The Trinity

[icebuddy]

No he doesn't what kind of translation are you reading

Every Bible I pick up says the same thing at Gen 18:1-3...

First of all a personality cannot be equalled to a materialism or a part of a body since a Personality is always different from a other personality and its a mind/soul a being.

God is unique and above our thoughts, i only know what is revealed. The Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They all exist with unity within what one calls God Almighty. My point was to show you that we are made up of many parts but have one Body. You are using your limited human wisdom to explain God and that is very hard to do, if at all possible and be 100% accurate. Im only trying to show you God is more complex than his creation which has many parts...

So when we say Three persons we are contradicting since a Person means someone with a Personality and if all three have different personalities then they are different gods simple as that.

I believe the word "Persons" is used to describe Gods relation to us. the Trinity doesnt state they are only 3 persons, it adds that the 3 persons are of the one essence we call God (one being God expressing himself in 3 persons) They Speak as One being as seen at Isaiah 44:6-8 where he also says, "who then is like me?" So to say you understand his persons as you understand yours or mine is probably in error since he alone is unique.

A body is not a person a body is just a part of something. If you say for example that the body has three parts and all the three parts have a mind (single mind) then they are still different in mind, because they don't share the same mind..

You miss the whole point. A man and a woman marry to become One flesh. (2 yet 1)
A group of believers gather to become 1 body of Christ. You are hanging your understanding upon your limited belief. God is everywhere all the time and is in everything because he holds it together, I dont think its as simple as you are looking at it...

So? A concept of god is something different then comprehending god Jesus(p) never believed in a trinity nor the Jewish, you cannot say that God changed hes concept after Jesus(p).

Again, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are connected in a way we may not understand or know 100% on this side of life. To say God has limits such as a place to live or a body that contains his essence or a place where he cannot be is something we cannot say. We say "Persons" because thats what our minds limit is to a loving being that exists and cares for us. However, you are using persons to a limited thought of 3 brains must have 3 minds that have 3 different ideas which must conclude 3 Gods. But if I understand your thoughts correctly, then we have one essence(Brain/Mind) that is God expressing himself in three Persons from within that essence...

typical

At least I know the body of Christ is one in being typical however, 1 John 1:1-5 says that which was from the beginning and is the eternal word of life who was with the Father, apeared to us.

If the Father is eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Spirit Eternal, then who is God to you if they have always existed together as One?

 

[Rocky S]

What's there to elaborate? Why don't you provide the definition of "person" in the idea of the "3 persons in one being". How can one being be 3 different persons and have 3 different minds and wills and still be one being? Do they have 3 heads like Cerebrus? I can imagine a two-headed person being two persons in one being perhaps but its still debatable if they're not two "two beings in one body".

Here is an explanation I gave in a similar thread I hope it helps: The trinity is hard to understand because of the erroneous explanations that is out there such as the water explanation or the Egg explanation. which both of those explain that God consist of three persons in one. Or that the father Son and Holy Ghost refer to three manifestations. Or that the Father,Son,Holy Ghost are essential parts of one being like man is soul body and spirit, which are all unscriptural. The bible interprets the trinity as three distinct individuals in the God head all equal in divinity and deity. each one having his own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit, and only one in unity and equal as it pertains to divinity. The Father is not the Son or the Son is not the Father and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Now I know the spirit body thing may throw some people off but here goes: Angels, cherubim,seraphim and all other spirit beings have spirit bodies. God has been seen bodily by humans in the bible many times there is like 20 scripture references i can give but I believe this reply is already to long. And, they are over 20,000 references about God in the bible to study..Also concerning the statements I have made about the trinity has about over 230 Scriptures in the bible to help us in understanding this, if we study them.I will give them if asked. This does not mean I think I am the all knowing Rocky, It just this can be unstood if one would take the time to study it out...

 

[icebuddy]

It's interesting how the definition of "person" becomes such a problem when the Trinitarian is asked to define this critical-to-their-doctrine term.

Make a robot and then tell it to explain its maker? Truth is we dont etirely know how to explain our own bodies and exactly how they all work. We may know some things, but not everything. So how do you expect us to explain God with 100% accuracy? That is why we say Great is the mystery of Godliness.

What belief do you have? Can you say that you understand God 100% and know his ways?

 

[icebuddy]

Here is an explanation I gave in a similar thread I hope it helps: The trinity is hard to understand because of the erroneous explanations that is out there such as the water explanation or the Egg explanation. which both of those explain that God consist of three persons in one. Or that the father Son and Holy Ghost refer to three manifestations. Or that the Father,Son,Holy Ghost are essential parts of one being like man is soul body and spirit, which are all unscriptural. The bible interprets the trinity as three distinct individuals in the God head all equal in divinity and deity. each one having his own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit, and only one in unity and equal as it pertains to divinity. The Father is not the Son or the Son is not the Father and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Now I know the spirit body thing may throw some people off but here goes: Angels, cherubim,seraphim and all other spirit beings have spirit bodies. God has been seen bodily by humans in the bible many times there is like 20 scripture references i can give but I believe this reply is already to long. And, they are over 20,000 references about God in the bible to study..Also concerning the statements I have made about the trinity has about over 230 Scriptures in the bible to help us in understanding this, if we study them.I will give them if asked. This does not mean I think I am the all knowing Rocky, It just this can be unstood if one would take the time to study it out...

i do not have a problem with this understanding. However, i do not claim to know Gods being 100% accurately... I do like how your mind works

 

[Shermana]

Make a robot and then tell it to explain its maker? Truth is we dont etirely know how to explain our own bodies and exactly how they all work. We may know some things, but not everything. So how do you expect us to explain God with 100% accuracy? That is why we say Great is the mystery of Godliness.

What belief do you have? Can you say that you understand God 100% and know his ways?

Well then don't you think its a tad bit dishonest to use the word "person" in arguments about the Trinity if you have no actual concept or definition of what "person" means?

 

[sojourner]

How can one being be 3 different persons and have 3 different minds and wills and still be one being?

Do they have "3 different minds and wills?"

 

[Shermana]

Here is an explanation I gave in a similar thread I hope it helps: The trinity is hard to understand because of the erroneous explanations that is out there such as the water explanation or the Egg explanation. which both of those explain that God consist of three persons in one.

Indeed, most of the explanations are actually 100% Modalist, like the Ice, water, and steam.

Or that the father Son and Holy Ghost refer to three manifestations. Or that the Father,Son,Holy Ghost are essential parts of one being like man is soul body and spirit, which are all unscriptural. The bible interprets the trinity as three distinct individuals in the God head all equal in divinity and deity. each one having his own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit, and only one in unity and equal as it pertains to divinity. The Father is not the Son or the Son is not the Father and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Now I know the spirit body thing may throw some people off but here goes: Angels, cherubim,seraphim and all other spirit beings have spirit bodies. God has been seen bodily by humans in the bible many times there is like 20 scripture references i can give but I believe this reply is already to long. And, they are over 20,000 references about God in the bible to study..Also concerning the statements I have made about the trinity has about over 230 Scriptures in the bible to help us in understanding this, if we study them.I will give them if asked. This does not mean I think I am the all knowing Rocky, It just this can be unstood if one would take the time to study it out...

Umm, can anyone else explain where the word "Person" is actually defined here? Is it just me or is there no actual explanation of "person" here? If anything, this paragraph kinda proves that they're completely separate beings, only united in purpose, which is my own belief, sort of Arianist.

Now you see that G-d has been seen bodily. Are you referring to verses like Genesis 18? That in no way says that G-d himself was those angels. Did G-d hmself go to Sodom?

Thanks for telling me how many numbers of scriptures you have to back your definition though, I can say the same thing as say numerous verses outright disprove the Trinity and that all the Trinity proof texts are totally out of context or translated incorrectly.

But seriously, if you feel you've defined the word "person" here, I must have missed it, feel free to quote the specific sentences where you feel your point has been made and we'll dissect it.

 

[Shermana]

Do they have "3 different minds and wills?"

"Let your will be done not mine" = the same mind and will??

"Not even the son knows the hour", hmmm apparently Jesus doesn't know things that only the Father knows.

And then there's the fact that even after the Ascension, Jesus received Revelation from the Father. Different minds, different wills, different knowledge bases. Even after the resurrection.

 

[sojourner]

"Let your will be done not mine" = the same mind and will??

"Not even the son knows the hour", hmmm apparently Jesus doesn't know things that only the Father knows.

And then there's the fact that even after the Ascension, Jesus received Revelation from the Father. Different minds, different wills, different knowledge bases. Even after the resurrection.

Jesus ended up being crucified, didn't he?

And risen?

 

[Shermana]

If he said "Let your will be done, not mine", and he ended up being crucified, that means he did NOT want to be crucified, but he ended up being crucified anyway because it was His Father's will. Pretty simple. And if he still receives revelation in the Book of Revelation, that measns he has a separate mind from the Father altogether.

 

[F0uad]

Icebuddy you know what forget i ever replied on you, i rather talk to people who are not ignorant and try a dodge manoeuvre all the time.

 

[sojourner]

If he said "Let your will be done, not mine", and he ended up being crucified, that means he did NOT want to be crucified, but he ended up being crucified anyway because it was His Father's will. Pretty simple. And if he still receives revelation in the Book of Revelation, that measns he has a separate mind from the Father altogether.

haven't you ever had an inward struggle with what you wanted, pitted against what was best?

 

[Oryonder]

Here is an explanation I gave in a similar thread I hope it helps: The trinity is hard to understand because of the erroneous explanations that is out there such as the water explanation or the Egg explanation. which both of those explain that God consist of three persons in one. Or that the father Son and Holy Ghost refer to three manifestations. Or that the Father,Son,Holy Ghost are essential parts of one being like man is soul body and spirit, which are all unscriptural. The bible interprets the trinity as three distinct individuals in the God head all equal in divinity and deity. each one having his own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit, and only one in unity and equal as it pertains to divinity. The Father is not the Son or the Son is not the Father and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Now I know the spirit body thing may throw some people off but here goes: Angels, cherubim,seraphim and all other spirit beings have spirit bodies. God has been seen bodily by humans in the bible many times there is like 20 scripture references i can give but I believe this reply is already to long. And, they are over 20,000 references about God in the bible to study..Also concerning the statements I have made about the trinity has about over 230 Scriptures in the bible to help us in understanding this, if we study them.I will give them if asked. This does not mean I think I am the all knowing Rocky, It just this can be unstood if one would take the time to study it out...

First off .. going into the OT and claiming they had a trinity conception similar to today is not substantiated by serious acadamia.

They did have a Trinity "El -Father/Creator, Asherah his consort, and Baal (the son)" but this is hardly similar to modern Trinity doctrine.

It should also be recognized that the Israelites were polytheistic. Elijah for example records that he was the only priest in all of Israel for Yahweh. 450 for Baal and 400 for Asherah.

Psalm 82 speaks of Yahweh as being a part of a council of Gods. http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_144.pdf

This is very similar to the ideas expressed in Genesis when God creates man. "Let "us" create man in "our" image"

When Genesis was put to paper around 400 -500BC the writer had no conception of a modern Trinity. Every other action of God prior to the creation of Man is the "Creator God - El/Elohim" saying I did this and I did that (singular). Then all of a sudden the "plural" is introduced.

Clearly if the modern Trinity was intended it would have been used for all creation .. not just this one instance.

Moving to the NT. Bible dictionaries claim that there is no direct reference to the Trinity in the NT from the lips of Jesus. What we do see hundreds of times is Jesus refer to "the Father" as someone other than himself.

The early Church fathers .. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Origin, Ireneaus, Justin Martyr, Pope Dionysius, .. were all subordinationists (believed Jesus was subordinate to the Father)

It was Tertullian (200 AD) that was the first one to propose the modern Trinity formulation which was deemed heresy by the Church at that time. Tertullian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The man who put together the first Bible - Eusebius - did not believe in the Trinity.
His disbelief was so strong that he was exiled by Constantine for refusing to sign off on "homoousios" (one substance with the Father) at Nicea.

The person who pushed the Trinity doctrine on Christianity was Constantine. Constantine's reason for doing this was political. He wanted to unite his empire under one religion (monotheism- one God) and make himself top of the food chain "Pontifex Maximus"

At that time there were many conflicting ideas about the divinity of Jesus .. whether Jesus was pre-existent, the nature of his divinity, Subordinationism, Arianism and so on.

The Trinity solved all these problems in one word "homoousious". At the time it was believed there were two types of substances/matter. That which was of God .. and that from which everything else was made .. angels, man, trees .. everything else.

Homoousios (one substance with the Father) solved all the conflicts in relation to the divinity of Jesus but this had nothing to do with scripture, or commonly held doctrine of the Church in the early 4th Century.

 

[sojourner]

Of course, you understand that the Bible doesn't contain all truth and doctrine? Or are you one of those Sola Scriptura people?
Xy, as an organic entity, is always growing, changing, adapting. It's only natural that some understanding of God would grow and change, too.

 

[Shermana]

haven't you ever had an inward struggle with what you wanted, pitted against what was best?

Okay, so then by your total dodge, I garner that you have no contention against the idea that His will and mind was different from G-d's will and mind, thank you. And yes, I've had to fight fleshly temptation on a regular basis, to answer your question. What does that have to do with Jesus saying let YOUR will be done not MINE.

If someone said "Your will" and "Mine", that means two separate beings with separate wills, not just a struggle between what was their own desire and what was best. You have to have a circular Trinitarian presumption to get any sort of less-than-face-value reading of the text from that.

 

[Shermana]

Of course, you understand that the Bible doesn't contain all truth and doctrine? Or are you one of those Sola Scriptura people?
Xy, as an organic entity, is always growing, changing, adapting. It's only natural that some understanding of God would grow and change, too.

Well if you admit that the "Christian" (i.e. Pauline orthodox version and its mainstream derivations) had to "Grow and change" (what does "Grow" mean anyway in this context?) from the original idea of which it came from, I think you've proven decisively that the doctrine is in fact "invented" with your own words. Which is different than what you said about it "Developing" from an "Amorphous" concept earlier. But I can appreciate you admitting that it was "changed" to "adapt" the culture at the time.

Now as for XY begin an "organic entity", what does that mean? Does "Organic" mean "changes at the whim of the believer's desires"? I would say that "Organic" doesn't mean anything close to that, if anything that would be Plastic and genetically modified. The "Organic" belief would be the one that comes straight from the same old ground it was always grown in without any modernist artificial additions.

 

[sojourner]

Well if you admit that the "Christian" (i.e. Pauline orthodox version and its mainstream derivations) had to "Grow and change" (what does "Grow" mean anyway in this context?) from the original idea of which it came from, I think you've proven decisively that the doctrine is in fact "invented" with your own words. Which is different than what you said about it "Developing" from an "Amorphous" concept earlier. But I can appreciate you admitting that it was "changed" to "adapt" the culture at the time.

Now as for XY begin an "organic entity", what does that mean? Does "Organic" mean "changes at the whim of the believer's desires"? I would say that "Organic" doesn't mean anything close to that, if anything that would be Plastic and genetically modified. The "Organic" belief would be the one that comes straight from the same old ground it was always grown in without any modernist artificial additions.

Not "invented" -- developed. All doctrine is developed from earlier understanding. This stuff certainly isn't made up out of whole cloth, and if you claim that it is, you have far less understanding of hermeneutics than you give yourself credit for.

Xy an organic entity: Xy is comprised of people who are the body of Christ. That's pretty organic language. That body has to live in the real world -- not in some static and antiseptic fantasyland. The real world changes. Real people change. Religion changes too -- especially one that is comprised of changing people, and whose central tenet is relationship, not belief. That "old ground" you speak of is not the law. The law is a tool. The "old ground" is the ground of relationship. Relationships provide a space for people to reflect each other. We were made in God's image -- therefore, we reflect God, therefore, the "ground" is relationship.

:edit:
Relationship = community. It takes people (plural) to have relationship. We are pack animals. God-as-Trinity is an expression of God-in-community, or God-as-community.

 

[Shermana]

Not "invented" -- developed. All doctrine is developed from earlier understanding. This stuff certainly isn't made up out of whole cloth, and if you claim that it is, you have far less understanding of hermeneutics than you give yourself credit for.

I believe I asked you to prove that the idea had roots earlier than Tertullian's time when you made this assertion and your answer was:

-----CRICKET-----

So perhaps you'd like to take a crack at proving your claim that it was in fact based on an earlier basis from which it developed before the 2nd century. If your argument is "Prove that it didnt", then thanks for playing.

Xy an organic entity: Xy is comprised of people who are the body of Christ. That's pretty organic language.

Hopefully you acknowledge then that "Organic" is a pretty open-ended relative term. I like my definition better, fits more with the actual dictionary meaning I'd say.

That body has to live in the real world -- not in some static and antiseptic fantasyland.

Ah, so the scriptural basis is a "Static and antiseptic fantasyland", what a great argument. Please by all means explain what a "Fantasyland" is in your speak and why your own views aren't "Fantastic". Why is your Trinity belief not fantastic but my angel-incarnation belief fantastic?

The real world changes. Real people change. Religion changes too -- especially one that is comprised of changing people, and whose central tenet is relationship, not belief.

Translation: If you don't like the Bible says, you can change it and call it "evolving organic culture" to suit what you want it to say. The cafeteria is open, pick and choose as you wish.

That "old ground" you speak of is not the law.

So the old ground is a "Relationship", but the Law isn't a basis for the "relationship"?

The law is a tool.

Sort of like how a two-man saw is a tool you'd need to chop down a tree, or a chainsaw. It's a necessary "tool" to understand the honest historical basis of what Jesus was teaching and why he was even considered to be the Messiah in the first place.

The "old ground" is the ground of relationship. Relationships provide a space for people to reflect each other. We were made in God's image -- therefore, we reflect God, therefore, the "ground" is relationship.

So anyone who claims to know God therefore has this relationship you speak of regardless of what they believe about it? Or do you believe there are actual specific roots which must be held to?

:edit:
Relationship = community. It takes people (plural) to have relationship. We are pack animals. God-as-Trinity is an expression of God-in-community, or God-as-community.[

And why did God even have this relationship with the Israelites to begin with, and what was the reason that this relationship often went sour? What kind of relationship did Ananias have when he was struck dead for lying about the value of his home?

 

[sojourner]

So perhaps you'd like to take a crack at proving your claim that it was in fact based on an earlier basis from which it developed before the 2nd century.

It's alluded to in the texts. They're older than the 2nd century.

I like my definition better, fits more with the actual dictionary meaning I'd say.

so... "body" isn't organic language?

Ah, so the scriptural basis is a "Static and antiseptic fantasyland"

Nope.
You do this all the time. either you're stupid or you're deliberately twisting my meaning.
Either way, I don't care to play this infantile game. The stance that "what is written is scripture is immutable" is static and antiseptic fantasyland.

Do you really not know that the canon was a hermeneutical tool that severely hampered the inherent flexibility of the transmitted Tradition???

Translation: If you don't like the Bible says, you can change it and call it "evolving organic culture" to suit what you want it to say. The cafeteria is open, pick and choose as you wish.

Wrong again. the bible wasn't created in a vacuum, and cannot survive in one.

So the old ground is a "Relationship", but the Law isn't a basis for the "relationship"?

It's a tool for forming relationship.

Sort of like how a two-man saw is a tool you'd need to chop down a tree, or a chainsaw. It's a necessary "tool" to understand the honest historical basis of what Jesus was teaching and why he was even considered to be the Messiah in the first place.

Nope. It's one tool for forming relationship. As every good carpenter knows (and Jesus was such a person), it behooves one to have more than one tool, and it also behooves one to keep improving the tools one has. Early people waited for beavers to cut down trees. Later people developed an axe. Later people created the chainsaw. Now we've decided that it's better to conserve wood altogether. some folks, like the Amish, seem to prefer the "old ways." If you want to live in the stone age, by all means, feel free. have yourself a large time chopping down a tree with a rock. Meantime, the rest of us will simply be about the business of methodically and efficiently building the kingdom.

So anyone who claims to know God therefore has this relationship you speak of regardless of what they believe about it?

If I take you meaning correctly, then, yes. People who know God form relationships of one sort or another with God.

Or do you believe there are actual specific roots which must be held to?

depends on what you think those specific roots are.

And why did God even have this relationship with the Israelites to begin with, and what was the reason that this relationship often went sour? What kind of relationship did Ananias have when he was struck dead for lying about the value of his home?

Ananias? Actual, historic figure, or literary device?
God had a relationship with Israel, I believe, for the same reason God has a relationship with anyone: Love.

 

[Shermana]

It's alluded to in the texts. They're older than the 2nd century.

No it's not, that's half the argument here whether the text alludes to it or not. We're saying here that it doens't, and that the interpretations of such are wrongly used, and I'm saying that such interpretations show no evidence of being interpreted as such until the 2nd century. To say that it's alluded to in the texts basically is a cheap jump around the entire discussion on what the text actually says about the issue.

so... "body" isn't organic language?

Not the way you're using it. Even Paul referred to church members as "False brothers" so even Paul wouldn't agree that the people themselves are the "organic" body in that they get to decide how to interpret it as they wish. My definition of organic stands: That which is grown from the original soil without any later artificial additions.

Nope.
You do this all the time. either you're stupid or you're deliberately twisting my meaning.
Either way, I don't care to play this infantile game. The stance that "what is written is scripture is immutable" is static and antiseptic fantasyland.

Please explain how I deliberately twisted and what you meant to say that you feel I twisted it out of context. How do you even know which parts of scripture are correct in the first place? I asked why your view isn't fantasyland. Which parts of your view are not fantasyland, that's not a fair question? The parts you like? Calling it infantile while avoiding the actual topic is not a good way to score points. I challenge anyone else reading to show why my quote there is taking what you said out of context, or being "infantile", you made an assertion, you called my view "fantasyland", and then when asked why your view is NOT fantasy land, this is your response? Nice. What YOU do all the time is look for cheap ways out of the legitimate contentions.

Do you really not know that the canon was a hermeneutical tool that severely hampered the inherent flexibility of the transmitted Tradition???

Are you trying to say that the text itself got in the way of interpreting the "transmitted tradition"? What transmitted tradition? Whose? Peter's? Paul's? James's? Judes'? Marcion's? Yours? Explain in more detail what you mean. As for "Hermeneutics", do you really not know what that word even means? Apparently so by your usage of it.

Wrong again. the bible wasn't created in a vacuum, and cannot survive in one.

How does that in any way address what I said? Explain. And feel free to elaborate on how you know which parts correctly convey the "original transmission" and which ones don't. I imagine they coincidentally match with what you want to believe.

It's a tool for forming relationship.

So the Law is the tool for forming the intended relationship the scripture states. Great. You're on track to actually getting honest here.

Nope. It's one tool for forming relationship. As every good carpenter knows (and Jesus was such a person), it behooves one to have more than one tool, and it also behooves one to keep improving the tools one has.

But the other "tools" are contradictory. You're saying you can deny what the tool says in favor of your own tool.

Early people waited for beavers to cut down trees. Later people developed an axe. Later people created the chainsaw. Now we've decided that it's better to conserve wood altogether. some folks, like the Amish, seem to prefer the "old ways." If you want to live in the stone age, by all means, feel free. have yourself a large time chopping down a tree with a rock. Meantime, the rest of us will simply be about the business of methodically and efficiently building the kingdom.

And of course, your idea of "building the kingdom" somehow trumps and supercedes what the idea of "Building the kingdom" in terms of the context of the original tool was? Why is your tool the Chainsaw but my tool is only the Hacksaw? My tool has way more teeth, yours is if anything a reduced way from its original form with teeth that go in opposite ways (i.e. contradictions). Are you calling the Law itself a mere rock compared to a chainsaw which is the anti-law position? If your view is such a chainsaw just because its a modern view, why are scholars so heavily divided about how to even interpret it? Does everyone get their own chainsaw? My rock does a fine job felling trees, it must be made out of adamantium or something. I imagine you have a radically different idea of what it means to "build the kingdom" than I do and that has to do with your reply.

If I take you meaning correctly, then, yes. People who know God form relationships of one sort or another with God.

I agree that everyone who claims to know God has their own relationship with them. That has nothing to do with whether that relationship is good or a relation He wants from them. Especially when it involves outright contradicting the text to make up your own manmade ideas about what this relationship entails outside of the scriptural context.

depends on what you think those specific roots are.

The Law.

Ananias? Actual, historic figure, or literary device?

So you agree that perhaps the Acts of the Apostles contains things that didn't actually happen? Next up on the Chopping block: The Council of Jerusalem.

God had a relationship with Israel, I believe, for the same reason God has a relationship with anyone: Love.

"The love of god is obedience to the commandments" 1 John 5:3.

That's why he loved Israel. Or at least the Israelites who held fast to His commandments. Which you seem to be indicating aren't necessary to be obeyed.