The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[74x12]

Hi 74x12:



No. As many members of this Board have attempted to share with you already, the substance of the OP in no way makes the case that Jesus Christ is God. You can believe in your heart of hearts that Jesus Christ is the Eastern Bunny or Santa Claus, if the Son of God must be all things for all occasions. John the Baptist and Jesus Christ Himself agree that Jesus Christ is the "Son of God" and trying to replace His God and Father with the Son of God is IDOLATRY. Period. As already presented there is ONE GOD and ONE MEDIATOR "BETWEEN" God and men and that is Christ Jesus. 1Tim. 2:5. There is a place in Christian Theology for "God" and the "Son of God" our Lord Jesus Christ who God raised from the dead on our behalf. Right? Okay then. God is God and Jesus Christ is the Son of God. End of story.

Blessings,

Terral

No one can receive anything unless it's given to them from above. And no one knows the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal Him. So has the Son indeed revealed the Father to you? Or do you just assume that you already know who the Father is because it's supposedly "obvious"?

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.
I would like to make the case that Jesus is God almighty, for John 1:3 and compare it to Isaiah 44:24 gives us the answer to this topic.

#1. John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". (this is the one whom many calls the Son, JESUS, the word, correct), now this.

#2. Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself". (this is the one many calls the Father, correct)

in both verses we have the same person identified as the "CREATOR" of all things. if one say this is not the same person, then you have two creators, and makers of all things. if agreed that this is the same person, then you have the "ONE" true God JESUS. and note one cannot say Jesus went through someone else, no, for Isaiah 44:24 staes that he was "Alone" and "By Himself". which eliminates the "US" and the "Our" at the beginning as in Genesis 1:26.

so the conclusion is that there is one and only "ONE" person who created and Made everything, that being JESUS.

PICJAG.

 

[Oeste]

Of course it doesn’t. There is no “before” prior to the beginning. There is only God..

I'm sorry, but how exactly do you know that there was nothing "before" the beginning.

Because there is no “time” before time begins, and without time I don't see how we can have a “beginning”. Likewise there is no “ending” without time. God speaks of Himself as the Alpha and Omega, not because time is eternal but because He is, was, and always will be

If God existed -- as He presumably did prior to the creation of our universe -- it is entirely possible that He was doing something! "In the beginning" refers to the period of time from the creation forward.

Agreed, He was certainly doing something, as you say, and that something was whatever He wanted. All I’m saying is that He didn’t need to have an amount of time nor did He have to make space to do it.

The Bible is not intended to be an account of the time prior to the creation. All it actually tells us about Jesus existence is that He (i.e. "the Word") existed "in the beginning."

Agreed. As John states, the Word "Was" in the beginning, so in the beginning Jesus was already "there". "Prior" (to use a time convention) to the beginning there was no "there" (to use a space convention) because the Word had "yet" (another time convention) to speak our universe into existence.

We speak of a time before time and of place before space because they are so existential to our human frame of reference. However I see time, space and matter as creations of God. As such there would be no time before time or place before space. God would "be", but He wouldn't need to be "there" because "there" was never a requirement for Him to "be".

This has been the view of the "traditional historic church" (creatio ex nihilo) but I realize there are other churches that differ.

 

[Oeste]

You said in post #596 (in response to a poster who theorized nothing existed, and nothing was going on before this earth* was created) "I'm sorry, but how exactly do you know that there was nothing "before" the beginning. If God existed -- as He presumably did prior to the creation of our universe -- it is entirely possible that He was doing something! "In the beginning" refers to the period of time from the creation forward. The Bible is not intended to be an account of the time prior to the creation. All it actually tells us about Jesus existence is that He (i.e. "the Word") existed "in the beginning." (Katzpur, post #596)

You were perfectly correct historically, that there was much in existence and much that was going on before this earth was made.

Just as a point of clarity, as far as I know the historic view has not been that the earth was made ex nihilo (from nothing), but that the universe (time, space, matter) was made this way. So God is not seen as simply a craftsman that shapes the universe (from preexistent matter) but as one who actually created it.

For example, the Oral talmudic traditions tell us that God the Father had created many, many other worlds before this one and thus the specific "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 refers to this specific creation involving this earth and the specific creations applied to this specific time period.

I agree that not only were there many worlds created before ours but that there were countless universes created at the very moment Christ spoke our reality into existence.

 

[moorea944]

Just as a point of clarity, as far as I know the historic view has not been that the earth was made ex nihilo (from nothing), but that the universe (time, space, matter) was made this way. So God is not seen as simply a craftsman that shapes the universe (from preexistent matter) but as one who actually created it.



I agree that not only were there many worlds created before ours but that there were countless universes created at the very moment Christ spoke our reality into existence.

You mentioned that "Christ spoke our reality into existence". Not sure what you really mean here. Never heard that before said that way. Do you mean God spoke our reality into existence? Not sure what your really saying....

 

[101G]

Just as a point of clarity, as far as I know the historic view has not been that the earth was made ex nihilo (from nothing), but that the universe (time, space, matter) was made this way. So God is not seen as simply a craftsman that shapes the universe (from preexistent matter) but as one who actually created it.

God made everything that we see from that which we cannot see visibly. this is true and in scripture.
Romans 1:19 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:2 "For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

if one would note, there is more of what we call empty space than there is material object.

so that kinda make one think, what's all the so-called empty space is about. I don't believe it just what we call empty. for sure it's more emptiness than objects.

PICJAG.

 

[Clear]

REGARDING THE SILLY CLAIM THAT GOD CREATED MATTER (AND THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE) "OUT OF NOTHING"


1) MATERIAL CREATION FROM MATTER WAS THE ORIGINAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. CREATION FROM "NOTHING" WAS A LATER THEORY.
Oeste claimed : “This has been the view of the "traditional historic church" (creatio ex nihilo)…” (post #683)

This has NOT been the historical view of the earliest Judeo-Christians, but rather it was a theory that was adopted by some Christian movements in later centuries.

As has already been demonstrated, in the worldview and early texts of Judeo-Christians who describe THEIR beliefs in their own words, THEY describe the material world(s) being created out of matter that existed in a less organized state prior to the beginning of the creation of this world. The silly concept that matter is made from “nothing” was a much later theory and it is (obviously), more irrational and more illogical and less coherent than the earlier Judeo-Christian belief that the material worlds are made from matter.



2) MATERIAL CREATION FROM "NOTHING" IS IRRATIONAL AND USES IRRATIONAL THEORIES AND IRRATIONAL SPEECH TO SUPPORT IT.

The irrational and illogical assumption of creation from “nothing” creates many problems for those who adopted that illogical and irrational theory. For example, it then becomes impossible for
ex-nihilists to even explain that sort of creation in any logical and rational manner. They are simply left claiming God can create something from "nothing" without any logical, rational or coherent mechanism for having done so.

For example, when the ex-nihilist Oeste indicates that Christ “[spake] our universe into existence”, this silly claim doesn't explain anything. Instead it uses the term "speak" and applies it in an irrational, illogical manner as though "speech" explains a phenomenon that doesn’t exist in reality since nothing can BE “spoken” into existence. A car can be created from metal and plastic and rubber and formed into an automobile, but it is not “spoken” into existence from “nothing”. One can take bricks and form a house, but it is not made of “nothing”. To theorize the earth is made from “nothing” is an illogical, irrational and incoherent theory when compared to the early Christian belief that the earth and material universe was made from matter.

Even @moorea944 had to ask Oeste regarding the phenomenon of creation from “nothing”. Moorea944 asked “You mentioned that "Christ spoke our reality into existence". Not sure what you really mean here. Never heard that before said that way. Do you mean God spoke our reality into existence? Not sure what your really saying....”
I have the same question. How can one use the words "Christ spoke our reality into existence" in any logical and rational and coherent way to actually EXPLAIN how the act of "speaking" creates a material object out of "nothing"?

The beliefs of the most original and earliest Christianity which believed in the creation of material things from matter is more logical, more rational and more coherent than these later theories adopted by later christian movements.

Clear
εισεσεφυδρω

 

[Clear]

@Oeste said : “Just as a point of clarity, as far as I know the historic view has not been that the earth was made ex nihilo (from nothing), but that the universe (time, space, matter) was made this way. So God is not seen as simply a craftsman that shapes the universe (from preexistent matter) but as one who actually created it.” (Post #684)

@Oeste said : I agree that not only were there many worlds created before ours but that there were countless universes created at the very moment Christ spoke our reality into existence.(Post #684)


Hi @Oeste :

Regarding the claims you are making :
(1) the universe was made out of “nothing” and that
(2) all universes came into existence at the same time and that one can
(3) “speak reality into existence” are three very interesting claims that you are making.

Can you give us examples from early Christian literature written by early Christians themselves supporting your theory that these three specific claims were the “historic views” of the early Christians?

Clear
εισεσεφυδρω

 

[moorea944]

REGARDING THE SILLY CLAIM THAT GOD CREATED MATTER (AND THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE) "OUT OF NOTHING"


1) MATERIAL CREATION FROM MATTER WAS THE ORIGINAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. CREATION FROM "NOTHING" WAS A LATER THEORY.
Oeste claimed : “This has been the view of the "traditional historic church" (creatio ex nihilo)…” (post #683)

This has NOT been the historical view of the earliest Judeo-Christians, but rather it was a theory that was adopted by some Christian movements in later centuries.

As has already been demonstrated, in the worldview and early texts of Judeo-Christians who describe THEIR beliefs in their own words, THEY describe the material world(s) being created out of matter that existed in a less organized state prior to the beginning of the creation of this world. The silly concept that matter is made from “nothing” was a much later theory and it is (obviously), more irrational and more illogical and less coherent than the earlier Judeo-Christian belief that the material worlds are made from matter.



2) MATERIAL CREATION FROM "NOTHING" IS IRRATIONAL AND USES IRRATIONAL THEORIES AND IRRATIONAL SPEECH TO SUPPORT IT.

The irrational and illogical assumption of creation from “nothing” creates many problems for those who adopted that illogical and irrational theory. For example, it then becomes impossible for
ex-nihilists to even explain that sort of creation in any logical and rational manner. They are simply left claiming God can create something from "nothing" without any logical, rational or coherent mechanism for having done so.

For example, when the ex-nihilist Oeste indicates that Christ “[spake] our universe into existence”, this silly claim doesn't explain anything. Instead it uses the term "speak" and applies it in an irrational, illogical manner as though "speech" explains a phenomenon that doesn’t exist in reality since nothing can BE “spoken” into existence. A car can be created from metal and plastic and rubber and formed into an automobile, but it is not “spoken” into existence from “nothing”. One can take bricks and form a house, but it is not made of “nothing”. To theorize the earth is made from “nothing” is an illogical, irrational and incoherent theory when compared to the early Christian belief that the earth and material universe was made from matter.

Even @moorea944 had to ask Oeste regarding the phenomenon of creation from “nothing”. Moorea944 asked “You mentioned that "Christ spoke our reality into existence". Not sure what you really mean here. Never heard that before said that way. Do you mean God spoke our reality into existence? Not sure what your really saying....”
I have the same question. How can one use the words "Christ spoke our reality into existence" in any logical and rational and coherent way to actually EXPLAIN how the act of "speaking" creates a material object out of "nothing"?

The beliefs of the most original and earliest Christianity which believed in the creation of material things from matter is more logical, more rational and more coherent than these later theories adopted by later christian movements.

Clear
εισεσεφυδρω

[I have the same question. How can one use the words "Christ spoke our reality into existence" in any logical and rational and coherent way to actually EXPLAIN how the act of "speaking" creates a material object out of "nothing"?]

Well, first of all, just to clear things up what I believe. I asked why did they post that Jesus spoke........ He didnt. He wasnt even born yet and did not pre-exist. I was God who spoke and it was done.

So I guess your asking how can God speak and create something from a speak pattern? Our Creator is all powerful. Scripture tells us that God said... spoke.... and it was done. And let there be light. And there was light, etc, etc..... Are we trying to understand this with a human mind? If so, we're probably never going to really conceive that. Are we also saying that God "cant" do that? That he "cant" saying something to create something?

 

[Katzpur]

In both verses we have the same person identified as the "CREATOR" of all things. if one say this is not the same person, then you have two creators, and makers of all things. if agreed that this is the same person, then you have the "ONE" true God JESUS. and note one cannot say Jesus went through someone else, no, for Isaiah 44:24 staes that he was "Alone" and "By Himself". which eliminates the "US" and the "Our" at the beginning as in Genesis 1:26.

so the conclusion is that there is one and only "ONE" person who created and Made everything, that being JESUS.

Yes, but keep in mind that in Hebrews1:1-2, we read, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." This makes clear the fact that God the Father was the orchestrator of the creation. Jesus Christ created our universe, but He did so under His Father's direction. There's simply no arguing this point.

 

[Clear]

1) Regarding the Messiah as the Creator of the earth

Moorea944 said : “… to clear things up what I believe. I asked why did they post that Jesus spoke........ He didnt. He wasnt even born yet and did not pre-exist. I was God who spoke and it was done.”
I think Oeste was speaking from the Christian point of view where Jesus DID exist as a spirit prior to his having created the earth. In the early Christian worldview, the “Word of God” is another title for the messiah Jesus. Thus John 1:1-3 explains “the Word” (Jesus, the messiah, Christ, etc.) was in the beginning with God (the Father).


2) Regarding the silly theory of Creation of a material universe from "nothing"

Moorea944 said : “… So I guess your asking how can God speak and create something from a speak pattern? “

No, I am not asking this. Such a thing cannot BE done, thus, I am NOT asking how it can be done. I am pointing out that people who theorize that material things are made from "nothing" cannot themselves explain it in any rational, coherent, logical manner. Let me use YOUR post as an example of this claim. Look at your responses as the other readers are doing.

Moorea944s response as an example of the inability to explain creation of material things from "nothing"

You said :
“Scripture tells us that God said... spoke.... and it was done.” (Moorea944 post #689)
This "response" answers nothing and tells us nothing in a rational or logical manner concerning the process of creation. Yes, the material earth and other material things were created after God commanded that they be "created.” This was not the point. The point was that the early Christian doctrine that these material things were made from matter, rather than from “nothing” is more logical, more rational and more coherent than the later theory that material things were created from “nothing”.


You then said : “… And let there be light. And there was light, etc, etc..... Are we trying to understand this with a human mind?” (Moorea944 post #689)
Again, another "non answer" that has no logical, rational, coherent description of creation from nothing. I also might point out that we are trying to understand these things with human minds (unless there are aliens on the forum who are trying to understand these things with non-human minds….)

Compare this irrationality and illogic and inability to understand creation from "nothing" with the easily understood Ancient Christian Doctrine. The Ancient Christians were easily able to understand their concept of creation of material things from matter and it was very simple for them to imagine and explain how material things were made from matter in a logical, rational, coherent manner. The ex-nihilist cannot do so. The early Christian beliefs were much superior in this point.


You then said “… If so, we're probably never going to really conceive that. “ (Moorea944 post #689)
You are starting to make my point for me. Your comment is yet another tacit admission that no one is going to understand the incredibly silly, irrational, illogical and incoherent theory of creation from nothing.

The silly theory that God created material things from “nothing” is INCONCEIVABLE. It is also illogical, it is irrational, it is incoherent and it is historically at odds with the early Christian belief that God created material things from matter.

Compare this "inconceiveable", incoherent, illogical and irrational theory of creation from nothing with the Early Judeo-Christian belief that all things were created from matter. THEIR religion held a very conceivable process of creation from Matter. Their religion is MORE logical, more rational, more coherent and is historically in agreement with Early Judeo-Christian worldviews and their literature. It is, in these ways, the early Christian religion is much, much more superior to this silly theory of creation from “nothing” that some later Christian movements adopted.

You then said : “… Are we also saying that God "cant" do that? That he "cant" saying something to create something?” (Moorea944 post #689)

The early Christian belief that God created material things from matter does not, itself mean that God could not do something that we cannot explain. However, certain doctrines ARE illogical and irrational and incoherent and find their origin in illogical and irrational thought and beliefs.


I hope readers see that your response IS an example of the ex-nihilist response when asked how God could have created from nothing. There is no logical, rational, coherent explanation. “They are simply left claiming God can create something from "nothing" without any logical, rational or coherent mechanism for having done so.” Thank you for the example and thank you for the clarification of your question to Oeste.

Please, please, do not be offended that I used your response as an example of an ex-nihilist response and it's lack of coherency. I did not mean any personal affront, merely to use it as an example.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful @moorea944

Clear
εισεσεακτζω

 

[Clear]

Yes, but keep in mind that in Hebrews1:1-2, we read, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." This makes clear the fact that God the Father was the orchestrator of the creation. Jesus Christ created our universe, but He did so under His Father's direction. There's simply no arguing this point.

Hi @Katzpur

I very agree with this historical concept. In early Judeo-Christianity, the Father commands (speaks), and the Son (the "word" of God) carried out the creation of worlds. Kudos to you Katzpur for this historical point. Early Christianity (or any restoration of it) is more logical and rational on this point than other theories.

Clear

 

[101G]

Yes, but keep in mind that in Hebrews1:1-2, we read, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." This makes clear the fact that God the Father was the orchestrator of the creation. Jesus Christ created our universe, but He did so under His Father's direction. There's simply no arguing this point.

First thanks for the reply, second, you must not have read Isaiah 44:24 clearly., listen,
Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself".
He said that he was alone, and by himself, so that eliminates he was under anyone's direction. so your assessment want work.

Now, notice something. in the beginning of creation when God was making evrything as Isaiah 44:24 states. even our Lord Jesus stated that he, the Spirit, was alone, who he is, when he made the male and the female.. now, can Jesus LIE? no, sol isten to his statement about who was at creation in the beginning. while talking to the Pharisees concerning divorcement, he made this statement,
Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and femal". do you deny what the Lord Jesus said? God is a "he" a single person, for Mark confirm this in his gospel at the same setting, listen, Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". the the "he" in Matthews is the one "God" here in Mark. and Jesus cannot lie.

so there was no one else at creation who made all thing but him, and no one else.

Now the "US", and the "WE" in Genesis is God manifested in flesh to Come. for the very next verse tells the truth. Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them".

so how did the "US" and the "OUR" in verse 26 go to "his" and "he" in the very next verse? see, your error now.

WHEN JESUS SAID "HE", MEANING GOD MADE MAN MALE AND FEMALE, JESUS CANNOT LIE. so I must believe him.

so the he went through or was under someone else direction is false.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

Yes, but keep in mind that in Hebrews1:1-2, we read, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." This makes clear the fact that God the Father was the orchestrator of the creation. Jesus Christ created our universe, but He did so under His Father's direction. There's simply no arguing this point.

First, thanks for the reply, but you must understand that the it was the Lord JESUS who spoke to the prophets in those sundry times. supportive scripture,
1 Peter 1:10 "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

1 Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."


see, it was Jesus in the Prophet of Old in Spirit form, now in flesh he speaking to us in flesh. for before, in those sundry time, listen to the scriptures, "the Spirit of Christ which was in them". HE WAS "IN" THE PROPHETS. there it is. it was Jesus all the time.

PICJAG.

 

[Katzpur]

First thanks for the reply, second, you must not have read Isaiah 44:24 clearly., listen,
Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself".
He said that he was alone, and by himself, so that eliminates he was under anyone's direction. so your assessment want work.

Let me just start out by suggesting that you not assume that I have not read something just because I disagree with you as to what it means. Isaiah 44:24 does not say that Jesus "was alone." It says that He created the earth "by himself." That particular verse does not mention God the Father, but Hebrews 1:1-2 clearly does. God is the subject of verse 1. Verse 2 states that it was "by [His Son] also that He made the worlds." Nowhere does it say that the Father was absent or completely uninvolved in the process of directing the work which was done by the Son. Also, in John 8:28, Jesus said, "...I do nothing of myself..."

 

[Katzpur]

First, thanks for the reply, but you must understand that the it was the Lord JESUS who spoke to the prophets in those sundry times. supportive scripture,
1 Peter 1:10 "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

1 Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."


see, it was Jesus in the Prophet of Old in Spirit form, now in flesh he speaking to us in flesh. for before, in those sundry time, listen to the scriptures, "the Spirit of Christ which was in them". HE WAS "IN" THE PROPHETS. there it is. it was Jesus all the time.

PICJAG.

If that is the case, then who is the Son spoken of (i.e. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son..."? If it was Jesus Christ who was speaking to the prophets, then was it Jesus Christ's Son who made the worlds? I was unaware that Jesus Christ had a son.

 

[Clear]

101G said : Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself". He said that he was alone, and by himself, so that eliminates he was under anyone's direction. so your assessment want work. (Post #693)


Hi @101G ;

I am not sure where your personal interpretation came from 101G, but @Katzpur is (again) correct that the earlier form of Christianity believed that Jesus was the agent in creation, but this task was given to him by God the Father.


1) THE SON (the “only begotten”, the “elect one”, the Fathers “right arm”, etc, etc) AS AN AGENT IN CREATION AND HIS SPECIFIC ROLE IN CREATION.

For examples :
This doctrine that the earth was created by the SON, is reflected in Prayer #4 of Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers where they prayed to God thusly : “you are the Father of wisdom, the Creator, as cause, of the creative workmanship through a Mediator...(aposCon 7.35.1-10);

This doctrine of the Son creating under direction of the Father is reflected in yet another Hellenistic Synagogal prayer (#1) that was said after the communion : ‘We give thanks to you, O God and Father of Jesus our Savior...on behalf of the knowledge and faith and love and immortality which you gave to us through Jesus your Son. O Master Almighty, the God of the universe, you created the world and what is in it through him,...(Apos Con 7.26. 1-3)

“Blessed are you, O Lord, King of the ages, who through Christ made everything, and through him in the beginning ordered that which was unprepared; prayer #3 - (aposCon 7.34.1-8)

Using the common epithet of Jesus as God’s “right hand” Baruch honors God the Father who “with your counsel, you reign over all creation which your right had has created” (The apocalypse of (Baruch 2) 54:13)

In the same manner, Christian Clement speaks of things done by the Father, but THROUGH Jesus as administrator : for example, he refers to God as “the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ...” and that God calls us from darkness to light “through” Jesus, and he refers to “ those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant..” (1 Clem 59:2-3)

This same doctrine regarding the cascade of Eternally existing Authority, from God the Father, through his Son as Administrator is woven into many ancient teachings and texts. Even the hellenistic synogogal prayers confirms this early Christian interpretation as the authentic ancient doctrine : 7 the God and Father of your only Son, our God and Savior, the maker of the whole universe through him; 8 the Administrator, the Guardian, ... (AposCon 8.5.1-4)

This is not to say your theory is worse nor better than the early Christian beliefs and interpretations, but merely that your religious belief and interpretation is different than that of the early Christians on this specific point. I actually think that the earlier doctrines and interpretations are more logical and rational and more historically coherent than your theories and interpretations.


2) THERE ARE ERRORS IN YOUR QUOTED SCRIPTURE

While I am at it, I might at well point out a couple of errors in the text you are posting for our consideration : You quote : Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself".

While you are quoting a version from a Hebrew base text, it has errors and the Greek LXX which the Christians typically would have been using reads more correctly in the last phrase. I mention this partly because it reflects on the recent posts regarding creation of the earth from matter rather than creation of material things from “nothing” and because you are trying to base your point on an incorrectly translated text.

For Greek readers, the LXX version reads : Ουτος λεγει Κυριος ο λυτρουμενος σε και πλασσων σε εκ κοιλιας Εγω Κυριος ο συντελων παντα εξετεινα τον ουρανον μονος και εστερεωσα την γην

While the Greek does mention that it is the redeemer who is the one “shaping” or “forming” us from the womb (πλασσων), the Greek text here refers to the redeemer as the one “completing all [things] (συντελων) as opposed to the Hebrew which uses the verb עשה (a form of “making” or “fashioning) which is not the same as the word “create” of Gen 1:1 (bara’) and עשה never means to "create from nothing" unless it is a metaphor (e.g. "creating a new heart", etc.). It is a fashioning of material.

Another point is that both Hebrew and Greek texts use the word for “alone” only once in the sentence, referring definitely to the stretching out of the heavens (plural) and your translation is also faulty in that your versions final phrase has “spreadeth abroad” the earth while BOTH the Hebrew (Masoretic) and the Greek (LXX) actually refer to a compaction (εστερεωσα), which is a "coming together" and “firming” up of materials that form the earth until they form a “firmament” (στερεομα). This is the opposite of a “spreading abroad".


I hope you are NOT discouraged in creating your own personal theories and translations (all of us must do this). I think it is GOOD to create your own models. However, almost all of our models are tentative, pending more and better data.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful


Clear
εισεσισιφυω

 

[101G]

Let me just start out by suggesting that you not assume that I have not read something just because I disagree with you as to what it means. Isaiah 44:24 does not say that Jesus "was alone." It says that He created the earth "by himself." That particular verse does not mention God the Father, but Hebrews 1:1-2 clearly does. God is the subject of verse 1. Verse 2 states that it was "by [His Son] also that He made the worlds." Nowhere does it say that the Father was absent or completely uninvolved in the process of directing the work which was done by the Son. Also, in John 8:28, Jesus said, "...I do nothing of myself..."

GINOLJC, to all.
First, to disagree or agree has no bearing on the scripture, they are not going to change for you nor me. Isaiah 44:24 clearly states he was "ALONE" and the verse do identify JESUS as "Father"... LORD.
Jesus is the Father, LORD, without flesh, without bone, without blood in the OT. there was no one with him, and the scriptures, being the Lord Jesus himself, confirm this. the work of MAKING ALL THINGS is by ONE PERSON and ONE PERSON only, and the scriptures backs this up.
and the statement, "I do nothing of myself". this is easly explained. I'll do that when I get back from church today, Lord's willing.
then you said,

If that is the case, then who is the Son spoken of (i.e. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son..."? If it was Jesus Christ who was speaking to the prophets, then was it Jesus Christ's Son who made the worlds? I was unaware that Jesus Christ had a son.

I'm not aware that the Father, the Spirit had a son either. especially biologically. understand that Jesus is the Father as the ETERNAL "Spirit". and when he came in flesh he diversified, or shared himself in that flesh body. hence the terms "Father and Son". notice the language in
Hebrews 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" if he "will be to him" a Father then he's not his "Father", he only will be .... his Father. for JESUS don't have a Father, nor a Mother. he's without Father, without Mother. understand, in flesh on earth in a body he's "son". the same Jesus, the Spirit in heaven, "Father". Father and son are only TITLES of the Work JESUS is doing in a diversified state of his ownself. example, while on earth redeeming and saving man, in a body of flesh he was in heaven at the same time upholding all creation. listen, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven". at the same time on earth in flesh, "SON", speaking with Nicodemus, he was in heaven, Spirit , "Father", upholding all creation. yes at the same time.

I suggest you re-read this post again for clearity. as said after church we can discuss this futher.

PICJAG.


,

 

[axxxa_3]

In the book of John it's pretty obvious that the author is saying that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jewish authorship:
The arguments from Arianism that this is speaking of "a" god are flawed for a few reasons. First of all the author is a Jew and that's not a Jewish idea. The author is obviously familiar with the Torah and it's commandments. Including "Hear oh Israel Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." And "Thou shalt have no other elohim before me."

So the concept of two gods is against Judaism and it's silly to think that the Jewish author of John would be promoting the worship of two gods.

Influence from Greek philosophy?
Jewish authorship also casts serious doubt on such ideas as that the author is speaking of the so called "divine logos" of Greek philosophy. If the author is a Jew then what does he have to do with Greek philosophy? So if the author's views on the "Word" can be explained without resorting to Greek philosophy and instead by resorting to Jewish literal; especially the Torah and Tanakh. Then that is what should be done rather than assuming the author is influenced by foreign(gentile, pagan) philosophy.

So in understanding the "Word" that was made flesh we should look to 1st century Jewish ideas of the Word of God.

Context:
Secondly, if the author is really promoting the worship of two gods then we should be able to actually see that in the context. Meaning why would the author just stop with a statement like "The Word was with God and the Word was "a" God"? Especially since this can more easily be translated as "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

Therefore Arianists need more proof to show John actually meant to be speaking of two gods rather than one.

This proof they do not have. In fact when we compare John 10:30 with John 1:1 we see an obvious link. Meaning that the author here is showing us exactly how he views the relationship of the Word with God. Jesus is essentially the Word made flesh, but somehow He is "one" with the Father.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
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. (John 1:14)
I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

The truth:
The Jewish concept of "the truth" is that God(Jehovah) is the God of truth. Essentially the truth is God. So when Jesus claims to be " the way, the truth, and the life" It's a claim of divinity. And we further see this in the book of John when Jesus speaks of the "Spirit of truth" that "proceeds from the Father" who they(his disciples) know because He "dwells with them". See: John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:13. So Jesus is basically claiming here that He is the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father (Obviously indwelling human flesh). According to Jesus (in the book of John) He (the Spirit of truth/Jesus) is with them but will be in them. So Jesus says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

This is further collaborated in other Jewish writings such as 1st Esdras chapter 4:35-41. God is the "God of truth" and "Great is the Truth and mighty above all things".

The Father revealed in the flesh:
The author of John also makes it kind of obvious that Jesus is claiming to be God revealed in the flesh when Jesus says "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" This was in reply to Philip asking Jesus to "show us the Father". (John 14:8-9)

So Jesus the Son of God is "The Word of God" and "the Truth". This is how the Son declares the God that no one can see. (John 1:18) He declares Him just by being. Because He is the "Truth" and the "Word made flesh". In other words, Jesus is all of God that can be seen.

Looking at other writings attributed to John we find that in 1 John 3:1-6 that John makes no distinction between the Father and the Son. But speaks of them as One.

1 John 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Excuse me but how does this (John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.) translate to "Jesus said: I am God" There is not a single proof that this verse talks about Jesus. Jesus was a messenger sent by God and in Islam, we believe that he was miraculously born without male intervention.

I'm sorry but there is not a single unambiguous verse in the bible where Jesus says himself "I am God" or "Worship me". Jesus is not God because if you actually did read the gospel of John you would have seen that in Chapter 5 Verse 30 Jesus himself says "I can of my own self do nothing". This just proves that Jesus is not God because God is self-sufficient and He does not depend on anything or anyone nor does He need anything or anyone.

However, Jesus clearly isn't self-sufficient and needs guidance from God. In fact, Jesus prayed to God. But if we follow your beliefs logically it would mean that Mary gave birth to her own God?? Do you know how wrong that sounds?

Also, your arguments are pretty week...

If you have more questions feel free to ask away

 

[Clear]

Hi @101G

REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT ONLY JESUS EXISTED AT THE CREATION OF THE EARTH

101G claimed that Isaiah 44:24 says : "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself". (post #693)

101G said : “First, to disagree or agree has no bearing on the scripture, they are not going to change for you nor me. Isaiah 44:24 clearly states he was "ALONE" and …..there was no one with him…” (post #698)

Um, no. The actual scriptures DON’T say “spreadeth abroad the earth ‘by myself’”. And in fact, neither the Hebrew nor Greek base texts say this. I have already pointed out that your scripture is a mistranslation an it seems very unfair for you to use a mistranslated, faulty text, then offer that to @Katzpur and to forum readers and ask them to assume your mistranslated faulty text is correct and that your personal interpretation is correct. I have already pointed out a few errors in your textual claim. Let me point out more.

For example, your text doesn't seem to be using the qere text (literally “from me”) in the last phrase which the Jewish Chabad.org renders “by my power” as an attempt to render the text more correctly in the Hebrew. In the final phrase of Isa 44:24, the earth is brought together (made firm) by the power of the Messiah, but it does not say he was “alone” as your faulty quote reads. Even the Ketiv of the Hebrew is doubtful in it’s meaning of it’s two words (“who?”… “me”). You are certainly welcome to make your case as to why you think the Hebrew SHOULD read as you quoted.

The Greek text, similarly, tells us regarding the Messiah “….I alone stretched out the heavens…”. The adjective “monos” refers to the “one” who “stretched out the heavens." The fact that he alone did the action, in no way implies that other spirits did not exist. Nor does the fact that I alone drove my car means there are no other people in the car with me. Secondly, the “monos” adjective in one phrase does NOT automatically apply to the next phrase when the messiah makes the earth a firmament and the Greek lack another adjective that so indicates.

Your example and your use of "scriptures" is simply incorrect.

In any case it is clear from the many examples in post #697 that the early Christian doctrine and in their text and their interpretation that the Messiah created the earth under the supervision and direction of God the Father.

WHY SHOULD THE POSTER 101Gs RELIGION AND TEXT AND INTERPRETATION TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE RELIGION AND INTERPRETATION OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY?

The question for readers is since 101Gs’ religion and text and interpretation is different than those of the early Christians, why should 101Gs religion and his text and his interpretations have precedence or priority over that of the more original and more authentic Christian religion? What would be your answer @101G ?

Clear
εισεακτωσεω