Is Jesus all of creation itself?


#1

I’ve always wondered about the true nature of the consciousness who embodied who we came to know as Jesus. He only came to us as man to redeem us, but who is He really? As in, how is He divine and yet different from the Father?This is how I understand it. Let me know if you understand it differently.

As I see it, God is the unbegotten cause from which His “only begotten son” came to be (John 3:16). In other words, Jesus is all of creation. There are a few verses in the Bible that supports this.“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”(John 1:1) Since God has no beginning, it must be referring to the beginning of the ‘Word’. I understand ‘Word’ as God’s will, and that is what the consciousness we know as Jesus embodied in human form. He said the word, and Jesus came to be–so to speak. This was the beginning of all creation. “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. " (John 1: 2-3).” For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17). As I envision it, I see this Light as the primordial 'stuff ’ with which everything we was created, i.e plants, animals, humans, all inanimate objects, stars, galaxies- the physical universe as we see it; as well as all unseen spiritual consciousnesses, forces, and realms unapprehended by most humans.

“He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18). So you and I are physically as well as spiritually part of Jesus/Light/Word, and He is like the oversoul (the whole body) that is made up of all our individual souls (parts of the body; i.e. hands, eyes, feet etc), as well as the consciousness(head of the body)that witnesses all our souls.

A lot of verses make sense in light of this view of Jesus as creation itself, both physical and spiritual:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (Revelations 22:13).
“And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation” (Colossians 1:15).
“Behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting”(Micah 5:2)
“And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn” Luke 2:7
“For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.” Rom 8:19
"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Rom 8:29

“Firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18)…that’s a little different, and also very confusing. It also appears again in Rev 1:5 “and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.” I know this will be VERY controversial, but do you think it suggests that a physical rebirth is possible? Is it saying that part of him was also in the first man who died and was reborn from among the dead? I know it’s a stretch, but it’s worth thinking about. It makes more sense to me than eternal damnation, especially if I am to believe that we are literally part of Jesus, spiritually, and in Jesus, physically. He is indestructible: “For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ” (Colossians 2:9). So why would parts of him be destructible? I’ve also read that the translation of Greek word ‘aeonios’ as eternal or everlasting is inaccurate: tentmaker.org/articles/EternityExplained.html
'Firstborn among the dead" would also mean the first man to live on earth and die, but that would be Adam according to Genesis.


#2

Yeah, I wouldn’t use “tentmaker” as a source of anything. Not Catholic and not really religious. They see the relationship with Jesus as “Jesus and me”. While we should have a one on one relationship going on the truer view of the Gospels is not “Jesus and me”,but “Jesus and We”


#3

That assessment is riddled with heresy.


#4

I read the llink and there were discrepancies that are concerning and would make me question more of the website credibility then the Holy Bible.


#5

The best explanation I’ve seen of it is in a book called “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed.

I’ll try to supply a shortened idea of it here. It goes like this…

God the Father completely and fully knows himself and in knowing himself generates the thought of himself. This is the “Word” of God. In Greek the logos. The word is thought before it is ever spoken.

In our own minds, we can think of ourselves but it is very shadowy. Strangely we really can’t see ourselves very well. But God who knows all things sees himself completely and truly as he is. His thought (word) is eternal, omnipotent, etc. But the thought is distinct from the person making the thought. The thought is not the thinker. Both have the same nature because God sees things as they truly are (including himself), but the idea or word is not the same person as the thinker. Thus the Son and Father are both Divine by nature but separate persons in their relation to each other (see Colossians 1:15).

The Father is the origin of the Son, but the Son receives all that he has from the Father. The Son is begotten (from within the Father), but not created by the Father outside of himself. The Holy Spirit is the love shared between the Father and Son. All of this is internal within God himself. You could say it is a family within the One God.

Creation on the other hand is created outside of God by the will of the Father, the Knowledge of the Son, and the Love of the Holy Spirit. All three persons have the same will, knowledge, and love and it is not divided between them, but in the distinction of persons, we appropriate certain things to the different persons, even though all three are involved in everything that they do. So in creation it was the will of the Father, and as it says in Psalm 33:6 “By the word (the Son) of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the hosts of them by the breath (the Holy Spirit) of his mouth”. In Jesus becoming man, it was the will of the Father, Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus became man. You can see many of these examples throughout the Bible showing the different actions of the individual persons of the Trinity, yet it is all the one action of God.


#6

Not the physical rebirth that you are thinking of. We do believe in the resurrection of the dead. We will not be reincarnated, but rather our bodies will be brought back to life and rejoined to our souls either to eternal glory in heaven, or to eternal judgement and shame in hell, but not reincarnated to this earth. I think that Jesus being “firstborn from the dead” means that he was the first to be resurrected bodily. Everyone else’s bodies are still in their graves, but Jesus has already been resurrected, so in this sense he is the firstborn from the dead, to show and prove what is in store for us.

Jesus truly became man. He had a human body the same as we all do. As such it was “destructible” the same as ours are. It is only after the resurrection of the dead, that our bodies will become immortal. After Jesus’s resurrection he appeared to the Apostles and ate with them, but his body was not in pain. He even walked through closed doors as recorded twice in John chapter 20. The final resurrection for us will not occur until the final Judgement and the end of the world. We will not be reincarnated into new bodies but will receive back our own bodies as they were intended to be before the fall of man in the garden of Eden.

Through our baptism (the rebirth), we receive the grace necessary to partake in the life of Christ. However we also have the free will to partake in the life of Christ, or to reject that grace. When we reject it, God does not force himself on us. Our eternal destination depends upon our acceptance or rejection of God’s grace. God doesn’t “punish” us for eternity against our will, people in hell reject God for eternity and choose their own fate.

From the Greek Lexicon
Aionios -

  1. Without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be.
  2. Without beginning.
  3. Without end, never to cease, everlasting.

#7

Careful brother…heresy is a strong charge; especially on the basis of a single post without further elaboration.


#8

I’m just thinking out loud. I don’t claim to know anything, but I was just reading Romans 8:19-21, and it didn’t make much sense to me without understanding Jesus as the firstborn or first created consciousness.

“For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.” ( Romans 8:19-21)

How do you guys interpret these verses?

What represents the “creation that waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed.”? Is this the same creation that is “subjected to frustration, not by its own choice but by the will of the one who subjected in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.”? In this passage, the children of God seem to be identified as something different from creation. So, what is the difference between creation and children of God.

If the word ‘creation’ represents the same thing throughout verse 19-21, these lines don’t make sense.

If creation is supposed to represent mankind or humans, that is- if you replace the word ‘creation’ with mankind, it would read like this:

“For the mankind waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For mankind was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the mankind itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.”

Why would mankind be differentiated from children of God? If mankind is supposed to mean those who do not believe, and children of God is supposed to represent those who believe, then why would mankind be waiting in eager expectation of the children of God to be revealed?

If all of creation is supposed to represent Jesus and if you replace the word ‘creation’ with Jesus, it would read like this:

“For Jesus waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For Jesus was subjected to frustration, not by him own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the Jesus itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.”

This version doesn’t make sense because Jesus is the embodiment of the Holy Father “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). If that’s the case, why would Jesus need to be liberated from “its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God?”

UNLESS…Creation means TWO different things in these three verses. Creation as the consciousness that witnesses all creation (knows all of our hearts), but who is also creation itself–Christ AND creation as the individual consciousness that make up the body of Christ, and therefore part of Christ.

So if we were to replace these two meanings of the word ‘creation’ in their appropriate places in the verse, it would read like this:

“For Jesus waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For Jesus was subjected to frustration, not by his own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the mankind itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.”

Here ‘frustration’ would mean the crucifixion of Jesus.

An alternate version of plugging the dual meanings would read like this:

“For Jesus waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For mankind was subjected to frustration, not by his own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the mankind itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.”

Here, frustration would mean the fall from grace that mankind experience, and Jesus waiting for us to liberate ourselves through prayer and a sinless life.

Either way, I guess I am saying that there is no way these three verses would make sense unless creation is interpreted as both Jesus and creation is interpreted as mankind. Which would suggest my theory of Jesus being the ultimate creation from which all of us were made, the primordial energy that was willed into existence by the Father.


#9

There are multiple meanings to creation. It can mean all of the created universe, more directly, all of mankind, a group of mankind, and just a single created person. You have to take that all into account when you read it.

I think this represents all of creation, but within all of creation you have mankind and also within mankind you have the children of God. So for example you have all of mankind, but within mankind you have the chosen people of God, Jews, and later Christians. But the rest of mankind can be brought into that covenant and become the chosen people of God. As it says in Romans 11:19-24 they can be grafted in and become the people of God, even though they are not at this time.

As it says “in hope that creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought in the freedom and glory and of the children of God.” All of creation is subject to this decay including stars, plants, animals, etc. We look forward with hopeful expectation when all of creation will be liberated from this, and the children of God will be completely revealed to everyone at the end of time and the last judgement.

To me this makes sense without changing any of the wording and that Jesus is not part of creation before the incarnation. From Genesis “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” That’s the first creation. Jesus is not the first creation. From John “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” Jesus existed within God and was God. He was not created outside of God as all the rest of creation is. Jesus is internal, we are external.


#10

Todays reading form Ephesians

Brothers and sisters:
I, a prisoner for the Lord,
urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received,
with all humility and gentleness, with patience,
bearing with one another through love,
striving to preserve the unity of the spirit
through the bond of peace;
one Body and one Spirit,
as you were also called to the one hope of your call;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
one God and Father of all,
who is over all and through all and in all.


#11

I suppose that makes sense, in light of the following verses in that chapter.


#12

Colosians 1:15-17
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

My queston is, How can he be “firstborn” is he is eternal?"

In the creed it has more of the sense “born” as in related to the Father rather than beginning to be.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=916785


#13

Jesus is begotten. One begets something like itself. Bears beget baby bears, birds beget baby birds and humans beget humans. To beget is to give birth to some thing which is the same as you.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.

Jesus is begotten of the Father - of one substance - born in eternity which is before time began.

Jesus is not created. To create is to make something not like yourself. A carpenter creates a church pew. A chef creates a meal. A rocket scientist creates a rocket. The rocket is not like the scientist. The scientist does not give birth to the rocket. The rocket is created, not begotten.

In the passage cited, image means “exactly like” or “the same as”.

-Tim-


#14

Jesus is not creation but the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity – God. Creation was created by God the Father through the Word, God the Son. All of creation is finite and dependent on God, God alone is infinite and not dependent on anyone. God bless you.


#15

Therein is the mystery. Being born is a process requiring time.


#16

Disagree. There was no time that the Word was not God. From your words which I underlined above , it seems that you are insinuating that there was a time before the Word became God. The Word has always co-existed eternally with God The Father. You are jumping to the conclusion “Since God has no beginning, it must be referring to the beginning of the ‘Word’”. Your conclusion is not supported. Your prior statement already stated “Word was God”. There was no prior time the Word was not God. Since God has no beginning, the Word likewise has no beginning too. The Word was there in the beginning of creation since everything was made through Him.


#17

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.