Love God Only

meshak!

You're talkin' to me! Yipee!

Well, she was honest with me in suggesting that she didn't understand what I was talking about. That's okay and one thing but to condemn like you did, well, that's quite another.

Game-playing? And now you speak for her? Dear me.

Lost? I ever "had" him? But you? You had me at "evil". LOL.



Lucky they have the master troll in you to lead. LOL.


para .  .  .  .

I am a cheerleader of true God worshippers, sweetie..

Kerry - ^

Yet God manifests as something, does He not?

In my opinion, God does not manifest as a thing. 

You wrote that He can be unmanifested and manifested. Manifested after some attribute or power you say. Is that attribute or power separate from God or God?

It may seem at times that an action of God within the creation becomes separated; but that is a temporary situation.  Take the Word of God.  It goes forth so that those with spiritual ears can hear a message.  Is it separated from God?  Perhaps temporarily, but it is written that the Word will not return void. 

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Some thing changed.   We see this in Genesis 1 when God speaks and creation takes on  forms. 

The man that stays behind with Abraham is called YHVH. Did the three eat?

Those were three angels which could take on human form if they wanted.  They are called YHVH, angels and men.   An angel is like a burning piece of wood taken from a central fire.

If you had felt flattered by being called "Good Teacher" and then asked a question about what you believed knowing that your answer in testing would not be accepted, therefore you being dismissed as genuinely a good teacher, would you accept him believing that you were a good teacher? That person couldn't see good (God) by Jesus, so why call Jesus good? It's a total waste of "good", a mockery.

If Jesus says, Yes, you're right about me being "good", that would only double down on the man's disbelief. So, Jesus deflects. The man's flattery is wasted on Jesus. He doesn't see God in Jesus. First know that God is good.

I would say the man lacked enough spiritual sight to perceive how God working though Jesus.  Many Christians today remind me of that man when they seem to be flattering Jesus, hoping to gain eternal life. 

Goodness, love are expressed by works, some "other"-directed. It's not enough to say love, love, love, or write poems about it. It's expressed by giving outward. Jesus loved the man who turned away from him by telling him the Truth. The man was more tied to his wealth than God, the very source of that wealth.

God expressed his love for humanity by doing what he preached to humanity as the greatest love, sacrificing himself for the good of humanity.

That which is eternal cannot die. 

So many say that God is Eternal Love. So do I. But before any creation, that Love when Eternal needed to be expressed to be Eternal Love. Angels aren't eternal. They are part of the invisible created. God didn't need to create us to be Eternal Love.

Love cannot exist by itself.  There must also be "the other."  I would not use the word "need" to describe it; but I would say the very Nature of God compelled Him to create "the other" in order that Love would be possible. 

His Love was expressed by His nature, the three Persons of theTrinity. The Eternal Lover, the Eternal Beloved, and that Eternal spiritual Communion between them. Persons distinct from one another but of the same Substance.

Using the phrases you do fails to convince me of anything.  You also seem to be missing how God could manifest a feminine aspect if you see the three persons of the Trinity as all male. 

So Jesus was fully God the Father? Not 99.999% God the Father manifested but fully God the Father manifested? So God the Father appears entirely a man? The Father and Son One in the "flesh"? God the Father appearing as man? The fullness of Deity. Yet, Jesus called himself Son, not Father. He said the Father knew something he doesn't. How could this be if the God the Father is fully manifested in Jesus?

How much did Jesus, Son of Man, manifest God the Father?

I interpret "fully" to mean that Jesus did not cling to any human flaws which would have prevented God from manifesting.  Angels still existed as manifestations of God.  There were also  men which manifested God although less fully since they usually had a few remaining flaws. 

Permit me to restate it another way so that you can understand the logic.

Jesus is called Lord in scripture. The Son of Man ascends to the Throne of the Father where he sits with the Father as Lord. Jesus had prayed that the Father glorify him with the glory he shared with the Father prior to the foundation of the world. This is Jesus as God the Son. Has to be since he is Eternal as is the Father. This Glory is seen by the Revelator as the Son of Man, Jesus, Crowned, coming as God does in the OT. Jesus has his Eternal Glory back. Not us. We aren't Eternal, Cause. Jesus, that special Son of Man is.

You statement makes assumptions I do not make.

Jesus, God the Son, is equal, not unequal to God the Father. They are different offices of the triune Godhead. God the Son in loving obedience obeys God the Father. They're equals. God the Son proceeds from God the Father like the woman proceeds from the man, her source or "head". Paul makes it clear, the relationship between husband and wife is one of equality, each submitting to one another in love. Yet both have different offices as one.

You might see, Kerry, that it isn't that God wanted the joining of two as one in marriage first as our mystery or great example in Genesis, although that too. It's that God before the foundation of the world had already married Christ to the Body. That is where marriage comes from, the joining of two as one. Then the Creation.

I would use the word "betrothed" rather than "married."   

No, humans aren't God. They become divinized reflecting God the Son's Glory. Jesus, solely as human could not have done what he did. He had no human Dad. Rather, he was God the Son, God come "down" to live with His creation as fully human, yet still God the Son, not the Father, shed of his celestial Glory which he resumed upon ascension.

This is closer to what I believe.  I see the creation and all the things in it as waiting to be connected with God.  Humans are meant to play a role in helping make that happen.   The creation and making of things in it are feminine in relationship with God.  The end goal of all creation is that it is meant to express the Glory of God. 

Kerry - ^

In my opinion, God does not manifest as a thing.

Then what? No thing? Nothing?

It may seem at times that an action of God within the creation becomes separated; but that is a temporary situation.  Take the Word of God.  It goes forth so that those with spiritual ears can hear a message.  Is it separated from God?  Perhaps temporarily, but it is written that the Word will not return void.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Some thing changed.   We see this in Genesis 1 when God speaks and creation takes on forms.

So the Word isn't wasted and God speaks and there's form. When God is All, how can He not be that "form" or since it comes from Him? You wrote that He's Omnipresent and chooses to express Himself in that Omnipresence at certain times. He appears as fire ("thing") to Moses, even more.

Those were three angels which could take on human form if they wanted.  They are called YHVH, angels and men.   An angel is like a burning piece of wood taken from a central fire.

Three angels? But only two go on to Sodom and YHVH stays with Abe. And even so, YHVH on earth rains down fire from YHVH in heaven, not angels who do it. Two powers called YHVH, Kerry.

I would say the man lacked enough spiritual sight to perceive how God working though Jesus.  Many Christians today remind me of that man when they seem to be flattering Jesus, hoping to gain eternal life.

The main thing with that guy was being tied down to his wealth and the mundane. He could have apologized for his flattery but the conversation didn't end there. He was told to do something.

That which is eternal cannot die.

What died was that which was full of sin. Jesus took on our sins on the cross. Jesus fully man, fully God could do so since he was so. Moses couldn't do it since he was only a man. One greater than Moses is Jesus. This is why Caiaphas' prophecy was ironic. He wanted a mere man to die to save the nation and that wasn't given. It had to be God the Son, fully human, fully divine for all humanity.

Love cannot exist by itself.  There must also be "the other."  I would not use the word "need" to describe it; but I would say the very Nature of God compelled Him to create "the other" in order that Love would be possible. 

But that "other" (creation) isn't eternal, Kerry. What was before it? Angels? They too are created. Trins say the three Persons of Eternal Love as distinct from one another
are eternally existing and interacting as scripture shows in various places. No need for creation. It appears that you have a God Who can't be Eternal Love by very definition. What? God became Eternal Love only when he created "other"? Illogical.

Using the phrases you do fails to convince me of anything.  You also seem to be missing how God could manifest a feminine aspect if you see the three persons of the Trinity as all male.

Nope. You assume too much, especially since we've discussed the feminine nature of the Holy Spirit some time ago.

I interpret "fully" to mean that Jesus did not cling to any human flaws which would have prevented God from manifesting.  Angels still existed as manifestations of God.  There were also  men which manifested God although less fully since they usually had a few remaining flaws.

But they need the spiritual template, Jesus Christ, before the foundation, Kerry. Otherwise, they're still fallen like Adam with no help from Adam. All the prophets awaited him.

You statement makes assumptions I do not make.

Nope. No assumptions. All scriptural and by what the Church reasonably understands.

I would use the word "betrothed" rather than "married."   

God won't fail. He has His elect who He predestinates. It's the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

This is closer to what I believe.  I see the creation and all the things in it as waiting to be connected with God.  Humans are meant to play a role in helping make that happen.   The creation and making of things in it are feminine in relationship with God.  The end goal of all creation is that it is meant to express the Glory of God.

Agreed. The nations go up one-by-one. God won't fail. It's we who are stuck in time. God is ever patient. We suffer, hopefully learn, rinse, repeat.


para  .  .  .  .

meshak - ^

I'd rather be on the pitch. I'm not a ribbon-twirler.

para  .  .  .  .

Not to worry,  You will not be in my encouraging group.

Kerry - ^

Then what? No thing? Nothing?

In terms of the physical world and even things in the heavens, nothing can be said to be God.  God is a spirit, not a thing. 

So the Word isn't wasted and God speaks and there's form. When God is All, how can He not be that "form" or since it comes from Him? You wrote that He's Omnipresent and chooses to express Himself in that Omnipresence at certain times. He appears as fire ("thing") to Moses, even more.

God is Cause, not effect.  God can move within the world of form; but He cannot be defined as being contained in any form. 

Three angels? But only two go on to Sodom and YHVH stays with Abe. And even so, YHVH on earth rains down fire from YHVH in heaven, not angels who do it. Two powers called YHVH, Kerry.

Where did this idea come from?  I reread the passage to see if what you said about YHVH staying with Abraham is in the passage.  It's not. 

When an angel comes to the earth, he is given a specific mission.  Three angels mean there were three missions.  The mission of one of the three angels was to heal Sarah so she could have a child.   He did that, and his mission was accomplished.   His mission being finished, he returned to Heaven.  The other two angels still had work to do. 

The main thing with that guy was being tied down to his wealth and the mundane. He could have apologized for his flattery but the conversation didn't end there. He was told to do something.

You seem to want to skip over that Jesus told him he was not good and not to call him good because only God was good.  Yet I would say that is what the man needed to hear -- that he needed to go beyond keeping the commandments which is a start but not the end.  The end should be loving God and loving others -- not loving money.  That man needed to learn how to let God work through him. He was also worried about inheriting the kingdom  -- a start, but again not good enough to become perfect.  He needed to abandon any ideas about him becoming good himself and start loving others just because it made him glad to let the Love of God flow through him. 

What died was that which was full of sin. Jesus took on our sins on the cross. Jesus fully man, fully God could do so since he was so. Moses couldn't do it since he was only a man. One greater than Moses is Jesus. This is why Caiaphas' prophecy was ironic. He wanted a mere man to die to save the nation and that wasn't given. It had to be God the Son, fully human, fully divine for all humanity.

This is dogma, isn't it? 

But that "other" (creation) isn't eternal, Kerry. What was before it? Angels? They too are created. Trins say the three Persons of Eternal Love as distinct from one another
are eternally existing and interacting as scripture shows in various places. No need for creation. It appears that you have a God Who can't be Eternal Love by very definition. What? God became Eternal Love only when he created "other"? Illogical.

I did not say God became Eternal Love only when He created the other.   I said love wants there to be "the other."  God looked at "the man" (hadam) and said it was not good for he/she to be alone.  Thus "the man" was divided to become two, one male and one female.  Not the same qualities in both.  The were different. 

Nope. You assume too much, especially since we've discussed the feminine nature of the Holy Spirit some time ago.

Good you didn't forget it.  I find the idea of three perfect Persons of the Trinity existing eternally loving each other a bit boring.  I think God would find it boring.  Wouldn't it be more fun to have creatures which were not created perfect but which could become perfect if they made right decisions?   Note it, and note it well, God does not say after making and creating "the man" that he/she was good.  It's omitted.  That being said, overall everything taken together was seen to be "very good."  God's plan for the incomplete man was very good.  Now since God is Love, that might mean God "suffered" when the man made wrong decisions.  God had an answer for that too.  He might suffer, but there was an answer.  We are told Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world -- I believe that too.  Don't look at only the life of Jesus in that one lifetime when he suffered -- he had suffered before that when things were going wrong. 

But they need the spiritual template, Jesus Christ, before the foundation, Kerry. Otherwise, they're still fallen like Adam with no help from Adam. All the prophets awaited him.

Nope. No assumptions. All scriptural and by what the Church reasonably understands.

God won't fail. He has His elect who He predestinates. It's the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Agreed. The nations go up one-by-one. God won't fail. It's we who are stuck in time. God is ever patient. We suffer, hopefully learn, rinse, repeat.


para  .  .  .  .

Love carries the risk of suffering.  That's why I'm not that impressed by your idea of three Perfect Persons in the Trinity existing eternally and loving each other eternally.   

Love also is giving "part" of self to the other.  Love itself is a spiritual substance which flows from the source to the other.  God, when making man, gave that man part of His Substance.  If man did well, he would become even more like God.  If he did poorly, he would become less like God.