Yes, it's typically conditional.god sometimes changes his mind (so to speak, god doesn't really have a mind) but only because we repent or we ask for mercy or something like that.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
the LORD doesn't change, therefore he didn't change into a man. the bible doesn't say god became a man, it says Jesus was begotten, not that Jesus was a changeling. begotten doesn't mean change .
the main "god is not a man" verse actually says.
(Young) Numbers 23:19 God [is] not a man--and lieth, And a son of man--and repenteth! Hath He said--and doth He not do [it]? And spoken--and doth He not confirm it?
ther is one not before a man, lieth, a son of man, and repenteth. So reallly God is saying he isnt a man, doesn't lie, isn't a son of man, and he doesn't repent.
Malachi 3:6 is talking about His promise to Jacob, indicated by "therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." Malachi 3:6 does not say that God does not change into a man.
Num. 23:19 is why I say that Jesus is no longer a human being. If Jesus was God, He would not always remain as a man because John 1:14 indicates temporariness.
Yes, but that merely says He does not change His promises. He can change His plans (Jeremiah 18:7-10).
The Omnipresent Spirit changed Himself into a human being while remaining as a Spirit. Then later the Spirit changed a human being who was Himself back into Himself, a Spirit.So what you're saying means is that a spirit (God) changed into a soul (Jesus), then a spirit (God) changed a soul (Jesus) back to himself a spirit (God). And you don't see why that makes no sense to me?
Nope. It makes perfect sense to me.
I use the NASB and Codex Sinaiticus since they're apparently the most reliable translations.one has to make a decision for himself as to which translation is the correct one. one shouldn't say , as you are intimating here, that the correct translation cannot be determined. Only rarely is it true that the correct translation is undeterminable.
Rarely do I use Greek (which I can only read. I can't translate Greek into English) and Hebrew (which I can't even read).
But it is impossible to counter your claims. I don't know Greek. I can only read it.well yea, you ducked practically everything I said. one has to counter my claims in order to win a debate. Ducking a debate makes one a loser of the debate.
But on the other hand, I probably have presented you with some things you have never considered before and you would need time to develop a counter arguement, and that isn't likely due to the time factor. And you probablly would only devote the time needed to analyse closely my statements if you were being persuaded by the holy spirit into these truths, and were following the leading of the holy spirit. otherwise, most people aren't going to devote much time to something they dont believe. God isn't going to call someone who is satisfied being a baptist,( if that's where God has called him to be, ) to be a pentecostal. A person has to be dissatisfied with being a baptist before God can lead him into more truth, into the baptism of the holy spirit. Someone disatisfied being a pentecostal, god will show him justifiable reasons to be a baptist, because god doesn't want to force anyone to be something they don't want ot be. If someone doesn't want to be a queen, but wants to be a concubine (song of solomon) god will not force that person to be a queen. D'accord?
Perhaps. I know that I said I would search for a Scripture that said that God can come in bodily flesh.
Upvote
0