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

[Soapy]

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.

Does that bit of philosophy apply to you, too?

Well, he was also constant prior to that time.

‘Also’? You mean he was not a constant and he ALSO was a constant?

I have no idea where your “FROM” comes from.

If Jesus WAS DEAD then he WAS ALIVE ETERNALLY then his period of constancy is FROM the time when he BECAME (WAS MADE TO BE) Eternal… ‘made to be’ since, for sure, he did not make himself to be so!

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?"

Ah! You are trying to work out what the title of the group I belong to is? Keep trying… when you find out please let me know and I’ll tell you that you are wrong!!

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.

You are testing with JW belief in view! You’ll have to get up much earlier than that to even think of catching me out!

But aside from that, it’s traditional for one Trinitarians to deny what other Trinitarians have said that the first trinitarian realises is not true. It’s a great way to maintain a fallacy and it justifies itself by lasting circa 2000 years.

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.

I know what Trinitarians think. The point is not what they think but rather that they try to indoctrinate the world with what they think. And what they think is an abomination summed up in the book of Revelation as ‘The Whore of Babylon’.

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.

In the specific verse Jesus starts with the ENDING: ‘I am the living one’. And then he clarifies who he is:

• ‘I was dead’
• ‘But am NOW ALIVE for evermore’

This justifies the verse:

• “For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.” (Romans 6:9)
• “And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” (2 Cor 5:15)

Look, we can believe YOU

Than you but it’s what scriptures says. I’m just relaying it to you and those others reading these posts.

@Soapy, or we can believe SCRIPTURE.

Same thing…

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”?

When you say, ‘Yesterday’, do you mean like ‘Monday’…?

Or perhaps it’s illustrative of days past (like (2000 - 33) times 364, days past!)

Do we not know, have we not heard, had it not been written and testified, that Jesus:

• ‘was dead,’

and after being raised up from the dead:

• ‘Is now alive for evermore.’!?

 

[Oeste]

No! 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.

Does that bit of philosophy apply to you, too?

It applies to anyone who believes it’s okay to purposely paraphrase or chop scripture to give the impression it says something that it doesn’t.

‘Also’? You mean he was not a constant and he ALSO was a constant?

That’s your argument Soapy, not mine.

YOU are the one alleging Jesus was not a constant before he was a constant. You are the one who alleges he was “made”, not me. You are the one spuriously alleging Hebrews 13:8 is an “INJECTED” verse. You are the one alleging Hebrews 13:8 lacks “context”. You are the one arguing he is only constant "FROM" some date, not me.

Scripture tells us "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow". That's just as "Constant" as Malachi 3:6.

Jesus Christ is Born!

Jesus is Son of Man.

Jesus Christ is Risen!

Jesus is Son of Man.

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

Jesus is Son of God.

You reflexively threw scripture under the bus because it didn’t reflect your view of Jesus. The author of Hebrews is ADDRESSING the HEBREWS Soapy! He is well aware of how this largely Jewish congregation will interpret Hebrews 13:8, which is exactly why he was inspired to write it!

So, if you argue Malachi 3:6 makes God eternal, then you argue Hebrews 13:8 makes Jesus the same. There is nothing in Hebrews 13:8 that would give the Jews a different understanding of Jesus than Malachi 3:6 gives them of Yahweh.

If there is, please feel free to explain it. Claiming the verse is "INJECTED" and without context sounds dismissive of scripture, and I note your profile lists you as Christian. Do you think the book of Hebrews is a fraud?

Ah! You are trying to work out what the title of the group I belong to is? Keep trying… when you find out please let me know and I’ll tell you that you are wrong!!

You've already told us you do not belong to a church Soapy. Your beliefs and doctrines are your own and not shared by any other church on the planet, which is why I refer to you as a church of one. To change a doctrine you need only change your mind.

You are testing with JW belief in view! You’ll have to get up much earlier than that to even think of catching me out!

No, I only need to read your posts. My point was I do not debate you as if you are a Jehovah Witness, So you should not debate me as if I were a Modalist. I do not put up Watchtower arguments as if they are yours, so all I'm asking is that you not put up Modalist arguments as if they're mine.

When you do this it gives the distinct impression you do not understand either Trinitarianism or Modalism, especially when you claim they're both the same.

DO THE RESEARCH. Ask questions.

If both still look the same to you just let me know and I'll be happy to post something on this as soon as I have some time. Perhaps over the Thanksgiving holiday. I just don't have the time to go into this right now.

CONTINUED...

 

[Oeste]

I know what Trinitarians think.
The point is not what they think but rather that they try to indoctrinate the world with what they think.

If only we were more like you Soapy! Then we would not try to indoctrinate others with what we think and keep our thinking to ourselves.

And what they think is an abomination summed up in the book of Revelation as ‘The Whore of Babylon’.

It’s much easier to think the worst of others, isn’t it?

Why not give Trinitarians the same rope you give yourself? That way, you would be more “Soapy”, less “Trinitarian”, and not try to indoctrinate the world with this kind of “think”.

In the specific verse Jesus starts with the ENDING: ‘I am the living one’.

You do realize living is not an ending, don't you?

And you do realize death is not the end?

If death is the end then no one can be raised. Death would be "the end" of them.

And then he clarifies who he is:

• ‘I was dead’
• ‘But am NOW ALIVE for evermore’

Absolutely! But then we all know that Jesus is not simply the Son of Man, don’t we?

So how do you reconcile this verse with Hebrews 13:8? Will you continue to throw it under a bus for the sake of your doctrine? Is it still "Injected"? Is it still without "context"?

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.

When you say, ‘Yesterday’, do you mean like ‘Monday’…?

If this comment is to demonstrate your extent and grasp of Hebrews 13:8, I’m afraid we won’t have much more to discuss. It seems more in line with your understanding of Modalism and the Trinity.

Also you haven't addressed my question. You haven't explained why the church of Soapy argues we should throw Hebrews 13:8 away as "INJECTED" and without "context". And you haven't explained why these Christian Jews would have interpreted Hebrews 13:8 any differently from their read of Malachi 3:6.

 

[Soapy]

It applies to anyone who believes it’s okay to purposely paraphrase or chop scripture to give the impression it says something that it doesn’t.

That’s your argument Soapy, not mine.

The words and the context of those words, are those of scriptures… legitimate scriptures. Do you not read the warning Jesus gives for those who add or extract from the scriptures…. You believe there are no injections and are no extractions?

What of the verse where ‘He’ is changed to ‘God’. The person spoken of in the context is ‘Jesus’ but Trinitarians changed it to ‘God’. Was that a good thing to credit trinitarianism? Obviously not!

And the verse stating that there are three in heaven who justify Jesus: Father, son, and holy spirit… Do we not know that it is a trinitarian injected verse that is wholly WRONG and purposely designed to TRY TO JUSTIFY trinitarianism?

These two, at least, point to the fact that trinitarianism cannot stand on its own merit but requires irreverent misreading and additions and subtractions to try to make it work.

Trinitarianism also requires multiple versions so that as each fallacy in any one version is found out the speaker can claim that it is not their belief… ipso facto - there is no one debate or discussion uttered trinitarian belief. If I ask you to lay out your version of will be different to another Trinitarian’s, which is why you can say to me: ‘You don’t understand trinity’!

Well, here’s a thing: I don’t need to understand a fallacy. In fact, it’s ridiculous to try to understand a fallacy… And a fallacy that even its proponents do not understand… calling it ‘INCOMPREHENSIBLE’.
Yes, incomprehensible is one of the most significant constants in trinitarianism.

YOU are the one alleging Jesus was not a constant before he was a constant. You are the one who alleges he was “made”, not me. You are the one spuriously alleging Hebrews 13:8 is an “INJECTED” verse. You are the one alleging Hebrews 13:8 lacks “context”. You are the one arguing he is only constant "FROM" some date, not me.

Scripture tells us "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow". That's just as "Constant" as Malachi 3:6.

Jesus Christ is Born!

Jesus is Son of Man.

Jesus Christ is Risen!

Jesus is Son of Man.

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

Jesus is Son of God.

Hmmm… you seem a little short on ‘constants’ for Jesus …

1. Who was not a human being (was not in existence in humanity) but then became born as a child in humanity
2. Was a child lacking learning but grew to a man being taught by God
3. Who was not Christ… but BECAME Christ when God anointed him
   
4. Who became Son of God when God said to him: ‘This day you have become my Son and I have become your Father!’: AN ADOPTION STATEMENT!
5. Who was a MORTAL man, then was a dead (non-living) man (only the mortal can become dead!), then was resurrected again to become an IMMORTAL MAN (The first to BECOME so!)
6. Was taken up to Heaven (The first to become an immortal man in heaven)
7. Who became ruler over all things for 1000 years but later handed back the rulership to God
8. Who later BECAME PERMANENT RULER OVER THE EARTH

I notice that you never are able to outline any of the times that Jesus CHANGES… this, so as to avoid having to admit that Jesus CHANGED… and a change advocates non-constancy!!!

You reflexively threw scripture under the bus because it didn’t reflect your view of Jesus. The author of Hebrews is ADDRESSING the HEBREWS Soapy! He is well aware of how this largely Jewish congregation will interpret Hebrews 13:8, which is exactly why he was inspired to write it!

So, if you argue Malachi 3:6 makes God eternal, then you argue Hebrews 13:8 makes Jesus the same. There is nothing in Hebrews 13:8 that would give the Jews a different understanding of Jesus than Malachi 3:6 gives them of Yahweh. If there is, please feel free to explain it.

Malachi 3:6 is speaking about God.

You are speaking about Jesus (Christ).

What do Trinitarians say about Jesus in Phil 2… (despite the fact that Phil 2 is actually just speaking about not abusing the power of God in a person - put himself last even though he is first! Though he had the power of God he didn’t seek to abuse that position but made himself like a humble servant of man - humble even unto his death - and death in the most humiliating situation: Hung from a tree!!)

Claiming the verse is "INJECTED" and without context sounds dismissive of scripture, and I note your profile lists you as Christian. Do you think the book of Hebrews is a fraud?

What are you trying to say? If I point out a discrepancy in something does that mean the whole thing is fraud…. Be it known to you that it is in fact those very small things that create the lie in a thing. If is impossible to create and inject huge fallacies in the scriptures as it is scrutinised massively. Therefore the best way of creating inconsistencies is to be slight, light, and incredibly subtle….

The best fallacies are made up of 95% truth and 5% lies..!!!
- 5% Hebrews 13:8
- 5% 1 John 5:7 (KJV)
- 5% 1 Timothy 3:16

You've already told us you do not belong to a church Soapy. Your beliefs and doctrines are your own and not shared by any other church on the planet, which is why I refer to you as a church of one.

Not ‘The Church of one’ but ‘The Church THAT IS ONE’!
The congregation (Church) of truth speakers is not an advertised church - You don’t ‘join’ this church - you are only APPOINTED to it. Its members are identified by their works (in words or in deeds and best in both!) but few can identify such: “Jesus Christ came telling all truth and they disbelieved him: How much more then will they disbelieve you!!’

To change a doctrine you need only change your mind.

So please outline something I have said that shows I changed my mind?

No, I only need to read your posts. My point was I do not debate you as if you are a Jehovah Witness, So you should not debate me as if I were a Modalist. I do not put up Watchtower arguments as if they are yours, so all I'm asking is that you not put up Modalist arguments as if they're mine.

You are trinitarian, are you not?

But you seem to be saying that there are thousands of trinitarian-like beliefs such that anything I say against one trini-belief is dismissed as being not a trini-belief!

When you do this it gives the distinct impression you do not understand either Trinitarianism or Modalism, especially when you claim they're both the same.

Trinitarianism / Modalism / Onenessism…

What is / are the differences….?

What is / are the similarities?

Trinitarianism: The belief that God is three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (whether as Three in one God or God as three persons or Three personalities / facets of God…. !!!THREE!!!

Truth: The belief that God is ONE PERSON: Tue Father, whose name is ‘YHWH’… !ONE!

DO THE RESEARCH. Ask questions.

If both still look the same to you just let me know and I'll be happy to post something on this as soon as I have some time. Perhaps over the Thanksgiving holiday. I just don't have the time to go into this right now.

CONTINUED...

Post away… I’ll still be here when you come back!

 

[Soapy]

If only we were more like you Soapy! Then we would not try to indoctrinate others with what we think and keep our thinking to ourselves.

It’s much easier to think the worst of others, isn’t it?

Why not give Trinitarians the same rope you give yourself? That way, you would be more “Soapy”, less “Trinitarian”, and not try to indoctrinate the world with this kind of “think”.

You do realize living is not an ending, don't you?

And you do realize death is not the end?

If death is the end then no one can be raised. Death would be "the end" of them.

Absolutely! But then we all know that Jesus is not simply the Son of Man, don’t we?

So how do you reconcile this verse with Hebrews 13:8? Will you continue to throw it under a bus for the sake of your doctrine? Is it still "Injected"? Is it still without "context"?

If this comment is to demonstrate your extent and grasp of Hebrews 13:8, I’m afraid we won’t have much more to discuss. It seems more in line with your understanding of Modalism and the Trinity.

Also you haven't addressed my question. You haven't explained why the church of Soapy argues we should throw Hebrews 13:8 away as "INJECTED" and without "context". And you haven't explained why these Christian Jews would have interpreted Hebrews 13:8 any differently from their read of Malachi 3:6.

Please go and have a rest and while doing so reread what I’ve written about ‘Death’ in humanity (maybe in a different post!)

And you still think that ‘The same yesterday, the same, today, the same tomorrow’ is the same as ‘Eternity’ even given that Jesus was not in existence until circa 2000 years ago?

And that he is the same ‘Son of God’ before God said to him: ‘Today, I have BECOME YOUR FATHER….You have BECOME MY SON!’

Does the word ‘Become’ (a verb: BEGIN TO BE) not have a starting point?

When did Jesus BECOME immortal? Was he not ‘Raised from the dead no longer to be subject to death!’

So, if he BECAME immortal, does that not constitute a change in property or status or both?

So the ‘yesterday’ referred to is ‘from the time he became immortal’. An immortal being CANNOT CHANGE: it is IMMUTABLE.

The scripture verse writer (speaker) was speaking FAR LATER (years!!) in time AFTER Jesus was raised up to Heaven as an immutable, immortal man. So from the writers perspective Jesus is the same ‘yesterday’ (from the time that it was!!) as ‘today’, as ‘tomorrow’: viz-a-viz, a constant in the life of his (Jesus’) followers.

 

[Oeste]

Do you not read the warning Jesus gives for those who add or extract from the scriptures…. You believe there are no injections and are no extractions?

You just gave us an example of both in your commentary Soapy.

You made the spurious argument that Hebrews 13:8 was an “injected" verse:

Not so! Hebrews 13:8 is an injected verse. There is no context for it being there...

You provided nada, nothing, squat to claim this was an "injected verse". But you went further. You claim there was no context for it being there.

Not satisfied with that, you go on to tell us that Hebrews 13:8 is 5% lie!

The best fallacies are made up of 95% truth and 5% lies..!!!
- 5% Hebrews 13:8...

Your anti-biblical argument is spurious. It is false. Fake. Unsupported and without an ounce of merit. But it is about par for your discourse.

Then, adding insult to your self inflicted injury, you subtract from scripture and post the following:

No! Wrong on all counts.

“God is not a man”.

You attempted to deceive readers here by making it appear this verse was saying something it was not.


My questions is not why OTHERS do this Soupy. My question is why did you decide to do this here?

Weren't you banned from another web site before you came here?

And the verse stating that there are three in heaven who justify Jesus: Father, son, and holy spirit… Do we not know that it is a trinitarian injected verse that is wholly WRONG and purposely designed to TRY TO JUSTIFY trinitarianism?

What on earth does this have to do with immutability??

I need you to FOCUS on the subject at hand Soapy. You, in the OP, cited Malachi 3:6 as convincing for God’s immutability. I claim Jesus is God and cite Hebrews 13:8 for the same reasons you cite Malachi 3:6. Let’s stick with the subject at hand.

Well, here’s a thing: I don’t need to understand a fallacy. In fact, it’s ridiculous to try to understand a fallacy… And a fallacy that even its proponents do not understand… calling it ‘INCOMPREHENSIBLE’.

Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. (Psalm 147:5)​

Is this verse fallacy? 5% lie?

If he is beyond our measure then he is beyond our comprehension Soapy. The finite does not understand the infinite.

You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it. (Psalm 139:5-6)​

Is this verse fallacy?? 5% lie??

Perhaps Soapy has attain what the Psalmist could not??

Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. (Isaiah 40:28)​

Is this verse fallacy??? 5% lie???

Perhaps Isaiah was mistaken, and God became searchable, even to the deep things of God. After all, you hadn't been born yet.

Quite simply Soapy, If God is comprehensible to you then He is not God.

And there is little wonder you are skeptical of the Trinity when you are also skeptical of scripture.

Hmmm… you seem a little short on ‘constants’ for Jesus …

No, Soapy. You are simple a little short on your understanding of Trinity doctrine.

My "constants" can be short only if your “constants” are short. Why? Because of Hebrews 13:8. As stated previously, I can show Jesus is God with Hebrews 13:8 the same way you show Yahweh is God with Malachi 3:6.

So, if you want “longer” constants, tell us more about how Malachi 13:8 makes Yahweh immutable. When you do that Soapy, I can tell you more how Hebrews 13:8 makes Jesus immutable as well.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[Oeste]

I notice that you never are able to outline any of the times that Jesus CHANGES… this, so as to avoid having to admit that Jesus CHANGED… and a change advocates non-constancy!!!

This is not rocket science.

I know Trinitarian Christology escapes many people, sometimes going “whoosh” by the head. Trinitarians do not argue Jesus never changes. Men change Soapy. Trinitarian do not argue that Jesus was not man. They do argue he is God. God does not change. You confuse the two because you are confounded by it. I have given you a simple formula to help end this confusion for you.

So, when Jesus is born to Mary in a manor, and then grows older it is because Jesus is Son of Man. Not half man, not half god, not “a god”, but MAN. This should not be a difficult concept to understand. If you can show me where Trinitarians state Jesus is NOT MAN than you have an effective argument. Without this stipulation, without this argument, without this as support, you have NO ARGUMENT. You simply have smoke.

Are you clear on this? If not, please read up on the Trinity again. Ask a Trinitarian on this board. They may be able to explain this better to you than I. NOTHING in the Trinity doctrine declares Jesus is NOT man, but everything IN the doctrine tells us he is FULLY man.

As FULLY man, Trinitarian FULLY expect Jesus to have been born, grow, and change from baby, to toddler, to boy and eventually to man. Why? Because that’s what human men DO!

I hate to be this blunt, but I’ve explained this over and over to you, yet you continuously demonstrate this is a difficult concept for you to grasp. I’m not asking you to believe Trinitarians when we say Jesus is Man, but I don’t think it much to at least understand the concept.

If this is still difficult to you, then do your research. Ask questions. No one will think the worse of you for doing so.

Your argument explains how he is SON OF MAN. No Trinitarian disputes this, so please stop arguing as if we do.

The problem with your argument is that it is deficient. Not once have you told us how Jesus SON OF GOD.

It's as if Jesus Son of God doesn't exist for you.


Now that you have recalled he is Son of GOD, you may recall that there are other Sons of God:

Angels are called “Sons of God”. We, as Christians, are considered children of God.

Job:1:6: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

Romans 8:14: For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.​

That all’s fine and good. Jesus, as SON OF MAN, is also a son of God because he is the Christ and as our high priest, has a Messianic role to play. But Jesus is not only a son of God but the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, and that is something NO ONE ELSE can claim:

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

John 1:14 : And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Do you understand what “begotten” means here? It’s the past tense of “beget”. It means that Jesus as the only BEGOTTEN Son of God is what he IS, and not merely some title that got slapped on him at “birth” or “some point in time”.


Telling us Jesus is man says nothing against the Trinitarian argument that Jesus is the Son of God, and not just “any” Son of God, but his UNIQUE Son.

Did you forget this? You must have because earlier you told us that you “…know how Trinitarians think”. Yet you present nothing as to how and why Jesus is Son of God. As Son of God, Jesus is immutable. As Son of Man, Jesus was changeable.

Again, no rocket science here.

he congregation (Church) of truth speakers is not an advertised church - You don’t ‘join’ this church - you are only APPOINTED to it. Its members are identified by their works (in words or in deeds and best in both!)

All this tells me is that you APPOINTED yourself to your own congregation of “truth speakers” and as its sole member you’re not appointing, accepting, or advertising for new or additional “truth speakers”.

As for what you consider the best in both “words and deeds” you’ve already told us:

From my perspective, I am not seeing much of a difference between the “words and deeds” of these two posters. The person on the left says God hates you (whoever her "You" is) and the poster to the left links Trinitarians to Revelation's Whore of Babylon.

Do they come from the same church? Doubtful, but very likely the same Denomination.

It reminds me of what a wise poster once said on this forum:

“The point is not what they think but rather that they try to indoctrinate the world with what they think.”

Now, who on this forum said that?

but few can identify such: “Jesus Christ came telling all truth and they disbelieved him: How much more then will they disbelieve you!!’

I don’t disbelieve that you believe what you say about Trinitarians is true. What I disbelieve is that Jesus said anything remotely to what you have said about Trinitarians, despite your self-proclaimed mantle of “truth speaker”.

You are trinitarian, are you not?

But you seem to be saying that there are thousands of trinitarian-like beliefs such that anything I say against one trini-belief is dismissed as being not a trini-belief!

You are Unitarian, are you not?

But you seem to be saying that there are thousands of Unitarian-like beliefs such that anything I says against one Unitarian belief is dismissed as being a non-Unitarian belief!

If you can answer the latter, I am confident you can answer the former Soapy.

If you want to test this, ask your unitarian friends if Christ is God, a god, a man, a man who who was perfect, a man who was imperfect, a man who did not exist until the first century, or a man who existed prior t the first century, who created the universe, who did not create the universe, or who only created things after he himself was created, who appeared in 1914 or did not appear in 1914, who claim everybody but them is part of an apostasy, or who claim not everyone but them are part of some great apostasy, who acknowledge there are other Christian churches, or who claim there is no “true” Christian church but their own. And, oh yeah, ask them how they trace their lineage back to the apostles.

Give it a try sometime and let us know how it goes. Then come back and make a more cognizant argument that accuses Trinitarians of having different beliefs.

 

[Oeste]

And you still think that ‘The same yesterday, the same, today, the same tomorrow’ is the same as ‘Eternity’ even given that Jesus was not in existence until circa 2000 years ago?

I have no idea why you think "Jesus was not in existence until circa 2000 years ago, when scripture clearly tells us otherwise. Unlike you I don't believe Hebrews 13:8 is "fallacy" or "5% lie". I am a Christian, not a skeptic.

He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. That means every yesterday, any today you can think of, and any tomorrow you care to project.

Do you really feel that verse means only 3 days? The day he spoke it, the day before, and the day after?

Again Soapy, if this is as far as you gotten in your exegesis, we have little more to discuss.

And that he is the same ‘Son of God’ before God said to him: ‘Today, I have BECOME YOUR FATHER….You have BECOME MY SON!’

What is the problem? Of course Jesus is the same “Son of GOD”! Yahweh “became” to the Son of Man, not to the Son of God. How long have you been on this forum Soapy??? This is not rocket science. There are children in my church who readily grasp Trinitarian concepts where you do nothing but flounder.

Have you ever heard the term “Son of God” before? Do you understand what is means to Trinitarians? Then why, if you do, do you confuse it with Son of Man???

If bullet mean a train to you, but means a metal projectile to me, then “Catching a bullet” will mean different things for the both of us!

At least take the time to understand what bullet means to me before you argue we can “Catch a bullet” at the train station!!!

Look, we all learn things at different rates. Sometimes we have a “knack” which helps make things easy, whilst other times things remain hard, but if you focus on a subject, and have genuine interest in a subject, I am sure you can prevail to at least understand a subject. The subject of God is not one we can master, but even children can spot basic valid and invalid arguments on the Trinity.

And despite your baseless attempt to link Trinitarians with the “Whore of Babylon”, I’m sure there are Trinitarians who can help explain these concepts to you. Mind you, we cannot explain God, in fact we know we cannot, at least not on this side of our existence, but you can get a proper explanation of Trinity doctrine. If you don’t like this idea, then get a good book on the Trinity. There are plenty of them out there.

BTW, when I wanted to understand Unitarians, I did not go to a group that considered Unitarians the “Whore of Babylon”. Who knows? You may want to put aside such bigotry and do the same. You’ll be the more knowledgeable for it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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?

I'm much more concerned with the change of message from the Tanakh to the New Testament. The theme of the Tanakh is "Hey Jews, here's God's laws for you. Be sure to obey. Obey. Obey. and then Obey." The theme of the NT is "Hey everyone, just believe x, y , and z and you will go to heaven." If God doesn't change, then why was the earlier message abandoned and the new message adopted?

 

[Soapy]

I'm much more concerned with the change of message from the Tanakh to the New Testament. The theme of the Tanakh is "Hey Jews, here's God's laws for you. Be sure to obey. Obey. Obey. and then Obey." The theme of the NT is "Hey everyone, just believe x, y , and z and you will go to heaven." If God doesn't change, then why was the earlier message abandoned and the new message adopted?

God’s laws have not changed and there is no [just] believe x, y, and/or z and you will go to Heaven.

Point of fact, ONLY the ELECT OF GOD go to Heaven. These are those who do God’s Will ‘under cover’ of view of view. They may not even know themselves since they put themselves less than worthy of praise and glory (this is truly what Phil 2 is saying)

Jesus was SENT by God to preach the good news of salvation and to reveal the Father. He came FIRST TO THE JEWS… The Jews were supposed to accept him and lead other nations to God…. But they rejected him (‘He came unto his own - but his own did not receive him’)

Jesus recognised that the Jews had saddled themselves with hardness to the laws God had given them: Made the laws a millstone round their necks. They had even ‘forgotten’ the name of their God by refusing to speak it in case they blasphemed by doing so (Great tactic by Satan!!!)

The Jews were spending more time criticising their neighbours for violating a law (Laws given by MOSES because they couldn’t live by GOD’s law!!! God allowed Moses to create laws the Jews felt they could live by and this proved to be the source of the problem!)

Jesus reprimanded the Jews for their mistaken idea that they could not forgive their neighbour for a wrong done to them!! You might still hear TRINITARIAN Christians saying that ‘Only God can forgive sins… Jesus forgave sins … therefore Jesus is God!’ - Do not listen to such nonsense. Jesus told the Jews that ‘MAN CAN FORGIVE HIS FELLOW MAN’… the thing is this: ‘Only the one who is WRONGED can forgive the one who WRONGED THEM!’. A man can forgive another man - but if you sin against GOD then only GOD can forgive you… that’s the error the Jews were making- they attributed every sin against their neighbour as a sin against God and therefore, in their minds, only God could forgive them.

The Sabbath… similar: They wrongly assumed that ‘NO WORK AT ALL’ could be carried out on the Sabbath. But that was not what God had instituted the day for. If you recall that prior to the sabbath institution people worked SEVEN DAYS A WEEK… there was no rest day….!!! God said to take a rest day and USE IT TO GLORY HIM. The Jews took the law so literally that they ham-strunged themselves with it IN THEORY but violated it IN PRACTICE yet brought criticism against each other for doing so. You will learn that SEVEN DAY ADVENTISE still adhere to this practice even though it has been overturned as a practical practice: What if someone was injured: Could not perform medication as this was WORK; what if your house was on fire: Could not call the fire Brigade. What if you were starving hungry: Could not bake bread as this was being a BAKER… (you get the message!).

Many other things showed the Jews were non-conformant with the position that God had set before them. As a consequence, and with Jesus finding Gentiles who DID CONFORM, the message God sent via Jesus to preach was opened up to the GENTILE and ALL MANKIND.

BUT your claim and point was that the New Testament allows all manner of things that lead to ‘PARADISE’ (not Heaven) that the Old Testament does not allow… Could you show some examples of what you mean by such given what I showed you above?

 

[Soapy]

You just gave us an example of both in your commentary Soapy.

You made the spurious argument that Hebrews 13:8 was an “injected" verse:



You provided nada, nothing, squat to claim this was an "injected verse". But you went further. You claim there was no context for it being there.

Not satisfied with that, you go on to tell us that Hebrews 13:8 is 5% lie!



Your anti-biblical argument is spurious. It is false. Fake. Unsupported and without an ounce of merit. But it is about par for your discourse.

Then, adding insult to your self inflicted injury, you subtract from scripture and post the following:



You attempted to deceive readers here by making it appear this verse was saying something it was not.


My questions is not why OTHERS do this Soupy. My question is why did you decide to do this here?

Weren't you banned from another web site before you came here?




What on earth does this have to do with immutability??

I need you to FOCUS on the subject at hand Soapy. You, in the OP, cited Malachi 3:6 as convincing for God’s immutability. I claim Jesus is God and cite Hebrews 13:8 for the same reasons you cite Malachi 3:6. Let’s stick with the subject at hand.

Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. (Psalm 147:5)​

Is this verse fallacy? 5% lie?

If he is beyond our measure then he is beyond our comprehension Soapy. The finite does not understand the infinite.

You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it. (Psalm 139:5-6)​

Is this verse fallacy?? 5% lie??

Perhaps Soapy has attain what the Psalmist could not??

Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. (Isaiah 40:28)​

Is this verse fallacy??? 5% lie???

Perhaps Isaiah was mistaken, and God became searchable, even to the deep things of God. After all, you hadn't been born yet.

Quite simply Soapy, If God is comprehensible to you then He is not God.

And there is little wonder you are skeptical of the Trinity when you are also skeptical of scripture.




No, Soapy. You are simple a little short on your understanding of Trinity doctrine.

My "constants" can be short only if your “constants” are short. Why? Because of Hebrews 13:8. As stated previously, I can show Jesus is God with Hebrews 13:8 the same way you show Yahweh is God with Malachi 3:6.

So, if you want “longer” constants, tell us more about how Malachi 13:8 makes Yahweh immutable. When you do that Soapy, I can tell you more how Hebrews 13:8 makes Jesus immutable as well.

Sounds fair to me.

The response to your response post could be very short - not even point by point: You seem to be appealing for me to agree to stop telling the truth. But I’m going into some detail and such.

Yes, I was banned from several sites. That is par for the course for speaking the truth… The mass majority of religious Christian sites, or at least, sections with sites, are designed to support TRINITARIAN BELIEFS….

Do you think it is a strange thing that someone coming there telling the truth should eventually get banned???

The site wants to I hold its members and telling the truth drives away trinitarian members: No members no post: no posts no revenue!!!

They even implement Bots to post easily realised fake responses that frustrate posters as there is no sense in the responses but if NOT realised can keep posts going for ages with responders trying to show sense to the Bot!!!

I stated that the Bible vis Jesus tells that there would be additions and subtractions alterations etc … yet when I show you one or so of such you claim I am being disingenuous…!!! Are you then calling Jesus A LIAR… that there ARE NO SUCH Injections and Extractions???

Here is a sentence, tell me what’s wrong with it (imagine it’s a verse from scriptures):

• “I was at GOD’s side when he created the world and all things within. I gloried by his side”, says Jesus. Jesus, the God and creator of all things, the eternal Father”

It’s made up - I just want you to comment on sentence, it’s structure and validity (or lack thereof!)

And ‘Constant’… Do you even know the word? How do you say that Jesus is a Constant FROM ETERNITY?

It is evident that Jesus BECAME a Constant AFTER he was made IMMORTAL AFTER he was raised from the dead. Jesus even says himself:

• “I am he who WAS DEAD … BUT… AM NOW alive ETERNALLY’ (my emphasis) (Rev 1:18)

In CONTRAST, THE ETERNAL AND ALMIGHTY LORD GOD:YHWH says:

• “[I am he] who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8)

But go back further in Revelation:

• (1:4) John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,
• (1:5) and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,
• (1:6) and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father
• —to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
  
• (1:7) “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen.

Who is speaking in verse 7? He is shown in verse 8.
Who is it speaking about? He is shown in verse 18.

Comprehension!! Where is your understanding?

The only reason for appearing to lack these fundamental senses in literature is that you desire to be so, so as to continue your disingenuousness even unto yourself.

You were always a sore loser!!

 

[Soapy]

This is not rocket science.

I know Trinitarian Christology escapes many people, sometimes going “whoosh” by the head. Trinitarians do not argue Jesus never changes. Men change Soapy. Trinitarian do not argue that Jesus was not man. They do argue he is God. God does not change. You confuse the two because you are confounded by it. I have given you a simple formula to help end this confusion for you.

I am fully aware that Trinitarians falsely argue that Jesus is God. That’s the point I made. But Trinitarians cannot deny that Jesus is Man… and GOD IS NOT MAN….

So who is confused??

So, when Jesus is born to Mary in a [manger], and then grows older it is because Jesus is Son of Man. Not half man, not half god, not “a god”, but MAN. This should not be a difficult concept to understand. If you can show me where Trinitarians state Jesus is NOT MAN than you have an effective argument. Without this stipulation, without this argument, without this as support, you have NO ARGUMENT. You simply have smoke.

Oh please!!! Don’t put this kind of nonsense argument to me. I’m well aware of this type of ‘proving a negative’ (I can hear you s******ing even from here!!)

Are you clear on this? If not, please read up on the Trinity again. Ask a Trinitarian on this board. They may be able to explain this better to you than I. NOTHING in the Trinity doctrine declares Jesus is NOT man, but everything IN the doctrine tells us he is FULLY man.

No trinitarian has ever been able to explain anything about trinitarian belief so that it makes a rounded ideology… that’s why they end up claiming that it’s INCOMPREHENSIBLE to our minds (‘OUR’? But that includes the trinitarian who can’t explain their own ideology. This is called ‘Negative Reinforcement’)

As FULLY man, Trinitarian FULLY expect Jesus to have been born, grow, and change from baby, to toddler, to boy and eventually to man. Why? Because that’s what human men DO!

I hate to be this blunt, but I’ve explained this over and over to you, yet you continuously demonstrate this is a difficult concept for you to grasp. I’m not asking you to believe Trinitarians when we say Jesus is Man, but I don’t think it much to at least understand the concept.

You are joking, surely!! You are trying to teach me about how a child grows into adulthood? And that is the preserve of Trinitarians?

You are also saying that Jesus does not change? Growing up and being taught does not change a person?

When does Jesus schizophrenically decide when he is almighty God knowing all things and seated on His throne in the spiritual realm of Heaven, and when he is man as flesh being dwelling in the physical world?

If this is still difficult to you, then do your research. Ask questions. No one will think the worse of you for doing so.

It was asking questions that Trinitarians couldn’t answer because their ideology was not up to having answers that got me banned.

Your argument explains how he is SON OF MAN. No Trinitarian disputes this, so please stop arguing as if we do.

I think we passed this point a long time ago!!

The problem with your argument is that it is deficient. Not once have you told us how Jesus SON OF GOD.

It's as if Jesus Son of God doesn't exist for you.1

You must have been gone far too long. I have outlined ‘Son of God’ MANY MANY TIMES… and by the way, I can still hear you teasing…

‘Son of God’ means ‘He who does the works of God’

Jesus told the Jews that his ‘food’ was to do the Will of Him who sent him (this is to say the same as “Doing the works of God”.

Jesus told the Jews that he was doing the works of God and if he wasn’t then they could feel free to not believe him… but they could see that he was doing the works of God - but still did not believe him.

Scriptures tells us that all who are led by the spirit of God are SONS OF GOD… Guess what: Holy angels do the works of God and are called ‘Sons of God’.

When Jesus completed the works God sent to perform he said, ‘Father, I have given them the word you gave me to give to them and they have received it’

Now that you have recalled he is Son of GOD, you may recall that there are other Sons of God:

Angels are called “Sons of God”. We, as Christians, are considered children of God.

Job:1:6: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

Romans 8:14: For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.​

Basically you have just cut your own wrist here. You can no longer refer to ‘Son of God’ as proof (pathetic as it is) that this proves Jesus ix God because he is Son of God (a highly prized trinitarian fallacy belief!!)

That all’s fine and good. Jesus, as SON OF MAN, is also a son of God because he is the Christ and as our high priest, has a Messianic role to play. But Jesus is not only a son of God but the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, and that is something NO ONE ELSE can claim:

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

John 1:14 : And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Do you understand what “begotten” means here? It’s the past tense of “beget”. It means that Jesus as the only BEGOTTEN Son of God is what he IS, and not merely some title that got slapped on him at “birth” or “some point in time”.

You must have thought injecting nonsense into truth would confuse me. ‘Begotten’ was when GOD said to him: “You have become my Son’ (paraphrase):

• “And no one takes this honor on himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was. In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” (Hebrew 5:4-5)

And ‘only begotten’! Who else has been adopted by God as ‘Son(s)’…. No one. So yes, Jesus IS the only begotten Son of God. But there is a promise in the future that through Jesus Christ many more will become SONS OF GOD…. These will be the ELECT who will rule with Christ as kings and priests.

• “But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.“ (Heb 2:9-10)
• “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.“ (John 1:12-13)

This latter verse shows that ‘Sonship to God’ is an adoption to God in Spirit.

Telling us Jesus is man says nothing against the Trinitarian argument that Jesus is the Son of God, and not just “any” Son of God, but his UNIQUE Son.

Did you forget this? You must have because earlier you told us that you “…know how Trinitarians think”. Yet you present nothing as to how and why Jesus is Son of God. As Son of God, Jesus is immutable. As Son of Man, Jesus was changeable.

Again, no rocket science here.

All this tells me is that you APPOINTED yourself to your own congregation of “truth speakers” and as its sole member you’re not appointing, accepting, or advertising for new or additional “truth speakers”.

As for what you consider the best in both “words and deeds” you’ve already told us:

View attachment 68675

From my perspective, I am not seeing much of a difference between the “words and deeds” of these two posters. The person on the left says God hates you (whoever her "You" is) and the poster to the left links Trinitarians to Revelation's Whore of Babylon.

Do they come from the same church? Doubtful, but very likely the same Denomination.

It reminds me of what a wise poster once said on this forum:

“The point is not what they think but rather that they try to indoctrinate the world with what they think.”

Now, who on this forum said that?

What exactly was your point above?

I don’t disbelieve that you believe what you say about Trinitarians is true. What I disbelieve is that Jesus said anything remotely to what you have said about Trinitarians, despite your self-proclaimed mantle of “truth speaker”.

‘Trinitarians’ did not exist when Jesus was around but what Jesus said APPLIES to them since they came into existence. It really isn’t rocket science to know that Satan would infiltrate the churches and brim disrepute to his word given to him by God Almighty: The Father. I’m sure you can find verses stating that this would occur… So, if you like, it could be said that Trinitarians existed pre-time by the knowledge that they would be!!

You are Unitarian, are you not?

No!

But you seem to be saying that there are thousands of Unitarian-like beliefs such that anything I says against one Unitarian belief is dismissed as being a non-Unitarian belief!

If you can answer the latter, I am confident you can answer the former Soapy.

I cannot answer the latter since I can neither understand the former of what you just said…!

I don’t know why you keep harping on about Unitarians: What do they believe?

If you want to test this, ask your unitarian friends if Christ is God, a god, a man, a man who who was perfect, a man who was imperfect, a man who did not exist until the first century, or a man who existed prior t the first century, who created the universe, who did not create the universe, or who only created things after he himself was created, who appeared in 1914 or did not appear in 1914, who claim everybody but them is part of an apostasy, or who claim not everyone but them are part of some great apostasy, who acknowledge there are other Christian churches, or who claim there is no “true” Christian church but their own. And, oh yeah, ask them how they trace their lineage back to the apostles.

Are you asking me to deride another belief system for you? Satan fighting Satan is your prerogative.

Give it a try sometime and let us know how it goes. Then come back and make a more cognizant argument that accuses Trinitarians of having different beliefs.

No thanks. Do it yourself.

Anyway, I thought you were going somewhere far, dark, and deep for a while?… a long while?

 

[Soapy]

I have no idea why you think "Jesus was not in existence until circa 2000 years ago, when scripture clearly tells us otherwise. Unlike you I don't believe Hebrews 13:8 is "fallacy" or "5% lie". I am a Christian, not a skeptic.

He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. That means every yesterday, any today you can think of, and any tomorrow you care to project.

Do you really feel that verse means only 3 days? The day he spoke it, the day before, and the day after?

Again Soapy, if this is as far as you gotten in your exegesis, we have little more to discuss.




What is the problem? Of course Jesus is the same “Son of GOD”! Yahweh “became” to the Son of Man, not to the Son of God. How long have you been on this forum Soapy??? This is not rocket science. There are children in my church who readily grasp Trinitarian concepts where you do nothing but flounder.

Have you ever heard the term “Son of God” before? Do you understand what is means to Trinitarians? Then why, if you do, do you confuse it with Son of Man???

If bullet mean a train to you, but means a metal projectile to me, then “Catching a bullet” will mean different things for the both of us!

At least take the time to understand what bullet means to me before you argue we can “Catch a bullet” at the train station!!!

Look, we all learn things at different rates. Sometimes we have a “knack” which helps make things easy, whilst other times things remain hard, but if you focus on a subject, and have genuine interest in a subject, I am sure you can prevail to at least understand a subject. The subject of God is not one we can master, but even children can spot basic valid and invalid arguments on the Trinity.

And despite your baseless attempt to link Trinitarians with the “Whore of Babylon”, I’m sure there are Trinitarians who can help explain these concepts to you. Mind you, we cannot explain God, in fact we know we cannot, at least not on this side of our existence, but you can get a proper explanation of Trinity doctrine. If you don’t like this idea, then get a good book on the Trinity. There are plenty of them out there.

BTW, when I wanted to understand Unitarians, I did not go to a group that considered Unitarians the “Whore of Babylon”. Who knows? You may want to put aside such bigotry and do the same. You’ll be the more knowledgeable for it.

I see you don’t have anything to say here.

It seems your beef is against unitarians and you cannot argue elsewhilst. Everything you seem to deny you first present it as a unitarian belief, claim I believe it, then claim it’s because I’m Unitarian.

You are even repeating accusations that I already pointed out to you are not anything I said but you need to do that in a ridiculous attempt to think you are getting me ‘off balance’!

No!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

God’s laws have not changed and there is no [just] believe x, y, and/or z and you will go to Heaven.

So then you obey the Law? Do you refrain from mowing your lawn or cooking on Saturday? Do you consciously make sure your wool suits do not have linen button holes? Do you refrain from eating shrimp or pepperoni pizza? Because the Christians I know do not keep those laws. They say the Law has passed away.

 

[Oeste]

The response to your response post could be very short - not even point by point: You seem to be appealing for me to agree to stop telling the truth. But I’m going into some detail and such.

No Soapy.

I was merely appealing for you to be civil in your replies. Also, I was appealing to you to do some research instead of claiming you "know" Trinitarians beliefs when you posts belie the fact you do not.

Yes, I was banned from several sites. That is par for the course for speaking the truth… The mass majority of religious Christian sites, or at least, sections with sites, are designed to support TRINITARIAN BELIEFS….

More likely it had more to do with a certain poster's tone.

Do you think it is a strange thing that someone coming there telling the truth should eventually get banned???

Impress us then. Show us some truth @Soapy

The site wants to I hold its members and telling the truth drives away trinitarian members: No members no post: no posts no revenue!!!

I think this site has shown extreme patience with your posts.

Here is a sentence, tell me what’s wrong with it (imagine it’s a verse from scriptures):

• “I was at GOD’s side when he created the world and all things within. I gloried by his side”, says Jesus. Jesus, the God and creator of all things, the eternal Father”

I need you to stay FOCUSED Soapy. Please....try to remember what this thread is about.
You started this thread remember? And what is it about? It says God doesn't change and you used Malachi 3:6 to support this. I am merely using Hebrews 13:8 to do the same.

Not only that, but for every reason you give that shows Malachi 3:6 means God doesn't change, I can give for Jesus using Hebrews 13:8. Please refer to your OP.

I am fully aware that Trinitarians falsely argue that Jesus is God. That’s the point I made. But Trinitarians cannot deny that Jesus is Man…

Trinitarians have never denied Jesus is man, so why would they?

and GOD IS NOT MAN….

Have you ever quoted a full verse, or do you continuously drop out words and sections you don't like?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You are Unitarian, are you not?

No!

Well there you go.

But you seem to be saying that there are thousands of Unitarian-like beliefs such that anything I says against one Unitarian belief is dismissed as being a non-Unitarian belief!

I cannot answer the latter since I can neither understand the former of what you just said…!

I don’t know why you keep harping on about Unitarians: What do they believe?

Soapy, if you do not understand what Unitarians believe, then you can't possibly understand what Trinitarians believe, because you have no idea what you believe...as you amply demonstrate time and time again with your posts.

Do some research @Soapy. I'm confident you can do this and we'll all be the better for it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, I was banned from several sites. That is par for the course for speaking the truth…

I can't think of a single site that bans people for "telling the truth." It's more likely that you simply tried to post on orthodox christian sites, and you are not exactly orthodox. You were someplace you didn't belong.

 

[Clear]

Just a point.


I agree with Oeste that Soapys points are often irrelevant, wander, and are often quite hard to follow (thus I tend to skip even reading those types of posts….). However, I just wanted to make a small point in case it matters to the debate you two are having.

1) "I change not" versus "I have not changed"
The O.P. assumed that the correct translation of Malachi 3:6 was “I change not”.
However multiple translations correctly read “I have not changed”, using a perfect (past) tense.
The translation one uses may affect the argument and its considerations.

For example, If Soapys tendency to leave out important context applies to this text, this affects the conclusion (context really matters).

2 Jehovahs statement in the context of Judahs complaint that Jehovah no longer takes a care for Israel.
Judahs complaint that God no longer seems to love or care about Israel is part of the context.

When Jehovah says in response, “I have noτ changed”, then is Jehovah simply replying to Judahs complaint and insisting that he still cares about and Loves Israel (rather than saying he is unchanging in all aspects of his being)?

Just as an aside, the reason for the differing translation in multiple bibles of “I have not changed” (past tense, perfect tense…) is because the hebrew verb שנה is quite unclear as to it’s usage in the text and the greek LXX uses ηλλοιωμαι which appears in a perfect tense (I have not “Changed”).

The context, which in this case is not clear, is important.

In any case, good luck coming to a conclusion on this point.

Clear ειτζτωτωω

Clear

 

[Joshua Pryce]

What God is actually saying is He does not change Who He is. He does not change His laws, rules or the qualities He possesses. what if you made a bad coffee, you do it over, but does that change your desires or intentions, of course not. Because you still made the coffee to drink. Spiritually and in relationships God works in the same way.

 

[Oeste]

Just a point.

There's an intrinsic modesty to the claim of making a single, "collective point", but when we break it down you make several good ones:

1) "I change not" versus "I have not changed"

2) Jehovahs statement in the context of Judahs complaint that Jehovah no longer takes a care for Israel.

The context, which in this case is not clear, is important.

Another point on which we agree.

In any case, good luck coming to a conclusion on this point.

Lol, I agree with you that points raised by the poster in the OP are often difficult to follow.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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?

Jesus never changed in his fundamental being.
Having new experiences is not the same.