genuineoriginal
New member
Then you should stop doing it.
JOHN 20:23 IS NOT FOR THE CHURCH
- Thread starter DougE
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Your childishness was never funny and continues to be not funny.
genuineoriginal
New member
You have obviously bought into the flawed theology of Dispensationalism that I was raised to believe.
You are not willing to count all you have been taught as dung in order to find out what the truth is, but that is what Paul did with all the things he was taught by his religious teachers.
I spent time actually reading and understanding the Bible without trying to "divide" it and found that what Dispensationalism teaches is not what the Bible teaches.
Jesus said a house divided against itself will not stand, but what Dispensationalism is all about is dividing the believers so they cannot unite.
Right Divider
Body part
Your post is full of dung.
I believe you are using the term "change" too broadly for it's intent.
We have clear scripture that says GOD does not change.
So if one contends that the Son changed they are essentially saying that the Son is not GOD.
Right Divider
Body part
Please quote so that we can evaluate.
The Son of God did not have a physical body before He had one.... is that not some sort of a change?
If it is the type of "change" that scripture means then Jesus is not GOD that does not change.
That's why I say the term "change" can be used too broadly as any sort of change at all.
GOD manifested in several different ways, but did not change into something that made HIM no longer be GOD.
Manifesting as a man did not make Him no longer be GOD.
Right Divider
Body part
Who said that?
I'm using change as it is defined.
Which either means He does not change at all, which BR has asserted, or that He doesn't change in certain areas, which you seem to hold to, and that I hold to.
That's entirely my point.
In order to say this:
One has to deny that God the Son became a man (denying the incarnation), or assert that Jesus is not God. Both claims are heretical.
You cannot accept both that "God does not change period" AND that "God, to the extent that God the Son became a man, changed."
To do so violates the law of non-contradiction.
I agree that to say the Son "changed" would conflict with scripture saying GOD does not "change".
In other words, the term "change" is being used differently when saying the Son changed and saying GOD does not change.
Then how are you using the term "change" when scripture says GOD does not change?
Right Divider
Body part
Please quote those scriptures that say that.
You seriously don't remember any scriptures saying GOD does not change?
Here's one for you.
Malachi 3:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 For I am the Lord, I change not;
Right Divider
Body part
You're saying that there are a whole bunch. I just want to see what you're thinking and evaluate the context of those verses.
Is this an unfair request?
Right Divider
Body part
And this is EXACTLY the kind of problem that we get from taking this HALF of a verse OUT OF CONTEXT.
Mal 3:6 KJV For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
There is a CONTEXT here. Any idea what it is?
I'll bet you can tell me.
Right Divider
Body part
It's right there in the verse itself (if you don't just read the first half in isolation).
It's referring to God not going back on His promises to Israel even though they had been extremely disobedient.
Would you be so kind as to explain this one also?
Hebrews 13:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Right Divider
Body part
Before we begin verse hopping, do you now understand Malachi 3:6?