Jim B
Well-Known Member
I won't reply to the first part of your post. Your numerology hobby might keep you amused but it makes no sense to me. BTW, "numerology" is defined as "the study of mystical relationships between numbers, letters, and patterns." And "occult" is a defined as "supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena." IMHO, both apply. I have no further interest in your hobby.Dictonary.com definition for ‘numerology’: the study of numbers, as the figures designating the year of one’s birth, to determine their supposed influence on one’s life, future, etc.
Merriam Dictonary defines ‘numerology’ as the study of the occult significance of numbers.
So if you want to continually falsely accuse me of believing something I don't believe in, you can keep bashing me instead of discussing Biblical numerics (Which is not the same thing as numerology, a.k.a. occult numerology).
If you want to keep falsely accusing me of something I don't believe in, then I will just ignore your posts and refer the general reader back to this post.
So you are saying that the Word made flesh (a change in the creation by God Himself) was not a change?
This would mean that you are suggesting that the Incarnation did not happen with Mary who was a virgin, and the Word was flesh from eternity's past. Is that what you are saying? If that is not what you are saying then how do you explain how God joined human flesh (a change)?
In other words, I see how God does not change in context to His behavior and promises. This does not mean God cannot do new things with His creation. Why are we under a New Covenant? Is not the New Covenant a change in how God operates with mankind now (vs. the Old Covenant)? Think.
If you don't understand what I have written then say so. Your comment that I am saying that the Word made flesh (a change in the creation by God Himself) was not a change and that I am suggesting that the Incarnation did not happen with Mary who was a virgin, and the Word was flesh from eternity's past clearly shows that you're not understanding what I have said.
God is eternal and unchanging. Do you really disagree with that? Here is what John had to say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." It seems quite clear to me. Jesus was present from the beginning of creation, created the world, and is God eternal. God can appear in various forms, for example a burning bush and a human (at least three times!). (I won't give you the Scriptural references. Look them up yourself!) That doesn't mean that He has changed, buthow He chose to appear to people at various times. You wrote, "I see how God does not change in context to His behavior and promises", but you can't see how He can appear in different forms? Amazing!
And ending with "Think" is judgmental and unnecessary. It is the last resort when someone has lost the argument. I forgive you.