God Changes?

[DNB]

This is the implication of your thought.

My assertion is that God is always a loving Father, eternally loving the Son. Your thought seems to be that while God is love, that upon the creation of Jesus, were He to have been created, that would be when God would begin to love another.

My assertion is that God has always loved another, and, in Christ, we now share in His eternal love.

Much love!

Understood, ...I do disagree, of course. As do you, with my exposition.
Thanks!

 

[APAK]

@marks,,, YHWH is always a loving Father, even before his Son on earth. We see his love in Genesis, of creation. We see his love with many people, Abraham, Noah, Moses. Even those that committed 'serious' sin like David, he loved him dearly. He loved his people as in a marriage at one point, in Israel. He loves us before the creation of the world, each and ever believer in his Son. And now we love others in his same love, because YHWH loved us first, and demonstrated this clearly with his Son.

Blessings,

APAK

 

[DNB]

@marks,,, YHWH is always a loving Father, even before his Son on earth. We see his love in Genesis, of creation. We see his love with many people, Abraham, Noah, Moses. Even those that committed 'serious' sin like David, he loved him dearly. He loved his people as in a marriage at one point, in Israel. He loves us before the creation of the world, each and ever believer in his Son. And now we love others in his same love, because YHWH loved us first, and demonstrated this clearly with his Son.

Blessings,

APAK

Hi APAK, yes, I agree with all that you stated. But, do be careful, marks is trying to prove God's love prior to creation. All the points that you made, in regard to God exuding His love, were true but occurred post creation. marks is claiming that in order for God to be innately and eternally capable of love, it necessitates the existence an object for His affection, from eternity. Thus, marks has concluded that there must've been an eternal son within the Godhead, in order to satisfy this requirement.

I personally cannot see what type of loving and meaningful dynamic can take place between two persons that know everything, can do everything, and are everywhere simultaneously, and are entirely complete and self-existent in and of themselves?
What does one omniscient person say to another omniscient person, 'how are you?' or 'what are you up to?', or 'should we create something today?'.
Each one knows everything before it is even said, and has the answers to everything without any need to consult anyone, and has the power to do everything on their own.
What extreme and utter nonsense!

 

[APAK]

Hi APAK, yes, I agree with all that you stated. But, do be careful, marks is trying to prove God's love prior to creation. All the points that you made, in regard to God exuding His love, were true but occurred post creation. marks is claiming that in order for God to be innately and eternally capable of love, it necessitates the existence an object for His affection, from eternity. Thus, marks has concluded that there must've been an eternal son within the Godhead, in order to satisfy this requirement.

I personally cannot see what type of loving and meaningful dynamic can take place between two persons that know everything, can do everything, and are everywhere simultaneously, and are entirely complete and self-existent in and of themselves?
What does one omniscient person say to another omniscient person, 'how are you?' or 'what are you up to?', or 'should we create something today?'.
Each one knows everything before it is even said, and has the answers to everything without any need to consult anyone, and has the power to do everything on their own.
What extreme and utter nonsense!

Copy that..I got sucked into a different frame of mind..thanks...
Mark's argument then is one that is not explained in any depth, in scripture at all...one just cannot force or imagine that another being or part of his (YHWH) own being/self shed off, to then love 'himself' before time and space as we know it...it is an exercise in futility and yet religions are based in part from this type of confusion and human speculation...

Blessed day friend!

APAK

 

[marks]

@marks,,, YHWH is always a loving Father, even before his Son on earth. We see his love in Genesis, of creation. We see his love with many people, Abraham, Noah, Moses. Even those that committed 'serious' sin like David, he loved him dearly. He loved his people as in a marriage at one point, in Israel. He loves us before the creation of the world, each and ever believer in his Son. And now we love others in his same love, because YHWH loved us first, and demonstrated this clearly with his Son.

Blessings,

APAK

agreed~

YHWH is always a loving Father, always loving His Son. We share in this eternal love.

Much love!

 

[marks]

But, do be careful, marks is trying to prove God's love prior to creation.

I'm not so much trying to prove anything, well, other than the implications of certain doctrines.

I YHWH change not.

So therefore God did not "become" a loving Father, He always is a loving Father.

Much love!

 

[DNB]

Copy that..I got sucked into a different frame of mind..thanks...
Mark's argument then is one that is not explained in any depth, in scripture at all...one just cannot force or imagine that another being or part of his (YHWH) own being/self shed off, to then love 'himself' before time and space as we know it...it is an exercise in futility and yet religions are based in part from this type of confusion and human speculation...

Blessed day friend!

APAK

Yes, completely imbalanced speculation. They address only one superficial issue (companionship), while entirely overlooking the dynamics and plausibility of what they said.
The impetuousness and bias is quite evident.

 

[DNB]

I'm not so much trying to prove anything, well, other than the implications of certain doctrines.

I YHWH change not.

So therefore God did not "become" a loving Father, He always is a loving Father.

Much love!

Well, that's true, ....but in trying to prove your thesis that God does not change, you need to substantiate or prove your predication, that God had someone else to love prior to creation, or from eternity. To me, that's the crux of the issue, because very few will disagree with your first premise, that God is immutable.

 

[marks]

Well, that's true, ....but in trying to prove your thesis that God does not change, you need to substantiate or prove your predication, that God had someone else to love prior to creation, or from eternity. To me, that's the crux of the issue, because very few will disagree with your first premise, that God is immutable.

It is in the immutability of God that we can know these things. God is the eternal Father. Or not. Or, God became the Father.

Much love!