This seems incoherent. On the one hand one seems to express the idea of a Person proceeding from another Person, but then a suggestion in the way "returning" is expressed suggests to me more of the idea of a force, influence, power or maybe even temporary form/state condition.nope .. youve got it wrong is all.
God is his word and his word is himself expressed outwardly .. he did not create his word ..his word is him with him goes out from him and returned unto him from whence he came .
in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God ,the same was in the beginning with God ,all things were made by "Him" .
and the word ..is the speaking .. word is uttered .it is not referring to a book as some are trying to say
funny you should say that its seems incoherent .. for it is written that the carnal mind cannot comprehend the things of the Spirit .. God is spirit he has no physical form he is also unseen by the eye .. but who he is, is known by what he says ..(just like you and I ) for from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks...This seems incoherent. On the one hand one seems to express the idea of a Person proceeding from another Person, but then a suggestion in the way "returning" is expressed suggests to me more of the idea of a force, influence, power or maybe even temporary form/state condition.
The procession of the Son from the Father is eternal, as the procession of the Holy Spirit. Am unclear if that is coming through here.
completelyAlithis
LOL, am called carnal minded for not understanding a view presented here. The view seems even clearer from this last post as not being one that sees Son of God or the Holy Spirit as Persons, much less God Himself, but rather something like aspects of, forces from, emanations of God. Things from God but not actually God, things which can "return" to God. Which is sort of what I thought from the first post regarding your view of God. Am I wrong?
As Jesus was born of human flesh then Adam's blood line had a lot to do with the birth of Jesus, without this bloodline and human flesh then there would be no reason for Jesus to be born of a woman.-As the lord Jesus was born of the Spirit and not of the flesh .and formed in the womb of a virgin.so excluding the blood of Adam from playing any part in that process .
did the lord God miraculously fertilize an egg of mary's ? or did the lord God fully become flesh in her womb -independent of any human input ( as he had no need of such )
edit note :AS the OP i feel my question has been already satisfactorily addressed. so I open the thread to Digress in what ever way it does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
after a recent misunderstanding i decided it would be interesting to look further into the question.
But as the question risks challenging (sort of) the Nicene creed, though its not my intent to , I decided to ask it here .(hope its the right place )
please note-I repeat - I in no way intend to disagree with the Nicene creed .that is Not my goal at all.
my question is .. -As the lord Jesus was born of the Spirit and not of the flesh .and formed in the womb of a virgin.so excluding the blood of Adam from playing any part in that process .
did the lord God miraculously fertilize an egg of mary's ? or did the lord God fully become flesh in her womb -independent of any human input ( as he had no need of such )
this is an honest question im not hereto argue it one way or the other but i will push back at answers to test them ..
- im just like that -it does not mean im unwilling to accept the answers ,only that i will push the wall ,to see if it is stable so to speak .
I did not say you did not see those things as "aspects" of Him, in fact that was part of my reply you just denied. The point is this understanding does not seem to see those "aspects" as distinct Individuals. Which is not much different than someone describing modes, forms, manesfestations...etc of God. So am I wrong that you do NOT see these "aspects" of God as Persons?completely
.in every aspect i speak of "him"
and you would be wrong again.. i see both and more ..I did not say you did not see those things as "aspects" of Him, in fact that was part of my reply you just denied. The point is this understanding does not seem to see those "aspects" as distinct Individuals. Which is not much different than someone describing modes, forms, manifestations...etc of God. So am I wrong that you do NOT see these "aspects" of God as Persons?
I see , so you agree then that Jesus is God (and is [now and forever] also a man), Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Three Persons, One God. Good. That is why I asked, to see if there was agreement.and you would be wrong again.. i see both and more ..
the more is that the doctrines of the trinity in its present form are in honesty merely mans extremely limited attempt to comprehend and encapsulate in a single phrase the incomprehensible one true living God .I see , so you agree then that Jesus is God (and is [now and forever] also a man), Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Three Persons, One God. Good. That is why I asked, to see if there was agreement.
Am not sure of the "more" part but at least we agree on this much. Again it was not clear from your posts that you agreed with these parts of the Trinity Doctrine. Perhaps that is due to the "more" part.
i wonder why it must be that we define the three persons in such distinct separation from one another ? is it possible to truly do so when they are on a level of unity which is utterly beyond our comprehension ?,do we really glorify God .. (the very word in hebrew i understand to be "plural" in nature) when we attempt to define him down to the comprehension of our fallen intellect ?Alithis,
That sounds nice except for the unorthodox views of human afterlife, but still leaves me wondering if there really are Three distinct Persons in this view or if there is only One Person with various modes/aspects. Which is why I asked specifically that much, but it appears you are unable or unwilling to clarify other than to say you'd rather not get more specific.
The Trinity Doctrine is hardly considered a "complete" or "full" understanding of God. The Doctrine declares what has been revealed about God to mankind. The development of such a doctrine became necessary to defend the faithful against teachings deemed not just in error but often dangerous to the flock, often because it was found to conflict with or weakens/work against other revealed truths already held in what became a growing body of teachings.
It's an outdated expression. Sperm do not contain blood. So the whole point of "the life is in the blood" doesn't really apply. When we say someone is a blood relative, we mean they are biologically related. It has nothing to do with blood.I read somewhere that the blood came from the Father
I'm not opposed to novel ideas. However, I'm curious to understand how you think this two mom thing happened. Was this a case of an egg fertilizing another egg? Do you mean that one woman donated her egg, which would still have had to be miraculously fertilized, and then the egg was implanted by some sort of in vitro fertalization? Just how did this work?I know what is said and believed by most , but I believe God planted a child not a sperm.
and that Jesus had two moms. if science can do it then you know God could have.. for sure!
because legally he would have been from one woman and then baptized in the second woman's blood at his birth.
so legally he would have had rights by both lineages. that is what I think and I wont defend it.
i'm just throwing in my idea.
And in every response you have failed to explain what you mean by "aspect".completely
.in every aspect i speak of "him"
how is it done today? a fully formed child can be planted into any womb,and it is no big deal. a fully formed child can be frozen and transplanted years later even today . and if man can do it then you know it won't be any big deal for God to do.I'm not opposed to novel ideas. However, I'm curious to understand how you think this two mom thing happened. Was this a case of an egg fertilizing another egg? Do you mean that one woman donated her egg, which would still have had to be miraculously fertilized, and then the egg was implanted by some sort of in vitro fertalization? Just how did this work?
And actually have read something somewhere, maybe from Pope Paul, talking about all that made Him human came completely from Mary. This defending the teaching that He was fully man (not some alien hybrid or half god). Fully God and fully man.Hmmm the word became "flesh" and lived among us. Jesus was born as a human baby, and developed as a human child and became a human adult. When Jesus returned to his hometown after Egypt people treated him as if he were the kid they knew when he was growing up, and as a result he couldn't do many miracles in that place. Though the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and it is not said how it was done in that passage, the way Jesus grew up and developed would indicate that he was very human. If this were an alien fetus growing independent of the human mother, this would be immediately apparent .. and Jesus would have been not allowed to go into the temple because he would be "blemished." So from this i'd "imagine" that Jesus was the result of the Holy Spirit "reprogramming" one of Mary's eggs so as to give birth to a human baby with the DNA of God.
I've never heard of this. Please provide a reputable source, like a science magazine or at least a credible newspaper, but NOT the national enquirer.how is it done today? a fully formed child can be planted into any womb,and it is no big deal. a fully formed child can be frozen and transplanted years later even today . and if man can do it then you know it won't be any big deal for God to do.