Deification in the Bible

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnny writes:

Does "all of these other things already existed" make up "the heavens and the earth"

No. They presumably represent what "the heavens and the earth" are made from.

Was "the heavens and the earth" created?

Sure.

What was created in Gen 1:1?

Nothing. Creation doesn't begin until the main clause is introduced in verse 3.

Do you believe that "wisdom" is seperate from the Father?

It depends on what sense you refer to Wisdom. If you are referring to Wisdom purely as a divine attribute, then no. If, by Wisdom, you are referring to the personification (in any number of different interpretations which existed historically) then yes. Wisdom, for example, is represented as created (a creature) in Proverbs.

God is the first cause of all that exists. The Creator shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things.

Such a statement is not found in the scriptures.

Could you explain how you can say that God will not be taken away and at the same time say "We will not extend the creation of God, or alter it."

What don't you understand. We believe that we will always maintain our relationship with God - even if we become creators of our own "universes" so to speak.

What is your intrepretation of Col 2:9 which says, In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

It seems to me that it cannot be separated from its context. Thus Col. 2:10 reads: "and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority." The fullness which is in Christ is communicated or imparted to his followers. Presumably this is not a refernce to Jesus as God or deity.

Jesus was eternally begotten but he was made. Jesus is "the Word" of God. Jesus is not a creation like Satan. Jesus created Satan.

Jesus - at least the human component, is created. Otherwise he cannot be called truly man. Thus, the human component - at least as far as Catholic theology goes, was created - just as Satan was created. Once more, you engage in a problematic claim. If Jesus was "made" - or created, it isn't appropriate to claim that Jesus created Satan. Unless, of course, you are claiming that Jesus was pre-existent - and this then opens the door to the legitimacy of the LDS doctrine of pre-existence of all mankind.

Jesus did not pre-exist eternally as man and God. Prior to his incarnation he was "the Word" that was God. Jesus is "the Word of life" that became flesh. God was manifest in the flesh.

No. See the references I provided. The Word is not synonymous with Jesus. Both refer to fundamentally different things.

Ben

[USU78]

God is the first cause of all that exists.

While this may well be true (nobody could know for certain, could they?), Thomas Aquinas is not an authority we LDS recognize.

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

>Does "all of these other things already existed" make up "the heavens and the earth"

No. They presumably represent what "the heavens and the earth" are made from.

I would agree it is the "made from" stuff.

>Was "the heavens and the earth" created?

Sure.

So are you saying that the "made from" stuff was created at that time (Gen 1:1) ... sounds similiar to what my view is?

Nothing. Creation doesn't begin until the main clause is introduced in verse 3.

What about verse 2 ... it says that their was an "earth" that was without form?

[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Wisdom, for example, is represented as created (a creature) in Proverbs.

DO you think "prudence" is a creature that was with wisdom in Prov 8:12?

[12] I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

>God is the first cause of all that exists. The Creator shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things.

Such a statement is not found in the scriptures.

I would interpret Gen 1:1 as revealing that God is the first cause of all that exists. When I say "all that exists" I am refering to "heaven and earth".

We believe that we will always maintain our relationship with God - even if we become creators of our own "universes" so to speak.

Can you change the laws established by your God when you become a creator?

It seems to me that it cannot be separated from its context. Thus Col. 2:10 reads: "and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority." The fullness which is in Christ is communicated or imparted to his followers. Presumably this is not a refernce to Jesus as God or deity.

I would agree that we can be given fullness in Christ because the Father and Son can make their abode with us (John 14:23).

I would associate Col 2:9 more with 2Cor 5:19 which says "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" and with John 14:6-11 which says, the Father dwell in me, he does the works.

1Tim 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh" ... who was God?

- Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. (1Tim 1:2)

- For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1Tim 2:5)

- And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1Tim 3:16)

Thus, the human component - at least as far as Catholic theology goes, was created - just as Satan was created.

Satan does not have "the human compenent". Scripture says Satan was created. Satan is pure spirit like the Holy Ghost.

If Jesus was "made" - or created, it isn't appropriate to claim that Jesus created Satan.

The form and flesh of Jesus were "made" when God was manifest in the flesh. I believe Jesus created Satan. You can see my thoughts at the following post. If you want to continue the discussion I will be glad to.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=123481

Unless, of course, you are claiming that Jesus was pre-existent - and this then opens the door to the legitimacy of the LDS doctrine of pre-existence of all mankind.

"Jesus" the man was not pre-existent. "The Word" pre-existed. "The Word" was with God.

No. See the references I provided. The Word is not synonymous with Jesus. Both refer to fundamentally different things.

I would agree "The Word is not synonymous with Jesus" but you would agree that "the Word" became flesh (John 1:1,14,18) and that "God was manifest in the flesh (1Tim 3:16).

[Gordon]

Nothingness cannot have a face. But the matter or the ingrediants that God created can have a face.

I will attempt to make my point by comparing Gen 1 with cooking.

1) From nothingness God creates all the matter necessary for "heaven and earth" (Gen 1:1) ... in comparision a cook has the ingrediants necessary to bake

2) This matter was without form, and void. This matter had a face. (Gen 1:2) ... in comparision the cook puts the ingrediants into a bowl and the uncook ingrediants have "a face"

3) the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (Gen 1:2) ... in comparision the cook begins to stir the ingrediants

4) And God said (Gen 1:3) ... in comparision the cook said, Let there be ...

OK, where does it say that G-d created the matter used to create heaven and earth?

For your analogy of the cook to work, that would mean the cook had to create the eggs (first creating the hen), the flour (creating the wheat, or seed), and all the other ingredients that he used to create the finished product.

In Gen. it states that the heaven and earth was without form, and void. The nothingness refers to heaven and earth - that's it. G-d created heaven and earth with the matter already in existence. How can he make matter out of nothing? That would mean there was nothing but a complete vacuum around him, infinity. He could not have created matter, if there were no particles to create with. You can't build me a table, if you are in an empty room, with no way out, and no way anything can be brought it. Are you just going to magically wish it to appear? How can it, if there is nothing there to appear?

Like I said before, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

My point with the peanut butter and jelly is that to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich you start with the "matter" peanut butter and jelly.  To make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich you do not start with the matter called gasoline and nuclear waste.

But what is gasoline and nuclear waste made of? Aren't ALL things made from the same particles? As others stated, you could most definately make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with the ingredients that make up gasoline and nuclear waste - you just have to know what your doing.

Think about it this way: the pieces that make up peanut butter (peanuts, oil, water, etc.) and jelly (fruit, sugar, water, etc.) are the same in analogy as the parts that make up earth (trees, animals, rock, etc.) and heaven (water vapor, oxygen, nitrogen gas, etc.). When you add the peanut butter with the jelly, to get the PBJ sandwich, its equivalent to adding the earth with heaven to get heaven and earth.

[johnny]

Gordon writes,

OK, where does it say that G-d created the matter used to create heaven and earth?

In Gen 1:1 what was created ... is it "the matter" or is it a final product that is called heaven and earth ?

For your analogy of the cook to work, that would mean the cook had to create the eggs (first creating the hen), the flour (creating the wheat, or seed), and all the other ingredients that he used to create the finished product.

Analogies have their limitations but you got my point ... God created the incredients in Gen 1:1

In Gen. it states that the heaven and earth was without form, and void. The nothingness refers to heaven and earth - that's it. G-d created heaven and earth with the matter already in existence.

In Gen 1:2 by saying "earth was without form" would imply that their was not nothingness. The nothingness was before God created in Gen 1:1.

How can he make matter out of nothing?

He could because he is God.

He could not have created matter, if there were no particles to create with. You can't build me a table, if you are in an empty room, with no way out, and no way anything can be brought it. Are you just going to magically wish it to appear?

I would agree man can not that is why man is not God.

Like I said before, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Could it be that God was this "energy" that you are referring to?

But what is gasoline and nuclear waste made of? Aren't ALL things made from the same particles?

That is my point Gen 1:1 is talking about these "particles".

God created these "particles" in Gen 1:1.

When you add the peanut butter with the jelly, to get the PBJ sandwich, its equivalent to adding the earth with heaven to get heaven and earth.

Gen 1:1 is not talking about adding the heaven and earth.

Gne 1:1 is not talking about a final product because this comes from a process described in the remaining chapter of Gen 1.

Gen 1:1 is talking about the "particles".

[Zakuska]

Johnny,

You are not listening... there is not "creation" going on in Gen 1:1...

You are playing a semantic game starting from a false premis.

The verse in hebrew doesn't say what you think it says. You are reading a pet theory into the text.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

there is not "creation" going on in Gen 1:1...

Ben seems to think "creation" is taking place, he says "God began to create the heavens and the earth all of these other things already existed. "

Gordon also seems to think so, he says "G-d created heaven and earth with the matter already in existence.

They both seem to indicate "creation" is occuring in Gen 1:1, unless I have mis-understood them.

They believe that matter already existed in Gen 1:1 ... I believe that the matter is being created in Gen 1:1 ...

You are playing a semantic game starting from a false premis.

Could you tell me how Gen 1:1 reveals that the matter "already existed"?

The verse in hebrew doesn't say what you think it says. You are reading in a pet theory into the text.

What does the verb "create" mean to you?

Are you reading into Gen 1:1 that the matter already existed?

[Zakuska]

Johnny,

They both seem to indicate "creation" is occuring in Gen 1:1, unless I have mis-understood them.

I think you have misunderstood them.

Ben on two occasions on this thread said...

"Gods first creative act was in verse 3 when he said... 'Let there be light'.

"God began to create the heavens and the earth all of these other things already existed. "

Did you miss his analogy of cleaning the house?

But Ill let them speak for themselves.

They believe that matter already existed in Gen 1:1 ...

As do I.

I believe that the matter is being created in Gen 1:1 ...

Because of preconceived theology being forced into the text.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Ben on two occasions on this thread said...

I await Ben's response to my last post ...

Did you miss his analogy of cleaning the house?

I did see his analogy ... I failed to see how it compared to Gen 1 ... maybe he could associate his analogy with Gen 1 so I can better see the connections.

Because of preconceived theology being forced into the text.

I would differ with you ...

[Zakuska]

johnny,

I did see his analogy ... I failed to see how it compared to Gen 1 ... maybe he could associate his analogy with Gen 1 so I can better see the connections.

You assume your version of Gen1:1 is the only version...

YlT-

1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

At some point in time God started to prepare the earth and heavens,

(we call this the beginning)

But the earth, which already was (prior to this and prior to god beginning to create, because it was unorganized caotic matter) and was desolate and barren...

So God shed some light on the situation. (his first creative act)

He planeted floors and trees. (He is depicted in scripture as the master farmer isnt he).

etc. etc.

Gen 1:1 is a demarkation of time and not a statement of creation. Thats exatcly what his anaology says.

But Ill let him explain it to you since you obviously don't get it.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnny writes:

So are you saying that the "made from" stuff was created at that time (Gen 1:1) ... sounds similiar to what my view is?

No. In fact, since the first act of creation occurs in verse 3, anything that exists prior to that first act cannot be created within the scope of the genesis account. And thus must pre-exist the "in the beginning" of Genesis 1:1. That is, it exists at the time of the "in the beginning" in Genesis 1:1.

What about verse 2 ... it says that their was an "earth" that was without form?

It's a bad translation. Among other things, tohu wabohu are nouns, not predicate adjectives. It should be translated (as I noted earlier) as "a desert and a wasteland" - an indicator that whatever was there was devoid of both plant and animal life.

DO you think "prudence" is a creature that was with wisdom in Prov 8:12?

No. Prudence is not described as being conceived, as being born, and as growing up.

Can you change the laws established by your God when you become a creator?

Not according to LDS theology.

1Tim 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh" ... who was God?

This reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 is based on a faulty manuscript. No current translation uses it. It is a variant that is not found in the earliest manuscripts. The original text reads "he was made apparent in the flesh". Compare, for example, the NIV: "He appeared in a body," or the ASV: "He who was manifested in the flesh". So, the question "who is God" referring to this reading of 1 Tim. 3:16 is meaningless. 1 Tim. 2:5 on the other hand - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" clearly seems to indicate that Jesus is not God.

Satan does not have "the human compenent". Scripture says Satan was created. Satan is pure spirit like the Holy Ghost.

You seem to be missing the point. Satan was created. In the same sense, the human part - the "man" Jesus - was also created (according to Catholic theology).

The form and flesh of Jesus were "made" when God was manifest in the flesh. I believe Jesus created Satan. You can see my thoughts at the following post. If you want to continue the discussion I will be glad to.

"Made" in that sentance equals "created". It is improper to speak of "Jesus" creating Satan, simply because Jesus (as both man and God) did not exist prior to his being manifest in the flesh. It is proper to speak of Satan's creation by the pre-existing second person of the Godhead, but it is not proper to speak of Satan's creation by Jesus. Is that a little more clear for you?

"Jesus" the man was not pre-existent. "The Word" pre-existed. "The Word" was with God.

Precisely. But yet, you keep confusing this issue by claiming that "Jesus created Satan" - something which contradicts the notion that "Jesus" the man was not pre-existent. Jesus and "The Word" are not synonyms.

I would agree "The Word is not synonymous with Jesus" but you would agree that "the Word" became flesh (John 1:1,14,18) and that "God was manifest in the flesh (1Tim 3:16).

I will agree that "the Word" became flesh. I will not agree with 1 Tim. 3:16 since the quote you use is not original to the text.

They both seem to indicate "creation" is occuring in Gen 1:1, unless I have mis-understood them.

You have misunderstood me. Gen. 1:1 is describing what exists prior to the beginning of creation - of which the first act (i.e. the actual beginning of creation) is the command for light to exist in verse 3. If God had created something earlier, then it would need to be explicitly spelled out, as it would then mark the first act of creation instead of the command for light to exist.

By the way, you might be interested in the resolution to this problem which Joseph Smith brought out in the Book of Moses -

"in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest."

There it becomes a localized creation with no consideration of whether or not the material had been previously created, and no need to place an absolute beginning to the creative works of God in Gen. 1:1.

Could you tell me how Gen 1:1 reveals that the matter "already existed"?

This is the sense of the original Hebrew. As I keep pointing out, the Hebrew text makes the first act of creation the command for light to exist in verse 3. Everything that exists prior to that first act of creation must be uncreated (or its creation would mark the first act of creation).

So, here is my analogy - connected to Gen. 1:1-3 (The genesis text in bold)

In the beginning of God's creating the heaven and the earth

In the beginning of my cleaning the house,

(when the earth was a desert and wasteland,

my laundry being dirty,

and darkness was on the surface of the abyss,

my dishes being dirty,

and the breath of God hovered over the surface of the waters),

evidence that my three small children got their hands on a marker can be seen, and the floors, covered in mud,

God said, "Let light exist". And light existed.

I washed the dishes."

Despite the fact that I announced that I was beginning to clean my house (or that Genesis announces that God is beginning to create the heaven and the earth), I don't actually start cleaning (God doesn't actually start creating) until after both of us have described what it looks like before we begin (to clean or to create). That is what the Hebrew text says according to its grammatical sense. As I have pointed out, the first word in the Hebrew text is a noun in bound form. A construct. The existence of the desert and the wasteland, the abyss, the water, and so on, all occur in asyndetic relative clauses which are connected to the main clause with which verse 3 begins.

Ben

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnny writes:

I still am not following why you are saying the first action of creation occurs in verse 3 ... Verse 1 says "God created" ... does this not imply an action of creation?

The Hebrew doesn't say "God created". It states: "In the beginning of God's creating ..."

Are you saying that matter existed prior to the words "God created", if so could you explain your reasoning.

I have, over and over again.

In LDS theology who or what established the laws for God the Father and his God and his God and his God .... ?

It isn't discussed in any kind of formal theological discussion (I am not sure there is even any significant speculative discussion by LDS leaders on the topic).

How can you say it is meaningless when 1Tim 3:16 gives us information about the God who was manifest in the flesh. John 1:14 helps us to interpret 1Tim 3:16 it says "the Word was made flesh" and 1John 1:2 helps us to interpret 1Tim 3:16 it says "the life was manifested ... which was with the Father".

The word "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 is not original to the text. It wasn't written by the author of 1 Timothy. It was added later as a scribal emendation. 1 Timothy 3:16 does not mention a "God" who was manifest in the flesh. It is an error which found its way into the King James Bible and has since been removed in nearly all translations produced since.

I agree it is improper to speak of "Jesus" creating Satan ... would you agree that "the Word" created Satan. How does this compare to the LDS teaching that Jesus and Satan were born of heavenly parents?

I would say that there is a large gap between the belief sets (based essentially on the notion in LDS theology that all spirits/intelligences are eternal and uncreated - Satan being no different. If we are created, then Satan can be created in the same sense).

... was "the Word" born of heavenly parents?

Yes.

You have only indicated part of the quote is not original but what about the words "justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" that describe who was manifest in the flesh ... or are these also "not original" or "faulty" ... does the Mormon Church have a list of verses that they consider "faulty" or is this simply your interpretation ... my point is what does the Mormon Church official say?

Listen, largely the LDS church doesn't engage in textual criticism of the Bible. The Catholic Church, however, has plenty of scholars who have addressed this point. Raymond Brown, for example, in his Introduction of New Testament Christology completely dismisses it. This isn't anything new. Why don't you go to this website and have a look (it isn't LDS):

http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/

You keep ignoring the word "created" in verse 1. It is "uncreated" in the sense that it is a "dessert".

The word created doesn't exist in Genesis 1:1 except in theologically motivated translations. (And not all English translations even feel the need to include it.) The YLT (to use an older example) reads: "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --" (see also the NEB).

I'll get to your point on bara once we get past this issue (if we get past it at all).

Ben

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

The Hebrew doesn't say "God created". It states: "In the beginning of God's creating ..."

Sounds like an act of creating ...

>Are you saying that matter existed prior to the words "God created", if so could you explain your reasoning.

I have, over and over again.

Why would you believe such a thing?

The word "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 is not original to the text. It wasn't written by the author of 1 Timothy. It was added later as a scribal emendation. 1 Timothy 3:16 does not mention a "God" who was manifest in the flesh. It is an error which found its way into the King James Bible and has since been removed in nearly all translations produced since.

Would you agree that "the Word" was God and that "the Word" was manifest ... sounds like 1Tim 3:16 is saying what John says.

I would say that there is a large gap between the belief sets (based essentially on the notion in LDS theology that all spirits/intelligences are eternal and uncreated - Satan being no different. If we are created, then Satan can be created in the same sense).

I would agree that Satan and men are "created". I would not agree that "the Word" or the pre-incarnate Jesus was "created" prior to his incarnation in the sense that the pre-incarnate Jesus was born of heavenly parents as LDS theology teaches.

> ... was "the Word" born of heavenly parents?

Yes

I would differ. I would say "the Word" like the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father.

The word created doesn't exist in Genesis 1:1 except in theologically motivated translations. (And not all English translations even feel the need to include it.) The YLT (to use an older example) reads: "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --" (see also the NEB).

Does "preparing" imply an action ... doesn't a cook "prepare" the ingrediants before he begins to cook?

In your analogy of Gen 1:1 you seem to indicate it that was an announcement.

I'll get to your point on bara once we get past this issue (if we get past it at all).

Sounds good.

[Tanyan]

Seems there has been a paradim shift from Deification to Creation on this Thread.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnny writes:

Sounds like an act of creating ...

Let me try a different approach.

"In the beginning of God's creating the heaven and the earth ...."

Creating the "heaven and the earth" is, as you point, a way of saying "everything". So, God creates everything. But, this introductory statement isn't claiming that God created everything at that moment. The creationary period stretches from that moment on (to the present in the orthodox view - since mankind continues to be "created"). So, at the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the condition of the "cosmos" is described, and the first act of creation is announced. Genesis 1:1 is not "an act of creating". If you believe it was, then specifically what was created? It cannot be "the heaven and the earth" as you have defined it in this thread ("The Scriptural expression "heaven and earth" means all that exists, creation in its entirety") since in verse 3, light would already have existed before God commanded it to exist.

Would you agree that "the Word" was God and that "the Word" was manifest ... sounds like 1Tim 3:16 is saying what John says.

We have, I suspect, fairly different interpretations of what John says. In any case, 1 Tim. 3:16 does not say that God was manifest in the flesh.

I would agree that Satan and men are "created". I would not agree that "the Word" or the pre-incarnate Jesus was "created" prior to his incarnation in the sense that the pre-incarnate Jesus was born of heavenly parents as LDS theology teaches.

Once more, the "imprecise" language. There is no such thing (in Catholic theology anyway) as the "pre-incarnate Jesus". What precedes Jesus is only the second person of the Godhead, which cannot be called Jesus. "The Word" which precedes Jesus is not the same thing as Jesus.

I would differ. I would say "the Word" like the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father.

Born is as good a word as any other. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom twice declares "I was born".

In your analogy of Gen 1:1 you seem to indicate it that was an announcement.

If this makes it easier for you to understand my point, then I'll use this way of describing it (although it isn't quite accurate). Another way to look at it, would be as a title of this section of the text: "At the beginning of God's creating the heaven and the earth". I thought that my analogy expressed the connection between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 and 1:3 fairly well.

You have to understand that there is a challenge with Genesis 1:1. The NICOT commentary, for example, devotes dozens of pages to the topic of the first few verses of Genesis. A literal reading doesn't make many people happy (however, we presume that the ancient semitic peoples who wrote and read the text understood it quite differently than your typical English reader today). Rashi (who I mentioned earlier) later makes this comment:

If it is so [the assertion that heaven and earth were created first] you should be astonished at yourself, because as a matter of fact the waters were created before heaven and earth, for, lo, it is written "The Spirit of God was hovering on the face of the waters", and scripture had not yet disclosed when the creation of the waters took place -- consequently you must learn from this that the creation of the waters preceded that of the earth. ... Therefore you must needs admit that the text teaches nothing about the earlier or later sequence of the acts of Creation.

The text does not intend to point out the order of the acts of creation - to state that these (heaven and earth) were created first, for it if intended to point this out, it should have written barasonah bara et hashamayim

In other words, to get around the fact that the first creative act was the command for light to exist, Rashi explains that he doesn't believe that Genesis 1 ever intended to convey the actual order of translation. This is perhaps similar to Joseph's response to claim a limited creation account.

Going back to some of my much earlier comments, Aristotelian thought claimed that God could not change. Of note (relative to this discussion) is the fact that included in this would be a change in state from not-creating to creating. This is still an issue which you addressed by claiming that God could change - i.e. that God was God before He began to create just like He was God afterwards.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Tanyan writes:

Seems there has been a paradim shift from Deification to Creation on this Thread.

Somewhat. After David announced that he was finished here, I figured it was fair game.

At the same time, as noted in this thread, creation is often considered solely the realm of the divine - and is an aspect of Mormon deification theologies. Additionally, the notion of LDS deification is inseperably tied to the notions of the purpose of creation, the process of creation, and so on. Additionally, LDS teach that deification is possible essentially because the "intelligence" or "spirit" of man is uncreated and co-eternal with God. The continued discussion of deification between myself and Johnny has been downplayed a bit by the discussion over the nature of creation, but, has continued because the two are so closely connected.

Ben

[Tanyan]

Ben, Thanks for the clarification.

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

So, God creates everything. But, this introductory statement isn't claiming that God created everything at that moment. The creationary period stretches from that moment on (to the present in the orthodox view - since mankind continues to be "created").

That is my point ... their is a "creationary period from Gen 1:1 onward.

I believe our difference then becomes what existed prior to this moment in Gen 1:1. I believe that their was "nothingless" (excluding God of course).

We have, I suspect, fairly different interpretations of what John says. In any case, 1 Tim. 3:16 does not say that God was manifest in the flesh.

I believe John 1 is clear what was manifested unless of course John 1 is also "faulty".

"The Word" which precedes Jesus is not the same thing as Jesus.

In John 1 what does it mean that "the Word" became flesh?

Born is as good a word as any other. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom twice declares "I was born".

Are you using "born" in the sense of "born" of heavenly parents.

Another way to look at it, would be as a title of this section of the text:

Earlier you said that you viewed it as a moment that indicated the start of the creationary period ... now you are saying it is a title ... which one is it?

This is still an issue which you addressed by claiming that God could change - i.e. that God was God before He began to create just like He was God afterwards.

I did not say that God could change. God is God. One thing that this God does is create. I am a man if a bake cookies or not bake cookies.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnny writes:

I believe our difference then becomes what existed prior to this moment in Gen 1:1. I believe that their was "nothingless" (excluding God of course).

Grammatically, however, the Hebrew text indicates that the elements in Gen. 1:2 precede the first act of creation.

Since this horse is about dead (i.e. I don't see it going anywhere beyond this without being able to engage in a technical discussion over the Hebrew text), perhaps we should just let it drop.

I believe John 1 is clear what was manifested unless of course John 1 is also "faulty".

I take exception to the translation "the word was God".

In John 1 what does it mean that "the Word" became flesh?

The notion of the Logos becoming manifest in a human being is not new in the Gospel of John. It is preceded by a few hundred years in the same notion being present in Sirach, where the High Priest Joshua is portrayed as the human incarnation of Wisdom.

Are you using "born" in the sense of "born" of heavenly parents.

Proverbs uses "born" as it refers to parents, yes. The language in Proverbs 8 describes the conception of Wisdom, the birth of Wisdom, and the childhood of Wisdom.

Earlier you said that you viewed it as a moment that indicated the start of the creationary period ... now you are saying it is a title ... which one is it?

The problem is that you obviously haven't understood what I am trying to say. It is the beginning of the creationary period - and while the next verse comes consecutively afterwards, grammatically it doesn't follow the first in terms of time. The things in verse two (because of the syntax of the text) all occur prior to "the beginning". Thus, it seemed easier for me to suggest that it was a title. As long as you understand that creation doesn't begin until verse 3, and that everything in verse 2 precedes creation, I don't care how you understand it.

I did not say that God could change. God is God. One thing that this God does is create. I am a man if a bake cookies or not bake cookies.

*shrug*. But you aren't a baker if you don't bake.

Ben

[urroner]

He could be a baker wunnabe.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Let me ask you a question Johnny -

Is it possible for God to make his creation into a creator?

Ben

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

Grammatically, however, the Hebrew text indicates that the elements in Gen. 1:2 precede the first act of creation.

This "first act" you refer to is in verse 3. I view verse 3 as when the cook starts to "bake" the incrediants. For example:

Gen 1:1 - God makes the incrediants or "prepares"

Gen 1:2 - God begins to stir (the Spirit of God moves)

Gen 1:3 - God starts the "baking" process of the incrediants

I take exception to the translation "the word was God".

I like the words "the Word was God".

Proverbs uses "born" as it refers to parents, yes. The language in Proverbs 8 describes the conception of Wisdom, the birth of Wisdom, and the childhood of Wisdom.

Off topic but just curious how do you interpret verses 34-36 ... how does it fit your belief that Wisdom is a creature?

[34] Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.

[35] For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.

[36] But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

Thus, it seemed easier for me to suggest that it was a title. As long as you understand that creation doesn't begin until verse 3, and that everything in verse 2 precedes creation, I don't care how you understand it.

I believe it depends on how a person uses the word "creation". "Creation" or the "baking" process doesn't begin till verse 3 but God "creating" the ingredients from nothingness begins in verse 1.

shrug*. But you aren't a baker if you don't bake.

Baking is what a man does. Baking is not who the person is.

Creating is what God does. Creating is not who God is.

God is God, just like man is man.

[Zakuska]

Hey... potters bake.

Sorry... couldn't help that.

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

Is it possible for God to make his creation into a creator?

It depends on how you are using the word "creator"?

I believe it is not possiable for man to be a creator in the fullest sense like God, the Father.

I believe man cannot become a creator like the Father because the Father established laws and man must operate within these established laws. For example Adam become like god but he was still subject to God's laws. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation that govern the use of freedom.