Who created all things: God or the Son?

[Muffled]

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?

I believe Jesus, the son of God is God in the flesh and as God created all things.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe Jesus, the son of God is God in the flesh and as God created all things.

Jesus cannot be the Son of God and also God since the Son is not the Father.
I believe that God created all things and Jesus did not create anything.

 

[Soapy]

I believe Jesus, the son of God is God in the flesh and as God created all things.

The Son OF God is the Father, the almighty, the one Jesus Christ called, ‘The one true God’?

• ‘This means life that they should come to believe that YOU (Father) are the one true God’!
• “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

 

[Tomef]

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?

Why not just read the full verse, you spanner?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭ESV‬‬

John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. | English Standard Version 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

bible.com

Don’t you understand the words ‘with’ and ‘through’? How is it that even people who don’t believe in fantasy gods can see how daft your basic errors are?

 

[Soapy]

Why not just read the full verse, you spanner?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭ESV‬‬

John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. | English Standard Version 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

bible.com

Don’t you understand the words ‘with’ and ‘through’? How is it that even people who don’t believe in fantasy gods can see how daft your basic errors are?

What is my ‘Basic Error’?

I don’t mind opposition to truth if you present a reason for it since then at least I can see why and where you began your misunderstanding.

It’s easy when you are afraid of the truth just to say, ‘You are a spanner… can’t you see how daft your basic errors are?’ and then sign off.

But when one of the questions was ‘What is the Word?’, then your responds doesn’t cut the mustard, does it? More like a ‘I don’t have a clue so I’ll just kneejerk something I regard as witty!’ but is actually just inane and empty, devoid of intelligence, and unhelpful.

Do you want to try again but this time with worthy scriptural value in your post?

 

[Tomef]

What is my ‘Basic Error’?

I don’t mind opposition to truth if you present a reason for it since then at least I can see why and where you began your misunderstanding.

It’s easy when you are afraid of the truth just to say, ‘You are a spanner… can’t you see how daft your basic errors are?’ and then sign off.

But when one of the questions was ‘What is the Word?’, then your responds doesn’t cut the mustard, does it? More like a ‘I don’t have a clue so I’ll just kneejerk something I regard as witty!’ but is actually just inane and empty, devoid of intelligence, and unhelpful.

Do you want to try again but this time with worthy scriptural value in your post?

Your threads, and tbh I don’t know why I read them, appear to indicate an inability to read. But clearly you can read, so…just what is the issue you have?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Do you really need this to be explained to you?
Whoever wrote this says this ‘word’ was with god, and was god. So whatever this word is, it is both separate to (with) and the same (was). Whether this makes any sense is another question, but that is what it says. It then refers to this word as a person - he, and states this person, he, was - once again - with god. Apparently all things were made through him - whatever that means, through does not mean by. The text then goes on to say that this word became a person, and lived among other people, and that he was, apparently, the only son sent by ‘the father’.

While there’s certainly something mysterious in that none of this makes any real sense, the writer’s intended meaning is clear. Once again however, you don’t appear to be satisfied until you cook up some mind numbingly nonsensical spin. I don’t know why it bothers me, I mean it makes no difference to me, but something in me is somehow offended by such idiotic wasting of time. It bothers me that there is someone somewhere wasting their time on such stupidity when they could be doing something useful.

 

[Soapy]

Your threads, and tbh I don’t know why I read them, appear to indicate an inability to read. But clearly you can read, so…just what is the issue you have?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Do you really need this to be explained to you?
Whoever wrote this says this ‘word’ was with god, and was god. So whatever this word is, it is both separate to (with) and the same (was). Whether this makes any sense is another question, but that is what it says. It then refers to this word as a person - he, and states this person, he, was - once again - with god. Apparently all things were made through him - whatever that means, through does not mean by. The text then goes on to say that this word became a person, and lived among other people, and that he was, apparently, the only son sent by ‘the father’.

While there’s certainly something mysterious in that none of this makes any real sense, the writer’s intended meaning is clear. Once again however, you don’t appear to be satisfied until you cook up some mind numbingly nonsensical spin. I don’t know why it bothers me, I mean it makes no difference to me, but something in me is somehow offended by such idiotic wasting of time. It bothers me that there is someone somewhere wasting their time on such stupidity when they could be doing something useful.

‘Was WITH GOD and WAS GOD’ is a contradiction…. A contradiction that you cannot explain … or do you want to try to explain?

‘The writers explanation is clear’
How? Where?

But the reality is that you don’t understand what it means so you are fearful to know that you are wrong!!

Here is the explanation of the verse:
- God created all things in the beginning - that’s what is believed. Do you agree?

- God’s word created all things in the beginning. That is true. Do you agree?

- God spike the world into being: ‘Let there be light…. Let there be (this) … Let there be (that)… let there be (also these)’. Do you agree?

So God’s word, the word that he spoke, created all things. Do you agree?

When someone or something is ‘WITH’ another then there is an AGREEMENT and UNDERSTANDING between the two. Would you agree with that statement?

GOD has A Spirit (GOD IS SPIRIT… not the same thing!!) - most call God’s Spirit, ‘The Holy Spirit’ (worse… yuk.. The Holy Ghost!!!! There is no such thing as a Ghost!!!) but in truth it is properly ‘The Spirit OF GOD’. What do YOU say here?

God uses HIS SPIRIT to do all things he desires - God never does anything IN PERSON because He is SPIRIT… He has no form, no shape, nothing physical… It is HIS SPIRIT that DOES THE WORKS.

So now you know how ‘The word was WITH GOD’.

But there is also a more FULLER meaning: Tue word/term, “God”, means:

• “THE GREATEST” (There is great, but then there is The Greatest!)
• ‘The Mightiest’, (There is mighty, but then there is The Mightiest)
• ‘The Most glorious, Most wonderful …’ (There are glorifies, and wonders, but then there are The Most Glorious and The Most Wonderful)
• ‘The Most Judgeful Authority’ (There are Judges, and there is THE Most judgeful - the ultimate!)
• ‘….’

- SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVES…

So, it can be said that:

• ‘The Judge in his courtroom is GOD of that courtroom’

Select your Superlative Adjective for ‘God’ in that anecdote… The judge in his courtroom is the HIGHEST AUTHORITY…

• ‘The Principal in his school is GOD of that School’

Same thing to you… what do you say? Is the Principal, God, in his School?

Is not a Father, GOD, in his household?

Is the Lion not said to be ‘God of all animals of the forest’ (just a saying, not actually true!)

And finally, what do you say about this:

• ‘God is God of all whom are called Gods’!!

Confused, baffled, amazed….?!

God created ANGELS to interact IN THE WORLD and also ETHEREALLY ‘in Heaven’ to create a hierarchy of POWERS and authorities in STATIONS of OPERATION: ArchAngels, SERAPHIMS, Leaders, workers, etc. These are created BY and FROM from THE SPIRIT of GOD which is why they are HOLY, highly intelligent, and IMMENSELY POWERFUL so as to do the Will of their creator without fear nor favour. But if they screw up, they are toast!!! Doomed to eternal destruction!

This ‘Spirit of God’ is ‘The Gift’ that God promised to send to the believers… the Spirit that Jesus said he would [pass onto] the believers which the Father promised. The Spirit of God IS NOT a property of Jesus Christ, but if the Father… it is His Holy Spirit!

All of the above is in a nutshell

• ‘The word was God’
• ‘The word was with God’

It’s not hard to understand… but it is hard for you to BELIEVE that it isn’t something unexplainable, mysterious, nor impossible:

• JESUS WAS NOT ‘THE WORD’ in the beginning which created all things

But following up:

• ‘The word became flesh’

Goodness… do you not understand basic English …!!?!!!

If I GIVE YOU MY WORD that I will do something …. And then I DO IT… that is saying:

• ‘MY WORD became Flesh’
• ‘I am putting Meat on [the bones of] MY WORD’

God said He would send a MESSIAH, and in the fullness of time…… He did so.

THE SENDING was after God ANOINTED Jesus of Nazareth for the task he was to do. God PUT HIS SPIRIT ON HIM which gave Jesus POWER to do what he needed to do (See Acts 10:37-38 and Isaiah 42:1 … please, don’t skip these verses!!?

Jesus ANNOUNCED HIS DAY to the people in the synagogue the first Sabbath day after returning from the testing in the wilderness (See Luke 4:19-21 and where Jesus told of Abraham ‘Seeing his (Jesus’) day).

And as usual, the double use: God TAUGHT JESUS all things .., From the time he was knee high to a grasshopper, God taught him all that he needed to know, God showed him the scripture truths, pointed out all relevances in it, acquainted Jesus with the manner of the Jewish history and the greater world, equipped Jesus with all eventualities… AND THEN SENT HIM ON HIS ASSIGNMENT:

• ‘To delivery the testimony of God’
• ‘To heal the sick, comfort the poor’
• ‘Preach the Gospel’
• …
• ‘And to die for the Salvation of Mankind - pay for the sin of Adam!’

And, because Jesus SPOKE THE WORDS THAT GOD TAUGHT HIM TO SPEAK, Jesus is therefore:

• ‘THE WORD OF GOD’.

Written elsewhere: ‘An emissary, taught by a king, goes to a fat country and Speaks the Word taught to him by the king… this emissary is:

• ‘THE WORD OF THE KING’

‘The words you hear me speak ARE NOT MINE but if HIM WHO SENT ME’.

That ‘Word’ has NOTHING to do with ‘THE WORD THAT CREATED ALL THINGS’… Those that say it is are merely desperately seeking a position that is not tenable.

John the Baptist:’I am not that light that came into the world … but he who comes after me brings that light - the light that brings truth into the world’ (my paraphrased words)…
Yes, Jesus BROUGHT the Truth to mankind - the truth that GOD TAUGHT HIM!!

While there’s certainly something mysterious in that none of this makes any real sense, the writer’s intended meaning is clear. Once again however, you don’t appear to be satisfied until you cook up some mind numbingly nonsensical spin. I don’t know why it bothers me, I mean it makes no difference to me, but something in me is somehow offended by such idiotic wasting of time. It bothers me that there is someone somewhere wasting their time on such stupidity when they could be doing something useful.

You are feeling it, brother… that’s why it’s niggling you - it’s just your fear that’s holding you back from believing it. Prayer… that’s what you need to help you!!

 

[Tomef]

If I GIVE YOU MY WORD that I will do something …. And then I DO IT… that is saying:

• ‘MY WORD became Flesh’
• ‘I am putting Meat on [the bones of] MY WORD’

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

You genuinely don’t see the problem with your (rather unusual, to put it mildly) interpretation? Actually, interpretation is too generous, with your mangling of the text I mean. You must realise that taking what the writer is obviously referring to - the whole trinity business, god being multiple but one, was/with in English, and no, nobody can adequately explain it. It’s a fictional construct, like the rest of the bible. Attempting to ‘explain’ it as if it referred to real things is a fool’s errand.

Above all I’m curious - what drives you to come up with these convoluted and utterly bizarre attempts to re-interpret/mangle the text? Is it a requirement of your particular flavour of religion that you have to believe certain things, so that you need to bend the text to fit those?

 

[Tomef]

When someone or something is ‘WITH’ another then there is an AGREEMENT and UNDERSTANDING between the two. Would you agree with that statement?

I am with my dog in the living room.
She is with child.
We were with the McAdams at the time of the accident, but we all remember it differently.
I went to the shop with my phone instead of my wallet.

I’m sure you can come up with instances of your own where with does not involve agreement or understanding. You’re making another basic error; when interpreting any kind of text, the bible or whatever else, you can’t begin with your own presuppositions and expect to arrive at an understanding of what the text means. All you are doing in that case is reinforcing what you already believe; an exercise in futile stupidity.

 

[wellwisher]

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?

According to carbon dating the invention of written language appears in the same time scale as the genealogical time estimate of Bible Creation, which is about 6000 years ago. My guess is this symbolism is speaking about how that inspired invention; written word, and how it altered human consciousness, making a new world and human mind appear; civilization.

For example, in science, something does not have the prestige of being real, until it is published. Once it is published, it can exist, unchanged forever in libraries and archives. At the research and development stage, things exists in a quasi steady state between imagination and realty. But it is not yet verified, by others to have the prestige of being real; provable by many. After it is written down and published, each generation can read about the exact same things, due to its reality and permanency; sacred scrolls. There is a connection to creation.

Word of mouth is also language, but human perception of an event can diverge, and human memory gets worse with time, and begins to embellish or alter the story. But once it is written down, into an external hard drive; book, it does not change. The past can be relived in its exact details. The rise of sustainable civilization coordinates with the invention of written language. Written language provided a way to sustain civilization via hand books; how-to books needed for commerce, science, law and religion.

Science can show that there were civilizations, even before the first sustainable. However, these all aborted. My guess is this occurred, because once the elders who created the first civilizations had passed, there was no written records for the future generations to study and reference to allow these civilizations to perpetuate. The natural brain will forward integrate and lose track of the key details. Civilization would need an external hard drive; book of knowledge; necessity is the mother of invention.

We know about God and the Son through a book called the Bible. The Bible is a written source to help sustain faith. If we had to depend only on spoken traditions, the stories would have changed or even ended centuries ago. The invention of written language does not naturally come from nature. However, once invented it provided a way to document nature and begin to learn and record the secrets of nature; science, which then led tø another round of creation; applied science and manmade things.

The Word created all things, is about how one can trace all sustainable knowledge, and platforms of knowledge, needed for advancement on written language. Education builds on simpler books and gets more complex with time. The "written" word that came first was the word God in an ancient language. My guess is this one word was the root of written language.

If I was to reverse engineer the development of written language, the word "God" would be said and the sounds would given the first few letters; Gaw aw dah; G O D. Then I would go through the known spoken words and look for words with one or more of these initial three sound/letters; goat. Gaw oh tah; G O A T and add two new letters, etc., until there was a set of symbols or letters that could record any spoken word. This puzzle may have taken years.

Adam was created from the dust of the earth; stone dust. I can picture Adam typing on stone, for years, until one day he was done and began to record the world around him, forever changing himself; first born, and humans. Jesus is called the second Adam. It was through the written records of the prophets that Jesus would appear.

The creative inspiration of the first written language was from God and the word God. It created a matrix of infinite possibilities. Once it was done, the Son, started to create on this platform, to make reality tangible; published records, on which to build to the future; two step creative process; inspiration and publication.

 

[Soapy]

You genuinely don’t see the problem with your (rather unusual, to put it mildly) interpretation? Actually, interpretation is too generous, with your mangling of the text I mean. You must realise that taking what the writer is obviously referring to - the whole trinity business, god being multiple but one, was/with in English, and no, nobody can adequately explain it. It’s a fictional construct, like the rest of the bible. Attempting to ‘explain’ it as if it referred to real things is a fool’s errand.

Above all I’m curious - what drives you to come up with these convoluted and utterly bizarre attempts to re-interpret/mangle the text? Is it a requirement of your particular flavour of religion that you have to believe certain things, so that you need to bend the text to fit those?

So you cannot refute anything that I said so you just pour your ignorance and unwarranted scorn on it and then pretend curiosity?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God who made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up—a line which I often thought was a very plausible one—that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.

Bertrand Russell

Why I am not a Christian (1927)

Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell - The Bertrand Russell Society

 

[Tomef]

So you cannot refute anything that I said so you just pour your ignorance and unwarranted scorn on it and then pretend curiosity?

To be able to refute something first of all it has to have some sort of coherence. Random wanderings of a person’s imagination can only be ‘refuted’ if there is some real meaning to whatever is at question, and some coherent view on it is being expressed. What is at question here is not the meaning of the text, which is quite obviously about that whole Jesus and god the father are one idea (which there is no explanation for, it is simply an article of faith, a religious idea that has no correspondence in reality, and cannot be ‘explained’ any more than where the stacked up turtles end could be), but why you feel the need to simply ignore what it says:

…the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

in order to satisfy the particular requirements of whatever version of Christianity you follow. You are so obviously wrong in your attempts at interpretation here that the only relevant question is why? Why attempt such convoluted non-reasoning to justify what you want to think? What on earth is the point ?
We are at the end of the day one species, we live on this planet together. This kind of stubborn, malign idiocy is at the very root of what causes so much unnecessary conflict and suffering. Elective dumbness is corrosive and divisive.

 

[Tomef]

GOD has A Spirit (GOD IS SPIRIT… not the same thing!!) - most call God’s Spirit, ‘The Holy Spirit’ (worse… yuk.. The Holy Ghost!!!! There is no such thing as a Ghost!!!) but in truth it is properly ‘The Spirit OF GOD’. What do YOU say here?

The writers of the Bible called it the Holy Spirit. Holy Ghost is just an earlier translation, it doesn’t mean ghost as in Casper or Jacob Marley. The Bible also says he/it (or she, the terms used are apparently female, grammatically) is ‘sent’ by the father, and hence is separate in some sense, which no doubt you will have some bizarre way of ‘explaining’ away:

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭26‬ ‭ESV‬‬

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. | English Standard Version 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

bible.com

 

[Tomef]

Was WITH GOD and WAS GOD’ is a contradiction…. A contradiction that you cannot explain …

Well you got that right at least - the whole idea of the trinity is contradictory, and inexplicable, but it is what the NT teaches. You want to discuss it as if it were real, I suppose that is the key issue here. The problem lies in the absurdity of your efforts to get around the fact that yes, much of the bible doesn’t make any sense if taken as anything other than fiction. Would you spend as much time on arguing about the nature of the force, or on trying to explain how magic works in the Harry Potter movies?

Listen to Obi Wan. Go home (if you’re not there already of course) and rethink your life.

 

[Soapy]

To be able to refute something first of all it has to have some sort of coherence. Random wanderings of a person’s imagination can only be ‘refuted’ if there is some real meaning to whatever is at question, and some coherent view on it is being expressed. What is at question here is not the meaning of the text, which is quite obviously about that whole Jesus and god the father are one idea (which there is no explanation for, it is simply an article of faith, a religious idea that has no correspondence in reality, and cannot be ‘explained’ any more than where the stacked up turtles end could be), but why you feel the need to simply ignore what it says:

…the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

in order to satisfy the particular requirements of whatever version of Christianity you follow. You are so obviously wrong in your attempts at interpretation here that the only relevant question is why? Why attempt such convoluted non-reasoning to justify what you want to think? What on earth is the point ?
We are at the end of the day one species, we live on this planet together. This kind of stubborn, malign idiocy is at the very root of what causes so much unnecessary conflict and suffering. Elective dumbness is corrosive and divisive.

‘The wide became flesh’…

Yes, GOD’s word that he would send a messiah … came to fruition.

And ‘we’ beheld the glory of the Messiah that God’s word promised us!!!

God said, His word was:

• “1Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” (Isaiah 42:1)

An Apostle wrote:

• “You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached—how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.” (Acts 10:37-38)

It doesn’t matter whether you believe or not, whether Jew, Christian, Trinitarian, JW, Christadelphian, Oneness Pentecostal, Baptist, Church of God, Agnostic, Antitheist, … whatever… the point is this:

• Are those two verses congruent with each other…. Do they agree with the tenet of what is being claimed that God said, that the very word of God, prophesied?

Do not argue whether YOU believe it or whether you think I am a spanner (what’s that mean, by the way!!?) Just judge the purpose of the verses against what others say in light of their belief concerning God, the Son, and the passage of the timeline and events in that timeline.

To-wit: Did God’s word come true… Did God say he would send a saviour… and Did the truth come to mankind (was the light brought by him who God anointed and sent into the world)?

These are what you should be discussing.

 

[Soapy]

The writers of the Bible called it the Holy Spirit. Holy Ghost is just an earlier translation, it doesn’t mean ghost as in Casper or Jacob Marley. The Bible also says he/it (or she, the terms used are apparently female, grammatically) is ‘sent’ by the father, and hence is separate in some sense, which no doubt you will have some bizarre way of ‘explaining’ away:

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭26‬ ‭ESV‬‬

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. | English Standard Version 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

bible.com

The Bible was translated by Trinitarian translators and as such they used terms that the trinity church masters directed them to use. Holy Ghost is a medieval concept which I wanted people to know was not a valid concept. A Ghost was termed after the idea of a semi-visible bodiless (?) haunting Spirit. You can see from scriptures that the reality is that the SPIRIT OF GOD never appears any such apparition. Two appearances show a MINDFUL visualisation:

1. As a LIGHT BREEZE In the MANNER of a Dove alighting on a perch
2. As HIGH WIND and TONGUES OF FIRE at Pentecost

In the first, Trinitarians and others have taken ‘The Dove’ LITERALLY and you will see pictures, diagrams, visualisations, depictions, OF A DOVE to represent the Spirit of God…. WRONG!!!!!
Scriptures does not use a Dove to visualise the Spirit of God… It says the Spirit of God came upon Jesus LIKE… IN THE MANNER… of THE BREEZE MADE BY A DOVE ALIGHTING ON A PERCH… a soft, light, fluttering breeze… NOT AN ACTUAL BIRD…. Pentecostal please take note!!!

The second is A GREAT THUNDEROUS WIND like that accompanying a stormy LIGHTENING with tongues of FIRE…

Strangely, PENTECOSTALS use a picture of a DOVE to give themselves a visualisation… A dove??? There was no Dove at Pentecost?!!!

Oh, one more thing concerning ‘Holy Ghost’ and ‘Holy Spirit’… When these terms are used to refer to the SPIRIT OF GOD, the idea is to DISTANCE GOD from His Spirit. The trinity claim is that the Spirit of God is a PERSON … The “Spirit of God” BINDS the Spirit to God… but “Holy Spirit’ UNBINDS it and re-enforces the idea that trinity desires of creating a separate person… They don’t like the connector ‘OF God’ … which is kind of weird since God sent HIS SPIRIT … a PROPERTY of God…. How can a property of a person (God) be a person and be that person (God) that it is the property of????

So, I do not agree that ‘Holy Spirit’ is a valid title for THE SPIRIT OF GOD… and for sure, HOLY GHOST is a disgusting term for the Spirit of Truth that is God’s Spirit. I completely understand that God’s Spirit IS HOLY… but it goes WITHOUT SAYING and so should not be used flippantly as trinity members use it… and others do in complete naivety (or just don’t care for truth!!)

 

[Soapy]

Well you got that right at least - the whole idea of the trinity is contradictory, and inexplicable, but it is what the NT teaches. You want to discuss it as if it were real, I suppose that is the key issue here. The problem lies in the absurdity of your efforts to get around the fact that yes, much of the bible doesn’t make any sense if taken as anything other than fiction. Would you spend as much time on arguing about the nature of the force, or on trying to explain how magic works in the Harry Potter movies?

Listen to Obi Wan. Go home (if you’re not there already of course) and rethink your life.

My man, IT IS WHY I AM HERE… to oppose and expose the untruth of the current fallacious beliefs…

There is a name given to those who try to oppose truth: SATAN, and DEVIL, SLANDERER, FALSE ACCUSER!

Be careful … It’s ok to query the true belief - but to OPPOSE IT… to SLANDER IT…. Scriptures says:

• ‘Do not Grieve the Spirit of Truth’

What does that mean to you?

 

[Tomef]

These are what you should be discussing.

Why?

The books of the NT were carefully composed, revised and edited to favour the divinity of Jesus, firstly in the letters of Paul, later in successive iterations of the gospel accounts. John’s gospel is the most obvious example, with less ambiguous language about Christ’s supposed divinity. Even so, the picture is not entirely clear. Even if it were clearer, people would still find points to disagree on. The only worthwhile, genuine approach is to take those writings for what they are - the attempt to construct a cohesive religion around the figure of a person who lived, made some claims about himself as the messiah, or as at prophet at least, and was apparently executed, decades before anything about him was written down. What followed was first a remarkably successful recruitment drive, resulting in initially small church groups dotted around the med and Middle East, whose ideas, quite naturally as they were fairly isolated from each other, began to diverge right from the beginning. The church in Rome, having the most political influence, was able to impose its particular notions about what being a ‘true Christian’ meant. Even their curated version of events however is widely open to interpretation, hence the many different views and denominations,. Ultimately, though, the whole business no longer has much relevance and these fiddling discussions over trivial differences of meaning are an utter waste of time. I do find it personally annoying however when someone insists that the text doesn’t mean what it obviously says, but instead has to be ‘interpreted’ through some bizarre and artificial process of semantic obfuscation and meaningless dogmatic assertions. That kind of thing is at the very heart of the worst aspects of religion, the insistence that some particular nonsensical argument is somehow better than the next equally nonsensical one.

 

[Tomef]

• ‘Do not Grieve the Spirit of Truth’

What does that mean to you?

Understand what it says rather than trying to impose dogma on it. It should be obvious that if you have to obscure the meaning of prepositions and contort the text into all kinds of odd shapes that what you are doing is creating your own meanings, not reading what is actually there.