Is a new born baby considered a creation?

[ross3421]

1. Is "creation" a process of creating something out of nothing?

2. Or is it considered taking A and B which already exist and forming C ?

3. Both.

Thoughts.

[-SEEKING-]

It is a creation of God. Formed in the mother's womb.

[ross3421]

It is a creation of God. Formed in the mother's womb.

So is it a creation or is it a formation of already created material?

[notuptome]

Neither the sperm nor the egg contain the energy necessary for the creation of a living soul, a living organism yes but not the soul or soul/spirit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

[-SEEKING-]

So is it a creation or is it a formation of already created material?

Well it's a formation of a body from created material. But it is God who places the soul in that body. At least that's how I understand it.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

1. Is "creation" a process of creating something out of nothing?

2. Or is it considered taking A and B which already exist and forming C ?

3. Both.

I know where you're going with this, Bro. It's missing two vital things to help you understand, and you're not searching deeply enough past what you already know. You're stuck on temporal terminology and concepts. I know EXACTLY where you are in the revelation process; it's a matter of incompleteness of truth, not error. You're not wrong; but you're not quite right yet, either. There is more.

A baby is a separate new natural entity, not part of its progenitors. It contains combined DNA structures in its body that CAME FROM other DNA that previously existed, but that DNA forms another "person" with a spirit-soul-body of their own. God is not "person", and thus not three "persons". I don't care what the Nicene Creed says, scripture doesn't refer to God as "person(s)"; it was just their best understanding to express Him.

A baby has a specific physical/spiritual origin and is not preexistent. Jesus... the Son... the Word... ho Logos... the body of God... was preexistent in eternity's preeminence over time/space. The "birth" of the Son had NONE of its initiative in this natural realm. The Son was/is the Divine Expression of Content of Rhema. Don't stop at Jesus' "birth" into this realm. Dig deeper.

[RabbiKnife]

I know where you're going with this, Bro. It's missing two vital things to help you understand, and you're not searching deeply enough past what you already know. You're stuck on temporal terminology and concepts. I know EXACTLY where you are in the revelation process; it's a matter of incompleteness of truth, not error. You're not wrong; but you're not quite right yet, either. There is more.

A baby is a separate new natural entity, not part of its progenitors. It contains combined DNA structures in its body that CAME FROM other DNA that previously existed, but that DNA forms another "person" with a spirit-soul-body of their own. God is not "person", and thus not three "persons". I don't care what the Nicene Creed says, scripture doesn't refer to God as "person(s)"; it was just their best understanding to express Him.

A baby has a specific physical/spiritual origin and is not preexistent. Jesus... the Son... the Word... ho Logos... the body of God... was preexistent in eternity's preeminence over time/space. The "birth" of the Son had NONE of its initiative in this natural realm. The Son was/is the Divine Expression of Content of Rhema. Don't stop at Jesus' "birth" into this realm. Dig deeper.

The entire concept of Incarnation mitigates against Jesus coming into existence at birth.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So is it a creation or is it a formation of already created material?

You're still focusing on the temporal instead of the eternal. A revelation of realms has to accompany this. You're stopping short, Bro. More... Deeper...

Don't start at the body and work backward. Start at the Spirit and work forward. You're still trying to go from the Outer Courts through the Holy Place to the Holy of Holies. That which is within the Holy of Holies will emanate outwards and permeate the Holy Place and the Outer Courts.

You must go to the threshhold of eternity and look in. That isn't likely to happen without LOTS of fasting and prayer; not just study. You're still in 2D; put on the glasses.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The entire concept of Incarnation mitigates against Jesus coming into existence at birth.

Exactly. The Son can't have been "born". He HAD to be preexistent.

[percho]

The entire concept of Incarnation mitigates against Jesus coming into existence at birth.

What does incarnation mean? Was the appearance in Genesis 18 an incarnation? Is purpose of appearance the difference?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What does incarnation mean? Was the appearance in Genesis 18 an incarnation? Is purpose of appearance the difference?

A theophany is not incarnation. Incarnation is duration in natural embodiment of the supernatural.

[ross3421]

You must go to the threshhold of eternity and look in. That isn't likely to happen without LOTS of fasting and prayer; not just study. You're still in 2D; put on the glasses.

I don't need your self righteous advise or criticism speak which I have been putting up with, so button it up. You have not been displaying Christian characteristics with some of these and other comments. You do not know me, my situation, what I have been through and how God has worked in my life then you would think otherwise.

Don't be so judgmental.

[crawfish]

1. Is "creation" a process of creating something out of nothing?

2. Or is it considered taking A and B which already exist and forming C ?

3. Both.

Thoughts.

3. God creates both ex-nihilo and through existing materials using natural law, and both are intentional.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I don't need your self righteous advise or criticism speak which I have been putting up with, so button it up. You have not been displaying Christian characteristics with some of these and other comments. You do not know me, my situation, what I have been through and how God has worked in my life then you would think otherwise.

Don't be so judgmental.

That was never my intent or tone. It's one of the limitations of this format. It was an urge to press on. Take it as you will, Brother.

[ross3421]

I know where you're going with this, Bro. It's missing two vital things to help you understand, and you're not searching deeply enough past what you already know. You're stuck on temporal terminology and concepts. I know EXACTLY where you are in the revelation process; it's a matter of incompleteness of truth, not error. You're not wrong; but you're not quite right yet, either. There is more.

What is "temporal terminology and concepts"?

A baby is a separate new natural entity, not part of its progenitors. It contains combined DNA structures in its body that CAME FROM other DNA that previously existed, but that DNA forms another "person" with a spirit-soul-body of their own.

The DNA would come from it's progenitors would it not? Hence Mary provided no blood to the fetus of Jesus and the DNA would have strickly came from God. Thus the understanding how he had flesh of man but was God.

Now we can debate elsewhere if a baby is born with a spirit..........I see a us born body and soul only with an empty vessel awaiting to be filled.

A baby has a specific physical/spiritual origin and is not preexistent.

Are you saying that "spirits" are being created daily?

Jesus... the Son... the Word... ho Logos... the body of God... was preexistent in eternity's preeminence over time/space.

Your not saying the physical body of Jesus preexisted are you as some may?

Dig deeper.

I go pretty deep.