Immutability of God.

[37818]

When I showed him clear passages from the NT where parallells are drawn between Jesus and divine Wisdom in the OT and intertestamental Wisdom literature (and some passages where Jesus is explicitly identified with divine Wisdom) he objected to identifying Jesus with God's Wisdom because apparently Jesus is the God of the OT, and therefore can't be the Wisdom of Himself (and also because Wisdom is described as a "she" ). When your theology leads you to deny what the Bible clearly teaches I think it's time to look over your theology.

For the sake of argument. The pre-incarnate Christ is the spirit of wisdom in Proverbs 8. And Proverbs 8:22 is only wisdom speaking 8:12 (and not the spirit understanding speaking 8:14-31). [JWs use this as a proof text that the Word in John 1:1-3, 14 is not Jehovah, BTW.]

The text shows that spirit of wisdom is other than Jehovah. Which is in agreement with our pre-incarnte Christ being both Jehovah and not Jehovah before His incarnation.

". . . The LORD[Jehovah, God**] possessed* me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
*possessed [does not mean create]
** Deuteronomy 8:3 the LORD; Matthew 4:4 God.

[JonathanL]

For the sake of argument. The pre-incarnate Christ is the spirit of wisdom in Proverbs 8. And Proverbs 8:22 is only wisdom speaking 8:12 (and not the spirit understanding speaking 8:14-31). [JWs use this as a proof text that the Word in John 1:1-3, 14 is not Jehovah, BTW.]

I'm not really interested in how JW's mishandle scripture. I'll leave that to those who's taken it upon themselves to refute JW's claims.

The text shows that spirit of wisdom is other than Jehovah. Which is in agreement with our pre-incarnte Christ being both Jehovah and not Jehovah before His incarnation.

Wisdom is intrinsic to YHWH. I'm not sure what you mean by Christ being both Jehovah and not Jehovah, because if I take that statement by face-value it's blatantly self-contradictory.

". . . The LORD[Jehovah, God**] possessed* me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
*possessed [does not mean create]
** Deuteronomy 8:3 the LORD; Matthew 4:4 God.

I agree that possessed does not mean create. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[37818]

Wisdom is intrinsic to YHWH. I'm not sure what you mean by Christ being both Jehovah and not Jehovah, because if I take that statement by face-value it's blatantly self-contradictory.

The same issue exists in the incarnation where Jesus is both YHWH and not YHWH in being a genuine human.

"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? . . . " -- Matthew 22:41-45.

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." -- Psalm 110:1. "YHWH said unto my Lord." In the incarnation Jesus is made Lord being a man.

Thomas after the resurrection address Him as both Lord [being a man] and God [being YHWH] (John 20:28).

And even now as our mediator, He does so as the man "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." -- 1 Timothy 2:5, 6.

I agree that possessed does not mean create. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

There was another post which was part of this thread which has been expunged, so it is gone. I didn't know until now.

Your comment:

When I showed him clear passages from the NT where parallells are drawn between Jesus and divine Wisdom in the OT and intertestamental Wisdom literature (and some passages where Jesus is explicitly identified with divine Wisdom) he objected to identifying Jesus with God's Wisdom because apparently Jesus is the God of the OT, and therefore can't be the Wisdom of Himself (and also because Wisdom is described as a "she" ). When your theology leads you to deny what the Bible clearly teaches I think it's time to look over your theology.

Which was on my comment on a comment you made. Both those comments are also gone. Or Tweb is about to crash again. I hope not.

[Tyrel]

I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.

The typical line in analytic theology, as in medieval scholasticism, is to maintain that the only way God's immutability can be called into question by the act of creation is if, in creating, God gains or loses at least one property. For instance, God might inherit the property of being 'the creator' once he creates the world. St. Thomas Aquinas argued, however, that there are different ways for relations to obtain between things (and relations are here conceived of as being properties). For instance, it could be that a relation R holds between two things A and B just in case R inheres A and R inheres B. However, another way for a relation R to hold between A and B is for the relation R to inhere A, but not to really inhere B. I am being somewhat imprecise, but posting on a forum doesn't require much academic precision. In any case, the Thomistic position is that when we say "God is the creator" the statement is issued by analogy, and that it's truth-maker is actually (in) the world itself. Ultimately to say God is the creator is to say something about the world (to specify the way in which it relates to God), and not to say something about God's nature per se.

Some thinkers, like William Lane Craig, and apparently Duns Scotus, have argued that God actually stands in 'real' relations to the world (so that he himself inherits at least one property in creating the world). The alternative, advanced by St. Thomas and Thomists with him, is that while the world is really related to God, God is not really related to the world (i.e., that the world has the property of being created, but God does not have within himself the property of being creator). This position can be hard to swallow for people who think of God as being a being among beings. However, St. Thomas' position goes hand in hand with the doctrine of analogy (the idea that the only things we can truly predicate of God are not predicated univocally, but by analogy - so that, for instance, to say that God is good does not have the same sense it would have were we to say it of any other thing, but is actually to say that He is the paradigm of goodness itself, or to say that He exists is to say that He is 'Being' itself, the ground of existence, et cetera), which is incompatible with the view that God is literally a being among beings.

So, immutability is only really called into question, here, if God, in virtue of creating, obtains a new property (not merely according to an analogous façon de parler, but in reality). However, the fact that God has created a world does not, on it's own, imply that his nature isn't immutable. You would need the auxiliary assumption(s) about His having 'real' relations to the world (or being capable of having such relations in principle).

Why would one assume that God never created anything before this universe? We might just be the current stage of an endless sequence of creation.

That would make no difference to the issue at hand. Even an infinite set of creations only implies God's mutability if, in creating, He acquires (or loses) some new property which really inheres the divine nature.

[Franktalk]

A few thoughts on this view.

If God is immutable I think we must ask ourselves why? What comes to my mind is an eternal God who has experienced all there is to experience and knows everything there is to know. Once that knowledge set and experience level is obtained (speaking from a timeline perspective) then God is trapped by infinite knowledge and experience. Knowing the end from the beginning stops God from doing anything because it would be like spinning in circles. But a God with infinite knowledge can indeed make a universe filled with creatures without infinite knowledge. Let us say that God makes an avatar that can hold his essence but the avatar can not access the infinite knowledge set. Let us say it is designed that way. Let us call that design feature "the veil". So in this environment God is still immutable yet by design experiences a sense of newness based on the veil. So one aspect of God is indeed immutable but another aspect of God enters into a temporal world to experience the sensation of newness again.

I happen to believe that there are many eternal Gods. They are all immutable. I believe the temporal plane has also existed from eternity. I believe the eternal round describes worlds without end and avatars which are designed with limits. In this view God can indeed be immutable yet can also exist in a playground called the temporal plane.

Yes it is a strange idea. Yet it can make sense of eternal beings and their relationship with the temporal world.

[jo1952]

A few thoughts on this view.

If God is immutable I think we must ask ourselves why? What comes to my mind is an eternal God who has experienced all there is to experience and knows everything there is to know. Once that knowledge set and experience level is obtained (speaking from a timeline perspective) then God is trapped by infinite knowledge and experience. Knowing the end from the beginning stops God from doing anything because it would be like spinning in circles. But a God with infinite knowledge can indeed make a universe filled with creatures without infinite knowledge. Let us say that God makes an avatar that can hold his essence but the avatar can not access the infinite knowledge set. Let us say it is designed that way. Let us call that design feature "the veil". So in this environment God is still immutable yet by design experiences a sense of newness based on the veil. So one aspect of God is indeed immutable but another aspect of God enters into a temporal world to experience the sensation of newness again.

I happen to believe that there are many eternal Gods. They are all immutable. I believe the temporal plane has also existed from eternity. I believe the eternal round describes worlds without end and avatars which are designed with limits. In this view God can indeed be immutable yet can also exist in a playground called the temporal plane.

Yes it is a strange idea. Yet it can make sense of eternal beings and their relationship with the temporal world.

Such beings/"gods"....with all knowledge....would also have the knowledge of "how" to create (wouldn't creating be a part of "all knowledge"?). By using that knowledge, they can indeed create new "worlds" purposed for experiencing newness.

By looking at our own advancements in technology, we can begin to "see" such possibilities more easily. For instance, look at computer games wherein virtual realities are created in order for the player outside of the game to enjoy new experiences through an avatar inside of the game whom they get to watch from outside of that game. With this in mind, we can see that the "creator" of the game, who has already experienced everything that can be experienced (and is thus immutable by virtue of nothing new can even personally be experienced first hand---and is thus unchanging), can also experience newness through the use of an avatar (the extension of the creator) who is doing the experiencing of newness. In this way, the creator is both immutable and mutable at the same time---just at different levels of existence; at one level as the creator (even the "father"?), and at another level as the avatar (even "the son"?).

[Sparko]

Such beings/"gods"....with all knowledge....would also have the knowledge of "how" to create (wouldn't creating be a part of "all knowledge"?). By using that knowledge, they can indeed create new "worlds" purposed for experiencing newness.

By looking at our own advancements in technology, we can begin to "see" such possibilities more easily. For instance, look at computer games wherein virtual realities are created in order for the player outside of the game to enjoy new experiences through an avatar inside of the game whom they get to watch from outside of that game. With this in mind, we can see that the "creator" of the game, who has already experienced everything that can be experienced (and is thus immutable by virtue of nothing new can even personally be experienced first hand---and is thus unchanging), can also experience newness through the use of an avatar (the extension of the creator) who is doing the experiencing of newness. In this way, the creator is both immutable and mutable at the same time---just at different levels of existence; at one level as the creator (even the "father"?), and at another level as the avatar (even "the son"?).

Except in that scenario the human being is not God, just a player. The real God is the computer who controls the world, what happens in it, etc.

So in you and Frank's weird attempt to combine mormonism with an Xbox 360, all you have shown in your analogy is that the being who created the universe is God, and you are nothing but a player. Pop another quarter in, Jo.

[Franktalk]

Sparko,

To have a thought experiment about an immutable God and temporal world we live in can be rewarding. It can open our mind to new ideas and allows us to ask questions about ourselves and about the nature of God. This is a good thing. Might want to try it sometime. You know, having an open mind.

[Sparko]

Sparko,

To have a thought experiment about an immutable God and temporal world we live in can be rewarding. It can open our mind to new ideas and allows us to ask questions about ourselves and about the nature of God. This is a good thing. Might want to try it sometime. You know, having an open mind.

I don't need "new ideas" about God. I have the bible. Unlike you, I find it unnecessary to make up my own God, I am quite happy with the real one.

[jo1952]

Except in that scenario the human being is not God, just a player. The real God is the computer who controls the world, what happens in it, etc.

So in you and Frank's weird attempt to combine mormonism with an Xbox 360, all you have shown in your analogy is that the being who created the universe is God, and you are nothing but a player. Pop another quarter in, Jo.

Such a typical response, Sparko....sigh.... Yet another not-so-very impressive argument.....

As usual, according to your own perceptions--which are made up of the traditions you have been taught, you don't have the eyes to even see what we are writing. You see what you want to see.

As a player, I am the "son"; but as the creator, I am the "Father". The "veil" prevents the player (the son) from remembering that he/she is also the Father---the first love whom we have "forgotten". Jesus said we are gods:

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Our mortal body is the “temple” for our spirit (the divine in us). The true self (Father) does not “live” here; we are outside of this realm…watching remotely what is going on here. This, in order that we can experience newness through the avatar because our true self has already personally experienced everything there is to experience. As such, the immutable Father and the mutable son/avatar, exist simultaneously. It is our own Holy Spirit (the connection between the Father and the son) which completes the "holy trinity".

Meanwhile, John the Beloved writes:

1 John 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. (Isn't it interesting Jesus kept speaking something special about little children (perhaps, pointing to how little children have not yet been indoctrinated into the traditions and religion taught by their fathers)---they have open minds. For us to become once more like little children, we need to open our minds, give up the world (the traditions), in order to leave room for the Holy Spirit (our own connection to the Father) to be able to connect to the "son" (us..our avatar). Notice how the Father known by the children has a capital "F"--pointing to the Father outside of this realm.
14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. The word of God can abide in those who have awakened to this truth. We overcome the wicked one who is none other than the father of this world (using a small "f"); i.e., our carnal self. Let's look here, which speaks of when we are not connected to or listening to our Holy Spirit:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

When we are listening to our carnal self (the avatar), we are not able to hear the Holy Spirit. Not listening to our own Holy Spirit (that connection between the Father and the son) is the blasphemy which cannot be forgiven. Because while we are not listening to that still small voice (the Holy Spirit---that connection between our carnal self (avatar) and our divine (god/Father) self ), we are not able to know the truth; as such, there is no truth in those who aren't able to hear.

BTW, this is not something taught by the LDS Church. Joseph knew the truth but was not allowed to reveal it to the people once they rejected the simple Gospel of Christ. He DID, though, teach these truths in the Endowment--using symbolism; like a parable. But the Church has been blind to those truths. Just like Moses did, Joseph gave the people what they wanted; and did not interfere with their free will. They wanted religion with all of its trappings…even Temples and ordinances….a religion of performances. All of this in accordance with the idols in their hearts; those things which they felt would show the world how special and chosen they were above all others---aka the stumbling block of their own iniquity was given to them.

[Bill the Cat]

To sum up Frank's argument...

672.jpg

[Sparko]

Such a typical response, Sparko....sigh.... Yet another not-so-very impressive argument.....

As usual, according to your own perceptions--which are made up of the traditions you have been taught, you don't have the eyes to even see what we are writing. You see what you want to see.

As a player, I am the "son"; but as the creator, I am the "Father". The "veil" prevents the player (the son) from remembering that he/she is also the Father---the first love whom we have "forgotten". Jesus said we are gods:

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Our mortal body is the “temple” for our spirit (the divine in us). The true self (Father) does not “live” here; we are outside of this realm…watching remotely what is going on here. This, in order that we can experience newness through the avatar because our true self has already personally experienced everything there is to experience. As such, the immutable Father and the mutable son/avatar, exist simultaneously. It is our own Holy Spirit (the connection between the Father and the son) which completes the "holy trinity".

Meanwhile, John the Beloved writes:

1 John 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. (Isn't it interesting Jesus kept speaking something special about little children (perhaps, pointing to how little children have not yet been indoctrinated into the traditions and religion taught by their fathers)---they have open minds. For us to become once more like little children, we need to open our minds, give up the world (the traditions), in order to leave room for the Holy Spirit (our own connection to the Father) to be able to connect to the "son" (us..our avatar). Notice how the Father known by the children has a capital "F"--pointing to the Father outside of this realm.
14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. The word of God can abide in those who have awakened to this truth. We overcome the wicked one who is none other than the father of this world (using a small "f"); i.e., our carnal self. Let's look here, which speaks of when we are not connected to or listening to our Holy Spirit:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

When we are listening to our carnal self (the avatar), we are not able to hear the Holy Spirit. Not listening to our own Holy Spirit (that connection between the Father and the son) is the blasphemy which cannot be forgiven. Because while we are not listening to that still small voice (the Holy Spirit---that connection between our carnal self (avatar) and our divine (god/Father) self ), we are not able to know the truth; as such, there is no truth in those who aren't able to hear.

BTW, this is not something taught by the LDS Church. Joseph knew the truth but was not allowed to reveal it to the people once they rejected the simple Gospel of Christ. He DID, though, teach these truths in the Endowment--using symbolism; like a parable. But the Church has been blind to those truths. Just like Moses did, Joseph gave the people what they wanted; and did not interfere with their free will. They wanted religion with all of its trappings…even Temples and ordinances….a religion of performances. All of this in accordance with the idols in their hearts; those things which they felt would show the world how special and chosen they were above all others---aka the stumbling block of their own iniquity was given to them.

You have been watching Tron too much.

I love how you try to sound all spiritual, acting like a guiding guru, with your wacky theology based on the fact that you can't just let go of mormonism. But all you are really doing is trying to drag others down the wrong path you are on. Fortunately you and Frank sound insane and completely wacky, so I doubt you will find any followers.

[jo1952]

Sparko,

Actually, I no longer think of my beliefs in terms of spirituality....that is terminology used by those clinging to religion. When speaking to others who are inside of religion, however, I DO, use the words they are familiar with in order to share my thoughts and beliefs. I no longer think anything magical or mystical or spiritual is going on. We aren't looking for any followers; in fact, please don't anyone follow us!!! Since the kingdom of God (also religious terminology) is within us, no one has any business looking outside of themselves to discover that kingdom. Jesus taught in terminology of religion because He was speaking to those who believed in religion; so, His words sound spiritually-based. His teachings used their terminology in order to reveal the things Father (also a word used in accordance with their beliefs) wanted us to know at the time Jesus walked the earth. He was teaching us things to help us out while we are in mortality; while also using parables to teach some real truth about who we are, why we are here, and what the heck is really going on in this world.

It's nice to see that whenever someone does not agree with what YOU believe, that you still have the very loving propensity to mock them. Gotta love a pirate!!

[Cerebrum123]

Sparko,

Actually, I no longer think of my beliefs in terms of spirituality....that is terminology used by those clinging to religion. When speaking to others who are inside of religion, however, I DO, use the words they are familiar with in order to share my thoughts and beliefs. I no longer think anything magical or mystical or spiritual is going on. We aren't looking for any followers; in fact, please don't anyone follow us!!! Since the kingdom of God (also religious terminology) is within us, no one has any business looking outside of themselves to discover that kingdom. Jesus taught in terminology of religion because He was speaking to those who believed in religion; so, His words sound spiritually-based. His teachings used their terminology in order to reveal the things Father (also a word used in accordance with their beliefs) wanted us to know at the time Jesus walked the earth. He was teaching us things to help us out while we are in mortality; while also using parables to teach some real truth about who we are, why we are here, and what the heck is really going on in this world.

It's nice to see that whenever someone does not agree with what YOU believe, that you still have the very loving propensity to mock them. Gotta love a pirate!!

Here's a hint jo, you haven't left "religion". You've just invented your own, along with a new god to go with it.

[Sparko]

Sparko,

Actually, I no longer think of my beliefs in terms of spirituality....that is terminology used by those clinging to religion. When speaking to others who are inside of religion, however, I DO, use the words they are familiar with in order to share my thoughts and beliefs. I no longer think anything magical or mystical or spiritual is going on. We aren't looking for any followers; in fact, please don't anyone follow us!!! Since the kingdom of God (also religious terminology) is within us, no one has any business looking outside of themselves to discover that kingdom. Jesus taught in terminology of religion because He was speaking to those who believed in religion; so, His words sound spiritually-based. His teachings used their terminology in order to reveal the things Father (also a word used in accordance with their beliefs) wanted us to know at the time Jesus walked the earth. He was teaching us things to help us out while we are in mortality; while also using parables to teach some real truth about who we are, why we are here, and what the heck is really going on in this world.

It's nice to see that whenever someone does not agree with what YOU believe, that you still have the very loving propensity to mock them. Gotta love a pirate!!

And you gotta love the propensity that you have for being passive agressive. At least I am open about my thoughts.

I am not "mocking" you however, I am trying to get you to wake up and remove the wool that has been pulled over your eyes, by Frank and yourself. Simply saying you are not "inside religion" doesn't cut it, especially since you are speaking of God and things of a spiritual nature. Religion is a philosophy with the subject of faith and God. You and Frank both are religious, even if you don't admit it. Now if you are truly not religious, then you need to change your faith tags to "atheist" and stop posting in theist areas.

do you and Frank sit around and smoke the loco weed all day to come up with your ideas, or what? Because that is what they sound like. Full of holes and contradictions.