What did God create first?

[OneLight]

I'm curious as to what people think.

Please explain why you chose the answer you gave.

First, I love your screen name being an astronomy junkie of sorts.

Light is the obvious answer, but what is the light? The stars and moon (& sun) which give us physical light were not created until the 4th day, so what was the light in day one? My congregation leader believes it was the substance from which all things were created, in other words, all that would be used to make light was made on day one. And in the Hebrew, I must admit, there is at least some merit to that. But what if it is something more?

Until I know otherwise, I lean toward thinking that the light on day one was the path BACK to God. We serve a God that knew in the beginning what he will know in the end, will know in the end what he knew in the beginning. I think then, knowing he exists outside of time (he created that which we use to determine time) that he knew when he made Adam, that he would fail him. Why else was there "a lamb slain from the foundation of the world?" A sacrifice, before there was a sin. Anyway, could then the light on day one have been the path back to him. Not Yahushua himself (Jesus) as I can show enough verses showing him to be the Creator....but the pathway itself? When Messiah came on the scene, John said he came to bear witness of "the light." He went on to say the light was "the life of all men." Since as a man he became not only the model we are to pattern out own lives after, but the forerunner of our faith, the way the truth and the life....the one through whom we all must come! So I am submitting that his mission (for lack of a better word) MIGHT be the light on day one. Draw your own conclusion.

Peace.

Ken

Interesting concept, Ken. If I understand this concept correctly, the light is the pathway back to God, not Christ Himself? As in the light at the end of the tunnel or the tunnel itself? I never thought of it that way before. I know that this is not scriptural, as in, you will not find this in scripture, so how did you come to this conclusion? I agree that God knows all, from eternal past to eternal future, and everything in between, but never tried to understand what the light on day 1 was. I only believed it was.

BTW ... Welcome to Worthy!

[nebula]

How can you explain the Trinity?

How can God be described by one word, period?

1) The Trinity is entirely pagan in origin, just about all ancient religions employed this dogma

If you want to get technical, you really shouldn't even be using the word "God" (even in debating with others) as the root of the word has a pagan origin as well.

2)The word Trinity never appears in scripture

"Jehovah" is a made-up word as well.

No one knows the correct pronounciation for יהוה ("yod" "hey" "vav" "hey"). And since the Hebrews did not want to accidently take the name of the Lord in vain, they created a new name for Him by taking these letters and inserting the vowels for "Adonai" (translated into "Lord" in English) between the YHWH.

Thus you have YeHoVaH, or Yehovah. But for some reason over time, the "Y" was replaced with "J", and thus we have the word "Jehovah."

Thus, this was not the name the Lord revealed Himself as.

For more reading on this, I refer you to:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html

&

http://yahushua.net/YHWH.htm

[Guest Ken Rank]

I'm curious as to what people think.

Please explain why you chose the answer you gave.

First, I love your screen name being an astronomy junkie of sorts.

Light is the obvious answer, but what is the light? The stars and moon (& sun) which give us physical light were not created until the 4th day, so what was the light in day one? My congregation leader believes it was the substance from which all things were created, in other words, all that would be used to make light was made on day one. And in the Hebrew, I must admit, there is at least some merit to that. But what if it is something more?

Until I know otherwise, I lean toward thinking that the light on day one was the path BACK to God. We serve a God that knew in the beginning what he will know in the end, will know in the end what he knew in the beginning. I think then, knowing he exists outside of time (he created that which we use to determine time) that he knew when he made Adam, that he would fail him. Why else was there "a lamb slain from the foundation of the world?" A sacrifice, before there was a sin. Anyway, could then the light on day one have been the path back to him. Not Yahushua himself (Jesus) as I can show enough verses showing him to be the Creator....but the pathway itself? When Messiah came on the scene, John said he came to bear witness of "the light." He went on to say the light was "the life of all men." Since as a man he became not only the model we are to pattern out own lives after, but the forerunner of our faith, the way the truth and the life....the one through whom we all must come! So I am submitting that his mission (for lack of a better word) MIGHT be the light on day one. Draw your own conclusion.

Peace.

Ken

Interesting concept, Ken. If I understand this concept correctly, the light is the pathway back to God, not Christ Himself? As in the light at the end of the tunnel or the tunnel itself? I never thought of it that way before. I know that this is not scriptural, as in, you will not find this in scripture, so how did you come to this conclusion? I agree that God knows all, from eternal past to eternal future, and everything in between, but never tried to understand what the light on day 1 was. I only believed it was.

BTW ... Welcome to Worthy!

Thanks for the welcome! You're right, it isn't in scripture and I admit ahead of time I may very well be wrong. My line of thinking is as follows:

Messiah is the path, we must come to him to obtain eternal life. He is the Way, to get to the Father we must first come to him, I am sure you agree. Seeing John said he came to bear witness to the light, and that the light "was the life of all men," (mankind) and in HIM is life...then since the light that we can actually see was not created until day 4, I submit that MAYBE the light on day one was the plan to return God's people to himself.

Knowing God must have created us knowing we would fail, it only seems reasonable, to me, that he made the way back to him (at least in his mind) at the foundation of the world. This is why, I think, we see in Revelation that a lamb was slain from the "foundation of the world." In God's mind, and I do believe Jesus or Yahushua, whichever you prefer, is God, that he would have a plan to return man to himself before he even fell away.

There is more, but I don't want to take up too much space. I am new here after all.

Ken

[HAZARD]

.....

Hazard,

Your post stretches the truth to the extreme of Tritheism.

Mate, I have done nothing but quote Scriptures.

Haz.

[Guest Ken Rank]

How can you explain the Trinity?

How can God be described by one word, period?

1) The Trinity is entirely pagan in origin, just about all ancient religions employed this dogma

If you want to get technical, you really shouldn't even be using the word "God" (even in debating with others) as the root of the word has a pagan origin as well.

2)The word Trinity never appears in scripture

"Jehovah" is a made-up word as well.

No one knows the correct pronounciation for יהוה ("yod" "hey" "vav" "hey"). And since the Hebrews did not want to accidently take the name of the Lord in vain, they created a new name for Him by taking these letters and inserting the vowels for "Adonai" (translated into "Lord" in English) between the YHWH.

Thus you have YeHoVaH, or Yehovah. But for some reason over time, the "Y" was replaced with "J", and thus we have the word "Jehovah."

Thus, this was not the name the Lord revealed Himself as.

For more reading on this, I refer you to:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html

&

http://yahushua.net/YHWH.htm

Not too many years ago, I spent $25 to buy a 1611 hardcover reprint because I needed to see for myself that there was no letter J in the 1611 KJV, there was not. While I do not get wrapped up in names and I think the Hebrew word "Shem" means more than just letters on paper or how one pronounces something, one thing is clear....there is no J or J sound in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. That means, "Jehovah" is not a name God would have heard, Jesus not a name our Saviour would have heard....Jerusalem not the name of the city, etc. The letter J is of German origin and is a little more than 500 years old.

With that said, if you use Jesus, I consider you no less a brother or sister in Messiah. Like I said, NAME (Shem) is more than letters or spoken words, it declares authority, power, and character.

Peace.

Ken

[Ovedya]

.....

Hazard,

Your post stretches the truth to the extreme of Tritheism.

Mate, I have done nothing but quote Scriptures.

Haz.

Much of that is interpretive, however. It is easy to say that Jesus spoke "eighty times" that He was not the Father, but another thing to prove it conclusively. I personally believe that, although your interpretation contains the truth of discerning between the Persons of the Godhead, it stretches that truth to the extreme of Tritheism. There is the opposite truth to consider and balance with the truth you've shown.

Grace to you,

Ovedya

[nebula]

With that said, if you use Jesus, I consider you no less a brother or sister in Messiah. Like I said, NAME (Shem) is more than letters or spoken words, it declares authority, power, and character.

True - but the Jehovah's Witnesses make a big deal about using the true and real name for God -

Yet the name they use is not!

[Guest Ken Rank]

With that said, if you use Jesus, I consider you no less a brother or sister in Messiah. Like I said, NAME (Shem) is more than letters or spoken words, it declares authority, power, and character.

True - but the Jehovah's Witnesses make a big deal about using the true and real name for God -

Yet the name they use is not!

Of course, but give them a little credit for at least not continuing in the tradition of replacing God's name with a title. I don't know anyone, including myself, who can say with certainty what the proper pronunciation of God's name is. Yahweh is popular but is the result of adding in the vowel pointers to YHWH. I personally have used Yahuah because the spelling (YHWH) differs from the tribe Judah (YHWDH) only with the added D. So if the tribe's name is Yahudah, removing the D leaves Yahuah. There is another more compelling way to pronounce it, but I will not share it on an open board, at least yet. The truth is, we are not supposed to replace Elohim's name with a title, scripture makes that abundantly clear. The fact that YHWH appears in the Hebrew MSS everytime we see LORD translated in English is proof enough that the name was not to be hidden. But, there is more to the name than just saying it, or even HOW we say it. The following is a decent enough explanation of the word Shem, name:

"The Hebrew word is shĕm, which means much more than

[Guest Ken Rank]

.....

Hazard,

Your post stretches the truth to the extreme of Tritheism.

Mate, I have done nothing but quote Scriptures.

Haz.

Greetings Haz. I appreciate your take but do find fault with some of your reasoning. Very little of what Messiah spoke was in plain speak. Parables, metaphor, and allegories were used by him extensively.

Matt 13:34 All these things spake Yahushua unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

We must take that into consideration, especially with this subject. Why? Because over 800 times God is said to be one, another 2000+ times he is refered to in the singular. Only a handful of times is he refered to in plural form. Does the handful outweigh 2800 times, or do we need to reason through scripture to reconcile the handful? Yet, you have rightly pointed out many times that Messiah spoke about his Father as one other than himself. True enough, but is that the end all? Are we done learning at this point, do we have every answer? What if what he was doing was him setting in place the example for us to follow? Consider these two examples....

In Genesis 2 we see that YHWH finished making the heavens and the earth and then set the 7th day apart from the rest, and on that day he rested. Now, I ask you, was God tired? Do you REALLY think he needed to rest, I mean, he is God isn't he? Yet, he does rest, why? Could it be that he was setting the example for us to follow? Sabbath was made for man after all, not God. (Mark 2:27)

In Genesis 18, YHWH is speaking to Abraham and says that the sin of Sodom is great (grievious) and then says he will go down there to (I paraphrase) see if it is as bad as the cries of sin. Does God not KNOW what is going on in Sodom in detail? Does he really NEED to go there to see for himself? Or is he showing Abraham not to pass judgement without getting a second witness?

So, Yahushua (or Jesus, whichever you prefer) is said to be God. (I can literally list 200 verses showing this to be true) Is it possible that he gave the glory to the Father, was seen praying to the Father, as an example to follow? If not, and knowing he is God, we have to be willing to admit that God is three separate unique individuals who are somehow united as one but remain separate in character and person. If we go there, we have to be willing to say, Yahushua is NOT the Father in order to remain consistent. If we do that, how is that NOT more than one God? If the Son, who had the "fullness of the Godhead" in him bodily, is not the Father...and yet God...we have two gods.

Now, I think I can make my case that this isn't the case, if you are willing to hear me out. I don't want to argue over it, no profit in that. But I would be more than happy to share some thoughts, and hear yours, on this subject.

Until then, peace to you.

Ken

[nebula]

Ken - I was debating with savoyard concerning his Jehovah's Witness doctrine.

What doctrine are you promoting?