On the omniscience of God

Leatherneck

Well-known member
What you did was called "prooftexting."

You ripped a verse, no, a phrase from a verse out of context, and you demand that it supports your position, and I'm telling you that that won't fly for an argument.



I fully grasp what God said. He doesn't say "I do not change at all."
I change not pretty much says He doesn’t change.
 

Leatherneck

Well-known member
I'm literally telling you what God the Father does, and you're telling me I'm in error?

Get real.



God the Father is speaking in Matthew 3:16-17.

Not the Son.

God the Holy Spirit is descending like a dove in the same passage.

Not the Son.

You were saying?



I'm literally quoting a verse where God the Father is speaking IN HEAVEN, SHOING YOU THAT HE IS CHANGING! So WHAT IN THE WORLD IS YOUR POINT!?!?!
Your verse does NOT say God the Father changes. Where is God the Father speaking from there is your answer ?
 

Leatherneck

Well-known member
I'm literally telling you what God the Father does, and you're telling me I'm in error?

Get real.



God the Father is speaking in Matthew 3:16-17.

Not the Son.

God the Holy Spirit is descending like a dove in the same passage.

Not the Son.

You were saying?



I'm literally quoting a verse where God the Father is speaking IN HEAVEN, SHOING YOU THAT HE IS CHANGING! So WHAT IN THE WORLD IS YOUR POINT!?!?!
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 3:17 - And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my belovedSon, in whom I am well pleased. My point exactly God the unchanging Father spoke from heaven. Still not one verse saying God the Father changes not one.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I change not pretty much says He doesn’t change.

Except that God doesn't just say "I change not." He says it in the context of His righteous character and His commitment to His promises.

That should tell you something.

Your verse does NOT say God the Father changes.

Speaking is inherently a change.

First God wasn't speaking, then He spoke, then He ceased speaking.

He said, in order, "This," then "is," then "My," then "beloved," then "Son," then "in," then...

Do I need to go on?

Speaking is a change.

Where is God the Father speaking from there is your answer?

What does His location have to do with anything?

Mat 3:17 - And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Yes, that's God the Father speaking. Changing.

My point exactly God the unchanging Father

More question begging.

spoke from heaven.

Speaking is inherently a change.

Still not one verse saying God the Father changes not one.

You literally just got done quoting it.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I find it absolutely sad that men who follow God cannot believe a verse as plain as Malachi 3:6. I read the verse several times and it still says God doesn’t change no matter how many times I read it .Jesus never said it would be easy He did say it would be worth it.
This discussion reminds me of the verse in Hebrews.

Heb. 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I wonder if we can really comprehend our Great God and Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 14:
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I always consider the source, and you aren’t much of a source.
The source is irrelevant. I wasn't stating an opinion.

You come here and intentional ignore every argument made against your position and then when you finally succeed in getting someone to write your off as the waste of time that you are, you desire to stand with your shoulders back and proclaim that you've defended something.

Perhaps you're lying to both yourself and all of us but you are a liar by any definition.
 

Leatherneck

Well-known member
The source is irrelevant. I wasn't stating an opinion.

You come here and intentional ignore every argument made against your position and then when you finally succeed in getting someone to write your off as the waste of time that you are, you desire to stand with your shoulders back and proclaim that you've defended something.

Perhaps you're lying to both yourself and all of us but you are a liar by any definition.
Keep pounding your chest , but like I I said I always consider the source, and you aren’t much of a source.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Keep pounding your chest , but like I I said I always consider the source, and you aren’t much of a source.
The source is irrelevant. I wasn't stating an opinion.


You come here and intentional ignore every argument made against your position and then when you finally succeed in getting someone to write your off as the waste of time that you are, you desire to stand with your shoulders back and proclaim that you've defended something.


Perhaps you're lying to both yourself and all of us but you are a liar by any definition.
 

Leatherneck

Well-known member
The source is irrelevant. I wasn't stating an opinion.


You come here and intentional ignore every argument made against your position and then when you finally succeed in getting someone to write your off as the waste of time that you are, you desire to stand with your shoulders back and proclaim that you've defended something.


Perhaps you're lying to both yourself and all of us but you are a liar by any definition.
Your argument was not based on the context of the verses I posted and many times not in the context of the verses you posted. Of course the source is relevant. If the source ignores the context of scripture to me they are irrelevant.How many times have you told me bye or as you say written me off ? Your word is just about as good as your understanding of scripture.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Your argument was not based on the context of the verses I posted

Hypocrite!

and many times not in the context of the verses you posted.

All of our arguments so far have included the context of the scripture we've posted.

Of course the source is relevant.

This is called a genetic fallacy. It's a fallacy for a reason.

If the source ignores the context of scripture to me they are irrelevant.

Which is exactly why the source of something isn't relevant at all to whether something is true or not.

Thus, genetic fallacy.
 

Leatherneck

Well-known member
Hypocrite!



All of our arguments so far have included the context of the scripture we've posted.



This is called a genetic fallacy. It's a fallacy for a reason.



Which is exactly why the source of something isn't relevant at all to whether something is true or not.

Thus, genetic fallacy.
If the source changes the context of scripture,as was done in Malachi 3:6,they can claim victory,but they are still wrong.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
If the source changes the context of scripture,as was done in Malachi 3:6,they can claim victory,but they are still wrong.

No one has changed the context of scripture, LN. You're just ignoring it completely.
 
Top