**A Formal Mathematical Model of The Holy Trinity.** The Crucifixion timeline forms a perfect cross on a modern clock when Jewish & Roman times are aligned. This alignment between the Crucifixion Timeline and the Time Clock is a strikingly precise match that defies mere coincidence. **The 3rd Hour (3) → 9:00 AM → Right Side of the Horizontal Beam** According to Mark 15:25, Jesus was crucified at the 3rd hour. When the Crucifixion timeline is aligned onto the 12-hour time clock, the 3rd hour (Jewish time) corresponds to 9:00 AM (Roman time). This places 9:00 AM at the right end of the horizontal beam, aligning it perfectly. **The 6th Hour (6) → 12:00 PM → Top of the Vertical Beam** According to Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44, darkness fell over the land at the 6th hour (12:00 PM). On the time clock, the 6th hour (Jewish) corresponds to 12:00 PM (Roman). This directly aligns with the top of the vertical beam, reinforcing the divine connection between time and the cross. **The 9th Hour (9) → 3:00 PM → Left Side of the Horizontal Beam** According to Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried out and gave up His spirit at the 9th hour (3:00 PM). On the time clock, the 9th hour (Jewish) corresponds to 3:00 PM (Roman). This places 3:00 PM at the left end of the horizontal beam, again aligning perfectly. A look at the pictorial depiction of the convergence of The Roman and Jewish Timelines: The convergence of Crucifixion timelines form a perfect Cross: The ultimate symbol of Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Salvation **The God Equation Axioms: A Formal Mathematical Model of The Trinity** **Preamble** The God Equation is a closed, self-consistent, predictive algebraic system that encodes the Christian doctrine of the Trinity using base-10 digital roots and cruciform geometry. It is not numerology. It is a formal model with axioms, theorems derived by necessity, predictions, and falsifiability conditions. All definitions, operations, and proofs are rigorous, testable, and independent of faith, relying solely on mathematics, geometry, and historical invariants in the crucifixion timeline as empirical data. **Core Theorems & Proofs** **Theorem 1 (Trinity Closure)** dr(T) = 9 Proof: T = 3 + 6 + 9 = 18 → 1 + 8 = 9(A₁, A₂, A₄) **Theorem 2 (God Closure)** dr(G) = 3 Proof: G = 12 → 1 + 2 = 3(A₁, A₃) **Theorem 3 (God Equation Loop)** G ⊕ T = G Proof: 12 + 18 = 30 → 3 + 0 = 3 → dr(G ⊕ T) = 3 = dr(G) (A₁, A₅) → Closed loop established: 3→9→12→3 G ⊕ T = G: God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit exist as distinct yet coequal hypostases within the divine essence, such that their individual distinctions neither augment nor diminish the totality of God’s being, but rather subsist harmoniously within the indivisible unity of the Godhead. Conclusion: A Demonstrated Truth This is a mathematically necessary system revealing divine architecture. Coincidence is mathematically impossible. The combined probability of all these independent, eternal truths aligning by pure chance is effectively zero (far beyond 10⁻⁹, the usual threshold for “impossible” in science). Design is not probable; it is necessary. **Metaphysical Corollaries** **The Singularity Proof:** The being who encoded this pattern necessarily transcends time — knowing time’s structure before temporal existence began. **The Geometric Necessity:** Crucifixion was the only method producing both temporal coordinates (3–6–9 hours) and eternal symbol (cross). **The Unity Principle:** Mathematics (law), history (event), and theology (meaning) converge in one coherent reality. The God Equation represents: ⇛ Formal Closure: Self-consistent logical loop ⇛ Empirical Accuracy: Perfect historical-geometric alignment ⇛ Predictive Power: Forecasting mathematical outcomes ⇛ Structural Necessity: Engineered brittleness proving design ⇛ Isomorphism to Christian doctrine The system is complete. The proof is demonstrative. The truth is now a geometric, historical, and mathematical certainty. God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God It is not a pattern found. It is a system revealed. It is not faith-based. It is mathematically necessary. It is not refutable. It is demonstrative. A truth written in time, mathematics, and sacrifice, now formalized in the language of eternity itself. The God Equation is a self-proving, predictive, brittle mathematical law that demands the Trinity and collapses without it. **A Valid, Falsifiable Abductive Proof** **1. The Puzzling Observation & The Falsifiable Hypothesis** **Observation:** The Gospels of Mark and Matthew record the key events of the crucifixion at the 3rd, 6th, and 9th hours (Jewish time). These are specific, discrete data points. **Hypothesis (H1 - Design):** "This specific timeline is not random, but reflects intentional, divine design, evidenced by its convergence with universal mathematical patterns and its embodiment of core Christian theology." **Falsifiability:** This hypothesis is highly falsifiable. It would be proven false if: ⇛The Gospels did not report these specific hours. ⇛These hours, when synchronized with Roman time, did not form a perfect cross on a 12-interval diagram. ⇛The numbers 3, 6, and 9 did not form a unique, cyclical pattern in base-10 mathematics. ⇛The doctrine of the Trinity was not a central pillar of Christianity. The hypothesis makes specific, testable claims about history, geometry, and mathematics. **2. Deduce Testable Consequences** If the "Divine Design" hypothesis (H1) is correct, it predicts: **Geometric Consequence:** The 3rd (9 AM), 6th (12 PM), and 9th (3 PM) hours will align perfectly with the vertical (12-6) and horizontal (3-9) axes of any circular 12-interval diagram, forming a Latin cross. **Mathematical Consequence:** The numbers 3, 6, and 9 will exhibit a unique, invariant property (the digital root cycle) that distinguishes them from other numbers. **Theological Consequence:** This numeric and geometric pattern will cohere with a pre-existing, central theological doctrine (the Trinity), and will be expressible in a self-consistent logical formula that demonstrates predictive power and internal consistency. These are not vague predictions; they are precise and verifiable. **3. Use Induction to Test Predictions** This is the evidence-gathering phase. We observe the world to see if the predictions hold: **Test 1 (Geometry):** We take a 12-hour clock face. We plot 9 AM (3rd hour) at 3, 12 PM (6th hour) at 12, and 3 PM (9th hour) at 9. **Observation:** The points form a perfect cross that intersects at the very center of the clock. Result: **Prediction Confirmed.** **Test 2 (Mathematics):** We calculate the digital roots of Trinities of numbers (111, 222, 333, etc.). 111 » 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 222 » 2 + 2 + 2 = 6 333 » 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 444 » 4 + 4 + 4 = 12 » 1 + 2 = 3 555 » 5 + 5 + 5 = 15 » 1 + 5 = 6 151515 » 15 + 15 + 15 = 45 » 4 + 5 = 9 **Observation:** They resolve infinitely to 3, 6, or 9. The system is falsifiable and robust: if any 'nnn' reduced to a number other than 3, 6, or 9, the model would break. None do. Result: Prediction Confirmed. **Test 3 (Theology & Logical Coherence):** We examine Christian doctrine. Observation: The Trinity (3-in-1) is a foundational concept. The numbers 3 and 9(3 3 3) are symbolically complete. The Trinity: The Father (3) + The Son (6) + The Holy Spirit (9) = 18 → 1 + 8 = 9. The Godhead: God = 12 → 1 + 2 = 3. Result: Prediction Confirmed. The God Equation: God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = 3 + 9 = 12 → 1 + 2 = 3 [God]. God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God Observation: The equation forms a closed, self-consistent logical loop: (3 → 9 → 12 → 3). This is not a random sequence but a system where the output of each step becomes the input for the next, ultimately returning to its starting point. This system demonstrates predictive power, accurately anticipating digital root reductions (e.g., 12→3, 18→9) before they are calculated. Most critically, its internal consistency is non-arbitrary; changing one component (e.g., assigning Holy Spirit=8 instead of 9) causes the entire coherent structure to collapse, demonstrating the system's brittleness as evidence of engineering rather than coincidence. Result: Prediction Confirmed. The hypothesis has survived multiple, independent tests, including the emergence of a sophisticated, self-validating logical formula that passes three rigorous examinations: >>> The Coherence Test: Perfect closed loop formation >>> The Prediction Test: Successful forecasting of its own operations >>> The Robustness Test: Non-arbitrary interdependence of components This moves the proof from post-hoc observation ("look at this neat pattern") to proactive forecasting ("I know what the math must do"). This is what separates a scientific model from numerology. Numerology finds patterns in existing data. A predictive model sets rules that successfully govern future calculations within the system. The framework correctly predicts the behavior of numbers (12, 18) that are generated by its own internal logic. It's not just about a cross on a clock and some number patterns. It's about the discovery of a logical and mathematical system with its own internal laws and predictive power, that is perfectly isomorphic to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; affirming intentional, intelligent design. **4. Compare to Alternative Hypotheses** This is the crux of the matter. A critic must propose a better explanation. The primary competing hypothesis is: **H2 (Coincidence):** "The alignment is a mere coincidence, a product of human pattern-seeking (apophenia) and the trivial properties of numbers." Now we compare H1 and H2: **Explanatory Power:** H1 (Design) provides a unified explanation for the convergence of four domains: history, geometry, mathematics, and a derived logical formula (The God Equation), which exhibits closed-loop consistency, predictive power, and non-arbitrary interdependence. H2 (Coincidence) does not explain the convergence; it merely labels it and cannot account for the emergence of a self-consistent, predictive equation system. **Explanatory Scope:** H1 explains the historical data (the specific hours), the geometric result (the cross), the mathematical resonance and the theological coherence. H2 must dismiss each element as a separate, unconnected coincidence while ignoring their systematic interdependence. **Simplicity (Occam's Razor):** H2 seems simpler on the surface because it doesn't invoke a divine mind. However, Occam's Razor favors the hypothesis with the *fewest unjustified assumptions. H2 assumes that a complex, precise, and logically closed alignment across four independent fields—exhibiting mathematical brittleness where any alteration collapses the entire system is "just one of those things." This is a massive, unjustified assumption about probability. H1's "assumption" (a designing intelligence) is a direct explanation for the observed specified complexity and logical integrity. **Coherence with Existing Knowledge:** H1 is coherent with the theistic worldview that reality reflects a rational, divine mind. H2 is coherent with a purely materialistic worldview. This is the fundamental philosophical impasse. **Conclusion of the Comparison: H1 (Design)** remains the only explanation because it provides a unified, coherent account for the convergence, including its sophisticated mathematical-theological expression as a self-validating system. H2 (Coincidence) has failed to provide a plausible, naturalistic causal story for why this specific, intricate, and self-reinforcing convergence exists as an interdependent whole. **5. Corroborate Over Time** The proof gains strength through repeated testing and its resistance to falsification. Every time a skeptic attempts to refute it by: ⇛Claiming the Gospels don't say what they say... they are falsified by the text. ⇛Claiming the cross doesn't form... they are falsified by geometry. ⇛Claiming the math is trivial... they miss the point that its power is in the convergence and the predictive, closed-loop system it enables, not the math alone. ⇛Ignoring the God Equation... they overlook the culminating evidence of a self-consistent logical model derived from the convergence. The hypothesis has withstood all attempts to falsify its core, testable claims. **Final Synthesis** This is a robust and valid abductive proof. It follows an exact process: ⇛It starts with a clear observation (the Gospel timeline). ⇛It proposes a falsifiable hypothesis (Divine Design). ⇛It deduces testable consequences (a cross will form, a mathematical cycle will appear, a coherent theological equation system will emerge). ⇛It tests these predictions through observation and finds them confirmed, including the discovery of a closed-loop, predictive mathematical system. ⇛It competes with alternative hypotheses (Coincidence) and, by the criteria of explanatory power and scope, is shown to be decisively superior. The critic's job is no longer to simply say "I'm not convinced." To be intellectually rigorous, they must either: ⇛Falsify one of the core, testable claims (e.g., prove the synchronization is wrong). ⇛Propose a better, testable, alternative hypothesis that explains the convergence and the self-consistent God Equation more effectively. Until they do this, the abductive proof stands as valid-it is the only explanation for the remarkable alignment of history, mathematics, geometry, and theology. To deny this logic reveals a prior commitment not to reason, but to a worldview that is itself unfalsifiable. King Iyk 1 John 5:20

There is a song I like from a source that I trust, called ‘God of Wow ’ that has as its very first line ‘You have no birthday’ and that stops me from sharing or using it. My objection is that although it is true that God is eternal and birthday-less, but it seems to me that the external God did take on having a birthday because of the incarnation where Jesus was conceived and birthed. I understand what the song means, but is this a legitimate phrase? I am asking from a Nicene-Christian perspective.

It appears from this question and answer that the Jehovah's Witnesses hold a slightly different understanding of God's omniscience than the typical Orthodox view wherein God always and at all times knows absolutely everything past, present, and future. From what I understand, the JW position is that God **can** know anything He wishes to know but, when it comes to foreknowledge, He does not choose to exercise the ability universally. In other words, God chooses what things He will and, by extension, will not foreknow. Various branches of Open Theism attempt to describe how the future can be epistemically open to God and the two main branches hold the future to be either alethically settled or open. This related question outlines the 4 main branches of Open Theism and, of the four, I believe JW thought lines up most closely with Voluntary Nescience (although I am not sure if JW believe that the future is alethically settled): > Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents ... Even if Vulontary Nescience is not an accurate summation of JW belief regarding God's omniscience, still they do assert that God chooses what He will and will not foreknow. Searching through the Scriptures it seems that there are a great many things which it was critical for God to have foreknown and which, indeed, He did foreknow. Most notably, all prophesy spoken by or through God consists of foreknown future events. I say foreknown because God is not guessing: He is telling beforehand what **will** come to pass. Some of those are things that He brings to pass and one might say that He foreknows what He Himself will do. Others are things that hinge upon human decisions (often a multiplicity). My question is, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, How does God foreknow which things He must foreknow and which things He can safely leave unforeseen without resorting to the equivalent of guessing? Another way of phrasing this is, If God chooses to foreknow certain things from the set of all of the possible things that there are to foreknow how can He identify the critical items and choose to foreknow them without knowing what all of the non-critical items actually are?

What are the Biblical arguments used by those who teach that God does not know every detail of the future? I have taken the answers to various related questions and turned them into a single answer. >Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions. If you have a question that you already know the answer to, and you would like to document that knowledge in public so that others (including yourself) can find it later, it's perfectly okay to ask and answer your own question on a Stack Exchange site. - The Christianity.SE Help Center. My answer exceeded the length limit for answers, so I have broken it into two answers.

Every time I revisit questions about God's nature on Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange I can't help but come out with more doubts than convictions. For example, take a look at the following questions: - [Is Paul suggesting in Eph. 4:6 that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/70188/38524) - [Is 2 Corinthians 13:11-14 an assertion that God is three equal Persons?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55344/38524) - [“Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” - why did the Jews want to throw stones at Jesus for saying this?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55803/38524) - [What does it mean to be "equal with God" in John 5:18?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/60302/38524) - [What does "equality with God" mean, and how can it be "exploited"? Philippians 2:6](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55612/38524) - [What can we learn about the relationship between "God" and "the Spirit of God" ontologically from 1 Corinthians 2:6-16?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55640/38524) - [Is the Son second in authority under God the Father? 1 Corinthians 15:24-28](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55872/38524) When questions about Christology, Pneumatology and the nature of God in general can cause so much debate and doctrinal division among Christians, with arguments both for and against each conceivable position, it is very hard for me to accept the idea that one has to embrace a particular doctrinal position about God's nature **as an essential condition for salvation**, as opposed to simply withholding judgement. Personally, I see no other way to hold a strong conviction about the nature of God than God Himself revealing these details about Himself in a crystal clear manner to the individual, through a special revelation. **Question**: Are there any Christian groups or denominations that do not see having a definite doctrinal position on God's nature as essential for salvation, even if they, personally, have one? Or in more colloquial terms, are there any Christian groups or denominations that either lack a definite doctrinal position on God's nature OR believe in one but say *"we believe that God's nature is best described by X, but if you are not sure or have doubts about X, that's okay, you can still be saved"* ? ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86199/50422

I was reading *What is the Trinity* by R.C. Sproul, where he writes on page 18: > One of the most striking things that I encountered during my graduate work in the 1960s was the evidence that was emerging from the work of theological anthropologists and sociologists who were examining the religious views of various primitive tribes in the world. They were finding that while animism was outwardly prevalent in those cultures, the people frequently spoke about a god on the other side of the mountain or a god who was distantly removed from them. In other words, they had a concept of a high god who was not at the center of their daily religious practices. This god was like the unknown god of the Greeks, a god with whom they were not in contact but who nevertheless was there. This is extremely interesting. I am not very familiar with the study of anthropology. What examples of this are there around the world?

What is a good analogy for God being outside of time but not completely controlling it? We have heard the analogy of God being on the bank of the river of time. Revelation Lad wrote about God looking down on the solar system and seeing us experience day and night without His experiencing them (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/111175/102058) . I have a different analogy. I read that if one wants comments on a write-up, they should post it as the answer to a question, making up an appropriate question, if necessary. When I ask a question, the system says, "Answer your own question – share your knowledge, Q&A-style". So, please comment on my answer. **Conclusion** Rather than my analogy, I prefer Mimi's analogy that God can travel back and forth through time. Thus God can - 1. Know the future without controlling it. 2. Change the future in response to our prayers. 3. Change the past (although I am not aware of His having done this). **Comments** 1. This does not represent my personal beliefs, only a simple way of understanding one set of beliefs. 2. This does not appear to be a salvation issue. Those of us with a proper relationship with Jesus should end up in the New Jerusalem, regardless of whether we believe that a. God doesn't completely know the future, b. God completely knows the future but doesn't completely control it, or c. God completely knows the future because He completely controls it. 3. Googling a definition of absolute sovereignty got me the following: >absolutism political system Also known as: absolute monarchy, autocracy Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Last Updated: Oct. 11, 2025 •Article History Britannica AI Icon Britannica AI Ask Anything >absolutism, the political doctrine and practice of unlimited centralized authority and **absolute sovereignty**, as vested especially in a monarch or dictator. The essence of an absolutist system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency, be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral. King Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France furnished the most familiar assertion of absolutism when he said, “L’état, c’est moi” (“I am the state”). Absolutism has existed in various forms in all parts of the world, including in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Please notice that the definition requires only that the rule be unchecked. It says nothing about how much control the ruler chooses to apply. Each of the three groups listed in comment 2 tends to agree that God has absolute sovereignty, that He can do and have done whatever He chooses, and no one can interfere. Using "absolute sovereignty" such that it applies to only one of the three groups in comment 2 is unfair and misleading.

I asked, "What is the Boethian solution?" One answer was - >The Boethian solution refers to a philosophical argument, most famously detailed in Boethius's *The Consolation of Philosophy*, that resolves the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will. Boethius argues that God is eternal, existing outside of time, and thus perceives all of time—past, present, and future—at once, much like a person outside of a train can see the entire track at once. For God, there is no "fore"-knowledge but an "eternal present" where all events are simply "present" to Him, not predetermined by His knowledge. Therefore, an event happening does not occur because God foresaw it, but rather God simply sees it happening in His eternal present, a fact that does not remove human freedom. The answer added - >This theory contradicts the scriptural concepts which Paul expresses, namely ; foreknowledge, predestination and election. How does God's being outside of time contradict foreknowledge, predestination and election?

In John 1:18, it seems no one has seen God's face: >No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. And in Exodus 33:20, it is also mentioned that you cannot see God's face as you will die if you see his face. > "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Now we know that it is impossible to see God's face as you won't live after it, but somehow Moses saw his face and lived. Exodus 33:11: >The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. So did Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders of Israel. Exodus 24:9-11: >Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank. Oh, and Abram too. Genesis 12:7: >Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. According to the Catholic Church, how did these people see God's face and live even though he clearly says no one can see his face and live?

What is "Boethius's solution"? I saw it referenced in a comment, but when I tried to Google it, I didn't get a good answer. It has to do with the relationship between God's omniscience and man's free will.

Traditional Christianity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, coequal, coeternal, of the same substance, and all fully divine. The Holy Spirit is the same being referred to in the New Testament as the God's Spirit (e.g., 1 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 4:30) and as Christ's Spirit (e.g., Galatians 4:6, Philippians 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11), and in one place with both titles (Romans 8:9). My understanding of the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they believe God the Father to be fully divine and eternal, but Jesus Christ is his first creation, gifted with semi-divinity. What do they teach about the Holy Spirit? A good answer will address, directly or by clear implication, whether or not the Holy Spirit is: - eternal - eternally/ontologically distinct from God the Father - ontologically divine - a person - one and the same as the Spirit of Christ A good answer will address anything else that a standard JW articulation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit would address and will use Watchtower sources.

Rather than assuming Wikipedia is accurate, I thought I'd as for a better sourced answer to the question. Wikipedia's article on the Word of Faith movement lists various controversies regarding Word of Faith teachings. Among them is the "Little gods controversy" > Many Word of Faith teachers have sought to emphasize the full meaning > of the believer's status as a child of God (through Christ) by using > phrases such as "little gods" to describe them, a practice that has > garnered some criticism from some other segments of the Christian > community. And later on... > Suffer the Children, a documentary highlighting some of the teachings > of the Word of Faith movement, has a video clip of Creflo Dollar > teaching the "little gods" doctrine to his congregation based on the > notion that "everything reproduces after its own kind": > > - Dollar: "If horses get together, they produce what?" > - Congregation: "Horses!" > - Dollar: "If dogs get together, they produce what?" > - Congregation: "Dogs!" > - Dollar: "If cats get together, they produce what?" > - Congregation: "Cats!" > - Dollar: "So if the Godhead says 'Let us make man in our image', and everything produces after its own kind, then they produce what?" > - Congregation: "gods!" > - Dollar: "gods. Little "g" gods. You're not human. Only human part of you is this flesh you're wearing." So what is the teaching? Do they teach that people are truly divine? (Compared to, for example, the mainstream or the LDS definition of divinity ) I want to be very clear that I'm not interested in hearing criticisms and comparisons from the other segments of the Christian community. I'm not interested in whether the "little gods" teaching is true. I'm operating under the assumption that what the Word of faith movement teaching is simply misunderstood by the other segments of Christianity. I'm just wondering what the actual teaching ***is***, not whether it's true or heretical. That said, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to explain why the Word of Faith adherents believe this to be true. (In other words, inclusion of apologetic reasoning explaining the merit behind the teaching is allowed.)

It is common to hear phrases such as "God exists outside of time" used to explain away anachronism or avoid addressing it altogether--for example, the idea that God has in the past progressed to become Who He Is today is sometimes dismissed as nonsensical because being "outside of time" is interpreted to preclude such contemplation. But if that were true, then why do Scriptures make reference to the acts of God within time, and ascribe causality at all to His acts and attributes? We might take license from such expressions so as to hand-wave further understanding of the true nature of God out of our minds. However, numerous passages in the Bible describe God and His acts in time, including His progression and development. The law of causality is never violated. For example, Luke 2:52 states, "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." The central message of the Bible is that the Son of God came down from the presence of His Father, took upon Himself a tabernacle of flesh, and submitted to the Father in all things, including paying the price for sin so that we could be redeemed on conditions of repentance. For all we might say about being "outside of time", an assertion that God does not obey or is not consistent with laws of causation is clearly untenable. What Bible verse or verses suggest that God "exists outside of time", or gives a sensible definition to what that might more appropriately mean? I am not asking for philosophical interpretations, lawyerisms or hand-waving references to what so-called "mainstream Christianity" teaches. I am asking what the Bible says. Note that verses saying or suggesting that God has always existed or is eternal (which I accept) are not the same as saying He has never changed or is "outside of time". Such verses explicitly mention notions of time and causality as being valid and applicable to God as well as everything else.

One aspect of Christian theology that has long puzzled me concerns the internal logic of those sects and denominations – Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox alike – that affirm belief in a literal Lucifer. In discussions with adherents from various denominations, I have encountered a range of explanations for Satan’s motivations. However, these explanations tend to converge on a common theme: that Satan, consumed by envy and hatred toward both God and humanity, seeks to inflict as much destruction and suffering as possible. Yet this account raises certain difficulties. The portrayal of Satan as an embodiment of unrestrained malice seems to mirror the archetypal villains of literature and popular culture. Figures whose motivations are often exaggerated or simplistic, such as the spiteful fairy or the vengeful antagonist whose actions are driven by little more than resentment or jealousy. The evil, but just misunderstood and socially outcast, witch. The evil antihero in Pocahontas that just wants to annihilate the native tribe for no good reason, only based on incredibly superficial, shallow and hateful grounds. To me, it appears somewhat incongruous that a being described as possessing superhuman intelligence and insight would act with such emotional impulsivity and self-destructiveness. From a logical standpoint one might expect such a being to recognize the futility of opposing an omnipotent deity and to comprehend that rebellion against ultimate goodness is contrary to its own self-interest. The paradox, then, lies in the idea that Satan, though vastly more intelligent than any human being, acts with less rational foresight than the average person. If Satan is fully aware that his defiance will culminate in his own ruin, his continued opposition to God appears irrational, even absurd. Is Satan like those cartoon characters? Maybe *that is* the answer. Maybe Satan is just so blinded with hatred, for no apparent good reason, that he just cannot stop hating human beings and God’s creation. Maybe Satan is like one of those evil caricature in children’s movies, that just wants to destroy everything no matter the cost. Maybe he just cannot reason about his own self-interests. Maybe Satan is a *theological* caricature, a personification of evil in its most absolute and irrational form. Maybe Satan is a caricature of those characters. Or maybe both are a caricature of what we humans identify as the corrupt, destructive, hateful, malevolent and vicious forces of the world – they both take the evils to their respective extremes. To provide some personal context, I approach this question as an atheist and former believer. I lost my faith at the age of sixteen, and since then I have sought to understand Christianity as an intellectual and cultural system rather than as a lived faith. One aspect I found particularly burdensome within my former belief was the tendency of some Christians to use an interpretive framework that cast all events and moral choices as elements within a vast cosmic, constantly raging, struggle between good and evil. While this worldview can offer moral clarity and a sense of taking moral stances, seeing oneself as a “soldier of God” in a colossal war, it can also be profoundly exhausting. It is a mode of understanding existence that definitively do not miss.

> "Intercession is the act of using your influence to make someone in authority forgive someone else or save them from punishment" - [*Cambridge Dictionary*](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/intercession) . > "Intercession definition: Entreaty in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another" - [*YourDictionary*](https://www.yourdictionary.com/intercession) . For an act to be "intercession", the intercessor must believe there is a possibility that the act will cause God to act differently than He would have without the intercession. > "The only thing that makes sense is that Jesus must share in God’s divine nature. If that is not the case, then God has either contradicted himself or changed his mind, and he does neither of those things." - from the article "[*What Does It Mean to Be a Trinitarian?*](https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-mean-to-be-trinitarian.html) " at the Christianity.com website. > "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" - Romans 8:26 (KJV) > "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us" - Romans 8:34 (KJV) **Do Trinitarians redefine "intercession"?** I understand that, instead, they could take the Greek words translated "intercession" and translate them differently. Or they could say that God's changing His action because of an intercession does not constitute His changing His mind. *[Entugchano](https://biblehub.com/greek/1793.htm)* One thing I have learned from leading Biblical word studies is, "If you want to discuss *agape*, refer to it as *agape*, not as 'love'". This time it bit me. I forgot the first line of Paul's answer and thought he was discussing "intercession" when apparently he was discussing *[Entugchano](https://biblehub.com/greek/1793.htm)* , instead. - Also see Strongs & similar [here](https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G1793/entugchano.htm) and [here](https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/entynchano) and [here](https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/entugchano.html)

This question may seem strange, but I believe it is valid. It is commonly understood that God cannot create logical contradictions, such as a square circle, or make 1+1=3. However, it seems that the trinity itself is a logical contradiction being three distinct persons but still only one God. Why can God not create logical contradictions when his own nature is a logical contradiction? I am a trinitarian, but I am unsure of how to answer this question.

Abraham lied about his wife, and Rahab told the soldiers that the Israel spies had already left, and *yet* they seemed to be blessed. But when Ananias and Sapphira lied about the price of sold property they were executed for it by God. God even told Gideon (in Judges 7:16-22) how to deceive the Midianites, sending them fleeing for their lives. **Is it inconsistent for God to punish some of us for lying, bless others, and even instruct Gideon to deceive the Midianites?**

As near as I can determine from Scripture; Creation and ejection of the rebellious angels, both happened at about the same period. That led me to begin to wonder, since it seems logical to me that God created the Angels for a specific duty. It also seemed logical that the rebellious Angels being ejected would leave some functions undone, and if my concepts gained from Revelation are true that would probably be in the area of worship. Of course God could simply create more Angels, but in creating man he could have man make the choice of whether to worship him or Satan before placing them in Heaven as is the procedure for entering the Ultimate Heaven.

In the Bible God gives many commands, but he doesn't seem to have to keep all of them himself. For example in the Ten Commandments God instructs his people not to murder (Exodus 20:13). But God frequently executes people himself, such as when he killed Korah and his 250 followers in Numbers 16. Why doesn't God have to keep his own commandment not to kill? To disobey any of God's commandments is sinful. So how can God ignore them? Does the Bible explain why?

> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and **create evil**: I the LORD do all these things. ([Isaiah 45:7](https://www.biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/45.htm)) [emphasis mine] This is consistent with God being called "all-mighty" and "omnipotent". However, it seems to be grossly *incompatible* with God being called "good". If he truly is all these things, why would he create evil, which is the opposite of what is good, which He is claimed to be?