Literary Framework View & Exodus 20:11

[First Age]

Jesus is my rest my Passover 24/7

 

[JAL]

@helmut,

Why did God create the world in six days? You said He could do it quickly and effortlessly. By doing it in six days, He fostered the impression that He put in at least a full week of real work.

 

[Helmut-WK]

And Hebrews says He did work as we did.

"For the one who has entered God’s rest has also rested from his own works, just as God did from his" ( Heb 4:10)

The question is not whether God rested, but whether He rested because He was exhausted. Hbr 4:10 does not say He worked as we did, but that He rested.

And, this is the core, the question is why God is to be praised.

This argument is rooted in Plato, not in Hebrew.

Well, I'd rather attribute it to Aristotle ("unmoved mover") than Plato. Plato is more like the concept that heavenly things are more real than earthly ones (cf. Hbr 8:5). Some parallel to philosophy is no counter-argument - but we should beware of using philosophy as a guide to something that contradicts the Bible.

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground"

That's clay in the hands of a potter. Anyone can form a vessel from clay, although God has acquired more pottery skill than we.

The difference we speak about has nothing to with this. The question is not whether God formed in a way comparable to a human potter, but rather whether He formed with or without effort, and whether He had to acquire these potters skills. You always distract from the crucial point.

You're probably a Calvinist

No. Raised in a family which came from Silesia, driven out 1945 and ended up in the Rhine Land. The Landeskirche (former state church) in both regions was/is uniting (uniert), but of a somewhat different kind of uniting My (grand-)parents were evangelicals (or Pietisten, pietists) which explains why later I became member of an evangelical (more precise: Baptist) church.

Again, God's ways are supposed to be higher than ours. If your version of God behaves lower than our ways, it is a valid argument.

No, in your versions God's ways are lower: He has to work hard. The higher way is to do have so much power that it is no effort to do it.

An argument is not a "presupposition".

A presupposition is something taken for granted without proof. The presupposition I mentioned was that free will means what you think free will is, without looking what the authors mean by this term (you can lump Calvin and Luther together in matter of free will, but not, of course, in the matter of predestination).

Suppose we find out one day that God molests children. My protesting it is merely a "presupposition"?

It is a moral decision. But unlike molesting children, your moral concerning the work of creation is of a far more subjective kind, it can be compared to the protest of an African person to the concept of a retirement home (the old parents should be taken care by their children, see the 5th commandment!).

The virtues we find in the Bible are not always our virtues. Lot is called righteous (2.Pt 2:7), even in a situation where he prefers to sacrifice the virginity of his daughters in order to protect the strangers he has taken in as guests (Gen 19:8). Ruth is called noble because she did not look for a man she could love, but rather followed the advice of her mother-in-law to marry (almost seduce) Boas.

Is it moral relativism to say that protecting the own daughter is more important than hospitality (despite Hbr 13:2)? Do you tell your daughters they should not marry out iof love, but out of more noble motives (and then love the husband they married)?

You're saying that God gets a pass on the standard for real merit just because He is God. That's like saying He is at liberty to molest children just because He is God. Moral relativism.

He gets the praise for being God. But if we find out that He molests children, I would say that he molests children and therefore cannot be God. Somewhat in the line of Pope Benedict in his Regensburg address (no, I'm no catholic, but I agree to that argument).

Merit is a concept alien to Scripture?

Straw man. You simplify to the point hat it gets wrong, without addressing what I really said.

I don't care who denies free will. It's impossible to make sense of justice and punishmeent without it.

The Bible tells otherwise. Free will was lost with the fall, the consequence of that is that every man was under the rule of sin, and cannot escape from that without God's grace.

At that point, Calvin acted as you do: Take this partial truth as a base as if it is the whole truth, and so ended up in double predestination.

False dilemma. It's both rest and work.

Or, in my words: "There is a pattern of work and rest, but the »details« (so to speak) of work and rest are not the same"

Rest from what? Rest from rest? No, we rest from work. It's both in tandem.

I did not object to that. You are always hasty to read into my text what I don't say, because you fill any gaps with your view, which produces inconsistancy and logical problems.

I am not sure that farming began with the Fall.

Of course not. But it was no hard work. The "sweat" in Gen 1:19 started with the fall. Again, you were too hasty to understand what I have said.

Guffaw). Hebrews 4:10 says He behaved just like men. Note it doesn't say, "He rested from all his rest."

He rested from His work. No one denied it. The question is not whether He rested from his work, but on the nature of this work.

And in some cultures, men are jerks. That doesn't count here. I don't believe you are a jerk. Again, consider two son:

You are the jerk who always puts things top down. Is God our son? Is he our servant, that we should praise if efforts to provide this world for us?

How does a son boast to his friends of his father? "My father is better than yours, because he is of low birth, and had to do hard work to gain hiss position? How to subjects praise their king? "He is so powerful, he is victorious, no enemy will attack us, he is so rich, he provides for the needy, he is loyal to those that are loyal to him, he is just and gentle, …" Only a jerk would say: "May be, but my king was of low birth and worked hard to gain his status, this is far more important!" You are this jerk.

My version of God is not a jerk.

My version either. But you have a rather narrow concept of what makes someone aiontio a jerk: It suffices when (s)he has a different set of values from your set.

Do you "believe" in the hypostatic union?

I don't even understand the full meaning of »hypostatic«. All I could find out is that the church fathers used the word hypostasis in a somewhat different way than the philosophers. But nobody could tell me what the difference is.']in a somewhat different way than the philosophers. But nobody could tell me what the difference is.
I rather cling to what the Bible says: Jesus is 100% God, Jesus is 100% man, God is no man. The hypostatic union is an attempt to explain why this is not contradictory. If you have a better solution, tell me. If you deny one of the three biblical statements, you are in error.

Let me get this straight. God selected one of us human beings/souls and placed it in Christ's body.

Can you show me where the Bible says this? Christ had a body before He became man? His soul was mortal like ours?

Do you make a difference between the body of Christ and the soul of Jesus, which comes close to saying Jesus is not the same as the Christ?

Nobody merits praise for good DNA

Except when we speak not of praise of humans, but praise other kinds. Is God a human? The father definitely not.

The definition of a jerk didn't change from Genesis to Revelation.

What is the definition of jerk? Could not find the word in any of the English Bibles on the european Bible server.
Can you tell me a biblical passage where I can find what you mean by biblical definition of jerk?

For the millionth time, I acknowledged that anyone can be praised for miscellaneous reasons. That's not the same as meriting praise in a virtuous sense.

Show me where it is stated that meriting praise is only based on virtue, and not on innate features.

Can you show me verses that say the word "Trinity"? … I don't care if you have a million verses supporting an illogical conclusion.

Are you anti-trinitarian?

The construct is solidified by the fact that Scripture indicates that God had to work and then needed rest.

The Scripture says that God rested. But it doesn't say he needed rest. This is your interpretation (no solid fact), another interpretation is: God created rest.
I probably overlooked some typos.

 

[Helmut-WK]

"That's not a valid excuse because YOUR theology needs to be consistent with what YOU currently believe about virtue. Otherwise you're just contradicting yourself all over the place."

In try to accommodate what I think to what the Bible says, not vice versa.

@helmut,

Imagine a tall mountain unclimbed to date because it's too much work resulting in almost certain death. YOU, however, rise to the challenge.

In this scenario, I'm a journalist. In my article I write, "Helmut climbed for three days, laboring just as hard as I did, to achieve his goal."

(Of course I didn't do any real work over those three days).

I can't see what this construction has to do with the point we are discussing on. Did I say I laboured as much as God did, and the only reason to praise God was the labour He did?

If there is any hint in the Bible that God did real work during creation, that makes God a jerk - unless in fact He did do real work..

You forget the hints to the contrary:

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? 13 Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord, or instruct the Lord as his counsellor? 14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?

28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no-one can fathom.

This is a hint (to say the least) that God did not have to learn anything, nor has ever been exhausted.

Isn't it blasphemy to say the contrary?

EDIT: corrected "quoted" text

 

[JAL]

Too many shallow responses. I'm not sure how much longer I will tarry here.

The question is not whether God rested, but whether He rested because He was exhausted. Hbr 4:10 does not say He worked as we did, but that He rested.

The key thing is that the cost - and thus the total merit - is measured by how much he suffered, and for how long. See the cross for an example.

The difference we speak about has nothing to with this. The question is not whether God formed in a way comparable to a human potter, but rather whether He formed with or without effort, and whether He had to acquire these potters skills. You always distract from the crucial point.

(Guffaw). Distracting is what you just did! Maybe you missed my point. Earlier you pretended as though you could build your whole case on the exclusivity of Hebrew "bara" ("create") to God. I said the following verse means create but does NOT use "bara":

"The Lord formed Adam from the dust of the earth"

and thus shows the two terms are interchangeable for "create". This "formed" term (yatsar) is a pottery term used of man. It is NOT exclusive to God. Therefore Scripture isn't necessarily using the term "create" in a sense exclusive to God. And there was never any substantial logic in your exclusivity argument to begin with. Charles Hodge and others have admitted that both Hebrew terms are used interchangeably in the pottery-sense. At least from a linguistic standpoint, they do not necessarily connote something unique to God. Your theological and philosophical assumptions will speak differently, but I don't share your assumptions.

No, in your versions God's ways are lower: He has to work hard. The higher way is to do have so much power that it is no effort to do it.

So God's a snob who look down on us by virtue of the luck of the draw? He happens to be omnipotent and, on that basis alone, we're just pieces of crap? Beneath Him as far as the earth is beneath the heavens? And you're telling me this version of God is not a jerk? Funny that the God I read about hates pride and arrogance. Your version reeks immeasurably of both.

What does God mean by His ways being higher than ours?

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The same Hebrew words for "ways" and "thoughts" are being repeated here. What God is saying is that, "I am not a wicked jerk like you all." He's not saying, "You're a piece of worthless crap just because I happened to be lucky enough to be endued with more power than you." That would be like an aristocrat saying, "You're a piece of worthless crap just because I am of noble birth and inherited wealth."

A real hero is not a snob. He prides Himself only in real merit/virtue. Next, to cast doubt on this fact (which is quite black and white), you try to find examples where morality/virtue is a grey area. How does such a skewed strategy buttress your case? You begin with Africa.

It is a moral decision. But unlike molesting children, your moral concerning the work of creation is of a far more subjective kind, it can be compared to the protest of an African person to the concept of a retirement home (the old parents should be taken care by their children, see the 5th commandment!).

Totally grey. How much labor/suffering did the children do to earn money to pay for their parents retirement home? We don't know. I'm not even going to ruminate on your other grey examples because I think my position is sufficiently black and white. As I said, a snobby aristocrat is clearly a jerk. Nothing grey about it.

The virtues we find in the Bible are not always our virtues.

Yes they are. As I said, a freely willed decision against evil must labor/suffer against the agony of temptation. Real virtue always meets my definition of merit. You might disagree on the deed - that's because you don't understand how conscience works. If people such as Ruth and Lot (your grey examples) acted in good conscience, their deeds count as righteous in God's sight.

Again, shallow responses.

Lot is called righteous (2.Pt 2:7), even in a situation where he prefers to sacrifice the virginity of his daughters in order to protect the strangers he has taken in as guests (Gen 19:8). Ruth is called noble because she did not look for a man she could love, but rather followed the advice of her mother-in-law to marry (almost seduce) Boas.

See above.

Is it moral relativism to say that protecting the own daughter is more important than hospitality (despite Hbr 13:2)? Do you tell your daughters they should not marry out iof love, but out of more noble motives (and then love the husband they married)?

See above.

He gets the praise for being God. But if we find out that He molests children, I would say that he molests children and therefore cannot be God.

Deflection.

The Bible tells otherwise. Free will was lost with the fall...

Um...That's what I said. You've got to have free will somewhere in the picture to make sense of the Bible.

I did not object to that. You are always hasty to read into my text what I don't say, because you fill any gaps with your view, which produces inconsistancy and logical problems.

Guffaw.

Of course not. But it was no hard work. The "sweat" in Gen 1:19 started with the fall. Again, you were too hasty to understand what I have said.

Um...That's what I said. I said no excruciating work for Adam until the Fall.

He rested from His work. No one denied it. The question is not whether He rested from his work, but on the nature of this work.

Rest and work are polar opposites. If it's effortless - no labor/suffering - it's not work, it's still rest. The magnitude and duration of suffering dictate the total merit. My assumption is that God is exponentially more meritorious/praiseworthy/virtuous than us (viz. His ways higher than our ways as the heavens above the earth). That means a lot more work than we do, probably both in terms of duration and excruciation. This isn't rocket science.

You are the jerk who always puts things top down. Is God our son? Is he our servant, that we should praise if efforts to provide this world for us?

I didn't get you. Sounds like another assertion that your God is an aristocratic snob. Not nearly as bad as Calvin's God, admittedly, but hardly a bastion of virtue.

How does a son boast to his friends of his father?

Let me stop you right there. You're really basing your rebuttal of real virtue on the idiotic perspective of an immature child? Did YOU appreciate real merit when you were an adolescent? Speaking for myself, as a child I had no inkling of what my parents suffered for me. Even now I'm having to keep reminding myself to fully appreciate all their labor/suffering.

Again, shallow responses. Earlier you said:

"Jesus was 100% man, and therefore he had to learn."

You're missing the point. Infinite knowledge would take an infinite amount of time to gradually acquire. To assert it, then, means you have to assert it as innate rather than acquired. Meaning, it's part of God's very nature/definition. (This fits with an immutable God). Such a God could never have become an ignorant zygote in Mary's womb. Therefore my argument stands: the fact that Jesus engaged in learning proves that He is a being I called "Type 2", namely, a finite person who learns gradually over time via labor/suffering. And we knew that, right? Because, after all, His knowledge would merit no praise if it were an innate trait unlabored/unsuffered for.

To say that God could change His very nature/definition is like claiming that a piece of matter can temporarily be intangible. That's nonsense.

I'll say it again. A mutable God becomes man. It is incohorent to claim that an immutable God became man.

Again, shallow responses.

Are you anti-trinitarian?

I'm a staunch Trinitarian.

The Scripture says that God rested. But it doesn't say he needed rest. This is your interpretation (no solid fact), another interpretation is: God created rest.

Real suffering is measurable by the extent to which it cripples you from your normal routines. So yes, if you're undergoing real suffering, and want to resume normal behavior, it requires real rest, at least it requires a cessation of that suffering. Again, if God's ways our higher than ours, He has suffered more than we have, and needed rest.

 

[Helmut-WK]

I said the following verse means create but does NOT use "bara":

BTW, I don't like that you changed bara' into bara, thus removing the (transcription of) aleph at the end.

I said the following verse means create but does NOT use "bara":

"The Lord formed Adam from the dust of the earth"

and thus shows the two terms are interchangeable for "create".

Logical error. Interchangeable means

1. You can substitute "make" for "create" at every instance
2. You can substitute "create" for "make" at every instance

I did not deny the first option, you did not prove the second option.

And you say I am shallow? I'm exhausted to answer that many points in detail.

You always take things for granted when they are not.You have not proven that praise can only be for labor/virtue (in the sense of virtue you defined). You did not prove that an infinite God must by immutable. You call yourself a trinitarian, and yet use the incarnation as an argument in way that only make sense if you deny the father was God in heaven when the son was God and man on earth. Just what I saw in a short look on what you wrote.

But it is an easy guess that you will react by interpreting into what I say some premises which I don't use, refute them and say I am a jerk, or I am implying God is a jerk, snob and so on. Don't expect me to answer to that.

Did I do the same to you what I complained of? Maybe. But my patience is exhausted, I am now as superficially and narrow-minded as you are.

 

[JAL]

BTW, I don't like that you changed bara' into bara, thus removing the (transcription of) aleph at the end.

Logical error. Interchangeable means

1. You can substitute "make" for "create" at every instance
2. You can substitute "create" for "make" at every instance

I did not deny the first option, you did not prove the second option.

And you didn't disprove it. That's my point.

And you say I am shallow? I'm exhausted to answer that many points in detail.

It was an incredibly shallow argument to begin with. As I said, I always use the term "create" myself in reference to Genesis. That implies nothing - it doesn't imply any distinctions between how God creates and man creates. It's just stylistic preference on my part. Any professional exegete will warn you of stylistic concerns.

You always take things for granted when they are not.You have not proven that praise can only be for labor/virtue (in the sense of virtue you defined).

Again, I can't prove anything 100%. Which means, technically, I can't even prove that the Calvnistic God is evil. But you have painted God after the fashion of a haughty aristocratic snob. The exact repudiation of that definition is what I call "merit".

So you're right. I haven't "proven" my case 100%. Feel free to continue painting God the way you are now.

You did not prove that an infinite God must by immutable.

That wasn't even the main objection raised there. The main one was:

"An immutable God can't mutate Himself into a man."

I really need to prove a self-evident statement? The burden of proof is on me? Next you will have me prove that 2 + 2 = 4?

You call yourself a trinitarian, and yet use the incarnation as an argument in way that only make sense if you deny the father was God in heaven when the son was God and man on earth. Just what I saw in a short look on what you wrote.

You're dead wrong. Since you don't know my views, you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

But it is an easy guess that you will react by interpreting into what I say some premises which I don't use, refute them and say I am a jerk, or I am implying God is a jerk, snob and so on. Don't expect me to answer to that.

You called me a jerk several times. I never called you a jerk. I said, basically, "If you really hold to those aristocratic values, you are a jerk, but I don't believe you really do."

 

[JAL]

In try to accommodate what I think to what the Bible says, not vice versa.

You still have to be consistent. You can't paint Him as an evil jerk, unless you really believe He is one. If your theology extrapolates to an evil jerk, change your theology. It's really that simple.

You forget the hints to the contrary:


Isa 40:12-14 said:
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? 13 Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord, or instruct the Lord as his counsellor? 14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?
Isa 40:28 said:
28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no-one can fathom.
This is a hint (to say the least) that God did not have to learn anything, nor has ever been exhausted.

Isn't it blasphemy to say the contrary?

Thanks for using the word "hints". Rare sign of integrity on these forums. Yes at least one of those verses hints to the contrary. As I'm sure you know, every theology faces problem passages. But you know what, I'd rather face problem passages than logical problems. With a problem passage, all you have to do is check whether a different interpretation is possible.

Actually I'm not sure why you think the first passage is a problem for me. Moving on to the second one. Says He will not grow weary. So what is my solution? This can only be true in a qualified sense, meaning, it pertains to a specific context or scope. It cannot be an unqualified assertion that God doesn't grow weary. How do I know this?

...(1) I already supplied a logical argument that creation wearied God in terms of suffering/labor, with respect to the duration, or the excruciation, or both. As I said, logical arguments take precedence over problem passages.
....(2) Jesus was 100% God, and grew weary.

An infinitely powerful God cannot suffer and thus cannot grow weary. Why not? Again, suffering is measurable to the extent it cripples us from our normal activities. Since an infinitely powerful God cannot be crippled, He cannot grow weary and thus cannot become man. He is supposedly infinitely powerful by nature/definition rather than acquiring power gradually. Since that His nature/definition, He cannot become a man who suffers weariness.

I could stop there, but as an FYI: I'm a material monist, like the church father Tertullian. God is a huge piece of matter (i.e. tangible substance) - in fact He holds the universe in the palm of His hand. Why is that relevant here. Suppose you are using your right arm for a labor-intensive task. It grows weary. It needs rest. In fact you decided to go ahead and give it a rest. Are you finished working? Not if you are ambidextrous.

When Scripture tells us that God does not grow weary, it doesn't mean He cannot fatigue. It simply means He will never fail us. Even if part of Him grows weary, the Godhead as whole will never grow weary.

 

[Helmut-WK]

And you didn't disprove it. That's my point.

I showed that you cannot use bara' for the work of a man, so any interpretation/translation of that word which implies a man could do that must be wrong.

As I said, I always use the term "create" myself in reference to Genesis.

I refer to the text of the Bible, and you answer with your stylistic references?

But you have painted God after the fashion of a haughty aristocratic snob.

The word snob first described a person of low standing (probably an apprentice of a shoemaker), but was then reinterpreted as s.nob. It was used by persons who wrote this instead of a noble title. Now imagine the reaction of an aristocrat:
What? Mr. B wants to be treated alike with me, just because of the wealth he has accumulated? Well, In inherited a noble title, he is just a s.nob. person.
»s.nob.« was read as the abbreviation of sine nobilitate (without noble title, i.e. no aristocrat).

The meaning has further changed, but this shows how values change over time. You are very confident that the values of our time - or your values - are the right ones, and anything other is wrong. You can say that God becomes a jerk, snob or whatever you seem suitable, because your judgement is right …

The exact repudiation of that definition is what I call "merit".

To be more precise: I say that your "merit" is not the reason why God is to be praised.

That wasn't even the main objection raised there. The main one was:

"An immutable God can't mutate Himself into a man."

I showed that an infinite God is not necessarily immutable, and you object that if God were immutable he could not incarnate.

But what if God is infinite (almighty etc.) and mutable? Well, in some sense He is immutable - He has ever been, and will ever be - but because he is almighty he can incarnate. I hinted how this can be by referring to the Trinity.

I really need to prove a self-evident statement? The burden of proof is on me? Next you will have me prove that 2 + 2 = 4?

No, I want you to prove that 2+2 is the term to be calculated.

You're dead wrong. Since you don't know my views, you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

I didn't talk about your views, I talked about what you said. Whether you were wrong when you called yourself a trintarian, or whether you used an argument which is meaningless given you trinitarian belief, I don't know. I just stated the contradiction in a question.

You called me a jerk several times. I never called you a jerk. I said, basically, "If you really hold to those aristocratic values, you are a jerk, but I don't believe you really do."

Quote from you: »Yes, that would make you a complete jerk.«

Thanks for using the word "hints".

Oh, I borrowed it from you. So thank yourself!

Yes at least one of those verses hints to the contrary. As I'm sure you know, every theology faces problem passages. But you know what, I'd rather face problem passages than logical problems.

What you call logical problems are rather different basics in argumentation. To vary a textbook example, let us consider someone who says:

• The moon is made of cheese.
• Cheese can be eaten.
• Therefore, the moon can be eaten.

And as to objection to this he says: »I showed over and over again that cheese can be eaten, it is simply logic that the moon can be eaten.«

No sir, it is not just logic. You took part of your argumentation for granted, and if I object to that part, you call this illogical. Any examples which shows that your values are not that absolute as you think are dismissed , because these people were wrong. For you are the one who knows why God should be praised, or what would make a jerk or snob out of Him.

Actually I'm not sure why you think the first passage is a problem for me.

The problem is the combination, if you look where they were taken from you will see it is in essence one passage with some deletion of things unimportant top our discussion. God is said to be never exhausted in context of referring to creation.

...(1) I already supplied a logical argument that creation wearied God in terms of suffering/labor, with respect to the duration, or the excruciation, or both. As I said, logical arguments take precedence over problem passages.

As I tried to sign out., the logic is not the difference between us, but rather the reason why you think this is logical: Assumptions that I don't share.

....(2) Jesus was 100% God, and grew weary.

He grew weary because He was 100% man. The two natures are not mixed, as the trinitarian doctrine states.

An infinitely powerful God cannot suffer and thus cannot grow weary.

God is infinite powerful (Lk 1:37). God could do this because of incarnation: The father was almighty, but the son was (temporarily) in a lower state (Hbr 1:9), which included suffering (Hbr 5:8).

So your objection is meaningless to what I believe.

 

[JAL]

I've gotta run for the moment, but I object to this:

Quote from you: »Yes, that would make you a complete jerk.«

because that's out of context. Again, the conditional "would" was a reference to my prior disclaimer that I don't believe those are your real values.

 

[Helmut-WK]

I've gotta run for the moment, but I object to this:

Quote from you: »Yes, that would make you a complete jerk.«

because that's out of context. Again, the conditional "would" was a reference to my prior disclaimer that I don't believe those are your real values.

OK, it was a misunderstanding (and partial mis-remembering) of what you wrote.

 

[JAL]

I showed that you cannot use bara' for the work of a man, so any interpretation/translation of that word which implies a man could do that must be wrong.

Where did you establish that? You argued that the writers preferred to use that term for God creating. I don't see where you proved that Hebrew will not allow that term for men.

I refer to the text of the Bible, and you answer with your stylistic references?

As an illustration that a particular word-preference, even in the case of biblical authors, can be purely stylistic on their part. That is well known. It does not necessarily have theological implications, contrary to your argument. And even when it does, the particular theological implication need not be the one that YOU had in mind. The point is that your argument seems a long way from establishing what it is trying to estabish.

Gotta run for a moment.

 

[JAL]

The meaning has further changed, but this shows how values change over time. You are very confident that the values of our time - or your values - are the right ones, and anything other is wrong.

You're missing the point. What are YOUR values? It is YOUR definition of a jerk that matters for your defining YOUR version of God. You must achieve consistency. If you admit, "A person who molests children is a jerk" - if that is YOUR value, you cannot conclude that God is a molester of children. I'm pretty sure you don't regard a snotty aristocratic attitude as virtuous. Therefore, for YOU to be consistent, you must make sure your version of God is devoid of such a disposition.

Yes, different generations of people have different values. Some of those people/generations were evil. That's irrelevant. What's at issue is YOUR values and YOUR overall consistency.

I showed that an infinite God is not necessarily immutable, and you object that if God were immutable he could not incarnate.

You lost me. I was just going by something you wrote earlier. I took it to mean immutability when you wrote:

Now you are a jerk in my eyes. God does not change, He may change the ways He deals with us mortals, but there is no Change within God, James 1:13.

But what if God is infinite (almighty etc.) and mutable? Well, in some sense He is immutable - He has ever been, and will ever be - but because he is almighty he can incarnate. I hinted how this can be by referring to the Trinity.

So if He is mutable than He can sin, right? Yet you seemed to quote James 1:13 to the contrary.

My approach is that God is not immutably holy but rather irreversibly holy. Through labor/suffering He achieved holiness, and then found a way to make it irreversible. I can tell you exactly how He accomplished that, if we get that far in the discussion.

What you call logical problems are rather different basics in argumentation. To vary a textbook example, let us consider someone who says:

• The moon is made of cheese.
• Cheese can be eaten.
• Therefore, the moon can be eaten.

And as to objection to this he says: »I showed over and over again that cheese can be eaten, it is simply logic that the moon can be eaten.«

No sir, it is not just logic. You took part of your argumentation for granted, and if I object to that part, you call this illogical. Any examples which shows that your values are not that absolute as you think are dismissed , because these people were wrong. For you are the one who knows why God should be praised, or what would make a jerk or snob out of Him.

No, I am asking YOU to define God consistently with YOUR values, YOUR definition of merit. You keep talking about ancients, and how THEIR values changed over time. I don't care. That's not relevant. I'm pretty sure that YOU don't regard an aristocrat as someone who, on account of noble birth, deserves more praise than the rest of us, as high as the heavens are above the earth. In other words we are just pieces of crap automatically, compared to him, even if we did all the good deeds while he was lazy or, even worse, pure evil.

The problem is the combination, if you look where they were taken from you will see it is in essence one passage with some deletion of things unimportant top our discussion. God is said to be never exhausted in context of referring to creation.

I gave you two remedies already.
...(1) I implied that part of God grew weary during creation. The Godhead itself (as a whole) did not grow weary.
....(2) Creation is a thing of the past. It won't happen again. Hence there is no reason for God to say, at the passage in question, "I the Lord do grow weary." In fact the opposite. The fact that He managed Creation (a major challenge) and is still standing strong is proof that He is too strong to become fatigued from anything (any minor challenge) that He might face today or in the future.

He grew weary because He was 100% man. The two natures are not mixed, as the trinitarian doctrine states.

Now you're back to defending the hypostatic union? Two natures constitute a humanly incomprehensible/incoherent theory known as the hypostatic union (a union of two natures), but since you've now confirmed your allegiance to it, please go back and address the Quadrinity-question I asked you earlier. More on this below.

God is infinite powerful (Lk 1:37). God could do this because of incarnation: The father was almighty, but the son was (temporarily) in a lower state (Hbr 1:9), which included suffering (Hbr 5:8).

So your objection is meaningless to what I believe.

Please address the Quadrinity question. You said you believe the orthodox view which is, as you said, "The two natures are not mixed, as the trinitarian doctrine states." This creates several areas of incoherence and "apparent" contradiction (I don't think forum rules allow me to draw the conclusion that it's a real contradiction). One of these problems was already stated - it means that your soul could have been selected to become a member of the Trinity.

The very phrase "two natures" is arguably oxymoronic. In any other context, such language is dismissed as nonsense. The only context where it is taken seriously is among Christians discussing the hypostatic union. Example of the incoherence. He had two simultaneous natures ignorant and omniscient? That's like saying:

"My friend Mike is a math genius. He knows all math. Ask him any math question. He will tell you the answer. However, he has two natures. His second nature is ignorant. Ask him any math question, he can't tell you the answer."

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

 

[Helmut-WK]

It is YOUR definition of a jerk that matters for your defining YOUR version of God.

English is not my mother-tongue, so I have to look into a dictionary. Jerk means something like fool (another meaning, jolt or so, is not relevant to our discussion).

I'm pretty sure you don't regard a snotty aristocratic attitude as virtuous.

The question is whether this is a correct description of God's attitude. Do you think you are superior to a worm? Do think your dog hast to obey you, since you are a man and he is just a dog? Or do you think this would be »a snotty aristocratic attitude«, and so you see yourself on the same level as a butterfly?

The fact is: I'm not God, not on the same level as He is. Far more difference to God that to a worm.
Well, God became man in Jesus, and that was the only situation where, according to my values, he might have been accused of being snotty. Do you think you can accuse Jesus of this?

Yes, different generations of people have different values. Some of those people/generations were evil.

And you decide what evil is? Sometimes you think they were evil, but they, if they knew how you think, would regard you as evil. Who's right?

That's irrelevant. What's at issue is YOUR values and YOUR overall consistency.

Why do you think I'm inconsistent?

So if He is mutable than He can sin, right?

In can't perceive the logic behind this statement. Someone who can change (you mentioned incarnation as an example) can be sinless. Why not?

I think that »mutable« and »immutable« is something that can't be applied to eternity. I may be wrong, but I imagine eternity rather as a different time. Relativity theory tells that what is a short period in one system may be of infinite length in another system - where »system« is something like a "map" of space and time - so both systems are correct. If this is possible in our world (at least in theory, but maybe real in black holes), i simply refuse to think I can understand the spacetime relations between our universe and God's eternity. Probably I cannot even imagine than, for my experience (and hence fantasy) is limited to our non-eternal world.

My approach is that God is not immutably holy but rather irreversibly holy.

You remind me of a Mormon teaching: What man is ńow, God was. What God is now, man will be (re-translated from German, I hope I did not distort some important connotation).

Through labor/suffering He achieved holiness, and then found a way to make it irreversible. I can tell you exactly how He accomplished that, if we get that far in the discussion.

There is no hint in the Bible to that. Everything you cite to support it is an interpretation already based on this thought.

No, I am asking YOU to define God consistently with YOUR values, YOUR definition of merit.

You beg the question. You take »worthy of praise« denoting there must be some merit. Of course we may speak about »merit« when we talk about God saving the people of Israel out of Egypt and so on, but »worthy of praise« does not imply merit, God can be praised out of other reasons.

And this is no snotty attitude of God, as I have told you above.

You keep talking about ancients, and how THEIR values changed over time. I don't care.

Because you never asked yourself how you can know whether they were right, or you. You presuppose you are right, and no ancient who thought folks like you were wrong can be a reason to think twice. Narrow-minded.

I gave you two remedies already.
...(1) I implied that part of God grew weary during creation. The Godhead itself (as a whole) did not grow weary.

If a part growth weary, the Godhead got partially weary. This is no reconciliation with Is 40, and therefore no remedy.

....(2) Creation is a thing of the past. It won't happen again.

This is no reconciliation with Is 40, and therefore no remedy.

Now you're back to defending the hypostatic union?

I asked you if you have a better explanation of

• Jesus is 100% God
• Jesus is 100% man
• God is no man

If this is a defense of »hypostatic union« (whatever I have to understand with that term), I defend hypostatic union.

Please address the Quadrinity question. You said you believe the orthodox view which is, as you said, "The two natures are not mixed, as the trinitarian doctrine states." This creates several areas of incoherence and "apparent" contradiction

The whole Trinity thing is full of that. The father is YWHW, the son is YHWH, the Spirit is YHWH, and there is only one YHWH. But if you conclude that therefore the Son and father are identical, you are wrong.

I can't understand how someone who swallowed this (and possibly the explanation by the old councils how this can be explained) can use contradiction in other areas of trinity doctrine.

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

No. The problem was there, it was discussed at Nicaea, Chalcedon and so on (ask an expert for the complete list). The solution then is now perceived by you as a problem, maybe because the "spirit of time" does not use terms like hypostasis to define some aspect of reality. Maybe »quantum logic« is a better help for our time. Of course, this has to be accommodated to something that fits the biblical findings (like the term hypostasis was altered in the ancient texts).

As I have said: I better stay at the old formulas, as long there is nothing better. And a contradiction to the Bible is definitely worse.

 

[JAL]

English is not my mother-tongue, so I have to look into a dictionary. Jerk means something like fool (another meaning, jolt or so, is not relevant to our discussion).

In English we normally use the term jerk to refer to a person who is offensively and repulsively shortcoming in at least one virtue. For example anyone who is a bully would also be labeled a jerk.

Your comment sounds deflective. I think by now you had already figured out that "jerk" means something close to "a bad person".

The question is whether this is a correct description of God's attitude. Do you think you are superior to a worm? Do think your dog hast to obey you, since you are a man and he is just a dog? Or do you think this would be »a snotty aristocratic attitude«, and so you see yourself on the same level as a butterfly?

Same level as a butterfly. My theology addresses the Problem of Evil pretty much in full as far as I can see. In my opinion, the souls of animals are fragments of fallen angels. Since no butterfly is innocent, God allows it to suffer.

Well, God became man in Jesus, and that was the only situation where, according to my values, he might have been accused of being snotty. Do you think you can accuse Jesus of this?

I think you're reaching. I don't think you see anything snotty about the Incarnation. Quite the opposite. God's willingness to leave the throne and stumble around like a man proves His humility. Deep down I'm pretty sure you agree with me.

As I said, I think you're in denial about your real values.

Why do you think I'm inconsistent?

Because, again, if for example you have two sons, and one of them inherited some wealth from you (but was lazy or evil), rich by the luck-of-the-draw, and the other one of noble character who worked/suffered for decades to acquire wealth, you'd feel that the noble one merited more accolades from you (all other things being equal). In real life, then, you'd affirm "merit" as I defined it, at least implicitly. But that's not how you paint God and His values.

I'm anticipating another deflection on this point.

In can't perceive the logic behind this statement. Someone who can change (you mentioned incarnation as an example) can be sinless. Why not?

You seem to be dancing in circles. In one statement you seem to imply immutability but not in the next.

This is waxing old. I have low tolerance for dancing and deflection.

I think that »mutable« and »immutable« is something that can't be applied to eternity. I may be wrong, but I imagine eternity rather as a different time. Relativity theory tells that what is a short period in one system may be of infinite length in another system - where »system« is something like a "map" of space and time - so both systems are correct. If this is possible in our world (at least in theory, but maybe real in black holes), i simply refuse to think I can understand the spacetime relations between our universe and God's eternity. Probably I cannot even imagine than, for my experience (and hence fantasy) is limited to our non-eternal world.

See above.

There is no hint in the Bible to that. Everything you cite to support it is an interpretation already based on this thought.

Since you dance, deflect, evade, and equivocate, who are you to judge my position as unbiblical? It's easy to throw stones at my position, meanwhile you haven't resolved the problems in your own position.

»worthy of praise« does not imply merit, God can be praised out of other reasons.

You are worthy of praise for your DNA? If you really believed that, it would make you a snotty jerk.

And this is no snotty attitude of God, as I have told you above.

See above.

Because you never asked yourself how you can know whether they were right, or you. You presuppose you are right, and no ancient who thought folks like you were wrong can be a reason to think twice. Narrow-minded.

Again, "presuppose" means I didn't make an argument. What I did was align myself with God's values evident from the impending Judgment Seat of Christ. I promise you He won't be proclaiming any accolades for innate traits such as DNA. Clearly, He will abide by merit as I have defined it.

I also gave the example of the cross. Labor/suffering define the merit of the Incarnation, not innate traits such as DNA.

To further corroborate this, I pointed out that Scripture defines the act of Creation as labor/work on God's part.

When Hebrews 11, for example, describes the great men of faith, it's not a recount of innate traits.

So please desist with the intellectual dishonesty. Stop referring to my conclusion as "mere narrow-minded presupposition" as if I didn't make any arguments to support my position.

If a part growth weary, the Godhead got partially weary. This is no reconciliation with Is 40, and therefore no remedy.

Nope. If I'm ambidextrous, and my boss says, "Are you exhausted yet?", my answer is, "No, I'm not tired at all. In fact I'm just getting started."

You know why? I switched to my left arm. NOW the right arm is resting. When my left arm becomes tired, I will switch BACK to my right arm. I never grew weary.

What did you say about being narrow-minded? Take your own advice.

This is no reconciliation with Is 40, and therefore no remedy.

Narrow-minded.

I asked you if you have a better explanation of

• Jesus is 100% God
• Jesus is 100% man
• God is no man

If this is a defense of »hypostatic union« (whatever I have to understand with that term), I defend hypostatic union.

The whole Trinity thing is full of that. The father is YWHW, the son is YHWH, the Spirit is YHWH, and there is only one YHWH. But if you conclude that therefore the Son and father are identical, you are wrong.

I can't understand how someone who swallowed this (and possibly the explanation by the old councils how this can be explained) can use contradiction in other areas of trinity doctrine.

Again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, since you don't know my views. You can't even seem to make up your mind on immutability.

No. The problem was there, it was discussed at Nicaea, Chalcedon and so on (ask an expert for the complete list). The solution then is now perceived by you as a problem, maybe because the "spirit of time" does not use terms like hypostasis to define some aspect of reality. Maybe »quantum logic« is a better help for our time. Of course, this has to be accommodated to something that fits the biblical findings (like the term hypostasis was altered in the ancient texts).

Perceived by "me" as a problem? As if I'm the only one? You're joking, right? All the orthodox theologians admit that the Hypostatic Union is humanly incomprehensible/incoherent because of such problems. Whereas my version of the Incarnation is perfectly simple, clear, and seamless.

I don't expect to tarry here much longer. Too much evasion, deflection, cheap polemics, and even misrepresentation in your posts.

 

[Helmut-WK]

In English we normally use the term jerk to refer to a person who is offensively and repulsively shortcoming in at least one virtue. For example anyone who is a bully would also be labeled a jerk.

OK …

Your comment sounds deflective. I think by now you had already figured out that "jerk" means something close to "a bad person".

In Hebrew, fool and bad person are related, as you can see in some Bible translations.

Same level as a butterfly. My theology addresses the Problem of Evil pretty much in full as far as I can see. In my opinion, the souls of animals are fragments of fallen angels. Since no butterfly is innocent, God allows it to suffer.

Hm, I can't see "fragment of a soul" in the Bible, and there is a marked difference between men and angels: God has grace for us men, but no grace for angels.

I think you're reaching.

???

I don't think you see anything snotty about the Incarnation.

No, of course not. I asked a question about your values. Since God can only be snotty when He is man (i.e., Jesus), I asked whether you think Jesus is snotty.

Because, again, if for example you have two sons

God is father, we are his sons. Putting God into the role of a son is a distortion, so this example has no impact on what I think about God.

I'm anticipating another deflection on this point.

You made a deflection by using this example. I already said it was inappropriate, and explained the reason.

Take my complaint that your whole picture is wrong serious, and don't call a deflection when I go one step deeper and deny the presuppositions you make (portraying our Creator as a son in relation to us is an implicit assumption that I reject).

You seem to be dancing in circles.

Well, in my eyes it you who dances and evades every time when I point at the basic differences where I perceive your errors.

Since you dance, deflect, evade, and equivocate, who are you to judge my position as unbiblical? It's easy to throw stones at my position, meanwhile you haven't resolved the problems in your own position.

I do not need to solve a problem that doesn't arise given my view. I always pointed out that in almost every thesis of you there is a presupposition that I do not share. But instead discussing these basic assumptions, you still argue as with there is a common ground ion which your conclusions are valid. The »God as a son» example illustrates this.

You are worthy of praise for your DNA? If you really believed that, it would make you a snotty jerk.

Yes, mankind is worthy of praise for what God has given us, in comparison to other kinds.

Again, "presuppose" means I didn't make an argument. What I did was align myself with God's values evident from the impending Judgment Seat of Christ.

The judgement seat of Christ has to do with merit and reward. You still presuppose these are the categoriews when God is called worthy of praise. They are not.

I also gave the example of the cross. Labor/suffering define the merit of the Incarnation, not innate traits such as DNA.

Again off the point. Merit has nothing to with what I say.

Nope. If I'm ambidextrous, and my boss says, "Are you exhausted yet?", my answer is, "No, I'm not tired at all. In fact I'm just getting started."

I'm somewhat ambidextrous (my theory: born ambidextrous and raised right-handed). When I do as you say, and the work is hard, I change my arms after, say, 30 minitues, then after 20 minutes, then atfer 15 minutes, then after 12 minutes, then ater 9 minutes, then after 7 minutes … and end up exhausted on both arms.

If the right arm of God can become exhausted, by implication God as a whole can be exhausted.

Again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, since you don't know my views.

I asked about your explanation of what the Bible tells. If I knew your view, there would be no need of asking.

But I notice that you did not give a better explanation of the statements we can find in the Bible: Jesus is God, He is man, God is no man.

You can't even seem to make up your mind on immutability.

I have made my mind upon it. Immutability has to do with time, change or no change are categories that involve time. But since I cannot know the space-times-relation between our time and eternity, I see no logical way to apply it to God.

If my "scientific" way of approach (based on relativity theory) is to high for you, there is an analogy by C.S. Lewis, who compared our Creator with a human author that "creates" a world in his novel. What relation has his time to the time of the figures in his novel? Is he "immutable" in their time or not? - The parallel is closer as you might think at first sight, since not only Lewis, but also other authors say that the figures rhey ceated in their novel had something like an own (free?) will.

Perceived by "me" as a problem? As if I'm the only one?

Sorry, I did not want to say you are the only one.

All the orthodox theologians admit that the Hypostatic Union is humanly incomprehensible/incoherent because of such problems.

Are you joking? The ones who formulated creeds like that in Niceaea or Chalcedon surely saw this as a solution, not as a problem.

Whereas my version of the Incarnation is perfectly simple, clear, and seamless.

Why, then, do you not explain it to me? A simple version can be explained in simple terms (or am I wrong about that?).

I don't expect to tarry here much longer. Too much evasion, deflection, cheap polemics, and even misrepresentation in your posts.

Right, you don't understand my point, misrepresents them … I suppose for basically the same reason as me. I do not say you are doing by intend or consciously, and I have no intention to misrepresent you. We have not found a comman base where we agree, so that a logical argument can be started without one of us denying the stements that are used at the vedry start of the argumentation.

 

[JAL]

Hm, I can't see "fragment of a soul" in the Bible, and there is a marked difference between men and angels: God has grace for us men, but no grace for angels.

Matter can be fragmented by definition. I don't have to go through the Bible proving that every material object can be fragmented. If you'd like an example, Legion said, "MY name (note the singular) is Legion, for We (Note the plural) are many." Then Jesus fragmented him into a herd of probably 2,000 pigs, if you recall. He can be fragmented into many, and then re-composed into Legion, anytime God wants.

I can offer more evidence and proof but don't want to tarry here.

No, of course not. I asked a question about your values. Since God can only be snotty when He is man (i.e., Jesus), I asked whether you think Jesus is snotty.

Much of your deflection is based on a double-standard, a moral relativism where you don't apply virtues equally to God and man. As I put it earlier, in your view God gets a free pass because He is God. Kind of the same move that Calvinism makes. This allows you to disregard my example of two sons since nothing that applies to man, in your view, need apply to God. You end up with minimal moral standards for God and yet somehow insist that His ways are higher than ours. Again, it makes me feel like I'm debating with a Calvinist, which is really a waste of time.

God is father, we are his sons. Putting God into the role of a son is a distortion, so this example has no impact on what I think about God.

You made a deflection by using this example. I already said it was inappropriate, and explained the reason.

The double-standards, along with no clear stance on immutability. This is a waste of my time.

I'm somewhat ambidextrous (my theory: born ambidextrous and raised right-handed). When I do as you say, and the work is hard, I change my arms after, say, 30 minitues, then after 20 minutes, then atfer 15 minutes, then after 12 minutes, then ater 9 minutes, then after 7 minutes … and end up exhausted on both arms.

You've only got two arms.

If the right arm of God can become exhausted, by implication God as a whole can be exhausted.

Nope. Theoretically yes but in practice no. I already gave you two reasons why. Here's a third: part of the system of irreversible holiness, as I define it, prevents the Godhead from collapse/over-exertion. For example it includes rejuvenation techniques (for an analogy think of sterioids and other drugs). Even if God were to approach a breaking point, the system would shut down His extraneous activity. Does this place limits on God? Absolutely. A finite God has limits by definition. By my version of God has no relevant limits. He is pragmatically ideal rather than philosophically ideal.

Again, you're being narrow-minded and shallow.

Are you joking? The ones who formulated creeds like that in Niceaea or Chalcedon surely saw this as a solution, not as a problem.

Are you joking? The clear solution to a problem is to spew forth words that make no sense to any of us and are riddled with "apparent" contradictions insoluble for 1700 years? Ok, I'll stick with my own views, thank you very much.

Why, then, do you not explain it to me? A simple version can be explained in simple terms (or am I wrong about that?).

It's not complex but consider that the mainstream had 1700 years to explain and defend their position. You're asking me to do this in one post, right? Lately I'm reluctant to share my pearls with people who deflect and evade - and then only want to shallow-attack MY views. For example you're still deflecting on immutability, as I see it. And still shallow-attacking my whole system based on a narrow-minded reading of one verse in Isaiah, ignoring the fact that God (aka Jesus) DID grow weary on earth.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Matter can be fragmented by definition.

Who says that soul is matter?

I don't have to go through the Bible proving that every material object can be fragmented. If you'd like an example, Legion said, "MY name (note the singular) is Legion, for We (Note the plural) are many."

Which means that the man had acquired a legion of demons who possessed him. A regular legion contained 6,000 soldiers, not 6,000 pieces of a single soldier. Who distort this metaphor by inserting a »fragmentation«.

Much of your deflection is based on a double-standard, a moral relativism

The core of moral relativism is: There is no uniform standard, but men are judged according to their own conscience. You subscribed to that in post #125. It is a double-standard if you complaint when I do something similar.

where you don't apply virtues equally to God and man.

Just because God is no man. I can apply virtues equally to all men, but I will not, for example, punish a female dog that has sexual contacts with many male dogs. For a human, this is fornication, but this is dog's nature.

The question is how we perceive the difference between God and man. I see this difference as for bigger than the difference between God and man. You seem to mix creator and created and see them as basically alike.

The question on morals is, so to speak, the »cheese can be eaten« point, the question of God's nature the »the moon is made of cheese« point. In insist discussing the latter, you deflect to the former.

As I put it earlier, in your view God gets a free pass because He is God.

Ever looked into the last chapters of Job, where God speaks to him? God does not defend or explain His motives, he makes no apology, but only shows how great He is and that Job has no right to accuse Him.

And then he tells the friends of Job that their defense of God was not good, and Job, who spoke the right way (in his accusations!), should pray for them.

Same in Rom 9:20: We don't have the right to judge God. If this is »Calvinism«, the Bible teaches Calvinism. But we should go not too far, see Gen 18:23-33.

Your viewpoint is out of balance, therefore I stress God's sovereignty (what you call Calvinism). In a discussion with a Muslim, I need to stress that justice is God's character, and an unjust being can't be the true God.

Maybe you call this »wavering«, but I aim at the balance I find in the Bible. If a somewhat “middle positon” is wavering or inconsistency, the Bible is »inconsistent«.

You end up with minimal moral standards for God and yet somehow insist that His ways are higher than ours.

If you look where it is said that God's way are higher: It does not say that God's way are morally higher (whatever that would mean), it is about God's power to save and heal His people.

The double-standards, along with no clear stance on immutability. This is a waste of my time.

My stance is clear: But it is not on one side. Indeed, you used the word immutable in a way that I asked myself what meaning of that word you refer to? Now I think you mix them all up.

You've only got two arms.

Which means that when the first switch was from right to left arm, the second is be from left to right arm. This is so obvious that I saw no reason to mention it. But if the work is really hard, I need shifts in ever shorter periods, and end up being totally exhausted on both arms. This was my argument, and you obviously overlooked the term I now made bold italic.

Nope. Theoretically yes but in practice no. I already gave you two reasons why. Here's a third: part of the system of irreversible holiness, as I define it, prevents the Godhead from collapse/over-exertion.

You forget that Is 40 mention creation, implicating that He did not get exhausted in creation because he cannot be exhausted.

Even if God were to approach a breaking point, the system would shut down His extraneous activity.

Less technically speaking: God would rest because he is so exhausted. Just the situation Is 40 denies.

Are you joking? The clear solution to a problem is to spew forth words that make no sense to any of us and are riddled with "apparent" contradictions insoluble for 1700 years?

Given the "spirit of time" 1700 years ago it was seen as a solution, so you have to subtract some time from your 1700 years.

Or do you think they said: Well, now the dispute is over, for we have found a formula which make the problem we discussed insoluble?

Ok, I'll stick with my own views, thank you very much.

The formulas are not that important to me, it is what the Bible tells which is important.

Lately I'm reluctant to share my pearls with people who deflect and evade - and then only want to shallow-attack MY views. For example you're still deflecting on immutability, as I see it.

Give me a clear-cut definition of that term. Not just something that works within our time, but a definition which can also applied to the spacetime-relations between God and our universe. for is no part of our universe, just like an author is no part of the »universe« he creates by writing a novel.

I asked you to say whether this author is immutable or not, and as long you can't answer this question don't complain when I be imprecise about God in relation to our universe.
Let's refine the hypothetical author: He starts writing the third chapter, the he writes down the end, the a sequel to the third chapter, then the beginning, then the yet missing chapters, then overworks the whole book, altering here and there, inserting some time-flashbacks in some passages … all within two weeks. How would you describe him to the characters in this novel: Is he mutable or immutable (and why is this description appropriate)?
When you answer this question, I'm confident that I know enough of your concept of "immutability" to answer your question whether God is immutable or not.

One thing that modern science has shown to us is: There are aspects of reality that can't be described satisfactorily in everyday plain language. »Same time« is relative to the velocity of the observer, time length can also vary (even between finite and infinite), waves are corpuscles and vice versa …

No, I do not believe that God can more comprehensible to us than the electron, or a black hole. There are things we don't know.

ignoring the fact that God (aka Jesus) DID grow weary on earth.

I do not ignore it. And I sad: The situation where he could get weary (His being man) is the only condition where you can apply human virtues in full.

On the other hand, you ignore the fact that the Father never got weary.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The glass house you see me sitting in is built of your world-view. In my view, you are sitting in a glass house (see above). Both are subjective views, of course.

 

[JAL]

Who says that soul is matter?

All that immaterial spirit-stuff came from Plato and is strongly challenged by the Hebrew/Greek terms used, in tandem with the word-contexts. Immaterialism is a fairy-tale - it's what I call an extraordinary claim, viz. "Use the immaterial Force, Luke !" and therefore requires extraordinary corroboration. And none exists. Immaterialism is beset with logical problems (which probably is of little concern to you, if you accept the Hypostatic Union). For example: Jesus could not have suffered if He had an immaterial/intangible soul because, no matter how much damage is done to the tangible body, it could have no impact upon an intangible soul.

Again, I don't cater to a theology riddled with apparent contradictions.

Which means that the man had acquired a legion of demons who possessed him. A regular legion contained 6,000 soldiers, not 6,000 pieces of a single soldier. Who distort this metaphor by inserting a »fragmentation«.

An army of 6,000 soldiers doesn't say, "MY name (in the singular) is Legion." At worst they say, "OUR name is Legion."

Again, I don't need to prove that a material soul can be fragmented.

The core of moral relativism is: There is no uniform standard, but men are judged according to their own conscience. You subscribed to that in post #125. It is a double-standard if you complaint when I do something similar.

Conscience isn't infinitely malleable. Romans 1 and 2 don't seem to allow that. (For instance I don't believe 100% psychopath is possible). Conscience won't let you bypass the definition of merit. People need help, and you will be evaluated by the extent to which you labored/suffered to help them.

Just because God is no man. I can apply virtues equally to all men, but I will not, for example, punish a female dog that has sexual contacts with many male dogs. For a human, this is fornication, but this is dog's nature.

The question is how we perceive the difference between God and man. I see this difference as for bigger than the difference between God and man. You seem to mix creator and created and see them as basically alike.

The question on morals is, so to speak, the »cheese can be eaten« point, the question of God's nature the »the moon is made of cheese« point. In insist discussing the latter, you deflect to the former.

Shallow. Dogs get a pass for lack of an active conscience. (They do have an active conscience when separate from animal bodies). God and man have an active conscience.

Ever looked into the last chapters of Job, where God speaks to him? God does not defend or explain His motives, he makes no apology, but only shows how great He is and that Job has no right to accuse Him.

And then he tells the friends of Job that their defense of God was not good, and Job, who spoke the right way (in his accusations!), should pray for them.

All of us are sinners under penalty of pain and death. Job at points lost sight of it or felt that the pain was exorbitant. God is wiser and best-qualified to make that call. I don't think the Book of Job supports a difference of ethics, or Calvin's psychopathic view of God.

Same in Rom 9:20: We don't have the right to judge God. If this is »Calvinism«, the Bible teaches Calvinism. But we should go not too far, see Gen 18:23-33.

Take a look at the word "wrath" in Romans 9 . Sinners under wrath have lost the right to complain. See my comments on Job above.

Your viewpoint is out of balance, therefore I stress God's sovereignty (what you call Calvinism).

Calvinism is in more in balance than my view? Ok.

If you look where it is said that God's way are higher: It does not say that God's way are morally higher (whatever that would mean), it is about God's power to save and heal His people.

I already refuted that. Here it is again:

What does God mean by His ways being higher than ours?

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The same Hebrew words for "ways" and "thoughts" are being repeated here. What God is saying is that, "I am not a wicked jerk like you all." He's not saying, "You're a piece of worthless crap just because I happened to be lucky enough to be endued with more power than you." That would be like an aristocrat saying, "You're a piece of worthless crap just because I am of noble birth and inherited wealth."

My stance is clear: But it is not on one side. Indeed, you used the word immutable in a way that I asked myself what meaning of that word you refer to? Now I think you mix them all up.

Which means that when the first switch was from right to left arm, the second is be from left to right arm. This is so obvious that I saw no reason to mention it. But if the work is really hard, I need shifts in ever shorter periods, and end up being totally exhausted on both arms. This was my argument, and you obviously overlooked the term I now made bold italic.

Right, both arms exhausted. That's exactly the argument I responded to. You seem to feel that three solutions are not enough for one vague passage. Whereas the Hypostatic Union isn't vague in that sense - it is CLEARLY faced with a number of apparent contradictions insoluble.

Jesus was 100% God. God became weary.

You forget that Is 40 mention creation, implicating that He did not get exhausted in creation because he cannot be exhausted.

No, God doesn't say, "I never grew weary, especially not during creation." And even He had said that, I gave you solutions. PART

Less technically speaking: God would rest because he is so exhausted. Just the situation Is 40 denies.

Given the "spirit of time" 1700 years ago it was seen as a solution, so you have to subtract some time from your 1700 years.

Or do you think they said: Well, now the dispute is over, for we have found a formula which make the problem we discussed insoluble?

The formulas are not that important to me, it is what the Bible tells which is important.

Give me a clear-cut definition of that term. Not just something that works within our time, but a definition which can also applied to the spacetime-relations between God and our universe. for is no part of our universe, just like an author is no part of the »universe« he creates by writing a novel.

I asked you to say whether this author is immutable or not, and as long you can't answer this question don't complain when I be imprecise about God in relation to our universe.
Let's refine the hypothetical author: He starts writing the third chapter, the he writes down the end, the a sequel to the third chapter, then the beginning, then the yet missing chapters, then overworks the whole book, altering here and there, inserting some time-flashbacks in some passages … all within two weeks. How would you describe him to the characters in this novel: Is he mutable or immutable (and why is this description appropriate)?
When you answer this question, I'm confident that I know enough of your concept of "immutability" to answer your question whether God is immutable or not.

One thing that modern science has shown to us is: There are aspects of reality that can't be described satisfactorily in everyday plain language. »Same time« is relative to the velocity of the observer, time length can also vary (even between finite and infinite), waves are corpuscles and vice versa …

No, I do not believe that God can more comprehensible to us than the electron, or a black hole. There are things we don't know.

I do not ignore it. And I sad: The situation where he could get weary (His being man) is the only condition where you can apply human virtues in full.

On the other hand, you ignore the fact that the Father never got weary.

The glass house you see me sitting in is built of your world-view. In my view, you are sitting in a glass house (see above). Both are subjective views, of course.

 

[JAL]

Who says that soul is matter?

All that immaterial spirit-stuff came from Plato and is strongly challenged by the Hebrew/Greek terms used, in tandem with the word-contexts. Immaterialism is a fairy-tale - it's what I call an extraordinary claim, viz. "Use the immaterial Force, Luke !" and therefore requires extraordinary corroboration. And none exists. Immaterialism is beset with logical problems (which probably is of little concern to you, if you accept the Hypostatic Union). For example: Jesus could not have suffered if He had an immaterial/intangible soul because, no matter how much damage is done to the tangible body, it could have no impact upon an intangible soul.

Again, I don't cater to a theology riddled with apparent contradictions.

Which means that the man had acquired a legion of demons who possessed him. A regular legion contained 6,000 soldiers, not 6,000 pieces of a single soldier. Who distort this metaphor by inserting a »fragmentation«.

An army of 6,000 soldiers doesn't say, "MY name (in the singular) is Legion." At worst they say, "OUR name is Legion."

Again, I don't need to prove that a material soul can be fragmented.

The core of moral relativism is: There is no uniform standard, but men are judged according to their own conscience. You subscribed to that in post #125. It is a double-standard if you complaint when I do something similar.

Conscience isn't infinitely malleable. Romans 1 and 2 don't seem to allow that. (For instance I don't believe 100% psychopathy is possible). Conscience won't let you bypass the definition of merit. People need help, and you will be evaluated by the extent to which you labored/suffered to help them.

Just because God is no man. I can apply virtues equally to all men, but I will not, for example, punish a female dog that has sexual contacts with many male dogs. For a human, this is fornication, but this is dog's nature.

The question is how we perceive the difference between God and man. I see this difference as for bigger than the difference between God and man. You seem to mix creator and created and see them as basically alike.

The question on morals is, so to speak, the »cheese can be eaten« point, the question of God's nature the »the moon is made of cheese« point. In insist discussing the latter, you deflect to the former.

Shallow. Dogs get a pass for lack of an active conscience. (Fallen angels do have an active conscience when separate from animal bodies). God and man have an active conscience.

Ever looked into the last chapters of Job, where God speaks to him? God does not defend or explain His motives, he makes no apology, but only shows how great He is and that Job has no right to accuse Him.

And then he tells the friends of Job that their defense of God was not good, and Job, who spoke the right way (in his accusations!), should pray for them.

All of us are sinners under penalty of pain and death. Job at points lost sight of it or felt that the pain was exorbitant. God is wiser and best-qualified to make that call. I don't think the Book of Job supports a difference of ethics, or Calvin's psychopathic view of God.

Same in Rom 9:20: We don't have the right to judge God. If this is »Calvinism«, the Bible teaches Calvinism. But we should go not too far, see Gen 18:23-33.

Take a look at the word "wrath" in Romans 9 . Sinners under wrath have lost the right to complain. See my comments on Job above.

Your viewpoint is out of balance, therefore I stress God's sovereignty (what you call Calvinism).

Calvinism is in more in balance than my view? Ok.

If you look where it is said that God's way are higher: It does not say that God's way are morally higher (whatever that would mean), it is about God's power to save and heal His people.

I already refuted that. Here it is again:

What does God mean by His ways being higher than ours?

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The same Hebrew words for "ways" and "thoughts" are being repeated here. What God is saying is that, "I am not a wicked jerk like you all." He's not saying, "You're a piece of worthless crap just because I happened to be lucky enough to be endued with more power than you." That would be like an aristocrat saying, "You're a piece of worthless crap just because I am of noble birth and inherited wealth."

My stance is clear: But it is not on one side. Indeed, you used the word immutable in a way that I asked myself what meaning of that word you refer to? Now I think you mix them all up.

Which means that when the first switch was from right to left arm, the second is be from left to right arm. This is so obvious that I saw no reason to mention it. But if the work is really hard, I need shifts in ever shorter periods, and end up being totally exhausted on both arms. This was my argument, and you obviously overlooked the term I now made bold italic.

Right, both arms exhausted. That's exactly the argument I responded to. You seem to feel that three solutions are not enough for one vague passage. Whereas the Hypostatic Union isn't vague in that sense - it is CLEARLY faced with a number of apparent contradictions insoluble.

Jesus was 100% God. God became weary.

You forget that Is 40 mention creation, implicating that He did not get exhausted in creation because he cannot be exhausted.

No, God doesn't say, "I never grew weary, especially not during creation." And even He had said that, I gave you solutions. PART of me becoming weary doesn't mean I am weary. Especially if I have a billion arms.

Less technically speaking: God would rest because he is so exhausted. Just the situation Is 40 denies.

You fail to realize that the Bible is written with brevity. Often it only tells us the bare essentials. I'll say it again: God did not collapse from exhaustion even if PART of Him became weary - regardless whether those details are supplied by the text.

Given the "spirit of time" 1700 years ago it was seen as a solution, so you have to subtract some time from your 1700 years.

Or do you think they said: Well, now the dispute is over, for we have found a formula which make the problem we discussed insoluble?

I'm not following you. You are aware that today's theologians still consider these problems insoluble, right? I gave you the example of "my friend Mike" who both knows all math and doesn't know any math. On this issue Chafer commented:

"How could He know and not know?…These are problems the finite mind cannot solve” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Trinitarianism Part 7,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 98:391 (1941), p. 278).

I can cite plenty of other scholars. On the Quadrinity issue, Millard J. Erickson said that God manipulated math itself. You'd think that 3 + 1= 4, Always, right? Not for the Incarnation, according to the Hypostatic Union.

Give me a clear-cut definition of that term. Not just something that works within our time, but a definition which can also applied to the spacetime-relations between God and our universe. for is no part of our universe, just like an author is no part of the »universe« he creates by writing a novel.

Please. Immutability isn't dependent on time. It's precisely the claim that something doesn't change, whether time is real or not.

I asked you to say whether this author is immutable or not, and as long you can't answer this question don't complain when I be imprecise about God in relation to our universe.
Let's refine the hypothetical author: He starts writing the third chapter, the he writes down the end, the a sequel to the third chapter, then the beginning, then the yet missing chapters, then overworks the whole book, altering here and there, inserting some time-flashbacks in some passages … all within two weeks. How would you describe him to the characters in this novel: Is he mutable or immutable (and why is this description appropriate)?
When you answer this question, I'm confident that I know enough of your concept of "immutability" to answer your question whether God is immutable or not.

I don't understand the question and don't see the relevance. In my view, every author is mutable. Look, infinitude is an impossible description of a reality because infinity is not a specific number. Every author has finite knowledge, and learns something new every moment - at the very least he learns how the current moment feels different than the previous moment.

Here's what is relevant.
....An immutably holy God won't become temptible in the wilderness
....An immutably omniscient God won't become an ignorant fetus in Mary's womb.

One thing that modern science has shown to us is: There are aspects of reality that can't be described satisfactorily in everyday plain language. »Same time« is relative to the velocity of the observer, time length can also vary (even between finite and infinite), waves are corpuscles and vice versa …

I don't believe in time dilation and some of the other nonsense that Einstein fabricated. Newton invented the theory of gravity but didn't take it literally. He never believed it himself because he neither presumed nor believed he had perfectly modeled reality. Scientists are taking Einstein too literally, as though he modeled reality perfectly.

No, I do not believe that God can more comprehensible to us than the electron, or a black hole. There are things we don't know.

I have no idea what point you were making there. I distinguish between qualitative vs quantitative understanding. I understand a computer perfectly in a qualitative sense, not quantitatively.

God is a tangible being who loves me. Not much more I need to know.

I do not ignore it. And I sad: The situation where he could get weary (His being man) is the only condition where you can apply human virtues in full.

And you presume this based on one verse in Isaiah that was not designed to be a full detailed metaphysics?

On the other hand, you ignore the fact that the Father never got weary.

How do you know that? I know that you're wrong. No suffering, no real effort, then no accomplishment to boast of.
"Praise me for being a lazy sloth."
Again, I don't think you inwardly condone such snotty aristocratic attitudes.