Who created all things: God or the Son?

[rational experiences]

In the presence of the word as imposed speaker and preacher. Memory human says a baby man son. Not the origin humans father. Invented themes God science.

He theoried and created the human baby man son themes of his sciences practice by his creation the machine.

By his huge amount of many books science words theories first.

Then he gave each of his science books a symbol so his students learnt what a letter symbol represented in his worded first science.

Then by human thinking practiced evil satanic machine science.

As we lived after ice he was doing burning science. When no ice exists or existed.

So he melted earths saviour body ice and we nearly all died.

First testimony of old science. Human witnessed. Legal.

As the lying egotists he is. He said he could update remodel technology and built Stonehenge. New introduction grounding method. He nearly destroyed all life on earth again. Jesus testimony. Legal witnessed again.

Blood changed in atmospheric heating as did cells bones. Of human and animal biology.

Just like it is today in his new updated evil machine model as he lies about safety of life.

His theory light constant belongs only in heavens position mother womb void vacuum.

He however wanted it for science so he brought burning to the ground by science. What he always lied about...fallout.

 

[dybmh]

3.And He (Jesus Christ) is the radiance of His (Father's) Glory and the exact representation of His (Father's) nature, and upholds all things by the Word of His (Father's) power.

?
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD; that is My name! I will not yield My glory to another or My praise to idols.

 

[rational experiences]

Two science theists.

One says from earth chemicals to biology then all life. Biology theme only.

Then you have the machine satanist.

Who pretends he theorising as his brother about biology is as a scientist lying.

His thesis is earth product direct to machine.

So whilst one human false preached anyway his brother Satan in human purpose coerced against life continuance. Of biology. Hiding. By thesis coercions.

He themes earth O It's inheritor power release was an earthquake. Tectonic carpenter. He says four day cross event exact. Jesus terms exact only.

He says mother zero space womb void took away the attack. It ended.

He themes I now want it held Phi fallout Jesus with no voiding vacuum status holy mother. Not allowed. Which isn't even Jesus..

So he theories direct mother abomination to hold it.

Direct history sun attack on earth that bored tunnels. Not stopped as sink holes that had stopped.

As he wants to use a huge heavenly transmitter mass.

And he wants to break the law of space control on earth as its void vacuum.

To hold it by position a new earth machine.

So he theories tornadoes also. That also shut off.

He doesn't want it to end shut off he wants the light constant exact at the ground only and not held in the heavens.

For purpose just a machine.

He not only wants to destroy natural histories mother womb life saving cross.... he wants the natural cross destroyed.

For a second ground machine.

Once one machine was the reactor. Pyramid
Once one machine the transmitter. Temple. Machine to machine.

Now he wants one machine as the transmitter. New machine a transmitter gained into a reactor.

To implement two reactors.

Nothing like old science as he says it's new world science.

New world science was actually his previous power plant reactor he newly theoried updated. As it changed ground transmitted imaged feedback already.

Everything he theories is including in full aware human thesis life's destruction by his agreement.

Natural advice
My technologies transmitter use is already hurting biology. Machine to machine.

Humans aren't machines. His consciousness told however said my transmitters are utilising natural life's water oxygen. Told. Knew.

As I increased the mass of transmitters so it now removes water owning cell microbes and life oxygen.

Why transmitters make us sick by causes. As we aren't earths mass.

He doesn't want his technology to change.

So he says I will again increase the mass of heavenly transmitters for my machine. Knowing. Who cares if bio life dies. Monetary gain is more important.

Too bad about biology needing the heavens water oxygen and Microbe life support.

Once he stored energy to attack remove energy. As equals...to access energy. Pyramid reactor model.

Which he does today in mechanical use of electricity.

His thesis once the first human spirit was a burning metallic alien form. Lying.

He makes the claim as a natural biological human. As if the human species is only one and not two humans.

As it's man and maths and machine life a theist infers first.

Not man and woman human life.

So as machine technology still is machine only to any new machine technology. It's not reactive in any typification transmitter to a reactor.

Being machines technology position.

As we already live sick hurt by using the type of technology that allowed our brother to be new rich man.

So When is he held accountable in life for its harm?

It's the human taught status that said stop...you aren't allowed to make us sick brother scientist.

 

[rational experiences]

The human man baby adult man teaching.

Said I have never listened to my human father as human advice as natural human life continuance.

To practice science means today I still ignore my own father's advice.
.....I'm still doing the same chosen behaviour.

In my life hurt father said tell your brother he's trying to blow up his own modern technology.

I asked why. He said as he is a greedy inhumane liar.

 

[rational experiences]

Father also said. Nuclear model is direct. Human applied chosen science.

Human man lives. He theories. The strings begin biological man first. Thinking. Design. Building machine. Reacting controlling machine as biology doing what biology cannot achieve itself. A reaction.

Exact the science of man. Direct science only by man human. His science.

The man said I applied new methods to temple pyramid blown up science I cool. I keep biology safe. Nuclear model.

He lied as ice kept biology blood cell safe. Nuclear melts ice.

Science however not doing a Jesus in life.

New theists. I want old science. I want it to be Jesus. Nuclear science power plant not doing Jesus.

I must manually do Jesus myself by all positions machines. Power plant included new science begins at end of nuclear reaction sludge.

Mind says still some energy left as direct science to mind notification man's science only power plant. As man only expressed sciences.

Instead he tries to increase life attack by attacking cloud mass earths metal transmitters himself. To do a Jesus act against himself versus power plant safety model.

Atmosphere overheats has huge storms. Japan plant shuts down. Evidence.

Little bit of energy in man's own science practice was nuclear sludge. As direct man's thinking to strings of science of man.

About energy man accesses in destruction only.

The coercion is taking advice away from natural positions first in thesis. Only man human theories thought.

 

[Soapy]

a spokesman can speak on behalf of someone and they can relate the words that come from the other.



Jesus is called 'The Word' because he is such a spokesman.

He carry's out the will of God.

But there is an interesting clue that could be drawn from reading the passage of scripture of Proverbs 8:22

22 Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,+
The earliest of his achievements of long ago.+
23 From ancient times* I was installed,+
From the start, from times earlier than the earth.+
24 When there were no deep waters,+ I was brought forth,*
When there were no springs overflowing with water.
25 Before the mountains were set in place,
Before the hills, I was brought forth,
26 When he had not yet made the earth and its fields
Or the first clods of earth’s soil.
27 When he prepared the heavens,+ I was there;
When he marked out the horizon* on the surface of the waters,+


If anyone was with God in the beginning of creation of all things, I think most christians would agree that person could only have been Jesus Christ.

Oh dear, that/those verses have suddenly risen to the top of the repeats recently…

I think you will find that it wasn’t a PERSON that was with God… it was WISDOM…. Personified as a FEMALE entity.

Trinitarian thinking struggles with the truth, always misusing terms, words, translations etc to try to defend the indefensible.

But it always betrays itself. Always!

 

[Kenny]

Give me any of these things you mentioned in your post that dates to the time of any of the Gospels.

When I say dated I don't mean what someone things or preaches. Either carbon 14 dated or paelographically dated.

This is an interesting question for me. A kind of a litmus test of intent and desire.

If, as you would present here, you were truly interested in the veracity of John as being written in an acceptable timeframe to where it was read by all, would you really be asking me? Or would you have already researched it?

It really does put a question on the impetus of your asking, and maybe you could share that with me.

That being said, and hoping for the best, here are links of information that may answer your questions:

Dating the New Testament - John

John Gospel Date - creation.com

At this time, the oldest existing fragment that hasn't been destroyed by decomposition is:

Oldest Gospel of John fragment - Discover Historic Jesus

the date range is given between AD 94 and 138.

Assuming it isn't the original, that means the original was before that.

 

[Kenny]

Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens--He is God; He formed the earth and fashioned it; He established it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

And I agree with that.

Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

 

[Kenny]

?
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD; that is My name! I will not yield My glory to another or My praise to idols.

Brings an interesting thought:
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

[Kenny]

Jesus incarnation in human form is the Light of Genesis 1:3. This is Jesus come in the flesh.

As it says

John 1:4-5
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Jesus is that light shining in the darkness. That darkness is none other than the "shadow of death".

Isaiah 9:2
Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.

This shadow of death is over all people. Because we sin and we inherit death from Adam on. Galilee is specifically mentioned because that is where he would live.

Isaiah 60:2
For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

Jesus is the Light of God shining in the darkened world. He is the "Light of Life" because he banishes death through resurrection. Thus the Psalmist says "Yea though I walk through the vaelly of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil"

Oh death where is thy sting? Oh grave where is thy victory?

So all things were made in his light. Jesus is foreknown. Foreordained from the foundation of the world. His life from the grave is what eternity is founded on.

God is Light and in him is no darkness at all according to 1st John 1:5. There was always light therefore. Which is God himself. But there was not always light for us in the world. We were under great darkness which is the shadow of death. Jesus came (the Light of God) into the world to give life.

So that is the Word which creates all things. It is the "Word of Life" as spoken of in 1st John 1:1.

The Word of Life is the same with the Light of Life. It is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And all things were made in his light. It shined 7 days of the Light of God. Days unto God.

The 7th day is yet to come when God rests. Jesus says himself "My Father works hitherto and I work" so of course God has not yet rested with us. But for Him he has already rested. But God won't rest until he finishes building his house to rest in. Because no one rests until they have a place to rest. This house is the Jerusalem which is above. This is why He says in my Father's house are many mansions" and he also says "I go to prepare a place for you". Because he spoke to his bride and the place he prepares is the house of God and it's for us to if we want to rest with God that is. It's up to us. God says "Harden not your hearts as in the day of provocation" and he swore that those who believed not; would not enter into his rest.

But of Jerusalem he says "This is my rest forever for I have chosen it"

So then the rest of God is coming. The 7th day when all things are finished and God says all things are "very good".

This is actually, GREAT!

 

[firedragon]

This is an interesting question for me. A kind of a litmus test of intent and desire.

Irrelevant. Of course another attempt at an ad hominem.

If, as you would present here, you were truly interested in the veracity of John as being written in an acceptable timeframe to where it was read by all, would you really be asking me? Or would you have already researched it?

It really does put a question on the impetus of your asking, and maybe you could share that with me.

That being said, and hoping for the best, here are links of information that may answer your questions:

Dating the New Testament - John

John Gospel Date - creation.com

At this time, the oldest existing fragment that hasn't been destroyed by decomposition is:

Oldest Gospel of John fragment - Discover Historic Jesus

the date range is given between AD 94 and 138.

Assuming it isn't the original, that means the original was before that.

No no. Thats not what I asked about.

I asked for dated documents of the evidence from church fathers and other research from evangelic sources dated to the first century. Dating of P57 we can discuss separately.

Every tom, dick and harry knows the dating ranges for each Gospel. That's not what I asked. Maybe you forgot what you were saying earlier about John knowing what was written in the synoptics because it was in circulation at the time. And I asked for documentation since you told me I must show documentation for the "questions" I asked, which is absurd. I am asking for documentation your positive claims.

1. What documentation from the time do you have to prove that John read and knew what was written in the synoptics?
2. What documentation do you have to prove that he knew because the three synoptic gospels were in circulation at the time?

Cheers.

 

[Kenny]

Irrelevant. Of course another attempt at an ad hominem.



No no. Thats not what I asked about.

I asked for dated documents of the evidence from church fathers and other research from evangelic sources dated to the first century. Dating of P57 we can discuss separately.

Every tom, dick and harry knows the dating ranges for each Gospel. That's not what I asked. Maybe you forgot what you were saying earlier about John knowing what was written in the synoptics because it was in circulation at the time. And I asked for documentation since you told me I must show documentation for the "questions" I asked, which is absurd. I am asking for documentation your positive claims.

1. What documentation from the time do you have to prove that John read and knew what was written in the synoptics?
2. What documentation do you have to prove that he knew because the three synoptic gospels were in circulation at the time?

Cheers.

Apparently you didn't read the whole of the document.
Apparently logic is missing (either he read them or, at the least, experienced the same thing since they have the same message)
Apparently, you never googled for any information
Apparently, carbon 14 isn't enough for you
Apparently what you said was "irrelevant and ad hominem" was actually factual and now empirically verifiable

Shalom.

 

[firedragon]

Apparently you didn't read the whole of the document.
Apparently logic is missing (either he read them or, at the least, experienced the same thing since they have the same message)
Apparently, you never googled for any information
Apparently, carbon 14 isn't enough for you
Apparently what you said was "irrelevant and ad hominem" was actually factual and now empirically verifiable

Shalom.

When someone makes bogus claims, all they have as response is this kind of useless rhetoric.

And by the way, don't expect every one to be so lame enough to keep googling and giving links to suit what they like. Others maybe reading actual books, unlike you.

End of conversation. ).

 

[Kenny]

When someone makes bogus claims, all they have as response is this kind of useless rhetoric.

And by the way, don't expect every one to be so lame enough to keep googling and giving links to suit what they like. Others maybe reading actual books, unlike you.

End of conversation. ).

When someone says "bogus claims" without investigating without an open mind... it is called "flat-earth thinking)

While very intelligent people that exceed your capacity AS WELL as mine, and who investigated were convinced that it was true and to then say "it is lame" -- shows your bias.

You really weren't asking. When any excuse is a good enough excuse, no evidence can change one's thinking.

 

[firedragon]

When someone says "bogus claims" without investigating without an open mind... it is called "flat-earth thinking)

While very intelligent people that exceed your capacity AS WELL as mine, and who investigated were convinced that it was true and to then say "it is lame" -- shows your bias.

You really weren't asking. When any excuse is a good enough excuse, no evidence can change one's thinking.

Lol. Keep preaching KenS, but your claim was absolutely bogus, that is why all you have is ad hominem and preaching.

 

[Kenny]

Lol. Keep preaching KenS, but your claim was absolutely bogus, that is why all you have is ad hominem and preaching.

You remind me of the statement from the flat-earthers, "We have chapters all over the globe"

 

[firedragon]

You remind me of the statement from the flat-earthers, "We have chapters all over the globe"

As expected. More please. More.

 

[dybmh]

Brings an interesting thought:
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

So John doesn't agree with Isaiah?

 

[74x12]

So John doesn't agree with Isaiah?

The way I understand it is that when Jesus comes in the Father's glory there will be no doubt who he is. Unlike the first time when he appeared as a carpanter's son ... this time he will be revealed as God himself.

So it's not that Jesus is sharing God's glory. It is that Jesus is God.

Philippians 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

You see how it glorifies God when you say Jesus Christ is Lord. That is because he is God the Father himself incarnate.

 

[DKH]

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

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

You all know the full verses … But clearly there is a problem - the two claims do not agree!

Who, exactly, is ‘God’?

Where did the WORD come from?

We know the ALMIGHTY word spoken BY God that created a things in the beginning, don’t we? What was it? Was it not: ‘Let there be light!’

Specifically, who are these words attributed to: God, or The Word…

Or is it sensibly just, ‘The word of God’, that created all things?

Reading further in Genesis, you will find absolutely no reference ‘The Word’… (as in ‘Son of God’ / Jesus)… is that strange seeing that certain Christian groups clearly claim that it was ‘Jesus’ who created all things (‘God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him.’ (John 1:3)

Not only does that verse alter the creation story in Genesis but it puts in place an entity that was never mentioned in Genesis. In fact, never mentioned in any verse anywhere in the whole of the Old Testament.

Here, in John 1: 1-3 we have an entirely new ‘person’ who is also claimed to be GOD… ‘The Word’.

But, again, nothing of ‘The Word’ is stated in the Old Testament. And even after Jesus does appear as the messiah, he himself says nothing about having created anything (carried out the greatest event in the whole of world activity!)

I do ponder, though, that the term, ‘Father’, means: ‘Creator, Bringer into being, Giver of life’, yet Jesus (or ‘the word’) is not attributed to this term. Instead, an entity of God, exactly called, ‘The Father’, is attributed to creation!

In fact, BOTH ‘GOD’ and ‘The Father’ are stated as ‘Creating all things’, which logically the two go together!! AND, Jesus, on appearing as a man on earth (that it’s claimed he created by some Christian groups) clearly states that he can do nothing except what he sees God (or the Father) doing first. In fact, he, Jesus was ‘Taught by God/The Father how and what to do and say’.

So, how is it that Jesus/The Son is supposed to have carried out the greatest event of all time (!!) and yet has to be taught how to exist in that event? This is a problem when we are expected to believe that Jesus pre-existed, and is therefore a Spirit (that’s a problem in itself as the only spirits we know of at the time of creation are God and the angels - and we know God created the angels - or did Jesus/the Son/the word?) and not a man (human/flesh being).

Can anyone throw light on this huge anomaly - a conundrum of almighty importance in Christian scriptural matters?

In my opinion…

Who created all things: God or the Son? The Supreme Being (God), the one and only true God. The only begotten Son of God did not preexist. So, he wasn't involved.
Who, exactly, is ‘God’? This is an unknowable question. The bible gives us some hints, but human minds are not capable of knowing this. We can only grasp some of the things related to our universe, not those beyond it (no matter what some may claim).
Where did the WORD come from? Since, the word is a part of God or an attribute of God, we cannot know this.
We know the Almighty word spoken by God that created a things in the beginning, don’t we? What was it? Was it not: ‘Let there be light!’ Maybe! But, to believe this we would seem to be suggesting that God needed something (light) to see…If, this was the case, God wouldn't be the Supreme Being.
Or is it sensibly just, ‘The word of God’, that created all things? Since, it is my position that God's word is only "one" of the unlimited attributes of God, I would say: No.
Can anyone throw light on this huge anomaly - a conundrum of almighty importance in Christian scriptural matters? This topic is so embedded in the various beliefs of Christian groups that any questions or issues related to it won't even be considered! But, I will give my opinion…

John 1:1: The most important issue that needs to be addressed is grammatical considerations. Such as: personal pronouns, capitalization and descriptive nouns. So, the Greek term "logos" has been translated into the English term "word." It is used over 300 times in the N.T. and is not intended to be capitalized or used as a pronoun. The O.T. equivalent is used about 1500 times and also is not intended to be capitalized or used as a pronoun…When we review what the word logos means it addresses logic and reason (N.T.). As well as, wisdom and speech (O.T.). Not a personage. Thus, it is my opinion that translators made an exception for the fourth gospel's prologue of chapter 1 and 1 John 1, when they deviated from the other approximately 1,800 occurrences by capitalizing the “w” in “word,” thus leading the reader to believe that the logos of God is a pre-existent person. This seems to be an example of translator bias. Additionally, the text does not say: “In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God.” Neither does it say: “In the beginning was God the Son, and God the Son was with God, and God the Son was God.” Further, it does not say: “In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.” In spite of this, it has been taught, with the help of others, to read the text with these substitutions. Something that Dr. Colin Brown, senior professor of systematic theology at Fuller Seminary, says is a “patent misreading” of the text:

It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said: In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with God and the Son was God. What has happened here is the substitution of Son for Word, and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning.