Who created all things: God or the Son?

[Brickjectivity]

Genesis 1:1 - ‘In the beginning GOD created [all things]…’

John 1:1 - ‘In the beginning [THE WORD] created all things’

Genesis 1:2 shows the creation happening through words. There is speech, and then things happen; but the first major difference appears in John 1:5. Genesis says that God divides the darkness from the light, while John 1:5 says that the darkness does not comprehend the light. That is the end of the opening sentence or paragraph of John. After that it starts talking about a man who bears witness to the light which is Jesus or his his ministry or his message. Proceeding it seems that darkness in John refers to those who do not comprehend Jesus. Genesis, however, does not compare darkness to those who do not understand. In Genesis the darkness pre-exists light and is part of the pr-existant formless world: the deeps of the oceans, dark things and dead things.

So in Genesis darkness is part of the uncreate. It is that which must be revealed and judged and corresponds to the darkness in the heart of people, people who are made of clay but who have had life blown into them. They are mixture of the uncreate clay and the spirit. The light of the LORD shines into the person revealing that which is corrupt and that which is good.

[Psa 139:12, 15-16 KJV] 12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light [are] both alike [to thee]. ... 15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.​

The writer of Hebrews alludes to this in other words:

[Heb 4:12 KJV] 12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.​

There is darkness and light, and these are divided in Genesis, while in John the darkness does not comprehend the light. This is because John is talking about those who reject Jesus ministry, while Genesis is talking about being separated by the Torah from the people of the violent and uncreate, chaotic world.

What is the difference? Well, John is talking about enduring the Romans, and enduring and being a shining light, giving to all and loving everybody. That, to him, is the message of the light. Many people don't think so, and they think the light must be kept clean, preserved, by not doing all of that. What you see here is a basic development of the conservative versus the progressive factions. The conservatives view disagreement as a leprous or contagious disease. The progressives (like Jesus) view lepers as not contagious but objects to be healed and even as resources of wisdom. So John is a progressive work or a liberal work which borrows from or comments upon the book of Genesis.

So who creates the world? God, but Jesus is the light of that creation, revealing.

 

[Kenny]

So John doesn't agree with Isaiah?

LOL... Oh no... I think he does.

 

[dybmh]

LOL... Oh no... I think he does.

Isaiah 42:8 "... I will not yield my glory to another ..."
John 17:5 " ... glorify thou me with thine own self ... "

"Glorify thou me with thine own self" contradicts "I will not yield my glory to another".

 

[Kenny]

Isaiah 42:8 "... I will not yield my glory to another ..."
John 17:5 " ... glorify thou me with thine own self ... "

"Glorify thou me with thine own self" contradicts "I will not yield my glory to another".

And that is the key:
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

John 17:5

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self
Not with his perfections, these he had, they dwelt bodily in him; or with his nature, in which he was one with him; but as Mediator, with his glorious presence in heaven, by setting him at his right hand, and crowning him with glory and honour. The Jews have a notion that God will give to the King Messiah,(hlem lv dwbkh Nm), "of the supreme glory" F7: the glory Christ prays for is, as he says,

the glory which I had with thee before the world was;
the same phrase with (Mlwel) , or (Mlweh Mdwq) , used by the Jews F8.

john gill
John 17:5 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse

FOOTNOTES:

F7 Midrash Tillim in Psal. 20 apud Galatin. de Arcan. Cathol. Ver. l. 3. c. 9.
F8 Gloss in T. Bab Pesachim, fol. 54. 1.

 

[dybmh]

Not with his perfections, these he had, they dwelt bodily in him; or with his nature, in which he was one with him; but as Mediator, with his glorious presence in heaven, by setting him at his right hand, and crowning him with glory and honour. The Jews have a notion that God will give to the King Messiah,(hlem lv dwbkh Nm), "of the supreme glory"

"crowning him with glory" contradicts "I will not yield my glory to another"

 

[Kenny]

"crowning him with glory" contradicts "I will not yield my glory to another"

Not if they are God (plural) is one Lord.

 

[dybmh]

Not if they are God (plural) is one Lord.

So who is crowing whom?

setting him at his right hand, and crowning him with glory and honour

 

[Kenny]

So who is crowing whom?

That is quite a question.

Probably on the level of:

Matt 22:42 “41-42 Then Jesus asked the assembled Pharisees this question: “What is your opinion about Christ? Whose son is he? “The Son of David,” they answered.

43-44 “How then,” returned Jesus, “does David when inspired by the Spirit call him Lord? He says—‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool?’

45 If David then calls him Lord, how can he be his son?”

So, it brings us back to Deuteronomy.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

Hear, O Israel:
The Lord = singular - the existing one
our God = Elohim - plural
is one Lord: = singular - the existing one

The Godhead is plural just as Isaiah recognized the plurality of just one God. So The Word, being God, simply said "give me back the glory that I had as God with you".

So he is being crowned by the Father with the glory that was His (The Word) in the first place as God.

 

[dybmh]

43-44 “How then,” returned Jesus, “does David when inspired by the Spirit call him Lord? He says—‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool?’

The text says Adoni, lord lowecase, not Adonai, Lord uppercase

45 If David then calls him Lord, how can he be his son?”

When the offspring becomes king, it is appropriate for the father to use the official title.

Hear, O Israel:

The Lord = singular - the existing one
our God = Elohim - plural
is one Lord: = singular - the existing one

The text says Eloheinu, not Elohim

So he is being crowned by the Father with the glory that was His

This still contradicts "I will not yield my glory to another"

 

[Kenny]

The text says Adoni, lord lowecase, not Adonai, Lord uppercase

Original did not have lower case or uppercase if I am not mistaken.

When the offspring becomes king, it is appropriate for the father to use the official title.

How can an offspring (generations) call him Lord? Pretty flimsy IMO.

The text says Eloheinu, not Elohim

my Hebrew Lexicon says elohiym

This still contradicts "I will not yield my glory to another"

Not when you are giving it back to yourself. It isn't "another" - it is one and the same.

 

[dybmh]

Original did not have lower case or uppercase if I am not mistaken.

The difference is the vowels Adoni vs Adonai. The Psalm is Adoni, my lord, not Adonai my Lord or LORD.

How can an offspring (generations) call him Lord? Pretty flimsy IMO.

In a court room, if the son is the judge, the father the lawyer still calls him "Your honor" not "Dad".

my Hebrew Lexicon says elohiym

It's wrong
It's eloheinu from the singular elohei. Compare it to Exodus 3:6

Not when you are giving it back to yourself. It isn't "another" - it is one and the same.

OK.

 

[Truth in love]

I think it may be wrong interpretation to think Jesus is the word, because Bible doesn't directly say so. And I think it is important to notice, Bible says things were created through him. I think it means God used Jesus to create things.

I’m John 1 is very clear on this.

 

[Truth in love]

When building a house we have an architect and a general contractor. We could accurately sate that each made the house.

 

[rational experiences]

No human exists.

O burning earth mass in space cools then become rock.

Then rock burst again. Got an erection says the man theist scientist thinking sexual concepts in his human science terms.

Heavens. O entity no father was rock.
Heavens not any son.

Human owns one body bones like rock inside holy water heavens his bio life. Two types living bodies as one human.

Two bodies assist his life human man body.

Father human first human man himself. Only. Just a human. Holy life ours.

No son human baby exists.

Exact human advice which no religious science theist can argue against.

Had sex. Mother human pregnant birthed a baby man son.

He grew up. Star fall came. Burnt his brain. He became a nasty science theist.

Is as a man human only who never created anything. He learnt how to destroy mass.

He however used thousands of human man's word to theory human sciences first. Stories.

Theme a gas burning compared to a clear gas not burning wasn't relative. As the cold clear gas was already burning.

Theme. Legal testimony as a study of lying men of human science by terms what and how they theoried as proof against life's destroyer. The machine science.

 

[1213]

I’m John 1 is very clear on this.

Sorry, I don't think there is said directly "Jesus is the word".

 

[Truth in love]

Sorry, I don't think there is said directly "Jesus is the word".

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

how much more clear are you wanting it to be?

 

[rational experiences]

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

how much more clear are you wanting it to be?

Human men theists used words before science was practiced.

Their word use didn't follow any natural order as it was machine science that science terms were invented for. Earths God products dusts.

The flesh of gods body rock and dusts first.

So how did gods flesh become his sons flesh by words?

+ Calculus of words and numbers...the addition.

As by addition + the cross you changed gods flesh into the inheritance of God. Spirit gases alight from mass cold clear.

As the cross is the sacrifice of God was how the men of sciences term was taught. By calculus +.

As science changed gods flesh into an Inheritor by sacrifice science of human man and human life also gained cell blood sacrifice. As science man I fested. Confess of Sion fusion fission.

Fested said I cause life's Ill health infestation...plus an imbalance in natures insect life. As he also changed four bodies as earths sea of son.

Science of man always knew.

 

[1213]

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

how much more clear are you wanting it to be?

It can mean that in Jesus the word came in flesh, meaning that God's word came to this world through Jesus that spoke them so that everyone would hear them.

 

[Truth in love]

It can mean that in Jesus the word came in flesh, meaning that God's word came to this world through Jesus that spoke them so that everyone would hear them.

Word is capitalized because it’s a name.

 

[rational experiences]

The theme a man a human living on planet rock earth as he owns a body of bones like stone to be human. Exact. Owned a biological body too. Cells blood health first. No life sacrificed first.

Placated theism. Pretend position is man's position one.

As a theist he was a man and spiritual in natural.

As a theist he pretended he was the creator in his lying man head.

He pretended no life existed on earth when it had. His first theist stated total natural life's immediate removal eradication.

Then he said I pretend what happened after as a position the reaction. Just as a man thinking.

As he was in fact theorising ground mass science to design build his first machine. To own a reacted reaction.

It wasn't even a theory about life's evolution first.

So today we own two rich men organisations

Rock church medical healers who freely cared for family. As nature owned all the medical supplies.

To rich man who says his machine is more important than life. Knowing he resources only for the life mechanisms machine reactions.

Is why the church brothers who founded the first legal system for the people governed as the people owns his pledge.

Remained rich as he knew he had to fight rich men lords of trade in the time the fight for human rights health mutual standards came about again.

As it's a rich man's game.

So the Baha'i on the Jesus sanction legal testimony of man versus machine science had in fact tried to introduce a new social governing legal system. Died for his teaching.

As it's the true human only behaviour of scientists as men who pretended first they created by human thesis. As a man's say so. Just a man human.

As the legal system was versus technology and men who said they knew everything as just a human whose life only existed on a rock planet.

So today if you asked a theist okay. You as a man take earth products convert it's chemicals. You do it yourself. Physical and manually.

Does a reaction occur instant from that moment with everything suddenly existing. As a ground mass Thesis a pretend God man?

Nature garden.
Life in sea.
Life on land?

No he says.

Okay what about all the lived life experiences cosmic attacks any natural disaster that also killed off life? Living lived on earth before your man only ground mass thesis?

No says the theist I'm possessed by my god the planet rock lying themes.

Why did men agree to say rock and earth God?

Real reason so no scientist theist could lie. As just the same life as everyone. A human by sex only.

Okay what about if apes had sex produced two mutants as humans you claim human?

Oh they would be a deformed destroyed natural life consciousness. Not a holy ape.

Who owns healthy ape babies in nature.

Do you human scientist claim that human self conscious destructive behaviour review? As what a not an ape body life would be doing as a mutant human?

Yes says human memory as apes honour nature natural life on planet earth...I never had. The man theist notified scientists memory.

So it isn't real a human owning a thesis why a human exists as you have to be a human first to claim you pretend you knew.

Which was why the legal testimony of humans was about humans the scientist machine owners.

Who today aren't using any past first science model. Science today is direct to the nuclear power plant model only as a human theist and scientist.

Anyone ignoring that advice in science is a Direct human liar destroyer theist.

Science is just human men choosing the practice and it's direct to reactive science where and when the reaction is applied by a human only.

In their human mind. One human one reaction I start in still alive.

As it's done inside the machine.

He knows if you did it on the ground where it's theories first life would be annihilated.

If his mind says and that review would make a human an alien then he formed that thesis in his own destroyer human mind.

And it's a direct and informed human only answer to a pretending theism.