We have many scriptures about Jesus' humanity. Several specific verses about his total dependence on the Father, his God, for all his needs, his words and his ability to perform miracles etc. Jesus was a fleshly man - "made like us in every way" Heb 2:17 Not *some* or *most* ways, but *every* way. As he was indeed tempted - again - 'as we are', then it follows that he *could have sinned* - as we do. >we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin Heb 4:15 The very point of temptation - and his need to resist every and all temptations to become the Lamb of God, is pointless if sin was not a possibility. The fact that he *did not sin* has nothing to do with his inherent ability as a man, like us, to be *able to* sin, should he have chosen to do so or faltered before severe and prolonged temptation. As Heb 4:15 "yet, he did not sin", implies, at the very least, that the potential was there but he was able to resist and remain victorious over evil. What kind of victory has he achieved over evil and death if failure was never remotely possible or even feasible? What evidence does the bible provide to support this premise of Jesus' potential for committing a sin?

> Remember and do not forget how you provoked the Lord your God to wrath > in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 9:7 ESV). It seems like this passage describes God being provoked (changed) by the people of Israel. This is a problem, because it contradicts the doctrine of divine immutability, that is often inferred from Malachi 3:6. > For I the Lord do not change... (Malachi 3:6 ESV) Is there a way to resolve this apparent contradiction?

According to Trinitarian theology as held by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, God is 3 persons/hypostasis in 1 essence/nature/substance and one attribute of God is his immutability ([*c.f.* *Summa Theologica* Ia Q9 A1](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm)) yet it is also the case that Christ is both true God and true man. This latter doctrine is called the hypostatic union referring to the two natures (divine and human) present in one person (hypostasis). How are these doctrines both held as true?

For background, this is related to other questions about whether God may have changed in the past. It is often touted that God preceded all creation, and some even say that He is able to violate causality because in some ostensible sense He "is" causality itself and "created time". For those who believe that the Genesis account (or anything else) implies that God participated in essentially just one creation, and who use the nature of God as the Creator as proof that He always existed as an Omnipotent Being, does that not result in a contradiction? If not, why not? If God suddenly decided to create one day (at the "beginning") but didn't before then, is that not proof that God changed? What was He doing for all eternity before He created anything? What caused Him to decide that, after an eternity of not creating anything, He would begin to be a Creator?

In what way is creation understood not as a change on the part of God when God is understood to be immutable? By immutable I mean the classical definition where God has never changed and never will change. Aquinas understands God to be immutable absolutely on the part of natural reason in the Summa Contra Gentiles. This appears to follow from the classical philosophical tradition. Yet some would claim that God creating has to amount to some change on his part, which hence would conflict. The question (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/99339/if-there-was-a-beginning-to-gods-creations-did-god-therefore-change) covers a a related but distinct concept. That question is if creation had a start, did God change? The classic answer to that is God is not subject to Time, which he created, but rather is eternal (eternity admitting not of progression but only sequence) so creation occurred exactly as God willed eternally. Note also that question does not assume the immutability of God; presumably answers could be offered that either justify based upon God being immutable or with God being changeable in some manner (especially since the question is "did God change" not "what is the evidence that God did/did not change") This question is rather assuming the immutability of God, in what way is creation not a change. That is, it assumes an attribute of God and assumes a particular result.

The consequence of divine simplicity is that God is being subsisting and can only be immutable. If so how does God do anything? Or how did he create?

**ON THE ONE HAND**, human beings and human conditions are changing, at least since the recent centuries. If someone is asking the proof, then one just needs to have a quick look on 1. Ukraine and how the wars will be handled (migration & exile and robotic fights vs idea about patriotic death in war) (changing ethics) or 2. growing possibilities to have babies with both parents being gay, example: [Reproduction revolution: how our skin cells might be turned into sperm and eggs](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/14/scientists-create-sperm-eggs-using-skin-cells-fertility-ethical-questions) (decoupling procreation from the sex) or 3. emerging therapies that tries to revert aging and tries to eliminate age-related death, example: [The Rejuvenation Roadmap](https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/) (understanding and control of life) or 4. emerging gene editing (CRISPR) and gene modification therapies (e.g. as delivered by virus vectors) and integration with externalities both carbon and silicon based (allows during-life modification/improvement that invalidates the necessity of usual evolution-trial-error-death cycle for the historic evolutionary development of human beings). I agree that one can discuss whether or not the current achievements of human beings and human conditions are qualitatively different from two thousand years ago. But one can hardly deny that bigger or smaller changes are happening and that there will come a point when all the accumulated changes will force us to say that a qualitative change has happened. My premise is: there is no rational/scientific rule that precludes a change of human beings or human conditions. **ON THE OTHER HAND**, there is this emphasis that Jesus's teaching is immutable, that it can have only different interpretations in the different contexts and times. How do we understand this immutability of Jesus teaching? Why is it important? Why such immutability has any value or transcendental meaning? How to understand this from the metaphysical point of view, that immutability has any value? We know that different cultures accept the notion of constant changes, whether cyclical or other type of developments. We know that the fundamental constants of physics are changing, albeit very slowly. We have even guessed that the change of those constants can indicate that the entire Universe is somehow developing in some meaningful direction, [that it learns](https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03902) . Therefore, in light of all of this, **what is the meaning, value, and transcendental significance that something should be immutable; in this case, the teaching of Jesus? Why should we say and accept that the very immutability as such has some goodness, some good quality? Is there a rational explanation of this goodness? Is there a Scriptural basis for the goodness of this immutability? If so, how do we connect this scriptural basis with rational thinking?** We have seen that the Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit (and expressed through the clergy, theologians, Ecumenical Councils and Synodal movements) to form the ecclesiastical and sacramental structure that was only remotely sketched out in the Scripture or in the Initial Tradition. Maybe we are starting to see how the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit and as expressed by Synodal movements is starting to decouple Jesus's teaching from Jesus's meta-teaching and is starting to establish the processes by which changes in moral laws can be discovered, evaluated and approbated?

The Epistle of Diognetes, regarded by some to be the earliest example of Christian apologetics, establishes Jesus’ divine role as Creator and even goes as far as to call him God. > “As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God > He sent Him; as to men He sent Him;… (7.4) Jesus preferred to identify himself as the Son of Man, perhaps because it was a more well-known designation for the Messiah and because it helped people relate more to him as human. It also emphasized his role as a propitiatory sacrifice. > Daniel 7:13 "In my vision, there before me was one like a Son of Man, > coming with the clouds of heaven." > > John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even > so must the Son of man be lifted up; But Jesus also clearly affirmed his divinity. > John 10:36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very > own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy > because I said, `I am God’s Son’? Did Jesus' divine nature become a dual divine nature at incarnation and did he return to being fully God alone upon his ascension? Is there, for example, some reason, i.e.soteriologically, that he must retain his dual nature?

According to early Christianity did the person of God the Word change in the incarnation? Is it considered mutability in the person that change?

The Bible says that God "remains the same" (Ps 102:27), and that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb 13:8). This seems to mean that he is changeless. However, Jesus was not always human. For eternity, he had only a divine nature, up till his physical incarnation, when he gained a human nature as well. He changed from being fully God to being both fully God and fully man (unless one believes that Jesus always had a human nature, even before humans were created). Correct me if I'm wrong, but for eternity prior to his incarnation, Jesus had no physical body, and then he gained one. This sounds like a profound change to me. How is this reconciled with his immutability?

In the Old Testament, there are accounts of people (prophets) who saw God face to face. Specifically in Genesis 32:30, it says > And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God > face to face, and my life is preserved. If God does not vary or change, then my assumption would be that he is still speaking with others face to face, as he did with Jacob. Are there any modern (last 200 years) accounts of the pope seeing God face to face?

The immutability of God means God does not change, and it is considered heresy to disagree. However, this concept seems so close to the Greek's idea of perfection, and to conflict with the well-known idea that God became a Man. When did this idea appear in the writings of the church fathers, and when did it become enshrined by the church councils? It does not seem to be in the Apostle's Creed for example.

More or less I am asking for a defense of the propitiatory view of atonement in which God changes from being angry to being happy with us rather than sinners being the ones who need to change. Perhaps I misunderstand this model.