Talking about a Statement of Faith I wrote

[CIYA]

For context of this conversation, see: Offering warm greetings, and a question...

Anyone else is free to join in with their own thoughts if desired, just trying to see whether my group is appropriate to promote on this site.

 

[CIYA]

Here are the results from the machine. At least we both like the Bible, regardless of whether it contains 66 books or 73 books, and we both believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

The machine did say that your Christian Introverted Young Adults group has a good statement of faith.

View attachment 354222

And what the machine found in common among the three major branches of Christianity, from an earlier post: What beliefs are universally accepted across all denominations?

View attachment 354223

Thanks for sharing screenshots. I was wondering what Ai you were using, since I'm kind of a nerd for them lol.

I acknowledge the major differences it pointed out.

1. Most denominations do not emphasize which Bible translations to use, but I think it's an overlooked point, since when you get into biblical "deep study" there's a lot of arguments about what words to use for which passages, and the meaning of some verses can change slightly depending on this.
Different Bible versions also utilize different original language source texts for their translations. Some reference the Dead Sea Scrolls for parts of them for example, while others do not. Some translations also utilize more Alexandrian-leaning texts (i.e. Alexandrius, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus), while others use more Antioch-leaning texts (Textus Receptus, Masoretic, etc.). Because of this, some Bible translations will omit some words, sometimes whole verses, such as 1 John 5:7–8, while others keep it in.

If people prefer to use the NIV, ESV, CEB, NLT, NKJV, KJV, etc. that is up to them, but I think it's important to spread awareness on reflecting on why someone picked that translation over a different one, and not just because it "reads easier".
God emphasizes not "adding or taking away" from his Word (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19), so I don't think translational differences, especially the major ones, should be viewed as insignificant.

Usually KJV-Onlyists are seen talking about this issue the most, but I think the concern is equally valid regardless of what translation(s) you prefer.

I studied that topic for about two years; it's really fascinating.


2. Concerning the differing views of eschatology, I tend to be less stringent about it than some other groups. Some people freak about about what's the Mark of the Beast, what's Mystery Babylon, who are the Two Witnesses, when's the Rapture going to happen, have the Four Horsemen begun their descent or not, etc., but I think with a lot of these signs, we won't be able to fully understand them until we see them happen, and it's going to be rather obvious and dramatic to prevent misinterpretation. Both Jesus and Paul primarily emphasize to just be aware of the signs, wait, and be watchful.

I have a premillennial 1,000 year view because that's just what the Bible says about it at face value without assuming it's symbolism. It's another "better safer than sorry" view I have, since the Bible does not directly indicate to us that this is a symbolic event, as it has before for other things (ex. Joseph's dreams, Nebuchadnezzar's dreams, The Lamb of God is Jesus, etc.), so I think it's innocent of being assumed it's symbolic until proven guilty, so-to-speak.

I'm not going to call someone a heretic that's not a premillennialist, but to set the standard of taking the Bible as straightforwardly as possible, this why I include it in the Statement of Faith. My emphasis really isn't on the 1,000 years being literal, and more that God Himself will be actually walking on earth and doing direct judgement on it at some point in the future, which is a major theological point concerning the character of God and His master plan for creation.


3. The Trinity argument I'm not going to touch since it seems like the leadership on this forum are in agreement about that.

 

[jas3]

Some constructive criticism on your statement:

3. God exists as a Trinity: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit.
All three predate creation, are parts of the same whole Being, and possess equal authority.
(Gen. 1:26; Gen. 1:2; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 9:6; John 1:1–5; John 10:30; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 2:8-9; 1 John 5:7-8)

The phrase "predate creation" is vague and allows for an Arian interpretation. Is this meant to say that all three Persons of the Trinity are coeternal? If so, that should be more explicit.

The phrase "parts of the same whole" is also vague and could be interpreted to deny the full deity of the individual Persons, as if the Holy Ghost is "one third of God." I know this isn't what you mean, but a better way to phrase it would be like the Nicene Creed does, to say that the Persons are "consubstantial" or "of one/the same essence."

5. The Word of God is the ultimate source of morality.
What God deems as evil is evil, and what God deems as good is good. We are expected as Christians to continue seeking "goodness" over "evil". Consciously refusing to do so puts us at risk of "mocking" God's gift to us, and we may suffer potential consequences.
(Isa. 5:20; Matt. 7:21; Rom. 3:31; Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 3:12-13; Gal. 6:7; 2 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 2:12-16)

The idea that things are good or evil only because God deems them so is one that to my knowledge is only held by Calvinists. If you mean by that statement that nobody can contradict what God has revealed to us about what is good and what is evil, then that's covered by the first sentence, or you could state that more clearly instead of the second sentence.

Out of curiosity, were you referencing any of the historic confessions of faith when writing these?

 

[PloverWing]

For context of this conversation, see: Offering warm greetings, and a question...

Anyone else is free to join in with their own thoughts if desired, just trying to see whether my group is appropriate to promote on this site.

Here's the relevant part of the CF site rules (Terms and rules):

"Do not advertise commercial products or services. This prohibition includes begging or soliciting donations or financial support (charitable or otherwise) anywhere on the site. Do not advertise or promote other sites in your signature or your custom username title."

I think this means it's okay to give a link to your site in a post (though not in your signature), as long as your site is free to use and does not collect money in any way.

The collection of beliefs that you listed in the other thread is pretty reasonable for a group that's conservative Evangelical Protestant. It resembles the statements of belief that I've seen from schools and churches in that tradition. Note that the statements exclude many Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant Christians, but I assume that you're trying to form a conservative Evangelical online community, so it'll probably meet your needs.

 

[CIYA]

Some constructive criticism on your statement:

The phrase "predate creation" is vague and allows for an Arian interpretation. Is this meant to say that all three Persons of the Trinity are coeternal? If so, that should be more explicit.

The phrase "parts of the same whole" is also vague and could be interpreted to deny the full deity of the individual Persons, as if the Holy Ghost is "one third of God." I know this isn't what you mean, but a better way to phrase it would be like the Nicene Creed does, to say that the Persons are "consubstantial" or "of one/the same essence."


The idea that things are good or evil only because God deems them so is one that to my knowledge is only held by Calvinists. If you mean by that statement that nobody can contradict what God has revealed to us about what is good and what is evil, then that's covered by the first sentence, or you could state that more clearly instead of the second sentence.

Out of curiosity, were you referencing any of the historic confessions of faith when writing these?

Hey jas,

1. I'm not sure how the 3rd Point argues for Arianism? If you could elaborate? Since saying they predate creation implies none of the members of the Godhead are a created being, which would therefore imply they are coeternal.

About the parts of the same whole, yeah I see what you mean, and I am in agreement. I'm trying to make the phrasing more accessible to people and less confusing, which why I simplified the wording. I've heard people use a "Three are One" statement before, but wasn't sure of the best way to implement that.


2. I feel like this might be overcomplicating what I'm trying to state for the 5th point.
Regardless of the reasoning behind whether something is good or evil, God is the originator of defining that, not man or some other source like Satan.
If God never had stated to Adam and Eve that eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was an "evil" thing to do, or just had never created the tree at all, evil wouldn't really exist as far as mankind's awareness was concerned.


I wasn't referencing any historic confessions directly, if that's what you are asking. I complied my Statement of Faith mostly indirectly based on bits and pieces I recalled in my head from various sources, which I then supported with verse citations. I didn't have an intention to adhere to a particular denomination, otherwise I probably would have copied and pasted from the appropriate source and adjusted accordingly. I just wanted to have something that will help maintain the Christian integrity of the group.

 

[CIYA]

Here's the relevant part of the CF site rules (Terms and rules):

"Do not advertise commercial products or services. This prohibition includes begging or soliciting donations or financial support (charitable or otherwise) anywhere on the site. Do not advertise or promote other sites in your signature or your custom username title."

I think this means it's okay to give a link to your site in a post (though not in your signature), as long as your site is free to use and does not collect money in any way.

The collection of beliefs that you listed in the other thread is pretty reasonable for a group that's conservative Evangelical Protestant. It resembles the statements of belief that I've seen from schools and churches in that tradition. Note that the statements exclude many Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant Christians, but I assume that you're trying to form a conservative Evangelical online community, so it'll probably meet your needs.

Thanks for commenting PloverWing.

Right, this is not a commercial group, and I don't have an option for anyone to donate at this time.

The rules seem sort of unclear though about promoting a Christian group that is outside of CF, and I didn't see a forum for local ministries, which is pretty much what this is, so I wasn't sure.

Yeah, I kind of went into this expecting that some people would feel excluded.
It's sort of impossible to appeal to every Christian group at once. Any church who claims to is probably doing a lot of inconsistent compromise.
The alternative is to pretty much just have no Statement of Faith at all, which some groups have done, but then I risk lacking a foundation to maintain integrity.

 

[AlexB23]

Thanks for sharing screenshots. I was wondering what Ai you were using, since I'm kind of a nerd for them lol.

I acknowledge the major differences it pointed out.

1. Most denominations do not emphasize which Bible translations to use, but I think it's an overlooked point, since when you get into biblical "deep study" there's a lot of arguments about what words to use for which passages, and the meaning of some verses can change slightly depending on this.
Different Bible versions also utilize different original language source texts for their translations. Some reference the Dead Sea Scrolls for parts of them for example, while others do not. Some translations also utilize more Alexandrian-leaning texts (i.e. Alexandrius, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus), while others use more Antioch-leaning texts (Textus Receptus, Masoretic, etc.). Because of this, some Bible translations will omit some words, sometimes whole verses, such as 1 John 5:7–8, while others keep it in.

If people prefer to use the NIV, ESV, CEB, NLT, NKJV, KJV, etc. that is up to them, but I think it's important to spread awareness on reflecting on why someone picked that translation over a different one, and not just because it "reads easier".
God emphasizes not "adding or taking away" from his Word (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19), so I don't think translational differences, especially the major ones, should be viewed as insignificant.

Usually KJV-Onlyists are seen talking about this issue the most, but I think the concern is equally valid regardless of what translation(s) you prefer.

I studied that topic for about two years; it's really fascinating.


2. Concerning the differing views of eschatology, I tend to be less stringent about it than some other groups. Some people freak about about what's the Mark of the Beast, what's Mystery Babylon, who are the Two Witnesses, when's the Rapture going to happen, have the Four Horsemen begun their descent or not, etc., but I think with a lot of these signs, we won't be able to fully understand them until we see them happen, and it's going to be rather obvious and dramatic to prevent misinterpretation. Both Jesus and Paul primarily emphasize to just be aware of the signs, wait, and be watchful.

I have a premillennial 1,000 year view because that's just what the Bible says about it at face value without assuming it's symbolism. It's another "better safer than sorry" view I have, since the Bible does not directly indicate to us that this is a symbolic event, as it has before for other things (ex. Joseph's dreams, Nebuchadnezzar's dreams, The Lamb of God is Jesus, etc.), so I think it's innocent of being assumed it's symbolic until proven guilty, so-to-speak.

I'm not going to call someone a heretic that's not a premillennialist, but to set the standard of taking the Bible as straightforwardly as possible, this why I include it in the Statement of Faith. My emphasis really isn't on the 1,000 years being literal, and more that God Himself will be actually walking on earth and doing direct judgement on it at some point in the future, which is a major theological point concerning the character of God and His master plan for creation.


3. The Trinity argument I'm not going to touch since it seems like the leadership on this forum are in agreement about that.

You are welcome. I use Mistral 7B running on an Intel Core i5 with Nvidia 1050 GPU laptop. The AI runs in GPT4ALL by Nomic software.

For myself, I use NIV, NKJV, NRSV-CE and a bit of ESV. Also, I believe that the end times are near, but we do not know the hour of Christ's return. For the Trinity, I hope every Christian believes in that.

 

[CIYA]

You are welcome. I use Mistral 7B running on an Intel Core i5 with Nvidia 1050 GPU laptop. The AI runs in GPT4ALL by Nomic software.

For myself, I use NIV, NKJV, NRSV-CE and a bit of ESV. Also, I believe that the end times are near, but we do not know the hour of Christ's return. For the Trinity, I hope every Christian believes in that.

May I ask why you are running your Ai locally? I'm guessing it might be for privacy reasons, but I'm curious.

I agree with you, yes. Unfortunately I've run across quite a few people who are not Trinitarian. It really worries me because they are basically believing in a different Jesus than the one in the Bible, as the evidence is abundant that He is, at the very least, claiming to be equal with God. And then you have verses like Phil. 2:5-6 that straight up state that's who He is.

 

[jas3]

1. I'm not sure how the 3rd Point argues for Arianism? If you could elaborate? Since saying they predate creation implies none of the members of the Godhead are a created being, which would therefore imply they are coeternal.

To clarify, I wouldn't say it argues for Arianism, only that it doesn't exclude Arianism. Ultimately it comes down to a semantic argument about what is included in "creation." But more to the point, "predate creation" isn't well defined; what does it mean to "predate" (to be at an earlier date) the beginning of time? It may seem like hair splitting, but I would suggest that it's more clear to speak in terms of the eternal reality (e.g. the Son being eternally only-begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father) than to use temporal terms when you're talking about the reality outside of time.

2. I feel like this might be overcomplicating what I'm trying to state for the 5th point.
Regardless of the reasoning behind whether something is good or evil, God is the originator of defining that, not man or some other source like Satan.
If God never had stated to Adam and Eve that eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was an "evil" thing to do, or just had never created the tree at all, evil wouldn't really exist as far as mankind's awareness was concerned.

I agree with your main point in that we know something is good or evil only in relation to God, but to put it in terms of God "deeming" things good or evil just opens a can of worms about the nature of morality that doesn't have to be opened.

I wasn't referencing any historic confessions directly, if that's what you are asking. I complied my Statement of Faith mostly indirectly based on bits and pieces I recalled in my head from various sources, which I then supported with verse citations. I didn't have an intention to adhere to a particular denomination, otherwise I probably would have copied and pasted from the appropriate source and adjusted accordingly. I just wanted to have something that will help maintain the Christian integrity of the group.

Being interdenominational doesn't mean you have to reinvent the wheel. I would suggest taking a look at existing creeds and statements of faith to see how doctrines like the Trinity are stated. A particularly helpful one would be the Nicene Creed, which predates all schisms that have lasted to the present, so any Christian should be able to affirm it.

 

[CIYA]

To clarify, I wouldn't say it argues for Arianism, only that it doesn't exclude Arianism. Ultimately it comes down to a semantic argument about what is included in "creation." But more to the point, "predate creation" isn't well defined; what does it mean to "predate" (to be at an earlier date) the beginning of time? It may seem like hair splitting, but I would suggest that it's more clear to speak in terms of the eternal reality (e.g. the Son being eternally only-begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father) than to use temporal terms when you're talking about the reality outside of time.


I agree with your main point in that we know something is good or evil only in relation to God, but to put it in terms of God "deeming" things good or evil just opens a can of worms about the nature of morality that doesn't have to be opened.


Being interdenominational doesn't mean you have to reinvent the wheel. I would suggest taking a look at existing creeds and statements of faith to see how doctrines like the Trinity are stated. A particularly helpful one would be the Nicene Creed, which predates all schisms that have lasted to the present, so any Christian should be able to affirm it.

1. Pretty much, yes. When I say predating creation I refer to before time, before when any known being existed aside from God. I tend to avoid phrases like "eternally begotten", because out of context it implies that God had at some point "birthed" Jesus into creation, and thereby created Him somehow after the initial creation of the world, which to many would indicate Jesus is lesser to God the Father in some way.
The word "eternal" can sometimes be a confusing term to use in this case, because you run into the paradox of how God can exist without ever having a beginning. Saying He existed outside of time itself before creating it offers an explanation for this. I could specify that aspect of it, to make it more clear.

2. Just as well, if you don't specify God is deeming good and evil, it could open another can of worms about what man's role is about establishing morality. I've seen some Christians determine morality after accepting Christ based purely on so-called "instinct" while quoting verses like Titus 1:15, and essentially inventing their own morals as though God gave them the right to decide based on "feeling out" what's good and bad after Jesus died for our sins, which He doesn't.
A lot of spiritual cult leaders work this way too.

3. Fair enough, I'll take a look. It's been awhile some I've looked at some of them.

I do appreciate your constructive criticism; it is welcome.

 

[AlexB23]

May I ask why you are running your Ai locally? I'm guessing it might be for privacy reasons, but I'm curious.

I agree with you, yes. Unfortunately I've run across quite a few people who are not Trinitarian. It really worries me because they are basically believing in a different Jesus than the one in the Bible, as the evidence is abundant that He is, at the very least, claiming to be equal with God. And then you have verses like Phil. 2:5-6 that straight up state that's who He is.

I run the AI locally, for privacy reasons, plus it is cool, and totally free (no logins). What happens if a power that persecutes Christians decides to use cloud-based AI to track us? I only ask Christian questions to a locally run AI system.

Non-Trinitarians might want to read their Bibles again, and also read the Christian creed(s), such as the Nicene or Apostles Creed. Though, every Christian especially myself need to read the Bible.

 

[CIYA]

I run the AI locally, for privacy reasons, plus it is cool, and totally free (no logins). What happens if a power that persecutes Christians decides to use cloud-based AI to track us? I only ask Christian questions to a locally run AI system.

Non-Trinitarians might want to read their Bibles again, and also read the Christian creed(s), such as the Nicene or Apostles Creed. Though, every Christian especially myself need to read the Bible.

Also as time goes on we should start seeing more open source models that are open to being independantly trained that are not one of the major LLMs, and might not have as much of a particular training or political bias preloaded into it.

I remember asking one model, I believe it was Gemini, to generate a type of Christian image, and it said no under the context that it was "religious". I've had similar issues with other ones as well.

Indeed, amen.

 

[AlexB23]

Also as time goes on we should start seeing more open source models that are open to being independantly trained that are not one of the major LLMs, and might not have as much of a particular training or political bias preloaded into it.

I remember asking one model, I believe it was Gemini, to generate a type of Christian image, and it said no under the context that it was "religious". I've had similar issues with other ones as well.

Indeed, amen.

I recommend trying Meta's LLaMA, as that one is completely open-source. Gemini is kinda woke.

 

[CIYA]

I recommend trying Meta's LLaMA, as that one is completely open-source. Gemini is kinda woke.

I've heard LLaMA is better yeah, but the open source one doesn't do generative images at this time, as far as I know. Really all of the Ai's are limited in various ways, until they release a more polished training method that the public can do themselves on an Ai. I've heard rumors we're getting closer to that point.

But that's beside the original scope of this thread lol.

 

[AlexB23]

I've heard LLaMA is better yeah, but the open source one doesn't do generative images at this time, as far as I know. Really all of the Ai's are limited in various ways, until they release a more polished training method that the public can do themselves on an Ai. I've heard rumors we're getting closer to that point.

But that's beside the original scope of this thread lol.

Maybe, it might be a good idea that one backs off of AI when it comes to making images of Christian content. It is better to use our imagination instead, and focus on what happened in the Bible.

DALL-E can make images though.

 

[CIYA]

Maybe, it might be a good idea that one backs off of AI when it comes to making images of Christian content. It is better to use our imagination instead, and focus on what happened in the Bible.

DALL-E can make images though.

I see what you mean. I don't really use generative Ai to depict entire scenes in the Bible to use in some authoritative way. One prompt I attempted to do was on the Rapture I think, for someone who is very excited about the Rapture and wanted to see a creative interpretation of it. I didn't have intention on distributing it like I expected that was how God would actually carry it out, because we don't know.

DALL.E I've run into weird restrictions too. Sometimes I'll ask for a random innocent prompt, which may have nothing to do with religion at all, and it refuses to create it because it violates their policy without elaborating.

I've resorted to some Stable Diffusion-run models a few times, which can be run local and open-source, but they can be tricky to tame.

 

[AlexB23]

I see what you mean. I don't really use generative Ai to depict entire scenes in the Bible to use in some authoritative way. One prompt I attempted to do was on the Rapture I think, for someone who is very excited about the Rapture and wanted to see a creative interpretation of it. I didn't have intention on distributing it like I expected that was how God would actually carry it out, because we don't know.

DALL.E I've run into weird restrictions too. Sometimes I'll ask for a random innocent prompt, which may have nothing to do with religion at all, and it refuses to create it because it violates their policy without elaborating.

I've resorted to some Stable Diffusion-run models a few times, which can be run local and open-source, but they can be tricky to tame.

Good idea on not distributing this stuff. Just wait a year or so, and AI will get better. There are a lot of restrictions, cos companies want control.

 

[CIYA]

I'd change #1 to "The 73 canonical books of the holy scriptures are our primary foundation for faith and life and it to them that we go for answers to difficult questions, but we rely finally and fully on the wisdom given by the Holy Spirit for the proper understanding of what the holy scriptures teach."

And I'd change #3 to "And Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Coeternal together, and Coequal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped."

You also ought to add #3a to teach about the incarnation, "we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire."

The other numbered points will need more work, but without a clear statement of what is believed about the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ the statement of faith is incomplete.

1. As I spoke about with Alex, not all Christian sects believe in 73 canonical books.

There is general consensus however, about that the 66 books are canon, and this is what I emphasize.

If someone Catholic or Orthodox joins my group, I'm not going to stop them from referencing Deuterocanonical books, if they believe it is insightful (as I said to Alex, I myself have even referenced Maccabees a couple times in context of the Silent Period, and I am not a Catholic), but it's up to individuals within the group to decide what to do with that, since there are understandable disagreements about their canonicity (whether or not they are directly inspired by God).

2. I mean, You could go on for entire books attempting to explain what the Trinity is and how it could exist (despite most agreeing it's pretty much incomprehensible for mankind to process), but the essential point which the Bible emphasizes is that God is the "uncreated" all-powerful Being God, as you said, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally not-created and have equal essence.
Jesus incarnated to earth as a Man through the Spirit of God via a virgin, but His conscious existence has been there since before the "beginning". He knew who He was and His intrinsic relationship with the Father whilst on Earth.

The latter point I could also add, in case I run across people out there who dispute the virgin birth and whether or not the Son actually fully incarnated, even after being in agreement about the context of Him being God and dying a man's death on the cross, although I've found this to be rare.

This Statement of Faith is not intended to be exhaustive or to be the ultimate source for explaining everything about Theology Proper.
This is just collection of major points to guide supporting the integrity of a discussion group, and I don't intend on people viewing the Points as some fully complete authority. Individuals are responsible for studying the Word of God and prayerfully growing the discernment to understand it correctly.
I do have formal training in biblical study, and I feel comfortable helping people with questions if need be, but I'm also still learning too.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As I spoke about with Alex, not all Christian sects believe in 73 canonical books.

Less than half of Christians hold to a 66 book canon.

 

[CIYA]

Less than half of Christians hold to a 66 book canon.

Citation?

The point of my argument was not about holding a 66 book canon specifically; it was that the 66 books which are not Deuterocanonical or otherwise are considered canon at the minimum across most Christian sects.