From the earliest starting point of Christendom, the congregation fathers showed the thought that in the event that God can't change, at that point He can't endure either (as God). The last 200 years, because of man's brutality to man during the modern unrest and because of the awful truth of the holocaust, numerous scholars have changed their convictions into the possibility that God endures alongside us and even like us. The possibility of patripassianism happened as of now very right off the bat throughout the entire existence of the congregation, yet was smothered as a result of its antitrinitarian thought of the modalities of God. As per it God basically killed Himself.
The incredible inquiry is whether Jesus endured as a human alone, or likewise as God the Son. What's more, going from that point, did God the Father endure when Jesus was killed, left by God the Father and kicked the bucket? What's more, still more. Does God sympathize with MY torment! On the off chance that He doesn't, does that not make Him rather indifferent?
Presently let us focus in on this. Is God bodily, that is does He have a body like us? Stanzas like the one in Joshua that "Wine delights the core of God and man" imply that God has a body, much like Zeus in Greek folklore. Likewise references to the "forceful arm" of God and the "finger of God" appear to help humanoid attribution. Church fathers dismiss this thought on the ground that God is a soul. However, I would contend that not at all like in Islam, God isn't the entirely Other, in light of the fact that we have been "made in the picture and as indicated by the resemblance of God." God isn't a circle or a thought, or a creature or a holy messenger. God must have an otherworldly 'body' in His indication to the heavenly attendants. (This against the thought that God has no corporeality at all). God is soul, NOT spiritS. In any case, that doesn't imply that the ONE God comprises in three modalities in a manner of speaking. He IS three Persons. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The three are ONE like the three components of stature, length and broadness. How that is conceivable, being One soul, stays a secret. Except if that Bible stanza ought to be clarified as 'God is profound.' But that would suggest that God is spiritS (a plural). Which would conflict with Scripture. To guarantee that God comprises just in three modalities, does foul play to the Love that exists between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. To guarantee that God comprises in three spirits, pardon me, would give Him a various character syndrom. There is One God, Who is One soul, comprising in three perfect Persons. "The shrouded things have a place with God" a Scripture states and without a doubt maybe I have gone excessively far here as of now. God is and everlastingly will stay a puzzle. Along these lines at long last, God's celestial characteristics, (for example, His limitlessness, effortlessness, giganticness, need, permanence, time everlasting, freedom ((His independent aseity)) and authority) must stay unfit (and to a great extent undescribed), in light of the fact that they are basically incommunicable. But then Christ expresses: "This is endless life that individuals know You, the main True God en Whom You sent, Jesus Christ." And that is the thing that we are attempting to do here.
This having been stated, we should hold that God as a soul doesn't change. In the event that God could change, at that point He would be problematic. As indicated by Scripture "God lives in a disconnected light." "It's not possible for anyone to see God and live." As such God is genuinely extraordinary even over the most elevated heavenly attendant. All things considered, that is in His true inner being, does God feel torment as God? In His sign with a body (as in the book of Daniel), He completely can't feel torment; for then He could be tormented!
As indicated by the lessons of the congregation fathers, the possibility that God can't change, suggests that He doesn't feel feeling. I'm not catching it's meaning then that God is Love? I have attempted to get this and I have thought of the accompanying line of thinking. On the off chance that God could feel (passionate) torment, similar to we people do; at that point He isn't totally great, not even in His Love! For it would suggest that He feels a misfortune, yet in His ideal Love He can't be improved, nor endure misfortune. His Love is totally great. One can't detract from it and one can't improve it.
To the protest that this implies God the Father didn't feel for Jesus as a human, I answer that the possibility of an enduring God, makes human enduring celestial. It is a semi gnostic glorification of our humankind. Truth be told it suggests that we as people have something divine... While, in Adam and in our own people, we ourselves are at fault for our wrongdoings and the enduring they involve. God doesn't sin and He doesn't feel the outcomes of transgression. In this manner He can lift us up out of our sadness.
Does this make God unoriginal? Actually no, not in the slightest degree. For He took on mankind. What's more, as man Jesus endured a definitive, the condition left by God. Likewise He was tormented like numerous individuals are. To have faith in a God Who endures, makes the enduring of humankind irreal. To place it in strict terms. As God the Son, Christ is impassible. As a human, Jesus is passible. In the primary nature He doesn't endure and as a human He does. To blend them up, would confound the perfect and human instincts of Christ as in Eutychianism. To accept that Christ endured boundlessly, as is suggested on the off chance that He endured as God the Son, would cause His mankind to decrease to irrelevance. The main unending enduring there is, is the perpetual enduring in damnation; limitless in time. For to dismiss the languishing of Jesus over you, a definitive endowment of God, will require unending enduring on your part. To dismiss a boundless God, follows into an unbounded discipline. This isn't a disarray of the awesome and the human, to remain inside the unique circumstance. On the off chance that you dismiss Christ, as either God or human (or both), God will dismiss you for dismissing His Beloved.
God is otherworldly, however not detached. As per the tenet of individuals like Augustine, God acts towards us in a passible (enthusiastic) route in this feeling His interests are deliberate. Be that as it may, He Himself is impassible, as God He doesn't have (human) feelings. Sacred writings like "As the sky are higher than the earth, so My ways are higher than yours" show that God will be God and we are just human. Jesus is immaculate as a passionate human. Our feelings are harmed by the Fall of man.
God isn't unapproachable, yet He isn't interfering either. At any rate not in the political feeling of the Old Testament. "Provide for Caesar what has a place with Caesar and provide for God what is because of God", infers the division of Church and state. Something the reformers didn't surely know, however individuals like the Anabaptists did. Actually it can possibly be contended that Calvin, Zwingli and even Luther, were liable of homicide as Christians in their religio-political commitment.
The view that God is both impassible and passible (dispassionate and enthusiastic), is dipolar panentheism, in which God comprises in inverse real factors. Amazing quality and characteristic, hugeness and inescapability and others, are stirred up. A view we countered previously. It is a type of self-conflicting mystery that would make God unconventional and flimsy. It here and there is disguised under extravagant terms as that God is both omnitemporal and a-fleeting. Be that as it may, God exists together with all purposes of time (in His endless NOW), not in all purposes of time. Thus He is concurrent with each purpose of spacial presence, not in. That would be pan(en)theism. God doesn't have an unexpected side. He isn't variable in His connection to His animals. He is the unaffected mover, the causa causans. He isn't moved or caused. He generally IS. (More right than 'He generally was', as though He lived in an unending length of time past, which is inaccurate. The cross doesn't isolate two endless time periods that as far as anyone knows look forward and in reverse. For God does live in time everlasting. above existence. There is a human and heavenly aeviternity that will go on always, yet there isn't one previously. For existence have a start).
The pantheistic view holds that God is a piece of enduring himself. Here great and insidiousness are cut out of the same cloth. A frightful thought that like Zoroastrianism doesn't generally ensure any expectation. In polytheism Zeus is lascivious with sexual and two-timing interests like degenerate humankind and in Hinduism Shakti is brimming with feeling. In rationalism there is apatheism. Who cares whether there is an enduring God or not. In agnosticism there is no god. Nonbelievers endeavor to lay the weight of evidence on the monotheists, however we should guarantee that they in their turn ought to demonstrate that the presence of God isn't a need, yet an inconceivability.
After this deviation we can proceed and take a gander at the accompanying refrains in Genesis sections one and six. "What's more, God saw all that He had made and see it was excellent." "And God was heartbroken that He had made man". Higher pundits are quick to highlight such refrains as an unmitigated logical inconsistency in the Bible. Be that as it may, the Bible doesn't hold logical inconsistencies, yet conundrums. Obviously in His fortune God realized what might occur. Such sections show that God is showed in intentional feelings, however He Himself in Himself doesn't have (human) feelings. Refrains, for example, "Don't lament the Holy Spirit" and messages that notice God's appall and wrath (His negative interests), talk a human language where He is showed to our weak and restricted human comprehension. This language can likewise be called figurative. Such stanzas affirm that "God is Light". His positive interests, (for example, sympathy, happiness and delight) show that "God is Love". Once more, these negative and positive 'sides' are not an inconsistency, however an oddity. In panentheism they have been transformed into inconsistencies and there they picture God as though He is at chances with Himself. (I concede that the differentiation between from one perspective God as Light in His negative interests and then again God as Love in His positive interests, is fairly fake. In any case, the possibility that God as Light has to do with His being simply and God as Love with His being worried about us to reassure us
