Who made God?

[Jim Parker]

We only are suffering from the EFFECT of that sin....the loss of our intimate relationship with God...the distance created between us and Him.

The "effect" of sin is physical death.
We are separated from God by our choice to be self-willed rather than to be disciples (those under discipline) of Christ.
The temptation of satan by which Eve was deceived was that mankind could be gods by their own initiative. That desire to be god (we decide what is good and evil) is the basis of all sin. It is the choice to do our own will rather than to submit to God's will.

iakov the fool

 

[calvin]

Funny how no one saw it that way until the Protestants, in their rebellion against the Church which Christ founded, found it to be "too Catholic" 1600 years later.

Well it was aptly named a reformation after all said and done.

 

[GodsGrace]

The "effect" of sin is physical death.
We are separated from God by our choice to be self-willed rather than to be disciples (those under discipline) of Christ.
The temptation of satan by which Eve was deceived was that mankind could be gods by their own initiative. That desire to be god (we decide what is good and evil) is the basis of all sin. It is the choice to do our own will rather than to submit to God's will.

iakov the fool

Don't you believe that the effect of original sin is also spiritual death?
When we're born we are not in fellowship with God. We are slaves to sin, which Jesus has saved us from -- among other things.
§We have to WANT to be born from above and accept our atonement and our §Christianly life.

 

[GodsGrace]

Jim,
Chest and head pains, severe diarrhoea and nausia. I feel lousy today. A gastroenterologist sees me today.

Thank you for your prayers.

Oz

Hi Oz,
Sorry to hear you're not well.
Will keep you in prayer.
So much odd stuff going around.
Let us know...

 

[GodsGrace]

You're probably just lacking in your understanding Dan of Aramaic or Hebrew, and translated to Greek later. If you learn all the exceptions used in other languages, you'll probably come to the real understanding that Mary only had Jesus, and come to believe that the word Firstborn really had the meaning of Onlyborn, and was probably used figuratively. Don't we all know that Mary remained ever virgin? Just ask the majority of Christianity.

Eugene,
Personally, to me it's not very important whether or not Jesus had brothers or sisters.
I understand about the "cousin" concept and the language of the times.
Here in Italy there is no way of saying grandchildren!

The word for a grandson is "nipote".
Only problem is that nipote also means "nephew".
So good luck figuring out who a person is talking about.
It depends on the conversation and who they're talking about. Sometimes you just have to ask if it seems important to you.

However, how do you explain
Mathew 1:25
Joseph kept her a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born.

Do you only believe that Jesus had no brothers or sisters...which I could understand.
But you also believe Mary was ever virgin?
Could we be sure? (some churches believe doctrine that is not correct)
Is it important?

 

[Eugene]

Do you only believe that Jesus had no brothers or sisters...which I could understand.
But you also believe Mary was ever virgin?
Could we be sure? (some churches believe doctrine that is not correct)
Is it important?

That was said in jest dear sister. No I do not believe Mary remained ever virgin, I do believe she had other children with Jesus being HER firstborn (Lk 1:27) of physical brothers and sisters, but in the spiritual application also as we read of in Rom 8:29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Is correct doctrine important you ask? Of course, but only in the context of understanding other scripture. There is certain Christians that don't eat certain things for God. and others that eat all things, The ones that don't eat are called weak, but they too are received by our Lord (Rom 14:2-3). Let's take an illustration of misunderstanding, and how it's affected our most familiar traditional stories of Christmas, and that being the three wise men being at the manger. No they were not!

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Jerusalem? What in the world are the wise men following? It says Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem.
Matthew 2:9 When they (Wise men) had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. Did they hear the king immediately? I have no idea, but they didn't go to the manger.
Matthew 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him . . Now did the wise men abide with Mary, Joseph, and Jesus for a long time? Again I do not know.
Matthew 2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
Matthew 2:16 Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Now there's the possibility Herod didn't enquire of the wise men right away; I don't know but there were children two years old and under killed giving me the thought of the two years.
Thanks.

 

[Randy]

.
I see the question "Who Made God," and normally ignore this type of question because I have absolutely no idea as how to answer it. No matter what I would say would just show my ignorance somewhat akin to what I think of scientific proof.

I stumbled across this following item I'd saved, and I don't have the author's name, or if it was something I was in discussion of. I have not read all the replies on this thread, and this may be a repeat of something already posted.

What or how did all things come to be?
"In the beginning God . . "

Well what was before Him?
"In the beginning God . ."

What about all the scientific discoveries?
"In the beginning God . ."

There is no scripture that states how God came into being or even that God was made. I would question the premise "made". Now if one asked me where did God come from thats a easy answer "I don't know". What I do know from scripture is that God stated "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" and that God created all things that were created and they were created by His will and at His command. And what God created He created through His Son Jesus.

So if God was formed it wasn't by any other living being.

God=>"If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it."

 

[GodsGrace]

That was said in jest dear sister. No I do not believe Mary remained ever virgin, I do believe she had other children with Jesus being HER firstborn (Lk 1:27) of physical brothers and sisters, but in the spiritual application also as we read of in Rom 8:29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Is correct doctrine important you ask? Of course, but only in the context of understanding other scripture. There is certain Christians that don't eat certain things for God. and others that eat all things, The ones that don't eat are called weak, but they too are received by our Lord (Rom 14:2-3). Let's take an illustration of misunderstanding, and how it's affected our most familiar traditional stories of Christmas, and that being the three wise men being at the manger. No they were not!

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Jerusalem? What in the world are the wise men following? It says Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem.
Matthew 2:9 When they (Wise men) had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. Did they hear the king immediately? I have no idea, but they didn't go to the manger.
Matthew 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him . . Now did the wise men abide with Mary, Joseph, and Jesus for a long time? Again I do not know.
Matthew 2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
Matthew 2:16 Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Now there's the possibility Herod didn't enquire of the wise men right away; I don't know but there were children two years old and under killed giving me the thought of the two years.
Thanks.

Hi Eugene,

Of course doctrine is important. I meant that whether or not Jesus had brothers is not necessarily important to me.

Also, I of course agree about the magi. I often wonder if the gold they brought to Jesus was not used for the Holy Family's escape to Egypt where they remained till Jesus was about 7 or so. Based on when King Herod died.

I wouldn't call this doctrine --- it's the story of Jesus as retold by men, maybe to make it more interesting. At this point, it is so well known that most persons do not even know that it's not correct.

Thanks for bringing it up.
It's always good to hear the truth!

 

[Jim Parker]

Well it was aptly named a reformation after all said and done.

And where is the Biblical authority to re-form what was already formed by the early church? (Rhetorical question)

 

[calvin]

I wouldn't call this doctrine --- it's the story of Jesus as retold by men, maybe to make it more interesting. At this point, it is so well known that most persons do not even know that it's not correct.

Thanks for bringing it up.
It's always good to hear the truth!

Hi, calvin here.
Moreover, the flight to Egypt could not have taken place so soon after His birth as the traditions of men implies because He was circumcised on the eighth day and presented at the temple. Mary had to wait something like seven weeks or so for her purification to complete and she also had to present herself to the priests. see Leviticus Ch.12.
I agree 100% the gold and other gifts were needed to fund the exodus to Egypt.

 

[calvin]

And where is the Biblical authority to re-form what was already formed by the early church? (Rhetorical question)

Rhetorical reply::
Where is the Biblical authority to counter reform (by the Roman Church)what was already formed by the early Church? (Rhetorical question)

 

[Jim Parker]

Don't you believe that the effect of original sin is also spiritual death?

I'm not clear on what people mean when they say "spiritual death." (I'm not even sure what I mean! )
It seems to me that it could refer to the second death which comes after the judgment or it could be a hardening of the heart toward anything having to do with God.

When we're born we are not in fellowship with God.

That was Augustine of Hippo's view. Is that accurate? That's why he insisted on infant baptism.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
We are slaves to sin, which Jesus has saved us from -- among other things.
Note that even after Adam and Eve sinned, they were still in fellowship with God. (Gen 3:9 ff)
And even Cain was in fellowship with the Lord after he murdered Abel. (Gen 4:9ff)

§We have to WANT to be born from above and accept our atonement and our §Christianly life.

We must be drawn to Christ.
Jhn 12:32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

I believe we are born with a self-centeredness (feed me, change me, clean me, hold me) that, if not corrected in the child, will lead to hedonism in the adult. We will want to be the gods of our lives and will want everyone to cater to our needs. That is why it is so difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Not only does he act like he thinks he's a god but others treat him like he were a god, catering to his every whim.
That is why it is blessed to be poor. (Luke 6:20) The poor have no resources of their own and must rely on the grace and mercy of God.

It's food for thought.

iakov the fool

 

[calvin]

I was reading just the other day that the Roman church was working through a reformation of its own and Martin Luther was one of the reformers until he saw the light.
His reformation sort of delayed the Roman reforms, such that when they were resumed and completed they became known as the counter reformation.
Don't know for sure as I was not there, just saying...

 

[Jim Parker]

Rhetorical reply::
Where is the Biblical authority to counter reform (by the Roman Church)what was already formed by the early Church? (Rhetorical question)

The counter reformation was a belated response to the abuses and corruption which Luther had pointed out.
It was not a wholesale refutation of doctrine that had been in place universally throughout the church since the first century as was the Reformation.

 

[calvin]

The counter reformation was a belated response to the abuses and corruption which Luther had pointed out.
It was not a wholesale refutation of doctrine that had been in place universally throughout the church since the first century as was the Reformation.

I believe that is in part incorrect as the Roman reformation was a work in progress before Luther's reformation.
He, Luther was an Augustinian (or neo Augustinian) monk working on the Roman reformation prior to falling foul of the Romans. So the question can be asked as to why the Romans were reforming in the first place?
The exact details are not relevant, the precedent for change from the earliest traditions of men was established by the Roman Church already, not Martin Luther as is so scurrilously alleged.
Luther just forked away from the main stream because the Roman reformation was not headed toward a healthy reform, but was still enshrining the errors he was being convinced about from his studies of the Scriptures.

 

[Cygnus]

So the question can be asked as to why the Romans were reforming in the first place?

The printing press was invented?

 

[calvin]

Hello calvin here,
I see a strong parallel between the Roman Church's indignation (if I may use that term) at Luther's reformation, and the indignation of the scribes and Pharisees indignation at the the reforms by the teachings of Jesus.
Nothing new was being added, nothing was being changed, only the distorted interpretations of the law by the ruling classes of the Jews.
Luther added nothing to the Scriptures, except some of the light that had been extinguished by the Romans

 

[Jim Parker]

The exact details are not relevant, the precedent for change from the earliest traditions of men was established by the Roman Church already, not Martin Luther as is so scurrilously alleged.

The details are very important as you have made obvious by your false identification of the teaching of the apostles as
"traditions of men" in accordance with the propaganda of the Protestant Reformation.
The Trinity is not a "tradition of men." It is the teaching of the apostles.
The deity of Christ is not a "tradition of men." It is the teaching of the apostles.
The deity of the Holy Spirit is not a "tradition of men." It is the teaching of the apostles.
The "dual" nature of Christ is not a "tradition of men." It is the teaching of the apostles.

 

[calvin]

The details are very important as you have made obvious by your false identification of the teaching of the apostles as
"traditions of men" in accordance with the propaganda of the Protestant Reformation.
The Trinity is not a "tradition of men." It is the teaching of the apostles.
The deity of Christ is not a "tradition of men." It is the teaching of the apostles.
The deity of the Holy Spirit is not a "tradition of men." It is the teaching of the apostles.
The "dual" nature of Christ is not a "tradition of men." It is the teaching of the apostles.

And the Luther led reformation denied these truths? I think not.
So what point are you trying to make?
Why not make an honest list of those things Martin Luther found in Roman dogma that were discarded by the reformation, and don't cloud the issues.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm not clear on what people mean when they say "spiritual death." (I'm not even sure what I mean! )
It seems to me that it could refer to the second death which comes after the judgment or it could be a hardening of the heart toward anything having to do with God.

I learned that there are 3 deaths.
Physical
Spiritual
Eternal

The eternal is what you refer to as the second death. After the judgement and will last for eternity. Dead. No chance of ever receiving life again. This is eternal death.

Spiritual death is equivalent to physical death but only in the spiritual realm.
When a person dies physically he has no life in him. His vital forces are dead.

When we're spiritually dead we do not have God's life in us. We do not have His light or His life. Our spiritual vital force is dead.
We need Jesus to give us the life, the light. If a person does not have Jesus, he is spiritually dead. Only those born from above are spiritually alive. They have the zoe life. The same kind of life that is in God, is also in the born again believer. God breathed life into the first man. HIS kind of life.

That was Augustine of Hippo's view. Is that accurate? That's why he insisted on infant baptism.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
We are slaves to sin, which Jesus has saved us from -- among other things.
Note that even after Adam and Eve sinned, they were still in fellowship with God. (Gen 3:9 ff)
And even Cain was in fellowship with the Lord after he murdered Abel. (Gen 4:9ff)

I'm not a big fan of Augustine. In fact, his doctrine was not agreed to by others. Predestination, eternal security... He was the ONLY one who had some concepts. I tend to agree with the majority.

I believe it's a general understanding in Christianity that man if born lost --- not saved. We are separated from God by virtue of the first sin and must regain that relationship that we originally had with God.

You're right about infant baptism. If we ARE born lost and in sin and God cannot be in the presence of sin, then the original sin must be removed from the child as soon as possible.

The Catholic church still teaches this but has softened its stance quite a bit. It now teaches that if a child dies before being baptized, we must trust God's love and just judgement to have mercy on the child. We must trust God's mercy and grace. Since the child is not responsible for the sin, he cannot be held accountable for it. There is, in the RCC, an age of "accountability". It's not a set age. But probably around 14 or so. It's when a person really understands what sin is. Children do not understand sin. Many believe they have never sinned.

They also don't understand concepts well. Which is why it's better to teach them right from wrong at a young age and not attempt to teach them about being born again.

We must be drawn to Christ.
Jhn 12:32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

I believe we are born with a self-centeredness (feed me, change me, clean me, hold me) that, if not corrected in the child, will lead to hedonism in the adult. We will want to be the gods of our lives and will want everyone to cater to our needs. That is why it is so difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Not only does he act like he thinks he's a god but others treat him like he were a god, catering to his every whim.
That is why it is blessed to be poor. (Luke 6:20) The poor have no resources of their own and must rely on the grace and mercy of God.

It's food for thought.

Agreed 100% ! In fact just wrote about this in a different thread. I don't think having money is a sin. I just think that if one is not careful it tends to distance us from God. Mainly for the reason you state above. They get treated like a god and start acting like they are and like they don't really need one.

This self-centeredness is ego. Ego and pride are at the base of most sins.

Do you agree with what I said about spiritual death?

iakov the fool

CLICK TO EXPAND