God Changes?

[marks]

a better term for "stuff we have objective evidence for,"

I'd go with "perceptions", something like that. You're just taking information in through your senses, assuming that's even what you are doing. And who knows how accurate that is?

 

[bbyrd009]

I'd go with "perceptions", something like that. You're just taking information in through your senses, assuming that's even what you are doing. And who knows how accurate that is?

well, i'm just going by the standard def i get when i ask google, although i notice that DuckDuckGo gives one more inline with your concept, "to be real," although i'm not sure how an objective definition for that could even be realized

 

[marks]

What you’re saying reminds me of the video you posted months ago. I don’t remember the guy’s name on the video, but I would love to watch it again if you posted it here.

Maybe this is the one . . .

Much love!

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Maybe this is the one . . .

Much love!

Ah, I think it is. Thanks!!!

 

[APAK]

The Father did not create the Son.

So who made Mary pregnant, if not by the Father's Spirit? She did conceive and co-create a human baby boy from her fertilized egg. Someone fertilized her egg that then transformed into a human zygote, right? We call this a new birth and a new creature or creation, of a human being, right? Yahshua, or Jesus, a new human being was thus created, right?

APAK

 

[Nancy]

Are you all forgetting that God had a multitude of angels in heaven way to great to count?

“You have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to countless thousands of angels in a joyful gathering” (Hebrews 12:22

I would think that God loves His angels, yes? God doesn't get 'lonely', He is all in all...He needs nothing or nobody to complete Himself, depends on not a thing...He just is! :)

 

[Mungo]

So who made Mary pregnant, if not by the Father's Spirit? She did conceive and co-create a human baby boy from her fertilized egg. Someone fertilized her egg that then transformed into a human zygote, right? We call this a new birth and a new creature or creation, of a human being, right? Yahshua, or Jesus, a new human being was thus created, right?

APAK

The Son, the second person of the Trinity existed from all time. He took human nature at his conception.

 

[APAK]

The Son, the second person of the Trinity existed from all time. He took human nature at his conception.

Your response was too cryptic to where I cannot appreciate that it does actually indicate a true Christian belief and understanding of my Lord and Savior.

Let me try and re-ignite this subject of Yahshua, his birth name, and his creation, or not, according to you.,,with more questions

So you then believe that not only did the Holy Spirit, (your separate and unique '3rd person') cause Mary to conceive a child, it/he also caused another pre-existing spirit called Jesus (your separate and unique ' 2nd person') to enter into by virtue of this physical conception of the human being, we also call by his same birth name, Yahshua or Jesus, right? Or did the 2nd person have another name in his pre-existing state? I know, you might already be thinking of the name 'word.'...for another discussion if you want, at another time....

And therefore, by process of elimination, the Father (your separate and unique '1st person') had nothing whatsoever to do with causing or giving life to Yahshua in his human body, right? It was up to the 2nd and 3rd person only? Maybe there is another explanation then?

That leads me to another 'logical' thought...

And then you say that Yahshua, 'took' a human spirit (nature) upon his conception, (to become a human being). So then the 3rd person agreed on this with the 2nd person when the 3rd person made Mary conceive? The 3rd person then mysteriously and somehow 'pushed' the 2nd person's nature into the human, we call Yahshua or Jesus? The 3rd person was careful though to keep these two new spirits or natures separate, within Yahshua? Did the natural human nature/spirit 'go in first' or did the pre-existing nature/spirit of Yahshua? Or did the 2nd person actually move in without the 3rd person's efforts? I guess it would not matter then, as long as Yahshua had the vital two natures, right?

Maybe the 2nd person, Yahshua over ruled it/him (the 3rd person) and that is why he is called the 2nd person and not the 3rd person?

What was the decision process? And then why is the Father called the 1st person and evidentally had nothing to do with Yahshua's physical birth or the injection of his pre-existing supernatural spirit/nature? Where was he at this point in time and in the decision process, for Yahshua to take a human nature as you say? Did the 1st person just tell the 3rd person to make Mary pregnant and allow the 2nd person Yahshua to place his supernatural spirit in the physical body?

Is this why the Father is called the 1st person then, because he does all the commanding to the 2nd and 3rd persons, as the chief decision-maker? So is the 1st person, the Father, the only true YHWH or LORD.

Maybe you can straight it all out for me?

APAK

 

[101G]

So who made Mary pregnant, if not by the Father's Spirit? She did conceive and co-create a human baby boy from her fertilized egg. Someone fertilized her egg that then transformed into a human zygote, right? We call this a new birth and a new creature or creation, of a human being, right? Yahshua, or Jesus, a new human being was thus created, right?

APAK

Don't mean to get into your conversatation, but where in the bible it said that Mary's egg was used in the conception of the flesh and bone and blood to the child?. book chapter and verse please.

and two, where do the bible say the Father have a Spirit? book chapter verse. if not one have two "Spirits", and that's two Gods.

Looking to hear from you,

PICJAG.

 

[Mungo]

Your response was too cryptic to where I cannot appreciate that it does actually indicate a true Christian belief and understanding of my Lord and Savior.

Let me try and re-ignite this subject of Yahshua, his birth name, and his creation, or not, according to you.,,with more questions

So you then believe that not only did the Holy Spirit, (your separate and unique '3rd person') cause Mary to conceive a child, it/he also caused another pre-existing spirit called Jesus (your separate and unique ' 2nd person') to enter into by virtue of this physical conception of the human being, we also call by his same birth name, Yahshua or Jesus, right? Or did the 2nd person have another name in his pre-existing state? I know, you might already be thinking of the name 'word.'...for another discussion if you want, at another time....

And therefore, by process of elimination, the Father (your separate and unique '1st person') had nothing whatsoever to do with causing or giving life to Yahshua in his human body, right? It was up to the 2nd and 3rd person only? Maybe there is another explanation then?

That leads me to another 'logical' thought...

And then you say that Yahshua, 'took' a human spirit (nature) upon his conception, (to become a human being). So then the 3rd person agreed on this with the 2nd person when the 3rd person made Mary conceive? The 3rd person then mysteriously and somehow 'pushed' the 2nd person's nature into the human, we call Yahshua or Jesus? The 3rd person was careful though to keep these two new spirits or natures separate, within Yahshua? Did the natural human nature/spirit 'go in first' or did the pre-existing nature/spirit of Yahshua? Or did the 2nd person actually move in without the 3rd person's efforts? I guess it would not matter then, as long as Yahshua had the vital two natures, right?

Maybe the 2nd person, Yahshua over ruled it/him (the 3rd person) and that is why he is called the 2nd person and not the 3rd person?

What was the decision process? And then why is the Father called the 1st person and evidentally had nothing to do with Yahshua's physical birth or the injection of his pre-existing supernatural spirit/nature? Where was he at this point in time and in the decision process, for Yahshua to take a human nature as you say? Did the 1st person just tell the 3rd person to make Mary pregnant and allow the 2nd person Yahshua to place his supernatural spirit in the physical body?

Is this why the Father is called the 1st person then, because he does all the commanding to the 2nd and 3rd persons, as the chief decision-maker? So is the 1st person, the Father, the only true YHWH or LORD.

Maybe you can straight it all out for me?

APAK

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three different spirits but one Being.

As the Athanasian Creed states:
As the Father is, so is the Son, so also is the Holy Spirit.
The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite.
The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal.
Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal God......

But it is necessary for everlasting salvation that one also firmly believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
True faith, then, requires us to believe and profess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.
He is God, begotten of the substance of the Father from eternity; He is man, born in time of the substance of His Mother.
He is perfect God, and perfect man subsisting in a rational soul and a human body.
He is equal to the Father in His divine nature, but less than the Father in His human nature as such.
And though He is God and man, yet He is the one Christ, not two;
Even as they are not three uncreated, or three infinities, but one uncreated and one infinite God.

 

[101G]

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three different spirits but one Being.

As the Athanasian Creed states:
As the Father is, so is the Son, so also is the Holy Spirit.
The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite.
The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal.
Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal God......

But it is necessary for everlasting salvation that one also firmly believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
True faith, then, requires us to believe and profess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.
He is God, begotten of the substance of the Father from eternity; He is man, born in time of the substance of His Mother.
He is perfect God, and perfect man subsisting in a rational soul and a human body.
He is equal to the Father in His divine nature, but less than the Father in His human nature as such.
And though He is God and man, yet He is the one Christ, not two;
Even as they are not three uncreated, or three infinities, but one uncreated and one infinite God.

Hi Mungo, what you state about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, two are titles, "Father" and "Son", so that leave only the Holy Spirit. but you said that all are eternal, none created, no beginning no end correct. so if all three are "eternal" as you say, I have a question, Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

if the one person the Son ... JESUS is eternal, (and I fully believe that), how can he be alone, if the other two are eternal also?.

PICJAG.

 

[APAK]

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three different spirits but one Being.

As the Athanasian Creed states:
As the Father is, so is the Son, so also is the Holy Spirit.
The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite.
The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal.
Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal God......

But it is necessary for everlasting salvation that one also firmly believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
True faith, then, requires us to believe and profess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.
He is God, begotten of the substance of the Father from eternity; He is man, born in time of the substance of His Mother.
He is perfect God, and perfect man subsisting in a rational soul and a human body.
He is equal to the Father in His divine nature, but less than the Father in His human nature as such.
And though He is God and man, yet He is the one Christ, not two;
Even as they are not three uncreated, or three infinities, but one uncreated and one infinite God.

This does not explain the birth of Christ for me...
I see the Creed Mungo, it is not the original one with the original Trinity and Christology sections. Not really a big deal for this exchange though except maybe for one line of the 3rd person that is important to mention later on.

I still want to use simple language to understand the birth of Jesus in terms that can be more easily understood by a lay-person, and without using terms, devices or convenient processes that cannot easily be proven or without crystal clear basis.

Merely stating a process or some type of axiom or series of them as in this Creed, does not make any or all of it true. Hypothesizes and theories are born this way and many cannot be proven and are thrown away. They must be understood for the spiritual book of YHWH only. This is too critical of a subject to leave to the traditions of men.

One concept in this Creed used a device or process of incarnation for example, that before the 4th and 5th centuries were wholly part of the pagan world until the (Romanists) Catholic Church used it to gain control of any political and religious (many pagans) discord or opposition at that time - whether with elders or with the common peasant. It was part of the great compromise of faith whilst using existing primitive knowledge to understand the workings and roles of the three key figures in the NT. I believe it is about time to re-examine it again since its foundation laid in 5th century AD...end of the rant section.

Anyway back to the birth of Christ....the Creed you stated above Mungo does not address and explain the birth of Christ in simple language at all...obvious right?

So, let me start with your first statement, in my words.

Although the 3 persons are unique, they are NOT unique spirits but ARE the SAME common ONE BEING. Therefore in this setting, a/the unique spirit does not define or is associated with a unique personality (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Also, a/the Being does not define associate with a unique personality or a unique spirit. The Being is the common Spirit associated with all three unique personalities.

So how is this one common Spirit or Being associated with all three UNIQUE persons, different from the 3rd UNIQUE person, called the Holy Spirit?

I just noticed that in your Creed version, you only have the 2nd person, Jesus, as being OF the SAME SUBSTANCE of the 1st person, the Father.
Isn't the 2nd person Jesus, of the same substance or Being, as the 1st person and 3rd person also, as already discussed? If not, then the Father is somehow superior to the Son if this Creed is to be taken seriously. And that the Father is always superior to the Son is scriptural.

The Creed you presented does not address the 3rd person and it/his substance of origin, explicitly. In the original Creed of the Trinity section it states that "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. "

So the 3rd person according to this Creed, the Holy Spirit is OF the FATHER AND the SON, always. This is different in that the 3rd person 'comes out' of the 2nd and 3rd person. It seems they are not all equal in this sense of understanding.

I also do not know what exactly the 3rd person 'proceeds from' anyway?! And why does the 3rd person have to come from the 1st AND 2nd person only? I thought it/he was independently a different person of equal footing and OF the SAME BEING or SPIRIT as the other two persons!

So then let me attempt to apply what I've said and from the Creed to the birth of Christ. I can see it will be very difficult already.

1. The Holy Spirit, the 3rd person, it/who proceeds from the 1st and 2nd persons, co-conceives with Mary to birth a Son called Yahshua or Jesus.
2. The 2nd person, Yahshua, then placed his unique personality of the same Being and the same Spirit as the 1st and 3rd persons, inside the human body called Yahshua. Yahshua now cohabited with the Father and the Holy Spirit, of the same Being, with his natural human spirit I guess only derived from Mary for some reason.
3. So which personality (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) decided or was in charge, that the 2nd person should inhabit the body of a human being? It could have been the Father or the Holy Spirit and not just a pre-existing Jesus, as you believe. With this alien thinking, the boy Jesus could have had all three personalities within him instead of the one.
..stop here..too confusing at this point..

Scripture says that the 3rd person only produced a miracle for Mary and produce a human being with a human spirit; the Son of Man, the Son of YHWH.

Scripture is silent on any other spirit being born as Jesus our Saviour. Implicitly it strongly suggests that his Father's Spirit as the decision-maker, and superior to him in every way, made his home within him from birth. This is truly the 1st and 3rd persons combined, as the one YHWH and the one divine Being. This is what scripture says very clearly and it's easy to understand.

Blessings,

APAK

 

[APAK]

@101G ..
Look 101..I've been through this with you before and you are one of several reasons why I needed a break from this forum last year. You are a very confusing person as I see you twisting people's words and scripture to fit your own doctrine. You are very persistent and wear of me very fast.

For the last time, the Father is YHWH and our only 'God' who is Spirit, in fact the Holy Spirit, as he is presented in this world for his specific purposes as in bringing the spirit of truth etc. This does not make 2 Gods as you astonishingly and unbelievably deduce and accuse me of, as before!!

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24)

But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. -Matthew 10:19-20

When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. -Mark 13:11

and Romans 8:11: But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He who raised Christ from the dead shall also vivify your mortal bodies by His Spirit who dwells in you.

Blessings,

APAK

 

[101G]

@101G ..
Look 101..I've been through this with you before and you are one of several reasons why I needed a break from this forum last year. You are a very confusing person as I see you twisting people's words and scripture to fit your own doctrine. You are very persistent and wear of me very fast.

For the last time, the Father is YHWH and our only 'God' who is Spirit, in fact the Holy Spirit, as he is presented in this world for his specific purposes as in bringing the spirit of truth etc. This does not make 2 Gods as you astonishingly and unbelievably deduce and accuse me of, as before!!

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24)

But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. -Matthew 10:19-20

When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. -Mark 13:11

and Romans 8:11: But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He who raised Christ from the dead shall also vivify your mortal bodies by His Spirit who dwells in you.

Blessings,

APAK

well first thanks for the reply, and if you took off from the board, that means you're not confident in the word of God, (and I can tell from your answers). there is no need to run from the truth, but to it. if you left, it was because of the scriptures.
so, if I'm confused... then answer the truth with the truth and not your opinions. I used scripture to back up everything I say, do you?.

You are very persistent and wear of me very fast

where is your patience?, I put up with you and many more, so......

For the last time, the Father is YHWH and our only 'God' who is Spirit, in fact the Holy Spirit, as he is presented in this world for his specific purposes as in bringing the spirit of truth etc. This does not make 2 Gods as you astonishingly and unbelievably deduce and accuse me of, as before!!

GOOD, for the last time reconcile John 1:3 and Isaiah 44:24 and we will see who is the Father, YHWH..... :cool: do it by the scriptures, and not any opinions .

But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. -Matthew 10:19-20

Good, is not Jesus the Spirit, who you call God the Father.... ... (smile), lets answer that quickly, Acts 2:32 "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." this is the one "God" whom you calls the Father that raise Jesus up correct? well let Jesus answer that himself.
John 2:19 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
John 2:20 "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?"
John 2:21 "But he spake of the temple of his body." so who raised up Jesus?.... (smile), see how easy it is to debunk what you say, and I do it by scriptures.

When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. -Mark 13:11

is it not Jesus who is the Holy Spirit? and it will be him in them speaking, let the scriptures answer that,
John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;"
John 14:17 "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
John 14:18 "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." and he, Jesus, did come on Pentecost....

and Romans 8:11: But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He who raised Christ from the dead shall also vivify your mortal bodies by His Spirit who dwells in you.

you can re-read John 2:19-21 above again or you can read this, John 11:25 "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"
this is just too easy. see, I answered you by scripture, not by opinion.

now can you please reconcile John 1:3 and Isaiah 44:24.... please. is it two separate person, or the same one person?. your answer please.... see I said please.

PICJAG.

 

[marks]

No, the Bible does not define love based on our disposition towards each other, it rather, defines each individual character based on behaviour, but again, not our ontology. In other words, we are discredited and punished if we do not treat each other with love, because God unequivocally says that we can, irrespective of the situation that we are in. As in, alone or with others. Love is not contingent upon one's environment, but upon our constitution - every man has heart within him. Other creatures do not have this capability, not because of their environments, but because God did not endow them with such a potential. That is the difference.

"Latent Love", that then is "Manifest Love".

Which brings us back to the question of what love actually is.

That aside for the moment, is this to say that God has qualities that He can't quite self-actualize until He creates someone else? This would be another way to look at my original assertion. God always fully self-actualizes, at least in my understanding, within His Own self existence. He doesn't need us for anything! He needs nothing, lacks nothing, no 'personal development', as He is He has always been, and always will be, the eternal Father, and in Christ, the eternal Son, he is our Father.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Your response was too cryptic to where I cannot appreciate that it does actually indicate a true Christian belief and understanding of my Lord and Savior.

Let me try and re-ignite this subject of Yahshua, his birth name, and his creation, or not, according to you.,,with more questions

So you then believe that not only did the Holy Spirit, (your separate and unique '3rd person') cause Mary to conceive a child, it/he also caused another pre-existing spirit called Jesus (your separate and unique ' 2nd person') to enter into by virtue of this physical conception of the human being, we also call by his same birth name, Yahshua or Jesus, right? Or did the 2nd person have another name in his pre-existing state? I know, you might already be thinking of the name 'word.'...for another discussion if you want, at another time....

And therefore, by process of elimination, the Father (your separate and unique '1st person') had nothing whatsoever to do with causing or giving life to Yahshua in his human body, right? It was up to the 2nd and 3rd person only? Maybe there is another explanation then?

That leads me to another 'logical' thought...

And then you say that Yahshua, 'took' a human spirit (nature) upon his conception, (to become a human being). So then the 3rd person agreed on this with the 2nd person when the 3rd person made Mary conceive? The 3rd person then mysteriously and somehow 'pushed' the 2nd person's nature into the human, we call Yahshua or Jesus? The 3rd person was careful though to keep these two new spirits or natures separate, within Yahshua? Did the natural human nature/spirit 'go in first' or did the pre-existing nature/spirit of Yahshua? Or did the 2nd person actually move in without the 3rd person's efforts? I guess it would not matter then, as long as Yahshua had the vital two natures, right?

Maybe the 2nd person, Yahshua over ruled it/him (the 3rd person) and that is why he is called the 2nd person and not the 3rd person?

What was the decision process? And then why is the Father called the 1st person and evidentally had nothing to do with Yahshua's physical birth or the injection of his pre-existing supernatural spirit/nature? Where was he at this point in time and in the decision process, for Yahshua to take a human nature as you say? Did the 1st person just tell the 3rd person to make Mary pregnant and allow the 2nd person Yahshua to place his supernatural spirit in the physical body?

Is this why the Father is called the 1st person then, because he does all the commanding to the 2nd and 3rd persons, as the chief decision-maker? So is the 1st person, the Father, the only true YHWH or LORD.

Maybe you can straight it all out for me?

APAK

I'm sorry, but this sounds a lot like . . . there was a woman married to a man who had 6 brothers, and he died . . .

Of course the power of God is sufficient to the intended outcome.

I always seem to forget whether Isaiah or Jeremiah, one of them referred to YHWH as the God of all flesh. So when the Word became flesh, Jesus humbled Himself in obedience to the Father. He subjected Himself to the Father by tabernacling in flesh. That was the Law and the Prophets. To redeem His people, that was how it would be.

You asked, "what was the decision process" as if God thought through things like we do. As if God were weighing options, seeking to understand the ups and downs of each, then make the best selection.

God is love. He is always true to Himself, sharing now with us the love He shares in eternity with His Son. There are no decisions to be made, only the outworking of His love.

Much love!

 

[DNB]

"Latent Love", that then is "Manifest Love".

Which brings us back to the question of what love actually is.

That aside for the moment, is this to say that God has qualities that He can't quite self-actualize until He creates someone else? This would be another way to look at my original assertion. God always fully self-actualizes, at least in my understanding, within His Own self existence. He doesn't need us for anything! He needs nothing, lacks nothing, no 'personal development', as He is He has always been, and always will be, the eternal Father, and in Christ, the eternal Son, he is our Father.

Much love!

I'm sorry, are you arguing for, or against yourself here?
You're the one that is saying that God requires an object of affection in order to either prove, or actualize his love. I'm saying, for the third time, that God intrinsically is love, for He is deity, and deity necessitates perfection. And that is whether He be 1,2, 3, 7, or 87.5 persons. Of which, of course, He is only one person, the Father.

I have no idea, from my comments, how you construed that I was asserting that God requires a creature in order for Him to love? I was attempting to prove the opposite. That is, that love is part of one's ontology, not their environment. But since, unfortunately, there is absolutely no point in trying to prove to you that God is not triune (and that it is blasphemy to say that He is), I used a human example, ....assuming that you don't believe humans to be comprised of more than one person (you never know with trinitarian rationale)? That is, that humans can love irrespective of their environment, because God made them in His image. So that again, God is love because He is transcendent and Holy, intrinsically by His pure and unadulterated essence.
And again, not for the utterly stupid proposition that He has His identical in every way, twin or triplet to love, or otherwise it would not be possible for Him to love!
How childishly credulous and absurd!

 

[Mungo]

This does not explain the birth of Christ for me...
I see the Creed Mungo, it is not the original one with the original Trinity and Christology sections. Not really a big deal for this exchange though except maybe for one line of the 3rd person that is important to mention later on.

I trimmed it down to what I thought were the relevant sections

I still want to use simple language to understand the birth of Jesus in terms that can be more easily understood by a lay-person, and without using terms, devices or convenient processes that cannot easily be proven or without crystal clear basis.

Merely stating a process or some type of axiom or series of them as in this Creed, does not make any or all of it true. Hypothesizes and theories are born this way and many cannot be proven and are thrown away. They must be understood for the spiritual book of YHWH only. This is too critical of a subject to leave to the traditions of men.

One concept in this Creed used a device or process of incarnation for example, that before the 4th and 5th centuries were wholly part of the pagan world until the (Romanists) Catholic Church used it to gain control of any political and religious (many pagans) discord or opposition at that time - whether with elders or with the common peasant. It was part of the great compromise of faith whilst using existing primitive knowledge to understand the workings and roles of the three key figures in the NT. I believe it is about time to re-examine it again since its foundation laid in 5th century AD...end of the rant section.

Anyway back to the birth of Christ....the Creed you stated above Mungo does not address and explain the birth of Christ in simple language at all...obvious right?

So, let me start with your first statement, in my words.

Although the 3 persons are unique, they are NOT unique spirits but ARE the SAME common ONE BEING. Therefore in this setting, a/the unique spirit does not define or is associated with a unique personality (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Also, a/the Being does not define associate with a unique personality or a unique spirit. The Being is the common Spirit associated with all three unique personalities.

So how is this one common Spirit or Being associated with all three UNIQUE persons, different from the 3rd UNIQUE person, called the Holy Spirit?

I just noticed that in your Creed version, you only have the 2nd person, Jesus, as being OF the SAME SUBSTANCE of the 1st person, the Father.
Isn't the 2nd person Jesus, of the same substance or Being, as the 1st person and 3rd person also, as already discussed? If not, then the Father is somehow superior to the Son if this Creed is to be taken seriously. And that the Father is always superior to the Son is scriptural.

The Creed you presented does not address the 3rd person and it/his substance of origin, explicitly. In the original Creed of the Trinity section it states that "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. "

So the 3rd person according to this Creed, the Holy Spirit is OF the FATHER AND the SON, always. This is different in that the 3rd person 'comes out' of the 2nd and 3rd person. It seems they are not all equal in this sense of understanding.

I also do not know what exactly the 3rd person 'proceeds from' anyway?! And why does the 3rd person have to come from the 1st AND 2nd person only? I thought it/he was independently a different person of equal footing and OF the SAME BEING or SPIRIT as the other two persons!

So then let me attempt to apply what I've said and from the Creed to the birth of Christ. I can see it will be very difficult already.

1. The Holy Spirit, the 3rd person, it/who proceeds from the 1st and 2nd persons, co-conceives with Mary to birth a Son called Yahshua or Jesus.
2. The 2nd person, Yahshua, then placed his unique personality of the same Being and the same Spirit as the 1st and 3rd persons, inside the human body called Yahshua. Yahshua now cohabited with the Father and the Holy Spirit, of the same Being, with his natural human spirit I guess only derived from Mary for some reason.
3. So which personality (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) decided or was in charge, that the 2nd person should inhabit the body of a human being? It could have been the Father or the Holy Spirit and not just a pre-existing Jesus, as you believe. With this alien thinking, the boy Jesus could have had all three personalities within him instead of the one.
..stop here..too confusing at this point..

Scripture says that the 3rd person only produced a miracle for Mary and produce a human being with a human spirit; the Son of Man, the Son of YHWH.

Scripture is silent on any other spirit being born as Jesus our Saviour. Implicitly it strongly suggests that his Father's Spirit as the decision-maker, and superior to him in every way, made his home within him from birth. This is truly the 1st and 3rd persons combined, as the one YHWH and the one divine Being. This is what scripture says very clearly and it's easy to understand.

Blessings,

APAK

I think you have already been answered by others. But I'll throw in my comments anyway.

You seem to be making complications where none exist, though to be honest I don't fully follow what you are trying to put across.

1. The Holy Spirit, the 3rd person, it/who proceeds from the 1st and 2nd persons, co-conceives with Mary to birth a Son called Yahshua or Jesus.

2. The 2nd person, Yahshua, then placed his unique personality of the same Being and the same Spirit as the 1st and 3rd persons, inside the human body called Yahshua. Yahshua now cohabited with the Father and the Holy Spirit, of the same Being, with his natural human spirit I guess only derived from Mary for some reason.

The Apostles creed states:
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
Personally I'm happy to accept that without going into the exact mechanisms. It's a mystery.
But if you want to dig deeper I recommend Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest of Catholic threologians, on the Incarnation:
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Tertia Pars

3. So which personality (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) decided or was in charge, that the 2nd person should inhabit the body of a human being? It could have been the Father or the Holy Spirit and not just a pre-existing Jesus, as you believe. With this alien thinking, the boy Jesus could have had all three personalities within him instead of the one.
..stop here..too confusing at this point..

No-one is "in charge". There is only one Being, one Divine Will.

 

[APAK]

I trimmed it down to what I thought were the relevant sections


I think you have already been answered by others. But I'll throw in my comments anyway.

You seem to be making complications where none exist, though to be honest I don't fully follow what you are trying to put across.



The Apostles creed states:
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
Personally I'm happy to accept that without going into the exact mechanisms. It's a mystery.
But if you want to dig deeper I recommend Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest of Catholic threologians, on the Incarnation:
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Tertia Pars


No-one is "in charge". There is only one Being, one Divine Will.

Thanks for your reply Mungo. I just see in scripture that there is only one that is in charge and not all 'three persons' as you believe. It is only the Father and his active (Holy) Spirit from eternity past, today and tomorrow that is the beginning and the end of any decision made. Although today his Son has been given authority and is in charge of many of his affairs, especially for mankind and other spirits including the angels.

Blessings, take care for you and loved ones

APAK

 

[Waiting on him]

No-one is "in charge". There is only one Being, one Divine Will.

Matthew 6:10 KJV
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Romans 8:3,9 KJV
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The Spirit of who?

What we have is a man overcome the world of flesh ( sinful flesh ) surrender all in obedience to the will of God

The world that He overcame is that body given.
This should be very encouraging for us all, but it seems for most the focus is on the body, why do you suppose this is?