u/Iknowreligionalot

I asked why three persons sharing the same essence equals one being with god while with everything else it equals three beings, and was told that although normally three persons equals three beings because everything’s nature/essence is divisible, for god it’s one being despite there being three persons because god’s nature/essence is indivisible. So in light of that, what evidence is there in the Bible that god’s nature/essence is indivisible?

A father must always be a separate being from his son or else the distinction between father and son is meaningless. If a single being is somebody’s father he can’t also be his own son, and if a being is somebody’s son he can’t also be his own father.

It is a logical impossibility for a father to be his own son and for a son to be his own father.

By definition, a father precedes the existence of his son, it is a logical impossibility for something to eternally precede something else because if it came before that thing then there must have been a point in time where the thing it preceded did not exist, but eternality entails that both things have always existed, therefore one could not exist before the other. It does not matter whether you call these two things persons, natures, essences or beings, so long as they exist the conclusion still stands.

X=Father
Y=Son

X must precede Y in order for their titles as father and son to have any significant meaning.

But if X precedes Y then X must have existed before Y at some point in time.

And if X existed before Y at some point in time then X cannot be Y.

Think of it like a single being arriving at a store,
he cannot arrive before he has already arrived because the second he arrives this means he arrived,
so whoever arrives after him cannot be him because he has already arrived, he cannot arrive while he has already arrived and is present in the store and hasn’t left. This is why if X preceded Y it cannot be Y.

A father must always be a separate being from his son or else the distinction between father and son is meaningless. If a single being is somebody’s father he can’t also be his own son, and if a being is somebody’s son he can’t also be his own father.

It is a logical impossibility for a father to be his own son and for a son to be his own father.

By definition, a father precedes the existence of his son, it is a logical impossibility for something to eternally precede something else because if it came before that thing then there must have been a point in time where the thing it preceded did not exist, but eternality entails that both things have always existed, therefore one could not exist before the other. It does not matter whether you call these two things persons, natures, essences or beings, so long as they exist the conclusion still stands.

X=Father
Y=Son

X must precede Y in order for their titles as father and son to have any significant meaning.

But if X precedes Y then X must have existed before Y at some point in time.

And if X existed before Y at some point in time then X cannot be Y.

Think of it like a single being arriving at a store,
he cannot arrive before he has already arrived because the second he arrives this means he arrived,
so whoever arrives after him cannot be him because he has already arrived, he cannot arrive while he has already arrived and is present in the store and hasn’t left. This is why if X preceded Y it cannot be Y.

This a contradiction and therefore the Bible cannot be from god in its entirety.

In **Isaiah 40:28** it says god will not grow tired or weary.

But in **Exodus 31:17** it says he was refreshed after resting from creating the universe,

**Exodus 31:17:** It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’ ”

**and was refreshed.’”**
וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ׃ (way·yin·nā·p̄aš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
[Strong's 5314:](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs\_5314.htm) To breathe, refreshed הַשְּׁבִיעִ**֔י שָׁ****ב**ַ֖ת וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ׃ ס

That verse uses the same “refresh” word used in these verses:

**Exodus 23:12**
“Six days do your **work**, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may **rest**, and so that the slave born in your household and the foreigner living among you may be **refreshed**.

(This verse has the same exact concept of the verse and even uses the same words, it’s the concept of six days of work, then rest from that work because of weariness, and then being refreshed because of the rest).

**may be refreshed,**
וְיִנָּפֵ֥שׁ (wə·yin·nā·p̄êš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Conjunctive imperfect - third person masculine singular
[Strong's 5314:](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs\_5314.htm) To breathe, refreshed

**2 Samuel 16:14**
The king and all the people with him arrived at their destination **exhausted**. And there he **refreshed** himself.
(The king is weary and then refreshes himself, this explicitly connects exhaustion to the refreshed word).

**he refreshed himself.**
וַיִּנָּפֵ֖שׁ (way·yin·nā·p̄êš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
[Strong's 5314:](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs\_5314.htm) To breathe, refreshed
———————-

**Conclusion:** This is a contradiction, either god does not grow tired and weary or he does. I’ve shown that all the words mean exaclty as the translation translates them so no one can say, “well the translators were just joking around”, and I’ve shown an explicit connection between weariness and refreshment logically, conceptually and linguistically.

**Possible rebuttal:** Someone might say this is a metaphor, but if this is a metaphor and not a contradiction,

1. then no single text in the world can be said to have a contradiction because any apparent contradiction could just be called a metaphor.

2. Secondly, nothing in the text indicates it is a metaphor, especially considering the Israelites were supposed to do exactly what god did, in the sense of ceasing work after a week of working in order to be refreshed from their weariness.

3. Thirdly, if it is a metaphor, then why stop there? Why not assume the creation of the heavens and the earth in seven days is a metaphor? That’s more worthy of being a metaphor.

4. Fourthly, the only real way to tell whether something is literal or a metaphor is by how ridiculous it would be if the phrase were taken literally, so for example if I said, “bob hurt himself”, there’s no indication that is a metaphor because it is normal and expected that bob could have hurt himself before, nothing is nonsensical or exaggerated about the phrase when taken literally. But if I were to say, “bob killed himself making those burgers” while bob was still alive, that would clearly be a metaphor because it would be weird, unexpected and nonsensical if someone killed themselves in the process of making burgers, especially if they were still alive in the moment the statement was said. Similarly, if god says he rested after a week’s work of creating and was refreshed, it is not a metaphor because it is expected and normal that after the hard work of a week’s worth of creation work, a rest day would follow and refreshment would come because of the resting, it’s normal and expected that at the excessive expenditure of energy resting would follow and that resting would lead to the replenishment of that energy in refreshment.

There’s nothing wrong with god ceasing from work, but to call that ceasing from work “resting” like how a jogger takes a break from jogging, and to imply that resting refreshed god is just nonsense.

And ask yourself, if someone with a completely unbiased perspective on this, with no horse in this race, were to observe it, would they consider it a contradiction or would they use whatever rebuttal you are going to use?

Or consider if you found this contradiction in the religious text of a religion you didn’t belong to, would you accept the argument you are about to make in response to my post from someone of that religion if they made that same argument to you in defense of the contradiction?

This a contradiction and therefore the Bible cannot be from god in its entirety.

In Isaiah 40:28 it says god will not grow tired or weary.

But in Exodus 31:17 it says he was refreshed after resting from creating the universe,

Exodus 31:17: It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’ ”

and was refreshed.’”
וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ׃ (way·yin·nā·p̄aš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 5314: To breathe, refreshed הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י שָׁ****בַ֖ת וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ׃ ס

That verse uses the same “refresh” word used in these verses:

Exodus 23:12
“Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and so that the slave born in your household and the foreigner living among you may be refreshed.

(This verse has the same exact concept of the verse and even uses the same words, it’s the concept of six days of work, then rest from that work because of weariness, and then being refreshed because of the rest).

may be refreshed,
וְיִנָּפֵ֥שׁ (wə·yin·nā·p̄êš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Conjunctive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 5314: To breathe, refreshed

2 Samuel 16:14
The king and all the people with him arrived at their destination exhausted. And there he refreshed himself.
(The king is weary and then refreshes himself, this explicitly connects exhaustion to the refreshed word).

he refreshed himself.
וַיִּנָּפֵ֖שׁ (way·yin·nā·p̄êš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 5314: To breathe, refreshed
———————-

Conclusion: This is a contradiction, either god does not grow tired and weary or he does. I’ve shown that all the words mean exaclty as the translation translates them so no one can say, “well the translators were just joking around”, and I’ve shown an explicit connection between weariness and refreshment logically, conceptually and linguistically.

Possible rebuttal: Someone might say this is a metaphor, but if this is a metaphor and not a contradiction,

1. then no single text in the world can be said to have a contradiction because any apparent contradiction could just be called a metaphor.

2. Secondly, nothing in the text indicates it is a metaphor, especially considering the Israelites were supposed to do exactly what god did, in the sense of ceasing work after a week of working in order to be refreshed from their weariness.

3. Thirdly, if it is a metaphor, then why stop there? Why not assume the creation of the heavens and the earth in seven days is a metaphor? That’s more worthy of being a metaphor.

4. Fourthly, the only real way to tell whether something is literal or a metaphor is by how ridiculous it would be if the phrase were taken literally, so for example if I said, “bob hurt himself”, there’s no indication that is a metaphor because it is normal and expected that bob could have hurt himself before, nothing is nonsensical or exaggerated about the phrase when taken literally. But if I were to say, “bob killed himself making those burgers” while bob was still alive, that would clearly be a metaphor because it would be weird, unexpected and nonsensical if someone killed themselves in the process of making burgers, especially if they were still alive in the moment the statement was said. Similarly, if god says he rested after a week’s work of creating and was refreshed, it is not a metaphor because it is expected and normal that after the hard work of a week’s worth of creation work, a rest day would follow and refreshment would come because of the resting, it’s normal and expected that at the excessive expenditure of energy resting would follow and that resting would lead to the replenishment of that energy in refreshment.

There’s nothing wrong with god ceasing from work, but to call that ceasing from work “resting” like how a jogger takes a break from jogging, and to imply that resting refreshed god is just nonsense.

And ask yourself, if someone with a completely unbiased perspective on this, with no horse in this race, were to observe it, would they consider it a contradiction or would they use whatever rebuttal you are going to use?

Or consider if you found this contradiction in the religious text of a religion you didn’t belong to, would you accept the argument you are about to make in response to my post from someone of that religion if they made that same argument to you in defense of the contradiction?

God explicitly denies being a man in the OT, but Christians insist that a man was god, therefore Christianity cannot be from the god of the OT

In numbers 23:19 it says, “god is not a man that he should lie, not a man that he should change his mind”.

In 1 Samuel 15:29 it says, “**He** who is the Glory of Israel does not **lie** or change his mind; for **he** is not a human being, **that** **he** **should** change his mind.”

In Hosea 11:9 he says, “for I am god and not a man”,

Hosea 11:9
I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I devastate Ephraim again.
For I am God, and not a man—
the Holy One among you.
I will not come against their cities.

And in Malachi 3:6 he says, “I the Lord do not change.”

So if god says he is not a man, and he also says he does not change, this means he will never become a man.

Despite all of this, Christians insist that god is a man, therefore the Christian religion cannot be from the god of the Hebrew Bible.

Some rebuttals:

1. Someone may say I’m taking all the verses out of context, so please show how its context nullifies god’s claim that he is not a man. Also, religious Jews use this verse to debunk Christianity, does this mean every single religious Jew managed to misunderstand these verses and take them out of context?
2. Someone may say that the point of the passages were to say that god doesn’t lie or change his mind rather than proving he wasn’t a man.
3. This doesn’t matter, god makes a claim in those passages, whether the purpose of the passage is focused on that claim is irrelevant, if I say, “I am not an idiot that I should say dumb things”, just because the purpose of me saying that is to tell people that I don’t say dumb things, doesn’t change the fact that I claimed to not be an idiot, the greater goal of my statement does not nullify the claim made in the statement.

I would essentially be saying, “Idiots say dumb things, I am not an idiot therefore I do not say dumb things”, and this is the same thing god is saying about being a man, he is saying,” humans lie and change their mind, I am not a human therefore I do not lie or change my mind”.

Also the Hosea verse has god himself explicitly claiming not to be a man without any follow up claim, so even if that rebuttal was valid it still wouldn’t apply to the Hosea verse.

In numbers 23:19 it says, “god is not a man that he should lie, not a man that he should change his mind”.

In 1 Samuel 15:29 it says, “He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

In Hosea 11:9 he says, “for I am god and not a man”,

Hosea 11:9
I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I devastate Ephraim again.
For I am God, and not a man—
the Holy One among you.
I will not come against their cities.

And in Malachi 3:6 god says,”I the Lord do not change.”

If god says he is not a man, and he also says he does not change, this means he will never become a man.

Despite all of this, Christians insist that god is a man, therefore the Christian religion cannot be from the god of the Hebrew Bible.

Some rebuttals:

1. Someone may say I’m taking all the verses out of context, so please show how its context nullifies god’s claim that he is not a man. Also, religious Jews use this verse to debunk Christianity, does this mean every single religious Jew managed to misunderstand these verses and take them out of context?
2. Someone may say that the point of the passages were to say that god doesn’t lie or change his mind rather than proving he wasn’t a man.
3. This doesn’t matter, god makes a claim in those passages, whether the purpose of the passage is focused on that claim is irrelevant, if I say, “I am not an idiot that I should say dumb things”, just because the purpose of me saying that is to tell people that I don’t say dumb things, doesn’t change the fact that I claimed to not be an idiot, the greater goal of my statement does not nullify the claim made in the statement.

I would essentially be saying, “Idiots say dumb things, I am not an idiot therefore I do not say dumb things”, and this is the same thing god is saying about being a man, he is saying,” humans lie and change their mind, I am not a human therefore I do not lie or change my mind”.

Also the Hosea verse has god himself explicitly claiming not to be a man without any follow up claim, so even if that rebuttal was valid it still wouldn’t apply to the Hosea verse.

Jesus cannot be god because god is all-knowing at all times yet Jesus claimed the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds on earth when it isn’t.

There are many other smaller seeds, one of which being orchid seeds.

Matthew 13:31-32 (NIV): "He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds…".

Mark 4:30-32 (NIV): "...It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth".

Jesus cannot be god because god is all-knowing at all times yet Jesus claimed the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds on earth when it isn’t.

Matthew 13:31-32 (NIV): "He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds…".
Mark 4:30-32 (NIV): "...It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth".

There are many other smaller seeds, one of which being orchid seeds.

In hebrews 7:1-3 Melchizedek is described as being “without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.”

This means that either:

A: the attribute of having no beginning or end isn’t solely for god, thus making Jesus without any claim to divinity since his strongest claim to godhood was his declaration of being “the first and the last” in the book of revelation, which is a name only god can have.

Or

B: Jesus is god because of his claim of eternality, but Melchizedek is also god because of his Eternality. This would be polytheism.

Common rebuttals:

1. Some may say that Melchizedek is actually a pre-incarnate Jesus, but this can’t be true because the text says he resembles the son of god because of his eternality, this means that he can’t be the son of god (Jesus).

2. Another rebuttal is that he’s actually an angel, but the problem with that is angels have a beginning, they are created, they have a point where they start to exist from non-existence, but Melchizedek doesn’t. Also, there’s nothing in the text that suggests angelic origin.

3. Another rebuttal is that the author is just making a joke about his lack of a genealogy record, this is just illogical, there’s nothing indicating he is not being literal. In fact, by mentioning his lack of genealogy the text is making an even stronger case that this is actually some other-worldly eternal character, and it’s clear they are trying to make him out to be this other-worldly character in order to compare Jesus to him.