Did God create Himself?

[Lik3]

I wondered about this often. I should know this and this title sounds like a rather dumb question, but I am not so sure. Did He create Himself? What were His origins?

 

[PrayerandPeace]

No, He has always existed.

 

[Gottservant]

There is a verse in Revelation that says "I was there at the Creation of God" which is Jesus speaking.

It's Jesus' way of saying "I created God" or "God manifested because of Me".

You have to remember that God has no meaning without Wisdom, so if Jesus is saying "I created God" He is saying "I have the Wisdom you need, to understand God".

Also, you should not think God is any less real because He was created by someone else, that is the power of Jesus that even something that exists only in the imagination can become real, with a life of its own.

 

[Fascinated With God]

There is a verse in Revelation that says "I was there at the Creation of God" which is Jesus speaking.

What verse is this?

 

[rockytopva]

I wondered about this often. I should know this and this title sounds like a rather dumb question, but I am not so sure. Did He create Himself? What were His origins?

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

m (mass) = E/c2 (energy and light)

And there are three varieties...

Natural - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Intellectual - Our mind can produce a light and an energy!
Spiritual - Energy (Motivation, love, warmth) / light (faith, hope ,charity, joy)

Mass can neither be created or destroyed, it merely changes form. When you burn wood for example you get heat and the wood changes to basically carbon ash and carbon dioxide. Sunlight through photosynthesis then changes the carbon dioxide to air, and turns the carbon back to wood. It is impossible to destroy mass, you merely change its form.

So the wood was not destroyed by burning it but merely changed form. So God has got to be eternal, he was never created nor can ever be destroyed.

 

[clark thompson]

God has always been.

 

[Gottservant]

What verse is this?

Rev 3:14 "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, 'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:

 

[vossler]

There is a verse in Revelation that says "I was there at the Creation of God" which is Jesus speaking.

There is no such verse. God is outside of time and creation, He was never created.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Rev 3:14 "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, 'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:

The creation of God is referring to God's creation of the universe, not the construction of God. It is a part of the Nicene Creed that God is eternally old and was not created, sometimes put as "uncreated".

Look at some of these other translations and you'll see where you are getting confused by the ambiguous wording in the NASB and KJV:

New International Version
the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

New Living Translation
the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's new creation:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
the faithful and true Witness, the Originator of God's creation says:

International Standard Version
faithful and true, the originator of God's creation, says this:

NET Bible
faithful and true witness, the originator of God's creation:

GOD'S WORD® Translation
the witness who is faithful and true, the source of God's creation, says:

Weymouth New Testament
the true and faithful witness, the Beginning and Lord of God's Creation.

World English Bible
True Witness, the Head of God's creation, says these things:

Young's Literal Translation
the witness -- the faithful and true -- the chief of the creation of God;

 

[Gottservant]

Nope, sorry, Time is more preeminent than Spirit.

Spirit may pass through Time; Spirit may overrule Time; Spirit may end Time...

...but Time is more preeminent than Spirit.

How else could it be that Christ came to be crucified?

 

[Fascinated With God]

Nope, sorry, Time is more preeminent than Spirit.

Spirit may pass through Time; Spirit may overrule Time; Spirit may end Time...

...but Time is more preeminent than Spirit.

How else could it be that Christ came to be crucified?

"God is spirit." Nowhere does the Bible say, 'God is time'.

And what about the crucifixion contradicts God being eternally old?

You realize that only Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons reject the Nicene Creed, and even they don't object to the part about God being eternally old. So you are way out on a limb in your speculation.

 

[Gottservant]

"God is spirit." Nowhere does the Bible say, 'God is time'.

And what about the crucifixion contradicts God being eternally old?

You realize that only Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons reject the Nicene Creed, and even they don't object to the part about God being eternally old. So you are way out on a limb in your speculation.

Look, I didn't say "God is Time" I said "God is not Time".

Jesus Created two things equally at the same time (sic), God and Time.

You want to worship the former, but you do not know how to acknowledge the latter?

Does worship prevent you from acknowledging something else? If so you are bound and that can only be by sin.

The crucifixion further points to this, since nothing in time can help God save His Son from Death to time. It is for this reason that we must put the flesh to Death, otherwise Man could say "I have sinned, but God will restore me to my former glory (that is, given time)". In addition to this, if God were never to run out of time, He would never have anything in common with His Son and the two would be eternally separated - but God and the Son cannot be separated.

How ever you arrived at the wonderful personality trait of being understanding I do not know, but please believe that I am grateful you see me as out on a limb and are you not yourself sawing at the branch (you will be blessed for that). Only don't think that I am searching for a truth... I have found it, I am not trying to go back to the beginning to work it out, rather I am working in the will of God.

Time is more preeminent than God, even despite the fact that they were created at the same time.

To say otherwise is not to deny the flesh, but to wait for a later time (sic) to gratify it the more greatly. This is sin.

But don't let me presume upon your patience, ask yourself "Did I know God in the beginning and sin against Him, or was there Time I could not account for?"

For surely you knew to ask innocently, in the beginning?

 

[Fascinated With God]

Jesus Created two things equally at the same time (sic), God and Time.

You don't seem to have any concept of the Trinity.

 

[Gottservant]

You don't seem to have any concept of the Trinity.

The trinity is an expectation of fulfilment that arises in some way whatever circumstance is faced. If I am faced with Hell, the trinity is a way of escape; if I am faced with Heaven, the trinity is a way of prolonging my time there; if I am faced with the beginning, the trinity is a way of explaining why time must begin. It's that simple.

You don't seem to have any qualms about going further and further back in time, with the same dogmatic view. That will help you find God, but it will not explain anything relative to the present. The two things are different approaches to time: it is a common mistake to assume that you can both find God and explain Time, but this is not true. As I said Time is more preeminent than Spirit and God is Spirit, not Time.

It's a bit like someone who says "I will take a shortcut I haven't taken before, to my destination, since I know the way already and they will thank me for getting them there faster" when getting there "faster" is contingent on "knowing the way" and when you take the shortcut, you do not "know the way". Just because you know God, does not mean you are any more able to explain Time, since Time was before God. That time does not stop with the revelation of God, is proof that Time was before God.

Now Time being before God may well be because Time was in God, but that does not mean that Time was God, nor does it mean that we should worship Time. It simply means that we should acknowledge Time. If you are thinking about the beginning, you have in some way already acknowledged Time, it thus remains for you to give Time to God, but if you are thinking about Time as if thinking about Time means you have not acknowledged Time until you get an explanation, then you are fighting with Time, not God.

There is nothing wrong even with fighting with Time, except that that means it runs out. So you have a problem: you need God, in order to compensate for Time running out. Once again, this does not mean that Time is subordinate to God, for God, before He was in time arranged it that Time could not be subordinate to God, this is how we know that God frees us. For if it was that God controlled time, we would not have free will.

So thankyou for the discussion and the polite critique of my beliefs, but I think I understand them fairly well.

 

[EternalDragon]

The trinity is an expectation of fulfilment that arises in some way whatever circumstance is faced. If I am faced with Hell, the trinity is a way of escape; if I am faced with Heaven, the trinity is a way of prolonging my time there; if I am faced with the beginning, the trinity is a way of explaining why time must begin. It's that simple.

You don't seem to have any qualms about going further and further back in time, with the same dogmatic view. That will help you find God, but it will not explain anything relative to the present. The two things are different approaches to time: it is a common mistake to assume that you can both find God and explain Time, but this is not true. As I said Time is more preeminent than Spirit and God is Spirit, not Time.

It's a bit like someone who says "I will take a shortcut I haven't taken before, to my destination, since I know the way already and they will thank me for getting them there faster" when getting there "faster" is contingent on "knowing the way" and when you take the shortcut, you do not "know the way". Just because you know God, does not mean you are any more able to explain Time, since Time was before God. That time does not stop with the revelation of God, is proof that Time was before God.

Now Time being before God may well be because Time was in God, but that does not mean that Time was God, nor does it mean that we should worship Time. It simply means that we should acknowledge Time. If you are thinking about the beginning, you have in some way already acknowledged Time, it thus remains for you to give Time to God, but if you are thinking about Time as if thinking about Time means you have not acknowledged Time until you get an explanation, then you are fighting with Time, not God.

There is nothing wrong even with fighting with Time, except that that means it runs out. So you have a problem: you need God, in order to compensate for Time running out. Once again, this does not mean that Time is subordinate to God, for God, before He was in time arranged it that Time could not be subordinate to God, this is how we know that God frees us. For if it was that God controlled time, we would not have free will.

So thankyou for the discussion and the polite critique of my beliefs, but I think I understand them fairly well.

Time is an invented human concept to measure the progress of life. To measure how many times the sun rotates around the earth. "Time" does not really exist.

 

[theFijian]

You don't seem to have any concept of the Trinity.

He does, but it's one that he made up himself at home based on a basic reading error.

 

[Gottservant]

He does, but it's one that he made up himself at home based on a basic reading error.

I resent your treatment of me as a subject of study with no voice of his own, you should have quoted me, as it stands you look either lazy or just objectionable.

 

[FlameAlchemist]

I wondered about this often. I should know this and this title sounds like a rather dumb question, but I am not so sure. Did He create Himself? What were His origins?

No, saying this is just as logically fallacious as the argument "the universe created itself" because in the basic of law of cause and effect x causes y (or in this case x makes y)

Saying that God created Himself, you would have to assume the existence of X to explain the creation of X

God would've had to exist before He existed, which is of course nonsense

 

[theFijian]

I resent your treatment of me as a subject of study with no voice of his own, you should have quoted me, as it stands you look either lazy or just objectionable.

There is little point quoting you as you fail to engage with almost any reasonable objection to your arguments. Your formulation of the trinity, as well as being gobbledegook, is at odds with the Nicene creed and belongs in the Unorthodox theology section of this site, not the areas for Christians only.

 

[AceHero]

The trinity is an expectation of fulfilment that arises in some way whatever circumstance is faced. If I am faced with Hell, the trinity is a way of escape; if I am faced with Heaven, the trinity is a way of prolonging my time there; if I am faced with the beginning, the trinity is a way of explaining why time must begin. It's that simple.

You don't seem to have any qualms about going further and further back in time, with the same dogmatic view. That will help you find God, but it will not explain anything relative to the present. The two things are different approaches to time: it is a common mistake to assume that you can both find God and explain Time, but this is not true. As I said Time is more preeminent than Spirit and God is Spirit, not Time.

It's a bit like someone who says "I will take a shortcut I haven't taken before, to my destination, since I know the way already and they will thank me for getting them there faster" when getting there "faster" is contingent on "knowing the way" and when you take the shortcut, you do not "know the way". Just because you know God, does not mean you are any more able to explain Time, since Time was before God. That time does not stop with the revelation of God, is proof that Time was before God.

Now Time being before God may well be because Time was in God, but that does not mean that Time was God, nor does it mean that we should worship Time. It simply means that we should acknowledge Time. If you are thinking about the beginning, you have in some way already acknowledged Time, it thus remains for you to give Time to God, but if you are thinking about Time as if thinking about Time means you have not acknowledged Time until you get an explanation, then you are fighting with Time, not God.

There is nothing wrong even with fighting with Time, except that that means it runs out. So you have a problem: you need God, in order to compensate for Time running out. Once again, this does not mean that Time is subordinate to God, for God, before He was in time arranged it that Time could not be subordinate to God, this is how we know that God frees us. For if it was that God controlled time, we would not have free will.

So thankyou for the discussion and the polite critique of my beliefs, but I think I understand them fairly well.

Time is an invented human concept to measure the progress of life. To measure how many times the sun rotates around the earth. "Time" does not really exist.

Exactly. God was never created because He exists outside of human concepts and constructs.