- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I do not understand the way of it to be honest.
Other than GOD said it, The Bible Confirms it, I believe it, and that settles it.
I am afraid of what I may become if I fail to believe.
But I do have a question…
If you say that GOD can become whatever he wants. To what extent to you make this statement?
We know that GOD wants to be all in all.
But…
Are you trying to say that GOD can change in to something else?
The Bible clearly states that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That GOD does not change.
So, to imply that GOD can change…is in a sense implying that if he did, or had the ability to change, that his promise or truth could at some point be in question?
Why is it so hard to believe that GOD does not change? He never has changed, and never will change.
Martian wrote:
Quote Thinker says Christ was not aware that he could make a sinull choice. Thinker did NOT “say.” Jesus said that He could not act on his own accord as I have already shown.
Martian said:
Quote Without awareness of a sinfull chpoice there can be no temptation. Chapter and verse please!
Martian said:
Quote Satan made it very clear what the choices were and Christ was aware of what satan ws offereing. Martian is now invoking Satan as a source of truth. Christ knew that Satan was bluffing and had no real authority to offer anything. The temptation was REAL to Jesus because He was hungry. Satan was lying through the whole ordeal. But Martian wants us to believe that satan spoke truly to Christ about real choices. Jesus knew that satan was lying as the politician who makes promises but can't deliver. Jesus KNEW this!
Again, the temptation of Jesus was real because He was hungry.
Martian is now going off the deep end by trusting the word of satan.
thinker
There are two threads discussing this subject. I am reposting this from the other thread.
Thinker has made a stand that God became a man (Jesus) One of the primary proofs he has used is his belief that God’s name YHWH means ”He will become”. In other words He can become a man.
Let me begin by stating that thinker has continually eluded to ONE source (an online Hebrew interlinear) that states that YHWH means I will become. I have in turn posted many sources that stated that YHWH means He exists. I quoted several books from experts in the Hebrew language. I have also included the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon and this one —
From The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Browse Lexicon
Original WordWord Origin
hwhyfrom (01961)
Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
Y@hovahTWOT – 484a
Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
yeh-ho-vaw' Proper Name
Definition
Jehovah = “the existing One”
0.the proper name of the one true God
unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136I also posted a clear etymology of the words from their root words and letters progressing to the understanding of He Exists.
In this process of posting sources, thinker has made statements that no man can be trusted and all sources are false. Now He has modified that stand to be that all of my sources are false and his ONE SOURCE is superior. At the same time, I am the one accused of being inconsistent.
One principle of interpretation is to give consideration to the preponderance of the evidence.
1 source = I will become
7 sources = He ExistsYou do the math.
Second –
In the beginning of our discourse, I pointed out that in order for God to become a man His character would have to be changed from a being (YHWH) for whom sin is an impossibility to a being capable of sin. (Jesus) The possibility of defaming the character of God did not seem to be of importance to thinker. Had I not continued to press the point, I doubt he would have dealt with it.In order to justify his stand that God can become/change, he made statements that Christ was not aware that he had the capability to sin. In my forty plus years of walking with God, I have never heard such a statement lacking reason or logic. If Jesus was unaware of his ability to sin, he could never have been tempted. This contradicts very clear scripture and eliminates Christ as our example of how to overcome temptation.
When asked then how Christ can be an example of overcoming temptation, thinker responded by saying Christ overcame His hunger. That type of overcoming would be like placing a man in a dungeon without food and saying he overcame his hunger. Christ had to be aware of the ability to feed himself. In fact Satan told him to turn the stones to bread. Most of us would have opened a bakery. Christ temptation was to obey the will of His father or use the authority given him as a son to meet His own needs. Christ had a choice, was aware of that choice and his ability to take either choice. Even thinker’s stand that Christ was unaware of his capability to sin makes Christ different then other men and again denies His example for us. To whatever degree you make Christ different then other men, to that same degree we cannot use Him as our example.The entire point of having Christ as our example is to show what it means to have perfected humanity. To have all of the character of God possible within a human WITH AND INCLUDING AND IN SPITE OF all of the our human frailties and weaknesses. God cannot change His character to have those weaknesses. Only a human, born of a woman, according to the flesh, after the law, and made like His brethren in every way can have those things.
I have made the point that it was possible for Christ to have failed. Thinker has countered that if Christ could have failed then the promises of God could fail and that would change God’s character. This is a rabbit trail of circular reasoning.
God’s promises are made on the basis of foreknowledge of what Christ would do. Foreknowledge does not interfere with Christ’s choices. God sees the beginning from the end. God had already seen the choices Christ would make and made the promises based on that knowledge. Had Christ failed, the promises would have been different then we now have. God did not predestine or force Christ to succeed.
Thinker can speculate and make commentary on scripture all day but the end result remains the same.
As long as thinker insists that God’s immutable sinless character can change or that Christ can be tempted without an awareness of His capability to sin, he has no foundation to stand upon.
Perhaps this is an indicator of the failure of forums such as these. Most people seem intent on proving their points of doctrine. Few think their doctrines through to the end conclusions and the results of their interpretations.
Two of the most important tests of any conclusion or interpretation of scripture are —
1.If it draws into question the character of the perfect God then it must be wrong.
2.If it lessens the degree to which Christ is our example, then it must be wrong. (In this case His example of how to overcome temptation)There are two absolute truths to remember in this discussion.
God’s perfect character does not change AND that in order to be tempted one must be given a choice and be aware of the capability to make that choice.There is no intrinsic spirituality in making commentary on scripture if the end conclusions are unreasonable or deny the absolutes I have mentioned.
I am not interested in a supposed higher way of commentary when the end results lead to such outlandish conclusions. I am not interested in thinker’s commentary on scripture when he insists on hanging onto such unreasonable conclusions.Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 19 2009,05:08) Martian wrote: Quote Thinker says Christ was not aware that he could make a sinull choice. Thinker did NOT “say.” Jesus said that He could not act on his own accord as I have already shown.
Martian said:
Quote Without awareness of a sinfull chpoice there can be no temptation. Chapter and verse please!
Martian said:
Quote Satan made it very clear what the choices were and Christ was aware of what satan ws offereing. Martian is now invoking Satan as a source of truth. Christ knew that Satan was bluffing and had no real authority to offer anything. The temptation was REAL to Jesus because He was hungry. Satan was lying through the whole ordeal. But Martian wants us to believe that satan spoke truly to Christ about real choices. Jesus knew that satan was lying as the politician who makes promises but can't deliver. Jesus KNEW this!
Again, the temptation of Jesus was real because He was hungry.
Martian is now going off the deep end by trusting the word of satan.
thinker
I will respond to this last post.It is true that thinker said Christ could do nothing of his own initiative.
This too is not relevant. If Christ was incapable of doing anything on his own initiative, then again He is different then the rest of humanity and again that conclusion denies him as our example. This would mean that Christ overcame hunger because he was incapable of taking the initiative to sin. I am capable of taking the initiative to sin so Christ cannot be my example.
I do not see Satan as a source for truth. Again you have twisted my words. Without the tempter there can be no temptation. God does not tempt anyone. Without temptation we can not be tested, overcome or be perfected.
Satan knew who Christ was and knew that Christ had the ability to turn the stones to bread. This is the truth whether it comes from Satan or anyone else. Christ was confronted with two real choices. Meet His own needs which He was capable of doing or forgo His own (even legitimate) needs for food to obey God.Thinker says that this verse is one of the ones that proves Jesus did nothing of his own initiative.
John 8:28?So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
The above verse is used to say that Jesus could not sin or fail. One of the primary ways in which we fail is to seek to meet our own needs instead of obeying the will of God.
Jesus had needs. Legitimate needs such as to live.Luke 22:42?saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.”
Here is Jesus with a choice before Him. He could choose to seek his own need to live and refuse to go to the cross or He could obey the will of His Father. We all know the choice that He made.
John 10:18? (Jesus speaking of His life)” No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again This commandment I received from My Father.”
The word “initiative” in the above verse is the same word as used in 8:28. Same word and same author.
Obviously Christ had the choice to lay down His life or not. Jesus had the choice to preserve His own life. Jesus laid down His life of his own initiative.The tests of man have always been the same. We are offered a choice. To take action to meet our own needs or trust God to take care of them.
Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac. The same Isaac through whom he was made such wonderful promises by God. Abraham had a legitimate need. A need to have Isaac live. Abraham choose to trust God to meet the needs and keep His promises.
Like Abraham, Christ could have taken action to feed himself in the wilderness. He could have taken action to preserve His own life. These were legitimate needs and desires. Christ choose over all of this to obey His Father, even unto death.
Samuel said:
Quote If you say that GOD can become whatever he wants. To what extent to you make this statement? We know that GOD wants to be all in all.
But…
Are you trying to say that GOD can change in to something else?
Samuel,
I mean to say that God became whatever His people old covenant people needed in whatever the situation. His “becoming” always was purposeful and was motivated by His love for His people. His “becoming” therefore always had the benefit of His people in view. When they needed water He became a rock with water gushing out. When His people needed for Him to become a man He SO HE BECAME! This was His FINAL becoming.So I say “yes”, He could become whatever His people needed. But I emphatically say “no” to His becoming a rock with water gushing out just for the sake of showing off.
thinker
Martian said:
Quote If Christ was incapable of doing anything on his own initiative, then again He is different then the rest of humanity and again that conclusion denies him as our example. Well, the problem with Martian's hypothesis is that Christ was indeed different from the rest of us. I have already proved this but will repeat it,
Quote For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners….(Heb. 7:26) Note that it says that Christ was “separate” from sinners, i.e., the rest of us. Who in his right mind would quarrel with this?
Martian said:
Quote This would mean that Christ overcame hunger because he was incapable of taking the initiative to sin. Yeah. He was incapable of taking the initiative to sin. Hebrews says that He was “separate” from sinners.
Martian said:
Quote Here is Jesus with a choice before Him. He could choose to seek his own need to live and refuse to go to the cross or He could obey the will of His Father. We all know the choice that He made. Yes! He made a “choice.” And His Father would have backed Him up if He had chosen to not got to the cross,
Quote Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled? (Matt. 26:53-54) Therefore, Christ's “choice” in that situation had nothing to do with sinning. For if it had to do with sinning then Jesus was a lunatic for saying that His Father would back Him up. Jesus knew that He did NOT have the ability to act out of accord with His Father. Therefore, He did not have the ability to sin. But He also knew that if He had asked His Father to let the cup pass and call for legions of angels to rescue Him His Father would have granted it. He must have been different from the rest of us in some way. If not then how could He make such a claim and maintain a right mind?
He knew that if He had “chosen” to call for the legions of angels His Father would have granted it and the Scripture could not have been fulfilled. Therefore, God's promise could have failed which in turn means that God's character could change.
Martian and I agree that God's character cannot change.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 19 2009,09:23) Samuel,
I mean to say that God became whatever His people old covenant people needed in whatever the situation. His “becoming” always was purposeful and was motivated by His love for His people. His “becoming” therefore always had the benefit of His people in view. When they needed water He became a rock with water gushing out. When His people needed for Him to become a man He SO HE BECAME! This was His FINAL becoming.So I say “yes”, He could become whatever His people needed. But I emphatically say “no” to His becoming a rock with water gushing out just for the sake of showing off.
thinker
Is this a form of Panentheism?Related to Process Theology, panentheism is essentially a combination of theism (God is the supreme being) and pantheism (God is everything). While pantheism says that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims the God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme effect” of the universe. God is everything in the universe, but God also is greater the universe. Events and changes in the universe effect and change God. As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and being.
Panentheism is most definitely not biblical. In fact, it is extreme heresy that impugns the character of God and makes Him more like a man. God is present everywhere (Psalm 139:7-8), but God is not everything.
Hi S,
Not quite I think.
Seems to make God into some sort of changeling or chameleon.James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.thethinker………..Question, if Jesus did not have the ability to sin, then why does he say ” whosoever OVERCOMES even as I have”. Please tell us what did he overcome if it was not sin. And if He was GOD then why did He say “not my WILL, But thy WILL be DONE. There was obliviously two WILLS One was His and One was God's and they were obviously different WILLS. Your Logic is very good, but i think you might be wrong on this one Brother. I think the big difference between Jesus and most was His knowledge, like Abraham too had prior knowledge given Him with regards to Issac , be cause God had promised Him the inheritance would come through Issac, so Abraham Know even if He killed Issac GOD would have to raise Him up to full fill His word, So this gave Him courage to do it. IMO
peace and love to you brother……………………………gene
Seeking said:
Quote Is this a form of Panentheism? Related to Process Theology, panentheism is essentially a combination of theism (God is the supreme being) and pantheism (God is everything). While pantheism says that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims the God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme effect” of the universe. God is everything in the universe, but God also is greater the universe. Events and changes in the universe effect and change God. As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and being.
Panentheism is most definitely not biblical. In fact, it is extreme heresy that impugns the character of God and makes Him more like a man. God is present everywhere (Psalm 139:7-8), but God is not everything.
Seeking,
I knew that the Pantheism question would come up. But if you read my post again I said that God became what was needed in their situation and that His becoming a man was His “final becoming.”The Hebrew Scripture explicitly says, “I will become what I am becoming“. God spoke these words while existing in the form of a flame of fire in the midst of a bush. God's becoming a flame of fire was TRANSIENT. It was not His true mode of existence or form. Pantheism says that God's existence in everything is His true mode of existence or form.
Jesus said that no man has seen God's [true] form,
Quote You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form (John 5:37) Exodus says,
Quote And Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look upon God (3:6) Then it says,
Quote Then Moses answered and said, “But suppose they will not believe me or listen to my voice; suppose they say, 'YHWH has not appeared to you' ” (Ex. 4:1) Why would the children of Israel question that YHWH had appeared to Moses if he did not claim that YHWH appeared to him?
thinker
Quote (Gene @ Feb. 20 2009,15:21) thethinker………..Question, if Jesus did not have the ability to sin, then why does he say ” whosoever OVERCOMES even as I have”. Please tell us what did he overcome if it was not sin. And if He was GOD then why did He say “not my WILL, But thy WILL be DONE. There was obliviously two WILLS One was His and One was God's and they were obviously different WILLS. Your Logic is very good, but i think you might be wrong on this one Brother. I think the big difference between Jesus and most was His knowledge, like Abraham too had prior knowledge given Him with regards to Issac , be cause God had promised Him the inheritance would come through Issac, so Abraham Know even if He killed Issac GOD would have to raise Him up to full fill His word, So this gave Him courage to do it. IMO peace and love to you brother……………………………gene
Greetings brother Gene,
I have been wondering where you've been the past few days. It's good to see you post again.The overcoming Jesus talked about in the Revelation had nothing to do with His temptation in the wildernsss or with sin. It had to do with their keeping the testimony of Jesus Christ (1:2).
John was exiled to the island of Patmos for his testimony (1:9). Therefore, John was an overcomer. When the fifth seal was opened John saw the saints under the altar who had been slain for the word of God and for the “testimony which they held” (6:9). Therefore, they were overcomers.
The two witnesses were killed on account of their testimony (chap 11). Therefore, they were overcomers. Michael (Jesus) and His messengers overcame the dragon and his messengers by the word of their testimony,
Quote And they overcame by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death (Rev. 12) Dou you see that the Revelation had to do with doing battle against the ememies of the gospel. Those who kept their testimony were the “overcomers”.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 20 2009,02:38) The Hebrew Scripture explicitly says, “I will become what I am becoming“. God spoke these words while existing in the form of a flame of fire in the midst of a bush. God's becoming a flame of fire was TRANSIENT. It was not His true mode of existence or form. Pantheism says that God's existence in everything is His true mode of existence or form.
Thinker,Thanks for the response. The first part of your statement above is the crux of the debate that has been ongoing for some time.
I am reading with interest and an open mind.
Be blessed,
Seeking
thethinker…..But Brother Jesus said to him that overcomes (EVEN) AS (I) HAVE> My point is what would he have to overcome if He were GOD . I do agree those who overcame Kept the testimonies of Jesus. But I am talking of Jesus Himself overcame also. Because he says (EVEN) AS (I) HAVE, so that shows there is a parallel there, in what Jesus did and what we must do also. I believe Jesus overcame Himself and we to must overcome ourselves also, as He did, and Put our Wills to death also as He did, is what he is speaking of is what he did we must do also. IMO
Hay i still want to start a post on (LAW) Verses (THE LAW) subject Paul was dealing with in Gal and Romans. Read up on it in the Greek and epically the definite Article (THE) Not being in the Greek and was added in by translators later. It really changed my perspective on the Ten Commandments AS not being done away with. I hope Martian will get involved whit it also you and Him both are good Scholars and use very good logic in your explanations, I used to be like that, but i am getting older and my recall is not as good as it used to be.
peace and love to you and yours………………………………gene
Gene said:
Quote I believe Jesus overcame Himself and we to must overcome ourselves also, as He did, and Put our Wills to death also as He did, is what he is speaking of is what he did we must do also. Gene,
What “will” did Jesus have to put to death? He was without the desire to sin. I don't follow you my bro.thinker
thinker………Jesus said He came (Not) to do his Will, but the Will of Him who sent Him. Thats my point two different WILLS, two different Persons. right. So How could God become Jesus and Have a different Will then His own. And if he did not have a desire to sin then How was He tempted in all manor as we are then. Jesus overcame HIMSELF, His WILL even to the point of putting it completely to death death. It's all about dying to the self and letting the ONE and ONLY Ultimate Will work in us , as Jesus showed. Jesus is the example of what must happen to Us also. We must grow to put our Wills to DEATH also, and when we do we have overcome (ourselves) as Jesus did. IMO
PS………….I started the Law thread definitely want you input as well as others.
peace brother…………………………..gene
Gene said:
Quote thinker………Jesus said He came (Not) to do his Will, but the Will of Him who sent Him. Thats my point two different WILLS, two different Persons. right. So How could God become Jesus and Have a different Will then His own. And if he did not have a desire to sin then How was He tempted in all manor as we are then. Jesus overcame HIMSELF, His WILL even to the point of putting it completely to death death. It's all about dying to the self and letting the ONE and ONLY Ultimate Will work in us , as Jesus showed. Jesus is the example of what must happen to Us also. We must grow to put our Wills to DEATH also, and when we do we have overcome (ourselves) as Jesus did. Hey Gene,
The two wills did not imply that one was good and the other bad. Jesus cried and asked that His Father take away the cup from Him. Then He said, “Not My will but thine be done”. Yet He also said that if He had asked His Father to send twelve legions of angels to deliver Him from that hour His Father would have done it. Therefore, the will of Christ to be delivered from the cup could not have been sinful. If it was sinful then how could Jesus be assured that the Father would send an army for Him if He asked? Again, the two wills did not imply that the Father's was good and the Son's was bad.
The Bible teaches that Jesus could not act or do anything on His own accord. Therefore, He could not sin. He did not have the ability to sin.
Quote Truly, truly I say to you, The Son can do nothing on His own accord .
You say that this means that He was not really tempted like the rest of us. But Hebrews says only that He suffered in temptation and consequently is able to aid those who are tempted,
Quote For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted (Heb. 2:18). You said that Jesus must have had the desire to sin too. I hope you didn't mean to say this. For James says that the desire to sin will ALWAYS results in sinning,
Quote But each man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own desires and enticed. Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin…. (James 1:14-15, NKJV) thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
