The Bible: Lesson #3 Who is God? (continued...) Is God a Monster? (Paraphrased from a December 28, 2018 podcast by Dr. Michael Brown, in response to his being asked if God is an egotistical, megalomaniacal psychopath.) Some people characterize Yahweh, not as a loving God, but as a psychopathic deity, interpreting His message to humanity as, “Love Me or I will torment you for all eternity!” And if this were indeed an accurate characterization of God’s attitude, then yes, it would seem that God is, in natural terms, an egotistical, megalomaniacal psychopath. But the same Bible that calls for us to love God and tells us of the penalty of judgment also informs us that God’s love is expressed in His sending His Son to die for us sacrificially. So, if we want to know the character of God, we should look at Yeshua. When we do, what we see is an attitude of sacrifice for us—the disposition to give us the opposite of what we deserve. It is one of saying, “You’ve sinned and deserve judgment, but instead, I’m going to put that penalty on my Son so you can be free, and you will see the reward of His obedience.” When we see the character of God revealed, He is unbelievably loving, unbelievably merciful, and unbelievably long-suffering. Hence, a picture of Him as a maniacal despot cannot work. What we must ask is, “Is God showing us the path to life?” Could it be that God is showing us that the path to life is loving Him—that as we love Him, we find the path to life, but by rejecting Him, we go the way of self-destruction? Is it His mercy, and not His ego, that is calling us to Him? We are familiar with how many children think their parents are just killjoys. They think they are simply anti-fun. “Why are you trying to take away my fun? Why can’t I go out and hang out with my friends and party?” Of course, the reason is because there are negative consequences to it. So, the parents say, “Look, do what we are saying, and you will not be punished.” The parents’ goal is not to harm the child. The punishment is a deterrent from doing wrong, and the rules are there to keep them on a path of life. When we love God (and God doesn’t coerce or force us) we find the path of life and blessing. When we reject Him, we go the way of death and destruction. It’s not a matter of God threatening, “I am going to torment you forever if you don’t love Me,” as much as it is God saying, “Here is the path to life. There is the path to death. Which will you choose?” And then, because we always choose wrong in ourselves, He sends His Son on that path of death for us so that we can find the path of life. If God is a psychopath, why did He send His Son to die for our sins so we could be forgiven? Why didn’t He just laugh from heaven, “Ah, you are all going to rot and I’m going to enjoy it!” What He did was the opposite of a psychopath. If in fact we are eternal souls, if God created us to be eternal, then if we reject Him forever, then we are lost forever. That is just a consequence of our actions. The God that sent Jesus into the world is not a monster. He only does what is right and good, so that if we were standing before Him, face to face with our heads clear, we would suddenly change our tune and affirm the rightness of His actions.
%% That; + when/if the police arrest some one. Its best not to run away; FOX news reported a NJ woman did that + got hit by an auto...……………………………………………………………………...………………………………………………………………...
The Bible: Lesson #3 (continued...) How does a triangle reflect the Trinity? A triangle is one geometric shape—one geometric unit—but it has three sides. The triangle is the most basic geometric shape. If you take away one side, you can no longer make any kind of shape. God is not three gods in a cluster. That would be tritheism, and the Bible never teaches this. Rather, the three “whos,” Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, form a single “what”—God. It’s not a cluster. It’s more like a unit—a single entity of the same essence, a single “what” consisting of three “whos.” Though there are three personal “subsistences” (as they are called) with each having his own center of consciousness, his own self-awareness, each being an “I” in relation to the other two “yous,” they are all of the exact same “God stuff,” each one sharing fully in the divine essence, of the full substance of God, along with the other two—the same attributes, characteristics, qualities, power, etc. They are always together and always cooperating, with the Father directing, the Son agreeing, and the Spirit carrying out the desires and wishes of both the Father and the Son, which are his desires and wishes as well. And God is not one person playing three roles either. That would be modalism, something else that the Bible never teaches. There are three...personal, coequal, and coeternal.
The Bible: Lesson #3 The Trinity. There is only one God, which is 3 Gods, which are all the same, except the're all different, but they're not, 'cause there is only one. If it isn't ridiculous, it isn't religion.
Many people believe it to be blasphemy to suggest that God is triune in nature. However, the very first page of the Bible states that God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” So, if there is no complexity in God’s unity, why did Yahweh use a plural verb when making this statement in Hebrew? Many Christians interpret this as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, including me. The criticism of this view however is that it imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. But the entire New Testament more-or-less constitutes the imposition of many different concepts on ancient Scripture. So then, there is no more reason for me to reject the notion of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit as there is the idea that Yeshua Hamashiach is to be seen in such objects, people, or events as a rock, a brazen serpent mounted on a pole, temple sacrifices, or King Melchizedek. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but according to netbible.com, the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. The site goes on to say that C. Westermann argues for a plural of deliberation, but his proposed examples of this use do not actually support his theory. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court, with the most well-known members of this court being angels. But how can it be that God’s messengers participated in creating humankind? Moreover, the image of God is closely associated with rulership, whereas the angels are mere servants (if one can use the word “mere” when referring to angels). So how is it that mankind is made in the image of angels if people are to have dominion over all the earth? John writes that... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. And the book of Genesis informs us that... In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. So God, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God were all there in the beginning, and all participated in the creation of the universe.