Evidence for God from Science

jenna wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

jenna wrote:this actually makes sense in a way. BUT. in order to be born as human, Christ would have had to change His very nature (from Being to human being) in order to be able to die.

Scripture says Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:7) His very nature (divine) didn't change.

He came to earth to die for us. if His nature did not change (divine, holy, immortal) then how could He have done this? yes i realize this is asking even more questions, sorry.

I'm not sure I understand the question. It seems straight-forward to me that God's power wouldn't be limited, that God could appear in and/or assume any form that He desires. If it helps, the fuller Philippians 2:5-8:

• Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Note here, that Jesus was the very nature of God. (v.6) In verse 7, another interpretation is "but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (ESV)

The word for "humbled" means to lower one's self in rank or authority. Trinitarians reason that Jesus was equal to God in nature, but made Himself lesser in stature or position on Earth due to a willful, selfless and loving submission of what was divinely planned to redeem humanity.

It's not that Jesus' nature changed, for indeed He will be highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth. Such, is only the sovereign right of God to be received.

K's video was good, but one statement in it I disagree with: "God could be as many persons as He wanted." That is a logical impossibility, because God is what He is, He doesn't change - which is why He is The Great I AM.

I see several things going on here with the confusion:

Three Persons of the Trinity, all of Whom are fully God, all encompassing the one God vs. individual PARTS making up God, God being indivisible, yet taking on his cloak of humanity/ALSO having a human nature, His omnipresence, and the fact that analogies, at some juncture, begin to break down. And that God, Who is an unchanging Being – Who can never be any more or any less than He has always been, creating and subsequently inhabiting NEWLY created things, for Him – His humanity, His earthly FLESH! That flesh Jesus FOREVER took on was and REMAINS, IN ADDITION TO, what He always fully was (UNCHANGED, and still is) – FULLY God, fully spirit. What appears especially confusing to Jenna are the interactions between/through the fleshly manifestation/human (with all that entails – except He never sinned) cloak the Son took on and the other two Persons of the Trinity, as He always had. Jesus/God has always been a spiritual Being - that is, He's always been ONE Person (of three spiritual Persons encompassing the ONE God), and eventually born into the world as a man, now with a resurrected body, and before that, with a normal human body. But that human side never changed ANYTHING about the essence of the Son, or any of His eternal/spiritual characteristics that He has always had within His Trinity of ONE.

When you begin to contemplate that an always-existing Spiritual Being (in the Person of the Son) took on human flesh and was born into the world as a human baby, but that what He actually is (a spiritual being/one Person of a Trinity of One God), Who never changed - well, it's not easy to comprehend. I think many Christians believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that these are a persons within the same God, but when asked to parse how this plays out in words - they often stumble badly - and usually it begins with using the words "part" or "parts" of God.

jenna wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:If one is trying to visualise God, than they will be sorely disappointed. If we can't picture a much simpler object like a tesseract, which is a 4-dimensional cube, then you're not going to visualise God who is transcendent.

To lower God down to our level in a manner we can visualise, such will always take away from God's nature. This includes ideas that turn God into "parts" like say a cake where each person is one part of God, or ideas which attempt to materialise God in this or that form (which means God isn't transcendent).

What is important, isn't so much what we can visualise, but what we see in Christ's own teachings and what Scripture teaches. And here we see that Scripture teaches that each person in the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are co-eternal and co-exist possessing full divinity (not part) and transcend our world.

Logically, there is nothing wrong with this. Conceptually, you'll never visualise God.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G2S5ziDcO0

actually, no. please read Romans 1:20. For the invisible things OF HIM from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD by the things that are made, even His eternal power AND GODHEAD, so that they are without excuse.

If only such meant Godhead as you're using it here to challenge me, why then Trinity is proved in Scripture and case closed, right? I need not then make reference to a 4-dimensional cube. The "Godhead" and Trinity as such is true!

Sadly, Trinitarians can't use this in such a way for it is not really "Godhead" in the Trinitarian sense, but rather a better translation is "divinity". Such is the root meaning of the word, and what the Apostle means here.

So then, God's power in creation is demonstrated -- our universe coming into existence, all the stars, our Sun, volcanoes, storms and the like -- God's power is clearly seen in creation.

Also God's invisible attributes, His divinity (e.g., divine perfections) such as goodness, love, righteousness and the like. Paul gets more into the invisible righteousness and moral law, which we can't help but acknowledge within ourselves, in chapter 2,

• "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

Philip wrote:K's video was good, but one statement in it I disagree with: "God could be as many persons as He wanted." That is a logical impossibility, because God is what He is, He doesn't change - which is why He is The Great I AM.

Yes, I agree.

I'm not sure if he's just thinking of "possibility" (logical) versus what is the case ontologically (actual).

Since Scripture only reveals three persons who are God, then what is actual may in fact be three persons, one God. Based upon the logic he uses though, what is possible could be a whole lot more (unless one offers further reasons why not). However, reasoning is often checked by reality, since what is actual often rules out what might seem logically possible as not actual.

Further, I disagree with his argument in treating more persons as a perfection, for reasons that I won't go into here. It's an interesting argument though at the end of the video.

jenna wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

jenna wrote:this actually makes sense in a way. BUT. in order to be born as human, Christ would have had to change His very nature (from Being to human being) in order to be able to die.

Scripture says Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:7) His very nature (divine) didn't change.

He came to earth to die for us. if His nature did not change (divine, holy, immortal) then how could He have done this? yes i realize this is asking even more questions, sorry.

This may be the stumbling block keeping you from fully understanding the trinity and the simple answer is that God the Son, the second person of the trinity, took on a new nature, that of a human, in the incarnation through the hypostatic union. Christ did not change or shed his divine nature. He is one person with two natures, one is divine, another is human. When Christ died he did so according to his human nature.

P.S. There is nothing illogical or contradictory about one person having two natures.

Byblos: P.S. There is nothing illogical or contradictory about one person having two natures.

I can tell that Byblos is married!

Philip wrote:

Byblos: P.S. There is nothing illogical or contradictory about one person having two natures.

I can tell that Byblos is married!

I thought I was supposed to be the one with the bad male chauvinist jokes.

I thought I was supposed to be the one with the bad male chauvinist jokes.

WHO is joking? Er, well, yeah, it was just a joke... really, it was. But my wife asserts that men are moodier that women ever are.

Philip wrote:

I thought I was supposed to be the one with the bad male chauvinist jokes.

WHO is joking? Er, well, yeah, it was just a joke... really, it was. But my wife asserts that men are moodier that women ever are.

That's weird, because my wife constantly asks me if I have my period. I think it's all in her head. I'm never moody.*



*Manopause sucks!!!

Ever notice how bad moods are contagious?

Philip wrote:Ever notice how bad moods are contagious?

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CONTAGIOUS

Smiles are contagious, so turn that frown upside down.

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

I thought I was supposed to be the one with the bad male chauvinist jokes.

WHO is joking? Er, well, yeah, it was just a joke... really, it was. But my wife asserts that men are moodier that women ever are.

That's weird, because my wife constantly asks me if I have my period. I think it's all in her head. I'm never moody.*



*Manopause sucks!!!

You poor guys really Do Need Help -- Your wives have my sympathy.

I'm Way past that time of life.

crochet1949 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

I thought I was supposed to be the one with the bad male chauvinist jokes.

WHO is joking? Er, well, yeah, it was just a joke... really, it was. But my wife asserts that men are moodier that women ever are.

That's weird, because my wife constantly asks me if I have my period. I think it's all in her head. I'm never moody.*



*Manopause sucks!!!

You poor guys really Do Need Help -- Your wives have my sympathy.

I'm Way past that time of life.

Thanks crochet. I'll tell my wives that you give them your regards.

OK, RESET: Back to the Trinity.

I don't know what is taught less well across the Church, the concept of the Trinity of God, or just merely understandings about the Holy Spirit. And where oh WHERE were such sermons as I was growing up?