A simple question with a simple answer.

[Imagican]

Well then, a number of responses but as of yet, not many even ATTEMPTING to give an answer. That was expected. For anyone that has accepted 'trinity', it would be something unanswerable and still maintain a belief in 'trinity'.

But guys and gals, I can ASSURE you that the words were/ARE offered for a REASON. They were not merely random words placed in scripture without ANY value.

I don't think that ANYONE can deny that the NT offers that Jesus IS the "Light" of this world. And the obviousness IS that this 'name' or reference is NOT according to PHYSICAL 'light'. It is some OTHER 'thing' that the word light is merely representative OF. You know, like "enLIGHTenment" or maybe even 'truth'. But certainly Christ is not the LITERAL 'light' that is produced from the SUN or a light bulb. It has some OTHER significance rather than LITERAL 'light'.

And it would seem LUDICROUS to believe that God created some form of DIFFERENT 'light' in the very beginning than THE light that is formed by the Sun or Moon or Stars, or a light bulb or lamp.

Well, it seems pretty OBVIOUS when we add all the evidence together, (minus 'trinity'), that it is not only POSSIBLE that the 'light' created in the VERY beginning is that SAME "Light" we call Jesus Christ, but MORE than LIKELY. For the words were NOT offered RANDOMLY and so far, no one else has offered any SEMBLANCE of an answer ACCORDING to the BIBLE. Just DENIAL of what I have offered.

So, for those that disagree with what I have offered, what IS the simple ANSWER to this SIMPLE question? Would God REALLY offer something and then NOT offer ANY explanation? What kind of edification can be obtained through offering something with NO MEANING?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[RevelationTestament]

Well then, a number of responses but as of yet, not many even ATTEMPTING to give an answer. That was expected. For anyone that has accepted 'trinity', it would be something unanswerable and still maintain a belief in 'trinity'.

But guys and gals, I can ASSURE you that the words were/ARE offered for a REASON. They were not merely random words placed in scripture without ANY value.

I don't think that ANYONE can deny that the NT offers that Jesus IS the "Light" of this world. And the obviousness IS that this 'name' or reference is NOT according to PHYSICAL 'light'. It is some OTHER 'thing' that the word light is merely representative OF. You know, like "enLIGHTenment" or maybe even 'truth'. But certainly Christ is not the LITERAL 'light' that is produced from the SUN or a light bulb. It has some OTHER significance rather than LITERAL 'light'.

And it would seem LUDICROUS to believe that God created some form of DIFFERENT 'light' in the very beginning than THE light that is formed by the Sun or Moon or Stars, or a light bulb or lamp.

Well, it seems pretty OBVIOUS when we add all the evidence together, (minus 'trinity'), that it is not only POSSIBLE that the 'light' created in the VERY beginning is that SAME "Light" we call Jesus Christ, but MORE than LIKELY. For the words were NOT offered RANDOMLY and so far, no one else has offered any SEMBLANCE of an answer ACCORDING to the BIBLE. Just DENIAL of what I have offered.

So, for those that disagree with what I have offered, what IS the simple ANSWER to this SIMPLE question? Would God REALLY offer something and then NOT offer ANY explanation? What kind of edification can be obtained through offering something with NO MEANING?

Blessings,

MEC

The main problem as I see it with your interpretation is that Jesus says He is the day star. He is the morningstar. In other words He is the light to the world like the sun. He is the Sun coming up in the morning to light the world. Elohim says this sun was created after He said let there be light. To just guess that this light is somehow the begottenness of Jesus should not be taken lightly and is not something self-evident. OK, I've said my piece for the reader.
Carry on

 

[daq]

Well then, a number of responses but as of yet, not many even ATTEMPTING to give an answer. That was expected. For anyone that has accepted 'trinity', it would be something unanswerable and still maintain a belief in 'trinity'.

But guys and gals, I can ASSURE you that the words were/ARE offered for a REASON. They were not merely random words placed in scripture without ANY value.

I don't think that ANYONE can deny that the NT offers that Jesus IS the "Light" of this world. And the obviousness IS that this 'name' or reference is NOT according to PHYSICAL 'light'. It is some OTHER 'thing' that the word light is merely representative OF. You know, like "enLIGHTenment" or maybe even 'truth'. But certainly Christ is not the LITERAL 'light' that is produced from the SUN or a light bulb. It has some OTHER significance rather than LITERAL 'light'.

And it would seem LUDICROUS to believe that God created some form of DIFFERENT 'light' in the very beginning than THE light that is formed by the Sun or Moon or Stars, or a light bulb or lamp.

Well, it seems pretty OBVIOUS when we add all the evidence together, (minus 'trinity'), that it is not only POSSIBLE that the 'light' created in the VERY beginning is that SAME "Light" we call Jesus Christ, but MORE than LIKELY. For the words were NOT offered RANDOMLY and so far, no one else has offered any SEMBLANCE of an answer ACCORDING to the BIBLE. Just DENIAL of what I have offered.

So, for those that disagree with what I have offered, what IS the simple ANSWER to this SIMPLE question? Would God REALLY offer something and then NOT offer ANY explanation? What kind of edification can be obtained through offering something with NO MEANING?

Blessings,

MEC

Perhaps if you would not have rebuked my response on page one you would have already seen the correct answer come up by now, (which is not the one you assume or were looking for). So at this point all I wish to say is that you quoted the scripture right from the start in the OP but apparently only see what you want to see in that passage which you quoted. In the beginning Elohim cut-down-created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the abyss. And Ruach Elohim fluttered-brooded, (like a dove) upon the face of the waters. Only after these statements did Elohim say "Let there be light". Yet you say that Elohim created light when the scripture says no such thing. Can you show me where in Genesis it says that Elohim CREATED light? And it certainly does not say any such thing BEFORE Elohim created the heavens and the earth which is clearly stated in Genesis 1:1. You have the light being "created" after the heavens and the earth, (even though the earth was yet formless and void). Tisk, tisk.

 

[EarlyChristianresearcher]

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

From the research I've done, light & darkness can be symbolic of spirituality. In other words, light is an ancient Christian type of that which gives truth, lights up a path to be seen better, the true way. In contrast, darkness is often associated with types of ignorance, evil deeds done in the dark, the Dark Ages, for example. In some earlier bibles, like Genesis A & B, some of them don't start with the creation, they start with a pre-Adam drama, pre-existence of souls. Depicting the council in heaven, the war in heaven, & Satan & his angels fall from heavn. The pre-existing Christ morning over the fallen angels fall from their former bright nature into darkness. I wonder if this might be your answer.

 

[Imagican]

So this "created" light then cannot be the same thing Saint John speaks of - "the Word" by which "all things" created were made. The NT appears very simply to declare that God the Father created everything "that is", through/by His Word which was "with Him" in the beginning. And clearly His Word is His Son, Jesus Christ.

Am not sure how to see it as being simpler to suggest the NT and specifically Saint John really meant that everything that "is" was made by the Son except Himself, which is suggested by saying the Son is the "light" created first by His Father and then everything else by the light.

Saint John did not say in the beginning "after" the Father made His Word/Son/the Light. So I cannot agree it would be simpler to understand the creation story one way and have the NT contradict that understanding.

I would also not agree that it is simpler to hold an understanding of the Father being at some point without His Word - as it suggests a God evolving and also in need (lacking something) at least until one has Him making "the light".

It doesn't NEED to say, 'after God MADE the 'light' BEFORE everything else' in those words. The words USED are sufficient to find proper UNDERSTANDING.

How about this: What if God was JUST God BEFORE He became a FATHER? What if it was JUST God, and at the moment that the LIGHT was 'created', He BECAME a "Father". That PREVIOUS to the 'creation' of His Son, He was JUST God. Not a Father, JUST God. And at the moment that He said, "Let there be light", His Son was BEGOTTEN? What IF?

But you see, 'trinity' eliminates even the ability to CONTEMPLATE such an IDEA. Yet the words of the Bible would indicate this VERY IDEA.

I have often pondered if 'trinity', once embraced, isn't capable of altering one's ENTIRE ability to PERCEIVE. Not ONLY in regards to that which pertains to 'religion', but ALL aspects of one's LIFE. It often appears that there is a long road that leads to EVERYTHING, but for those that embrace 'trinity', right after the first turn in the road, there is an impassable WALL that forces them to STOP right there. Impossible to get past it.

Can't see THROUGH it, around it, under or above it. Just this WALL that STOPS one from ever KNOWING if there is even something ON the other side. I sometimes wonder if 'trinity' doesn't BLOCK the ability of one to even contemplate that there is ANYTHING other THAN the 'wall'. For that is what it seems when one tries to discuss the BIBLE with those that have embraced 'trinity'. They are ONLY interested in the bits and pieces that they can CONFORM to 'trinity'. The rest they treat as fodder. Just random words without meaning if they cannot be USED to somehow back up their 'blessed trinity'. Like "TRINITY" is MORE important than what IS offered in the Bible. More important than the Bible itself. If I am wrong, forgive me, I am only able to perceive what I can perceive and I can ASSURE you, I am NOT 'trying' to make anything up. I am offering an open and honest evaluation of my experience with 'trinity'.

What is MORE important: doctrines created, introduced and perpetuated by MEN? Or..............what we have been offered by GOD through His Word? My answer would be God's Word. For it is obvious that men can MAKE UP things that are as far AWAY from the truth as the edges of the universe. So if God is TRUTH, then I would choose to place MY faith in HIS Word rather than words or concepts created by MEN. For not a single person can convince ME that there has EVER been a SINGLE 'man', other than Christ, that was TRULY in TOUCH with God, His Father, without ANYTHING else getting in the way. The only OTHER man that came close was PAUL.

So what kind of a FOOL would I be to let men come along hundreds of years later and create a completely NEW God and NEW Son and then follow THEIR teachings above and beyond the Bible itself?

And folks, this has been a dilemma in the 'Church' since it's formation, (the RCC that is). Many men who READ the scriptures finding something completely DIFFERENT within God's Word than those later introduced by MEN. It has PLAGUED 'the Church', (RCC), since the FIRST time a MAN recognized that they are NOT as 'inspired' as they have so often INSISTED.

I would offer: If one simply uses the RECORD of the RCC as a guide to their accuracy in defining God's Word, they probably have a worse record than the Babylonians. For just about ANYTHING that can possibly be PROVEN, the RCC has been proven WRONG in their teachings. If everything that CAN be proven points to their inaccuracy, then what REASON would ANYONE have to trust them in ANYTHING ELSE? Especially in the 'creation' of their OWN God through the doctrine of 'trinity'?

In the beginning is in reference to that which pertains to US: MANKIND. The creation of LIFE. Everything preceding the creation of LIFE itself, was IN THE BEGINNING. In the 'beginning' was NOT an individual ACT of an event, it was the EVENT itself. ALL that led UP to the creation of that which was the PURPOSE of 'creation': MANKIND, was 'in the beginning'.

But for some reason, 'trinity' seems to eliminate the understanding of THIS simple concept. For it is not 'a' trinitarian that seems to find this concept unacceptable, it is ALL 'trinitarians'. They are ALL in the same boat as to WHERE that 'wall' was constructed that keeps them from being able to SEE that there is SOMETHING on the other side. The path does NOT END. There IS NO END to it. Especially not a WALL built by MEN. That only impedes one's PROGRESS down the path. But, BUT, if you can SEE the wall, recognize it being in the WAY, then there is a PATH on the other side that continues on and on in TRUTH. Truth is NOT limited and does NOT have an END. It is ETERNAL just as God is eternal and so too is His Son, NOW. There is NO END to the LIGHT. Once created, it shall not be extinguished except in the minds and hearts of them that choose to LIMIT their understanding of it.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

From the research I've done, light & darkness can be symbolic of spirituality. In other words, light is an ancient Christian type of that which gives truth, lights up a path to be seen better, the true way. In contrast, darkness is often associated with types of ignorance, evil deeds done in the dark, the Dark Ages, for example. In some earlier bibles, like Genesis A & B, some of them don't start with the creation, they start with a pre-Adam drama, pre-existence of souls. Depicting the council in heaven, the war in heaven, & Satan & his angels fall from heavn. The pre-existing Christ morning over the fallen angels fall from their former bright nature into darkness. I wonder if this might be your answer.

Oh my, WHO are YOU, my friend. You have ALMOST condensed it down to something of substance. You have ALMOST come to the 'deeper understanding' POSSIBLE if one STOPS letting MEN get in the way.

The Bible basically teaches us that 'in the beginning' is NOT in reference to THE beginning, but in 'the' beginning of that which pertains to US: MANKIND. But by exposing a TIME before 'the beginning' of mankind, there was MUCH that took place.

There was rebellion and war in heaven BEFORE 'in the beginning' of that which pertains to MANKIND. And in that rebellion and war, Satan and the angels that followed him were 'cast out' of the realm in which God and the other angels exist. It is referred to as Heaven.

We don't know HOW LONG this 'war' lasted. A DAY or a BILLION, TRILLION years. ALL we KNOW is that it took place and ultimately God prevailed. But instead of DESTROYING the defeated 'enemy', God cast the enemy OUT of His dominion and DOWN to this earth.

It is MY understanding that Satan existed BEFORE 'the heavens and earth' were 'created'. It is MY understanding that this is the CAUSE of Satan's rebellion. Instead of choosing Satan to bestow the honor of creation upon, God created a 'Son' and gave His Son this honor. And THAT is what caused Satan to rebel. It wasn't MERELY a matter of pride. It was what SPARKED the pride that caused him to rebel. His jealousy and envy are what sparked the PRIDE that led to his rebellion. He HATED Christ for being given what he thought should be HIS.

And we have the words offered that Christ WATCHED as Lucifer was cast out and fell to the earth like a shooting star. Yet we are offered NOTHING pertaining to Christ being involved with the 'war'. Not a word about Christ FIGHTING in this battle. But we are told that in the END it will be a battle between Satan and Christ. The indication is that the Son wasn't READY to do battle YET. And that God would take the TIME to TRAIN the Son in order to be ABLE to defeat the enemy. We have already SEEN the FIRST step in this 'evolution of the Son'. When He took on the flesh, He OVERCAME the Devil here on Earth. Now it's just a matter of time before an actual BATTLE is engaged and the Son will then DEFEAT the Devil. Not only OVERCOME, but DEFEAT.

I know, I know. JUST speculation RIGHT? I don't THINK so. But, hey, not here to give a complete Bible lesson, just to discuss the 'creation of the light'.

But it would seem that understanding isn't 'just mine' as some would insinuate. It would seem that there ARE others that have actually come to the same conclusions. For there is MORE to understanding than the few words we are offered in the Holy Bible. But one must SEEK in order to FIND. And if one STOPS seeking as soon as they THINK they have the answers, the chances are they will NEVER find anything beyond the point that they STOPPED LOOKING.

And, do you KNOW what LED me to a 'deeper understanding'? The 'churches' INABILITY to sufficiently ANSWER any of the questions that I asked. That: "Well Mike, we are NOT meant to understand EVERYTHING", response that I continually got when asking what I considered IMPORTANT questions. I didn't want to KNOW EVERYTHING. Just the basics in TRUTH. And it seemed that the 'church' was MORE ignorant as to the answer to those questions than I WAS. At least I was able to SEE enough to ASK them. And it seemed that the 'church' had STOPPED trying to understand before any SIGNIFICANT understanding had even been discovered. And I am NOT ALONE. There are MANY that have come to the EXACT same conclusions. At one time I FELT all alone, but the internet has made it possible to find information that was extremely difficult before. And it seems that the 'church' is so adamantly AGAINST anyone SEEKING the TRUTH that they did what they were able to MAKE the information difficult to obtain. But now I have most of the combined information of MANKIND at my fingertips and there are MANY that have come to understand EXACTLY what I have offered. They are just NOT a part of the 'mainstream denominational institution' that others CALL the 'church' now days. The apostles told us that there would ALWAYS remain a remnant until the end. That there would ALWAYS be a FEW that were able to resist the influence of this world and FIND the TRUTH and MAINTAIN it. And we were also instructed that the world would HATE US. It would find our words FOOLISHNESS. That the institutions of men would SHUN us and treat us just like they treated Christ.

But LOOK at how 'trinity' has been EMBRACED by 'this world'. There are probably MORE believers in 'trinity' than any other concept pertaining to God ON THIS PLANET. And THAT, my friends, is utterly contradicted by the Bible. The Bible itself PROVES that 'trinity' cannot be TRUTH. For if it were, then very FEW would embrace it instead of the majority of the population of this planet. NEVER are we instructed that the MAJORITY of the world would embrace the TRUTH, but just the opposite.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Perhaps if you would not have rebuked my response on page one you would have already seen the correct answer come up by now, (which is not the one you assume or were looking for). So at this point all I wish to say is that you quoted the scripture right from the start in the OP but apparently only see what you want to see in that passage which you quoted. In the beginning Elohim cut-down-created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the abyss. And Ruach Elohim fluttered-brooded, (like a dove) upon the face of the waters. Only after these statements did Elohim say "Let there be light". Yet you say that Elohim created light when the scripture says no such thing. Can you show me where in Genesis it says that Elohim CREATED light? And it certainly does not say any such thing BEFORE Elohim created the heavens and the earth which is clearly stated in Genesis 1:1. You have the light being "created" after the heavens and the earth, (even though the earth was yet formless and void). Tisk, tisk.

Well then, pardon me for being 'so dense'. I have to admit, I'm only able to understand what I am able. Perhaps, if you were less cryptic in your offering, just came out and STATED what you mean, I may be more inclined to understand what it is that you believe.

I believe that the scriptures STATE that the 'light' WAS created AFTER the realm in which the earth exist and the earth itself. For the scriptures STATE that there was NOTHING but DARKNESS at 'that time'. It was only AFTER the creation of the 'light' that the heavens and earth were GIVEN form. According to scripture that is.

So what did I miss. What does 'let there BE light' mean to YOU if not INTRODUCTION? If I said, "let there be LIFE", what would you take that to mean? That life ALREADY existed? Or that the words, "let there BE life" was the very INTRODUCTION of LIFE?

If you actually have an answer that is able to be discerned by a simpleton such as myself, I'm game. But maybe you should pretend that you are indeed speaking to a simpleton, no, don't pretend, believe that you are speaking to a simpleton and put it in terms that a simpleton can understand. For so far, you couldn't have been MORE cryptic to ME.

I have read NOTHING 'into scripture'. I have simply taken it at FACE value as I BELIEVE it was offered. Not cryptic in any manner. Simply offered to simple people. And offered for the PURPOSE of understanding, not confusion. For there is NO true edification in 'confusion'.

I eagerly await your response.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

The main problem as I see it with your interpretation is that Jesus says He is the day star. He is the morningstar. In other words He is the light to the world like the sun. He is the Sun coming up in the morning to light the world. Elohim says this sun was created after He said let there be light. To just guess that this light is somehow the begottenness of Jesus should not be taken lightly and is not something self-evident. OK, I've said my piece for the reader.
Carry on

I appreciate your response.

Ok, 'day star', 'morning star', the Lamb of God, Savior, Son, these are all names or expressions of Christ. But that doesn't negate that "Light" is also one of these. Not MY interpretation. It is stated OUTRIGHT that Jesus IS "THE" Light of this world. But you certainly don't believe He is the SUN? Do you? And if not PHYSICAL 'light', then obviously some 'other FORM' of light. Or maybe the word is SYMBOLIC. As in it is IMPOSSIBLE to SEE without LIGHT. But "light" can merely be COMPREHENSION instead of PHYSICAL light. And what 'comprehension' matters MORE than any other? TRUTH. And wouldn't it be through TRUTH that 'creation' took place? If it is REAL it MUST be the "TRUTH". If it took a specific manner for 'creation' to be performed, then that manner MUST have been the TRUTH. For if it was anything BUT the truth, then creation wouldn't have been possible.

Why does it have to be 'guesswork' to read the words offered IN THE BEGINNING, "Let there be light". And then move forward into the 'story' which IS the Bible to the place where it STATES that Jesus IS THE LIGHT of this WORLD. It seems pretty straight forward, (if one doesn't let 'trinity' get in the way), pretty OBVIOUS. And then add to these words: I am the BEGINNING of the creation of God. The firstborn of every creature. I think that a picture starts to develop. I personally believe that it couldn't BE more obvious. I don't really FEEL that it's GUESSWORK so much as COMPREHENSION. in other words, is there UNDERSTANDING possible in the words offered by God? Or were they meant to be 'just another MYSTERY' like 'trinity'? I choose to believe that they have meaning that is simple enough for a CHILD to understand. Jesus IS the Light of this world. But we KNOW He isn't PHYSICAL 'light'. In the VERY beginning God said, "Let there be light". And we KNOW it wasn't PHYSICAL light for the SOURCE of physical light wasn't created until the FOURTH day. Well let's SEE, ONE plus ONE equals............TWO, (unless you are a trinitarian of course and then somehow you can make ONE out of multiple numbers added together).

So, if one eliminates the concept of 'trinity', what else gets out of the way of the 'light' being created in the VERY beginning BEING the Light of this world: Jesus Christ? Two uses of the term LIGHT that are not PHYSICAL light. I would say that's some pretty compelling evidence that these TWO offerings of 'light' may well be the SAME. Unless, of course, YOU KNOW of a THIRD form of 'light' that hasn't been mentioned yet.

And let me assure you of this: When I post here on the forums, or speak to ANYONE concerning God or His Son, I have NEVER taken it 'lightly'. When I speak out against the concept of 'trinity', it is in NO WAY, shape or form something I consider LIGHTLY. I feel like I have done ENOUGH homework through the study of scripture and history to make the statements that I do with a bit of authority. You may assume that my offerings are trivial, but to ME they are often MONUMENTAL. They just don't always conform to 'traditions' of MEN.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[EarlyChristianresearcher]

Imagican,

What you've written about the war in heaven, etc., has got me thinking about those earlier bibles & early Christian types. It's interesting too, that in Rabbinical-Jewish legends, there is also a war in heaven, the fall of the angels, etc., too. (Angelo S. Rappoport, Ph. D., Ancient Israel Myths and Legends, (New York: Bonanza Books, 1987), 3 vols in 1, see chapter on The War in Heaven). The book of Enoch translations details the war in heaven, uses light & darkness as types, lists & names some of the fallen angels & the perversions they would teach amongst the children of men. The Dead Sea Scrolls, has a section that talks about a battle between the sons of light against the sons of darkness.

Thus, I wonder if God divided the light from the darkness, could be in reference to the pre-existence, the council in heaven, (A 2nd century early Christian writing, that was even considered scripture & part of earlier canons, by some early Christians; The Shepherd of Hermas, tells how, Christ: "The Son of God is indeed more ancient than any creature; insomuch that he was in council with his Father at the creation of all things." Hermas 3, Similitude 9:110, in The Lost Books of the Bible & the Forgotten Books of Eden, (USA: World Bible Publishers, Alpha House, Inc., 1926), 255. Another translation reads: [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a fellow-councillor with the Father in His work of creation: for this reason is He old. The Shepherd of Hermas, Book 3, Similitude 9, chapter 12. ) T[/FONT]he war in heaven & our Divine Parents separating the sons & daughters of darkness from the sons & daughters of light. (Job 1:6-7, etc., 3:5-9, 10:21-22; 12:22; 38:1-24, etc. ) Our Divine Parents? (Family in Heaven, Eph. 3:14-15). Because the bible does talk about 'let us' make man in our image, & us, means more than just one. Who was made? A male & female. Thus, our Divine Parents dividing the sons & daughters of darkness from the sons & daughters of light, after the war in heaven, & Satan & his followers were cast out of heaven. (Gen. 1:4). Gen. 2:4-5, also talks of the "generations of the heavens," before there was "a man to till the ground." Pre-existence of souls. There are also earlier bible illustrations & art depicting the falling rebel angels, showing them as bright angels at first, who change during their fall from former bright angels thus darkening during their fall from heaven. (See: Bible of Robert de Bello- England S- E- Canterbury 1240 1253 Historiated initial with scenes of Genesis). The Forgotten Books of Eden also talk of Adam & Eve's former bright natures, before their fall, how that Christ would come & rescue them from the underworld & restore them back to their bright former natures. It also tells of how Satan went in amongst them to temp them & try to claim he could show them how to return to their former state of glory. However, Satan is exposed as Satan's monsterous black nature is revealed to Adam & Eve, after Satan tried to get Adam & Eve to follow him. After Satan & the rebel angels fall, numerous art works show the fallen angels changed into dark, even black skinned monsterous creatures. Color symbolism, black symbolic of evil, sins, dark thoughts, demonification, in contrast to white, symbolic of light, purity, having been cleaned or washed white of sins. Black skins was considered to be symbolic of pre-mortal sins, which thus could determine the types of conditions one was born into. This belief was one of the issues raised during the Council of Constantinople, 553 AD, and was so serious that they'd anathma those who still held to the belief.

Whitesunday, whitsuntide, whitsunday was symbolic of the white robes of baptism, or resurrection, & 1 Cor. 15, uses the stars, moon, & sun as types of different degrees of glory of resurrected bodies, to contrast between them, in the light they give off. Stars, falling stars, (Rev.12), are often symbolic of spirits too, fallen angels, with a certain amount of light that shine from them, as in contrast to the moon & sun's glory. The Virgin Mary often has a moon under her feet, one of her symbols. The early Christian fathers also likened Christ like unto the sun, that lights up the darkness of the underworld, & shines forth upon the whole world, a type of his world wide treks. Candles in windows lit the wandering Christ's-child's way in some Christmas traditions. Orthodox Christians have a beautiful drama of lighting candles & spreading the light of the resurrection after the Anastasis drama. The Priest knocks on a door, a type of Christ at the gates or doors to hades. On the other side, is heard a voice, of who is it. The King of Glory, right out of Psalms 24:7-10.

Clement of Alexandria, wrote that Christ, upon, "...being communicated most speedily to men, having dawned from His Father's counsel quicker than the sun, with the most perfect ease[,] He made God shine on us." Further on Clement wrote that Christ, like this "Sleepless light is now over all, and the west has given credence to the east. For this was the end of the new creation. For "the Sun of Righteousness," who drives His chariot over all, pervades equally all humanity, like "His Father, who makes His sun to rise on all men," and distills on them the dew of the truth." Clement also wrote that Christ was the "guide of all humanity."[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic]The Ante-Nicene Fathers[/FONT][/FONT], Vol.2, p.202-3, [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic]Exhortation To The Heathen[/FONT][/FONT], chap. x, & p.223, [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic]The Instructor[/FONT][/FONT], Bk.1, chap. 7; Note that Clement hints to the council in heaven. You Tube: [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic]Come Receive[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic]

[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT,Italic]Thee the Light from the Light.
[/FONT][/FONT]

You Tube: The lighting of the paschel candle, or pascha night. The lighting of one candle that lights up others, and spreads out from

there. ​

​

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Candle+lighting+of+Orthodox+churc
h%2C+Pascha&sm=12

Reminding us of Isaiah 9:2, of how the people that walk in darkness have seen a great light, for Upon them hath the light shined. In baptismal rituals you'd face the west, to renouce Satan & all his pomp & works, the west, where the sun goes down, symbolic of darkness & evil, (thus all the references to its use, Dark Lord, Lord of Darkness, The Black One, Black magic, etc). Then, the one being baptized would face the east, to announce their acceptance of Christ, or the Trinity, in some cases. The east, where the sun rises), light, resurrection types, often Christians are buried head facing west, feet east, so when they rise up in the resurrection, they're facing the "first morning of the resurrection," the direction of where the sun rises. Thus, Whitesunday, Easter time, white bonets, white new clothing, in contrast to the reversal of baptismal robes of whiteness, as in Satanism, Black hooded robes, black cloaks, Black Sunday, Black Sabbath (satanic musicians love to wear black, symbolic of their dark satanic lyrics & anti-Christian & anti-Christ messages in their lyrics. Historic Christianity uses color symbolism, as does the Jewish cultures too. Thus, I wonder if all these things could be taken into account with Genesis 1 in modern bibles, which no longer start with the pre-existence, as many earlier bibles & bible illustrations did. In mystery plays of the creation, the Tanners, who tan animal skins to dark or black colors, would play the part of the devil & demons. So, it makes me wonder now about present bibles' Gen. 1.
​

 

[DrBubbaLove]

See, you are ALLOWING the 'trinity' concept to cloud your ability to SEE. You are trying to say that you can't SEE how it could be DIFFERENT. But the only thing that would complicate the matter IS 'trinity'. What you are basically saying is that for what I'm offering to be TRUTH then "trinity" would be destroyed. But instead of SAYING this, you are trying to indicate you can't SEE how it could be any other way.

Hardly, am simply saying I find the understanding presented not as "simple" as was suggested.

In the 'beginning' was NOT a singular event. It was a SERIES of events. We don't have to guess at that. Creation took place in an ORDER.

I will agree the versions of creations stories at the beginning of the Bible depict a series of event. Am unclear why anyone should think God incapable of either doing all that instantly or over eons, or why they would want to limit God to a simple literal rendering of those stories. Nor do I think that the sequence or time interval was the point of those stories. The over riding theme is that everything that is created was made by Him, and He clearly existed before all we see was created.

Now, you indicate that John's words would contradict what I have offered. I say you only WANT John's words to contradict what I've offered. But what about this: What ABOUT the words straight out of the Bible that would contradict John's words as you have offered them.

Actually the same Saint that wrote the Gospel I referenced also wrote the last book of the NT, so it would be kind of making him skitzo to suggest Saint John meant two different things by those statements.

He clearly says Jesus was with God in the Beginning (Jn 1:2), which could only be understood as meaning with the Father. He just as clearly says Jesus was God (Jn 1:1) and quotes Saint Thomas declaring Him God.(20:12). So much so that His Gospel becomes the basis for the Church's defense of His Divinity. Saint Paul says same in his letter to Titus (2:13). Saint John says clearly in verse 3: of his Gospel:
"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

Which compounds rather than simplifies any understanding of Gen 1-4 which suggests (in this strict 'series of events' "simple" rendering, that the Father created Heaven and Earth first before "creating" His Son. It would have us believing for some reason that Saint John meant, everything that has come into being - except for Heaven and earth. So no, I cannot agree that it would be "simple" to read/understand Gen 1-4 that way.

Christ STATES that He IS: 'the beginning of the creation of God'. Well, instead of a need for you to TRUST my words, let me QUOTE it straight out of the BIBLE:

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God

Since we are quoting a quote from a vision by the same guy that wrote that everything that is, came to be through Jesus, (the Word, the Light),
I cannot agree it would be simpler to suggest Saint John heard Jesus say that He was the first thing God made, especially since (following the "strict series" used to arrive at this "simple" understanding of Gen 1-4), the Heavens and the earth were the beginning of God's creation, not the "Light".

BTW this passage in Saint John's vision is used by many to prove His being God, not deny it. IOW it is saying He is the Alpha - whether one looks at it as reference to THE beginning/Creation or the beginning/creation of the Church

So which fits BETTER?

I was not addressing a fit, but since it was mentioned, I certainly would not consider a view of any particular issue from the Bible a good fit when the rendering/understanding of one section of the Bible contradicts other passages, which I think this particular rending does.

My point is this particular rendering of Gen1-4 is not simple, at least not when taken with other passages of the Bible, especially those that reference the creation story.

Your idea that EVERYTHING was created through Christ? [\quote] I believe this to be so, but it is not my idea. It is taught by the Church and seems clear, especially in the declarations of Love and Divinity by Saint John.

Or that 'all things pertaining to LIFE' were created through Christ. For the Bible PLAINLY says that 'in the VERY beginning God created the Earth and the heavens. But that at the VERY beginning they were VOID and without FORM. And at that TIME, in the VERY beginning, there was ONLY DARKNESS. And His NEXT words were, "Let there be light". And we KNOW that Christ, the Son of God, IS the LIGHT of this world. And we KNOW that neither Christ or this light created in the VERY beginning was 'the' PHYSICAL light that was created FOUR time periods, (days), LATER.

No am saying it is not simple to ignore what Saint John said in reference to these same passages in difference to the idea that God (the Father) created part of our world and Jesus only the living portions, especially since the same Saint declares He is God. There is no distinction made by the Saint regarding all things living.

So you see, it COULD fit John's words. But it certainly CANNOT fit John's words or most others as defined by "TRINITY". You are trying to say that ALL things were created through Christ. But we KNOW that God's existence was not 'created' by Christ. We also know that to be in existence, something MUST BE 'someWHERE'. So where ever God EXISTED was NOT of a necessity 'created by Christ'.

Am familiar with "created" things needing to "be somewhere". Am unfamiliar with the concept of being somewhere associated with God, at least not in an orthodox Christian view of God. And since Saint John declares Jesus is God, I do think it a simpler rendering of the Bible in that regard to see Him as uncreated (same as the Father and Holy Spirit)- Jesus existing before "anything was" and being the "I am".

 

[mmksparbud]

(Rev 21:23) And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.


(Rev 22:5) And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well then, a number of responses but as of yet, not many even ATTEMPTING to give an answer. That was expected. For anyone that has accepted 'trinity', it would be something unanswerable and still maintain a belief in 'trinity'.

But guys and gals, I can ASSURE you that the words were/ARE offered for a REASON. They were not merely random words placed in scripture without ANY value.

I don't think that ANYONE can deny that the NT offers that Jesus IS the "Light" of this world. And the obviousness IS that this 'name' or reference is NOT according to PHYSICAL 'light'. It is some OTHER 'thing' that the word light is merely representative OF. You know, like "enLIGHTenment" or maybe even 'truth'. But certainly Christ is not the LITERAL 'light' that is produced from the SUN or a light bulb. It has some OTHER significance rather than LITERAL 'light'.

And it would seem LUDICROUS to believe that God created some form of DIFFERENT 'light' in the very beginning than THE light that is formed by the Sun or Moon or Stars, or a light bulb or lamp.

Well, it seems pretty OBVIOUS when we add all the evidence together, (minus 'trinity'), that it is not only POSSIBLE that the 'light' created in the VERY beginning is that SAME "Light" we call Jesus Christ, but MORE than LIKELY. For the words were NOT offered RANDOMLY and so far, no one else has offered any SEMBLANCE of an answer ACCORDING to the BIBLE. Just DENIAL of what I have offered.

So, for those that disagree with what I have offered, what IS the simple ANSWER to this SIMPLE question? Would God REALLY offer something and then NOT offer ANY explanation? What kind of edification can be obtained through offering something with NO MEANING?

Blessings,

MEC

Could it be said it is just a obvious that the light being created in Gen 1-4 is physical light since it states it was separated into day and night?

Would also be leery of anyone suggesting the Bible contains or was even meant to contain all the answers or that God intended for man to "know" everything He knows.
There are plenty of passages suggesting He is beyond our comprehension/imagination. So again, laugh at Trinity Doctrine all one likes, which BTW was never intended to "fully" explain God - it only came about as a defense against what others claimed about God, the Father, Jesus and the Spirit - so it is really more of what God is not teaching rather than a full explanation of something we obviously cannot come close to comprehending. Trinity aside, my point remains that what is being offered here as simple is simply not.

 

[mmksparbud]

In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[4][5] In this sense, gamma rays, X-rays, microwaves and radio waves are also light. Like all types of light, visible light is emitted and absorbed in tiny "packets" called photons, and exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area in modern physics.
Light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So---there is visible light and invisible light, which is not something that was known back then, but the fact God created light before the sun is stated anyway. Up until the finding out of the invisible light spectrum that statement was felt to be a problem to explain--I was under the impression that that question was settle many years ago

I posted this on page one--is this still the problem???

 

[Imagican]

Hardly, am simply saying I find the understanding presented not as "simple" as was suggested.
I will agree the versions of creations stories at the beginning of the Bible depict a series of event. Am unclear why anyone should think God incapable of either doing all that instantly or over eons, or why they would want to limit God to a simple literal rendering of those stories. Nor do I think that the sequence or time interval was the point of those stories. The over riding theme is that everything that is created was made by Him, and He clearly existed before all we see was created.
Actually the same Saint that wrote the Gospel I referenced also wrote the last book of the NT, so it would be kind of making him skitzo to suggest Saint John meant two different things by those statements.

He clearly says Jesus was with God in the Beginning (Jn 1:2), which could only be understood as meaning with the Father. He just as clearly says Jesus was God (Jn 1:1) and quotes Saint Thomas declaring Him God.(20:12). So much so that His Gospel becomes the basis for the Church's defense of His Divinity. Saint Paul says same in his letter to Titus (2:13). Saint John says clearly in verse 3: of his Gospel:
"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

Well, here we go again, letting 'trinity' get in the way. Jesus is NOT God so the words written by John obviously mean something different than you have been taught or come to believe. Even according to 'trinity' Jesus is NOT God. Jesus is ONE of three persons that make up ONE God. If that is true, then God cannot be God without any one of the three persons. That means that EACH would actually be ONE THIRD OF GOD.

But I prefer to understand that the Father is God and Christ is His Son. Exactly as presented in the Bible. Jesus plainly stated that the WORD of God He delivered was NOT HIS OWN. So this utterly DEFEATS the idea that Jesus is God's Word. God's Word is God's Word. Or do you really think that whenever God has spoken throughout eternity it was in the VOICE of Jesus? In other words, do you see it as Christ being God's MEGAPHONE? The vessel THROUGH which God speaks. You know, like instead of Moses speaking directly to God, he was actually only hearing the VOICE of Christ?

If John had meant to depict Jesus AS God's Word, I think he would have SAID it. Instead he offered the cryptic words that have been used to try and MAKE Jesus God instead of the Son of God. Simply capitalizing the 'w' doesn't REALLY mean it was MEANT to be capitalized.

Which compounds rather than simplifies any understanding of Gen 1-4 which suggests (in this strict 'series of events' "simple" rendering, that the Father created Heaven and Earth first before "creating" His Son. It would have us believing for some reason that Saint John meant, everything that has come into being - except for Heaven and earth. So no, I cannot agree that it would be "simple" to read/understand Gen 1-4 that way.
Since we are quoting a quote from a vision by the same guy that wrote that everything that is, came to be through Jesus, (the Word, the Light),
I cannot agree it would be simpler to suggest Saint John heard Jesus say that He was the first thing God made, especially since (following the "strict series" used to arrive at this "simple" understanding of Gen 1-4), the Heavens and the earth were the beginning of God's creation, not the "Light".

Once again, you are trying to insist that the FIRST thing created was ALL concerning IN THE BEGINNING. An eternity existed BEFORE 'in the beginning'. A BILLION things could have transpired 'in the beginning'. As like, 'in the beginning the earth was void and without form. But in that SAME beginning God separated the light from darkness. And in that same beginning God made the oceans. And in that same beginning God separated the water from land............................. Here is what I would offer: 'in the beginning is in reference to the first two chapters of Genesis: Creation. Wasn't CREATION the 'beginning'? And if we are going to look at it from YOUR perspective: ALL of creation. Wouldn't ALL creation BE 'in the beginning'?

BTW this passage in Saint John's vision is used by many to prove His being God, not deny it. IOW it is saying He is the Alpha - whether one looks at it as reference to THE beginning/Creation or the beginning/creation of the Church
I was not addressing a fit, but since it was mentioned, I certainly would not consider a view of any particular issue from the Bible a good fit when the rendering/understanding of one section of the Bible contradicts other passages, which I think this particular rending does.

I disagree. I believe that it is your RENDERING of other passages is what doesn't FIT. You have a preconceived notion that MAKES it 'not fit'. No different than WANTING to see Bigfoot can manifest itself into SEEING Bigfoot, (even though the brown-haired, unidentifiable creature behind the trees was actually a bear). You have limited what you can see by accepting something that would make it impossible to see PAST it. Therefore ANYTHING that may contradict what you have allowed to influence your understanding CAN'T POSSIBLY have an merit. To admit it would require you to admit that what you have placed your faith in may not BE the complete, or even PARTIAL 'truth'. I DO understand.

My point is this particular rendering of Gen1-4 is not simple, at least not when taken with other passages of the Bible, especially those that reference the creation story.

Your idea that EVERYTHING was created through Christ? [\quote] I believe this to be so, but it is not my idea. It is taught by the Church and seems clear, especially in the declarations of Love and Divinity by Saint John.

No am saying it is not simple to ignore what Saint John said in reference to these same passages in difference to the idea that God (the Father) created part of our world and Jesus only the living portions, especially since the same Saint declares He is God. There is no distinction made by the Saint regarding all things living.
Am familiar with "created" things needing to "be somewhere". Am unfamiliar with the concept of being somewhere associated with God, at least not in an orthodox Christian view of God. And since Saint John declares Jesus is God, I do think it a simpler rendering of the Bible in that regard to see Him as uncreated (same as the Father and Holy Spirit)- Jesus existing before "anything was" and being the "I am".

I don't believe I have chosen to ignore anything. I believe that it is through the TOTALITY of scripture that we find the TRUTH. Not in individual lines that may or may NOT contradict each other.

And I understand this: You have been QUICK to try and point out what 'the light' ISN'T, how about explaining to us what it IS. If the 'light' formed in the VERY beginning wasn't LITERAL physical LIGHT, then what was it?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jven according to 'trinity' Jesus is NOT God. Jesus is ONE of three persons that make up ONE God. If that is true, then God cannot be God without any one of the three persons. That means that EACH would actually be ONE THIRD OF GOD.

If one reads what is taught as the Trinity Doctrine, one could never make such statements. The Persons are independent but still One Being.

And regardless of what one thinks is the meaning behind "the Word of God" or whether one believes the Three are indeed One, it is still true that Saint John says Jesus was there when everything was created and that NOTHING that is was not made through Him.

So even if one tosses out the teaching of the Trinity Doctrine, Saint John does not make the distinction needed (between living and non-living) required to arrive at one Divine Being making some stuff including another divine being who then makes every thing living. I do not need the Trinity Doctrine to that rendering of Gen 1:1-4 to see that it does not work with what Saint John clearly says about "everything that is".

"2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

 

[Imagican]

Could it be said it is just a obvious that the light being created in Gen 1-4 is physical light since it states it was separated into day and night?

Would also be leery of anyone suggesting the Bible contains or was even meant to contain all the answers or that God intended for man to "know" everything He knows.
There are plenty of passages suggesting He is beyond our comprehension/imagination. So again, laugh at Trinity Doctrine all one likes, which BTW was never intended to "fully" explain God - it only came about as a defense against what others claimed about God, the Father, Jesus and the Spirit - so it is really more of what God is not teaching rather than a full explanation of something we obviously cannot come close to comprehending. Trinity aside, my point remains that what is being offered here as simple is simply not.

Let me ask this: When the Bible speaks of darkness and light, is that PHYSICAL or SPIRITUAL? In other words, those that are living in DARKNESS, is there NO PHYSICAL light involved with their lives? Or is this in reference to SPIRITUAL 'darkness'.

So, with this in mind, is it possible that the use of the terms day and night LITERAL or SPIRITUAL? If a thousand years to God can be as ONE day, what does PHYSICAL light have to DO with that 'one day' to God?

Once again, you have openly ADMITTED that 'trinity' is 'getting in your way' so far as being able to SEE the answer as a 'simple' one. But I'm game, YOU TELL us what that 'light' was that was created in the VERY beginning.

I offer this to YOU and anyone else that insists that MY answer couldn't possibly be the TRUTH: give us a BETTER answer as to WHY those words are GIVEN to us for UNDERSTANDING. OR, do YOU believe that they were WASTED words. Words uttered with NO meaning?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

(Rev 21:23) And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.


(Rev 22:5) And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

So you suppose that this might be due to something SPIRITUAL instead of PHYSICAL?

And I always LIKED these passages for they offer insight into something that we ARE discussing here: Christ is the GLORY of God. Not Christ IS God. For it STATES that the LAMB is the LIGHT itself, the GLORY of God.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Norah63]

Pure scripture, goodfor our edification.

 

[Imagican]

Let me ask another simple question:

Before Christ was manifest in the flesh. That means back when Christ was instrumental in 'creation'. Do we have ANY indication from the Bible that Christ LEARNED things? In other words, isn't it obvious if I said, "I went to school and leaned mathematics", that PREVIOUS to my 'going to school', I DID NOT KNOW mathematics. That there was a TIME in my existence that I DID not KNOW mathematics.

Now, is there ANYTHING in the Bible, (words offered), that would INDICATE or even outright STATE that Christ LEARNED things BEFORE being manifest in the flesh?

And if so, doesn't that MANDATE that if there was ANYTHING that He LEARNED before being manifest in the flesh, that there was a TIME BEFORE He learned. A time when He did NOT KNOW what He later LEARNED?

Guys and gals, I do NOT approach this discussion without ammo. I have read the Bible more times than any other book I have read in my life, (and I was always one of those boneheads that would rather read a GOOD book AGAIN than take a chance on reading a BAD one. I have read a number of books like Jaws, many Stephen King books, books from my childhood, National Geographic magazines, books on snakes, various books on wildlife, (we had a pretty extensive library in our house growing up and I was ALWAYS a pretty big LIBRARY fan), MANY TIMES over the years. But NONE near as many times as I have READ completely through the Bible. And this doesn't even INCLUDE the YEARS of Bible STUDY I have done.

I am a relatively simple man. Self educated. I graduated from High School and went to college a couple of times but never completed any sort of degree. But from a very early age I became an avid READER and throughout public school, the tests we took to evaluate our progress, my scores in reading and comprehension were always LIGHT years beyond my grade level. When we took those tests where you read a number of paragraphs and answer ten question about what was read, from discussing the tests with other students, (friends and such), they stated that they had to go back and read the paragraphs over and over to find all the answers. The ONLY time I had to go back and LOOK at the words were to answer a question involving NUMBERS or NAMES. But as far as the MEANING of what I had read, I NEVER had to GO back and read it AGAIN. I UNDERSTOOD what I read and the answers were OBVIOUS. When I was in eighth and ninth grade, my assessment scores were second and third year college.

I'm not bragging. What I AM doing is offering that these test clearly pointed to a WAY above average comprehension level. It meant something then it and it means just as much NOW.

I couldn't care less what MEN have chosen to TEACH other men. I rely strictly on Bible and Spirit to guide my understanding. I REFUSE to let the teachings of MEN interfere. For there is not a single man on this earth or that has EVER been on this earth than bring about my Salvation EXCEPT Christ. I have YET to find THE man that is the representative of Christ ON this earth.

So what the 'churches' have come to accept and believe are OBVIOUSLY nothing other than 'man made doctrine'. And the apostles CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY instruct us NOT to accept ANY doctrine that was NOT defined BY THEM. "Trinity" wasn't even IMAGINED until over a hundred years AFTER the death of the last apostles. And it took HUNDREDS of years LATER for the doctrine to actually be formed into it's present state. It EVOLVED over TIME. From it's first IMAGINING until the 'church' was able to MAKE it a DOCTRINE, (law of the CHURCH). NOTHING concerning 'trinity' was EVER uttered by a SINGLE apostle. not ONE word concerning 'trinity'. Never mentioned BEFORE the apostles. Never mentioned by Christ, or the apostles OF Christ. Not a SINGLE word concerning 'trinity'. And I can assure you, I have read the Bible more times than I can remember. Many of those times SPECIFICALLY LOOKING for a SINGLE word, single sentence, ANY indication of 'trinity' and it is NOT there.

Then a cursory study of it's history plainly reveals that it was a PURELY man made doctrine. It started as a basic attempt to define the essence of Christ compared to God. Then it evolved over and over to the point that the DOCTRINE of 'trinity' was FORMED by MEN. And men that were torturing and murdering each other in the NAME of Christ. Hmmmm............Christ's message was forgiveness, yet here was a group of men that were torturing and murdering each other in the NAME of Christ. Can't you SEE what that means? They were NOT followers of Christ. They were SIMPLY using the NAME of Christ. They had created their OWN Christ which ALLOWED them to torture and murder in HIS name.

Matthew 7 PLAINLY illustrates EXACTLY what I'm talking about. READ it YOURSELF:

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


This PLAINLY illustrates that those being referenced were MERELY 'using His NAME'. If He did NOT know THEM, then they did NOT KNOW HIM. The ONLY logical conclusion is that those being referenced were worshiping a DIFFERENT Christ. They had attached the NAME of Christ onto a Christ of their OWN design. They were doing things that they BELIEVED were righteous but in TRUTH were doing them in reference to a NAME only. A NAME created by MEN who led them to believe that they were following in TRUTH when in fact, those that TAUGHT them to USE the name didn't even KNOW Christ. The ONLY conclusion is that the men that STARTED this trend had created their OWN version of Christ to FIT their OWN ideas. They were NOT following the will of God and their FRUIT bears witness of what it was that they were TRULY following: a FALSE Christ. A FALSE God. A God and Christ of THEIR OWN design. And that design DEFINED by their OWN doctrine. A doctrine utterly contrary to that introduced by Christ and the apostles.


Blessings,


MEC

 

[Imagican]

Pure scripture, goodfor our edification.

Amen!!!

But it would seem that some think that we aren't MEANT to understand scripture. That God offered words in scripture with NO meaning or meaning that is beyond our comprehension. And THAT, to ME, is ridiculous. If it had no meaning, if it was impossible for us to understand, He wouldn't have OFFERED it FOR understanding.

I have asked a SIMPLE question. A question pertaining to SCRIPTURE offered by God. And scripture that I can assure everyone reading this was offered FOR our UNDERSTANDING. Yet no one has been able to offer a REASONABLE answer. Instead of even attempting, most have simply told ME that MY 'simple answer' is WRONG according to DOCTRINE that they have ACCEPTED and FOLLOW.

But what about the REASON for the offering? Why was it offered if NOT for our edification. And there can BE NO edification OUTSIDE of understanding. If I SAY something that YOU don't understand, there can be NO mutual UNDERSTANDING. Just MY words and YOUR confusion. And God is NOT the 'author of confusion'.

Norah, I don't know if you agree or not. But I DO KNOW that you recognize the TRUTH so far as there MUST be a REASON that God offered us the words He has in scripture. And it can have NO significance WITHOUT meaning. So that DICTATES that EVERY WORD we are offered in the Bible is FOR UNDERSTANDING. It doesn't DICTATE that EVERY man WILL understand, but it DOES dictate that SOMEBODY must understand or the words were USELESS.

I can assure EVERYONE reading this: the apostle John KNEW what that 'light' was that was 'created' in the very beginning. He SPEAKS of it in the first chapter that he penned. And his words STATE that the 'world' was created by the Light. Get it? The WORLD. it does NOT state that the heavens and the earth itself were created by the Light. But in reference to the WORLD is it referring to LIFE. The Light is the LIFE of men. And that same Light was instrumental in the very CREATION of LIFE. What existed PREVIOUS to the LIGHT is irrelevant to our Salvation. While it may offer edification so far as understanding of EVENTS, it offers NOTHING so far as Salvation is concerned.

John the Baptist bare witness of the COMING of the LIGHT. he was NOT the Light but TOLD those that listened that the LIGHT was coming. He was telling those that listened that God's SON was coming. God's SON is the Light.

So, what IS the 'light' that was created in the VERY beginning. These words would NOT have been offered without CAUSE. They WERE offered for our edification. And as of yet, I have YET to hear anyone offer any SORT of explanation that could bring about EDIFICATION: understanding.

Blessings,

MEC