Who created God?
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
I think the hadith refers to the answer to the question "Is such-and-such" lawful?
i.e. “Leave that which makes you doubt for that which does not make you doubt,"
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
Have you thought about it yet?
Do you think that souls are of a "different substance" to Almighty God?
Of course, one could say that they don't know .. a quite acceptable answer.
However, I understand there to be the concept of the physical and the spiritual.
The spiritual is abstract in as much as we can't see it or detect it physically.
What other sub-divisions could one make?
Hmm .. very interesting.
"A concept of pre-existence [ of the soul ] was advanced by Origen, a second and third-century church father."
Pre-existence was condemned as heresy in the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.
Origen also quoted Jeremiah 1:5:
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Those who reject pre-existence, which would be every Christian denomination that accepts the conclusions of the Second Council of Constantinople (i.e., all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians and many Protestants), simply see Jeremiah 1:5 as another passage about God's foreknowledge. This ecumenical Council explicitly stated "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."
Funny that, isn't it?
Arians believe in pre-existence [ as they followed the well established school of Origen ] .
Why is it always the Niceans that have to "lay the law down"? [ a rhetorical question ]
Furthermore, isn't this just another mystery?
i.e. God creates souls .. out of WHAT, exactly???
+ + + + +
Furthermore, according to Catholic belief the soul is immortal.
..so God CREATES it and it can't be "uncreated".
Isn't it more logical to assume that it is eternal as is God .. and of "the same substance" ?
..but it seems that does not fit in with the Roman agenda
"A concept of pre-existence [ of the soul ] was advanced by Origen, a second and third-century church father."
Pre-existence was condemned as heresy in the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.
Origen also quoted Jeremiah 1:5:
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Those who reject pre-existence, which would be every Christian denomination that accepts the conclusions of the Second Council of Constantinople (i.e., all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians and many Protestants), simply see Jeremiah 1:5 as another passage about God's foreknowledge. This ecumenical Council explicitly stated "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."
Funny that, isn't it?
Arians believe in pre-existence [ as they followed the well established school of Origen ] .
Why is it always the Niceans that have to "lay the law down"? [ a rhetorical question ]
Furthermore, isn't this just another mystery?
i.e. God creates souls .. out of WHAT, exactly???
+ + + + +
Furthermore, according to Catholic belief the soul is immortal.
..so God CREATES it and it can't be "uncreated".
Isn't it more logical to assume that it is eternal as is God .. and of "the same substance" ?
..but it seems that does not fit in with the Roman agenda
Last edited:
The son appeared, informing them of the father, the illimitable one. He inspired them with that which is in the mind, while doing his will. Many received the light and turned toward him. But material people were alien to him and did not discern his appearance nor recognize him. For he came in the likeness of flesh and nothing blocked his way because what is incorruptible is irresistible.
Moreover, while saying new things, speaking about what is in the heart of the father, he proclaimed the faultless word. Light spoke through his mouth, and his voice brought forth life. He gave them thought and understanding and mercy and salvation, and the spirit of strength derived from the infinity and sweetness of the father.
- Gospel of Truth -
How anybody could interpret that as not subordinate beats me.
No .. the majority of early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God.
It is not a coincidence that it was buried along with early Christian writings that were deemed heresy. We don't find the Gospel of Matthew or Gospel of John buried alongside them, for example.
Last edited:
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
This is not intended to disparage the catholic or protestant churches (who have both fed and nourished me at various times in my life) but this from Eckhart seems to fit here:
"In created things, as I have often said before, there is no truth. But there is something which is above the created being of the soul and which is untouched by any createdness, by any nothingness. Even the angels do not have this, whose clear being is pure and deep; even that does not touch it. It is like the divine nature; in itself it is one and has nothing in common with anything."
"And it is with regard to this that many teachers go wrong. It is a strange land, a wilderness, being more nameless than with name, more unknown than known."
I feel exactly the same way. I have respect for Christians of all denominations.
The inconsistencies in early Christian history are just too much for me to ignore.
"Origen [ 184 - 253 AD ] is a Church Father and is widely regarded as one of the most important Christian theologians.
In 543, Emperor Justinian I condemned him as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned."
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
And also,
"If you could do away with yourself for a moment, even for less than a moment, then you would possess all that this possesses in itself. But as long as you have any regard for yourself in any way or for anything, then you will not know what God is. As my mouth knows what colour is and my eye what taste is: that is how little you will know what God is."
"If you could do away with yourself for a moment, even for less than a moment, then you would possess all that this possesses in itself. But as long as you have any regard for yourself in any way or for anything, then you will not know what God is. As my mouth knows what colour is and my eye what taste is: that is how little you will know what God is."
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
But, my friend, it has been such a long and costly journey. Lots of wounds and lots of pain, the self does not DIE easy, that's for sure. Worth it a hundred times over though, just to breathe some free air, catch glimpses of our homeland. Beauty untold, love beyond measure. Who can speak of such things? But the spirit searches them out.
Just enjoy, soon we'll be back struggling again... Very restful now though. It's good to have these moments. Might even get some good sleep tonight.
Just enjoy, soon we'll be back struggling again...
Very restful now though. It's good to have these moments. Might even get some good sleep tonight.
Last edited:
That's what I said
And also [ by Meister Eckhart ],
"All creatures are a pure nothing. I don’t say they are insignificant or a something: they are absolute nothing. Whatever hasn’t essence does not exist. No creature has essence, because the essence of all is in the presence of God. If God withdrew from the creatures for just one moment, they would disappear to nothing"
"All creatures are words of God. What my mouth says and reveals about God, the same is becoming by the existence of a stone, and man understands the work better than words"
All creatures are "words of God"?
Lovers of the Gospel of John [ as Jesus IS God ] wouldn't like the look of that
Last edited:
Again, just some along-the-way corrections for anyone interested:
This leads to the supposition of an infinite succession of worlds before and after the present one and, moreover, an infinite number of simultaneous worlds alongside and contemporaneous with this one – something that the Tibetan Buddhist Marco Pallis had challenged western Buddhists for failing to grasp in their rather linear and 'progressive' (a very western idea) to Eastern metaphysics. The great spokesperson of the Sophia Perennis, René Guénon, in his "Man and His Becoming According the the Vedanta" and "The Multiple States of Being" excoriates Western metaphysical and esoteric schools for failing to grasp this single most important fact.
An endless series is sempiternal rather than eternal. The Stoics suggest the perpetual reduplication of the same cosmos – a belief disowned by Origen.
Origen’s solution was a noetic realm, the realm of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Intellect, created but eternal, populated by logika, or rational entities, under the hegemony of the Logos, and preceding our material realm in the ontological hierarchy rather than in the temporal continuum. It's an interesting note that this creative solution, an exegesis of Genesis 1.1 which posits a creation of heaven and earth before the creation of the visible firmament. Thus the forms of particular things (the logikoi) coexist in the mind of God.
So for Origen, every created soul exists in the Mind of God prior to its manifestation on earth or, to put it another way, no-one born on earth is unexpected or comes as a suprise to the Father!
Yep, although who's being condemned over what gets all very messy. Origen was assumed wrong on this, along with such doctrines as metempsychosis and apocatastasis. Even 'Origen Adamantus', the 'Man of Steel' as he was known, was not infallible!
You's have to demonstrate where:
Arians preach pre-existence — I saw no evidence of that, and
Arians follow Origen — not sure about that, either.
I think you're doing a 1+1 = 11
Genesis 1:1 says God created the world in the beginning, and John 1:1 that the Logos was with him in the beginning. Origen takes this beginning to be not a temporal origin but the eternal desire manifested through the Second Person of the Trinity. For Origen, if this temporal world is the only one, an infinite cause has limited itself in a single, finite effect. Origen seems to escape this by interpreting Solomon’s dictum, "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:10) to suggest the possibility that worlds have existed before this one, and will do after.
This leads to the supposition of an infinite succession of worlds before and after the present one and, moreover, an infinite number of simultaneous worlds alongside and contemporaneous with this one – something that the Tibetan Buddhist Marco Pallis had challenged western Buddhists for failing to grasp in their rather linear and 'progressive' (a very western idea) to Eastern metaphysics. The great spokesperson of the Sophia Perennis, René Guénon, in his "Man and His Becoming According the the Vedanta" and "The Multiple States of Being" excoriates Western metaphysical and esoteric schools for failing to grasp this single most important fact.
An endless series is sempiternal rather than eternal. The Stoics suggest the perpetual reduplication of the same cosmos – a belief disowned by Origen.
Origen’s solution was a noetic realm, the realm of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Intellect, created but eternal, populated by logika, or rational entities, under the hegemony of the Logos, and preceding our material realm in the ontological hierarchy rather than in the temporal continuum. It's an interesting note that this creative solution, an exegesis of Genesis 1.1 which posits a creation of heaven and earth before the creation of the visible firmament. Thus the forms of particular things (the logikoi) coexist in the mind of God.
So for Origen, every created soul exists in the Mind of God prior to its manifestation on earth or, to put it another way, no-one born on earth is unexpected or comes as a suprise to the Father!
Yep, although who's being condemned over what gets all very messy. Origen was assumed wrong on this, along with such doctrines as metempsychosis and apocatastasis. Even 'Origen Adamantus', the 'Man of Steel' as he was known, was not infallible!
Er, no, that's not necessarily true.
You's have to demonstrate where:
Arians preach pre-existence — I saw no evidence of that, and
Arians follow Origen — not sure about that, either.
I think you're doing a 1+1 = 11
Nah, that's just you're trying to mislead everyone.
What does Islam say?
Oooh, I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Does it fit the Moslem one?Isn't it more logical to assume that it is eternal as is God .. and of "the same substance" ?
..but it seems that does not fit in with the Roman agenda
The saying I particularly like is that of St Katherine of Sienna:
Jesus appeared to her and said: "I am He who is; Your are she who is not."
We all exist by the Grace of God, not just as a one-off event of our birth, but as a continuum dynamic.
All creatures are words of God. What my mouth says and reveals about God, the same is becoming by the existence of a stone, and man understands the work better than words"
I'm sorry, @muhammad_isa, but it seems to me that having decamped from Christianity to Islam you would be better served— and serve your brothers and sisters better — by pouring your energies into a deeper understanding your chosen path, rather than seek to misdirect the unknowing in your scant, ill-informed and often erroneous and polemical assertions regarding the path you have left ...All creatures are "words of God"? Lovers of the Gospel of John [ as Jesus IS God ] wouldn't like the look of that
In short, if you understood the Doctrine of the Logos, you'd realise just how wrong you are.
Last edited by a moderator:
The word, Logos or idea of things exists in such a way and so completely in each of them that it nevertheless exists entire outside each. It is entirely within and entirely without. This is evident in living creatures, both in any species and also in any particular example of the species. For this reason when things are moved, changed or destroyed, their entire idea remains immobile and intact. Nothing is as eternal and unchangeable as the idea of a destructible circle. How can that which is totally outside the destructible circle be destroyed when it is?
The idea then is "the light in the darkness" of created beings that is not confined, intermingled or comprehended. This is why when John said, "The light shines in the darkness," he added, "and the darkness did not comprehend it." In the Book of Causes it says: "The First Cause rules all things without being intermingled with them." The First Cause of every being is the Idea, the Logos, the "Word in the principle."
- Meister Eckhart -
Incidentally, from Origen's point of view, ALL souls pre-exist .. that is, not just "the essence of Jesus Christ".
The idea then is "the light in the darkness" of created beings that is not confined, intermingled or comprehended. This is why when John said, "The light shines in the darkness," he added, "and the darkness did not comprehend it." In the Book of Causes it says: "The First Cause rules all things without being intermingled with them." The First Cause of every being is the Idea, the Logos, the "Word in the principle."
- Meister Eckhart -
Incidentally, from Origen's point of view, ALL souls pre-exist .. that is, not just "the essence of Jesus Christ".
This is very interesting .. a few of weeks ago you said:
Me: If the original "On First Principles" was available we would see EXACTLY what "heresies" he believed in.
You: Indeed. If we could understood EXACTLY what he was saying.
The reason why we can NOT understand "exactly what he is saying" is due to the mix of truth and falsehood as a result
of its survival only in Rufinus' translation.
"Jerome, earlier a friend of Rufinus, fell out with him and wrote at least three works opposing his opinions and condemning his translations as flawed."
What does Islam say? [ about souls ]
...
Does it fit the Moslem one?
You tell me .. I don't think that there is "a one size fits all".
I believe that I am allowed to philosophise, though some Muslims persecute me for that.
They only accept their "OWN people" .. much like you
..and are you suggesting that some Catholics do not believe in the immortality of the soul?
Well it's quite clear that the idea of the Trinity beats you!
Again, this is a gross and erroneous over-statement underpinned by Moslem polemics.
Speaking as a common-sense Christian, I'd say:
Early Christians believed in the Liturgy and the Gospels. Most very early Christians still attended Synagogue like good Jews. If they did not believe Jesus was God, the Son of God, then they would have seen their Liturgy and the Gospel as blasphemous — that they didn't suggests, therefore ...
Early Christians were subordinationist to the extent that contemporary Christians today are subordinationist – Fathers come before Sons.
This is, at a simple level correct, but theologically wrong. A man is not a father until he has a child so ...
+++
In short, the majority of early Christians, like the majority of later Christians, like the majority of Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus and all believers the world over, accept the articles of their faith without going into hair-splitting detail. That they leave to the theologians and, most of the time, show absolutely no real interest in what serious theologians have to say — unless it's something sensational and populist.
I'm more interested in the knowledge of the Father
I don't need to "understand the doctrine of the Logos", and hence "realise" that Jesus is God.
What difference does it make whether he is or not?
The basic difference that I can see, is that if he is [ God ], then belief becomes an incoherent mystery.
Last edited:
OK ... so Origen is a drum you'll bang when you can have him say what you want, but something you'll refute when someone else suggests he says not what you want?
Not only Origen, lol
It sure seems to make enough difference for you to have been banging on about it for months, and nothing else. Every time a loophole is closed, you go looking for a new one ...