Was Jesus the first creation of God ?

by enquirer 117 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • zen nudist
    zen nudist
    Simply put I would offer the position that Jesus is refered to as the "god" of the Christian, in the NT literature. Whether you want to believe that to be polytheistic, or as some kind of imparted godhood, he IS refered to as such. He is also refered to as being the one through whom all things were created.

    I'm not here identifying him with the Father, nor am I alluding to some mysterious conjoining (as seen in the Trinity doctrine), but simply taking what the NT has to say about him, in connection with this thread title.

    now since this is what I took you to mean the first time you posted it, it seems that the question is not the problem but your rejection of my answers.

    1. if you mean NT literature to include all writings by church fathers outside the bible, I would have to say yes, they did consider Jesus as a god or even part of The God, even Arius who rejected the trinity held that Jesus had a god status which he believed was granted to him by the father and the real quarrel seemed to be about the length of his godhood not its reality.... he believed that Jesus did not exist at some point and thus could not be as his contemporaries claimed, ever god, eternally god, etc.

    2. if you are confining yourself to the bible alone, I find no one in it claiming to have Jesus as their god. Their Lord, or master, yes, much as any loyal jew could hold their king as lord and master, but under God, the father. I find there are few verses which trinitarians claim to show otherwise, but they are not very clear, they are certainly not attempts to teach something new, but most often just salutations which seem to be altering nothing, but rather assuming the reader already understood what was meant.

    3. I find without ASSUMING a trinitarian point of view, but ASSUMING what is acknowledged as the traditional jewish point of view, that no verses teach that Jesus should be viewed as God.

    4. I do find verses which indicate a belief that Jesus pre-existed his human nature in a divine nature, but a divine nature not different from angels... and certainly lower than that of God.

    so if you find verses which seem to TEACH that NT authors believed Jesus as their God, I would like to see them...I find none.

  • zen nudist
    zen nudist
    I would submit that the NT identifies Jesus as the one involved in the conference of Genesis regarding "let us make man in our image", that it was he who was "especially fond of the sons of men", that it was he who showed the compassionate and reasonable face of the OT God and allegedly demonstrated that in human form in the NT, and that the connection between YHWH and Jesus is potentially made in various places.

    How about a few verses that you think show this?

    I think the traditional Jewish version is that the elohim included the beni-elohim or heavenly host in total, of which a pre-existant Jesus would be one.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Zen:
    I suspected you might struggle, but the apology still stands, as one man's perception...
    I actually wrote:

    Are you so blinded by the fear that this thread may cause you to accede to a single point, that may be deemed Trinitarian, that you cannot see the wood for the trees? Please, try taking off the anti-trinitarian glassses for a moment, and re-read what I posted. Please.

    To reword it, to hopefully give some clarity, I was asking "are you afraid of countering your own argument about the Trinity". The whole paragraph went together, as it was intended, I did plead with you...

    Nonetheless, lets move on...

    Onto your next post - why on earth would I want to limit my consideration to merely the bible? I did hint that you might not know my position regarding it. I would however direct you to John 20:28, since you seem to specifically want to see Jesus deified in any respects by anyone in the bible.

    At least, with this post, you are confessing that you are starting from a point of assumption, that being the "traditional Jewish" one. I'm glad we've got that clear, because I was attempting to discuss this froma point of no bias whatsoever.

    Onto your final post - I already showed you that I see Jesus as Bene-Elohim. The NT calls him the only-begotten son (bene). MY point merely rests on whether or not we can identify "the Word" as YHWH, as in fact some translators of the NT into Hebrew have done.

    You ask for verses about Jesus being involved in the creative process (and hence almost certainly the discussion seen in Genesis one). How about the very passage that this thread was sparked by: Col.1:16?

    I'm intrigued by your passion, regarding this. Is it really "only an academic puzzle" to you?

  • zen nudist
    zen nudist
    Onto your next post - why on earth would I want to limit my consideration to merely the bible? I did hint that you might not know my position regarding it. I would however direct you to John 20:28, since you seem to specifically want to see Jesus deified in any respects by anyone in the bible.

    this is used by many trinitarian, but if you read carefully what I am saying, it is NOT someone TEACHING someone something alien, its a statement of shock, amazement, humility, fear, etc...but certainly not someone teaching us the reader that we should see Jesus as God... I hear people saying OH MY GOD to me all the time, and I just tell them, they need not be so formal, they can call me Ric.

    At least, with this post, you are confessing that you are starting from a point of assumption, that being the "traditional Jewish" one. I'm glad we've got that clear, because I was attempting to discuss this froma point of no bias whatsoever.

    the myth of objectivity abounds but is meaningless... words do NOT contain meaning but trigger experiences... if we share experiences with the author we get what they are pointing too. now if you grasp that you see there is no such thing as non-biased, we must assume who we are speaking to or reading from to get an inkling of what they are trying to point to...Even then we may be wrong, as in this case there is no real way to confirm our guesswork....and this is where the problems lie...

    those who are taught about a trinity as part of orthodox belief are reading the bible with that idea already in their minds and when they find a verse which SEEMS to support it, they reinforce that belief. from all the history I have read I find no validity to the notion that the jews of the first century, which would include Paul and the other bible writers with the exceptions of luke and mark... believed in anything other than one god as the father alone. I find no evidence that anyone but pagan converts formulated the beliefs which lead directly to the trinity...which was an easy step for them considering that their concepts of what constitutes a god was far more flexible.

    Onto your final post - I already showed you that I see Jesus as Bene-Elohim. The NT calls him the only-begotten son (bene). MY point merely rests on whether or not we can identify "the Word" as YHWH, as in fact some translators of the NT into Hebrew have done.

    I find NO translators save for one possible slip in Hebrews associating Jesus or the Word with YHWH other than the association of father and son.

    You ask for verses about Jesus being involved in the creative process (and hence almost certainly the discussion seen in Genesis one). How about the very passage that this thread was sparked by: Col.1:16?

    no I asked for no such thing.

    I'm intrigued by your passion, regarding this. Is it really "only an academic puzzle" to you?

    I am not sure what ulterior motives you are seeking, I don't care if you believe Jesus was God or not when it comes to your personal beliefs or faith, or even if you believe he was a real person, which I certainly do not.... I think he was a gnostic myth invented by Paul to help jews see the pagan mysteries which he was initiated in [see THE JESUS MYSTERIES]

    as a JW, I did not take the WT's word for seeing no trinity in the bible...instead I got a note book and started jotting down every verse I could find which mentions Jesus and God, Jesus and the father, the holy spirit, etc...and I came up with over 125 verse and the overwhelming conviction that JWs were right...at least for the most part...I think they were dishonest about hiding one verse that they translate as Lord, when they KNEW it is a quote from the OT where YHWH or Jehovah was used... I would not have known about it had I not read it in their own books though.

    as a JW for over ten years, I argued about the trinity with many different people of different christian persuasions and it became a challenge for me to find the way or means to show them they were mistaken...which of course I rarely did...but after being a JW and after being a christian the question of why I met with so little success became my overriding reason for continuing this with others.... not to mention my little brother who was never a JW got into it on his own and found me a rich source of knowledge about the subject when he started arguing with others about it for his own reasons which I figure is some sort of mental virus that infects people from time to time and they need to get it out of their system....

    there may be one motive you can say give me my passion: I find it very enjoyable to get someone to see my point of view in whatever subject I am interested in whether I am right or wrong, not just the trinity, because I have a rare brain wiring condition that makes it hard for me to share how I see the world. I have no need to do so because I have accepted that much of how I see the world will always be alien to some, so there no longer a sense of failure if I do not succeed, no obsession to convert anyone, just joy when get feedback which seems like I got through to someone...even if they think I am wrong.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Zen:
    LOL - I do the same, when folks say things like that around me. My usual response is "well, He aint likely to help you!!"
    I suspect that John wasn't inserting some humour into the situation, though. Thinking about it in it's context, it would have been blasphemy, and should have elicited a response from Jesus. John doesn't record any such correction.

    The reason it's used by Trinitarians is because it so clearly indicates a situation where Jesus is deified (regardless of whether you are Trinitarian, Oneness or Polytheistic). When you then go to the extra-biblical sources, as you know, the argument increases exponentially.

    Regarding bias, I agree, it's hard to shrug that. Acknowledging it is the first step. The difficulty is that it's all too easy to over-compensate, when trying to be neutral.

    I honestly don't want to drag this into the Trinity arena, because I think we can successfully discuss the topic without getting into that debate, but I would just state this. I was raised as a third gen JW, with over 30+ years experience as a JW, giving Public Talks for over seven years and having taught both outlines against the Trinity doctrine. I abhorred it. Here in Scotland, I got to argue against it on a regular basis (at least monthly).
    With a simple reading of the bible I came to the conclusion that the NT deifies Christ.

    Like you, I enjoy discussing ideas. Convincing another person is not my aim, but it's nice when you see the lightbulb go on, and you realise that they've perhaps seen something from a different angle, regardless of whether or not they change their opinion

    So, to what extent do you believe Jesus was involved in creation (as per your reading of ancient literature)?

  • zen nudist
    zen nudist
    So, to what extent do you believe Jesus was involved in creation (as per your reading of ancient literature)?

    here is what I have come to actually believe about the entire situation....

    reality cannot be created nor destroyed...its like an eternal ocean of something, call it spirit for lack of a useful term.... waves upon this spirit became conscious, us...

    but we are like one born into a dream, unable to see anything but the waves, we have no sense of the ocean which causes them... we are blind deaf and dumb to "GOD" The Generator Of Diversity.

    in the distant past, the mystery schools had their start...what they taught seems to be myths and legends and stories about a great hero who is a god that becomes human to teach us the way...is violently killed and rises from the dead... this theme is found over and over again in many cultures, likely spread by the trade routes... the hero with a thousand faces --Joseph Campbell.

    the purpose of the mysteries seems to be to help us learn what we infact actually are, but indirectly because we reject instantly the very thing they teach directly, namely that not only are we these waves upon the ocean that is unknown to us, but we are infact this ocean too... we are GOD.

    according to a recent book THE JESUS MYSTERIES, the legend of Jesus began as a jewish-helenistic revision of these very stories, complete with the twelve signs of the zodiac, the traditional apostles. the story gets distorted in the retelling, especially by those not initiated into the mysteries and is taken literally by the ignorant who become CONviNcED that Jesus actually existed...which of course is the opposite message that was intended, namely that WE are the ONE the story is really about. By making Jesus a real person seperated from us and then deified as part of God, he is forever NOT US and we never attain what was intended, the enlightenment behind the original story and the understanding of our trueself...the ocean of spirit which dreams of being men.

    So yes, the story tellers make Jesus divine, but not as part of GOD seperated from us, but as a symbol of GOD which is us...

    the catholics further muddy the waters by inventing the non-sensical doctrine of creation ex nilo... from nothing, because this guarentees that no one will get the idea that they can become ONE with GOD as Jesus' prays [John 17] without using the CHURCH as a bridge. The actual hebrew word Bera [to cut something off of a tree] means to MAKE something already existing into something else...not to create from nothing...

    the Greek concept of the divine logos [logic, wisdom. etc] being the first aspect of God and involved in the MAKING of all things, speaks to the conscious waves arising from the eternal GOD ocean and FORMING things into what we find.... the Logos was WITH, GOD as the dream is within the dreamer....and the LOGOS was GOD.... there dream and dreamer are not seperate..not one,not two... the dream became reality and all of reality that was dreamed was made by the dreamer.... the world we KNOW is our own mental invention, the dream.

    see www.geocities.com/jiohdi/reality.jpg for a visual aid in seeing our delemna as to knowing our true nature... the dreamer can realize he is dreaming, become a lucid dreamer...he can break free of the trance state that we so often find ourselves in while dreaming, to REALIZE that we are dreaming...but the dreamer can never use a single item found in his dream to point to and know his true nature...nothing in the dream is that.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Gah, I lost my first reply!

    Basically I pretty much agree with most of what you posted, if I'm understanding you correctly.
    Maybe I just read the bible differently from your Catholic [friends / readings].

    Genesis one has the world being created out of something that was "formless and void" but preexisting.

    The NT theology has Christ as indwelling the "believer", and them becoming more and more like him (the personification of "love") until they are like him, partakers of the "divine". Joint-heirs.

    We start blind but can be enlightened, start "un-alive" but are born spiritually.
    The dream analogy is a good one

  • zen nudist
    zen nudist
    We start blind but can be enlightened, start "un-alive" but are born spiritually.
    The dream analogy is a good one

    or as some say: the flesh is nothing [elements of the dream have no actual reality] and the spirit is everything [true reality].

    damn, agreement is always chat death.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Zen:

    damn, agreement is always chat death.

    Yeah. I'm sure I can find something more to disagree with you about, though

    or as some say: the flesh is nothing [elements of the dream have no actual reality] and the spirit is everything [true reality].

    Ah, I disagree with this.

    Is the physical really not "real"?

  • zen nudist
    zen nudist
    Ah, I disagree with this.

    Is the physical really not "real"?

    in a dream I had right after my second past life regression session, I found myself inbetween lives in a world that was made to ease the transition... I asked someone there who seemed to be in charge... why it was I could still remember "this world" while I was in "the inbetween world" but I could not remember the "in between world" while in "this world"

    while most of what he said vanished, everything was crystal clear before and after his explanation [not meant for this world yet], his last words were... P T Barnum... which triggered in my mind "there's a sucker born every minute", to which I replied--- "yes, but this world [the inbetween one] is ALSO a MENTAL creation, right?" He walked over to a window over looking a city I had not know in this world, and tapped on the frame and said: "It's as real as real gets" to which I protested, "but it is still in the mind, right? he did not answer...but another who seemed to be in charge looked at an object in the room and that object of its own accord lept into the air... demonstrating to me that I was correct, mind was the place where this was happening....

    A year later, I was in Kansas City on business for three week...without much to do at night, I read a book on out of body experiences and it had a section for experimenting... I tried for two solid weeks without results but then I got this sudden urge to snap my fingers on my right hand....and after doing so I noticed something remarkable... there was my right hand, elevated off the bed in the position just after snapping my finger...there was also my "other" right hand lying on the bed next to me where it had been during the meditation excersize....I felt both at the same time, they both felt like MY right arm and hand, I could not tell which was the "real" one...and then the excitement snapped them back together and I got up... I did not acheive out of body, but I did know with certainty now that those who had were not lying about the experience, because it does seem quite real...but I realized something more important....

    I had struggled since my past life regression to try to make sense of something that seems impossible... how could it be that a mind could be seperated from its body? there seemed to many things that made them two sides of the same coin...to lose one seemed to be the end of the other and vice versa...but this experience showed me something that clicked with my prior years dream.... as real as real gets... is not real at all...it just SEEMS real.

    the body I know, is not my REAL body, but an image within my mind, it is NOT real and my apparent seperation from my body was no such thing, it was another body IMAGE being formed with the first one...BOTH were still within my mind. when a person acheives full out of body, they are actually acheiving the creation of a new body icon or symbol with a different point of view within their own mind...they are able to see the contents of their mind from the point of view what seems to be someone outside their body.

    everything we KNOW is actually activity in a mapping that our mind makes... when we sleep that activation of parts of this very same map compared to no activity areas is perceived as real... when awake the apparent sensory activated portions of the map make the "thought" portions seems unreal BY COMPARISON....but if you meditate or take hallucinagenic drugs, you alter the levels of the map activations and you confuse the thought with the "presumed real" and even may think the thought is the real and the real is the thought.

    but in all cases it is just mental images and symbols we KNOW, dreams...none of them ARE real, but may [note carefully] represent reality... but may not.

    if all of us...all the minds that exist...all the waves upon the one ocean... are sharing a common STORY, a shared hallucination, there would be no way to tell it from anything we think of as reality...because what is it that we think of as real anyway? the most obvious factors are consistancy, and the ability to share it with others.... but these factors ASSUME that others exist in the first place and that consistancy might not be acheiveable by another means such as simply a constant story being told to us on a sub-conscious level...hypnosis.

    I put it to you that the flesh is nothing because the flesh is just mental invention, not reality...spirit, not substance...thought perhaps nothing more...after all who do you KNOW who can go outside his own perceptions, his own mind and see its true source?

    the movies like THE MATRIX and THE 13TH FLOOR are based on this notion that reality as we perceive it is not from the "real" world, but another hidden source.... much of religious mysticism is based on the notion that another more real world exists and is hidden from us.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit