If Jesus is God, how can he change his mind?

[tonjun]

God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

- Numbers 23:19

If Jesus is God, how is it that one moment he's here for the Israelites only; but in the next couple centuries he's here for the Gentiles?

I thought the Bible spells out that God does not change His mind.

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

- Matthew 15: 21-24

It's obvious that Jesus does change his mind. Changes from being here for the lost sheep of Israel to now being here for the Gentiles; a change.

This is not aligned with what Number 23:19 describes as God's nature; a contradiction. A misleading form of religion with false teachings.

Clearly Jesus is not God.

[historia]

Bring the proof where JW and mormans consider themselves as "sects".

That's not what I said. I said that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that they broke away from mainstream Christianity.

And, since the definition of a sect is a "dissenting or schismatic religious body," that "deviates from a generally accepted religious tradition" it is accurate (for, say, historians or scholars of religion) to call them "sects."

They consider you the dissidents of the true faith.

Okay, but the word "sect" doesn't mean a group that broke away from the "true faith," but rather is a dissenting group that broke away from a "generally accepted religious tradition."

Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are not generally accepted religious traditions. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are. That's why the former are often called sects while the latter are usually not.

And what about the other definitions from Webster?

That doesn't matter.

You are the one claiming "nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it." To demonstrate your claim is false, I simply need to point out that the way I'm using sect is the primary and typical way the term is used, which it is.

The fact that there are other, less common meanings of the term doesn't somehow make your claim correct.

So just because you think catholic is mainstream and the true religion doesn't mean other denominations agree.

"Mainstream" just means it's part of the established religious tradition. Whether it is "true" or "false" is irrelevant. And I've consistently referred to orthodox Christianity in this thread, not just Roman Catholicism. Orthodox Christianity includes Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Right right... Jesus is both man and divine. But he isn't God, as you said so yourself.

No, "divine" here means God. Orthodoxy Christian theology doesn't hold that Jesus is just God in the simplistic way you imagine, but rather is both God and human in the complex way that they have defined it.

[tonjun]

Bring the proof where JW and mormans consider themselves as "sects".

That's not what I said. I said that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that they broke away from mainstream Christianity.

And, since the definition of a sect is a "dissenting or schismatic religious body," that "deviates from a generally accepted religious tradition" it is accurate (for, say, historians or scholars of religion) to call them "sects."

Whatever. Your church has also deviated from the accepted religious practice of Jewish synagogues where Jesus preached. You're the same as JW and mormans. Curb your self importance.

They consider you the dissidents of the true faith.

Okay, but the word "sect" doesn't mean a group that broke away from the "true faith," but rather is a dissenting group that broke away from a "generally accepted religious tradition."

Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are not generally accepted religious traditions. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are. That's why the former are often called sects while the latter are usually not.

Proof? Where is it?

And what about the other definitions from Webster?

That doesn't matter.

You are the one claiming "nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it." To demonstrate your claim is false, I simply need to point out that the way I'm using sect is the primary and typical way the term is used, which it is.

The fact that there are other, less common meanings of the term doesn't somehow make your claim correct.

Then why did you bring up Webster definition if all of a sudden it doesn't matter? Do you know the word "hypocrisy"?

So just because you think catholic is mainstream and the true religion doesn't mean other denominations agree.

"Mainstream" just means it's part of the established religious tradition. Whether it is "true" or "false" is irrelevant. And I've consistently referred to orthodox Christianity in this thread, not just Roman Catholicism. Orthodox Christianity includes Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Proof? Again, you bring none.

Right right... Jesus is both man and divine. But he isn't God, as you said so yourself.

No, "divine" here means God. Orthodoxy Christian theology doesn't hold that Jesus is just God in the simplistic way you imagine, but rather is both God and human in the way that they have defined it.

You just said Jesus is not God in post 35. Now you change your mind here again.

Ahh... this debate has been a waste of time now. I have asked you to bring some proof to your claims but you just keep breathing hot air.

Do you know when Jesus told not to throw pearls at swine? His message is starting to come through here to me right now. What a fitting message.

Thank you for closing this case for me with no proof for your rebuttal. Jesus is not God as you claimed (POST #35). Jesus is also not a God as I claimed. Agreed.

But of course you then had to fancy-dance switch stances with double standard hypocrisy last minute.

I have nothing further to add.

I suggest you appeal this with someone else who may be willing to play a charades with you about this case.

I don't play charades on forums.

You have a good night.

[tam]

Peace to you,

God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

- Numbers 23:19

If Jesus is God, how is it that one moment he's here for the Israelites only; but in the next couple centuries he's here for the Gentiles?

I thought the Bible spells out that God does not change His mind.

First, Christ is not God (the MOST Holy One of Israel, "YHWH"). 1213 provided some references for that in his earlier post.

That being said, this (coming only for the lost sheep of Israel, but then opening up to the Gentiles) is not an example of anyone changing their mind. If it were, then it would be God who changed His mind, because God is the One who SENT (Matt 15:24) Christ to the lost sheep of Israel... and the One who also made Christ a light for the gentiles as well.

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

- Matthew 15: 21-24

It's obvious that Jesus does change his mind. Changes from being here for the lost sheep of Israel to now being here for the Gentiles; a change.

1213 is also correct that a change of situation can warrant a different action without it being a change of mind.

For example, Christ WAS sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. (That does not mean He cannot have mercy upon others. There is no law against love, and mercy comes from love. Also God desires mercy... Hosea 6:6). But after the nation of Israel rejected Him, the Gentiles were invited as well, so that the new covenant was open to ALL tribes and people and nations and tongues. Not just the Jews (two tribes of Israel), or the Samaritans (ten tribes of Israel), but ALL tribes, people, nations and tongues.

But Israel FIRST, beginning with the Jews, (and once Christ was rejected by His own), then to the rest.

It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth. Isaiah 49:6

And He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and in His name repentance and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. Luke 24:47

See also parable of the wedding banquet where those who were invited FIRST, did not come, and so the invitation opened up to everyone else (though not everyone was chosen) Matt 22. See also Rev 5:9, 10, where people from every nation, tribe, people and tongue are purchased for God with the blood of Christ, who reign as kings and priests.


May anyone who thirsts and anyone who wishes, as the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[historia]

And, since the definition of a sect is a "dissenting or schismatic religious body," that "deviates from a generally accepted religious tradition" it is accurate (for, say, historians or scholars of religion) to call them "sects."

Whatever. Your church has also deviated from the accepted religious practice of Jewish synagogues where Jesus preached.

Yes, when Christianity first emerged it was, indeed, a sect. Since then, it has grown into an established religious tradition.

Likewise, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have more recently emerged as sects, and may one day grow into established religious traditions of their own.

That's simply how these terms are used by historians and sociologists.

See, e.g., Armand Mauss & Philip Barlow, "Church, Sect, and Scripture: The Protestant Bible and Mormon Sectarian Retrenchment," in Sociological Analysis, vol. 52 iss. 4 (1991), pp. 397-414 (in JSTOR). They treat this question in some detail, specifically with regard to Mormonism, which they note is often described as an "established sect."

Consider also Ronald Lawson, "Sect-State Relations: Accounting for the Differing Trajectories of Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses," in Sociology of Religion, vol. 56 iss. 4 (1995), pp. 351-377 (in JSTOR). He notes that Jehovah's Witnesses are usually classified as an "established sect."

And what about the other definitions from Webster?

That doesn't matter.

You are the one claiming "nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it." To demonstrate your claim is false, I simply need to point out that the way I'm using sect is the primary and typical way the term is used, which it is.

The fact that there are other, less common meanings of the term doesn't somehow make your claim correct.

Then why did you bring up Webster definition if all of a sudden it doesn't matter?

You need to continue reading beyond my first sentence here: It doesn't matter if there are other, less common meanings of the term "sect" when I'm using it according to its primary meaning.

That, in itself, demonstrates your claim that "nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it" to be false.

You just said Jesus is not God in post 35.

No, here again you need to continuing reading, this time to the end of the sentence: I clearly said "Jesus is not God in the simplistic way that tonjun imagines." I even italicized the phrase "in the simplistic way that tonjun imagines" to show that that is the important qualifier.

There are lots of different ways to conceive of Jesus being divine. Most of those are considered heretical by orthodox Christians, which is why the details matter here.

In between spewing invectives, you've spent the thread demonstrating that the Bible contradicts your own personal, idiosyncratic understanding of the divinity of Christ. But, since that doesn't match what orthodox Christians believe about Jesus being both human and divine, your argument ultimately doesn't apply to most Christians.

I have nothing further to add.

Probably for the best.

[tonjun]

Probably for the best.

You're right. And Jesus is right.

- Matthew 7:6

I'd rather give pearls to those worthy.

[TRANSPONDER]

That was a nice job of kicking the chessboard over as the atheist simile has it. Then the game ends before the theist side loses (not that they ever admit it). What relevance is it to changing his mind that his mission was the hebrews (as it obviously was) and the mission to the Gentiles was appointed to Paul?

True Matthew has the disciples going to Galilee (as instructed) where Jesus tells them to spread the message to all nations. But they don't. Luke sees from Paul's letters that they stayed where they were and preaching to the Gentiles was Paul's idea. So he changes the message at the tomb to fit. That's not God changing his mind, but Luke altering his material to suit his story.

That aside, Jesus constantly seeing Gentiles exhibiting greater Faith than the Jews (in Jesus as healer, not as risen messiah or son of God, because they don't believe in such things (1) a Centurion for preference, but a Samaritan would do as a pinch, does not suddenly turn Jesus' mission into one to the gentiles. The example of Jesus changing his mind is the one I gave: the syrio-phonecian woman talks him into changing his mind about helping her. That's pretty much unarguable, and the effort to make it the situation changing (as one poster tried to argue) does not alter that. It is a reason why he changed his mind, but it is still his changing his mind.

And if we must revert to God, repenting having slaughtered mankind other than Noah's lot who were no great improvement is a clear example of God changing his mind, though not doing anything to make amends or put things right.

(1) as Luke I seem to recall, realises and has a gentile centurion say..hang on...Yes Mark and Matthew both have the Roman soldier say 'This man was Son of God' but Luke alters it to 'this man was innocent'. John of course, not having the Synoptic original in front of his says nothing of this, just as he says nothing of the transfiguration.

[tonjun]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #46]

Yup, it's funny how these christians can still claim that Jesus changing with a situation doesn't qualify him as changing his mind.

Obviously as I pointed out before, changing one's actions and words stems from the mind. Thus the mind is involved during the change.

But these chrisitians can't admit that. They would much rather push that concept out in the stratosphere to cling to their mental prisons.

And then nit-picking over such irrelevant details like saying 'one's view of christianity doesn't speak for the rest of christians'. Well, duh of course. No two denominations are the same anyways. What an irrelevant thing to say.

They think their branch is so special and has no roots. In reality, past their mental dilemma the branches will all fall when the root does; even if their branch is so special and unique.

Not my mess and not my problem to deal with. Thank God.

[Noose001]

This is a tricky one.
Jesus is clearly a man, but there are biblical suggestions that he is more than a man. Saying that he is 100% God and 100% man doesn't make sense, so as a panentheist, it all boils down to creation; God creates by becoming the creation. So Jesus is God becoming a man just like He became a burning bush.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #46]

Yup, it's funny how these christians can still claim that Jesus changing with a situation doesn't qualify him as changing his mind.

Obviously as I pointed out before, changing one's actions and words stems from the mind. Thus the mind is involved during the change.

But these chrisitians can't admit that. They would much rather push that concept out in the stratosphere to cling to their mental prisons.

And then nit-picking over such irrelevant details like saying 'one's view of christianity doesn't speak for the rest of christians'. Well, duh of course. No two denominations are the same anyways. What an irrelevant thing to say.

They think their branch is so special and has no roots. In reality, past their mental dilemma the branches will all fall when the root does; even if their branch is so special and unique.

Not my mess and not my problem to deal with. Thank God.

Indeed. It is falsifiable, e;g the situation having changed, the person might still not change their mind. The changing of mind is a reaction to the changed situation. As I said, I can anticipate a claim that Jesus knew that he was going to do it to make a teaching -point, but that was old stuff; he's already made the point of doing favours for gentiles who had shown faith, so the better theory is that he really did change his mind.

It's not the end oif the world for bible -believers; they could surely accept that Jesus didn't know everything and some things that God knew were kept from him.

But I suspect that the Christian apologists don't want to change their minds for fear they are being led down the path of doubt and question.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is a tricky one.
Jesus is clearly a man, but there are biblical suggestions that he is more than a man. Saying that he is 100% God and 100% man doesn't make sense, so as a panentheist, it all boils down to creation; God creates by becoming the creation. So Jesus is God becoming a man just like He became a burning bush.

That makes sense. There are two entities combined into one, each being 100% what it is. If you believe it.