Hello stillsmallvoice and DMP. I've been reading your conversation. I hope it is okay to ask some questions of the both of you.
When God speaks something into existence, isn't a part of Him in that something? Does He not have the ability to have different levels of saturation of Himself in those created things? The water, the trees, the flowers, etc. all have Him in them. Animals, perhaps, have a higher level of saturation of Him. Humans have an even greater level of saturation. Creation has God within it, but His creation is not Him. This means God has been manifested or made known to us through this 3rd dimension in which we live? His creation reflects aspects of Him.
Perhaps the prophets had even higher levels of saturation of Him. Enoch (Hanokh) was so full of God, he was taken by Him. The fuller one is, the closer one walks with God. The closer one walks with God, the fuller one is. The advantage humans have, that plants and animals do not, is the ability to walk closer with Him, become more filled with Him, and consequently have the privilege of reflecting more accurately His characteristics.
Moving along this line of thinking, why is it difficult to embrace the possibility that Jesus was fully saturated with God? Can God choose to make Himself known in a greater, fuller, deeper way through this complete saturation? Is that why Jesus could say, “I and the Father are one” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father”? Did Jesus accurately reflect the nature of God? Could he have been the exact representation of His nature? By “exact”, I mean the fullest extent to which this dimension allows.
It is God’s word that spoke everything into existence, His word is full of Him, and God can be found in every piece of His creation. God created through His word. The word is that which did the creating. Without the word, that which was created through it would not have been created. The word cannot be independent from God. It is eternally connected to Him. To say that God was independent from His word before it was spoken is not relevant now, since the word has been spoken and cannot be taken back. It is the word that unites God to His creation.
One might say that God’s word is one with Him. One might say that when you experience (or see) God’s word, you experience (or see) God. One might even say that you cannot experience God outside of His word. Now, does God have the power to make His word become flesh? This is different from His word making flesh. This is His word becoming flesh. Is it conceivable that we, with finite minds, are unable to fathom the possibility of such a concept? Or are we just intelligent enough to talk ourselves out of believing such a thing?
When we, the created, speak, our words reflect who we are. One might say that it is our actions that reflect who we are, which is true. However, when we are being honest, our words and our actions will not contradict each other. God’s word is much greater and more complex than ours. Should we limit His word to have the same limitations as ours? Our words exist in a 3-dimensional existence. His words do not. Even our words lead to physical ramifications. Our words can be manifested into something tangible. Maybe our words do not “become” the thing, but our words “make” the thing. God’s word “makes” things. Are we going to limit Him by saying His word cannot “become” the thing just because we are unable to fit that concept into our thinking? One might say a word is simply a vibration, a sound, etc. A word is not the thing. That is true in our dimension. However, if God says His word not only makes things, but at a place in time in this dimension became “the thing”, why is it we cannot embrace this inconceivable concept? And if He says that His word which became “the thing” is the exact representation of Him to the fullest extent this dimension allows, why do we reject that? Because we know better? Isn’t He the One who created something out of nothing? That doesn’t make sense but we embrace it.
So, some believe Jesus was the exact representation of the nature of God, because He walked with God, was completely saturated with God, the fullness of God. Some believe not only this, but also that Jesus was God’s word become flesh. Now why is it that the word that is flesh would need to walk with God and become more filled with Him and consequently become the exact representation of His nature? Wasn’t he at his birth, being the word, already the exact representation of His nature? How could the word become flesh not immediately be the exact representation of His nature? I don’t know. Perhaps it has something to do with the limitations of this dimension.
So, that is my thinking “out loud.” Respond to any portions you feel comfortable with.
Shalom.