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.

[tonjun]

That makes no sense.

What I'm pointing out to you is that orthodox Christian theology holds that in Christ there are two natures: one fully human and the other fully divine.

If you then point to a passage from the Bible that shows Jesus being human, that does not contradict orthodox Christian theology. Christians believe that Jesus has a human nature, and so acted human. There is nothing to "negate" or "erase" about that.

You seem to think this poses a major problem for Christianity, which strongly suggests you have an incomplete understanding of the ideas you are critiquing.

Right right… just because your sect of Christianity is it's own unique branch doesn't mean it's the same thing as another branch of Christianity; whatever you claim as orthodox or whatever.

I don't need to discern and focus on your sect to know that the root of your branch comes from the Bible; which forms not only Judaism, but also Christianity.

Tell me what your Scripture is called. Do you call it a Bible? 100% surely it does. Which is where I'm using the Scripture from.

I focus on the root; not the symptoms.

But you are calling me to focus on the symptoms of Christianity, which is a clear losing proposition; as well as ridiculous.

That is why you are confused. I do not care for your branch theology. You display symptoms of cult mentality. I don't know if you're aware of what that is.

I will only pay attention to the root issues. So I don't need to delve deeper into a denomination that claims to be it's own, yet anchors itself to root Christianity.

I only need to uproot the foundation and the branches will fall.

[TRANSPONDER]

Clearly as far as Christian Dogma goes, Jesus is not God, but he draws on knowledge and power from the spirit of God that is operating him.

This is awkwardly phrased, but is roughly the same point I would make here.

In orthodox Christian theology, Jesus is not simply God in a human disguise. Rather, in the Incarnation, the Son has assumed to himself a human nature -- not just a human body, but also a human soul, mind, and will.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (472) summarizes what that entails:

This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man," (Lk 2:52) and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. (cf. Mk 6:38; 8:27; Jn 11:34; etc.) This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave." (Phil 2:7)

This same point can be found in the Reformers -- e.g., Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah:

Thus we see how far the Son of God condescended on our account, so that he not only was willing to be fed on our food, but also, for a time, to be deprived of understanding, and to endure all our weaknesses. (Hebrews 2:14.) This relates to his human nature, for it cannot apply to his Divinity. Of this state of ignorance, in which Christ was for a time, Luke testifies when he says,

And he grew in wisdom, and in stature,
and in favor with God and with man. (Luke 2:52.)

If Luke had merely said that Christ grew, he might have been supposed to mean with men; but he expressly adds, with God. Christ must therefore have been, for a time, like little children, so that, so far as relates to his human nature, he was deficient in understanding.

Arguments like "Jesus changed his mind therefore he can't be God" are, I think, simply based on a shallow and inadequate understanding of the Incarnation as it has been historically understood within orthodox Christianity.

I am arguing rationally, I hope, conclusions based on what the Bible says and how things work.

Jesus was a man with power and knowledge from God. That's what the Bible tells us. He changed his mind over the request of the Canaanite woman. Either because what she said changed his mind (and he didn't have foreknowledge, aty least, at times) or he did have foreknowledge and only pretended to change his mind hich is a less likely proposition, especially as he elsewhere shows that he didn't know this or that.

What the Catholic Church has to say about it does not impress me. If you have a counter argument, make it here and I will consider it on the basis of reason and evidence. I could not care less about the opinions and Dogmas of any particular church.

God changing his mind is another argument that has been touched on here, though not by you in your post. Nevertheless while I mention it, there is no excuse of things being kept from, even by himself, as one poster suggested. That makes no sense whatsoever and effectively makes God Not knowing everything as per the Flood, etc.

The upshot of course being that the Bible makes no sense and it not to be trusted other than as myths and tall tales made up by men.

That's my Theory, and I'm sticking to it.

[historia]

What I'm pointing out to you is that orthodox Christian theology holds that in Christ there are two natures: one fully human and the other fully divine.

If you then point to a passage from the Bible that shows Jesus being human, that does not contradict orthodox Christian theology. Christians believe that Jesus has a human nature, and so acted human. There is nothing to "negate" or "erase" about that.

You seem to think this poses a major problem for Christianity, which strongly suggests you have an incomplete understanding of the ideas you are critiquing.

Right right… just because your sect of Christianity is it's own unique branch doesn't mean it's the same thing as another branch of Christianity; whatever you claim as orthodox or whatever.

On the contrary, the view that I've summarized above is the mainstream view in Christianity.

It was codified in the ecumenical councils of the fifth century, and is today affirmed by the vast majority of denominations -- Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. This is what historians and scholars refer to as "orthodox Christianity."

The actual sects of Christianity -- Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and the like -- don't subscribe to this view. Those are the exceptions to the rule.

If you aren't critiquing the mainstream view -- because you haven't taken the time to properly understand it -- then you aren't really critiquing Christianity, you're just attacking a straw man conception of the divinity of Christ.

[tonjun]

On the contrary, the view that I've summarized above is the mainstream view in Christianity.

It was codified in the ecumenical councils of the fifth century, and is today affirmed by the vast majority of denominations -- Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. This is what historians and scholars refer to as "orthodox Christianity."

The actual sects of Christianity -- Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and the like -- don't subscribe to this view. Those are the exceptions to the rule.

If you aren't critiquing the mainstream view -- because you haven't taken the time to properly understand it -- then you aren't really critiquing Christianity, you're just attacking a straw man conception of the divinity of Christ.

Mainstream, minor stream; all the same difference. A branch, A derivative, an offspring; all which comes from it's ROOT. Do you understand that?

Or is that too simple for you? Otherwise I only see you trying to be fancy with no foundation.

Let me ask you, do you know what a ROOT is? Do you know what a BRANCH is? Have you even READ my post?

Your branch can be defined as a SECT. Do you know the definition of SECT?

SECT:
a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.
a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.
(in the sociology of religion) a Christian denomination characterized by insistence on strict qualifications for membership, as distinguished from the more inclusive groups called churches.
any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader.

~Dictionary.com

Nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it. Where is it found in the dictionary that mormons and JWs are SECTS? Bring forward authoritative text.

A SECT is any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader. ~Dictionary.com. That means I can throw all the Christian denominations into one batch called a SECT. I don't need to be fancy-dancy to circumvent an established dictionary like you.

I think you need to go back to the basics in words and definitions to make your claims. Clearly you just make up words to push your conjectures.

BTW, I enjoy how people bring up the word 'straw man'. It signifies to me all the time that the speaker doesn't know what else to say but pull out some cliché wording that brings no significance.

[historia]

I could not care less about the opinions and Dogmas of any particular church.

As I noted in post #33, the view I've summarized above is held by the vast majority of churches -- Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant -- and so is not unique to one particular church. (Incidentally, that's why I quoted both a Roman Catholic and Protestant source in my first reply.)

At any rate, you seem to have missed the fact that I'm largely agreeing with the point you made. Your phrasing was a bit awkward, but nevertheless captures the essential point that, in Christian theology, Jesus is not God in the simplistic way that tonjun imagines.

[historia]

SECT:
a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.
a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.
(in the sociology of religion) a Christian denomination characterized by insistence on strict qualifications for membership, as distinguished from the more inclusive groups called churches.
any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader.

~Dictionary.com

Nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it.

You mean other than in the parts I just bolded, which is precisely how I and others use the term?

Have you even READ my post?

Sure, but you're mostly just throwing around non-sequiturs.

You pointed out that, in Matthew 15:21-24, Jesus changed his mind, and then jumped to the conclusion that this means Christianity is a "misleading form of religion with false teachings."

But, since orthodox Christian theology holds that Jesus has a human nature -- in which he can change his mind -- you haven't really demonstrated from the Bible anything that contradicts Christianity.

The problem here isn't the Bible or even your interpretation of this particular passage. The problem is that you don't have a good understanding of orthodox Christian theology.

[tonjun]

SECT:
1) a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.
2) a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.
3) (in the sociology of religion) a Christian denomination characterized by insistence on strict qualifications for membership, as distinguished from the more inclusive groups called churches.
4) any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader.

~Dictionary.com

Nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it.

You mean other than in the parts I just bolded, which is precisely how I and others use the term?

What a foolish thing to say. Did you think I didn't see that counter-argument coming? How about you consult JW and mormans and see if they too don't call you the heretics.

Why would they be of different denomination from you and claim that their religion is the real religion. Your branch is branded a heretic in their eyes. Thus you are a SECT. Now you comphrenday?

Go to their church and ask them what they view you as. Then come back here with proof showing that you are not really heretics in their eyes.

So I can safely cross off all the 4 terms from the definition to place your branch into a SECT category. Although I already had the majority 3 terms going in my favor.

Have you even READ my post?

Sure, but you're mostly just throwing around non-sequiturs.

You pointed out that, in Matthew 15:21-24, Jesus changed his mind, and then jumped to the conclusion that this means Christianity is a "misleading form of religion with false teachings."

But, since orthodox Christian theology holds that Jesus has a human nature -- in which he can change his mind -- you haven't really demonstrated from the Bible anything that contradicts Christianity.

The problem here isn't the Bible or even your interpretation of this particular passage. The problem is that you don't have a good understanding of orthodox Christian theology.

Like I said, I don't need to get into the nitty gritty of your faith to find the Bible to be flawed.

If you are essentially saying that Jesus is a human and not God, you and I already agree there.

The only remainder is that you're of some Roman-Italian orthodox or Russian Slav orthodox SECT. A branch from ARAMAIC origins.

And my point is Jesus isn't God and Christianity is flawed according to the Bible.

Christians will say that Jesus is God because some disciple named Thomas called Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” - John 20:28

2 Peter 1:1 claims that Jesus is our "God and Savior"

Need I go on with the flaws and contradictions of the Bible?

I've brought the proof and the Scripture.

Oh wait? You're still conjecturing here when I called you to bring proof? Wow. What do you call that? Do you call that a straw man?

[historia]

How about you consult JW and mormans and see if they too don't call you the heretics.

That doesn't matter to the definition.

The primary definition of sect is "a dissenting or schismatic religious body," so Merriam Webster. In other words, one that "deviates from a generally accepted religious tradition," per the dictionary.com definition.

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that they are dissenting groups that have broken away from mainstream Christianity, and so it is accurate to call them "sects."

That's precisely how I used the term. So your assertion that "nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it" is simply wrong. Moreover, this is a completely inconsequential point in our discussion.

If you are essentially saying that Jesus is a human and not God, you and I already agree there.

No, again, what I'm pointing out is that, in orthodox Christian theology, Jesus has two natures: he is both human and divine. So Jesus being human does not entail the conclusion he is "not God."

[tonjun]

That doesn't matter to the definition.

The primary definition of sect is "a dissenting or schismatic religious body," so Merriam Webster. In other words, one that "deviates from a generally accepted religious tradition," per the dictionary.com definition.

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that they are dissenting groups that have broken away from mainstream Christianity, and so it is accurate to call them "sects."

That's precisely how I used the term. So your assertion that "nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it" is simply wrong. Moreover, this is a completely inconsequential point in our discussion.

Bring the proof where JW and mormans consider themselves as "sects". They consider you as a "sect" as well. They consider you the dissidents of the true faith.

And what about the other definitions from Webster?

A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

You forgot about the other 2 definitions which still favor me. But you want people to be ignorant of the facts, I get it.

You know who else separated from the mainstream catholics? That's right, the protestants. They viewed the mainstream catholic as corrupt and you know the rest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Protestantism

The protestants viewed catholics as the dissidents with their corruption. And look at the aftermath we have today.

So just because you think catholic is mainstream and the true religion doesn't mean other denominations agree. In fact many of them diverted away from your branch because they found your branch to be a false religion. So essentially you are still a SECT in every other denomination's eyes.

Oh and by the way, catholicism delineates from a religion formed from ARAMAIC origins. That's right, catholicism is not even really mainstream. The mainstream comes from an Aramaic synagogue during the life of Jesus. Jesus didn't speak Italian or Slav Russian. Did you not know that?

Am I educating you here today? Do you need me to familiarize you with which language he spoke?

So, in reality your SECT is not so special or mainstream after all. You're just in fantasy land here.

If you are essentially saying that Jesus is a human and not God, you and I already agree there.

POST 38 No, again, what I'm pointing out is that, in orthodox Christian theology, Jesus has two natures: he is both human and divine. So Jesus being human does not entail the conclusion he is "not God."

POST# 35 At any rate, you seem to have missed the fact that I'm largely agreeing with the point you made. Your phrasing was a bit awkward, but nevertheless captures the essential point that, in Christian theology, Jesus is not God in the simplistic way that tonjun imagines.

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

Thank you. Case closed.

As a side note, this is why religious people display lots of behaviors of mental illness. It's upholding contradictory notions like this and then within that, contradicting oneself during the process that likely causes people to lose sense of reality en-masse.

Just compare your post 35 to 38. Clear as day.

[TRANSPONDER]

I could not care less about the opinions and Dogmas of any particular church.

As I noted in post #33, the view I've summarized above is held by the vast majority of churches -- Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant -- and so is not unique to one particular church. (Incidentally, that's why I quoted both a Roman Catholic and Protestant source in my first reply.)

At any rate, you seem to have missed the fact that I'm largely agreeing with the point you made. Your phrasing was a bit awkward, but nevertheless captures the essential point that, in Christian theology, Jesus is not God in the simplistic way that tonjun imagines.

Yes. I saw that it wasn't just the Catholics you cited. Also Calvinism. I apologise if I misunderstood you. I thought that it was supposed to counter my argument, because the religious are hardly going to agree with me. If we agree, that's great.

I get the idea that it would be noted that Jesus had to have limited knowledge (some few apologists have tried to argue that he knew it all but pretended that he didn't, for some purpose). And that means that God had to keep some things from him, like what really caused illness while giving him the power to heal illness while not telling him it wasn't demons that caused it. But some may argue that he knew it wasn't demons, but spoke in terms that the people understood. Like speaking of Adam and Eve and Noah, when he should have known they were myth.

But then explaining why the disciples couldn't cure a boy because it can only be done by fasting and prayer is him saying what he knows isn't true. And when another says it's because they don't have enough Faith when Luke I recall says that faith the size of a mustard seed will move mountains, we have gone beyond arguing about how much Jesus knew, to the writers making the whole thing up. Which in my view is the real point - not what God or Jesus was actually doing but that the Bible can't be trusted for what they did, or whether such beings even existed.