Trinity

[StanJ]

As I said in a previous post, the Bible presents snap shots that often conflict. In around 100 passages, God is said to change. Malachi 3:5-7 is a favorite example of mine. It begins by saying God does not change. So it might be easy to assume this passage is dealing excusive with the immutability of God. However, that is not at all the case. Rather than denying change in God, the passage insists on change due to the immutability of God's goads. "Return to me, that I might return to you" means that if we change in such-and-such a way, God will also change accordingly. God is a synthesis of both consistency and change. It just depends upon which aspects of God you are talking about.

You claim that but so far you haven't proven anything. I'm afraid you misinterpreted the English again. God is talking about reconciliation not about change. In fact under the old Covenant reconciliation was only possible if God's people would turn back to him and then he would turn back to them. In the New Covenant God reconciled himself to us by his son's willing sacrifice and therefore we no longer need to turn to him first because he has turned to us with the gesture that he required of Abraham in the Old Testament, that being the sacrificing his own son. That you convolute reconciliation with change is rather disconcerting in my opinion. God is not a synthesis....God IS.

 

[Hoghead1]

You claim that but so far you haven't proven anything. I'm afraid you misinterpreted the English again. God is talking about reconciliation not about change. In fact under the old Covenant reconciliation was only possible if God's people would turn back to him and then he would turn back to them. In the New Covenant God reconciled himself to us by his son sacrifice and therefore we no longer need to turn to him first because he has turned to us with the gesture that he required of Abraham in the Old Testament, that being sacrificing his own son. That you convolute reconciliation with change is rather disconcerting in my opinion. God is not a synthesis....God IS.

What on earth are you talking abut here? I just said that if "God's people turn back to him and then he would turn back to them." I argued to exact, same thing you just said above.
I'm afraid you are not paying much attention to my posts.

 

[StanJ]

What on earth are you talking abut here? I just said that if "God's people turn back to him and then he would turn back to them." I argued to exact, same thing you just said above.
I'm afraid you are not paying much attention to my posts.

I'm actually paying a lot more attention than you care to admit. The point is not what you admitted to in the scripture the point is what you tried to add to the scripture that is not there. I addressed it so deal with that and don't deflect by dealing with something that wasn't the issue.

 

[StanJ]

As in the old testament?? no. you have god or YHWH which is how his name is spelled yet religious scholars believe we have no known true pronunciation of his name, but it also refers to Jesus's name as Yeshua, so that's two of three, but I don't remember it ever mentioning the third if I had to guess I would say the angelic host or referred to in the old testament as the sons of god as the holy ghost or third. but the trinity is more of a roman catholic thing as Jesus never claimed to be God
just the son.

Jesus said if you seen me you've seen the father. He also said I and the father are one. He also said before Abraham I am. So much for Jesus never claiming he was God. You might want to study the New Testament a little bit more.
By the way the Trinity wasn't invented by the RCC it was simply supported by them.

 

[StanJ]

true but his title is son of God? at least that's what I've always found it to been, even if one in the same, true i should read on it a bit more i focus more on the old one though, as its referred more by more religions.

Yes, but remember he is the only begotten son of God. In fact if you read Matthew 1:20 you'll see that it says that Jesus was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit. This relates solely to his physical sonship, as John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word incarnate, which is God.
Jesus also had the title Son of Man. Many people make the mistake that Jesus was also the spiritual Son of God which is not the case. There is no provision in the Bible for Spiritual Sons as the only thing that can be procreated is a human being.

 

[StanJ]

and i would say it is up for interpretation, a bit as similar with the virgin marry as the word in Hebrew they used also translated to young women who was not married, when another world was more suited for the word virgin, as it could be a miss translation, it would be best to read the untranslated text of it as well

Yes that's true but in the Hebrew tradition a young woman that was not married was a virgin.... the two are synonymous at that time.
That is why Joseph wanted to put her aside or divorced her when he found out that she was pregnant. In any event it's not a mistranslation it's a proper interpretation of how the word is being used in this context. I tend to have faith and confidence in the fully credentialed Greek Scholars that have translated the Greek into our current raft of modern English versions.

 

[StanJ]

so what you're saying is Jesus is spiritually the son of god but not genetically?? also good for mentioning the son of man title a lot never use such. or are you saying the reverse.

No I'm saying that Jesus was genetically the son of the Holy Spirit and the physical incarnation of the Word / God. Was my explanation really not that clear?

 

[StanJ]

true but people make errors and if you look at the old testament since it was a multitude of old folklore stories, which were books on there own there are a lot of holes in it, faith or not its quite easy to see, there are less in the new testament though but don't put too much in people. an example of this is there is an even older Syrian story of when god made the rainbow to Noah to signify him not flooding everyone ever again. there was a similar story in an even older book, and as for the bible being in a multitude of stories and stand alone books mashing them all together creates errors and even translating all as such

2 Tim 3:16

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm actually paying a lot more attention than you care to admit. The point is not what you admitted to in the scripture the point is what you tried to add to the scripture that is not there. I addressed it so deal with that and don't deflect by dealing with something that wasn't the issue.

You said the Bible claims God doesn't change. I pointed out there are about 100 passages where the Bible does present God as changing, e.g., Hosea 11:9. In addition, you presented Malachi 3:5-7 as an example of a biblical passage stating that God is immutable. IN point of fact, that is a famous passage cited by major process theologians to demonstrate the Bible does present a God who is a synthesis of both consistency and change. I showed you specifically where the [passage says God is immutable: "I, the Lord, change not." And then I pointed out where says God changes: "Return to me, that I might return to you." And then I explained how this fits together: God has certain goals and won't change in regard to those. This immutability doesn't deny change in God but requires it, for if we change in such-and-such a way, God would change accordingly. So don't give me this jazz I'm corrupting Scripture or something.

 

[Cappadocious]

Why argue about it? You have to ask? Because the Trinity is a central Christian teaching and has presented some real problems down through the ages. It has led to many rejecting Christianity on the basis that it is a polytheistic religion, for example.

Let's hear your positive account stated in a clear, concise manner, instead of shady throwing shade.

 

[Hoghead1]

Let's hear your positive account stated in a clear, concise manner, instead of shady throwing shade.

I didn't throw any shade on anything. Also, several weeks ago, I answered your above request. You didn't appear interested then, so I wonder about now.

 

[Cappadocious]

I didn't throw any shade on anything. Also, several weeks ago, I answered your above request. You didn't appear interested then, so I wonder about now.

You mean the synthesis of personalities thing? That wasn't unpacked enough to convey much info.

 

[Hoghead1]

You mean the synthesis of personalities thing? That wasn't unpacked enough to convey much info.

If you felt you needed to know more, you should have asked back then. I know I did a good job of stating succinctly what I believe and why.

 

[Cappadocious]

If you felt you needed to know more, you should have asked back then. I know I did a good job of stating succinctly what I believe and why.

You did not justify the why, but asserted without defining your terms.

 

[Hoghead1]

You did not justify the why, but asserted without defining your terms.

Oh, yes, I did. I told you I work from a relational metaphysic , for example. If you had trouble understanding some term or word I used, you should have asked.

 

[StanJ]

so he is spiritually,

He is God spiritually.

 

[StanJ]

You said the Bible claims God doesn't change. I pointed out there are about 100 passages where the Bible does present God as changing, e.g., Hosea 11:9. In addition, you presented Malachi 3:5-7 as an example of a biblical passage stating that God is immutable. IN point of fact, that is a famous passage cited by major process theologians to demonstrate the Bible does present a God who is a synthesis of both consistency and change. I showed you specifically where the [passage says God is immutable: "I, the Lord, change not." And then I pointed out where says God changes: "Return to me, that I might return to you." And then I explained how this fits together: God has certain goals and won't change in regard to those. This immutability doesn't deny change in God but requires it, for if we change in such-and-such a way, God would change accordingly. So don't give me this jazz I'm corrupting Scripture or something.

You made a decision you didn't point out any facts.... list the 100 scriptures that say God changes.
The two you listed above are NOT examples of how God changes.
As I've already indicated on several occasions I could care less about process Theology and it is not orthodox so it doesn't really matter what you call them because in my view they are not teaching Biblical truth any more than you have.
Seems you're on that loop process again. We change, God doesn't, never has, never will, and you haven't demonstrated it one iota.
It's not jazz, it's plain fact.

Numbers 23:18-20
God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
I have received a command to bless;
he has blessed, and I cannot change it.

 

[Cappadocious]

Oh, yes, I did. I told you I work from a relational metaphysic , for example. If you had trouble understanding some term or word I used, you should have asked.

Oh, that part was clear. We showed how it bottomed out in substance metaphysics, remember?

 

[Hoghead1]

You made a decision you didn't point out any facts.... list the 100 scriptures that say God changes.
The two you listed above are NOT examples of how God changes.
As I've already indicated on several occasions I could care less about process Theology and it is not orthodox so it doesn't really matter what you call them because in my view they are not teaching Biblical truth any more than you have.
Seems you're on that loop process again. We change, God doesn't, never has, never will, and you haven't demonstrated it one iota.
It's not jazz, it's plain fact.

Numbers 23:18-20
God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
I have received a command to bless;
he has blessed, and I cannot change it.

Are you kidding me? Returning is one of the biggest changes that there is. In addition, Hosea 11:8 says, "A change of heart moves me, tenderness kindles within me." How about Gen. 6? That sure stresses God changing. Gen. 6 says God "bitterly regretted that he had made mankind on earth." Gen. 6:7 has God saying, "I regret that I ever made them." As I pointed out to you earlier, the Bible is snot a book of metaphysics, tells us little about how God is built. All we get are snap shots that often conflict. In some passages, it would appear God does not change, but in others God does. I explained to you that that this situation occurs because the biblical writers are viewing God is a synthesis of both consistence and change, as is any real personality. So whether or not God is said to change depends on what aspects of God you are talking about. In your above example, the biblical writers are talking about change in the sense of being fickle and saying that God isn't fickle. But there are other forms of change as well that do apply to God. So your post showed me you have not objectively studied Scripture or process and are interested more in inflammatory rhetoric than serious study.

 

[StanJ]

Are you kidding me? Returning is one of the biggest changes that there is. In addition, Hosea 11:8 says, "A change of heart moves me, tenderness kindles within me." How about Gen. 6? That sure stresses God changing. Gen. 6 says God "bitterly regretted that he had made mankind on earth." Gen. 6:7 has God saying, "I regret that I ever made them." As I pointed out to you earlier, the Bible is snot a book of metaphysics, tells us little about how God is built. All we get are snap shots that often conflict. In some passages, it would appear God does not change, but in others God does. I explained to you that that this situation occurs because the biblical writers are viewing God is a synthesis of both consistence and change, as is any real personality. So whether or not God is said to change depends on what aspects of God you are talking about. In your above example, the biblical writers are talking about change in the sense of being fickle and saying that God isn't fickle. But there are other forms of change as well that do apply to God. So your post showed me you have not objectively studied Scripture or process and are interested more in inflammatory rhetoric than serious study.

No I'm not kidding you and you're avoiding the issues I presented. It's not my problem that you don't understand the language of love that God uses in Hosea. The consequences of sin were always in front of Israel and when God through his mercy and love decided not to instigate his edict it doesn't mean he changed his mind, it means they changed and he responded accordingly. Repentance has always been a factor and God's dealing with mankind and as such when mankind repents of his sin God's rule that says 'the soul that sinneth shall die', is changed.
Those are all pre-determined rules and edicts that are from God and they're always dependent on what man does. Those rules and the edicts had never changed under the old Covenant. You say you accept Mal 3:6, but then continue to assert that God does change. Now I'm not sure how you justify that because if you accept that the Bible says " I the Lord do NOT change", my equivocate or vacillate back and forth?
I regret every time one of my children make a lifestyle choice that is an obvious mistake but I don't stop loving them. I regret because I know better, I know that there is something better in the future if they make the right choice, just as God does. That feeling comes out of knowledge, love, and mourning.
You also completely ignored the scripture I gave you from Numbers. Apparently you also don't accept and believe what James 1:17 says?
I've told you that there is no synthesis for God, the Bible teaches immutable truths.
It would appear based on your assertions and statements so far, that your doctoral supervision and candidature management did you a great disservice. I for one won't make the same mistakes they did.