The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[Oeste]

Hi @Oeste


THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEF OF MATERIAL CREATION IS MORE RATIONAL AND LOGICAL THAN THE LATER THEORIES OF CREATION FROM “NOTHING”

Oeste said : “Christian theology states God actually creates matter, and not by nothing, but by His Word.

That train has already left the station.

Hi @Clear,

Indeed it has!

I couldn't agree with you more. Not only has it left the station but its made stops all over the globe, and now billions of people believe in a God created universe, even Muslims have followed suit.

Once forum readers read the claims by early Judeo-Christians, it was too apparent that the Early Christians believed in the creation of this world from matter and that their belief was more logical and rational than the later belief in creation from “nothing”

Nah. No one is going out searching the Wisdom of Solomon or Gnostic material. As to the original belief in creation by God it is more logical and rational than the steady-state theory of an eternal universe postulated by the Mormons.

I think it is perfectly fine for you to theorize that God created matter in the first place if you want. It could even be correct.

Thanks, but I can't take credit for that. After all, its something scripture teaches.

This is not the issue. The issue concerns what the earliest Christians believed about the creation of the world, whether it was from pre-existing matter or from "nothing".

No, no, no. That's a straw man @Clear. It's a purposely truncated argument designed to make your assertion more plausible.

Here's the actual issue:

The issue concerns what the earliest Christians believed about the creation of the world, whether it was from pre-existing matter or from "nothing" but the Word of God.​

It would be improper for Christians to equate the Word of God with "nothing" as you've attempted to do here.

I’ve seen early literature indicating a belief that God made matter in the first place (though he may have made it from energy), but still, he created the worlds out of matter than existed before he made the worlds out of matter.

That last part...where he made worlds out of preexistent eternal matter...that's what's missing from any of the assertions you've made.The is only eternal and that is God.

So, while I agree that many modern Christian movement have adopted magical creation where the word of God creates material things from “nothing”.

I wasn't aware of any "modern Christian movement" that has adopted "magical creation". I suppose if one looks hard enough they'll eventually find one squirreled away somewhere. But all the traditional churches believe in Divine creation as "adopted" from scripture.

However we are discussing the earlier, ancient Judeo-Christian theology where the Word creates material things from matter and that this early natural/scientific creation is more logical and more rational and more intuitive than the later theory where God creates matter in a magical way (i.e. supernatural manner) from “nothing”.

No, we're not discussing that at all. We're simply discussing your mistaken belief about early Judeo-Christians.

I agree, it refers to the theory that God created material things “from nothing” (this is the meaning of “ex nihilo”). How does this claim help your theory that the later Christian belief of material creation from “nothing” is more rational and more logical than the early Christian belief in creation from “matter”.

How do purposeful misstatements and revisionist history help you?

Look, the only forum readers who actually believe your assertions are going to be fellow Mormons. That's what they've been taught to believe. Virtually every Christian here professes God created the universe. Simply telling yourself otherwise does not change this. It plays well in Mormon theological circles but it simply doesn't get much traction here much less a credible audience.

This is all the more perplexing because at post 610 you chastised @iam1me earlier for presenting a view that conflicted with the common view of Mormons:

iam1me represents the silly claim that “God had sex with Mary” as a mormon belief, but then admits he doesn’t care “ Whether that conflicts with the common views of Mormons...”'

Here you claim the early Church believed that God did not create the universe, whereas the common view of Christians is that they did.

Using this rule, Anti-Christians are allowed to make multiple bogus claims regarding Christianity without caring whether the claims conflict with actual Christian beliefs and viewpoints.

I see that happening here. Your view conflicts with the common view of Christians. If you ask Christians, they will not tell you the world is made from nothing, but they will tell you it was made by God. I've told you that several times now, yet you keep misrepresenting this view.

They will also tell you this was the earlier view of Christians from the time of Christ and that this view is biblical. So apparently it is not okay for anyone to misrepresent Mormon doctrine, but fine and dandy to misrepresent Christian theology.

No one of any reputation claims that creation ex materia was the default position of the Christian Church. That is simply a Mormon belief. When Justyn or early century Christians mentioned the word "matter" you say "Aha!", automatically assuming they meant "eternal matter" because that is what the Mormon Church teaches Mormons.
Christians make no such assumption because "eternal matter" is not and has never been taught as a doctrine of the Church.

You have yet to make your case for eternal matter Clear. Fantastic claims require even more fantastic proof, and such proof is lacking.

It's late (1:48 am) but this is generally the only time I have to respond. I appreciate the amount of time you spend responding and for keeping a civil tone and will get back to you on some other issues you've raised as soon as I can but it may not be for a day or two. The conversation has been great but my eyes are just too droopy right now.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO


Hi Oeste


Oeste said : "You have yet to make your case for eternal matter...."
You are confused. I have not been trying to make a case that matter is eternally matter. That is not my belief. I am not sure why you think that was something I was trying to prove...

Your posts seem to be wanting to prove what you believe rather than what the early Christians say they believed. The historical point is not whether your belief is correct or whether the early christians are correct, but the historical point is what they say they believed.
The second point is whether the early Judeo-Christian belief that God created Material things out of Matter is more logical and rational that the later doctrine where God created Material things out of "Nothing".


1) THE CLAIM THAT THE EARLIEST JUDEO-CHRISTIANS BELIEVED THAT GOD CREATED MATERIAL THINGS FROM MATTER AND THAT CREATION FROM MATTER IS MORE LOGICAL AND MORE RATIONAL THAN THE CLAIM THAT MATERIAL THINGS ARE MADE FROM "NOTHING"

My claim has always been that the early Christians describe their belief in the creation of the world from matter rather than nothing and that this belief is more logical and more rational than the later theory of creation from “nothing”.

URAVIP2ME described his belief that “God used …His great "Power and Strength" ( His abundant dynamic energy ) to create the material realm.” (post #653). This is, I think, a logical and rational description of the same thing since energy is one of the forms of matter. This description is more logical than the theory of God creating everything out of “nothing”. I see no problem with creating the universe with energy (another form of matter)

74X12 said : "I personally believe God called everything out of the primordial sea which is called the abyss or chaos. (#659) I think this is also a perfectly viable basic description of creation and it is more logical than the theory of God creating everything out of “nothing”.

MY PERSONAL BELIEF is that early Christianity is probably correct that God created the material Earth out matter. I don’t particularly care whether the matter existed as energy, or the abyss or chaos, a "priordial sea" or another form. My historical claim is that the earliest Judeo-Christian doctrine was that this material earth was created from matter and not from nothing. I certainly believe that this early historical belief of creation from some form of matter is more logical and rational than the later theory that the material earth was made of Nothing.


REGARDING THE HISTORICAL CLAIM THAT EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY BELIEVED THAT GOD CREATED THE MATERIAL WORLD OUT OF MATTER

You seem to want to re-define this historical claim to a belief in “eternal matter”. I am not sure what you even mean by “eternal matter”.
As a historical claim, I do not care if matter always was in it’s present form and thus it is not eternally “matter” that the earth was created from. I don't think matter was eternally the same. My claim was simply that the early Christians believed in creation of material things from matter and that this early belief was more logical and more rational than creation from “nothing”.

While the early Christians tell us they believe that this material world was created from matter, the early literature does not tell us much about whether they believed matter has always existed in some form or other or not. For examples :

Christian Enoch describes “things” existing prior to these “things” being used to create the material earth. “For, 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… “ 2nd Enoch (version “J”) Ch 24:2-4
While the text tells us that “things” existed prior to the creation of the earth, this sentence does not tell us the nature of these “things”. However, it does confirm the doctrine that “things” existed, which God used to Create material things. Later texts elaborate on what is meant by these “things” which existed.

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says : “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.
Though this early Christian obviously believed in creation all things out of formless matter (rather than from “nothing”), he doen’t tell us what he thinks the character of this matter is in this sentence.

Even when Justin Martyr, tells us that the Apostle Peters colleague Clement, “had praised God who "has made manifest (ephaneropoiesas) the eternal fabric (aenaon sustasin) of the world." (αιωνιος = eternal/everlasting/an age, etc), it is clear that Justin believes in a material creation as an eternal “fabric” (rather than from “nothing”), he does not specify what he believes about the character of this matter otherwise.

Philo says : "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). Further, "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).
When Philo says that he believes the cosmos was made of water, air and fire (things) which were molded into definiteness (rather than from “nothing”), he does not tell us what he believed about the nature of matter from this sentence.

Athenagoras, in explaining that the Word, as the Son “…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." Though this tells us he believed in a particulate (material) formation of things (rather than creation from “nothing”), he also does not describe the nature of these particles.

In Secrets of Enoch, 25.1-3 the text describes the belief in creation of “things” from “things” (i.e matter from matter) tells us that God “…commanded . . . that visible things should come from invisible . . . .". This simply refers to “things” that become visible rather than “nothing” becoming visible. It does not describe the further character of these unseen “things”, and so no historical conclusion can be made regarding matter always being matter from this sentence.

In Second enoch 26, the same principle is described when “God commanded the lowest things…” (notice he is not commanding “nothing”) “Let one of the invisible things descend visibly “Let one of the invisible things come out visibly, solid’ While it is clear that he speaks of God creating things out of things (rather than a creation of things out of “nothing”) it does not speak to whether these things are eternal or not.

When Codex Brucianus refers to the early belief of "Creation” as “organization" (Manuscript No 96) and it explains that God organized matter into things created (rather than “organizing nothing” into matter). This does not tell us anything further about the nature of these things in this sentence.

The Berlin (Mandaean) Papyrus as a Jewish Apocalypse tells us that at creation “At the same time, the great thought came to the elements in united wisdom, spirit joining with matter."
While confirming the early belief that elements existed and spirit was joined with “matter” (rather than “nothing” somehow joining with “nothing”), and describes the early belief that elements were present at creation it does not speak of the characteristics of those elements and of the matter to which spirit joined.

The early Pistis Sophia from the Enochian literature speaks of creation, speaking of the Word creating by going down “into matter unorganized (chaos) and assist Pistis Sophis". Thus, while this it yet another confirmation of the early belief that matter was present at creation and used for creation, it does NOT tell us whether they believed matter was eternal or not.

The early Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 speaks of God having "made the world out of unformed matter (ktisasa ton kosmon ex amorphou hyles),"
This is simply further confirmation of the early Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation of the world out of “matter”, (rather than out of “nothing”) it does not tell us about your “eternal matter”.

2 Maccabees 7:28 refers to a chaotic, shadowy state of matter before the world was made; as we might say in biblical terms, "without form and void (unfurnished)." So, while we can see the same doctrine of creation from matter (rather than creation from “nothing”) in the intertestamental times, this still does not tell you about the nature of matter.

Thus, when God commanded that the earth come into existence, the early Judeo-Christian descriptions of their beliefs describe this process as God saying “And I commanded the lowest things; Let one of the invisible things descend visibly”.... “ 2nd Enoch (version “J”) 25:1
Again, while this refers to the early Doctrine of creation of “things” from “things” (rather than “things” from “nothings”), it does not speak to whether they think these “things” of creation are eternal.

Further confirmation is in the next verse after God commanded “ “Let one of the invisible things come out visibly, solid’ 2nd Enoch 26. Again, this speaks to the creation of “things” being made out of “things” rather than creation of “things” from “nothings”. However, it doesn’t speak to your reference to “eternal matter”.

In chapter 28 the text relates that as these “things” become solid, they are further organized. So God says “And thus I made solid the heavenly Orbs...And from the rocks I assembled the dry land; and I called the dry land Earth.”.. 2nd Enoch 28:1-2
This such texts further describe their early belief in a continual organization of material “things” to form material “things” (rather than forming “things” from “nothing”). However it does not speak to your reference to “eternal matter”.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

Jewish Haggadah also tell us that as God was creating things, at one point certain parts were not obeying as he desired and ‘…In his wrath at the waters, God determined to let the whole of creation resolve itself into Chaos again.” ch 3. This is yet another confirmation of the early belief that creation began as “Chaos” rather than as “nothing”. It doesn’t tell us if that “Chaos” was eternal or not, nor does the sentence tell us anything else about the Chaos it describes.

In the gospel of Bartholemew, Mary prays to God concerning her son who was “the Word”, saying God “...who created the breadths of the heavens by your word and arranged the vault of heaven in harmony, who gave form to disorderly matter….” (ch 2). “Disorderly matter” is a synonym for “Chaotic matter”. While Mary confirms material creation from Matter, and describes the matter as “chaotic” she does not tell us whether she believes the matter is eternal or not.

The Jewish Kabbalah describes this organization of the chaotic matter as happening “… like a fog forming in the unformed...”. It yet another confirmation of creation from matter, other than describing Chaos as “fog”, it does not tell us other characteristics of the matter.

The Jewish Talmud also confirms the early doctrine of creation from matter. Bereishis Rabah 3:7 tells us that God created and destroyed a number of worlds before He created this world. The chaotic material out of which he created this world was “Ashpah” or “garbage” (The “Chaotic matter” of Christian descriptions.) In fact, it is prohibited to speak of the time before this partly because of the fact that it seemed to the Jews like a king building his palace “on top of a garbage dump” and it was felt that it was denigrating to have God build his creation with "trash" (i.e. "chaotic matter").

It is another confirmation of this same Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation from matter that the many, many other texts describe. In fact,

The Talmudist Maharsha (middle ages) confirms that the disgrace in inquiring what existed before the world was created is the very suggestion that something else existed before the world was created. Multiple other great Rabbis confirm this same point (Ramban, Rav yakon Emden, R. Lipschitz, R Abbahu, R Phinneas, etc).

Chagigah 13b of the Talmud also confirms multiple material worlds before this one was created out of the chaotic matter (garbage, trash, Ashpah, etc).

There is simply a great multitude of early texts, both Christian and Jewish which describe and confirm the early Judeo-Christian belief that this world was made of matter.

Whether modern Christians believe similarly or not is an entirely different question than the question as to what early Judeo-Christians believed. It is clear from the literature of the earlier Judeo-Christians, that they believed that God created material things out of matter in the early stages and then later the theory of God creating out “nothing” became more popular among the Christian movements that followed.

IF you disagree then one has to ask if you have any data to show these Judeo-Christians did not believe what they say they believe?



2) WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE ABOUT MATTER?

My claim is a historical claim that the earliest Christians believed that God created the earth out of matter and that this doctrine is more logical and more rational than the later doctrine where God created material things out of “nothing”

Are you trying to make a case that the earliest Christians believed that matter IS eternal?

Are you trying to make a case that the earliest Christians did NOT believe that matter is eternal?

In either case, I don’t really care much whether matter has always BEEN matter or if it was something else. I can argue either way. For example, Justin argues eternal in some text, and later, in medieval times, rambam argues it is not eternal in a mishnic example. However, MY claim concerns what the Early Christian themselves say they believed. It is a historical claim and not personal dogma I am presenting.




3) REGARDING YOUR COMPLAINT THAT I HAVE NOT USED SCRIPTURES IN DISCUSSING THE EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT THE EARTH WAS MADE FROM MATTER

Clears use of scriptures regarding creation
In post #631 I spoke of Genesis 1:1
In post #654 I spoke of Psalms 90:2” and Jeremiah 32:17 and Psalms 104:30 in replying to another poster.
In post #666 I referenced romans 1:19-20 and Hebrews 11:3 and commented on them in some length.
In post #672 I spoke of the Hebrew of multiple versions of Genesis 1:1-2 in some length. I referenced Genesis 1:27:
In post #674 I referenced the posters use of Acts 17:28 regarding creation from “nothing”
In post #734 I again referenced the Koine Greek usage of Gen 1:1 and Roman 1:20

Oestes use of scripture : 0
So far, you have not referenced a single scripture that I can find to try and show the early Christians themselves believed in creation from nothing, nor have you used a scripture to attempt to show how God creating material things from “nothing” is more logical or more rational than the early Christian belief that God created material things from matter.

This is a biblical debate thread. Is there at least one scripture you want to offer to readers to try to show that early Judeo-Christians themselves did not have a belief that God created material things from matter?

In any case Oeste, I hope your spiritual journey is good

Clear
ειακφυφισεω

 

[Muffled]

ok.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Joh 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

I believe it is interesting to note John 3:8. You can't see the wind but you can see the effects. It is the same with God in Jesus, you still can't see God but now you can hear an audible voice of God.

 

[Muffled]

The mystery of the Trinity. As recently laid out in a simplified way in a flyer for students at our church, but helpful for any age (this flyer is not the one we had, but essentially the same):

But this should not be.......a replacement for one's sense of God, or the way to know Him. It's only helpful. We also just say "three in One".

Rather we are to know Him through Christ.
Matthew 11:27 All things have been entrusted to Me by My Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.

I believe that is in error if it is meant to reflect the Trinity. It has the is going the wrong way on Spirit which should be the Paraclete to be the Trinity. Spirit is what God is in all three members of the Trinity.

 

[Muffled]

How true!! Plus, if Jesus was God, why did he have to be glorified too.

I believe as Jesus stated the glory already existed;
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

 

[halbhh]

I believe that is in error if it is meant to reflect the Trinity. It has the is going the wrong way on Spirit which should be the Paraclete to be the Trinity. Spirit is what God is in all three members of the Trinity.

Well, the diagram is only showing one human idea, or helping, on just one idea, only -- helping us understand a little the trinity mystery. Not other aspects. It's not at all meant to show us some other aspects. So, perhaps then it's not to be used too much, as it might cause some wrong idea indirectly about other things about God.

 

[halbhh]

I believe it is interesting to note John 3:8. You can't see the wind but you can see the effects. It is the same with God in Jesus, you still can't see God but now you can hear an audible voice of God.

This wonderful verse seems to hint at some more. Have a look:
(more translations if you like through the link)

John 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

This seems to say for one thing that we cannot say where and how the spirit will come and move people. Nor how they will go in the spirit. In other words, these things are not subject to our ideas and expectations. We cannot set boundaries and rules for the Spirit.

 

[moorea944]

I believe as Jesus stated the glory already existed;
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

IT's not the same glory. Since Jesus did not pre-exist, what was the glory that his father had? God loved his son even before he was born. Like us, didnt we love our children before they were born? Didnt we do things for them before they were born? It's the same. God even created the world with his son in mind.

 

[Clear]

I believe as Jesus stated the glory already existed;
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Hi @Muffled

I like the point that you made that the Messiah Jesus, (who, in early Judeo-Christian worldview, pre-existed with the Father as "the Word" (John 1:1), also received and deserved some degree of glory even before his incarnation. I feel as though there are many roles the messiah played both before and after his birth for which we owe him our deepest gratitude, but which we, typically, do not consider.

Clear
ειακφιτζτωω

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said : "You have yet to make your case for eternal matter...."
You are confused. I have not been trying to make a case that matter is eternally matter.

No, you are either A) Confused, or B) Obfuscating.

Read my quote again in red. I said nothing about “matter being eternally matter.” I said “You have yet to make your case for eternal matter…”

Whether "matter is eternally matter” or becomes something else later on is beside the point. I never brought it up nor did I claim it as something you were asserting.

“Eternal matter” is not the same as stating “matter is eternally matter”.

"Eternal matter" is matter that was always there. It is pre-existent. It is matter that was not created.

“Matter that is eternally matter” is simply matter that cannot or will not change from its current or former state. It's a straw man no one claims.

That is not my belief.

That was nobody else's belief either @Clear. That was a straw man you set up to knock down.

I am not sure why you think that was something I was trying to prove...

I'm not sure why you attribute your own argument to me.

Look at my argument again Clear. Here, I'll post it one more time. This time I will actually QUOTE my statement, rather than have you paraphrase or restate it into something I never said:

You have yet to make your case for eternal matter Clear. Fantastic claims require even more fantastic proof, and such proof is lacking.

See? I said nothing about you trying to show "matter is eternally matter". I said you have yet to made a case for "eternal matter". Whether "matter is eternally matter" is irrelevant.

Your posts seem to be wanting to prove what you believe rather than what the early Christians say they believed.

The Church makes their doctrines known and it was never creation ex materia. Did some individual Christians believe the world held in place by some giant named Atlas? I’m sure there were. Did some believe the sun revolved around the earth? I’m sure even more did. But did the church ever espouse creation ex materia? The answer to that is simply “No”.

The historical point is not whether your belief is correct or whether the early christians are correct, but the historical point is what they say they believed.

Yes but this is quite different from what you tell us they believed.

Look, I can understand your perspective. Joseph Smith says we believe this, and all Mormons believe likewise:

The word create came from the word baurau; it does not mean so; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos; chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element, are principles that can never be destroyed. They may be organized and re-organized; but not destroyed. (Joseph Smith)​

However second century patriarchs never carried that kind of weight. If Christ or the apostles said, “We believe this…” then Christians, as followers of Christ believed it. The early Patriarchs are important, but only to the extent they followed the apostles and ultimately Christ.

This can be difficult for outside churches to understand. For example, the Jehovah Witnesses have a Governing Board. They tell them what scripture means and they are not allowed to interpret scripture on their own. One publication tells them scripture means one thing and a later publication tells them it's no longer true because it now means something totally different. However the traditional church differs on this in that scripture interprets scripture, not the Patriarchs and not a "Governing Board". When conflicts arose Counsels were convened.

None of the Church Counsels adopted creation ex materia.

None.

So let's go back to my original assertion, the one you took issue with:

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

Have you shown us anything to make us believe otherwise?

The answer to this is "No".

In fact, you only affirm my assertion by quoting those who follow a different Gospel, from the Book of Enoch, Wisdom of Solomon, and most surprisingly, Pistis Sophis, where we learn about some Aeon called Sophia who was allegedly at the bottom of the "emanation" ladder.

 

[Oeste]

1) THE CLAIM THAT THE EARLIEST JUDEO-CHRISTIANS BELIEVED THAT GOD CREATED MATERIAL THINGS FROM MATTER AND THAT CREATION FROM MATTER IS MORE LOGICAL AND MORE RATIONAL THAN THE CLAIM THAT MATERIAL THINGS ARE MADE FROM "NOTHING"

First, there is no such claim.

It is an improper restatement of the issue at hand. We’ve been through several times before. The Church states and has always believed material things were made by God and not by “nothing”.

My claim has always been that the early Christians describe their belief in the creation of the world from matter rather than nothing.....

Yes, we know that’s been your claim, it just hasn’t been the debate. The debate is "creatio ex materia" vs. "creatio ex nihilo". Creation from pre-existing materials or from nothing but God.

...and that this belief is more logical and more rational than the later theory of creation from “nothing”.

I’m not sure who has this "later theory" of creation from “nothing” but the church believes it was creation from something, and that something was the someone we call God. God created everything, and that includes matter.

URAVIP2ME described his belief that “God used …His great "Power and Strength" ( His abundant dynamic energy ) to create the material realm.” (post #653). This is, I think, a logical and rational description of the same thing since energy is one of the forms of matter. This description is more logical than the theory of God creating everything out of “nothing”. I see no problem with creating the universe with energy (another form of matter)

Now that was interesting! You see what Jehovah Witnesses describe as “holy spirit” (no capitals) as energy or another form of what Mormons describe as “pre-existent” matter.

The Witnesses believe “a god” (Michael the archangel) created the universe by using his Father’s “active force”. This “force” is innate to the Father and not something He has to first gather externally from surrounding physical objects. I won’t speak for @URAVIP2ME , but I think you’re seeing Watchtower creation through a Mormon lens. In like manner, you see early Christian cosmology through this same lens.

74X12 said : "I personally believe God called everything out of the primordial sea which is called the abyss or chaos. (#659)

Great! No one will argue the point with you. Of course, if you argue this material was uncreated I think you’ll find plenty of disagreement from the Christian community here

I think this is also a perfectly viable basic description of creation and it is more logical than the theory of God creating everything out of “nothing”.

Again, I am not talking about your or anyone else’s personal beliefs, but the belief of the early Christian church.

MY PERSONAL BELIEF is that early Christianity is probably correct that God created the material Earth out matter. I don’t particularly care whether the matter existed as energy, or the abyss or chaos, a "priordial sea" or another form. My historical claim is that the earliest Judeo-Christian doctrine was that this material earth was created from matter and not from nothing.

There was and is NO such "Judeo-Christian doctrine”. That is simply a mistaken Mormon belief concerning the Church’s early history.

I certainly believe that this early historical belief of creation from some form of matter is more logical and rational than the later theory that the material earth was made of Nothing.

There was no doctrine of creation from nothing. It has always been creation by God. You are confused by the doctrines “creation ex nihilo” and "creation ex materia" both of which reflect a lot more than the definition of their respective words.

Again: Creation ex materia vs. ex nihilo:

Creation ex materia is an argument for pre-existent (eternal) matter. It states God did not create the universe, but used already existing matter to shape it. Creation ex nihilo is an argument that God created the universe and everything in it by the Word…nothing else was required. No pre-existent material, no energy, no substrate, no "nothing". Under creation ex nihilo the only thing existent prior to the creative event is God and since God is all there is, there is no “nothing”, because “nothing” does not exist when all that exists is God.​

Scripture does not tell us there were pre-existent materials lying around when God decided to create the universe. That is a creation of pagan and Mormon theology.

The important thing here is this: Was matter created or not? The answer to this, by both science and scripture, is that matter was created. In other words, matter did not cause itself to be. Matter has a cause. Matter is not without cause. Only God is without cause.

It is actually Mormon and not Christian theology that claims NOTHING created the universe. In Mormon theology, God organized matter but does not create it and as you've stated before, God is constrained by natural law whereas in Christian theology God has no such constraint.

You seem to want to re-define this historical claim to a belief in “eternal matter”. I am not sure what you even mean by “eternal matter”.

No redefinition here Clear. That has always been the debate.

By “eternal matter” I am referring to “pre-existent matter” as taught by the pagans and more currently by Mormon theologians and writers like Blake Ostler and Lowell Bennion:

“Latter-Day Saints reject the ex nihilo theory of creation. Intelligence and the elements have always existed, co-eternal with God. He is tremendously creative and powerful, but he works with materials not of his own making.”

Source: Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, A Mormon View of Life p.60 Lowell Bennion

As a historical claim, I do not care if matter always was in it’s present form and thus it is not eternally “matter” that the earth was created from.

The past or current state of matter is entirely irrelevant to an Almighty God. What is relevant is that the universe was created, not from "pre-existing materials" but by God. He spoke our universe into existence over 6 creative days.

Why six creative days? Because that's the way He decided to do it.

I don't think matter was eternally the same.

Straw man. Neither does anyone else.It's an argument of your own making and surely not one of mine.

My claim was simply that the early Christians believed in creation of material things from matter and that this early belief was more logical and more rational than creation from “nothing”.

Again, early Christians did not believe in creation from “nothing” and creation ex nihilo is not creation from nothing but simply espouses the view that God created the universe without the need for pre-existent material. He is the Creator of the Universe and not merely its Shaper.

In fact, there is no “nothing” when God begins His creative act. There is only God.

The pagan/Mormon idea of an eternal universe is less logical and more irrational than creatio ex nihilo. The steady state theory was popular a hundred years or so ago, but it’s been thoroughly debunked with Hubble.

 

[Oeste]

Christian Enoch describes “things” existing prior to these “things” being used to create the material earth...
...While the text tells us that “things” existed prior to the creation of the earth, this sentence does not tell us the nature of these “things”. However, it does confirm the doctrine that “things” existed, which God used to Create material things.

Sounds like a good reason the book of Enoch was not folded into the Christian canon.

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says : “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.
Though this early Christian obviously believed in creation all things out of formless matter (rather than from “nothing”), he doen’t tell us what he thinks the character of this matter is in this sentence.

Again, you misunderstand the issue. Nobody believes the world is made of "nothing" or even made from "nothing". Christians believe it was made by God, and He is not "nothing".

Secondly, unlike Mormons Christians do not believe "nothing" created the universe.

Even when Justin Martyr, tells us that the Apostle Peters colleague Clement, “had praised God who "has made manifest (ephaneropoiesas) the eternal fabric (aenaon sustasin) of the world." (αιωνιος = eternal/everlasting/an age, etc), it is clear that Justin believes in a material creation as an eternal “fabric” (rather than from “nothing”), he does not specify what he believes about the character of this matter otherwise.

That's great for Clement but I don't recognize him as a church Father. Even the Catholic church withdrew their endorsement.

Secondly, I see no argument for pre-existent (eternal) matter.

When Philo says that he believes the cosmos was made of water, air and fire (things) which were molded into definiteness (rather than from “nothing”), he does not tell us what he believed about the nature of matter from this sentence.

Since Philo was a Jewish philosopher. why are you placing him under “early Christians”? He is recognized by neither Jew or Christian.

Secondly, as I stated before, Justin was a converted Neoplatonist. As such, he used terms and description that would convince Platonists that matter was not evil. You're reading concepts and ideas into his statements that just aren't there.

I see no need to comment further on non-inspired writers and works, some of them outright heretical, as it weakens rather solidifies any claim of early Christian belief in creation ex materia.

 

[Oeste]

Jewish Haggadah also tell us that as God was creating things, at one point certain parts were not obeying as he desired and ‘…In his wrath at the waters, God determined to let the whole of creation resolve itself into Chaos again.” ch 3. This is yet another confirmation of the early belief that creation began as “Chaos” rather than as “nothing”. It doesn’t tell us if that “Chaos” was eternal or not, nor does the sentence tell us anything else about the Chaos it describes.

Now you're moving on to the Jews? Oh my goodness!

The Jewish Kabbalah describes this organization of the chaotic matter as happening “… like a fog forming in the unformed...”. It yet another confirmation of creation from matter, other than describing Chaos as “fog”, it does not tell us other characteristics of the matter.

Kabbalah? So we need "Mystical Interpretation" to arrive at your understanding of early Jewish history?

Look, what I'm not seeing here is any reference to eternal (preexisting) matter. Show us that from an authoritative biblical source please.

The Jewish Talmud also confirms the early doctrine of creation from matter. Bereishis Rabah 3:7 tells us that God created and destroyed a number of worlds before He created this world. The chaotic material out of which he created this world was “Ashpah” or “garbage” (The “Chaotic matter” of Christian descriptions.) .

@Clear, if you want to know what the Jews thought you can simply ask them! You don’t have to go through all this rigmarole. Here I’ll help you out. The writer here explains “something from something” (creation ex materia or preexisting matter) vs. “something from nothing” (creation ex nihilo or God).

It is not easy to understand how a world view that leads nowhere and ultimately explains nothing became so rooted in the human psyche. The principle of "something from something" is, after all, the downward spiral path of infinite regress. No matter how far you extrapolate back on the chain of cause and effect, there is yet a prior cause which shares the same fundamental limitations as its progeny (i.e., it is defined by physical properties).

An objection could be raised. It could be argued that the principle of "something from something" is by no means a globally accepted axiom. On the contrary, it is rejected by many if not most people, whose concept of reality necessitates the existence of G‑d…

…The Torah view of existence predicated on the principle of "something from nothing" is somewhat more difficult to explain than "something from something" for the obvious reason that "nothing" defies description and can, therefore, only be appreciated by means of analogy. One very useful, albeit imperfect, analogy is creative human thought, an example of which is a daydream….

…The imaginer, for example, is a creator who has originated a world that did not exist prior to his thinking it up. He has produced a place, populated it with people and things, and provided a time scale for the action. The objection to this analogy is, of course, that the imaginer has, in fact, created nothing. It is only a thought. It has no existence independent of himself, and it exists only as long as the thinker/creator actively chooses to think about it. That, however, is precisely the point. It is a something that is made out of nothing…

The thrust of the Sh'ma is not that there is only one G‑d, but rather that He is all there is. G‑d is the only reality. All else, from the totality of space to a dead leaf blowing around in a backyard, are His "thoughts" and are absolutely subordinate, in form and content, to His conscious Will.​

Source: Something from Nothing

IF you disagree then one has to ask if you have any data to show these Judeo-Christians did not believe what they say they believe?

I believe Judeo-Crhistians believed what they said they believed. I just don't believe what you say they believed. In fact, only the Mormon church believes that.

There is simply a great multitude of early texts, both Christian and Jewish which describe and confirm the early Judeo-Christian belief that this world was made of matter.

"Nothing" is a talking point of the Mormon church @Clear. Christians do not believe the universe is made from Nothing. They believe it was made by God who requires nothing.

I think you have misunderstood the issues underlying the debate. I'm not blaming this on you because this is how the argument is presented or framed in Mormon theological circles:

Christians believe in "creation ex nihilo". Ex nihilo means "from nothing". Therefore Christians believe in "creation from nothing". Framing the argument this way makes the Mormon position more tenable and defensible to their members.​

But creation from nothing is not something Christians believe. Creation by God is, and this is true creation by our Creator, and not a simple "reorganization" of eternally existent matter.

 

[Oeste]

My claim is a historical claim that the earliest Christians believed that God created the earth out of matter and that this doctrine is more logical and more rational than the later doctrine where God created material things out of “nothing”

Yes, I understand your claim, but creation out of nothing is not actually the issue. No one believes in creation out of nothing. What we believe is creation by God.

3) REGARDING YOUR COMPLAINT THAT I HAVE NOT USED SCRIPTURES IN DISCUSSING THE EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT THE EARTH WAS MADE FROM MATTER

That was NOT my complaint. My complaint is that you have not shown ANY scripture, anywhere, that mentions preexisting eternal matter, or that God cannot create but can only shape.

Clears use of scriptures regarding creation

In post #631 I spoke of Genesis 1:1
In post #654 I spoke of Psalms 90:2” and Jeremiah 32:17 and Psalms 104:30 in replying to another poster.
In post #666 I referenced romans 1:19-20 and Hebrews 11:3 and commented on them in some length.
In post #672 I spoke of the Hebrew of multiple versions of Genesis 1:1-2 in some length. I referenced Genesis 1:27:
In post #674 I referenced the posters use of Acts 17:28 regarding creation from “nothing”
In post #734 I again referenced the Koine Greek usage of Gen 1:1 and Roman 1:20

FINALLY we've reached some agreement!

All these verses, as you state, show clear use of scriptures regarding creation, and not simply a shaping or reorganization of our universe from preexisting matter.

Oestes use of scripture : 0

See above. I don't need to when I can use yours. We agree there is a creative event involved here.

nor have you used a scripture to attempt to show how God creating material things from “nothing

Since this is and was never the view of the Christian church I see no need to. The doctrine creatio ex nihilo means a lot more than "out of nothing" Clear. The idea it means "Creation from nothing, period" is strictly an incorrect postulation by the Mormon church.

This is a biblical debate thread. Is there at least one scripture you want to offer to readers to try to show that early Judeo-Christians themselves did not have a belief that God created material things from matter?

As I stated previously, the onus is on you. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence Clear. God created not only this world , but the universe and all matter, including time and space. He is not constrained by natural law.

Besides, we already agree that scripture shows God created any and all materials used that comprise our universe. There is nothing in scripture that prohibits God from assembling these materials after creating them.

 

[Clear]

1)_ THE MANNER OF CREATION BY GOD - FROM MATTER OR FROM “NOTHING”

Oeste said :”No one believes in creation out of nothing. What we believe is creation by God.” (post #775)

If we start playing semantic games, it will not help communication. We have both been describing creation by God. The question regarded what God created the material world out of.

Did God, as later Christianity assumed, create the material earth out of “nothing”? (i.e. “magical” or “illogical” creation)
Or
Did God, as early Judeo-Christianity assumed, believe God create the material earth out of matter which existed prior to this earth? (i.e. “natural” or “logical” creation.)


When Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says regarding Christians of his age : “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. he is describing God Creating, but using matter to create the worlds.

When Philo says : "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) and when he says, "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). He is still assuming God was doing the creation.

When Athenagoras, tells us of creation that “… things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter." ,. he is still speaking of Diety doing the creating with matter.

When Enoch, says that God commanded : “Let one of the invisible things descend visibly “Let one of the invisible things come out visibly, solid’ , he is still speaking of God, working with the matter.

When Codex Brucianus refers to the early belief of "Creation” as “organization" (Manuscript No 96), it is not "nothing" doing the creating, but it is God that organized matter into things created.

The Berlin (Mandaean) Papyrus as a Jewish Apocalypse tells us that at creation “At the same time, the great thought came to the elements in united wisdom, spirit joining with matter." It is still Deity that is using matter to create material things.

The early Pistis Sophia from the Enochian literature speaks of creation, speaking of the Word creating by going down “into matter unorganized (chaos) and assist Pistis Sophis". It is still Deity that is creating by use of matter.

The early Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 speaks of God having "made the world out of unformed matter (ktisasa ton kosmon ex amorphou hyles),". It is God who is creating the world.

There is a great deal of early Judeo-Christian literature that describes their early belief that God created material things out of matter and not out of nothing. While it is correct that YOU believe that God created material things out of "nothing" you must remember that your religion is different than that of early Christians on this point.


2) EARLY CHRISTIANITY CREATION OUT OF MATTER VERSUS LATER CHRISTIANITY CREATION OUT OF “NOTHING”
The historical point has always been that the early Judeo-Christians believed and taught that God used pre-existing matter to form or create the earth and that their belief was more logical and more rational than the later theory where God creates the earth out of “nothing”. It was Christianity of later eras that adopted the theory of God having created “from nothing”. (ex-nihilo)

Do you WANT to try to make an argument that “creation from nothing” is more logical and rational than the early belief that material things were made of matter?



3) SCRIPTURES DESCRIBE CREATION OF MATTER FROM MATTER
Oeste said : “All these verses, as you state, show clear use of scriptures regarding creation, and not simply a shaping or reorganization of our universe from preexisting matter.” (Post #775)

Remember, the ancient Judeo-Christian texts were not written in English and they did not have your personal religious connotations connected to them.
Instead, the Christian texts tended to be written in Greek. All of their words for creation of material things in the scriptures I referred to assumed a substrate of some sort.
The Greeks did not even have a specific word for “creation from nothing”.

Do you actually WANT to use scriptures to give readers some reason to believe your claim that God created material worlds out of “nothing”?



4) AVOIDANCE OF HISTORICAL TEXT TO SUPPORT A HISTORICAL RELIGIOUS THEORY
Oeste responded : “Since this is and was never the view of the Christian church I see no need to” (post 775)

In posts #762-763, I gave more than 20 references to Judeo-Christian literature IN ADDITION to the multiple prior scriptures demonstrating your theory is incorrect. Why should readers believe in your theory if your theory has no data or logic that supports it?



5) WHAT IS MORE FANTASTIC, EARLY BELIEF IN CREATION FROM MATTER OR THE LATER THEORY OF CREATION FROM “NOTHING” ?
Oeste responded : “Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence Clear. God created not only this world, but the universe and all matter, including time and space. He is not constrained by natural law.” (775)


While a Fantastic claim may requires extraordinary (“fantastic”) evidence one has to ask themselves if it is more fantastic and unbelievable to claim material things are made from "nothing" that to claim material things are made from material. Common sense tells us which is most fantastic and unbelievable and illogical and irrational.
I believe it is a fantastic claim to claim that material things are made from “nothing”.

If I claim my breakfast pancakes were made from “nothing” at all, this is a fantastic claim and I do not expect rational readers to believe that.
If I claim that my morning pancakes were made from eggs, flour, etc, then any forum reader can accept this claim because it is not at all “fantastic” or “illogical” or “irrational” or. unbelieveable”.

Similarly, It is not a “fantastic claim” to say material things are made of matter but instead it is logical and rational and it obeys natural and scientific understanding. In our daily experience and throughout our entire lives, we see all material things are made of matter. A painting is created from canvas and paints. A sculptor creates a statue from marble. A chef creates a cake from Flour and eggs and sugar. In no instance does a person experience or see anything material that is created from nothing. It is simply part of natural life and human experience.

Thus the early Christian belief that material things were made of matter was not merely more natural for them to assume, but their belief was more logical and rational than the later theory where God creates material worlds from “nothing”.


6) REGARDING YOUR EXAMPLE THAT A DREAM CAN BE CREATED FROM "NOTHING"
Oeste quotes :" The imaginer, for example, is a creator who has originated a world that did not exist prior to his thinking it up (post #774)
The claim that a dream or an imagination can exist without matter is irrelevant point since we are speaking of the "material" creation of matter and not of an immaterial dream. The torah is clear regarding it's teaching of creation of this world from matter rather than from "nothing".


7) CREATION OF MATERIAL THINGS FROM MATTER CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY LOGICAL ARGUMENT

Not only is the claim that material things are made of “nothing” irrational, but it cannot BE argued upon purely rational grounds. Ex Nihilo could be debatable were there in existence a self-evident maxim that all things were created out of nothing. However, no such proposition was ever defended as a self-evident truth. It owes its origin purely to religious influences rather than any scientific or natural or geological influence. This is why you have been unable to argue ex-nihilo from any logical basis.

An appeal to the “logic” of creation from nothing simply calls into question the rationality of its proponents in forming rational judgments.

Creation from “nothing” denies all experiential data we are exposed to every day of our lives. If you claim a baker made a birthday cake from “nothing”, no one believe you because it defies common sense and common science and all prior personal experience. It calls into question ones intuitive convictions. It destroys the lines between the reality and fiction.


NO LOGICAL OR RATIONAL ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE FOR EX-NIHILO CREATION

The adoption of the belief of God having created material things from nothing cannot BE explained or even defended on logical or rational grounds, thus the religionist who believes it is left reflexively to retreat to the religious mental bunker of statements such as "Mysterious are the ways of God" or “God is not constrained by natural law” when their doctrines such as ex-nihilo are so incongruous with the real world people actually live in.

The proposition of illogical and irrational and strange theories are often the reason agnostics and athiests take Christianity to task or reject Christian beliefs when, had it not been for such illogical and irrational theories, the investigators of Christian theology might have given Christian beliefs a second look for value and meaning. I think the early Christian belief that God created material worlds from matter is more logical, more rational than the later theory where God created from “nothing”.

Do you WANT to try to offer a logical argument as to how matter is made of “nothing”?

Thus, we are still left with the original claim that the early Judeo-Christian belief that God created the material worlds of material is more logical and more rational than the later theory that God created material things out of "nothing".


Oeste said : "My complaint is that you have not shown ANY scripture, anywhere, that mentions preexisting eternal matter, or that God cannot create but can only shape."

You are confused. I do NOT believe that "matter is eternally matter". I do not believe that God "cannot create but can only shape". You seem to want to argue about things that I do not believe. Perhaps you can ask me, what I believe before assuming you know what I believe.

What I claimed :
1) The early Judeo-Christians themselves, described their belief that God created material things out of matter.
2) The religious theory of God creating material things out of "nothing" was a later adoption.
3) I think the earliest Judeo-Christian belief where God creates material things out of matter is more logical and more rational than the later adoption where God creates material things out of "nothing".


Clear
εινετζτωσεω

 

[Clear]

SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO CREATION FROM MATERIALS

The fact that early Christians believed that the material earth was created from matter should not surprise anyone since the context of their language and texts has no single word that means "creation from "nothing" and their use of Koine uses many single words that are used in their sacred literature that DID mean creation from a material substrate or source. Perhaps we can start considering their language with Genesis 1:1 from christian LXX.


Gen 1:1 In beginning, God made the heaven and the earth.
Εν αρχη επιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην.


The word for “made” in this sentence is ποιημα. In koine Greek, it refers to “that which is made” or “achievements’. We have no references in early koine literature where it means "to make a material thing out of nothing”.

As another example, In the early Greek literature, Ποιησας was the word used to describe a “piece of work”. In Syll 532.5 of 218 b.c. the literature describes a craftsman who is displaying his own “pieces of work” ([επιδειξεις] εποιησατο των ιδινμ ποιηματων).

The sentence here uses both the verb form and the noun. In such a case, the craftsman in this case is not “making” something “out of nothing” and his displayed works are not creations made “out of nothing”. No such definition nor usage exists in this language.

Koine speaking Christians did not make up their own language to use, but used koine with it’s definitions in their sacred texts.

In yet another example, in Romans 1:20 “For his unseen works from the creation of the world….” the same word is used in referring to unseen “achievements” or “works” or “things done”. Τα γαρ αορατα αυτον απο κτσεως τοις ποιημασιν...”,

The form Ποιημα is “a doing” or “a making”, an “achievement”.

In still another example, James 1:25 uses the same word in describing a “doer of work” (ποιητης εργον…). Again, this does not mean the person is creating or making from “nothing” since no such definition existed.

There are other scriptures we should also refer to and discuss because there are other words translators have rendered “create”, but (e.g. κτισεως, etc.), but, just like Ποιησας, they do not reference a material thing made out of “nothing”.

Oeste, Do you have any comments on Genesis 1:1 you want to make before we move on to other scriptures that use language that reference things made or created out of a substrate? Do you have any evidence that early Judeo-Christians used ποιημα in their literature to mean "to create out of nothing"?

Clear
εινετζδρνεω

 

[74x12]

SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO CREATION FROM MATERIALS

The fact that early Christians believed that the material earth was created from matter should not surprise anyone since the context of their language and texts has no single word that means "creation from "nothing" and their use of Koine uses many single words that are used in their sacred literature that DID mean creation from a material substrate or source. Perhaps we can start considering their language with Genesis 1:1 from christian LXX.


Gen 1:1 In beginning, God made the heaven and the earth.
Εν αρχη επιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην.


The word for “made” in this sentence is ποιημα. In koine Greek, it refers to “that which is made” or “achievements’. It HAS no reference in early koine that references or means to make a material thing “out of nothing”.

As another example, In the early Greek literature, Ποιησας was the word used to describe a “piece of work”. In Syll 532.5 of 218 b.c. the literature describes a craftsman who is displaying his own “pieces of work” ([επιδειξεις] εποιησατο των ιδινμ ποιηματων).

The sentence here uses both the verb form and the noun. In such a case, the craftsman in this case is not “making” something “out of nothing” and his displayed works are not creations made “out of nothing”. No such definition nor usage exists in this language.

Koine speaking Christians did not make up their own language to use, but used koine with it’s definitions in their sacred texts.

As yet another example, in Romans 1:20 “For his unseen works from the creation of the world….” the word is used in referring to unseen “achievements” or “works” or “things done”. Τα γαρ αορατα αυτον απο κτσεως τοις ποιημασιν...”,

The form Ποιημα is “a doing” or “a making”, an “achievement”. Thus James 1:25 speaks of a “doer of work” (ποιητης εργον…). Again, this does not mean the person is creating or making from “nothing” since no such definition existed.

There are other scriptures we should also refer to and discuss because there are other words translators have rendered “create”, but (e.g. κτσεως, etc.) and, like Ποιησας, they do not reference a material thing made out of “nothing”.

Do you have any comments on Genesis 1:1 you want to make before we move on to other scriptures that use language that reference things made or created out of a substrate?

Clear
εινετζδρνεω

Congrats, you got the coveted 777th post. Anyway, I think I agree with you that God did not make everything from exactly nothing. Reading the book of Enoch (not Ethiopian one) it speaks of how God made the world from out of the primordial waters.

 

[Clear]

@74x12 said : “ I think I agree with you that God did not make everything from exactly nothing. Reading the book of Enoch (not Ethiopian one) it speaks of how God made the world from out of the primordial waters.” (posts #778)


Hi @74x12

Thank you for your comment. I suspect that most modern Christians were simply taught as children that God made everything out of “nothing” and we accepted that and were never really made aware that our inherited beliefs were not the beliefs of others or in times past.

While I have read various early Jewish and Christian descriptions when the belief in creation of the earth out of a substrate such as matter, water, fire, etc, was taught, it helps to keep in mind their limitations of ancient descriptive language. In the various early apocalypses that have been discovered, the various prophets had difficulties describing what they saw in their visions. The translators, of early documents have challenges and difficulties as well, trying to create their best version of what they think the author was trying to say.

Though a text may describe the heavenly materials out of which God made the worlds as “primordial waters”, it is then difficult to understand what is meant by “primordial water” itself.

For example, the Hebrew word for “Heavens” is Shamayim (שָׁמַיִם), it is a plural word for which there is no singular form. The mayim מַיִם) ) portion of the word means “water”.

There are various etymological theories as to what the first portion of this word means.

One is that the “sham” (שָׁמַ), proceeding the “mayim” was derived from an Akkadian word for “sky” or “lofty”, thus one has the waters of the sky or sky waters for heaven. If the first portion of these waters is derived from שמם (shamem) the the adjective means a desert or a waste (devastation), the “waste waters” or chaotic (uncivilized/unorganized) material described in early Judeo- Christian theology.

The connection between land and water was partly because, anciently, land was considered to emerge out of, or come from water (מים, mayim). Thus the narrative in Genesis tells us the waters were separated from waters and the dry earth then appears. This sort of symbolism seems to underly why water was representative of earth's unapplied, raw material, but, ironically the heavens were often seen as solid by early Christians.

Origen, for example, describes the term for heaven as meaning "without doubt firm and solid" - First Homily on Genesis. FC71) and
Ambrose tells us that "the specific solidity...is meant" of the latin word for heaven (comment on Genesis 1:6 in Hexameron, FC 42.60), and
Augustine says the latin term for heaven "indicate not that it is motionless, but that it is solid" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis. ACW 41.1.61)

The Greek Septuagint uses "οὐρανὸσ" (ouranos) for heaven and one etymology indicates its original meaning was "vaulted expanse" and, Greeks, like the Jews, also described it as a solid dome overhead.

From Anaximens to Aristotle, it was generally described as a solid material. For example, Ptolemy's Almagest explains how the stars were fixed like nails, to the underside of heaven.

The Jewish teachings from the Mishna have similar models. In Genesis 1:6 we are told that God created an expanse called rakia, a firmament or heaven, between the upper and lower waters, perhaps just as well described as “the primordial waters (“primordial” or “original waters” from which the world was made).

Rashi commented on the Hebrew for heaven saying that God, was playing with the biblical Hebrew, saying that the narrative could have been “Shem (shin mem) mayim," (that is, the waters are there, “this is their name”, and he also surmised that it could have been "Esh (aleph shin) mayim," (or fire and water which were mixed together by God to make the heavens.).

In the midrash (Bere**** Rabba 4,7) Rav said that "Shamayim" is a composite of "esh," fire, and "mayim," water, because God took the fire and the water, worked them into one another, and out of the two, heaven was made.

Pirke deRabbi Eliezer believed that The first heavens, the Rakia, were created from the light of the garments of the Holy One. Of this substance he says it was “an ethereal vapor of some sort” and not solid while “The second heavens, the Shamayim were created from the snow underneath the Throne of Glory, a real substance of water and ice which formed the earth and the heavenly bodies.”

The point is that regardless of which model was believed by these various groups and whether they called them “primordial waters” in the Jewish model or actual “chaotic matter”, there was a substrate, an original type of matter which was presumed present and out of which God made the worlds.

One historical principle that is involved in all historical studies and in trying to derive meaning from all of these opinions is that WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE ORIGINALCONTEXT ALWAYS DETERMINES THE MEANING OF A WORD to the person using the words or writing the text.

To the early Judeo-Christians, Genesis 1 and the other early texts is worded for what the author wanted to communicate. It tells us that God created the sky out of its constituent elements but it remains relatively silent about what those elements were.

One historian tell us that “It really depends upon where one starts: if one starts with the presumption of a solid dome, one will read that into the text. However, if one starts with a modern conception of sky, the text permits that understanding as well” and this partly explains why competing theories seem to have no contradiction to the people who apply competing theories to the same text.

In any case, Good luck in your spiritual journey. Like you, I think the early Judeo-Christian belief that material worlds were made of some sort of matter (whatever one calls it) is more logical and more rational than the later theory that material things were made by God out of “nothing”.


Clear
εινετζσισιω

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Congrats, you got the coveted 777th post. Anyway, I think I agree with you that God did not make everything from exactly nothing.................

Scripture teaches at Isaiah 40:26 that God used ' His Power, His Strength' to create the material world.
So, God supplied His abundantly needed high-density dynamic energy to create the visible world.
Jeremiah agrees at Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 27:5; Jeremiah 32:17
See also Psalms 104:30 any comments ___________________________