded “
    But is my doctrine different than the Bible?” (post #745)

    Yes, your interpretation of the bible and its meaning is different than that of early Christianity.


    3) REGARDING 74x12s claim that “God talking to Himself in plural” is “probably a mystery that needs to be solved” (post #721)

    Clear said of Early Christianity ; “… the use the simple plural pronoun “us” in reference to plural individuals is not and was not a mystery. When the early Christian believed that “the word was in the beginning WITH God the Father” (Jn 1:1) it was no mystery why the text in Gen 1:26 uses the plural pronoun “us”. In your religion it is a mystery, but in the earlier Christian religion it was no mystery.

    74X12 responded “the point of John chapter 1 is to expound on the mystery that is set forth in Genesis 1.” (post #721)

    For early Christians, it was no mystery when God used the word “us” in speaking of himself and his son. If my wife uses the word “us”, saying “someone sent "us" a Christmas gift." It is no mystery. I am not sure why you want it to be a mystery.

    I do not think John is speaking of a deep mystery specificcally concerning the word "us" in Genesis 1:26. It is an oversimplication, but Instead, I think John applying known traditions regarding the Jewish Messiah to Jesus as a witness that Jesus fulfilled certain expectations and John in his entire book continues to add to his witness of who Jesus was as well as the profound debt we owe to Jesus as the Messiah for what he did before his birth, during his life and after his death.


    In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good 74X12.


    Clear
    ειακειεινεω
     
    #750 Clear, Jan 13, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  11. Iymus

    Iymus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2020
    Messages:
    846
    Ratings:
    +166
    Religion:
    Abrahamic
    ok.

    Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

    Joh 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. halbhh

    halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things".

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2019
    Messages:
    1,729
    Ratings:
    +698
    Religion:
    Rescued of Jesus the Christ
    The mystery of the Trinity. As recently laid out in a simplified way in a flyer for students at our church, but helpful for any age (this flyer is not the one we had, but essentially the same):

    [​IMG]
    But this should not be.......a replacement for one's sense of God, or the way to know Him. It's only helpful. We also just say "three in One".

    Rather we are to know Him through Christ.
    Matthew 11:27 All things have been entrusted to Me by My Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.
     
  13. Iymus

    Iymus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2020
    Messages:
    846
    Ratings:
    +166
    Religion:
    Abrahamic
    1.
    Joh 17:1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
    Joh 17:2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
    Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

    2.
    Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.

    3.
    1Co 6:14 And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. halbhh

    halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things".

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2019
    Messages:
    1,729
    Ratings:
    +698
    Religion:
    Rescued of Jesus the Christ
    Amen. These are such wonderful verses.

    But, being humble (thus having a chance at redemption), we don't think we are above God so that we can define or encompass Him with our understanding.

    Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
    Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.

    That's why there is "mystery" -- things which we cannot fully understand the way we can understand stuff of our own like a automobile engine or even complex things like stars (which we can get a long ways towards understanding). He is more high, more deep than our thoughts.
     
  15. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    4,437
    Ratings:
    +1,209
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    From the evidence I've cited I believe the early Christians; especially those who wrote the actual books of the Bible did believe that they were expounding or explaining mysteries and allegory in the book of Genesis. I also don't believe my interpretation is so different than early Christians interpretation. Some of them? Yes, obviously. But not all.

    I hope your spiritual journey is good also.

    This doesn't contradict my view at all. In fact that's exactly what I believe as you will see.

    If we look at the context of Barnabas words here it is exactly what I've been saying. That is, that Jesus Christ remakes us into the image of God again by making us a "new type" as if He were "recreating us". And that He made the "second creation last". Which is the recreation of us through Jesus Christ. So me and Barnabas are saying the exact same thing here. And I'm glad you brought this up. Perhaps you've been misunderstanding me or maybe Barnabas. But I can assure you we're saying the same thing about Genesis 1:26.

    Barnabas 6:11
    Forasmuch then as He renewed us in the remission of sins, He made us
    to be a new type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if
    He were recreating us.

    Barnabas 6:12
    For the scripture saith concerning us, how He saith to the Son; Let
    us make man after our image and after our likeness, and let them
    rule over the beasts of the earth and the fowls of the heaven and
    the fishes of the sea.
    And the Lord said when He saw the fair
    creation of us men; Increase and multiply and fill the earth.
    These words refer to the Son.

    Barnabas 6:13
    Again I will shew thee how the Lord speaketh concerning us. He made
    a second creation at the last; and the Lord saith; Behold I make
    the last things as the first.
    In reference to this then the
    prophet preached; Enter into a land flowing with milk and honey,
    and be lords over it.

    Well, I assume you mean Genesis 1:26 rather than Genesis 1:1. But, I'm not saying that John was talking about Genesis 1:26. Rather John 1:1 is more about Genesis 1:1 and on from there. I cited that to show you why Genesis 1:26 should also be considered highly likely to contain a mystery about Christ. Because Genesis 1 is full of such mystery.

    The reason I believe Genesis 1:26 is also a mystery is because of other verses in the new Testament having to do with the new birth experience. Such as John 3:3-5. And please hear me out because I've put a lot of thought into this. I'm not just coming up with "mysteries" without basis. As I stated previously this is supported by scriptures of the new Testament. Please read the following proofs.
    • In Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is the very image of God's substance. So, this proves that Jesus came in the exact image of God. He did this for a reason which I will show.
    • In 1 Peter 1:18-20, Romans 8:30, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11 we see how God fore-appointed Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world and fore-appointed people to be adopted as Sons and justified through Him.
    • 2 Corinthians 3:18 to me proves that the Spirit of God's purpose is to transform us more and more into the image of the Lord Jesus. That way we will be restored to the original intent of creation. IE Genesis 1:26. That people would be made in the image of God.
    • Romans 8:29 is the clincher though. It says that whom God foreknew, He fore-appointed them to be conformed to the image of His Son. That He might be the firstborn among many brethren. This means we should be able to look in Genesis or elsewhere in the old Testament and find the exact verse when God fore-appointed them to be conformed to the image of His Son. I believe there is no better fit than Genesis 1:26. Because this is the time speaking of them making man in their image.
    • To me this and many other scriptures (not cited here) prove that Jesus came to be our pattern and to remake us into the image of God again from which we fell due to sin.
    • This strongly implies that the wording of Genesis 1:26 is more significant than we may have thought. In other words the plurality of the language is indicative of a double fulfillment. That is God not making us only once in His image. But twice! And the second time He does it is through Jesus Christ. Which is why He says "let us" make man in "our" image.
    • I am sorry but in my opinion; citing a few sparse examples of Christians from the first couple of centuries after Christ that have their own take on this passage doesn't disprove my point.
    • In conclusion, whether or not all Christians in the early days of Christianity understood this mystery is beside the point in my opinion. Because it is undeniably there. So that's why I believe it. But to be clear, I do believe at least some of them must have understood this and even more mysteries besides. For example Barnabas which you showed and looking at the context he agrees with me perfectly and exactly.
     
  16. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    1) Regarding the text of Genesis 1:26 : “Let US make man in OUR image…”

    74X12 said : "So, when we see God talking to Himself in plural we should look carefully because it's probably a mystery that needs to be solved.” (post #721)
    Clear said (speaking of 74X12s interpretation and resulting theory" : "It was no mystery to the early Christians"...“Your religion is different than theirs.
    74X12 responded “But is my doctrine different than the Bible?” (post #745)
    Clear responded : “Yes, your interpretation of the bible and its meaning is different than that of early Christianity.” (post #750)

    The early Christian literature demonstrates their belief that God was not talking to himself, but rather God the Father was talking to the Son who was called “The Word”, who “was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1). For example, the epistle of Barnabas says : “For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, … These things he said to the Son.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12


    2) Regarding Differences between Modern Christianity and Ancient Christianity are sometimes small difference and other times large differences
    74X12 said : “I also don't believe my interpretation is so different than early Christians interpretation. Some of them? Yes, obviously. But not all.” (post #755)

    I agree with you. Some of your interpretations are obviously different that the interpretations of early Christians, but not all are different. Both you and they believe in Jesus as a personal savior. The differences between religions are not all large, profound differences. Your religion is different than their religion to the extent that your interpretations and beliefs are different than theirs. I was simply referring to your claim that God was “talking to himself” (post #721).


    3) Regarding God talking to himself
    74X12 said : "“when we see God talking to Himself in plural we should look carefully because it's probably a mystery ” (post #721)
    Barnabas makes it clear that the Father was not talking to himself, but instead, he was speaking to his son : “For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, … These things he said to the Son.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12
    74X12 said : “This doesn't contradict my view at all. In fact that's exactly what I believe as you will see.”

    Perhaps. I assumed that when you wrote when we see God talking to Himself in plural we should look carefully because it's probably a mystery ” (post #721) that you meant God was talking to himself and that this use of the plural pronouns Let “US” create in “OUR” image was a “mystery”. If you were not, your claim did not make this clear.


    4) Regarding your claimed to agree with Barnabas 6:11, regarding the renewal and creation of individuals into different type of beings

    Forasmuch then as He renewed us in the remission of sins, He made us to be a new type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if He were recreating us (Barn 6:11)


    74X12 said : Barnabas was describing “…the recreation of us through Jesus Christ” (post #755)

    I cannot tell without further description of your thoughts on this specific point, but it certainly sounds like we both agree on this specific point that God’s purpose is placing individuals into a process which changes them, and helps them become different and better.

    For example, the early Synagogal prayer #8 speaks of what a “new Christian” was to learn before being baptized, saying “Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be taught before baptism: knowledge concerning the unbegotten God, understanding concerning the only begotten son, and full assurance concerning the Holy spirit…Let him learn the order of a distinguished creation, the sequence of providence, the judgment seats of different legislation, why the world came to be and why man was appointed a world citizen…

    The prayer is much longer but this text refers to the reason that an individual was appointed a citizen of this mortal world. The person was to be given wisdom and to become more like his creator as Synagogal Prayer #3 tells us. This Synagogal prayer first relates the creation of the world and then says “…and the goal of the creative work [was] – the rational living creature, the world citizen – having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness..." (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #3, c.f. aposCon 7.34.1-8)

    In this specific model, individuals were sent to this world to learn and gain moral and social wisdom and then go on to another world, more prepared to live in a social heaven in peace and harmony, having learned and mastered principles OF peace and harmony. The process then, is creating (‘recreating’) beings of a different sort than when we started out. It is a great, cosmic, tutoring. A school, which prepares individuals to live a certain kind of life which our creator lives, more peaceful more happy, more unified.


    5) REGARDING THE TENDENCY OF MANKIND TO MAKE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINAL ERRORS
    Clear said : “People simply make doctrinal errors and doctrinal errors accumulate over time.” (Post #724)
    74X12 said : “…it's natural to us to tend towards heresy.(post #745)
    Clear responded “I agree with you. Right or wrong, good or bad, imperfect individuals make mistakes in our theories.” (post #750)
    74X12 said : ““I also don't believe my interpretation is so different than early Christians interpretation. Some of them? Yes, obviously. But not all.” (post #755)


    I agree. The earliest and most authentic Christian doctrines did not evolve from specific doctrines to other doctrines quickly, but doctrinal changes mostly took place slowly, by evolution rather than by sudden repudiation of a doctrine and adoption of another doctrine. Doctrinal changes often happened by contamination of original doctrines by the societies and influences it was immersed in, Hellenistic influences for example.

    In any case @74x12.

    Good luck in developing your own models as to what is going on in this life and in your own journey.
    Thank you for correcting my inaccurate reference of Gen 1:1 when I should have said Gen 1:26.

    Clear
    ειακτωτωφιω
     
    #756 Clear, Jan 14, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  17. moorea944

    moorea944 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,389
    Ratings:
    +323

    How true!! Plus, if Jesus was God, why did he have to be glorified too.
     
  18. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,376
    Ratings:
    +421
    Religion:
    Christian
    Mormons claim God can only influence matter by making pre-existent, invisible matter visible, like a Magician who reveals a rabbit hidden from view. Christian theology states God actually creates matter, and not by nothing, but by His Word.

    As to your "Magical" Creation theory, Deuteronomy 18:10 states:

    There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you.

    The Word of God is not magic and never referred to as magic. It is Divine.

    As previously stated, Christians do not believe creation by God to be “nothing”. “Nothing” did not create the universe but God absolutely did, and He did not need “nothing”, “anything”, or “something” to do it, as He was sufficient upon Himself to do all He wished to do.

    It is the Mormons who believe “nothing” created the universe, not traditional Christianity. With Mormons the universe was always there, eternal, just like God. As such, Mormons believe “nothing” created it!


    So all you need do is find someone that actually believes in creation from “nothing” rather than from God. Since Mormons already believe "nothing" created the universe from my perspective you're halfway there.

    As stated previously, the doctrine of Creation ex nihilo is more than the sum of words “ex nihilo”. The debate is not whether the universe was made from “nothing”. It’s whether the universe always existed, made from pre-existent, eternal matter, as Mormons claim, or from nothing but Godly fiat, the Word of God, as traditional Christianity has ALWAYS claimed.

    This is why I called the earliest Judeo-Christian belief that material worlds are made from matter, a “natural or scientific” belief. It is IN accordance with nature and science.

    That is not “the earliest Judeo-Christian belief”. That is a pagan belief. The earliest Judea-Christian belief is that the universe was made and not merely shaped by God.


    Made from matter? Sure. Made from eternally existing substrate? No. All things were created by God.

    You relied on Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Gnosticism rather than inspired text. As @74x12 has already made clear, Christians rely on inspired authors and text, and not on questionable, anonymous sources:

    In this regard the standard mode of exegesis utilized by the traditional church is as follows:


    1. Scripture interprets Scripture.

    2. New Testament interprets Old Testament

    3. Clear passages interpret vague passages

    4. Scripture cannot be broken


    Notice point #1. It’s not “Patriarchs interpret Scripture”, its “Scripture interprets Scripture”.

    Don’t get me wrong, the early patriarchs served as excellent shepherds important to the church, and yes, Patriarchs are patriarchs by example through studious devotion to the word, but only to the extent they comply to that “which is written”. It is incumbent upon them to show by careful exegesis they have a firm grasp of the gospel because their utterances are not inspired. After all, we are Christians, not Justins or Clementians.

    For when one of you says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? They are servants through whom you believed, as the Lord has assigned to each his role. (1 Corinthians 3:4-5)​

    BTW, you'll note this is yet another verse that shows Christ is not a mere man.

    Okay, since we've discussed a proper perspective for Patriarchs, let's take a look at Justin.

    Justin the Martyr was a converted Neo-Platonist and your quote is from one of his earlier writings. This is a good example of why we follow scripture rather than men.

    Nothing in your quote tells us anything about “unformed matter” or substrates. Even if it did, his later writings show he had matured in his understanding of scripture.

    Here’s a good example from a later work:

    For Jesus Christ our Lord ordered us to do this in remembrance of the suffering which He suffered on behalf of those who are being purged in soul from all iniquity, in order that we should at the same time give thanks to God for having created the world with all that is in it for man’s sake. (Dialogue with Trypho, Justin).​

    And one more from his last:

    These expressions declare to those who can rightly understand them the death and destruction of the gods that have been brought into being. And I think it necessary to attend to this also, that Plato never names him the creator, but the fashioner of the gods, although, in the opinion of Plato, there is considerable difference between these two. For the Creator creates the creature by his own capability and power, being in need of nothing else; but the Fashioner frames his production when he has received from matter the capability for his work. (Hortatory Address to the Greeks, Justin, p.29)​

    And there you have it. Justin separates the Creator who is “in need of nothing else” from the mere Fashioner who does.

    Not quite:

    Shepherd of Hermas (140-150 C.E.)

    “First of all, believe that God is one, who created and completed all things and made all that is from that which is not and contains all things.”​

    Irenaeus Against Heresies: A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge Falsely So Called

    For he [God] is himself uncreated, both without beginning and without end and lacking in nothing. He is himself sufficient for this very thing, existence, but the things which have been made by him have received a beginning….He indeed who made all things can alone, toghether with his Word, properly be termed God and Lord” .

    Elsewhere he succinctly states “God in the exercise of his will and pleasure, formed all things….out of what did not previously exist.​

    There’s also Theophilus, Origen and Tertullian, but I see no need to quote them since scripture itself tells us the universe had a beginning and was created (Colossians 1:16; 2:8;John 1:1). If, as you say, the early church believed nothing created the universe there would have been no need for the early Church to argue against the Stoics and Gnostics on this point.

    As it is perfectly fine for the 2 billion Christians who personally believe likewise.

    I applaud you for your conviction @Clear, however it doesn't change the fact that early Judea Christians believed God created everything and yes, that includes matter.

    Yes, that should have been clear even to the ancients because matter itself was created by God.
     
  19. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi @Oeste


    THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEF OF MATERIAL CREATION IS MORE RATIONAL AND LOGICAL THAN THE LATER THEORIES OF CREATION FROM “NOTHING”

    Oeste said : “Christian theology states God actually creates matter, and not by nothing, but by His Word.

    That train has already left the station. Once forum readers read the claims by early Judeo-Christians, it was too apparent that the Early Christians believed in the creation of this world from matter and that their belief was more logical and rational than the later belief in creation from “nothing”

    I think it is perfectly fine for you to theorize that God created matter in the first place if you want. It could even be correct. This is not the issue. The issue concerns what the earliest Christians believed about the creation of the world, whether it was from pre-existing matter or from "nothing".

    I’ve seen early literature indicating a belief that God made matter in the first place (though he may have made it from energy), but still, he created the worlds out of matter than existed before he made the worlds out of matter.

    So, while I agree that many modern Christian movement have adopted magical creation where the word of God creates material things from “nothing”. However we are discussing the earlier, ancient Judeo-Christian theology where the Word creates material things from matter and that this early natural/scientific creation is more logical and more rational and more intuitive than the later theory where God creates matter in a magical way (i.e. supernatural manner) from “nothing”.



    Oeste said : “The doctrine of Creation ex nihilo is more than the sum of words “ex nihilo”.

    I agree, it refers to the theory that God created material things “from nothing” (this is the meaning of “ex nihilo”). How does this claim help your theory that the later Christian belief of material creation from “nothing” is more rational and more logical than the early Christian belief in creation from “matter”.



    Oeste said : “That is not “the earliest Judeo-Christian belief”. That is a pagan belief.

    If non Jews and non-Christians agreed with the early Christians on this point, good for them. I have a pagan friend that feels “thou shalt not lie” is a good belief and he agrees with Christians on this point. Good for him as well. However, It is irrelevant to history of early Christians who believed in the creation of this world from matter, rather than from "nothing".

    The literature I have provided shows that the earliest Christian literature tells us that the Christians taught that the material earth was made from material and later Christian movement adopted material creation from “nothing”. IF you want to theorize that the earlier belief that the world was created from “nothing”, give us some data and lets look at it. So far, you have merely confirmed my claim that it is the later Christian movements which adopted the belief in creation of this world from “nothing”.

    My second claim was that the early Christian belief that their belief in material creation was more logical and rational than the later belief in God having created from “nothing” (which is more irrational and more illogical.) IF you are going to offer a theory that creation from “nothing” is more rational and logical, then offer us some data and logic. Do you think your scientific offering on the steady state theory in post #740 supports your theory?


    Oeste said : “You relied on Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Gnosticism rather than inspired text.

    Actually, the Bible itself does not demonstrate a magical creation from “nothing”. For example,

    Often people will offer generic passages such as Heb 11:3 to support the idea of creation from nothing. In the common English version the text is as follows: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made out of things that do appear." However, just as the translation in Genesis does not clearly support ex nihilo, all scriptures rendering the word "CREATE" such as used in Hebrews 11:3 is just as easily interpreted to refer to pre-existing matter.

    As scholars consider words of the Greek text, one important word would be the word which is translated "framed" in this text. To show the word "Framed" supports ex nihilo, it must be shown that the term signifies to actually CREATE ex nihilo. But this cannot be done without forcing the text since the word is so often used in the sense of to "repair", to "restore" from breach or decay, to "mend", to "put in order", to "reform", to "appoint"; "perfect"; "adjust", or to "train" rather than to "create [i"ex nihilo").

    Nowhere can we find the claim advanced that this Greek term, signifies "to create out of nothing". Our dictionary gives no such definition.

    If "framed" was, in this instance, taken out of a normal context and placed into a specific context to support creation out of nothing, the writer could have paused and clarified that in this instance the Greek for "framed" meant something different than the normal ussage of "to adjust, adapt, knit together, restore, or put in joint,". But this he does not do, but rather he leaves the sense of the sentence to the sense that is common for his readers.

    The next words requiring special attention are which are translated "the worlds." Such, however, is not their real meaning at all. The latter is compounded of two words the first signifying "always," and the other "being" The Greek terms used to express forever, forever and forever, everlasting, eternal and eternity, are all derived from this same source, and thus it is more likely that the writer, by metonomy, used "the eternities" for "the worlds." This fact is very important, since the metonomy requires that which is signified by any certain term must bear some distinct relation or resemblance to that thing it signifies. If "the eternities" mean "the worlds,", then something about the latter must be eternal

    Scriptures such as Heb. 11: 3, do not teach the creation of all things, "out of nothing" but rather it implies that God, by the power of faith, applied order and harmony upon pre-existing elements of the world; and that these visible creations were not made by material agencies which are seen (such as tools of men), but rather they are created by the power of an invisible faith which is not seen, or, does not appear.

    Furthermore, in Rom. 9:20-23 Paul himself employs the "potter-vessel image" of Isa. 29:16, while 2 Pet. 3:5 reminds us that the earth "was formed out of water" (RSV)–the primeval chaos, or "deep" of Gen. 1:2 Such considerations coordinate New Testament writers with those of the Old when they referred to the creation. What this means for the present discussion is that no Christian in authority had yet taught of a creation "out of nothing"as orthodoxy.


    USING A WIDE VARIETY OF EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TEXTS TO DEMONSTRATE A DOCTRINE SHOWS THE DOCTRINE HAD WIDE SPREAD ACCEPTANCE

    The reason to use a wide variety of early Judeo-Christian literature was to demonstration historically that the early Judeo-Christians THEMSELVES, in their own literature, with their own description of their own interpretations, describe their own belief in creation from matter. The variety of literature simply shows this was a widely held belief.


    THE EARLY JUDEO-TEXTS CAN TELL US MUCH ABOUT THE BELIEFS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS THAT WROTE THEM

    While one can refer to the biblical texts, this will not tell you how the various Jews and Christians INTERPRETED the texts or what their beliefs were regarding the biblical texts. For example, the Talmud is the second most sacred text in rabbinic Judaism. They have haggadic texts that are important descriptions of their beliefs.

    In yet more confirmation of the early Judeo-Christian belief in material creation out of matter, (rather than out of “nothing”), the Midrash Rabbah Breishis 3:7 and 9:2 describes the Jewish doctrine that many other worlds were created and destroyed previously to this one (more than 974 worlds total) The Jewish commentaries explain that the earlier worlds were gradually improved upon and refined until this one was made and pronounced “good”.

    Just as I’ve demonstrated in the Christian model with Christian literature, In this Jewish model, all of these worlds were all created from matter.

    In fact, even the prohibition of speaking of what happened prior to creation has partly to do with this early doctrine of material creation. For example, the Gemara prohibits rabbinic Jews from inquiring regarding what existed before the world was created and part of the justification of this prohibition is BECAUSE they compare this prior chaotic matter out of which the world was made to “garbage”. The description is that God, in this instance is like a king who built his palace on top of a garbage heap. The king does not want people to discuss what was there before the palace.

    The MAHARSHA answers that the disgrace in inquiring what existed before the world was created is the very suggestion that something else existed before the world was created.

    It is in later years that the doctrine of creation from “nothing” starts to appear in Judeo-Christian writing. For example, Ramban also confirms that when Hash-m created the world, He created a form of matter called “Hiyuli” (from the Greek “hyle,” or “matter”), but even this was created from energy (which is a different form of matter).. The “Ashpah” or trash in the analogy is this “Hiyuli,” which was the unfinished, unformed matter or energy. Since it lacked form, the rabbinic Jews felt it is a disgrace to delve into it.

    RAV YAKON EMDEN is yet another confirmation of Bereishis Rabah 3:7 which states that God created and destroyed a number of worlds before He created this world and decided to keep it. The earlier worlds which did not satisfy Him are “like the “garbage” (“Ashpah”) on which the king built his palace.

    Rabbi Yisrael Lipschitz, the rabbi of Danzig is yet another confirmation of this same doctrine. Midrash Rabbah Breishis 1:5 states that this world is like a king's palace which was built on a landfill - a garbage dump of some sort. The Talmud Chagigah 13b also confirms multiple material worlds before this one was created out of the chaotic matter (garbage, trash, Ashpah, etc).

    R. Abbahu confirms this history and relates the interpretation of Genesis account which, in his words, “proves that the Holy one, blessed be He, went on creating worlds and destroying them until He created this one and declared, ‘This one pleases Me; those did not please Me.’

    R. Phinehas, elaborates upon the same claim saying that R. Abbahu’s reason for the interpretation is the text “And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (Gen 1,31) : He is saying that this means "this pleases me, but those did not please Me".

    There is simply a great multitude of early texts, both Christian and Jewish which describe and confirm the early Judeo-Christian belief that this world was made of matter.

    POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
     
    #759 Clear, Jan 17, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  20. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    POST TWO OF TWO



    BOTH CLEAR AND OESTE USED EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS, (OESTE ATTRIBUTED HIS INCORRECTLY)

    Oeste said : “As @74x12 has already made clear, Christians rely on inspired authors and text, and not on questionable, anonymous sources

    Justin Martyr
    , one of the very first Christian apologists tells us creation from matter was the belief of Christians of his day, saying : “We have been taught that He in the beginning did of his goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter” (ex amorphou hyles). First Apology, 49.

    Justin Martyr actually DID write the quote I attributed to him. You tried to quote “Justin Martyr” from “Horatory address”, however, Justin did NOT write the words you attribute to him. That address is, instead, pseudographic since Justin Martyr did not write this pseudograph, instead, it was another author. This is why the name of this author is called “pseudo-Justin” by historians.

    However, If you complain about data coming from “pseudoepigraphs”, why do you quote from pseudoepigraphs?


    SHEPHERD OF HERMAS INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED
    Oeste said : Shepherd of Hermas (140-150 C.E.) “First of all, believe that God is one, who created and completed all things and made all that is from that which is not and contains all things.”

    Yes, Hermas also relates that he completed the earth from something that was NOT an earth but which “contained all things”. It did not contain “nothings, but it contained all “things”.

    I might point out however, this is NOT what Hermas said nor does it mean what you interpret it to mean. For example the sentence you are quoting from hermas originally reads :

    Πρωτον παντων πιστευσον οτι εις εστιν ο θεος τα παντα κτισας και καταρτισας και ποιησας εκ του μη οντος εις το ειναι τα παντα χωρων, μονος δε αχωρητος ων.

    First believe that God is one, who made (κτισας) all things and furnished (καταρτισας) [them] and made them from the unreal to become all places (it is a space, country, etc that is being described).

    This word for "made" or "create" in this sentence is κτισας. It is not a term for “ex-nihilo creation” but it was always used in a concrete sense of a “created thing”.

    For example, in the early example from Papyrus Lond 121:483 it refers to the created things in the universe but it has no hint of “ex-nihilo” in such usage. In Papyrus Fay 117 :23 the term is used in the concrete sense to describe a “building” such as a house.

    The term for “completed” (καταρτισας) is not simply “finishing” but a “furnishing”, a “preparing”, a “perfecting” of a thing or things for their destination or use.

    For example, Papyrus Oxy VIII 1153:16 of i a.d. the term is used regarding “garments” a person is going to receive. Another example of a similar usage is in OGIS 177:10 (b.c. 95) where is it used such that Wynne explains the same use in Mark 1:19 is not a “mending” of nets, but of folding them; getting them ready for use. In P Tebt I 33:12 it is used as a refrence to “the things for the furnishing of the guest chamber” (τ[α] εις τον της αυλης καταρτισμον) and in P Ryl II 127:28 (a.d. 29) it is “a preparation of woof and warp for a cloak worth 18 silver dr.” ιματιου καταρτισμον κροκη[σ] και στημονο[σ] αξι[ον] (δραχμων).

    The point is that in actual ancient koine Greek usage, these terms are not used in any ex-nihilo context and we do not have examples of any such usage. One must read such as usage into them if it so be found there at all.



    LATER CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS STARTED TO ADOPT THE "CREATION FROM NOTHING" THEORY

    I also agree with your quote that by Irenaeus time, the Christian movement is starting to consider and adopt a magical (unnatural and supernatural) creation from “nothing”. In quoting these representatives of later Christianity, you are making my point. Earliest Christianity taught a “:natural or scientific” creation from matter which is more rational and more logical than the later “magical” creation from nothing and and it was later christianity which adopted a magical creation from nothing.

    Clear
    ειακδρσιτωω
     
    #760 Clear, Jan 17, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
Loading...