If God is Unchanging, Explain Jesus Christ

Jesus is supposed to be God, according to Christians. If that's true, then how could God be unchanging, according to the Christian Bible?

Please use Biblical Scripture in your response.

Worst second post ever.  He is unchanging because they are the same person.


The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all,"[2 Cor. 13:13]

How can he be unchanging if he's a total penguin in the old testament but he isn't in the new testament?

Yeah, think Deuteronomy 23:1 versus John 3:36. Does a castrated person who believes in Jesus go to heaven or not?

Yeah, think Deuteronomy 23:1 versus John 3:36. Does a castrated person who believes in Jesus go to heaven or not?

Deut 23 was speaking of public office.

Deut 23 was speaking of public office.

No, it wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Deuteronomy#Summary

Chapters 12-26, the Deuteronomic code: Laws governing Israel's worship (chapters 12-16a), the appointment and regulation of community and religious leaders (16b-18), social regulation (19-25), and confession of identity and loyalty (26).

From the same article:

Deuteronomy 21-25: Miscellaneous laws on civil and domestic life

Also, let's bring Deuteronomy 23:1 up here, just for the record:
http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/23-1.htm

I like this translation because it's simple, but if you feel it's inaccurate, feel free to change it:

If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

How is "the assembly of the LORD" a "public office"?

He's only unchanging in the Old Testament.

I think he was still fairly douchy in the NT, he introduced the concept of Hell, for one thing.

I think he was still fairly douchy in the NT, he introduced the concept of Hell, for one thing.

Err, I'm pretty sure that the catholic church made up hell all on its own. I'm quite sure there is no concept of hell in orthodoxy which keeps closest to the version of christianity that the roman emperors imposed.

The concept of orininal sin was invented in the NT though and thats enough douchebaggery for me. But don't blame somthing that doesn't exist. Blame the ones who actually came up with the whole riddiculous concept.

Au contraire, the NT is full of references to an eternal lake of fire, the Catholics may have named it but the concept of Hell in Christianity definitely predates the Catholics.

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels"

Mark 9:42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46]  47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched"

Revelation: Just about all of it.

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

Yep.
He was dead, he is dead, and he'll stay dead.

Don't go away, Wardogg. With you ignoring this thread, who will defend the Bible using false statements?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 06, 2011, 08:09:10 AM

Deut 23 was speaking of public office.

No, it wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Deuteronomy#Summary

Quote

Chapters 12-26, the Deuteronomic code: Laws governing Israel's worship (chapters 12-16a), the appointment and regulation of community and religious leaders (16b-18), social regulation (19-25), and confession of identity and loyalty (26).

From the same article:

Quote

Deuteronomy 21-25: Miscellaneous laws on civil and domestic life

Also, let's bring Deuteronomy 23:1 up here, just for the record:
http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/23-1.htm

I like this translation because it's simple, but if you feel it's inaccurate, feel free to change it:

Quote

If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

How is "the assembly of the LORD" a "public office"?

I am not ignoring, I didn't know you wanted to learn something. 

I wouldn't use Wiki as your reference for discussing books of the bible.  Do some more research.  The context of the verses were for public offices which at the time, were religious in nature.   

Try here. http://scott.sstibbs.com/2008_archives/blog_2008_050.html

I have read the Bible in two languages. I don't consider myself a guru on it, but I do know what Deut 23:1 was about. My research happens to confirm that the information on Wikipedia is accurate, which is why I felt safe to quote it. It also contains references you can verify yourself - no need to take my word for it!

The interpretation you've presented is very loose and goes directly against the wording used in most English translations of the Bible that I've checked. It is, however, commonly included in the comments section in re-printed Bibles nowadays.
Why am I supposed to trust some guy that came up with the interpretation 10 years ago, rather than trust the actual passage?

I will butt in here just long enough to say that I have read Deuteronomy/Devarim in the original language. I will respectfully disagree with whatever blog Wardogg referenced, but will defend him in part where our respective doctrines may overlap. The "assembly of the Lord" (kahal) in Devarim 23 is the "congregation" of the temple mount or tabernacle. Just as the rules of uncleanliness in later verses exclude the ceremonially unclean from even the encampment of Israel.
It is not speaking of "heaven" in any such sense. In fact, Judaism doesn't anticipate a "heaven" in quite the same sort of way as the modern Church has devised. Some difficulties may exist there for a fundamentalist Christian on bad doctrine, but not as many as I think you are (mis-)representing.
The temple/tabernacle was to be a symbol of the heavenly throne (and the Beit haMikdash hashalisi of the olam haba or Messianic Age). In this age there will be no one maimed, castrated, etc. The symbolism is that nothing unwhole is to exist in the olam haba. Much as a fundamentalist Christian would assume some sort of "perfection" in "heaven", I would assume.
The difficulties stem from a misunderstanding of uncleanliness. Ceremonial uncleanliness is not a sin. It is even a requirement to become unclean in certain circumstances. Even the High Priest is/was commanded to become unclean under some circumstances. Women are unclean routinely/monthly. It is nearly unavoidable in every day life. It is not at all a sin to be unclean, but it would be a sin to knowingly enter the inner temple while unclean.
Yeshayahu haNavi clearly declares that the eunuch and stranger (foreigner/gentile) who seek HaShem will have a place in the temple of the Messianic Age
So while I agree that Wardogg (and his blog) are wrong about the meaning of the phrase "assembly of HaShem", so are you.

I see your point. However, the Old Testament is considered an integral part of the Christian Bible, which does include the concept of heaven. As far a I know, the Old Testament didn't become any less the word of God throughout the ages, and the "assembly of the LORD" seems to have been... reformed, if you pardon the wording.

Note: I'm basing my claims on my past service in the Roman Catholic church (I was an altar boy, fun times), but it's been a long time since I have turned to atheism. I may very well be rusty on things, and there may be differences in the interpretations taught in different churches.

Thanks for clearing that up Ski.

As far a I know, the Old Testament didn't become any less the word of God throughout the ages

lol

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on November 14, 2011, 12:26:10 AM

As far a I know, the Old Testament didn't become any less the word of God throughout the ages

lol

We have to options to consider.

It's either:

BEFORE:
Lol not the word of God.

AFTER:
Lol not the word of God.

or:

BEFORE:
THIS IS ALL TRUE AND FACTUAL

AFTER:
THIS IS ALL TRUE AND FACTUAL

In either case, the Old Testament didn't become any less the word of God.

Both the New Testament and Old Testament are the word of God. Jesus often quotes the Old Testament.
 Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus tells everyone to Love God first, and your neighbor.On these 2 commandments hang all the law and prophets. The law  and the prophets is the Old testament.

Both the New Testament and Old Testament are the word of God. Jesus often quotes the Old Testament.

Yeah, that's very much how I remember it.

I was under the impression the Bible was physically written by man, it didn't fall from the heavens, right? Sure, God is infallible, but no man is. Assuming the idea of a Christian God is correct, still, how could one say with certainty the Bible is 100% the word of the man Himself?

Not to mention it's one huge translation party.