A simple question with a simple answer.

Imagican · Jun 17, 2015

In reference to both the last two posts:
In order to come to a proper understanding of 'the light', we must FIRST come to an understanding of what it MEANS.
Certainly it doesn't mean LITERAL 'light'. In the NT, when Christ is referred to as 'the light of this world', I don't think ANYONE believes this to mean LITERAL 'light'.
So if it doesn't mean LITERAL 'light', what else could it be referring to?
TRUTH. Plain and simple. There is TRUTH and then there is all that is opposed to TRUTH: Darkness.
And doesn't it stand to reason that 'creation' took place according to TRUTH as opposed to DARKNESS? Creation WORKED. Death was not created, but LIFE. And that LIFE could ONLY be created through TRUTH.
Call it understanding, enlightenment, recognition, you can use whatever term you choose but basically, when Christ is referred to as 'the light of this world', it does NOT mean "literal light".
So that means that the 'light' created 'in the beginning', before the LITERAL light created on the fourth day, was NOT literal 'light'. It was TRUTH as opposed to DARKNESS: which is ALL that is opposed to the TRUTH.
All that it takes to UNDERSTAND is to come to the proper conclusion of what 'form' of light Christ IS.
Blessings,
MEC

2KnowHim · Jun 17, 2015

Imagican said:
In reference to both the last two posts:
In order to come to a proper understanding of 'the light', we must FIRST come to an understanding of what it MEANS.
Certainly it doesn't mean LITERAL 'light'. In the NT, when Christ is referred to as 'the light of this world', I don't think ANYONE believes this to mean LITERAL 'light'.
So if it doesn't mean LITERAL 'light', what else could it be referring to?
TRUTH. Plain and simple. There is TRUTH and then there is all that is opposed to TRUTH: Darkness.
And doesn't it stand to reason that 'creation' took place according to TRUTH as opposed to DARKNESS? Creation WORKED. Death was not created, but LIFE. And that LIFE could ONLY be created through TRUTH.
Call it understanding, enlightenment, recognition, you can use whatever term you choose but basically, when Christ is referred to as 'the light of this world', it does NOT mean "literal light".
So that means that the 'light' created 'in the beginning', before the LITERAL light created on the fourth day, was NOT literal 'light'. It was TRUTH as opposed to DARKNESS: which is ALL that is opposed to the TRUTH.
All that it takes to UNDERSTAND is to come to the proper conclusion of what 'form' of light Christ IS.
Blessings,
MEC

If you understand that the Light in the beginning is Christ/Truth, why do you believe the light on the 4th day isn't The Same Light? Just curious as to why you would go from something spiritual to something Literal.
God's Word is Spirit and Life. (All of it).

JustHisKid · Jun 17, 2015

Imagican said:
Over and over. Thread after thread. It seems that the 'schism' that Constantine feared may split HIS 'new religion' wasn't settled as some would assume. For the debate of 'trinity' has been rejected and debated ever since it's introduction into Christianity. This is NOT another 'trinity' debate.

It's a SIMPLE question that would appear few have EVER even contemplated. Yet it may be so profound as to answer this debate of 'trinity' once and for all. But ONLY if one comes to the PROPER answer to a SIMPLE question. Here goes:

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
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.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Here we have the FIRST three verses of the Bible. In these three verses it STATES that IN THE BEGINNING, God FIRST created the heavens and the earth. And at that TIME of creation, the Earth had NO form and was VOID, (nothing ON it). And we are also informed that only darkness existed. Then in the third verse it states that God said, "Let there be light". God CREATED light.

Let's move ahead just a little:

Genesis 1:

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

It now becomes clear that in the Beginning, BEFORE the forth day, When God said, "Let there be light", that this usage of the term 'light' MUST have a different meaning than literal, physical LIGHT. For it isn't until the FORTH day that stars, the Sun, the moon were 'created'. So it wasn't until the FORTH day that PHYSICAL light was introduced.

So the question is: What was THE LIGHT that was created IN THE BEGINNING. You know, the light that was created BEFORE the stars, Sun and MOON?

Blessings,

MEC

If God is not triune, how would this change anything?

BukiRob · Jun 17, 2015

Imagican said:
Thanks BukiRob. Quite an interesting video. I have always offered that 'in the beginning' doesn't mean THE beginning, but "A" beginning. THAT beginning which pertains to those to whom the words were revealed or written to.
And I am a FIRM believer that the terms morning and evening: DAYS, were NOT meant LITERALLY, they were merely a figurative means of conveying 'time periods': beginning and ending. For the NT plainly illustrates that God is TIMELESS. A day to God could be like a BILLION years or a billion years as a DAY. So the 'days' of creation were offered merely to show ORDER, not literal "TIME".
We have absolutely NO idea from the Bible how old the Earth is. We have NO idea from the Bible when humans were created other than the ORDER of 'creation'. The earth was prepared FIRST and then humans were 'created'. And it may have taken BILLIONS of years for the earth to be prepared. God, being TIMELESS, could have quite possibly taken BILLIONS of years preparing the earth for 'man'. The Bible doesn't offer us this information. But science has pretty much proven that the earth is certainly MUCH older than the 6 thousand years traditionalists insist upon it's age.
Blessings,
MEC

No actually what he is saying is that both a LITERAL 6, 24 hour day creation AND an estimated age of ~15 Billion years for the creation are absolutely consistent with each other. Genesis is looking forward in time. We are looking BACK in time.

DrBubbaLove · Jun 17, 2015

Imagican said:
Doc,

If I have misrepresented or mis-characterized anyone or anything, I can assure you, it hasn't been intentional. I take my words pretty seriously and do my best to keep my opinions separate from the things I state as FACTS.
The history of the Catholic Church and it's doctrine of 'trinity' are pretty easy to find. While it may take a bit of patience and effort to come to a proper conclusion, the information is there for any and all willing to make the effort. I have.
The Catholic Churches record is pretty clear. So it's not a matter of speculation or derogatory to point it out as history dictates. As far as I'm concerned, the only people that would make such accusations are those unwilling to face the TRUTH. Obviously I'm not a Catholic for I don't find the truth concerning the CC offensive in the least. INTERESTING. But certainly not offensive. No more so than the history of the Roman Empire or that of the United States.

As I repeatedly referenced the online teachings of the Church am unclear why one would need to resort to quoting dissenting opinions from history in attempt to cast doubt on either what is properly taught or how the doctrine came to be. Pointing out that someone may have held this opinion or that one (and that often demonstratively a changing position over the person's life) is not the same as claiming one knows or understands either what the Church teaches or what the Trinity Doctrine proclaims. Whether one believes these teachings or not, if one understood either of those - then one would also understand that saying things like Catholics believe in a God in three parts is not just an error it is a gross and offensive mis-representation of the teaching. And to repeatedly do that after being told otherwise is also not a little mean spirited.

And what matters to ME more than finding something to agree or disagree with is THE TRUTH. Even when it's painful, I would rather have the TRUTH than wishful thinking or propaganda.

Generally I would call propoganda a position that needs to distort and mis-represent an opposing position in order to espouse their "truth". I am not the one here repeatedly doing that.

And Doc, I do NOT believe in 'evolution' so far as Christianity is concerned. I am a FIRM believer that by the time of Christ's death, the foundation for Christianity had ALREADY been laid. It didn't take another four hundred years AFTER His death for the truth to be revealed. And to believe in what the RCC teaches, that would be the case.

And it did not take a hundred years for the beginning development of the doctrine to be required to defend against teachings the Church eventually found contrary to revealed truth. Jesus was not a man, Jesus was not really flesh, Jesus was not God, Jesus was the first thing made.....etc and so on. To suggest the history we have indicates everything was made up ("revealed") 400 years later is another gross and offensive mis-representation of the truth.

But back to the subject of this thread, I would still like to know what others THINK 'the light' was that was created IN the beginning. You know, before the sources for LITERAL 'light' were created on the FOURTH day: Sun, moon, stars, etc.
And I find it utterly compelling that the NT often refers to Christ as 'the LIGHT of this world', and 'in the beginning, God created 'light' FIRST. Just as the Bible states that Christ was the BEGINNING of God's creation. Just like the Bible states that ALL things were created THROUGH Christ. For this to be true, it would require that Christ exist PREVIOUS to everything else being 'created'. My belief is that the statement is in reference to ALL things pertaining to US: this earth and what exists directly ON IT and AROUND it pertaining to LIFE.
Blessings,
MEC

And to imagine that one has stumbled upon something new in looking at these verses would be the greatest presumption yet, which is what my comments regarding those coming before us were about.

Saint John did not equivocate. "He", "the Word", was there in the beginning and everything "made" was made by Him. Saint John spent three years with Him and the rest of his life around someone that spent 33 years with and knew Him better than any other human. I would think his record should carry some weight in these discussions. No where does this Saint suggest the Word (or the Light of this World) was created first before everything else. As a practical matter of viewing God as Spirit, and All Powerful and Omnipotent and Eternal (no beginning) at that, it would also be very odd to look at God as having to "create" His Word through which EVERYTHING that is made is created. [do we suppose Him at some point unable to express Himself until "creating" this Light?] These are the reasons the ancients started talking about whether or not Jesus, His 'First Born", really meant that the Word before becoming Man was a created thing. The view that always prevailed was a resounding NO.

In "darkness", especially utter darkness, people are drawn to "Light". Jesus, the Man, is very much a person (and Person) who draws all of us to Him (God). Nothing about that contradicts or conflicts with the creation story. On the other hand, imagining God having to 'create' His Own Word in order for that Word to be the "light of the world" contradicts what Saint John says about that Light of the world. Namely that the Word is uncreated.

DrBubbaLove · Jun 17, 2015

Imagican said:
In reference to both the last two posts:
In order to come to a proper understanding of 'the light', we must FIRST come to an understanding of what it MEANS.
Certainly it doesn't mean LITERAL 'light'. In the NT, when Christ is referred to as 'the light of this world', I don't think ANYONE believes this to mean LITERAL 'light'.
So if it doesn't mean LITERAL 'light', what else could it be referring to?
TRUTH. Plain and simple. There is TRUTH and then there is all that is opposed to TRUTH: Darkness.
And doesn't it stand to reason that 'creation' took place according to TRUTH as opposed to DARKNESS? Creation WORKED. Death was not created, but LIFE. And that LIFE could ONLY be created through TRUTH.
Call it understanding, enlightenment, recognition, you can use whatever term you choose but basically, when Christ is referred to as 'the light of this world', it does NOT mean "literal light".
So that means that the 'light' created 'in the beginning', before the LITERAL light created on the fourth day, was NOT literal 'light'. It was TRUTH as opposed to DARKNESS: which is ALL that is opposed to the TRUTH.
All that it takes to UNDERSTAND is to come to the proper conclusion of what 'form' of light Christ IS.
Blessings,
MEC

So the Supreme Good creates Truth but at same time creates opposition to Truth. Such a God seems rather duplicitous (and not the Supreme Good), which I suspect is why the ancients long ago rejected the notion that God "created" evil.

JustHisKid · Jun 17, 2015

DrBubbaLove said:
So the Supreme Good creates Truth but at same time creates opposition to Truth. Such a God seems rather duplicitous (and not the Supreme Good), which I suspect is why the ancients long ago rejected the notion that God "created" evil.

There was no need to create the opposite of truth. The opposite of truth is simply the absence of it.

2KnowHim · Jun 17, 2015

God did not create The Light/Truth, that's who He is. He just "Said" and evil was immediately present because of it.
Just like Paul ....

Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

DrBubbaLove · Jun 17, 2015

JustHisKid said:
There was no need to create the opposite of truth. The opposite of truth is simply the absence of it.

I too believe that evil is not a thing but the relative absence of a real thing - Good.

However the person I was responding to in my post that you quoted is suggesting that God created the Word and that this is the "simple" meaning behind His being shown in the Creation Story when He first created Light. The same poster equates that Light with Jesus, the Word and Truth (on the surface we are all in agreed with that much - just not the created part). The problem I was alluding to with that understanding of the Creation Story is that the same verse has God creating darkness - which the same poster suggests is evil (not truth). We await his answer.

2KnowHim · Jun 17, 2015

In the natural sense of the word darkness, I would agree, that it is the absence of Light...
But not here in Gen. 1...I believe that darkness/ignorance already was in existence, What the Light did was
Expose the darkness...or should I say manifest it.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Chicken Little · Jun 18, 2015

'the LIGHT of this world'

you can look this up.
He was at the feast of dedication/Chanukah
during that feast the priests and the women in the household
take one candle this candle has a special name ( I can't remember now or spell )
This candle name means is " the
father of lights candle" or ' the source of all light' , it lights all the other candles every time they are lit.

Jesus stood there on that day and said " I am , the father candle " . not just that he was some kind of ambiguous kind of "the light".
That was why they had to kill him , to prove to themselves that he was not the Father/or Servant candle and source of every bit of light and of all Light ever created . He had already judged them publicly and so they then had to prove he was (edit: NOT) who he stood there and proclaimed he was.
Christianity and Judaism has been usurped by crooked minds over and over and over and over . Hell has to date only ever existed in the mind of mankind.
WE have to find Him, He is the source off all light and truth.
Any thing else means complete failure.
He is found in and past what men think He is in his feast and in his culture and in his word and in his deeds . but is not in what men think about them.

Chicken Little · Jun 18, 2015

shamash (servant) he said IAM the SHamash or Jehovah Shamash . like and in the same style as Jehovah Raphah , Jehovah Nissi , Jehovah ????????????????????????????????????? etc..
it was him all along man has dealt with. It doesn't get any clearer does it ?

Chicken Little · Jun 18, 2015

and he wants nothing more than to serve his family.
but will not help us usurp each other or help us help those who would usurp each other !
He is waiting !

Imagican · Jun 19, 2015

2KnowHim said:
If you understand that the Light in the beginning is Christ/Truth, why do you believe the light on the 4th day isn't The Same Light? Just curious as to why you would go from something spiritual to something Literal.
God's Word is Spirit and Life. (All of it).

Well, I believe that it's pretty clear. The 'light' on the fourth day has it source described. The stars, the Sun and the Moon. Literal light. Physical light.
When we compare the NT's use of the term light in reference to Christ, we KNOW that it is not a reference to 'physical light' simply by the manner in which is it used. He was a MAN, not a 'light bulb'.
So it is through this understanding that we are able to come to a better conclus

2KnowHim said:
If you understand that the Light in the beginning is Christ/Truth, why do you believe the light on the 4th day isn't The Same Light? Just curious as to why you would go from something spiritual to something Literal.
God's Word is Spirit and Life. (All of it).

If we compare the OT to the NEW, we see Christ literally being referenced as 'the light of this world'. Since even those living in Darkness are under the same Sun and the same moon and the same light bulbs, the reference is obviously to something separate from literal 'light', physical light.
So it's obviously some form of 'spiritual light'. I believe it is in reference to TRUTH, or LOVE. Both synonymous to me. Or maybe a better way to define the light would be the recognition and ability to PRACTICE 'truth' or 'love'. Hence, one who HAS the truth, one who HAS love is IN THE LIGHT. Those living in lies or without love are in DARKNESS. Not a literal PHYSICAL light or darkness, but a SPIRITUAL light or darkness.
The light created on the fourth day is given SOURCES. The Stars, Sun, Moon, etc......... These are physical sources of light that I do NOT believe are referenced IN THE BEGINNING. For the bible STATES that the Earth was VOID and WITHOUT FORM. The indication is that the 'light' produced when God said, "let there be light" was the TURNING point from the earth being 'void and without form', to it becoming the 'complete' home of LIFE as it was AFTER 'in the beginning'. "Life" came FROM the 'light'. Life was 'created' BY 'the light'.

Blessings,

MEC

Imagican · Jun 19, 2015

Let's try something here. If it's possible............
For a moment, let's pretend that there are NO 'churches'. That there are NO doctrines other than that which is DIRECTLY contained within the Bible. NO source of understanding EXCEPT the Bible and direct revelation offered through the Holy Spirit. Which doesn't mean that understanding can be DIFFERENT than what it offered in the Bible, the Holy Spirit being there as a GUIDE only. A means of understanding what is written in the Bible.
So, now we KNOW NOTHING pertaining to God or His Son. NOTHING.
We start reading the Bible. From the FIRST page to the last.
Do you suppose that the SAME system that exists already today would be REPEATED? Or do you believe that it's possible that a DIFFERENT system could arise? I'm talking about TODAY. In OUR time. Without the repression of the 'church'. Without all the propaganda of the 'church'. Without all the doctrine of the 'churches'. Without all the withholding of the Word. Do you believe that the SAME 'system' would evolve today that has evolved over the past two thousand years?
I can assure you that people have been exposed to KNOWLEDGE today in a manner that would make it IMPOSSIBLE for the same 'system' to evolve TODAY if nothing was used to come to understanding other than the Bible and the Holy Spirit. No 'mystical, magical, mythological influences' as existed two thousand years ago. We have a much better understanding of the physical world around us today than those of two thousand years ago.
And if this scenario took place, do you honestly believe that 'trinity' would exist? That the 'churches' would find the SAME inspiration today to form this doctrine that those ancients did two thousand years ago? I find it impossible to believe.
And concerning the subject at hand. There are many statements in the NT that refer to Christ being 'created' or 'formed' or 'begotten', (the actual word used in reference to Christ's BEGINNING). 'Trinity' is the ONLY thing that gets in the way of an acceptance of Christ being 'created' or 'begotten'.
If it's true, and we are pretending that 'trinity' doesn't even exist, doesn't it only stand to reason that God would give us some CLUE as to the 'beginning of Christ' when detailing 'the beginning' TO US?
Take 'trinity' out of the equation, simply accept what the Bible offers concerning Christ BEING the 'beginning of the creation of God', the 'firstborn of every creature'. All the indications that Christ HAD a 'beginning' and THEN let us consider the NT's use of the term 'light'.
If the light created 'in the beginning' was not LITERAL 'light' as that which was created on the fourth day, then what WAS IT? Is it possible it was God TELLING us WHEN His Only Begotten Son was BEGOTTEN? That the BEGINNING of God's creation was the 'creation of the LIGHT' which was His only Begotten Son?
We know that there was a battle in heaven which Satan lost and was cast down to this earth. He and the THIRD of angels in heaven that rebelled with him. We KNOW that Christ witnessed Satan being 'cast out' of heaven. But what we DON'T have a single reference to is Christ being INVOLVED in the battle. Isn't that a pretty GOOD indication that Christ was not yet READY to do battle with Satan. That if He HAD been 'ready', then there would BE some reference to Him being involved in the battle?
So what would be THE reason that Christ wasn't READY to do battle with Satan? Because He wasn't STRONG enough yet to fight. Because He wasn't MATURE enough yet to do battle. Because He had only recently been BEGOTTEN. It took TIME for Christ to mature. Thousands or hundreds of thousands or even MILLIONS of years to MATURE to the point that He was READY to do battle with Satan. If this has any bearing on the truth, then it is just another piece of evidence that Christ HAD a 'beginning'. Like ANYTHING 'begotten', it is certainly not BORN with knowledge and understanding. It takes TIME for knowledge and understanding to become manifest.
Blessings,
MEC

Chicken Little · Jun 19, 2015

Imagican said:
Let's try something here. If it's possible............
For a moment, let's pretend that there are NO 'churches'. That there are NO doctrines other than that which is DIRECTLY contained within the Bible. NO source of understanding EXCEPT the Bible and direct revelation offered through the Holy Spirit. Which doesn't mean that understanding can be DIFFERENT than what it offered in the Bible, the Holy Spirit being there as a GUIDE only. A means of understanding what is written in the Bible.
So, now we KNOW NOTHING pertaining to God or His Son. NOTHING.
We start reading the Bible. From the FIRST page to the last.
Do you suppose that the SAME system that exists already today would be REPEATED? Or do you believe that it's possible that a DIFFERENT system could arise? I'm talking about TODAY. In OUR time. Without the repression of the 'church'. Without all the propaganda of the 'church'. Without all the doctrine of the 'churches'. Without all the withholding of the Word. Do you believe that the SAME 'system' would evolve today that has evolved over the past two thousand years?
I can assure you that people have been exposed to KNOWLEDGE today in a manner that would make it IMPOSSIBLE for the same 'system' to evolve TODAY if nothing was used to come to understanding other than the Bible and the Holy Spirit. No 'mystical, magical, mythological influences' as existed two thousand years ago. We have a much better understanding of the physical world around us today than those of two thousand years ago.
And if this scenario took place, do you honestly believe that 'trinity' would exist? That the 'churches' would find the SAME inspiration today to form this doctrine that those ancients did two thousand years ago? I find it impossible to believe.
And concerning the subject at hand. There are many statements in the NT that refer to Christ being 'created' or 'formed' or 'begotten', (the actual word used in reference to Christ's BEGINNING). 'Trinity' is the ONLY thing that gets in the way of an acceptance of Christ being 'created' or 'begotten'.
If it's true, and we are pretending that 'trinity' doesn't even exist, doesn't it only stand to reason that God would give us some CLUE as to the 'beginning of Christ' when detailing 'the beginning' TO US?
Take 'trinity' out of the equation, simply accept what the Bible offers concerning Christ BEING the 'beginning of the creation of God', the 'firstborn of every creature'. All the indications that Christ HAD a 'beginning' and THEN let us consider the NT's use of the term 'light'.
If the light created 'in the beginning' was not LITERAL 'light' as that which was created on the fourth day, then what WAS IT? Is it possible it was God TELLING us WHEN His Only Begotten Son was BEGOTTEN? That the BEGINNING of God's creation was the 'creation of the LIGHT' which was His only Begotten Son?
We know that there was a battle in heaven which Satan lost and was cast down to this earth. He and the THIRD of angels in heaven that rebelled with him. We KNOW that Christ witnessed Satan being 'cast out' of heaven. But what we DON'T have a single reference to is Christ being INVOLVED in the battle. Isn't that a pretty GOOD indication that Christ was not yet READY to do battle with Satan. That if He HAD been 'ready', then there would BE some reference to Him being involved in the battle?
So what would be THE reason that Christ wasn't READY to do battle with Satan? Because He wasn't STRONG enough yet to fight. Because He wasn't MATURE enough yet to do battle. Because He had only recently been BEGOTTEN. It took TIME for Christ to mature. Thousands or hundreds of thousands or even MILLIONS of years to MATURE to the point that He was READY to do battle with Satan. If this has any bearing on the truth, then it is just another piece of evidence that Christ HAD a 'beginning'. Like ANYTHING 'begotten', it is certainly not BORN with knowledge and understanding. It takes TIME for knowledge and understanding to become manifest.
Blessings,
MEC

so you are asking Sodom and Gomorra to create a church? and you think that will turn out ok because we are smarter than every other generation ever.. so good luck that idea ( see Laodicean church and age ) no we are not smarter or wiser or anything better than Noah and his sons and or God and his ! " let those who are evil continue to be evil" .. nothing can be done that isn't sin to stop it.

2KnowHim · Jun 19, 2015

Imagican said:
The indication is that the 'light' produced when God said, "let there be light" was the TURNING point from the earth being 'void and without form', to it becoming the 'complete' home of LIFE as it was AFTER 'in the beginning'. "Life" came FROM the 'light'. Life was 'created' BY 'the light'.

True, God uses images and things in this natural realm to show us of Spiritual Reality.
As the Sun is the life source to the earth,
So is The Son to us.
But, The Moon, the Sun, and the Stars are all Light Sources...

The Moon of course only reflects light, but ......
The Stars are Light holders of themselves.

These all are symbolic for something much Greater than Natural objects in the sky.
These can all be found in scripture as referring to....

The Sun=Son=The Greater Light (To rule the Day)
The Moon=The Law=The Lesser Light (To rule the night)
The Stars=The Seed of Abraham/The Sons of God/and Angels

Imagican · Jun 19, 2015

I think I understand what you used to come to this conclusion, but the formula as you have offered it certainly doesn't exist in the Bible. While it may 'sound good', what you have offered doesn't have any Biblical reference. I would liken what you have offered to 'trinity' itself. Trying to read INTO the Bible something not really offered in such a manner.
Do the physical aspects of our universe have any spiritual significance? Perhaps. But we are certainly not given such instruction. I have NEVER read a single line of scripture that even remotely refers to the moon as representative of the LAW.
Blessings,
MEC

Imagican · Jun 19, 2015

At one point we are ALL forced to make a decision concerning the Bible. Or even better, God's desire for us to UNDERSTAND.
While the RCC taught the congregation that it was the 'clergy' chosen to understand and then relay the information to the congregation, the TRUTH is, God's desire was for ALL to understand. That many would choose to make up their OWN understanding was merely a consequence of 'freedom of choice'.
So, if it is God's desire for us to UNDERSTAND what He has offered, it is up to US to diligently SEEK that understanding. And we do so by studying the scriptures. Comparing each line to all others in order to come to a more perfect truth. And it is ONLY when our understanding doesn't bring conflict to OTHER lines of scripture that we can rest assured that our understanding is correct. If what we BELIEVE is in contradiction to ONE LINE of scripture, then our belief is obvious incomplete or outright INCORRECT. That is, IF we believe that the Bible is the inspired WORD of God and we FOLLOW what it offers concerning the method that we come to the TRUTH.
But the point is this: It would seem ludicrous to form a belief that the Bible is God's instruction and understanding offered to us yet it forces us to GUESS or SPECULATE or WONDER what it truly means. If it IS God's inspired "WORD" given to us for UNDERSTANDING, then the UNDERSTANDING isn't only POSSIBLE, it is imperative. It is without a doubt MANDATORY that SOME actually UNDERSTAND it. Otherwise it would be a useless tool.
God WANTS for us to KNOW Him. He sent His only begotten Son to TEACH us about Our Heavenly Father. He inspired men to write down what He revealed so that WE can read it and understand WHO He is.
The word 'begotten' is used numerous times in reference to Christ. EVERY single use of this word throughout the entire Bible is the SAME. When men multiply or breed or 'make babies', the word used in the Bible is 'to beget' and once accomplished the offspring is called 'begotten'. Why would ANYONE accept the idea that it means something DIFFERENT in reference to Christ? God is NOT a 'trickster' offering inane concepts that require us to FIGURE out on our own. His words are pretty clear and offered to bring about understanding. There is NO understanding in a MYSTERY. So either God revealed what He wanted us to understand or He didn't. If we have to GUESS, then the answer is that He DIDN'T. But if He did, then the understanding is there, it's just a matter of FINDING it.
Blessings,
MEC

DrBubbaLove · Jun 19, 2015

Imagican said:
The word 'begotten' is used numerous times in reference to Christ. EVERY single use of this word throughout the entire Bible is the SAME. When men multiply or breed or 'make babies', the word used in the Bible is 'to beget' and once accomplished the offspring is called 'begotten'. Why would ANYONE accept the idea that it means something DIFFERENT in reference to Christ?

I would suggest it is accepted because most people do not see God grunting over a female like some created animal to "beget" His Son.
Which is why people obviously way smarter than us, long ago phrased it "begotten not made" for a reason. And why similar smart folks before them, after the question was raised and was being taught/misleading the flock; obviously associated the meaning of "begotten" in scripture as it applies to Him far differently than the alleged "simple" answer here.

A simple question with a simple answer.

old dude

Dying to Live

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Well-Known Member

Dying to Live

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Dying to Live

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

old dude

old dude

Well-Known Member

Dying to Live

old dude

old dude

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency