God Given Revelation? The Nature of Creation

[terraricca]

Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 31 2012,10:16)

Kathi, I believe that the offspring of God at the beginning of the ages proceeded from the Father, basically putting everything of the nature of the Father that could be put, into a “box”, mixing in a mind which allows independent thought providing a conscious interface to our reality and an unconscious interface to the spiritual side. I believe when He said “Let US make man in OUR image” the “image” that man was made after is body, soul, spirit. As to the manifestation having an image before the creation of our reality, not in my opinion. One point I want to be clear on I am not trying to persuade anyone at this time, I believe this revelation was given to me from God, but it was more of an understanding than facts, with much of it beyond words and yet I'm trying to describe it using… words. It does seem to fit right in with the whole scriptures (but my memory isn't what it used to be) however I've always been concerned about being deceived and the trouble is the nature of being deceived is your blind to it. That is why I have asked others here to “shoot holes in it” (from scripture) to make sure it does not miss the mark (or that I might be pointed in totally the wrong direction). I appreciate your approach you've done it with a gentle loving spirit, thank you. Wm

Wm

What about the first creation ,and the second things that God created ,man is his last creation not his first ,

[Lightenup]

William,

you said:

Quote

I believe that the offspring of God at the beginning of the ages proceeded from the Father, basically putting everything of the nature of the Father that could be put, into a “box”, mixing in a mind which allows independent thought providing a conscious interface to our reality and an unconscious interface to the spiritual side.

So, are you calling the manifestation “the offspring of God” and was that proceeding from the Father an act that happened at the time of creation? Would that be the begettal of the offspring of God…the Son? The firstborn of all creation?

Kathi

[Lightenup]

bump for William

[seekingtruth]

Kathi,
Sorry I've been very busy.

You asked:

Quote

So, are you calling the manifestation “the offspring of God” and was that proceeding from the Father an act that happened at the time of creation?

Yes, as the laws that govern our reality came into play, God was manifested, not as a creation but as a result of the impending creation.

Quote

Would that be the begettal of the offspring of God…the Son? The firstborn of all creation?

Of a sorts, however I believe the true begetting of the Son happened when the corporeal manifestation emptied himself and became the “seed” used to impregnate Mary.

My opinion – Wm

[seekingtruth]

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 31 2012,12:12)

Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 31 2012,10:16) Kathi, I believe that the offspring of God at the beginning of the ages proceeded from the Father, basically putting everything of the nature of the Father that could be put, into a “box”, mixing in a mind which allows independent thought providing a conscious interface to our reality and an unconscious interface to the spiritual side. I believe when He said “Let US make man in OUR image” the “image” that man was made after is body, soul, spirit. As to the manifestation having an image before the creation of our reality, not in my opinion. One point I want to be clear on I am not trying to persuade anyone at this time, I believe this revelation was given to me from God, but it was more of an understanding than facts, with much of it beyond words and yet I'm trying to describe it using… words. It does seem to fit right in with the whole scriptures (but my memory isn't what it used to be) however I've always been concerned about being deceived and the trouble is the nature of being deceived is your blind to it. That is why I have asked others here to “shoot holes in it” (from scripture) to make sure it does not miss the mark (or that I might be pointed in totally the wrong direction). I appreciate your approach you've done it with a gentle loving spirit, thank you. Wm Wm What about the first creation ,and the second things that God created ,man is his last creation not his first ,

Man as a self replicating soul was the last act (and the very purpose) of creation. The manifestation of God was as a result of laying a creation for a being like man.

My opinion – Wm

[seekingtruth]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 28 2012,11:42)

Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 28 2012,13:51) Kathi, Sorry, foundation may not of been the best choice of words to describe it, what I was referring to was the laws of physics, those that govern our reality (laws of gravitation, Laws of motion, Thermodynamic laws, etc.) these would need to be in place before matter was created. Thanks – Wm Good Original Post! You really should read the Quran it will help greatly. Many of the people here who have dug in deep on their own and have gotten certain conclusions would have found that there conclusions are already in the Quran.

I doubt it bd as my conclusion has God actually begetting a Son who died for the sins of all mankind (not to be mistaken for the belief that all men are saved).

My opinion – Wm

[seekingtruth]

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 28 2012,00:14)

Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 27 2012,21:07) Stu, Do you not know the purpose of the quotation marks around “claptrap”? Perhaps it is nothing more than literature, and poorly written at that. But the rantings of one who hates everything I believe in will do little to dissuade me. And how do you know I hate everything you believe in?  Is this all you believe?  I thought I made some good points but all you have for me is that I'm ranting.  And here you are making some claim about having stuff revealed to you by something you call a god?  Of course the Judeo-christian mythology is little more than a different version of the same kind of claptrap you have invented here.  We may as well include it as a chapter in that unfortunate tome for all the difference it would make.  Others replying here seem to think you are inconsistent with their scripture.  I'm not sure whether they appreciate how inconsistent scripture is already. Why do you deserve responses from people if you are then not going to engage?  Are you a helpless victim of these “revelations”? Stuart

Sorry stu, there are times I will gladly engage in a little one on one but as I stated at the opening of this thread I'm looking for scriptural reasons to doubt this belief and as I've told you before my whole worldview stems from the scriptures that you show so much disdain for.

Wm

[bodhitharta]

Quote (seekingtruth @ May 07 2012,21:09)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 28 2012,11:42) Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 28 2012,13:51) Kathi, Sorry, foundation may not of been the best choice of words to describe it, what I was referring to was the laws of physics, those that govern our reality (laws of gravitation, Laws of motion, Thermodynamic laws, etc.) these would need to be in place before matter was created. Thanks – Wm Good Original Post! You really should read the Quran it will help greatly. Many of the people here who have dug in deep on their own and have gotten certain conclusions would have found that there conclusions are already in the Quran. I doubt it bd as my conclusion has God actually begetting a Son who died for the sins of all mankind (not to be mistaken for the belief that all men are saved). My opinion – Wm

How is God actually begetting a son, like this?

Genesis 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

How did Adam beget his son and did God do the same thing to beget Jesus?

[seekingtruth]

bd,
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

I believe that Jesus was not conceived as a normal human is (through sex) but once the egg was fertilized all other aspects of the pregnancy and birth were typical and normal (for humans). It was at His birth He was born as the only begotten of the Father.

My opinion – Wm

[bodhitharta]

Quote (seekingtruth @ May 08 2012,11:41)

bd, 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. I believe that Jesus was not conceived as a normal human is (through sex) but once the egg was fertilized all other aspects of the pregnancy and birth were typical and normal (for humans). It was at His birth He was born as the only begotten of the Father. My opinion – Wm

Oay, so you are saying that he was not “begotten” the way a human is begotten right?

Doesn't that mean to use the word begotten could be confusing to those who only know “begotten” as a human act of sex. It's written all through the bible as a human sex act, so we can agree that God has not begotten a son in any human sex act, right?

[Ed J]

Quote (bodhitharta @ May 08 2012,16:38)

Doesn't that mean to use the word begotten could be confusing to those who only know “begotten” as a human act of sex.

Hi BD,

YHVH begot Jesus of a virgin (Matthew 1:23).
As Stu would say, loose the bronze age mentality.

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

[seekingtruth]

bd,
No it is not written “all through the bible as a human sex act” it is the result of, not the action. Until the seed is fertilized you have begot nothing.

beget
vb -gets, -getting, -got, -gat ; -gotten, -got (tr)
1. to father
2. to cause or create

Wm

[bodhitharta]

Quote (seekingtruth @ May 08 2012,22:40)

bd, No it is not written “all through the bible as a human sex act” it is the result of, not the action. Until the seed is fertilized you have begot nothing. beget vb -gets, -getting, -got, -gat ; -gotten, -got (tr) 1. to father 2. to cause or create Wm

Honestly, what do you think this means?

Jeremiah 29:6
Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.

Would it be fair to say that the term beget is used in the bible as an act that requires a man and a woman. For instance you said until the seed is fertilized (I'm sure you meant egg)

Now we know that God caused all to exist so are you saying that God begat all of creation the same way he begat Jesus?

I'm asking you this seriouslyso I need you to answer me as honestly as possible is the word beget that you are referring to in reference to Jesus the same as it is here?

Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Of course this psalm was written hundreds years before the Coming of Jesus so in what way do you believe it was meant at that time referring to David?

Or when hundreds of years before Jesus God said to Solomon

1 Chronicles 17:13
I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:

How are these examples different your apparent special usage of the same terms.

My point is you are saying that you agree with me that Jesus was CREATED or Caused to exist but you choose to use the word “beget” which insinuates the need of a partner to beget with as a man does.

[seekingtruth]

Quote (bodhitharta @ May 09 2012,08:17)

Quote (seekingtruth @ May 08 2012,22:40) bd, No it is not written “all through the bible as a human sex act” it is the result of, not the action. Until the seed is fertilized you have begot nothing. beget vb -gets, -getting, -got, -gat ; -gotten, -got (tr) 1. to father 2. to cause or create Wm Honestly, what do you think this means? Jeremiah 29:6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. Would it be fair to say that the term beget is used in the bible as an act that requires a man and a woman. For instance you said until the seed is fertilized (I'm sure you meant egg)

Yes I did mean egg, thank you. what I was trying to point out is sex can result in a child being begotten, but begotten is the results not the act that bought it about. however we can agree that Jesus was not conceived in any human sexual act. However once conceived the process was entirely human.

Quote

Now we know that God caused all to exist so are you saying that God begat all of creation the same way he begat Jesus?

No, God was manifested as a corporeal being as the laws that govern our creation came into being, then this manifestation was through whom all the work of creation was completed.

Quote

I'm asking you this seriously so I need you to answer me as honestly as possible is the word beget that you are referring to in reference to Jesus the same as it is here? Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Of course this psalm was written hundreds  years before the Coming of Jesus so in what way do you believe it was meant at that time referring to David?

We are told in Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, You are My Son; today i have begotten You.

Quote

Or when hundreds of years before Jesus God said to Solomon 1 Chronicles 17:13 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:

This states that Solomon was “adapted” not begotten.

Quote

How are these examples different your apparent special usage of the same terms. My point is you are saying that you agree with me that Jesus was CREATED or Caused to exist but you choose to use the word “beget” which insinuates the need of a partner to beget with as a man does.

JESUS WAS NOT CREATED so no I do not agree with you. As to beget “insinuates” the need of a partner but in the case of Jesus the seed was not delivered by a human sexual act as Mary was still a virgin.

Wm

[bodhitharta]

Quote (seekingtruth @ May 09 2012,16:52)

Quote (bodhitharta @ May 09 2012,08:17) Quote (seekingtruth @ May 08 2012,22:40) bd, No it is not written “all through the bible as a human sex act” it is the result of, not the action. Until the seed is fertilized you have begot nothing. beget vb -gets, -getting, -got, -gat ; -gotten, -got (tr) 1. to father 2. to cause or create Wm Honestly, what do you think this means? Jeremiah 29:6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. Would it be fair to say that the term beget is used in the bible as an act that requires a man and a woman. For instance you said until the seed is fertilized (I'm sure you meant egg) Yes I did mean egg. what I was trying to point out is sex can result in a child being begotten, but begotten is the results not the act. so we can agree that Jesus was not conceived in any human sexual act. However once conceived the process was entirely human. Quote Now we know that God caused all to exist so are you saying that God begat all of creation the same way he begat Jesus? NO Jesus was God's only begotten Son. Quote I'm asking you this seriously so I need you to answer me as honestly as possible is the word beget that you are referring to in reference to Jesus the same as it is here? Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Of course this psalm was written hundreds  years before the Coming of Jesus so in what way do you believe it was meant at that time referring to David? We are told in Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, You are My Son; today i have begotten You. Quote Or when hundreds of years before Jesus God said to Solomon 1 Chronicles 17:13 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee: This states that Solomon was “adapted” not begotten. Quote How are these examples different your apparent special usage of the same terms. My point is you are saying that you agree with me that Jesus was CREATED or Caused to exist but you choose to use the word “beget” which insinuates the need of a partner to beget with as a man does. JESUS WAS NOT CREATED so no I do not agree with you. Beget “insinuates” the need of a partner but in the case of Jesus the seed was not delivered by a human sexual act as Mary was still a virgin. Wm

Hmmm. Interesting you say that Jesus was not Created but begotten and yet the word begotten means to cause or create.

So if Jesus has been Fathered how does that occur without being caused to be created?

You said that psalms 2:7 clearly states that Solomon was “adopted” not begotten but look:

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Notice the adoptive language “I will be” and the use of begotten being pointed out as being a point in time “this day”

It reads like “on this day I have caused you to be my son”

We also agree that Jesus was not created by any human sex act showing that God did not need Mary to cause Jesus to be conceived which means Mary was caused to become pregnant without semen and she became the Mother of Jesus.

[bodhitharta]

If God is not a Male how then can he be considered an actual Father of someone other than as a metaphor?

[seekingtruth]

bd,
Sorry I was writing the post yesterday and had to leave so it got posted before I was ready. Today I was trying to complete it and noticed after an edit that you had already responded. So to set it straight.

I corrected this question as I didn't understand it correctly at the time – you had asked: “Now we know that God caused all to exist so are you saying that God begat all of creation the same way he begat Jesus?”
I changed my answer to: No, God was manifested as a corporeal being as the laws that govern our creation came into being, then this manifestation was through whom all the work of creation was completed.

Now I got to go again but I'll respond to the rest later.

Thanks – Wm

[Lightenup]

Quote (bodhitharta @ May 09 2012,12:29)

If God is not a Male how then can he be considered an actual Father of someone other than as a metaphor?

Hi BD,
I have been reading along but I have been busy with guests for the last couple of weeks. I have a question for you.

Do you believe that God can create a man to do something that He Himself cannot do?

You believe that God is eternal, right?

Why couldn't that eternal God not have an eternal offspring within Him who can be brought forth from Him at a specific time?

Can we really say that an eternal God couldn't have within Him an eternal offspring which He could bring forth (beget) from Himself?

What do you think?
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (seekingtruth @ May 07 2012,04:52)

Kathi, Sorry I've been very busy. You asked: Quote So, are you calling the manifestation “the offspring of God” and was that proceeding from the Father an act that happened at the time of creation? Yes, as the laws that govern our reality came into play, God was manifested, not as a creation but as a result of the impending creation. Quote Would that be the begettal of the offspring of God…the Son? The firstborn of all creation? Of a sorts, however I believe the true begetting of the Son happened when the corporeal manifestation emptied himself and became the “seed” used to impregnate Mary. My opinion – Wm

Hi William,

No problem, I have been busy too.

So, are you saying that the 'manifestation of God' was an offspring of God or not, before the ages.

Thanks,
Kathi

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 11 2012,05:50)

Quote (bodhitharta @ May 09 2012,12:29) If God is not a Male how then can he be considered an actual Father of someone other than as a metaphor? Hi BD, I have been reading along but I have been busy with guests for the last couple of weeks. I have a question for you. Do you believe that God can create a man to do something that He Himself cannot do? You believe that God is eternal, right? Why couldn't that eternal God not have an eternal offspring within Him who can be brought forth from Him at a specific time? Can we really say that an eternal God couldn't have within Him an eternal offspring which He could bring forth (beget) from Himself? What do you think? Kathi

Of course God can create a man to do something that He Himself cannot do. God IS ALL Powerful and IMMORTAL

Man is not ALL Powerful or Immortal, God cannot be Gay can He? There are tons of things that men can do that God cannot do.

Why would God need an “offspring” and who would he make this offspring with and if He would make it by Himself again what would be the point ince God could create whatever HE wants when HE Wants.

Second: something could never be an eternal offspring because if it is Eternal it is not an offspring

[Author]

Posts