‘For I, YAHWEH, do not change.’ (Malachi 3:6)

[Soapy]

Scriptures says that the God of the Jews; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Yahweh, the Father, is immutable - does not change.

Yet there are those who say that is not true since Jesus, whom they also call ‘God of the Jews’ changed many times.

Apparently, this Jesus:

• BECAME a living human Being (was born)
• BECAME a man
• BECAME Christ (Anointed) and Lord
• BECAME ‘Son of God’(?)
• BECAME sin for the atonement of the sin of Adam
• BECAME Dead!!
• BECAME High Priest to God
• BECAME the first to be raised from the dead
• BECAME Ruler over all creation

But we hear of ‘The Father’ who NEVER CHANGES at any time throughout eternity.

Could there be an error in the thinking of those who believe that Jesus is ‘God who never changes’?

Indeed, the name of the Father is ‘YHWH’ which means ‘Never changing’ / ‘Always was - Always is - Always Will be’!

But Jesus, the Son, by meaning, is the same as ‘JOSHUA’. In fact the Hebrew /Jewish name of the Son of God IS YESHUA (or JOSHUA) and means ‘He saves’. Which is exactly what Joshua of the Old Testament did: Saved his people into the promised land - just as the ‘Yeshua’ of the New Testament will save his people into the promised paradise land!

How do you view the above and what is your resource for such views?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Indeed, the name of the Father is ‘YHWH’ which means ‘Never changing’ / ‘Always was - Always is - Always Will be’!?

Please, either share your credentials in the field of Biblical Hebrew or stop fabricating specious claims.

Parenthetically ...

the following article is interesting.​

 

[Soapy]

Please, either share your credentials in the field of Biblical Hebrew or stop fabricating specious claims.

Parenthetically ...

the following article is interesting.​

What an opening splurge….!

And in any case, what is different to what I said than to your article where ‘YHWH’ is termed, ‘He is’.

‘He is’ refers to a state of eternal being. … same as what I just said. And thus, if you are saying there is something wrong with whag I said then you need to also claim that Malachi was incorrect in claiming that God said ‘I [am] YHWH, I change not!’.

However, I argue that ‘I am’ is NOT A NAME… which is what TRINITARIAN Christian’s claim.
I state that ‘I am’ is only the MEANING of the NAME (‘YHWH’ / ‘EYHEH’) in the same way that ‘Stone / Rock’ is no more a NAME for THE NAME: Peter / Cephas’. Rock/Stone is only the meaning of the name else how is it to be explained that:

• ‘The spiritual Peter, that the children of Israel drank from in the wilderness, was ‘the anointed one’ (CHRIST).’

I don’t remember holding a discussion with you before but perhaps your entry discussion point should be a little less aggressive and more pointed towards responding to the question asked in the thread topic rather than attacking the qualifications of the thread owner.

 

[blü 2]

the following article is interesting.

Yes, it is. Not definitive, but informative. Thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And in any case, what is different to what I said than to your article where ‘YHWH’ is termed, ‘He is’.

From Soapy:

Indeed, the name of the Father is ‘YHWH’ which means ‘Never changing’ / ‘Always was - Always is - Always Will be’!

From the article:

God reveals his name to Moses as “I am,” from the Hebrew root ה.ו.י, “being.” The name YHWH, however, originates in Midian, and derives from the Arabic term for “love, desire, or passion.” [ibid]

And you ask what is different.

Rather than divulge why we should deem your explication of Biblical Hebrew credible - an issue that you clearly sought to avoid - you chose instead to provide an example of the credibility of your reading comprehension. That's OK; it should suffice.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, it is. Not definitive, but informative. Thanks.

Excellent. I just wish that more folks understood that 'definitive' is an extremely elusive goal in such cases.

 

[Soapy]

From Soapy:
From the article:
And you ask what is different.

Rather than divulge why we should deem your explication of Biblical Hebrew credible - an issue that you clearly sought to avoid - you chose instead to provide an example of the credibility of your reading comprehension. That's OK; it should suffice.

Christian view is that it means ‘I am’. To me it is the greatest name anyone who is almighty, and a constant, can have.

And there is only one who is almighty, and a constant!

It points to an eternal being - never changing:

• Always is what he is
• Always is what he was
• Always is what he will be

And guess what? In the book of Revelation we have this same God saying of himself:

• “I am* the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8)

Sounds like ‘I am’ (YHWH) to me!

(p.s. For Trinitarians out there… ‘I am* … ’ is a reference to a state of existing - a self reference. This is not the same as the MEANING of the Hebrew NAME ‘YHWH’… any more than saying that anyone named ‘Peter’ IS A ROCK/STONE, nor anyone named ‘JOSHUA’ (Yeshua / Jesus) IS A SAVIOUR!!)

 

[Soapy]

From Soapy:
From the article:
And you ask what is different.

Rather than divulge why we should deem your explication of Biblical Hebrew credible - an issue that you clearly sought to avoid - you chose instead to provide an example of the credibility of your reading comprehension. That's OK; it should suffice.

Thank you! And yes, because it seems that as soon as a new post is put up there are those out there that immediately try to deviate it towards their own purpose. So, in this case, if you feel strongly about the definitive meaning of a term then I would have suggested putting it in a new thread topic and discuss it there.

Nonetheless, I think (I know) that since it is an accepted Christian claim that:

• ‘eh·yeh’

is an extract from:

• ‘eh·yeh ă·šer eh·yeh‘

Do you still disagree?

 

[Oeste]

Scriptures says that the God of the Jews; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Yahweh, the Father, is immutable - does not change.

Correct!

As you pointed out the scripture speaks rather clearly and unequivocally: God does NOT change.

Yet there are those who say that is not true since Jesus, whom they also call ‘God of the Jews’ changed many times. "

I am not aware of any modern-day Christian source who refer to Jesus as “God of the Jews”. Most times they declare God their God and the God of everyone whether they know God or not.

So, it might help if you provide an anchor point for your assertion and let us know who, exactly, these “they” people are. If “they” who call Jesus “God of the Jews” are modern day Christians, this might spark one debate, if “they” are first Century Christians, it might spark another, or if “they” are the Romans, agnostics or ancient Jews, still another.

I suspect by “they” you are referring to the Romans, who mocked Jesus with a crown of thorns and then shouted “Hail, King of the Jews”. Is this correct?

If so, I'm not sure how you pivot this to folks who believe Jesus is God to all mankind. The Romans called Jesus "King of the Jews" were mocking him; something no Christians would do.

As such, I think the underlying presumption you present here could benefit from more clarification or workup. This is a request rather than a criticism.

Apparently, this Jesus:

• BECAME a living human Being (was born)
• BECAME a man
• BECAME Christ (Anointed) and Lord
• BECAME ‘Son of God’(?)

I've been gone for awhile, just over a year I believe, but I'm still very busy and do not have the time to devote to the forums as I used to, but this is a good question and one that deserves an answer. It has the added bonus of an answer you can make yourself.

In short, you are exceedingly unlikely to believe any answer I give, but you may believe your own.

So let's get started!!

First, let's look at the two PRIMARY reasons why God and/or Jesus are considered immutable by the traditional, orthodox Christian church. I am going to add one more verse to your own:

Because I, the Lord, do not change, you descendant of Jacob have not been destroyed.” (Malachi 3:6)

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.” (Hebrews 13:8)​

It appears that you are basing your charge that God does not change based on Malachi 3:6. If so, then it is just as easy for Trinitarian to base their charge that Jesus is immutable using Hebrews 13:8.

Is there something in Hebrews 13:8 that you are not finding in Malachi 3:6 or vice versa? Perhaps you could comment a bit more and let us know your thinking on this.

Lastly, is there something in Hebrews 13:8 that you do find in Malachi 3:6 or vice versa? Perhaps you cold comment a bit more on this as well.

Extra bonus

There are those who say (I suspect the same or different skeptics, agnostics, and atheists mentioned above…again you can clarify) that the Father does change because He BECAME the God of Israel:

“I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians” (Ex 6:7)

So, the theory goes, God was not immutable because the Jews were not worshiping Him, He didn’t become Lord until the Jews did worship, and it was not until after this happened that He “BECAME” the God of Israel.

Using Malachi 3:6, how would you respond to this charge? I posit that Trinitarians will respond to Jesus the same way.

There are even more who say the Father is immutable because of Number 23:19:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19).​

And then there are those who say God is mutable because he does change His mind and at time does not "fulfill":

And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand” (1 Chronicles 21:15).​

In other words, the theory goes that God is mutable because He “BECAME” remorseful, changed His mind, and decided not to "fulfill" the command he gave to destroy Jerusalem.

How would you answer this charge against the Father @Soapy? I only ask because I have a funny feeling that if you can answer this logically and coherently using Malachi 3:6, then Trinitarians can spare a few moments to answer about Jesus with Hebrews 13:8, using a logic and point of view that may be much more appealing to you: Your own.

I will not be able to respond to your comments immediately, but will get back as soon as I can.

Until then, if you cannot explain a "difference" between Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8, if you cannot explain why Malachi 13:6 shows God is immutable but Hebrews 13:8 does not show Jesus's immutability, and if you're unable or not sure how to defend God's immutability with Malachi 3::6 and at the same time answer Exodus 6:7 ("Became" Israel's God), Does not change His mind (Numbers 23:19) but does change His mind because He BECAME remorseful (1Chronicles 21:15), then please reach out to some of the Trinitarians on this board. I'm sure they're willing to help.

 

[Soapy]

Correct!

As you pointed out the scripture speaks rather clearly and unequivocally: God does NOT change.




I am not aware of any modern-day Christian source who refer to Jesus as “God of the Jews”. Most times they declare God their God and the God of everyone whether they know God or not.

So, it might help if you provide an anchor point for your assertion and let us know who, exactly, these “they” people are. If “they” who call Jesus “God of the Jews” are modern day Christians, this might spark one debate, if “they” are first Century Christians, it might spark another, or if “they” are the Romans, agnostics or ancient Jews, still another.

I suspect by “they” you are referring to the Romans, who mocked Jesus with a crown of thorns and then shouted “Hail, King of the Jews”. Is this correct?

If so, I'm not sure how you pivot this to folks who believe Jesus is God to all mankind. The Romans called Jesus "King of the Jews" were mocking him; something no Christians would do.

As such, I think the underlying presumption you present here could benefit from more clarification or workup. This is a request rather than a criticism.



I've been gone for awhile, just over a year I believe, but I'm still very busy and do not have the time to devote to the forums as I used to, but this is a good question and one that deserves an answer. It has the added bonus of an answer you can make yourself.

In short, you are exceedingly unlikely to believe any answer I give, but you may believe your own.

So let's get started!!

First, let's look at the two PRIMARY reasons why God and/or Jesus are considered immutable by the traditional, orthodox Christian church. I am going to add one more verse to your own:

Because I, the Lord, do not change, you descendant of Jacob have not been destroyed.” (Malachi 3:6)

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.” (Hebrews 13:8)​

It appears that you are basing your charge that God does not change based on Malachi 3:6. If so, then it is just as easy for Trinitarian to base their charge that Jesus is immutable using Hebrews 13:8.

Is there something in Hebrews 13:8 that you are not finding in Malachi 3:6 or vice versa? Perhaps you could comment a bit more and let us know your thinking on this.

Lastly, is there something in Hebrews 13:8 that you do find in Malachi 3:6 or vice versa? Perhaps you cold comment a bit more on this as well.

Extra bonus

There are those who say (I suspect the same or different skeptics, agnostics, and atheists mentioned above…again you can clarify) that the Father does change because He BECAME the God of Israel:

“I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians” (Ex 6:7)

So, the theory goes, God was not immutable because the Jews were not worshiping Him, He didn’t become Lord until the Jews did worship, and it was not until after this happened that He “BECAME” the God of Israel.

Using Malachi 3:6, how would you respond to this charge? I posit that Trinitarians will respond to Jesus the same way.

There are even more who say the Father is immutable because of Number 23:19:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19).​

And then there are those who say God is mutable because he does change His mind and at time does not "fulfill":

And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand” (1 Chronicles 21:15).​

In other words, the theory goes that God is mutable because He “BECAME” remorseful, changed His mind, and decided not to "fulfill" the command he gave to destroy Jerusalem.

How would you answer this charge against the Father @Soapy? I only ask because I have a funny feeling that if you can answer this logically and coherently using Malachi 3:6, then Trinitarians can spare a few moments to answer about Jesus with Hebrews 13:8, using a logic and point of view that may be much more appealing to you: Your own.

I will not be able to respond to your comments immediately, but will get back as soon as I can.

Until then, if you cannot explain a "difference" between Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8, if you cannot explain why Malachi 13:6 shows God is immutable but Hebrews 13:8 does not show Jesus's immutability, and if you're unable or not sure how to defend God's immutability with Malachi 3::6 and at the same time answer Exodus 6:7 ("Became" Israel's God), Does not change His mind (Numbers 23:19) but does change His mind because He BECAME remorseful (1Chronicles 21:15), then please reach out to some of the Trinitarians on this board. I'm sure they're willing to help.

God ‘becoming remorseful’ is not a ‘CHANGE in terms of ‘PROPERTY’ which is what the verse is referring to here.

Anyone, everyone, can ‘change’ in emotion or reaction to dramatic incidents. God ‘regretted (became regretful) making man’ … this is not a ‘CHANGE in a property’ in God. God was ‘hurt’ (became hurt) when Jesus had to die … no property change there… God ALLOWS OPTIONS to be chosen by man or angel in regard to an event that has options: LOT ‘ELECTED’ to go to the mountain against the order God gave to the angel to take Lot to another town. The order was GOD’s order to Lot through the Angel … God knew that Lot was commuting a sin but allows Lot to be set as an EXAMPLE of what it means to ‘make your own CHANGE’ against that which God commanded. Lots two girls ‘raped’ their Father and became outcasts by their lineage thereafter. God did not change but God allows change… but again it’s not a property change.

You knew very well what I was referring to. All the changes I outlined are PROPERTY or POSITIONAL changes. In effect, it is a feature LACKING AUTHORITY for a KING to change his mind… Take the example from the book of Esther: An edict was made in the kings name to kill all the Jews in that realm. When the king (Xerxes) realised that his wife - the queen - Esther - was a Jew he REGRETTED allowing the edict to be made. But even HE could not change ‘his own’ edict since changing his mind DISCREDITS HIS AUTHORITY AS KING!!! A new edict was written that ‘effectively’ overwrote the ‘faulty first edict. The king ‘regretted’ the faulty edict made in his name by his marshall (Haman) but it didn’t change the king’s POSITION: The edict stands…!! But he could offset the edict by allowing a new edict to be created.

I guess you are going to tell me you don’t see where that is reflected in anything to do with God? Let me point you in the right direction: ‘The first covenant’ ‘For if the first was assured then there would have been no need for a second’…

But you said something about God becoming the God of the Jews. No! That is a word twist… GOD CHOSE THE A MAN (Abraham) from fallen humanity and it is this MAN who became the Father of the Israelite nation - WHOSE GOD WAS ALREADY YHWH by way of Abraham. Before Abraham was chosen by God, Abram (his original name) was in a household that worshipped multiple pagan Gods… you know this already - are you just testing me - WHY? You really think I don’t know these things???

You know you are wrong in all ways but as usual (you may have been away but I know you from time back!!) you are playing word games.

Let’s look at Malachi and Hebrews.
You say they are both saying that these refer to Jesus Christ… Not so! Hebrews 13:8 is an injected verse. There is no context for it being there but even saying so it is FALSE to say that ‘Jesus Christ’ WAS ALWAYS ‘Jesus Christ’… and even if it was not, the ISOLATED verse is not a claim of ‘eternity past’. At the writing of it, Jesus was in Heaven. He was MADE TO BE IMMORTAL on his resurrection from the dead: He WAS IMMORTAL from being MORTAL (else how did he die!!) AFTER his resurrection by the power of his Father: YHWH God.

He was made to be King: A positional change.

In Malachi, there is context to God claiming immutability .. The previous verse and following verse bracket the reason for God saying he does not change. He is assuring his people (chosen nation) that he is a CONSTANT in their lives; a reassurance for all time: His promise will not change - though they may have to wait

Indeed, it was GOD that made Jesus Christ: 2 Cor 5:21 & Acts 2:36. And further, in Acts 10:38: God MADE Jesus to be CHRIST by the anointing of him.
Was Jesus ‘Christ’ and ‘Lord’ before he was anointed? When he was being born up until his Baptism?

 

[Elihoenai]

Scriptures says that the God of the Jews; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Yahweh, the Father, is immutable - does not change.

Yet there are those who say that is not true since Jesus, whom they also call ‘God of the Jews’ changed many times.

Apparently, this Jesus:

• BECAME a living human Being (was born)
• BECAME a man
• BECAME Christ (Anointed) and Lord
• BECAME ‘Son of God’(?)
• BECAME sin for the atonement of the sin of Adam
• BECAME Dead!!
• BECAME High Priest to God
• BECAME the first to be raised from the dead
• BECAME Ruler over all creation

But we hear of ‘The Father’ who NEVER CHANGES at any time throughout eternity.

Could there be an error in the thinking of those who believe that Jesus is ‘God who never changes’?

Indeed, the name of the Father is ‘YHWH’ which means ‘Never changing’ / ‘Always was - Always is - Always Will be’!

But Jesus, the Son, by meaning, is the same as ‘JOSHUA’. In fact the Hebrew /Jewish name of the Son of God IS YESHUA (or JOSHUA) and means ‘He saves’. Which is exactly what Joshua of the Old Testament did: Saved his people into the promised land - just as the ‘Yeshua’ of the New Testament will save his people into the promised paradise land!

How do you view the above and what is your resource for such views?

John 1:1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Elohim/God has put forth a Riddle for his Creation to Answer. Yeshua/Jesus is Constant Never Changing.

 

[Soapy]

John 1:1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Elohim/God has put forth a Riddle for his Creation to Answer. Yeshua/Jesus is Constant Never Changing.

Rubbish!

 

[Oeste]

You knew very well what I was referring to

Hi Soapy!

God ‘becoming remorseful’ is not a ‘CHANGE in terms of ‘PROPERTY’ which is what the verse is referring to here.

You mention “PROPERTY” but you did not define it. I believe what you mean by PROPERTY is “something God owns”. Is this correct?

If not, please advise specifically what PROPERTY means to you.

Anyone, everyone, can ‘change’ in emotion or reaction to dramatic incidents. God ‘regretted (became regretful) making man’ … this is not a ‘CHANGE in a property’ in God.

Skeptics will argue that this is a CHANGE. He was not remorseful before, but now He is. The PROPERTY will be ATTITUDE described as:

“a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior” or “a position of the body proper to or implying an action or mental state”​

They will then ask you if God’s attitude is a property of God, and if it is not, whose property is it?

How would you answer this and still uphold the immutability of God? Will you say the Father has no attitude or that attitude is not a property of God? That He has no "settled way of thinking"?

Let me know because I intend to use the same argument for Jesus. If you have no argument, our options are limited. You can tell the skeptics there is no argument, and thus hand them a victory, or you can do what Unitarians usually do, and pass it off to the Trinitarians on this board for answer.

God was ‘hurt’ (became hurt) when Jesus had to die … no property change there…

Okay, I’ve got it! This is the exact same argument I’ll use for Jesus in my post below.

God ALLOWS OPTIONS to be chosen by man or angel in regard to an event that has options: LOT ‘ELECTED’ to go to the mountain against the order God gave to the angel to take Lot to another town. The order was GOD’s order to Lot through the Angel … God knew that Lot was commuting a sin but allows Lot to be set as an EXAMPLE of what it means to ‘make your own CHANGE’ against that which God commanded. Lots two girls ‘raped’ their Father and became outcasts by their lineage thereafter. God did not change but God allows change… but again it’s not a property change

Indeed, God remains immutable. Our change does not mean God’s change and while I can’t speak for all Trinitarians, I’m sure most would agree.

You knew very well what I was referring to.

Contrary to popular belief, I am not a mind reader. However, your statement that I “knew very well what you were referring to” suggests you somehow can read mine.

I asked for clarification. I’m still not sure what you mean by “Property”. This is the first time you mentioned Property. You have no church with established doctrine that I can refer to, so I have no idea how you interpret “Property” until you tell me. I suspect Property will mean whatever you say it means now and will change whenever you need it to change. These are the pitfalls of engaging with someone who says they belong to no church except their own and (with all deference to Groucho Marx) is apparently unwilling to engage with any church willing to have that person as a member.

I find several definitions for “PROPERTY”. Perhaps you’ve explained to readers what Property means on another thread. If so, I have not read it.

 

[Oeste]

ll the changes I outlined are PROPERTY or POSITIONAL changes. In effect, it is a feature LACKING AUTHORITY for a KING to change his mind… Take the example from the book of Esther: An edict was made in the kings name to kill all the Jews in that realm. When the king (Xerxes) realised that his wife - the queen - Esther - was a Jew he REGRETTED allowing the edict to be made. But even HE could not change ‘his own’ edict since changing his mind DISCREDITS HIS AUTHORITY AS KING!!! A new edict was written that ‘effectively’ overwrote the ‘faulty first edict. The king ‘regretted’ the faulty edict made in his name by his marshall (Haman) but it didn’t change the king’s POSITION: The edict stands…!! But he could offset the edict by allowing a new edict to be created.

Okay, I see where you’re going with this. Here’s the problem:

In the book of Esther the King was not the Father. So he certainly was not immutable. I am sure this King made lots of statements that he later regretted. He corrected his earlier edict by issuing a new edict that the Jews could defend themselves. This did not restore any immutability he had lost before. In fact, it’s further proof that the King was mutable.

Now applying this same argument to the Father, a skeptic would say that the Father issued an order or edict to the angel. He later regrets the edict He had made, but even HE could not change ‘his own’ edict since changing his mind DISCREDITS HIS AUTHORITY AS KING!!! A new edict was written to the angel that ‘effectively’ overwrote the ‘faulty’ first edict. The Father “regretted” the faulty edict made in His name by the angel but it didn’t change the King’s POSITION: the edict: The edict stands…!! But He could offset the edict by allowing a new edict to be created.

Your argument simply tells us that God the Father is as mutable as King Ahasuerus. A knowledgeable skeptic is going to drive a tank through this and declare “The Father is mutable”! Now I agree with you that God is immutable, but this is certainly not an argument a Trinitarian would use. There must be more to this argument, or another argument you have yet to divulge. If so, can you elaborate on this a bit more?

I am simply looking for the argument in Malachi 3:6 that shows the Father’s immutability. I know it’s there, but the reason I know it’s there is because it’s also in Hebrews 13:8.

However, it’s a TRINITARIAN argument and we know you don’t find any TRINITARIAN argument plausible. There must be some other argument you use to sway skeptics to the faith.

I guess you are going to tell me you don’t see where that is reflected in anything to do with God?

When it comes to the edicts of Ahasuerus, definitely not! However I am also telling you that I agree with you that the Father is immutable. I am also stating Jesus is immutable for the same reasons.

 

[Oeste]

But you said something about God becoming the God of the Jews. No! That is a word twist… GOD CHOSE THE A MAN (Abraham) from fallen humanity and it is this MAN who became the Father of the Israelite nation - WHOSE GOD WAS ALREADY YHWH by way of Abraham. Before Abraham was chosen by God, Abram (his original name) was in a household that worshipped multiple pagan Gods… you know this already - are you just testing me - WHY? You really think I don’t know these things???

No Soapy, I pointed this out precisely because I believe you do know these things. It is not Trinitarians but skeptics who will point out these types of arguments to show God is mutable.

Let's look at what you posted above.

Anyone new to Christianity, or any skeptic reading your statement (above) could not be blamed if they come to the conclusion that God did not become God to Israel until Abram chose Him out of a list of other pagan Gods, and once he had, this bumped up the Father in terms of PROPERTY (he now has a nation) and POSITION ( he now is their God)!

These are your words, not mine, derived from the logic you gave.

All I’m trying to do is show you how Hebrews 13:8 shows how Jesus is immutable in the same way Malachi 3:6 shows God is immutable.

I am not aware of any Christian church that lists the arguments you gave as rationale against Jesus’s immutability. My only point here is to show Christians can use the same arguments you use for God’s immutability to show Jesus’s immutability as well. Let’s look at your arguments against Jesus's immutability again:

Remember, In the Trinity, Jesus is both fully God (Son of God) and fully man (Son of Man)

· BECAME a living human Being (was born)

Jesus was born human through Mary. It did not change a “property” or “position” of God

· BECAME a man

Jesus grew to be a man. No change to God’s “properties” or “position”

· BECAME Christ (Anointed) and Lord

Was always Lord (Son of God), thus no change to God’s “properties” or “position”

· BECAME ‘Son of God’(?)

Was always Son of God, thus no change to God’s “properties” or "position"

· BECAME sin for the atonement of the sin of Adam

As Son of Man, no change to God’s “properties” or "position"

· BECAME Dead!!

Yes, as Son of Man, but rose on the 3rd day. No change to God’s “properties" or "position"

· BECAME High Priest to God

Our intercessor, precisely because he is both God and man. No change to God’s "properties" or "position"

· BECAME the first to be raised from the dead

FirstBORN, not first raised. No change to God’s “properties” or “position”

· BECAME Ruler over all creation

As Son of God, always ruler over creation, and as Son of Man our spiritual King. No change to God’s “properties” or “position”​

You know you are wrong in all ways but as usual you are playing word games.

No, I do not know I am wrong. What I do know is that I am pointing out the amazing similarities with the way you defend God’s immutability with the way I defend Jesus’s immutability. I was able to do this using your logic and terminology, and not my own.

I failed to find any "Properties" or "Position" that changed the Son of God.

(you may have been away but I know you from time back!!)

I've missed you too Soapy! It's good to be back discussing issues with you. I'm glad you're still on board.

Let’s look at Malachi and Hebrews.
You say they are both saying that these refer to Jesus Christ… Not so!

Do they refer to Jesus? Of course they do because they both refer to God, but that’s not what I stated at all.

What I stated is that Jesus’s immutability with Hebrews 13:8 can be defended the same way you defend the Father’s immutability with Malachi 3:6. In other words, the same leeway you afford yourself with “immutability” should also be extended to Trinitarians in their defense of Jesus.

Hebrews 13:8 is an injected verse. There is no context for it being there but even saying so it is FALSE to say that ‘Jesus Christ’ WAS ALWAYS ‘Jesus Christ’… "

So now you attack scripture to vindicate your claim??? What Christian church, besides the single member, personal church of Soapy, does this???

“Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow”.​

This is a very simple statement that tells EVERYBODY that JESUS was, is and will always be JESUS! Yet you claim the statement stating Jesus was always Jesus is FALSE!!??

How can you claim this is FALSE??? Are you reading the same words the rest of us are reading?

Hebrews 13:8 is right where it has always been and exactly where it should be. It is not an “Injected” verse unless you mean it was God-breathed. It is no more and no less “Injected” than any other scripture and as simple and plain to read as “I, the Lord, do not change”.

There will always be skeptics throwing darts at the bible. Don't let them convince you to become one of them. Great claims requires even greater evidence, and without strong evidence, there is no valid claim. Feel free to show us why we should throw Hebrews out, or why it lacks "context".

and even if it was not, the ISOLATED verse is not a claim of ‘eternity past’.

My goodness! Who convinced you of this Soapy??? I know it could not have been yourself.

OF COURSE it’s a claim to “eternity past”! To have CHANGE you must have TIME. Without time there is no change. The scripture is blatantly plain:

For every yesterday Jesus was the same---for ALL TIME!

This included any “YESTERDAY” or past you can think of, any “PRESENT” that is now, and any “FUTURE” you can project.

It is the same as saying “I, the Lord, do not change”. Don’t let these skeptics convince you otherwise!

And why did you have the word “isolated” in caps??

You ISOLATED Malachi 3:6 and declared the Father immutable.

I ISOLATED Hebrews 13:8 and declare Jesus immutable.​

Why not extend to me the same courtesy with Hebrews 13:8 that you extend yourself with Malachi 3:6? If you want to claim Hebrews 13:8 “isolated” then declare Malachi 3:6 “isolated” as well.

But telling us the verse is “ISOLATED” in all caps (when obviously it is not), is not disproving the immutability of Jesus. You need to go into the scripture itself, and give us a logical, cognizant reason why “I, the LORD, do not change” shows immutability, whilst “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, an tomorrow” does not.

This argument and its basis, is missing from your reply.

At the writing of it, Jesus was in Heaven. He was MADE TO BE IMMORTAL on his resurrection from the dead: He WAS IMMORTAL from being MORTAL (else how did he die!!) AFTER his resurrection by the power of his Father: YHWH God.

You are preaching to the choir Soapy. The resurrection is something you need to convince skeptics of, not Trinitarians.

 

[Oeste]

He was made to be King: A positional change.

All that and we’re back to here again?

So why is this a “positional change” that makes Jesus mutable, but the Father’s “positional change” on destroying Jerusalem was not???

If you’re going to debate, please extend the same rope to others that you roll out to yourself. This is not much to ask for. The Father had a positional change on Jerusalem. If you think Jesus was "made a King" means a "positional change" then you also believe that Jerusalem destroyed or not destroyed is a "positional change".

If you do not believe this, then all you would need to do is ask anyone who's faced certain annihilation. This is what Jerusalem was facing, and you tell us Jesus being "made" a King is somehow a positional change, but deciding not to destroy a city when you've already started to destroy a city is not?

The things you tell yourself as a church of one may be sufficient to convince you that you are correct. All I'm saying is that it is NOT sufficient to convince anyone else on this board. They may believe you are correct in your assumptions, but I don't see how anyone here could possibly follow along with your logic.

The previous verse and following verse bracket the reason for God saying he does not change. He is assuring his people (chosen nation) that he is a CONSTANT in their lives; a reassurance for all time: His promise will not change - though they may have to wait

Let end this on a note of agreement then. I think this last statement of yours makes perfect sense. Of course, Hebrews stating Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow is assuring to his people (chosen nation) that he is a CONSTANT in their lives, a reassurance for all time: His promise will not change - though they may have to wait.

 

[Soapy]

Hi Soapy!



You mention “PROPERTY” but you did not define it. I believe what you mean by PROPERTY is “something God owns”. Is this correct?

If not, please advise specifically what PROPERTY means to you.



Skeptics will argue that this is a CHANGE. He was not remorseful before, but now He is. The PROPERTY will be ATTITUDE described as:

“a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior” or “a position of the body proper to or implying an action or mental state”​

They will then ask you if God’s attitude is a property of God, and if it is not, whose property is it?

How would you answer this and still uphold the immutability of God? Will you say the Father has no attitude or that attitude is not a property of God? That He has no "settled way of thinking"?

Let me know because I intend to use the same argument for Jesus. If you have no argument, our options are limited. You can tell the skeptics there is no argument, and thus hand them a victory, or you can do what Unitarians usually do, and pass it off to the Trinitarians on this board for answer.



Okay, I’ve got it! This is the exact same argument I’ll use for Jesus in my post below.



Indeed, God remains immutable. Our change does not mean God’s change and while I can’t speak for all Trinitarians, I’m sure most would agree.



Contrary to popular belief, I am not a mind reader. However, your statement that I “knew very well what you were referring to” suggests you somehow can read mine.

I asked for clarification. I’m still not sure what you mean by “Property”. This is the first time you mentioned Property. You have no church with established doctrine that I can refer to, so I have no idea how you interpret “Property” until you tell me. I suspect Property will mean whatever you say it means now and will change whenever you need it to change. These are the pitfalls of engaging with someone who says they belong to no church except their own and (with all deference to Groucho Marx) is apparently unwilling to engage with any church willing to have that person as a member.

I find several definitions for “PROPERTY”. Perhaps you’ve explained to readers what Property means on another thread. If so, I have not read it.

Thank you for clarifying your understanding (or misunderstanding) of what I said.

From the beginning after Adam sinned God would have ‘regretted’ / ‘Become remorseful’ that Adam sinned. God knew that allowing free-will could have meant man failing to keep His commandments.

From this, you can see that being regretful or remorseful is not a CHANGE in any part of God. In fact since God’s word is IMMUTABLE it must then be fulfilled - That man should build a paradise earth and fill it with his kind.

There are many other instances where God regretted or became remorseful with mankind in general and with His chosen nation in particular. But that CHANGED nothing of property value to or for or in God. Even giving His throne (seat of power and authority) to Jesus did not make a CHANGE in property value to God: God still OWNED the throne (This is illustrated in several books and stories in the Bible: Moses is ‘made to be God to Pharoah’ but it was only that it meant that God spoke through Moses - Mordeciah given the seal of king Xerxes doesn’t mean Mordeciah owns the throne - Joseph being out in charge over Egypt by the Pharoah identity mean Joseph owned the throne of Pharoah…) God, the king, the Pharoah, REMAINS a positional constant.

However, in MANKIND, change in position is fully mutable. I listed many changes that Jesus went through … including some ridiculous ones claimed by Trinitarians (which was my original point but I got caught up when I realised there were many more ‘changes’… reinforcing my point!

(p.s. I’m just fleshing out for those others who may read this thread!)

 

[Soapy]

Okay, I see where you’re going with this. Here’s the problem:

In the book of Esther the King was not the Father. So he certainly was not immutable. I am sure this King made lots of statements that he later regretted. He corrected his earlier edict by issuing a new edict that the Jews could defend themselves. This did not restore any immutability he had lost before. In fact, it’s further proof that the King was mutable.

Now applying this same argument to the Father, a skeptic would say that the Father issued an order or edict to the angel. He later regrets the edict He had made, but even HE could not change ‘his own’ edict since changing his mind DISCREDITS HIS AUTHORITY AS KING!!! A new edict was written to the angel that ‘effectively’ overwrote the ‘faulty’ first edict. The Father “regretted” the faulty edict made in His name by the angel but it didn’t change the King’s POSITION: the edict: The edict stands…!! But He could offset the edict by allowing a new edict to be created.

Your argument simply tells us that God the Father is as mutable as King Ahasuerus. A knowledgeable skeptic is going to drive a tank through this and declare “The Father is mutable”! Now I agree with you that God is immutable, but this is certainly not an argument a Trinitarian would use. There must be more to this argument, or another argument you have yet to divulge. If so, can you elaborate on this a bit more?

I am simply looking for the argument in Malachi 3:6 that shows the Father’s immutability. I know it’s there, but the reason I know it’s there is because it’s also in Hebrews 13:8.

However, it’s a TRINITARIAN argument and we know you don’t find any TRINITARIAN argument plausible. There must be some other argument you use to sway skeptics to the faith.



When it comes to the edicts of Ahasuerus, definitely not! However I am also telling you that I agree with you that the Father is immutable. I am also stating Jesus is immutable for the same reasons.

No! Wrong on all counts.

“God is not a man”.

In any debate, discussion, argument, .. wherein an ANALOGY is used in regard to Almighty God and man, IT MUST NEVER BE TAKEN that the outcome of an action in man is the same as the action in God.

We are made in the image of God. God does not change but the image may change depending on modifications (changes / deficiencies / impurities) in the reflection. In our case the deficiency / impurity IS SIN!!

Here’s a mathematical analogy: A specific formula doesn’t change but the values within the formula can change. The formula is a constant but the values are not!!

• Formula: X / Y * C
• Values: 5 / 4 * 2
• Values: 8 / 15 * 9
• …

The VALUES in the formula can change but the FORMULA itself remains a constant…!

However, the formula commands that a value of ‘0’(zero) must not be used for ‘Y’.

Does it change the FORMULA knowing that when, against the command, a value of zero IS inputted for ‘Y’?

No! It is REGRETTED that this occurred because the outcome is an ‘UNDEFINED’ as an outcome. It’s not a fruitful result…

…

 

[Soapy]

All that and we’re back to here again?

So why is this a “positional change” that makes Jesus mutable, but the Father’s “positional change” on destroying Jerusalem was not???

If you’re going to debate, please extend the same rope to others that you roll out to yourself. This is not much to ask for. The Father had a positional change on Jerusalem. If you think Jesus was "made a King" means a "positional change" then you also believe that Jerusalem destroyed or not destroyed is a "positional change".

If you do not believe this, then all you would need to do is ask anyone who's faced certain annihilation. This is what Jerusalem was facing, and you tell us Jesus being "made" a King is somehow a positional change, but deciding not to destroy a city when you've already started to destroy a city is not?

The things you tell yourself as a church of one may be sufficient to convince you that you are correct. All I'm saying is that it is NOT sufficient to convince anyone else on this board. They may believe you are correct in your assumptions, but I don't see how anyone here could possibly follow along with your logic.




Let end this on a note of agreement then. I think this last statement of yours makes perfect sense. Of course, Hebrews stating Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow is assuring to his people (chosen nation) that he is a CONSTANT in their lives, a reassurance for all time: His promise will not change - though they may have to wait.

I agree that Jesus is a constant in the lives of his believers FROM THE TIME he was raised up to heaven as an immortal being.

Again, he could not have been a constant if one moment hd was mortal and the next he was immortal: a mortal being us mutable; an immortal being is immutable.

Immutable is constant, and constant us eternal.

Jesus is a constant, an immutable, an eternal being NOW. And he will be tomorrow as he is today, as he was the day he became a constant!

God is eternally immortal. He was never in a position of being mortal. God is a constant.
He was never in a position where he was anything but a constant.
God is eternal. He was never in a position where he was not eternal.

Can you say the sake of Jesus … whom was made to be both Lord and Christ? Who Trinitarians say ‘gave up being god and become a man (mortal flesh!); who died; who was made to rise again from the grave; who was made to sit at the right hand of a constant eternal immutable Father? Who was made to sit on the throne of his ancestor, king David (David’s throne!)

And you still think that Jesus is the same YESTERDAY as he is Today, as he will be Tomorrow?

Didn't Jesus himself say: ‘I am he who was DEAD, but am NOW alive for EVERMORE!’?

Hmmm… doesn’t from ‘Now’ and ‘for evermore’ imply ‘was not in the past’?

 

[Oeste]

o! Wrong on all counts.

“God is not a man”.

Haven’t you heard Soapy?

Never put a period where God has placed a comma.

That is WRONG on all counts. Try reading the ENTIRE verse. If you have difficulty with this let me know.

I agree that Jesus is a constant in the lives of his believers FROM THE TIME he was raised up to heaven as an immortal being.

Well, he was also constant prior to that time. I have no idea where your “FROM” comes from.

Again, he could not have been a constant if one moment hd was mortal and the next he was immortal: a mortal being us mutable; an immortal being is immutable.

Trinitarians don’t ask you why you think Jesus appeared invisibly in 1914, do they? Do they ask you happened to Armageddon in 1975? How about "Auditing" and Dianetics?

No? Well that's because they don't have to. No strawmen to set up and knock down. It's simply not necessary. But it seems to be getting more and more necessary for you. You have been on this forum for a few years now, and you STILL argue against things Trinitarians have never believed as if they did.

Trinitarians no more teach Jesus is mortal one moment and immortal the next than you teach the doctrines of Joseph Smith! What Next? Will you' ask "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Can you say the sake of Jesus … whom was made to be both Lord and Christ? Who Trinitarians say ‘gave up being god and become a man (mortal flesh!); who died; who was made to rise again from the grave; who was made to sit at the right hand of a constant eternal immutable Father? Who was made to sit on the throne of his ancestor, king David (David’s throne!)

What historic, orthodox, Trinitarian Christian church do you know claims Jesus “was made”? Who “gave up” being god?? And “god” with a small “g” at that!!! If this is your argument, then you do not know much about the Trinity at all.

Trinitarians do NOT believe Jesus “was made”“, or gave up” being a “god” anymore than you believe little green Lizard men will land their space ship in Times Square to announce the birth of a new Elvis Presley.

If you are not sure what Trinitarians believe, there are plenty of reputable sites that will tell you. You don't have to believe Trinity, but you may want read about the Trinity, at least if you intend to intelligently debate the Trinity.

Didn't Jesus himself say: ‘I am he who was DEAD, but am NOW alive for EVERMORE!’?

No, that’s what Soapy says, not scripture. The two are not the same.

Jesus does not start off by claiming he was DEAD.

And you still think that Jesus is the same YESTERDAY as he is Today, as he will be Tomorrow?

ABSOLUTELY!

Look, we can believe YOU @Soapy, or we can believe SCRIPTURE. Let's look at again:

“Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.” (Hebrews 13:8)​

I am very interested on where you stand on this Soapy, because yes, I believe Jesus was the same YESTERDAY as he is now.

But what about you? As we read Hebrews 13:8, should we believe you or what we read with our “lying eyes”?