The Constancy Of Christ

Of all the things we talk about at Christmas, my guess is that the constancy of God is not high on the list. But maybe it should be.

First, what do I mean by “constancy”? Nothing tricky. I’m not trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat here. I mean just what the good ol’ Oxford American Dictionary has to say about the word: “the quality of being faithful and dependable.
• the quality of being enduring and unchanging”

Second, we need to understand who we’re talking about. “Christ” is another word for “Messiah,” the one promised by God. And in fact, Jesus and His followers identified Him as the Christ. But more than that, they proclaimed Him to be the Son of God. And more. They stated that He “existed in the form of God,” that in Him “all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form,” that He “is the head over all rule and authority.”

We could write it like this: Messiah=Christ=Jesus=Son of God=God. Consequently, in declaring the constancy of Christ, it’s really another way of saying the constancy of God.

God, though a triune being, is One in purpose, One in essence, One in nature. In other words, we can’t divide God and say, well, the Father is like xyz but the Son is like abc. No. Jesus Himself stipulated, if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.

There are several reasons why the constancy of Christ matters. First, some “progressive Christians” and atheists claim that the God of the Old Testament was all kinds of evil things: misogynist, genocidal, selfish, and more. But Jesus, they say, was better. The supposed Christians imagine that God learned from His mistakes, or that the writers of the Old Testament got it wrong, or some other inane explanation. Because, you see, they like Jesus; they just can’t stomach His Father.

Enter the constancy of Christ.

“Jesus is the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). What God reveals about Himself in the Old Testament is true about Jesus and what Jesus said about Himself in the New Testament is true about the Father. There is no “good cop, bad cop” here.

Here’s the important point: Jesus self-identifies in John 10 as “the good shepherd.” Good. He doesn’t do evil. In fact, James says, “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone” (1:13b) and, “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow” (1:17).

In other words, God is all about good. He’s also holy and pure, spotless and unblemished. All that adds up to the fact that God isn’t anything like the description put out by those who oppose Him or who criticize Him.

The problem largely stems from God’s authority and His sovereignty and His omniscience. These are traits His opponents don’t recognize. Instead, they want to be the ones in charge, and they want to depend on their own finite knowledge. Consequently, they want to judge God. They want to determine that the people who died in the flood, for instance, were innocent, and not the guilty, wayward, wicked people the Bible describes.

More than that, they want to deny the fact that “the wages of sin is death” and that “there is none righteous, no not one.” This is somehow a horrible thing to tell people, even though the nightly news confers the truth of it, and as yet no one in modern times has escaped death.

Ironically I had a crisis of doubt in my life when I was in my 30s or so, and it centered on the goodness of God. I looked around at the things that were going on in the world, in the lives of people close to me, and I asked, right out loud, “Are you good, God? Are you really good?”

All this came to a head when I drove past a convalescent hospital where an old woman sat on the sidewalk out front, alone in a wheelchair.

God didn’t tell me that of course He was good, how could I ask such a thing. He didn’t bring Scripture to mind that told me He was good. Instead, He spoke into my spirit: “You think you’re sad about these hurting people? I know each one by name.”

In other words, because God is good, the evil and pain and suffering of this world grieves His heart. Sin did this, not God. Sin made a mess of the world, not God. Sin brings retribution down on those who run from God.

And that’s precisely what we can see in Jesus:

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus didn’t bring judgment because that was already in place—the wages of sin didn’t start when Jesus showed up. It’s right there in the genealogy of Genesis 5:

So . . . Adam lived . . ., and he died. Seth lived . . ., and he died. Enosh lived . . ., and he died. Kenan lived . . ., and he died. Mahalalel lived . . ., and he died. Jared lived . . ., and he died.

On it goes with the exception of Enoch, demonstrating the truth about sin. It leads to death.

But Jesus came to set us free from the “slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” He did this because He is good, He is love, He is merciful, He is compassionate, He is kind.

“But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us.”

And here’s the startling fact: salvation was something God planned before the foundation of the world.

So, no, He hasn’t changed. And Jesus isn’t a different iteration of the Father. In fact, we can count on the constancy of Christ.


  1. You claim “In other words, God is all about good. He’s also holy and pure, spotless and unblemished. All that adds up to the fact that God isn’t anything like the description put out by those who oppose Him or who criticize Him.”

    To tell the truth Becky I do not criticise any gods because they do not exist or do anything, I do criticise the man made Christian God by the way he is perceived by the faithful and argue the fact that he does not exist.

    Your view “They want to determine that the people who died in the flood, for instance, were innocent, and not the guilty, wayward, wicked people the Bible describes.”

    I do not believe this event happened or that God exists, but if he did exist there is no excuse I can find for the mass execution of any people. Would you have all the criminals in prison executed along with their children and wives because they are wayward, wicked people?

    Your beliefs “In other words, because God is good, the evil and pain and suffering of this world grieves His heart. Sin did this, not God. Sin made a mess of the world, not God. Sin brings retribution down on those who run from God.”

    I understand your emotional frame of mind when you write from your heart about your beliefs, however I would like to open your eyes to the reasons behind these feel good emotions and I must admit I feel guilty in trying to burst your bubble, but if you are really serious about absolute truth and I think you should be, please take some time out and read some scientific information that you would traditionally avoid.

    “Humans suppress areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage the parts responsible for empathy in order to believe in god, research suggests.”


    • Nothing you say here is proof of anything. You are simply stating your opinion, most clearly stated when you said, “I do ‘t believe this event happened or that God exists.” In other words, you simply dismiss God and the events recorded in Scripture because you want to. You ignore clear evidence—apparently not even reading the record you say you don’t put any stock in. That’s not convincing, Steve. I am much more interested in someone’s views who actually knows what Christians believe and find it objectionable. I see nothing here but you reiterating that you’ve decided it “just ain’t so.” Not good enough, Steve. Your opinion over God’s knowledge? I’ll side with God every time. 😉


      Liked by 1 person

    • Oh, I forgot to respond to this article you linked to. Steve, it is rubbish. The article starts out saying the “research suggests,” meaning someone has interpreted the data this way. It’s the conclusion, not the science that is the problem.

      The article then goes on to talk about a leap of faith and such which I have said repeatedly, do not describe the experience of many Christians I know. It simply is in error, so the conclusions are meaningless.

      Later the writer quotes Dr. Jack as saying, “And that may be the key . . .” (emphasis mine.) In other words, there are no facts here, just somebody’s speculation.

      The worst sentence is the one that contains this: “. . . the brain has an analytical network of neurons that enables humans think [sic] critically and a social network to empathise [sic]. ” I think the writer needs to tap into the analytical network a little more so that his thoughts are cogent!

      Steve, I think you’re much brighter than to fall for this kind of propaganda.



      • You say, “You ignore clear evidence”

        If there was clear evidence Becky I would not be debating with you.

        You are very quick of the mark to call the link rubbish and believe it is just opinion and propaganda. Dr Tony Jack is respected as an expert in this field and if you check out where he explores the question of whether or not a scientist can be religious in his 2015 TEDxCLE talk. I think you may be pleasantly surprised at the conclusions are from his research, that is actually real research, not opinion and he puts religion in a good light. Watch it right through and I think you will be bright enough to realise you made a hasty judgement.

        The other expert mentioned on that same link Richard Eleftherios Boyatzis is an American organizational theorist and Distinguished University Professor of Organizational Behaviour, Psychology, and Cognitive Science at Case Western Reserve University.

        You must realise I post links that generally have a good record of credibility and I always check that the information is repeated on certain trustworthy sites and the people quoted in the articles are real qualified people. This link has proven to be creditable with this article and I have proven that.


        • Steve, the evidence IS clear if you didn’t dismiss it out of hand for being, you know, religious, or advocating for God, or declaring the existence of the supernatural. Seriously. I don’t know how you can accept as true, facts about someone like Socrates and then doubt the existence of God. There are far more people living and recorded in the Bible and in other places that have had encounters with God than those who had encounters with Socrates. But Socrates you believe existed, God you don’t think there’s enough evidence.

          I don’t doubt that Dr. Jack is respected in his field, Steve. But he makes claims about belief that are rubbish. For example he said “. . . the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and emotional insight.” But I have repeatedly told you that Christians rarely, if ever, consider believe in God to be a “leap of faith.” That phrase simply does not identify the faith I hold. To suggest that I push aside my analytical thinking is to say that I am not myself. Of course I use my analytical skills when it comes to belief in God. That’s who I am! I don’t stop thinking in order that I can believe. No more than you do, Steve, since you also believe—just in different principles supported by different sources,

          Which brings up the final point. Because you trust a site, Steve, doesn’t mean I do. It’s the nature of things. How can I trust someone’s opinion who starts out by ruling out the existence of God?



          • I do not believe I dismiss anything out of hand. You say the evidence is clear Becky, however I have looked for years for something evidential that has substance and still come up with zero, therefore I base my decisions on something more tangible than a copy of an old holly book. I do for example have a spiritual awareness as I do meditate mostly for health and concentration reasons. The beauty about this practice is that I understand it is my brain that controls these states of mind.

            Even if the supernatural world did exist in another dimension and people really had seen ghosts of their long dead uncles I could not find any connection to these claims that any God exists. Even if science cannot explain everything such as how the universe was formed it does not automatically mean we should revert to a god existing and zapping everything into place.

            Before Darwin and evolution, it was claimed the Christian God created the animals and everything as they are today, and humans bore no relation to any animals, but of course the genetic revolution has reinforced biological evolutionary principles and these discoveries are now at the core of medical innovations that have benefitted all religious believers as much as non-believers.

            I do not think you understand the big picture of Dr Jack’s comment? “belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and emotional insight.”

            It is very frustrating when science has delivered so much for the human race, especially in the field of medicines and surgical procedure and technology ensuring more lives can be saved and improved, and then these men and women who have been at the forefront of these amazing innovations and the medical people who utilise them are swept aside and told that God is responsible and decides who are to die or be saved through prayers and miracles with claims that evolution is not true and scientists lie about it to close down Christianity, the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, dinosaurs lived with people, people can be possessed by demons, your babies foreskin must be removed and if you are a woman know your place in society as God has decreed and all sinners are condemned to hell and many more ridiculous ideas.

            If these kinds of beliefs are not mostly fantasy, unsupported by critical analysis of current evidence, I do not know what is.


          • Steve, I’m sure you think you don’t dismiss the idea of God’s existence out of hand. But you’re looking for evidence in all the wrong places. If you really are serious, you’ll pick up a Bible and read the primary source—not the stuff that people say about God, but what claims to be from God Himself. It really is the only thing that makes sense.

            “it was claimed the Christian God created…, and humans bore no relation to any animals” Who said that? No one I know. What the Bible teaches is that God breathed life into Man, which most Bible scholars understand as the act of making humans unique by giving us souls.

            The real question is, since chimps and humans share 99% of the same DNA, why can we do higher thinking and they don’t? Why do we worship? Make science? Think philosophically?

            Much of what you say is so frustrating shows that you don’t understand Christianity. I will say again, I don’t hate science. I think science is a result of Christians who want to know more about God’s work in the world and what He created. But honest inquiry means that there could be various interpretations. You and other atheists want to say there’s only ONE way to look at things. Well, here’s another. Just suppose God created the world. Of those things He made are trees. What if you cut down one of those brand new, just created trees and found rings in the wood, rings that we understand to indicate a full year of growth. So is the tree a day old or several decades old as the rings suggest? You have to decide which you’re going to trust, but to say that someone who takes the opposite position from yours is not being foolish or disingenuous and is not even ignoring what you are believing. Rather, when it comes to the age of the earth, the ways scientists use to date things simply isn’t necessarily applicable. That’s one example. There are bunches of these kinds of debatable events which atheists simply say are not debatable. Because they first sweep away the If statement—If God created . . . When you do that you narrow the discussion.

            Besides, all these things you say are unsupported by critical analysis of current evidence? Not really true. Here’s another video which I hope you watch because it puts to rest this idea that belief in a young earth is necessarily fantasy and unsupported. BTW, I’m not convinced the earth is young or old. Scripture uses the word “day” before God created the sun, so that makes me think He wasn’t necessarily talking about a 24 hour period. AND Scripture says to God a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. So, the age of the earth? I think discussing it is informative.



          • Becky, if I do not understand Christianity, you do not understand science. Scientific evidence is exactly that “evidence” the Bible is not evidence for the existence of a god, it is an old book written well before modern scientific explanations but written during times of worshipping many gods to explain the worlds natural events.

            Science is a knowledge system, not a faith system so why would you doubt what science says about tree rings? You may not hate science, but science is not a commodity available to pick and choose what you agree or disagree with just because it either supports or contradicts your faith in the Bible.

            Dating the Earth is not debatable for the exact reasons of evidence. Scientists use radiometric dating of various sorts of rock around the world, both earthly and extra-terrestrial supported by fossil records. All scientists believe the planet to be about 4.54 billion years old and it is only rejected by creationists of the young Earth variety.

            The controversy about the day being either 24 hours or a thousand years is one good reason to understand just how inaccurate and wild the translations and interpretations are.

            Thank you for the video link, I watched the whole thing and he has some theories that may be very factual, however the same effects that he explained does not take away from the fact the same effects on Mount St. Helens also happened many millions of years ago, therefore this does not debunk the age of the Grand Canyon. Read this for the facts.


            The talk about Peat was interesting, however he did not produce a piece of coal from that swamp and he never will. Read this to understand why.



          • Steve, there’s no correlation between my knowledge of science and yours of the Bible. I studied science in school, have read the articles you linked to, watched various videos, read articles in newspapers and the internet. Just because I don’t agree with all the conclusions of an atheist does not mean I am unaware of what the science is behind their opinion.

            Unfortunately, you apparently think you can know all about Christianity without reading the primary source. That frankly is poor scholarship! Here’s one line from you that shows what I mean: “…written during times of worshipping many gods to explain the worlds natural events.” The Bible was not written to explain the world’s natural events! It never even suggests that’s the reason for its existence, but you would know that if you’d read it.

            Steve, science is certainly not a closed system. Many scientists themselves debate this or that part of what has been “discovered.” They certainly debate what it all means. For example, when DNA was first discovered, the experts said that most of the code was “junk.” But now they know this isn’t the case. So the existence of the DNA code was accurate, the conclusion that most of it was junk, was not accurate.

            If you cared about science, Steve, then why wouldn’t you want to explore all the possibilities of that science? And yes, God is most certainly a viable option. No one has ever given any evidence to rule Him out.

            I know, the atheist party line is that there’s no evidence for Him. But what if the very science you look at is itself that evidence you claim does not exist?

            Explore that idea for a bit.

            “Dating the Earth is not debatable for the exact reasons of evidence.” I don’t know how you could say that if you did watch the video, Steve. Clearly it IS debatable. The EVIDENCE in our lifetime, complete with film and pictures, shows that the earth can and has formed because of cataclysmic events, not slow development. If that one site, why not others? Saying, well, it didn’t, is no answer!

            As far as the day and a thousand years, you must have missed the part that says, to God a day is like a thousand years. God is outside time and space, so He’s not limited by those and He doesn’t have to use our way of measuring. But see, you’d have to believe that God exists to understand this.

            I’ll read these articles, Steve, if you read the first three chapters of the book of John. Or the first three chapters of Genesis.



          • Who has not studied science at school Becky? Understanding of the scientific process is critical. Science does not get things wrong because nothing is ever permanently finalised in science, the theories and speculations of various scientists may be broadcast by the media and websites, however the door is always open for new or contrary evidence, such as in the DNA codes that is such a new field in biology.

            This is evident when creationists claim they have evidence contrary to scientific results. They and anybody can submit a paper to be peer reviewed and published in one of the scientific journals.

            Of course, scientists debate the scientific principles of many things, however a dedicated scientist is not going to be driven to argue in support of an agenda such as political gains, reward or religious ideology.

            I don’t think you understood what I said, I did not disagree with the Mount St. Helens video, however what he says could be true and have formed as fast as he believes it happened but regularly for billions of years, therefore, please tell me how does this event have an effect on the age of the Earth? The age of the earth is currently determined by the dating of the world’s oldest mineral, a 4.4 billion-year-old zircon located at Jack Hills, Australia.

            The events he is talking about are not relevant unless he has submitted his work. Obviously, he has no confidence in his theory, has not presented it or it has been rejected by his colleagues and peers.

            I understand “to God a day is like a thousand years. God is outside time and space” etc. Why do I have to believe anything to understand this concept? The simple fact is I do not believe anything, or anybody exists like this, and neuroscience is fast explaining just where this God and all gods really exist.

            You once said God created all the other gods worshipped by man, tell me how do you know this and why would a God who will kill people for worshipping another god and make it one of the ten commandments do this? (Deuteronomy 13:12-19)

            I spent time watching your video, you owe me, so you should read my links first. I will read Genesis when I am able time wise and I will have a few questions no doubt.


          • So then you know that I have some working knowledge of science, Steve. Since you apparently didn’t study Christianity in school, there really is no correlation to what each of us knows in the other discipline.

            You’re in error, though, to think that creationists can go to scientific journals and get their findings published. They can’t. It’s a very closed group that consider themselves The Scientists. Here’s what the Christian Science Monitor said 10 years ago: ‘For years, traditional “peer review” has come under fire. A jury of three experts, the peer reviewers, assess each article and recommend only those that they feel represent the most significant new work. At many elite scientific journals, fewer than 10 percent of the articles submitted are accepted. Many of the rejected articles eventually travel down the “food chain” to be published in a plethora of less prestigious (and less noticed) specialty journals.’

            From that same article: “Since the early days of the Web, observers have speculated that scientists might simply post new research on their own or in communal websites and let search engines find it, thereby bypassing the peer-reviewed journals altogether. If the research proves valuable, other sites will link to it, and the results would be “published” far faster than waiting for a journal to accept them.”

            So just because that geologist posted his findings on the web and you didn’t read about it in some exclusive journal, that doesn’t mean it is of less value. Actually because you could see for yourself that what he said was true, should in fact validate his findings.

            The point I was making is that you have no proof that the Grand Canyon or earth itself was formed over a long period of time. But there is proof that a canyon can form in a short period of time due to a cataclysmic event. So, you believe in observation and experimentation, Steve. Think it out. Which is the more compelling argument, the one in front of your own eyes or the unsubstantiated ideas of others who have not studied the evidence?

            As far as the dating of the earth, that’s actually not something without controversy. And I’m talking about problems with the method of deciding age. Read this short article if you’re interested:

            Steve, if I said God created all the other gods, I was simply writing too fast. Yes, God did create all other beings, but none of them has the properties of God Himself. Most Bible scholars will say that the gods of other religions are actually from the class of angels that rebelled against God. Of course if those false gods (which are actually created beings) stand in the place of God, their attempted usurp of His power and authority is not something He is responsible for. Nor should He withhold His justice from those who rebel.

            Yes, I’ve read your articles and watched a portion of the video you linked to, so I think we’ve both done our homework. I’ll read your articles and let you decide if you want to keep exploring these topics.



          • Becky, I have a higher school qualification in chemistry, however I do not rest on my laurels or believe I know more about chemistry than the next person. I have also familiarised myself with a lot of scientific information over many years and from what you write it is patently clear you do not, and you struggle to understand what science really means.

            Your working knowledge for example about the peer review system is not correct and taken from a creationist web site.

            Peer review is the submission of a study drawn up by a group of scientists to a journal editor who submits the paper to several reviewers that are also known as referees from the same fields who study the paper and provide individual critiques that takes about two to four weeks.

            The definition and the purpose of peer review process is the process of submitting the research methods and the results to the intense examination from colleagues and research experts in the same fields. This process is fundamental to academic research.

            You have been told “It’s a very closed group that consider themselves The Scientists.”

            This is typical conspiracy at work from creationists. Three experts, you claim must hold all the creationist submissions at bay. I cannot repeat the word “nonsense” enough. Less than ten percent of articles make it to acceptance you say, that is higher than I thought because as I have said only those papers that meet the stringent standards will be published in the official journals.

            You also state “So just because that geologist posted his findings on the web and you didn’t read about it in some exclusive journal, that doesn’t mean it is of less value. Actually because you could see for yourself that what he said was true, should in fact validate his findings.”

            Why then have a peer review system at all? Any idiot can claim their science is real, therefore when and how would the real science be identified? The world would be in a total mess, progress would stop. Who are we to validate claimed scientific findings, just because we studied some basic science at school does not make an expert?

            Approximately 2.5 million new scientific papers are published each year and very few pushing the agenda of creationism can publish and that does not surprise me. Many of the rejected articles you mention that travel down to be published on the web and less prestigious journals are what distorts real science through conspiracies and lies. If you do not believe me read this.



          • I don’t have time to answer your complete comment, Steve, but let me just say, you may have some knowledge about chemistry, but not journalism. The Christian Science Monitor is a paper that has been around a long time and has a long standing reputation for fair reporting. The Managing Editor at Yahoo! Southwest said this: “The Monitor has a solid reputation in the industry, especially in the field of international reporting. They hold 7 Pulitzer Prizes for their work in journalism. You’ll find their list of awards here:

            And for the record, I would not call Christian Science Christian. It’s a cult, but their independent paper has proved to print more in depth articles than most periodicals.

            Here’s another quote, this from AllSides: “The Christian Science Monitor has maintained its reputation within the news industry as a well-run, high quality news organization with minimal bias. Rather than narrowing its focus like much of current mainstream media, its primary aim is to provide fair and in-depth analyses from multiple perspectives.”

            I’m certain the internet has brought change to scientific journals. It’s affected every other type of publishing. But the fact remains. Christians who believe in creation do not have the same opportunities as do naturalists to get their research to the public. More when I can.


            And yes, I did read your two previous articles–the one about coal only repeated what the Mt. St. Helen geologist said about the way the formation of coal had been understood previously and did not in any way engage the ideas he suggested as a result of his observations. Right now, I’m not remembering the subject of the other article. I’ll have to go back and look.


      • All research is human work and as such fallible. Even when we look at the most high regarded scientists of their time, often we find that their sayings respected and seen as the truth at their time was considered not right many years later. Always it turns out to be thoughts of man, which can be limited in time or not fully correct or even not right at all, but an opinion to which some or many do agree in the course of time.

        In any case believer or non believer both have to use their brains and shall have the brain working to formulate thoughts one way or the other. without thinking no idea can be formed. Without having the brain work, no formula or no sensible idea can be formed.

        Man should come to recognise that in many instances we as limited human beings are only able to guess or to form an opinion, which makes that lots of times we often can reside in speculation and could have the facts totally wrong, which has been proven by the historical facts.


        • Belgian, I agree with you here, which is why we need to rely on revelation to know God. He has given us what we need in the Bible so that we can know Him. Here’s another article that might be helpful –

          Also, Hebrews 1:1-3a makes it clear: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.”



          • The article you refer to shows clearly how you are taken by a human doctrine instead following the Biblical doctrine which makes it clear that there is Only One true God Who is One and not two or three.


          • Actually, Belgian, I absolutely agree that God is One, that He is not two or three. But apparently you don’t understand the triune nature of that One. Think of how each person consists of a body, spirit, and soul, and yet each is only one person. That might be the closest picture we have of God’s three-in-one nature. Because God is One, does not diminish the divinity of Christ or of the Holy Spirit. And the existence of a divine Jesus and Holy Spirit does not change the fact that God is One. This mystery is part of God’s transcendence.



          • The divinity is something totally different then being the Divine God. Those who consider Jesus to be God do not see that Jesus has lesser qualities than God the Father and make him even having lesser equal qualities than many gods in what we would call polytheist religions.

            Remember that God knows everything but Jesus did not know a lot of things, even very important ones about himself and the time he would come back. If Jesus is God than he would have know those things but also would have told lies, though we do know that God does not tell lies and that God also declared Jesus to be His son and not Himself.


          • Welcome back, Belgian. Actually Scripture doesn’t bear out what you say about Jesus’s divinity being “different then being the Divine God.” All you have to do is look at John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” ) in combination with John 1:14 (“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us . . .”) That clearly identifies Jesus (Who is “God with us” according to Matthew 1:23) as the One is God.

            Of course being in the form of Man, Jesus was not omnipresent in the same way as God the Father. He did also limit His knowledge about the day and hour of His return, but that’s part of the sacrifice, the emptying of Himself of rights and privileges—Philippians 2 says, “He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant.”

            Let’s face it, God is eternal, so He doesn’t die. You could stand on that argument. But the point is, Jesus “broke the rules” and He could because He’s God.

            The idea that He lied, is simply not true—a poor fabrication, invented by someone who wants to reject Jesus, just as the Jews of His day did. More importantly, it ignores what the Bible says. Take Hebrews 4:14 for instance: “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.” In case you think this One might not refer to Jesus, Peter, quoting from the Old Testament, makes it clearer: “since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH” (1 Peter 2:21b-22).

            I think a careful study of Scripture makes it pretty clear that Jesus is, in fact, God. Don’t let “philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world” (Colossians 2:8b) fool you.



          • You quote Hebrews 4:14 which clearly tells Jesus is not God but the sent one who is now a high-priest for God. We referred to Jesus not sinning, but you do not seem to understand that not telling the truth is considered sinning in the bible. In case Jesus is God than he knew when he would come back, when the end-times would be, who would be seated next to him, though of all those things he said he did not know it. When knowing it and saying not to know it, we call that telling lies. On many occasions Jesus also indicates he is not god and tells us god is greater than him and that he cannot do anything without God. Again whenJesus would be God Jesus would be misleading and as such going agains the wishes of God always to be clear. But you make also a liar of god because God Himself declared Jesus to be His only begotten son, though according to you He is the son Himself and as such He shold have said that He was there standing in the river Jordan. But that is not in agreement with God His saying tha no man can see Him and live. Plus the temptation of Jesus is not according the saying of God that God cannot be tempted nor that man can do anything to God, when Jesus was tempted, bullied, tortured and brought to death by man.

            We do not bring philosophy but just take the words like they say it in the bible. It is you who come with human doctrines and things not said in the Bible. In the bible it is clearly stated that Jesus is the son of God, whilst you say Jesus is God Himself. You also speak about a God incarnated whilst nowhere in the Bible is such a saying. therefore you claiming that we are fools we ask you to think about your reasoning against our taking the words like they are written black on white in the bible?!

            We pray for you that you may come to see that Jesus is the way to God, him being the sent one from God and the son of God:

            “We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,” (Col 1:3 NIV)

            “27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. 28 ¶ “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, 31 but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me. “Come now; let us leave.” (Joh 14:27-31 NIV)

            “17 ¶ Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19 Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no-one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him. 24 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25 I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. 28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. 31 ¶ “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. 32 There is another who testifies in my favour, and I know that his testimony about me is valid. 33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light. 36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me.” (Joh 5:17-36 NIV)

            “Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1Co 11:3 NIV)

            “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” (1Co 15:28 NIV)

            “30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favour with God. 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; his kingdom will never end.” 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called {Or So the child to be born will be called holy, } the Son of God.” (Lu 1:30-35 NIV)

            “21 ¶ When all the people were being baptised, Jesus was baptised too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” 23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,” (Lu 3:21-23 NIV)

            “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,” (Ga 4:4 NIV)

            “”Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” (Mt 5:17 NIV)

            “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Mt 28:18 NIV)

            “And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.” (Joh 5:27 NIV)

            “No-one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”” (Joh 10:18 NIV)

            “Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”” (Joh 19:11 NIV)

            “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me.” (Joh 14:6 NIV)

            “”For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, {Or his only begotten Son } that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (Joh 3:16 NIV)

            “”I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” (Joh 5:24 NIV)


          • I’m sorry you don’t understand the Trinity. I’m sorry that you feel free to say the Bible lies because it clearly states that Jesus did not sin. I’m sorry you don’t understand the plain words of John that says Jesus was in the beginning and with God and was God.

            Of course no one understand how this is possible. So all your ideas are predicated on the problem of not understanding how Jesus could be God and not know something.

            The real issue of faith is to believe because God said so. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. What did he believe? That Isaac would be the first of the countless descendants God had promised him, AND he believed that God told him to sacrifice Isaac.

            Two things that don’t seem as if they could both be true. But Abraham believed because he believed God.

            Instead of rejecting what the Bible says and embracing the false idea that the Bible is lying about Jesus being perfect, sinless, why don’t you accept it for what it actually says instead of twisting Scripture and/or taking verses out of context to “prove” your philosophy informed by the tradition of men?

            Think about it. John who wrote John 1:1 walked and talked with Jesus. If he believed he was not God why would he say he was?

            You have been deluded, my friend. May God remove the blinders from your eyes. May you plead with Him for the faith to see what is right there in Scripture instead of claiming the Bible is lying!



    • Dear sklyjd, as you rightly indicate in the writing presented here, we get a man made god and not the God of the Bible Who is an eternal Spirit and not a man of flesh and blood.

      The evil which comes over the earth is not provoked by the God of gods, but is something which comes over man because of the wrong things people do.

      The writer of the above article writes herself that “we need to understand who we’re talking about.” and seems to know that ““Christ” is another word for “Messiah,” the one promised by God.” though she does not seem to accept that Jesus, whose real name is Jeshua, is the son of God, the son of David and the Kristos (Christ) or anointed one. Luckily she sees that “in fact, Jesus and His followers identified Him as the Christ. But more than that, they proclaimed Him to be the Son of God.” which is something totally different of what she declares, namely Jesus to be a “god the son”.

      God is like she writes “all about good. He’s also holy and pure, spotless and unblemished.” Though she seems to forget that God punishes people. He punished in the past and even once let a great deluge destroy everything what did not come into the ark after the calling by Moses to repent or to turn the ways from bad living to living according to God’s rules. We also may not forget Sodom and Gomorrah. But in later and these times God does not punish people in their own life, except when their time is over … namely the curse for the sin is death of man. When we die we have paid for our sins.

      Sklyd when you would read some scientific information, you shall find there was a great flood and you will find proof of several exceptional events. Looking at nature you also shall be able to see the Hand of God in His creation. Though God has given the world in the hands of man. It are they who make a mess of it, and not God. disasters do not come from God but are a result of what man does with nature. Also the violence does not come form God but from people who by their greed, jealousy, hate and so on bring grieve unto others.

      When you believe that “Humans suppress areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage the parts responsible for empathy in order to believe in god, research suggests.” you also fall part of suppressing parts of the brain, because you too fall in the category of “believing” instead of believing in a god or in God you believe that there is no God and as such like a Christian may have a belief, an atheist has also a belief and you in case you might be an agnostic or might be a believer in direct science you are also a believer and using your brains to belief the things you believe..


      • Belgian, Steve is an atheist, so he doesn’t believe there is any god anywhere. I do happen to believe that Jesus is God, and that’s because that’s precisely what the Bible teaches: “I and the Father are One” (John 10:30).

        No, I didn’t deal with God’s work as a just Judge or many of the other things that are true about Him. That wasn’t part of the scope of this article. But if you’re interested in something a bit more comprehensive, I invite you to read this article –



        • That oneness is not that they both are one and the same person. Remember we also should become one with Christ like he is one with the Father. In your way of thinking that would mean that we would become Christ and that we also would become God or would be Jesus and would be God. (Think about that) Also married couples becoming one or united in your way of thinking would be or become one and the same person, like directors with their staff would also be one and the same person, them having to be united or ‘to be one’.


  2. Your article has as title “The Constancy Of Christ” but starts talking about the ” constancy of God” and giving us the impression you seem to be mixed up with two different Biblical characters, One an eternal omniscient omnipotent Spirit Being, and the other a human being of flesh, blood, bones, who got born, was seen by many (remember man cannot see God and live), was tempted more than once (remember: God cannot be tempted) and was pestered by man (remember man can do God nothing) and even was brought to death by man (whilst God cannot die).

    Clearly you seem to be caught up in the Constantine dogma of a god, who would be a triune being, By going by such false human teaching you even seem not to see the differences between the Father and the Son and even make a liar of both of them. You do this because God declares Jesus His only begotten son, His sent one Who He authorised to act in His Name. Jesus also knows the he owns everything to his heavenly Father, without him he cannot do anything. But you by say Jesus is God and is exactly the same, you make him into a liar, because God knows everything but Jesus tells he even does not know when he would return or who would be seated next to him in the Kingdom of God, which in the end he shall give back to his heavenly Father to which it belongs. Jesus also says he is the Way to God – something all people should come to believe, though you say he is the way to himself (Because when Jesus is God He is the Way to himself and than he would have done always his own will ;.. so his praying that God’s Will be done instead of his own will is once more a schizophrenic act like many other acts Jesus did in case he would be God).


    • Belgian, I think this paragraph makes my view of Jesus clear:”We could write it like this: Messiah=Christ=Jesus=Son of God=God. Consequently, in declaring the constancy of Christ, it’s really another way of saying the constancy of God.”

      I agree with you that the trinity is not something we can fully understand, but that’s OK because God is transcendent. In other words His thoughts are not our thoughts nor are His ways, our ways.

      The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus and the Father are One. That’s why Jesus is referred to as Immanuel, God with us. That’s why Jesus said, “I and the Father are One.” That’s why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus when He said God was His Father and why they brought the charge of blaspheme against Him: they clearly understood His claim to deity. That’s why the Apostles said the particular statements I mentioned in this article. If you’d like a more complete discussion of Jesus as God, I recently wrote this article –

      Thanks for leaving your comments. I appreciate much of what you said.



  3. I enjoyed the read. This is a good, well-thought-out post, and uses scripture to back itself up instead of leaving it as “thoughts” or “views”.

    Not to nit-pick… but Enosh (Enoch) didn’t die. He “walked with God: and was no more; for God took him.” 😉


    • Neal, thanks so much for your encouragement! And of course you’re right about Enoch. Perhaps you missed this short paragraph in the article: “On it goes with the exception of Enoch, demonstrating the truth about sin. It leads to death.”

      To be technical, Elijah also fits into this category, but here I was specifically referring to those mentioned in Gen. 5.

      I’m always glad when someone cares about the details like you demonstrated. Thank you.



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: