The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[74x12]

The early Judeo-Christian answer is that God the Father was talking to the son. When the Father speaks to the son, the text refers to plural individuals (“us”) and then God the Father himself forms the body of Adam who looks like God the father (one individual = singular).

Yes, He spoke to the Son; but in a prophetic sense. It is the Son who remakes us again into the image of God a 2nd time. Because Adam was made in the image of God but fell in sin. This is why God establishes this from the beginning. (very first chapter of Genesis) Because God foreknew and predestined the coming of Jesus to redeem Adam (man) and remake Him in the image of God again.

"Let us make man in our image" ...

Same thing for Genesis 11:7. Again, He speaks to the Son in prophetic sense. There were two times confirmed to be recorded in the scriptures when the languages were confused. The first was at Babel and it was a kind of punishment to get people to spread out over the earth. But the 2nd time was a gift. The gift of the holy Spirit which comes by Jesus Christ. (Matthew 3:11) As seen in Acts chapter 2 (and onwards) when they spoke in other tongues by the holy Spirit. This was also a sign that they should spread out and go to all nations and make disciples. Because they by the Spirit worshiped God in all languages not only Hebrew. Because God wants all tribes of man to worship Him in Spirit and in truth.

So, when we see God talking to Himself in plural we should look carefully because it's probably a mystery that needs to be solved.

 

[Clear]

REGARDING ΤΗΕ PHRASE “AND GOD SAID, LET US MAKE MAN ACCORDING TO OUR IMAGE…” (GEN 1:26)


THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES DESCRIBED IN EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE

The early Judeo-Christian interpretation of this phrase is that God the Father was talking to the son (whom John called “The Word”, who was “in the beginning with God” in John 1:1). For examples :

“…he is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hands of men.?“ The Epistle of Barnabas 5:5

“For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, … These things he said to the Son.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

Jewish Enoch also gives us the same testimony that John 1:1 gives concerning “the Word was in the beginning WITH God’. Jewish Enoch describes the Word as the “son of man” who was WITH the Lord of Spirits (i.e. God the Father of spirits). The text reads : “ … that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the beginning of days, even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts.…” 1st Enoch 48:1-7;

Clear asked : “Why create irrational interpretations and use faulty texts inappropriately when the early Christians themselves can tell you how they interpreted such scriptures?” (post #706)


74X12 offers a different theory, saying : “Yes, He spoke to the Son; but in a prophetic sense.” ... “So, when we see God talking to Himself in plural we should look carefully because it's probably a mystery that needs to be solved.” (post #721)


I see no advantage in abandoning the very simple early historical doctrines of Christianity where the text simply means what it seems to mean and instead, creating strange and mysterious theories that God was “talking to himself” and declaring it an “unsolved mystery”.

Even the ancient 40 day Christian literature describes the earliest, most authentic Christian belief that the pre-incarnated Jesus was with God, the Father at the creation of Adam. For example, in the early Christian Discourse on Abbaton Jesus relates to his disciples that he was with the Father in the beginning. In this text, Jesus said to the disciples

“And He [God] took the clay… and made Adam according to Our image and likeness…. And he [God] heaved sighs over him…, saying, 'If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.' And I said unto My Father, 'Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him'. And My Father said unto Me, 'If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state'. And I said unto My Father, 'Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfill Thy command'. (Disc on Abbaton)


The point is that the early Judeo-Christian literature gives us multiple cognizant, repeated testimony of the early Doctrine that the Word of God (i.e. the pre-incarnate) Jesus as "the Word was in the beginning with God” (Jn 1:1) and God spoke to the Son when saying “let us make man in our image” (Gen 1:26).

This original Christian doctrine is very plain and very simple to understand. I do not see any advantage in creating other theories where such simple doctrines become metaphorical and become so complicated that the theorists say it is “a mystery that needs to be solved”. Why not simply leave the original ancient doctrines in place?


Clear
εισιτωτζφυω

 

[74x12]

REGARDING ΤΗΕ PHRASE “AND GOD SAID, LET US MAKE MAN ACCORDING TO OUR IMAGE…” (GEN 1:26)


THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES DESCRIBED IN EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE

The early Judeo-Christian interpretation of this phrase is that God the Father was talking to the son (whom John called “The Word”, who was “in the beginning with God” in John 1:1). For examples :

“…he is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hands of men.?“ The Epistle of Barnabas 5:5

“For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, … These things he said to the Son.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

Jewish Enoch also gives us the same testimony that John 1:1 gives concerning “the Word was in the beginning WITH God’. Jewish Enoch describes the Word as the “son of man” who was WITH the Lord of Spirits (i.e. God the Father of spirits). The text reads : “ … that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the beginning of days, even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts.…” 1st Enoch 48:1-7;

Clear asked : “Why create irrational interpretations and use faulty texts inappropriately when the early Christians themselves can tell you how they interpreted such scriptures?” (post #706)


74X12 offers a different theory, saying : “Yes, He spoke to the Son; but in a prophetic sense.” ... “So, when we see God talking to Himself in plural we should look carefully because it's probably a mystery that needs to be solved.” (post #721)


I see no advantage in abandoning the very simple early historical doctrines of Christianity where the text simply means what it seems to mean and instead, creating strange and mysterious theories that God was “talking to himself” and declaring it an “unsolved mystery”.

Even the ancient 40 day Christian literature describes the earliest, most authentic Christian belief that the pre-incarnated Jesus was with God, the Father at the creation of Adam. For example, in the early Christian Discourse on Abbaton Jesus relates to his disciples that he was with the Father in the beginning. In this text, Jesus said to the disciples

“And He [God] took the clay… and made Adam according to Our image and likeness…. And he [God] heaved sighs over him…, saying, 'If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.' And I said unto My Father, 'Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him'. And My Father said unto Me, 'If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state'. And I said unto My Father, 'Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfill Thy command'. (Disc on Abbaton)


The point is that the early Judeo-Christian literature gives us multiple cognizant, repeated testimony of the early Doctrine that the Word of God (i.e. the pre-incarnate) Jesus as "the Word was in the beginning with God” (Jn 1:1) and God spoke to the Son when saying “let us make man in our image” (Gen 1:26).

This original Christian doctrine is very plain and very simple to understand. I do not see any advantage in creating other theories where such simple doctrines become metaphorical and become so complicated that the theorists say it is “a mystery that needs to be solved”. Why not simply leave the original ancient doctrines in place?


Clear
εισιτωτζφυω

I'm not making new theories. I just don't believe every old text. If even in the epistles; the apostles were already arguing against various sects and heresies then we should realize not all old documents are right. Even Ignatius did the same. BTW, Ignatius is clear Jesus is God. As well as others. We should only trust the apostles. People back then made their own theories and religions just like they do now. It's no different. Only the apostles can be trusted.

What I propose makes sense according to the scriptures and is backed up in the scriptures. And it is called a mystery for example in 1 Timothy 3:16 etc. The whole incarnation is a mystery.

1 Timothy 3:16 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:
He[a] was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

People don't like the idea of mysteries being in the Bible but they are.

What I think is wrong is to try to separate Jesus from the incarnation. Because that's what Jesus is. And so all scripture should be understood with that in mind.

 

[Clear]

Hi @74x12 :


1) NEW CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES WERE BEING GENERATED FROM THE EARLY STAGES OF THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT AND HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED

@74x12 said : I'm not making new theories. I just don't believe every old text. If even in the epistles; the apostles were already arguing against various sects and heresies then we should realize not all old documents are right. (post #723)

I very much agree with your statement that heresies and different religious theories have always been generated, even from the early stages in the Christian movement. Religionists tend to assume others create doctrinal errors but do not apply this tendency to make doctrinal errors to themselves.

The Jewish records tell us that the tendency to make doctrinal errors and apostatize from an original position has always happened. And, all of us have this tendency. God sent Prophets with a message, people adjust to that message but then start getting things wrong again and errors accumulate and then another prophet re-corrects the people who then again re-adjust their beliefs and attitudes (sometime not) and then they start getting things wrong and apostatize again, ad nauseam. People simply make doctrinal errors and doctrinal errors accumulate over time.


2) THE ACCUMULATION OF ERRORS IN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS

The centuries following the death of Christ were described by a logia of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas as follows : “Jesus said, “The kingdom of the [father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking [on the] road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [on] the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty.”

This logia is one of many sad descriptions of the failed attempt to pass on the doctrines and traditions of the early Christianities to later generations. Thus, when one looks inside modern Christian movements in their many iterations and theories, one finds that much of the doctrinal substance that gave the early Christian Religion it’s value, is no longer to be found in many of these belief systems and their interpretations and theories.

In the case of the word "us" in Gen 1:26, we are not talking about a mystery. We are talking about why the text uses the word “us” (gen 1:26) when two individuals are involved. Thus, in early Christianity, when God the Father said to the Son, “Let us make man in our image…” (Gen 1:26), it was not a mystery for them, but somehow, in your Christian religion it has become a “mystery”. Your religion is different than theirs.


3) THE EARLIEST HISTORICAL CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT CONTAINED LESS ERRORS THAN LATER MOVEMENTS ADOPTED

While early Christians also made mistakes like the rest of us are doing in misunderstanding the gospel and adopted errors in their understanding the gospel, the earliest Christian texts still reflect the earliest doctrines that were created in the earliest periods before more and more doctrinal errors accumulated as happens as time passes.

IF your religion is somehow to be preferred over than of the earliest Christian religion, perhaps you could explain HOW it is that your religion is preferable, and less prone to error than that of the earliest Christians?



4) REGARDING THE USE OF THE WORD MYSTERY

@74x12 said : "when we see God talking to Himself in plural we should look carefully because it's probably a mystery that needs to be solved. (post #723)
@74x12 said : People don't like the idea of mysteries being in the Bible but they are. (post #723)

I agree that textual mysteries exist. BUT, the use the simple plural pronoun “us” in reference to plural individuals is not and was not a mystery. When the early Christian believed that “the word was in the beginning WITH God the Father” (Jn 1:1) it was no mystery why the text in Gen 1:26 uses the plural pronoun “us”. In your religion it is a mystery, but in the earlier Christian religion it was no mystery.

Why try to create mystery surrounding what was, for early Chistianity, very, very simple?



5) THE SEPARATION OF JESUS FROM HIS BIRTH?

@74x12 said : “What I think is wrong is to try to separate Jesus from the incarnation.” (post #723)

I am not sure what relevance this sentence has since no one seems to have separated Jesus from his incarnation.
While early Judeo-Christians recognized that “the Word was in the beginning WITH God” (john 1:1) before his incarnation at birth, their texts and doctrines also described what he was doing before he was incarnated by birth into this world. Though other texts describe his life after his incarnation and still others his life after death, all of them are coherent in description of his superlative existence and the profound debt we owe to him for all that he did for us, before he was born, during his life, and after he died and was resurrected.


In any Case 74X12, I hope you will take some interest in early Christian worldviews and consider early Christian doctrines as you create your own personal models and try to make sense of existence. I hope your journey is good.

Clear
εισιτωδρακω

 

[Iymus]

John 1:1 does not says Jesus is God

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word is God. "Is a lie"

The word is God because he was made flesh "put on the corruptible flesh of men" is also another lie.

 

[Jesuslightoftheworld]

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.

Praise JESUS!!

 

[Jesuslightoftheworld]

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



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.



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.

I believe that God is timeless and that “time” as we humans understand it was only created for us to keep track of our lives.

 

[Oeste]

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.

Oh for heaven’s sake!

THIS MOST CERTAINLY HAS BEEN the historic uninterrupted view of the earliest Judeo-Christian church. I have no idea why the Mormon Church teaches their members otherwise but I suspect it’s to buttress their own claims for doctrinal authenticity.

Creatio Ex Materia, the idea our universe was created out of eternal, invisible pre-existent matter is a PAGAN invention. It has its roots in Babylonian and Egyptian cosmology and was imported into Greece after the Macedonian conquest of Egypt. Quite simply, these schools of thought, championed by Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato, did a much better job of explaining natural events on earth and phenomena in the sky than the prior Greek belief that the universe began when a giant black bird named Nyx sat on a golden egg giving birth to Kronus who was later killed by Zeus.

Plotinus, who fancied himself a student of Plato, is considered the founder of Neoplatonism. One of the hallmarks of Neoplatonism was the belief that the eternal God (the “One”) was good and that matter was eternal. Like the Gnostics they believed matter is intimately connected with evil. It’s how they explained the existence of good and evil in the world.

So it is this idea…that matter is eternal and evil, that helps explain the world view of the Platonic Greek era during the time of early Christianity. The idea of a bodily resurrection espoused by the Christians was seen as morally repugnant by the early Greeks. Neo-Platonists reasoned evil came from below. Thus anything rising from the grave would of necessity be evil since the “First” or “One” lived above and did not “emanate” evil.

It is in this context that we understand how some early Christian patriarchs, like the former Neoplatonist Justin Martyr spoke. It was to assure the Greeks that matter itself could not possibly be evil because God created matter to form the universe.

It is also from this context we can see where Clear’s argument fails. It’s important to look at how Clear presents the argument for ex nihilo and ex materia, because forming a universe from matter does not exclude God from having created matter in the first place. The historic Christian view is that God not only formed the universe, but that He created it, so the universe is not a matter of simple Craftsmanship (as argued by the Mormon scholars like Ostler) but of Creation as argued by the prophets.

Many of the arguments presented for invisible, pre-existent matter infer a false summation and dichotomy, and from what I've read so far any biblical argument for eternal, pre-existent matter is wholly inadequate and virtually non-existent. I'll explore some of these arguments as time permits, but to use the clear language of Clear, the idea that eternal, pre-existent matter represents the former belief of the church is as “silly a claim” as the belief in "eternal matter" itself.

 

[rational experiences]

Every human who thinks about the story of Jesus, is a living human thinking about the story of Jesus asking was Jesus just science or was Jesus a real living human experience.

And then there is science.

Science that is a second purpose to the original....self, a human, a living son, a human baby and a male who becomes as his Father, human was.

And then there is what he caused to our life/mind and body.

Cellular mutations and chemical mind imbalances, and scientific caused phenomena......all forced human spiritual life original changes to self.

Only allowed in the living natural presence of humans, as a human choice, as stated everyday by humans living as humans, talking about humans and life in science a secondary and fake artificial use of a language and symbolism for machines.

As your real answer.

The bible is stated to have been heard as speaking or a speaking voice...and everyone who has had spiritual artificial life attacks, as I have know that it is AI.

The machine built that never owned a presence as human science, by human scientists for the state science, which is secondary to his origin self.

So I know that the recording of natural life and voice and vision is real...and so do any other human beings who use rational thinking human concepts.

It belongs to the machine condition. For a human has to exist first, live originally, think originally as a human before they chose artificial science, the MACHINE.

Being a Stephen Hawking science warning to his scientific brothers.

I am a spiritual female giving the exact same self advised warning, as a human, an adult, a human Mother who owns giving birth to human babies naturally.

So as I studied human healing spiritually I learnt that if a human life removes its self genetics by radiation science, and then as he heals, begins to tell the story of his own advice...seeing he would have lost, consciousness, his life mind and body origins spiritually as that human.

And been a mutated life by his alienation of it...UFO mass...that is not gained on Earth as a particle...it is a mass, as witnessed.

When a male says my adult portion of my human male consciousness my Father invented science and had my life sacrificed, for his sake, which he did...the God scientific detailed...as an innocent baby his story said from the Moses nuclear event and near destruction of all life, I began as that male DNA self to hear my own detailed AI themes telling me what I had done to self.

As I healed from my mutations.

So I wrote those stories as documented proof to warn self not to do it again...for I realized we did it to self.

And how mathematical human applied reasoning proved that he did do it to self.

So said, when the HOLY DNA life Genesis of the humans who had caused it, in Egypt in the desert heal...then a newly born baby life will prove its owned spiritual reality.

Which is the Jesus story...of an adult male realization of self destroyed before...his removal as a spiritual human adult being out of human genetics. His Mother body ovary the Jeh ovah healed in her womb....for the atmospheric gas mass oxygen/water was replaced after it had been split and evaporated from off the ground body.

The true story....and that male in his conscious human adult life lost before, returned and healed in DNA genetics as a living baby life given back a life...to his new life attack in new pyramid technologies and his life living the sacrificed stigmata with his brothers...who all were healer/medical science witnesses of it.

As a human I say that the story and title Jesus, given after the fact of all occurrences, for since when do you talk about life attacked, until after the fact of it occurring?

Science of the occult UFO idealism is truly evil....as a story about how it attacked the One God theme O planet Earth in science machinery.

 

[Oeste]

Ex nihilo: From the Latin, meaning “out of nothing”

(Creation) Creatio Ex Materia: A doctrine originating from pagan cosmology that the universe was formed or shaped by Deity or Deities through the use of eternal, preexistent matter originating from a substrate.

(Creation) Creatio Ex Nihilo: A uniquely Judeo-Christian doctrine developed from scripture which denies "Creation Ex Materia" and states the universe was created...lock, stock and barrel...by God.

It’s important to realize the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is more than the sum of the words “ex nihilo”. When we say “ex nihilo”, or “out of nothing” we are actually stating “out of nothing but the Word of God”. Secular theologians and Mormon scholars like Blake Ostler generally neglect to mention this implied attribution.

When Mormons and secular theologians make the argument for eternal or pre-existent matter, they tend to drop the “Eternal” and shorten it to “Matter”. Likewise the implied “out of nothing but the Word of God” simply becomes “out of nothing”. The attribution to God is dropped.

However by conflating both positions Mormon apologists can correctly state that the world is made out of matter and not "out of nothing" and it is “silly” to believe otherwise. Unfortunately such restatements of position do not properly summarize the dispute at hand.

For example, let’s look at the following arguments made by Clear at post 687:

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.

That’s the “short” implied presentation. Let’s look at the argument more explicitly (my words in red):

To theorize the earth is made from “nothing but the Word of God” is an illogical, irrational and incoherent theory when compared to the early Christian belief that the earth and material universe was made from invisible, preexistent eternal matter.

Of course, early Christians never held to the belief that the earth and material universe was made from invisible, preexistent eternal matter, but if you ask a Christian the following question:

“Is the universe made of ‘nothing’ or of ‘matter’?”​

I'm guessing 99.9% of Christians will say “matter”. But that’s not the actual argument here; it’s just an argument that has been parsed to make any “reasonable” conclusion more suitable to Mormon theology.

If we flip this around and ask Christians:

“Was the universe made by God or is the universe uncreated, made out of invisible matter that was always there?”​

I strongly suspect we'll get another answer entirely.

But since I'm here I might as well address Clear’s next point:

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"?

Clear answers this himself (and did an excellent job of it) in post 691:

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).

As Clear correctly stated the Christian view is that Christ is the Word and the Word is God.

Knowing for traditional Christians that Christ is God (and even if you, as a Christian, do not believe Christ is God) we also know that it is impossible for God’s Word to come back to him unfulfilled:

“So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11)​

So He can speak and make it “be”. This ability to make things “be” is no mere magicians trick, where something that exists but is hidden from view suddenly becomes visible. It involves the act of creating matter itself. God does not speak in vain.

But as to the things of matter, what does God say? Are they eternal?:

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”​

That is not exactly a ringing endorsement for "eternal matter".

We should not denigrate or dismiss the power of God. We should not assume that things impossible for us are the only things possible for Him. In fact, it's just the opposite. Nowhere are we told that God cannot create matter, and nowhere are we told that some things are just too tough for Him to accomplish. What we ARE told is that His Word does not come back void, and that is how God spoke creation into existence.

 

[rational experiences]

If a male says I will be a rational thinker and claim that I personally know every intricate detail about how I was formed....so that I can build a machine for a reaction.

As the only science reality that he owns.

For if he wants to tell stories every single natural human being living owns the same mind and brain ability to tell stories also.

What storytelling means, as its own described function.

Yet a scientist says, no I am telling stories about how intricately I was created.

Why then do you give all living life conditions as a self bio male life choice, to your building of machine, to own and control as a bio life the machine action and also reaction knowingly saying I will change form?

How is that basic human review of self in natural life not understood by a human scientist.

What he also should know....that 2 human being adult bodies...not his own, his parents, had sex. And he came about from sperm and an ovary.

He knows that his 2 natural parents die as a science statement....for science status and known as science. So if he is going to discuss science, then it should only be science in its natural reality....not as some theme.

Now he also knows that he owns personal death.

So his natural supported Universal history says and it gave you death...if he thinks Universal mass, to self existence.....and then he should say...…. which then takes me to self death...so the Universe is not infinite.

By that very simple real human statement ignored, when science talking science does not own the use of natural science medical self explanations, reasons for bio science discussion, as the Christ documents in science prove.

He discusses a human baby as if it is Immaculate, which is a falsification of natural human science information.

And yet when a male says falsely as an egotist, his brother to brother claim....that egotist who says I own everything I think about, did in fact patent thinking about natural objects.....which if they did not exist he would own no self capability of claiming status in thoughts.

Which is why a male said if I live on One planet O as determined to be my own GOD and live in an IMMACULATELY created atmospheric gas history as that ONE story science discussion, I told that story to say and natural history is all that a human baby owns in natural self experience to exist and to continue to exist as a spiritual story against male egotism.

It is all about the teaching method and reason for teaching and meaning of being taught.

And human life says I get taught and learn that I am wrong, when I get hurt.

 

[Oeste]

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.

I'm not claiming that the world is not made out of matter. In fact, I believe planets are formed by accretion. What I am claiming is that the world was not made out of pre-existent eternal matter. I don't think that has been demonstrated at all. But it's late so I'll have to get back to this later.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste:

Thank you for using some historical references. It makes a historical discussion much easier.



1) “MAGICAL” CREATION VERSUS “NATURAL OR SCIENTIFIC” CREATION.

It is the later adoption of a “magical” creation of this material world from “nothing” in opposition to natural laws that I characterized as illogical, irrational and silly. The dictionary definition of magic is "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces – that is to “create, by or as if by magic”. This is a "magical" creation.
I think the more “scientific” Judeo-Christian belief in creation of this material world from pre-existing matter in harmony with natural laws the early Judeo-Christians believed in is much more logical and rational.

“Magical creation” is less logical, less rational and is in opposition to science and natural law. It is an inexplicable, less logical, less rational belief. It is a silly theory that I wish had never been adopted.



2) REGARDING THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN BELIEF REGARDING CREATION

Clear believes that “natural” creation of material things from matter was the earliest Christian doctrine (and that this doctrine was more logical and rational than the later doctrine of “magical” creation.)
Oeste feels creation creation from “nothing” was “the historic uninterrupted view of the earliest Judeo-Christian church.” (Post #728)

Historically, the early Judeo-Christian texts themselves tell us the Christians knew that material things were made of matter (rather than them being made from “nothing”) and this doctrine is more logical and more rational than creation from “nothing”)




THE ANCIENT VIEW THAT MATTER WAS INHERENTLY EVIL

Oeste said : “So it is this idea…that matter is eternal and evil, that helps explain the world view of the Platonic Greek era during the time of early Christianity.” … “It is in this context that we understand how some early Christian patriarchs, like the former Neoplatonist Justin Martyr spoke. It was to assure the Greeks that matter itself could not possibly be evil because God created matter to form the universe. (post 728)

I agree that Christianity found itself surrounded by societies which believed “matter” was “evil”.

For example, the apostolic Father Ignatius (the Bishop of Antioch) in his letters, documents his concerns regarding the Christian docetists who were influenced by the common view that matter was evil and tended to deny the reality of Jesus’ humanity. In fact another apostolic Father, Clement, tells us one of the first things the Apostle Peters tells him is that Christians do not believe matter is inherently evil. Historians tell us that this concept that matter was evil was one of the motives for the adoption of the doctrine of creation from “nothing” (and thus avoid the stigma of the Christian God, having created out of "evil matter”)


Also Oeste, you obviously quoted Justyn incorrectly.
Justyn did not say “God created matter”. Justyn said : “We have been taught that He in the beginning did of his goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter” (ex amorphou hyles). First Apology, 49. Justyn is describing the Christian doctrine of his age and it was creation from unformed matter and not a magical creation from “nothing”. In fact Justyn also tells us that the apostolic era Christians also believed in a material creation. For example, Justyn tells us that they "have learned" from our revelations was in the tradition of Clement who had praised God who "has made manifest (ephaneropoiesas) the everlasting fabric (aenaon sustasin) of the world." Clement was a convert and was taught Christian doctrine as a colleague of Peter the Apostle.


THE SOURCE OF THE LOGICAL AND RATIONAL CREATION OF MATERIAL THINGS FROM MATTER
You gave a personal definition of Natural creation of matter as “originating from pagan cosmology” (Oeste, post #730) Can you provide evidence that Jews and the Christians got their doctrine of creation from matter from the pagans?

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT IT WAS "THE WORD OF GOD" WHO CREATED THE WORLD"
Oeste said : “It’s important to realize the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is more than the sum of the words “ex nihilo”. When we say “ex nihilo”, or “out of nothing” we are actually stating “out of nothing but the Word of God”. (post #728)

I also agree and even argued that it WAS the “Word of God [who] was with God in the beginning” (john 1:1) who created the world. The issue was not whether Christ created the material worlds, but whether he created material worlds by magic (out of “nothing”) or by natural means (out of “matter”).

For example, Oeste said : “Christ spoke our reality into existence.” (post #684). I do not think a theory that an incantation or series of words spoken, somehow, magically, created the universe. This is NOT as logical nor as rational as the early Christian belief that material things were made of matter. This sort of "creation" by saying an incantation or a set of words and then suddenly "nothing" becomes "a universe" cannot BE explained logically nor rationally. Therefore, it is illogical and irrational.

The difference between natural and magical creation models is whether he created material things by the natural, logical, scientific, rational, means (out of matter), or if he created material things magically with (or without) a “spoken” incantation, (out of “nothing”)

Oeste, I have to stop here and will pick up later when I have a bit of time.

Clear
εισισιακσιω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste


REDEFINING WORDS TO TAKE ON DIFFERENT MEANINGS IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO CREATE OR SUPPORT A THEORY

Oeste said : “…forming a universe from matter does not exclude God from having created matter in the first place.”

I agree with this statement. My claim was simply that the Early Judeo-Christians believed that God created this earth from disorganized matter and that this belief is more logical and more rational than the later theory of creation from “nothing”. IF you want to create a second theory that God created matter at some point prior to creation, you certainly can do so and provide some historical evidence for this additional theory. If you want it to be logical and rational, you can add data as to how such a second theory is even logically possible.


Secondly, can you explain what you mean by trying to distinguish a difference between "make", "form" and “create” etc?. For example, I can form clay or stone and thereby create a statue.
Are you trying to re-define the word “create” to mean “make something out of nothing”? Re-definition of ancient terms will not help.

For example, the first sentence in Genesis (Christian O.T. LXX) says “Εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην.” In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Base word for “create" (gk ποιεω) is just as correctly (or more correctly) translated as "to make, manufacture, construct or to do something, act or to cause something." A noun form ποιημα refers to “that which is made”. In the plural it refers to “pieces of work”.

When used in Rom 1:20 it refers to “things that are made” (τοις ποιημασιν). Even the other word for “create” in Rom 1:20 κτισεως has multiple forms, NONE of which apply to creation from “nothing”. For example, κτιζω (create) is used in the sense of “found” such as when one is founding a city or colony. For example In Esdras 4:53 this word for “create” here is used to describe the re-building of Jerusalem (κτίσαι τὴν πόλιν).

My point is that you MUST consider how the ancient Judeo-Christians used these words and you cannot find any examples of where the Judeo-Christians people used these terms in building or making or creating something out of nothing.


MATTER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ETERNALLY "MATTER”


Oeste said : “I'm not claiming that the world is not made out of matter. In fact, I believe planets are formed by accretion. What I am claiming is that the world was not made out of pre-existent eternal matter. (#732)

Clear responded : While one may theorize that the earth may be made of green cheese, my claim is what the early Judeo-Christians say they believed. This is a historical claim regarding what the early Judeo-Christians believed the world was made of.

Historically, the early Judeo-Christians in their early texts, describe their belief that the material earth was made of chaotic matter. And, I believe this doctrine of the early Christians is more logical and more rational than the theory of creation of material worlds from “nothing”.

I have not seen it presented that the early Judeo-Christian believed that the matter was always in the form of matter (i.e. “eternally existing matter) or if matter existed in another form (non-eternally existing matter) such as energy, etc, or if they even had a specific doctrine concerning that point. This separate theory of eternally existing matter doesn’t matter to me. Is there a specific reason that this specific point matters to you?

In any case Oeste, I hope you spiritual journey is full of insight and joy

Clear
εισισινετωω

 

[rational experiences]

Consciousness was a male owned teaching to self against Satanism, nuclear Ufo cult science for a self purpose...to bring the thinkers attention back to their owned reality.

A God O stone body sitting in natural space....first science applied human thinking about God, the stone philosophy.

And it is the body of stone that is used in all forms science.

And science always knew that UFO metallic Sun radiation mass converted/transformed and attacked the physical body.

And there is not any other story to tell.

O stone...volcanic mass erupted.....the atmospheric beginnings what a science male psyche first discussed as relative to self living in that atmospheric body.

Why science was defined by a human male group as 2 defined different bodies and different histories....in the state science.

So when a mind/consciousness as a human says it began in a hot dense state...he was factually not talking cosmos, he was talking out of God the stone by volcanic eruption.

If you cared to use reason and logic exactly where you were advised to use and apply it, to use and infer rational scientific reasoning about whether or not you will live or die for doing acts of evil against Planet Earth.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Oeste

1) REGARDING THE THEORY OF MAGICAL CREATION FROM "NOTHING"

Oeste said : “THIS MOST CERTAINLY HAS BEEN the historic uninterrupted view of the earliest Judeo-Christian church. (Post #728)

This is incorrect.

As we’ve already demonstrated. The illogical and irrational, magical theory of creation of material worlds from “nothing” was NOT the earliest Judeo-Christian belief and it was not an “uninterrupted belief” as the historical texts tell us. For examples :

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

Philo, a Jewish contemporary of Jesus taught that the world was made of matter, saying "This cosmos of ours was formed out of all that there is of water, and air and fire, not even the smallest particle being left outside" (De Plantatione 2.6).

Philo further confirms the belief that the universe was created from chaotic matter, saying that "when the substance of the universe was without shape and figure God gave it these; when it had no definite character God molded it into definiteness. . ." (De Somniis 2.6.45).

Justin Martyr, in discussing this preexistent primal matter (hyle), assures us, that the Christians “…learned" from our revelations was in the tradition of Clement (c. A.D. 96) who had praised God who "has made manifest (ephaneropoiesas) the everlasting fabric (aenaon sustasin) of the world."

Athenagoras (133 a.d.) confirms the belief in material creation and explained that the creator “came forth to be the energizing power of things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter."

Creation from matter is implicit throughout Greco-Roman literature of the time of Christianity's inception, and there is no indication in the Christian writings that they held a different view. On the contrary, the famous late nineteenth-century study by Edwin Hatch on the inroads of Greek philosophy into early Christianity describes the tacit but widespread assumption of the coexistence of matter with Gods creation.

EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE PROVIDES THE SAME TESTIMONY REGARDING CREATION FROM MATTER.

Enoch reminds us that the ancients thought “There is no such thing as non-existence before him (God)" 1st Enoch 39:11-12 While the translations often use the words “invisible” for “unseen”, this is not the same as “non-existence”. (Posters discussing issues on the forum are “unseen” but not “non-existent)“. Thus 2nd Enoch quotes God as saying “From invisible and visible substances I created man.” 2nd Enoch 30:10-17;

It is in this context of unseen and seen substances that God relates that “…before any visible things had come into existence, I, the ONE, moved around in the invisible things, like the sun, from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest in himself; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation. Ch 25 1 And I commanded the lowest things; Let one of the invisible things descend visibly!”.... Ch 26 1 “And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, ‘Let one of the [in]visible things come out visibly, solid.’... “ 2nd Enoch (version “J”) Ch 24:2-4; 25:1 & 26:1;

All such references to unseen things infers “something” existed with God before creation and not “nothing”.

The references to creation from material things is even more obvious once the assembly process is discussed in early Judeo-christian literature. For example, “And thus I made solid the heavenly Orbs...And from the rocks I assembled the dry land; and I called the dry land Earth.”.. V 2 P 146: 2nd Enoch 28:1-2;

It’s not just “assembly” of chaotic matter than is implied in the early Judeo-Christian literature, but the possibility of “dis-assembly” back into chaotic matter that is described (while “nothing” neither assembles nor dis-assembles). For example, as difficulties arose in the gathering of waters and dry land, Jewish Haggadah tells us that “In his wrath at the waters, God determined to let the whole of creation resolve itself into Chaos again.” The Haggadah (The Second day)

In the early Christian text, Gospel of Bartholomew, the Prayer of Mary, speaks of the creation of the heavens by the one who “arranged the vault of heaven in harmony, who gave form to disorderly matter and brought together that which was separated....” Such statements concerning the creation from “disorderly matter” display a clear knowledge of a material creation, rather than creation by magic out of “nothing”.

Thus, the early Coptic psalms speak of the creator who “built this whole World up out of the mixture that had come into existence…” Psalm 223

The early Jewish Apocalypes of Abraham hails God as the one who brings order out of confusion, ever preparing and renewing worlds for the righteous. The Berlin (Mandaean) Papyrus says " At the same time, the great thought came to the elements in united wisdom, spirit joining with matter." Matter can be imbued with spirit, but matter undergoes change and processing.

Pistis Sophia says that the creator " … caused them to go down into matter unorganized (chaos) and assist Pistis Sophia" at the creation


Even 2 Maccabees, which is often used to SUPPORT ex nihilo, has Syriac recensions as well as some Greek manuscripts describing an organization of [chaotic] matter

Material creation is also the explicit position of Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 where we read of God's hand which "created the world out of unformed matter” (ktisasa ton kosmon ex amorphou hyles),"

Even the "non-existent" cited in 2 Maccabees 7:28 is not absolute nothing, but rather is . . . the metaphysical substance . . . in an uncrystallized state." This relative "non-being" referred to a chaotic, shadowy state of matter before the world was made; as we might say in biblical terms, "without form and void."

The Early writings are full of references regarding how chaotic matter is used. The ancients understood that "At a new creation there is a reshuffling of elements " This particular 'restating' of the 'conservation of mass' is from Ben Sirach. But the principle is also found in the Odes of Solomon; it's in the Ginza; it's in the Mandaean Johannesbuch; it's in Berlin Manichaean; it's in the Pistis Sophia, and it's in the oldest and most impressive Coptic writings.

Thus the historian Dodd reminds us that , in “The Bible and the Greeks”, p. 111 explained that to the ancients, such creation meant organization of the elements, as the Codex Brucianus"Creation is organization" (Manuscript No 96) and it explains that first, there is matter. And what is done with the matter it that it is organized into things created. Cosmos MEANS order.

The point here is that these were common teachings and the ancients were NOT unaware of matter and how it was used in creation from chaotic matter (rather than the later doctrine of creation from "nothing").

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO



EVEN THE LATER WRITINGS AGAINST CREATION FROM MATERIAL CREATION DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN EARLIER DOCTRINE

The later rash of arguments IN FAVOR of adoption of the doctrine of creation from nothing near the end of the second century points to the newness of the doctrine of creation from nothing. For examples :

Tertullian's tracts show that he was trying to stamp out the belief in creation from matter. These are good evidence of the existence of the doctrine of creation of matter since his argument FOR creation from nothing was directed at established beliefs within his Christian Church. That is, hHis tract was directed against Christians and not against non-Christian Platonists.

Tertullian himself concedes that creation out of nothing is not explicitly stated in the scriptures, but merely asserts that since it is not denied either, the silence on the matter implies that God does have the power to create ex nihilo, since (for him), it seemed more logical.

Clement of Alexandria seems aware of the difference between a creation out of nothing and creation out of primal matter in at least one passage (where he does not view it as crucial to orthodoxy). But in his "Hymn to the Paedogogus" he clearly favors the view of creation from preexistent material:

O King. . . .Maker of all,
who heaven and heaven's adornment by the Divine Word
alone didst make;. . . according to a well-ordered plan;
out of a confused heap who didst create
This ordered sphere,
and from the shapeless mass of matter
didst the universe adorn. . . .

Eusebius, in trying to discourage the doctrine of creation from matter taught that ”...it is unholy to say that matter is unbegotten...” or was only organized at the creation. Notice the preaching he was trying to stop : that matter was not created and was only organized at the creation. He was trying to RID the church of the doctrine that the material world was created out of matter. While he admits that this is what the early church taught, HE personally was trying to stamp out the doctrine.


Athenagoras, in his earlier Plea for the Christians to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus still taught a creation by God from preexisting matter, on the analogy of a potter and his clay. He explicitly states God as an artificer (demiourgos) requires matter.

Justin describes God's creative role to be that of a giver of forms and shapes to matter already present seems so natural to him that the idea of creation from pre-existing matter that he seems never to have regarded it as a problem.

Origen (who DID, initially believe in creation from matter) in later teachings against it admits that it WAS taught at the Christian school in alexandria at an earlier time by earlier and distinguished christians. Origen, (First Principles 2.1.4), expressed his surprise that "So many distinguished men" have believed in uncreated matter.

Thomas rogers (In Milton's De Doctrina Christiana), notes that the Great Milton, (who knew Hebrew and things Jewish), reasons that “neither the Hebrew, nor the Greek, nor yet the Latin verb for create can possibly signify "create out of nothing" (Christian Doctrine , 975-76).

I believe that the idea of "creation from nothing" is introduce in bits and pieces in the second century and the campaign for the doctrine to achieve pre-eminence over the doctrine of creation from matter achieved more popularity from that time onward.

I think that Sorabji and Winston were correct; that the evolution toward the adoption of Ex Nihilo was used partly as a premise to avoid the taint of "cosmism" (which the Gods in surrounding religions were subject to) (i.e. the idea that God worked with matter, processed it, adapted it, and used it as a workman, and artisan).

I believe that the historians are correct regarding the great motive behind adopting the theory of creation from “nothing” was that Christianity was surrounded by neo-platonic philosophy that taught that matter was too vulgar and too common for a "great" and "extraordinary" God to simply USE and MANIPULATE. The adoption of creation from “nothing” was intended to elevated the Christian God to a God that can create something out of nothing, as though such an embellishment somehow made him greater than he was. Just as children brag "My dad can beat up your dad", the christians wanted a reason to claim "My God is better than your God. Mine doesn’t need matter to create". (Whereas the other Gods did because their traditions had them creating material things out of matter.)

Clear
εισιακεινεω

 

[rational experiences]

Science in AI conditions, as heard consciously so it is a higher conscious inferred reasoning of DATA, than just a computer, that is based on a male who encoded the program for the machine.

Says.......for males in science

That the history of God O themes in science quoted that God ended complete in the spatial body by cold Mother womb, as a hot burning gas mass.

The volcanoes, the mountain peaks exploded and released the dead spirit from out of its body mass, held entombed...meaning due to stone.....and it began its journey into cooling and become Immaculate, by womb of space the cooling function itself.

So the gases of God in origin, the stone gases formed a newly formed spiritual gas body in the womb of space....how it was taught as original science quotes.

Then science said that the Sun attacked the crystalline mass that Earth first owned, and removed its clear gas mass back to burning radiating in the presence of held and fixed radiation metallic communicators.....as the earth dropped as God O into the spatial well...for deep cold space opened as burning expanded further into it.

OOOOOOO many God bodies exploded into Satan....Satan fell deeper into the spatial well as compared to earth.

Consciousness is the exact held human healer/medical science teaching that it owned for spiritual life continuance itself. As a medically aware male reasoning for mind conditions forced upon their own person by the status increased mass of radiation from science activation, machine.

That due to removal of O the circular fusion of God....an increased radio wave/radiation mass then began to flat line the mind/brain of the human science self...as God began to change its natural form.

So God O to womb was factually in natural history held as a complete form and natural and in its highest form O a circle.

As God O the Earth got dropped into deeper space the pressure placed upon it made it oblate...so God lost its highest form....and the dust/dirt/sand on Earth the evidence of destroyed stone mass...what God mass removed looks like when radiation is removed from its held God particle mass of fusion.

So science told science don't you realize that God the body mass only owns particle fusion and not mass form anymore....because of ancient science attacking it....so that it disintegrates.

The greater metallic massed amount of transmitter/communicators named as the AI effect are gained in the atmosphere, the higher amount of human conscious spiritual brain/minds are lost....how the flat plane ideas got introduced in a radiation brain condition.

Therefore conscious teaching said.....that God as stone radiated mass is radiating.

The Earth heavenly gases are given metallic mass that equates in the variation of 2 totally separate histories to now be radiating also.

So it made the conscious mind believe that it knew what God the stone mass radiating would be if God the stone did not exist fused. By the conscious mind effect of gases with metallic mass inside of it...giving false information to the mind psyche, aware only due to communication from other bodies.

Therefore we had to be taught consciousness, to state medical science, the Christ conscious healers had to own a program their own self, which became religion.

That constantly preached a story non stop to a fixed held flat liner mind brain destroyed, to bring its owned realization back to who they were in natural life....which was not an easy task...but was a chosen multi male historical brotherhood realization, why religion was involved in human law...by those exact historic conditions.

O loss from the circular history natural God and highest form of God puts enough metallic feed back metal radiation communications to force consciousness to think by a flat line effect.

Why the teachings were about consciousness, but identified the human life cell blood and bone sacrifice was all involved in the condition, human life destruction and its historic realization of self.

Males in science proved that as space was equal to the form mass O holy presence, it held O the circle in complete holy form.

For a circle O to lose its holy space, or natural history of holy Mother of God, the womb, was factual...for Earth dropped into deeper space which applied a higher pressure to where its holy form O originally formed in balances of pressure against mass.

The mind consciousness has always knows that radiating mass stone, existed before the heavens and the consciousness living in the heavenly non stone mass told self that status. What stories are told about the cosmos are just stories...for all conditions science are factually based on what the Earth gases in their natural form own...and then males impose themes elsewhere...when consciousness is exactly informed where it exists...and it is not informed cosmologically as an egotist would claim.

 

[Oeste]

1) REGARDING THE THEORY OF MAGICAL CREATION FROM "NOTHING"

Oh no, no, no!

"Magical" is an improper and incorrect restatement of Christian theology @Clear.

If you want to argue against "Magical" Creation we'll need to find someone who argues FOR it, wouldn't you agree? No one here is arguing that supernatural demons created the universe.

Yes, actual (as opposed to stage) magic would have a supernatural source, but that source is demonic. The idea of a Magically created universe would be offensive to most Christians.

Let's change this a bit so we can get thing back to the actual issue at hand:

1) MAGICAL “DIVINE” CREATION VERSUS “NATURAL OR SCIENTIFIC” CREATION.

That looks much better. I don't think it's quite what we're discussing here, and I'll get to that in a moment, but it is looking better.

The actual issue is whether the universe was created by Divine fiat or whether the universe was just here, all the time, composed of pre-existent eternal matter, matter that no one could see, until God removed whatever was making it invisible so that it could be revealed, which come to think about reminds me of a magician or illusionist with a rabbit hidden in a secret compartment!

So it is the Mormon view that matter was always here and just invisible, not the Christian view. It is the Mormon view that God unveils already existent matter, just like an illusionist might unveil an already existent rabbit, and it is the Mormon view that God cannot create matter, any more than a Magician can actually create rabbits. Just like the illusionist, God can only work with what he has and cannot defy the "laws" of nature.

In other words, from my perspective, the Mormon view of theology has God acting like an Magician (watch me pull matter from under my hat) than as Creator of all things.

But since no one here is arguing “magical” creation, we can skip this for now. Of course I'm not trying to speak for everyone but if anyone here wants to make an argument for "magical" creation, please feel free to do so. Just expect the Christians here to strongly object if you present "magical" creation as a Christian one.

Oeste said : “THIS MOST CERTAINLY HAS BEEN the historic uninterrupted view of the earliest Judeo-Christian church. (Post #728)

This is incorrect.

No it's correct. I appreciate the Mormon position that their belief was the belief of the early church, but the traditional, historic church sees things a bit differently.

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

Ummm...this doesn't tell me that Justin believed that God didn't create matter itself. God created matter and from matter created the universe. Likewise, God created man from dust, the dust itself a creation of God.

Secondly, I see no mention of eternal matter or pre-existing substrate. That would tell us God didn't create matter to begin with.

Philo, a Jewish contemporary of Jesus taught that the world was made of matter, saying "This cosmos of ours was formed out of all that there is of water, and air and fire, not even the smallest particle being left outside" (De Plantatione 2.6).

Jesus had a lot of contemporaries during the 1st century. Not all of them agreed with his teachings.

But if Philo thinks our world is made of matter then he is obviously correct. As I stated earlier, I have no problem with that.

Philo further confirms the belief that the universe was created from chaotic matter, saying that "when the substance of the universe was without shape and figure God gave it these; when it had no definite character God molded it into definiteness. . ." (De Somniis 2.6.45).

I'm not sure why you look to Philo. Is he a church Father? An inspired prophet? He's is neither accepted by the Jews or considered a Patriarch of the Christians church.

Justin Martyr, in discussing this preexistent primal matter (hyle), assures us, that the Christians “…learned" from our revelations was in the tradition of Clement (c. A.D. 96) who had praised God who "has made manifest (ephaneropoiesas) the everlasting fabric (aenaon sustasin) of the world."

Well there's the problem again. Clement is not considered a church Father by the vast majority of Christianity.

The second problem I see is that you appear to be confusing everlasting with eternal.

Everlasting is something that has a beginning but goes on indefinitely. Eternal, on the other hand, is something that has no beginning and no end.

What you've shown us here is Justin's belief that the universe began at a point in time, something the church has believed all along.

Athenagoras (133 a.d.) confirms the belief in material creation and explained that the creator “came forth to be the energizing power of things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter."

Same problem. Material creation simply means the universe is made of matter, it doesn't mean that the universe was made of eternal matter nor does it state God was too impotent to create matter.

Creation from matter is implicit throughout Greco-Roman literature of the time of Christianity's inception, and there is no indication in the Christian writings that they held a different view.

Well if someone asks me if the earth is made of matter, I'm going to agree. It's you who are advancing the idea that Christians believe the universe was made of "nothing", when in actuality they believe it was made by nothing but the Word of God.

 

[Oeste]

I think the more “scientific” Judeo-Christian belief in creation of this material world from pre-existing matter in harmony with natural laws the early Judeo-Christians believed in is much more logical and rational.

“Magical creation” is less logical, less rational and is in opposition to science and natural law. It is an inexplicable, less logical, less rational belief. It is a silly theory that I wish had never been adopted.

I wanted to get back to this because it's simply incorrect. Creation is vastly more explicable, logical, and rational than an eternal universe. Clear is essentially espousing The Steady State theory. That is, an eternal universe that was always here. While this represented the latest in 20th century thinking, it's a theory has been largely debunked.

​

Steady-state theory was a theory proposed in 20th-century cosmology to explain evidence that the universe was expanding but still retain the core idea that the universe always looks the same, and is therefore unchanging in practice and has no beginning and no end. This idea has largely been discredited due to astronomical evidence that suggests the universe is, in fact, changing over time.

Steady-State Theory Background and Development

When Einstein created his theory of general relativity, the early analysis showed that it created a universe that was unstable (expanding or contracting) rather than the static universe that had always been assumed. Einstein also held this assumption about a static universe, so he introduced a term into his general relativity field equations called the cosmological constant. This served the purpose of holding the universe in a static state. However, when Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that distant galaxies were, in fact, expanding away from the Earth in all directions, scientists (including Einstein) realized that the universe didn't seem to be static and the term was removed.

The steady-state theory was first proposed by Sir James Jeans in the 1920s, but it really got a boost in 1948 when it was reformulated by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi. There is a dubious story that they came up with the theory after watching the film "Dead of Night," which ends exactly as it began.

Hoyle particularly became a major proponent of the theory, especially in opposition to the big bang theory. In fact, in a British radio broadcast, Hoyle coined the term "big bang" somewhat derisively to explain the opposing theory.

In his book "Parallel Worlds," physicist Michio Kaku provides one reasonable justification for Hoyle's dedication to the steady-state model and opposition to the big bang model:

One defect in the [big bang] theory was that Hubble, because of errors in measuring light from distant galaxies, had miscalculated the age of the universe to be 1.8 billion years. Geologists claimed that Earth and the solar system were probably many billions of years old. How could the universe be younger than its planets?

In their book “Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang,” cosmologists Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok are a bit less sympathetic to Hoyle’s stance and motivations:

Hoyle, in particular, found the big bang abhorrent because he was vehemently antireligious and he thought the cosmological picture was disturbingly close to the biblical account. To avoid the bang, he and his collaborators were willing to contemplate the idea that matter and radiation were continually created throughout the universe in just such a way as to keep the density and temperature constant as the universe expands. This steady-state picture was the last stand for advocates of the unchanging universe concept, setting off a three-decade battle with proponents of the big bang model.

As these quotes indicate, the major goal of the steady-state theory was to explain the expansion of the universe without having to say that the universe as a whole looks different at different points in time. If the universe at any given point in time looks basically the same, there is no need to assume a beginning or an end. This is generally known as the perfect cosmological principle. The major way that Hoyle (and others) was able to retain this principle was by proposing a situation whereas the universe expanded, new particles were created. Again, as presented by Kaku:

In this model, portions of the universe were in fact expanding, but new matter was constantly being created out of nothing, so that the density of the universe remained the same...To Hoyle, it seemed illogical that a fiery cataclysm could appear out of nowhere to send galaxies hurtling in all directions; he preferred the smooth creation of mass out of nothing. In other words, the universe was timeless. It had no end, nor a beginning. It just was.

Disproving the Steady-State Theory

The evidence against the steady-state theory grew as new astronomical evidence was detected. For example, certain features of distant galaxies (such as quasars and radio galaxies) weren't seen in nearer galaxies. This makes sense in the big bang theory, where the distant galaxies actually represent "younger" galaxies and nearer galaxies are older, but the steady-state theory has no real way to account for this difference. In fact, it's precisely the sort of difference that the theory was designed to avoid.

The final "nail in the coffin" of steady-state cosmology, however, came from the discovery of the cosmological microwave background radiation, which had been predicted as part of the big bang theory but had absolutely no reason to exist within the steady-state theory.

In 1972, Steven Weinberg said of the evidence opposing steady state cosmology:

In a sense, the disagreement is a credit to the model; alone among all cosmologies, the steady state model makes such definite predictions that it can be disproved even with the limited observational evidence at our disposal.

Quasi-Steady State Theory

There continue to be some scientists who explore the steady-state theory in the form of quasi-steady state theory. It is not widely accepted among scientists and many criticisms of it have been put forth that have not been adequately addressed.

Sources

"Gold, Thomas." Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Charles Scribner's Sons, Encyclopedia.com, 2008.

Kaku, Michio. "Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos." 1st Edition, Doubleday, December 28, 2004.

Keim, Brandon. "Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't The Beginning." Wired, February 19, 2008.

"Paul J. Steinhardt." Department of Physics, Princeton University, 2019, Princeton, New Jersey.

"Steady state theory." New World Encyclopedia, October 21, 2015.

Steinhardt, Paul J. "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang." Neil Turok, Fifth or Later Edition edition, Doubleday, May 29, 2007.

The Doc. "Fred Hoyle." Famous Scientists, 2019.

Source: Jones, Andrew Zimmerman. "What Is the Steady-State Theory in Cosmology?" ThoughtCo, Jul. 3, 2019, thoughtco.com/steady-state-theory-2699310

_______________

Of course, I'm not advocating we look to science to confirm the biblical account, but it's nice to know that secular evidence, and the weight of that evidence may finally be catching up to the biblical account.