I want to pose a religiously philosophical question that occurred to me. I was recently thinking about the nature of God in Christianity, and I came across a few contradictions that I found were worth exploring. First off I just want to confirm three important points that, from my experience as a Christian, form the foundation of God: 1. God and His Word are unchanging. (Hebrews 13:8; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17) 2. The God of the Old Testament is the same God in the New Testament 3. Jesus was the physical incarnation of God (John 3:16; 1 Timothy 3:16) A perceptive reader may begin to understand where this is going. If you really comprehend what these three statements are saying, then you will see that it is logically impossible for them to all coexist. The root of the problem lies in whether the God in the Old Testament is the same God as the one in the New Testament. Traditional Christianity would state that, yes, they are the same. However, the OT portrays a ruthless, vengeful God of racial elitism who directs his people to kill those of different cultures and beliefs. The NT, on the other hand, is, through Christ, a compassionate and merciful God who stresses the importance of love and forgiveness. Clearly, there is a change that takes place between these. How is it that these two vastly different personalities of God can be of one who does not change? Furthermore, in the New Testament, we are introduced to the idea of Salvation and the Holy Spirit, which is a change to God’s Word from the former “eye for an eye” doctrine. There are two solutions as I see it. The first is that they are actually two different Gods. I don’t mean this in the blasphemous or idolatrous way of having two physical Gods. Instead, that one is simply mythological - not in a derogatory way, but rather to mean He was man made, or even mystically experienced, for the purpose of explaining life and providing social order from a spiritual base. This would most likely be applied to the Old Testament God, seeing that He shares many traits with the governing gods of other ancient religions. The second solution is that God does in fact change. However, this would initiate the need for a major alteration of the Christian doctrine. If God changed His ways between the OT and the NT, then the scriptures are either inaccurate or their meaning is buried deeper than we’re looking. The rising issue with this is that of morality and the way to please God. In the OT, to worship God, you had to offer certain sacrifices and perform specific rituals. That was drastically changed when God sent Jesus to be the ultimate sacrifice. Who’s to say that our approach to God can’t be different today? Who’s to say that the morality of 2,000 years ago has to be upheld the same way today? We would have to rewire our perspective on how God can be relevant in modern times. Now, the third belief, that Jesus is the manifestation of God, relies on which of the first two are deemed true. If God truly is an unchanging God, then that means Jesus was only the manifestation of either the OT or NT one, because they’re too different to be one unchanging being, as I pointed out. It would make most sense for Jesus to have been the NT God because His teachings were not the same as the OT God. However, God Himself doesn’t make much of an appearance in the NT, except for the Baptism scene, where God acknowledges Jesus as His son. So, all we know about the NT God is from Jesus, considering the OT God is a fabrication (again, not derogatory). This would make the mystics’ perception of Jesus more accurate. The mystics believe that Jesus was a manifestation of God, but not the only one. Under their view, Jesus was the roughly first in Western culture to realize that God is within us already (Luke 17:20-21) and by certain spiritual practices, like prayer, we could all become what Jesus was, with love, compassion, and forgiveness as the true qualities of God. This is difficult for Christians, because the doctrine is that only Jesus was God and that we are forever sinful and imperfect. However, if the God of the OT is merely a symbol, then there is little evidence that there is a One True God that literally became human to die. Jesus becomes an archetype for us to follow and imitate to the explicit extent of actually becoming who Jesus was. Finally, if the OT God and the NT God are in fact the same, then we’ve concluded that God can in fact change, rendering the scripture only applicable to the times and culture they were written. Under this view, the One God came to earth as a human to tell us the He was changing his doctrine from “follow the law, love your neighbor, and eye for an eye” to “the Law no longer binds us, love your enemies, and turn the other cheek”. There is no denying that this is certainly a change and that this definitely goes against the statement that God is an unchanging God. So in this option, Jesus can still be the literal and single manifestation of the One God. So, now we have either: 1. God is unchanging 2. The OT God is a symbol, while the NT God is within us 3. Jesus was a man who attained union with God Or: 1. God can change 2. The OT God and the NT God are the same 3. Jesus was God making a change I realize that this is based on philosophical technicalities, but each option does force us to change our interpretation of the Bible and the whole Christian belief. The matter can’t just be “taken in faith” because faith depends exclusively on the nature of God, which is at stake here. I hope this is thought provoking. I’m only just getting started with researching this subject and I’m hoping I’ll get some insightful feedback.