G
grannymh
Guest
If you add a coat when you go out in a northern winter, what did you change into? Perhaps a fury (warm) polar bear.
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
To those who experience reality in the sequence of time events are ordered to past, present and future. To Those in eternity all events are present. God sees all things at once; we do not.
The change in The Son appears to those in the temporal world who experience reality in the sequence of time.
I think you miss the importance of the perspective of the viewer. In eternity, the present participle may be seen as the only appropriate verb form as all things are happening at once and, therefore, not changing. Of course, I do not claim to have experienced this perspective but if you agree as you have that all moments in time are present in eternity then the argument stands.
G
grannymh
Guest
When you speak about the temporal world, I am assuming you are referring to the physical years when Jesus Christ lived on planet earth. Is that correct?
What would be an appearance of change in the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity during that time frame? I am really curious because at this moment, I can find nothing that would appear as changing The Son. There is one possibility ā Are you referring to those who attacked the Divinity of Jesus Christ then and now? I am familiar with the idea that Jesus Christ was divine but not fully divine. This is evinced in the reaction to chapter six, Gospel of John and in modern Arianism.
V
Vico
Guest
It does not require anything because is it free choice. God is not conditioned by his creation.
Secondly the natures of God and of human do not change with incarnation.
B
Bahman
Guest
There are two errors here. First, God undergoes a change, Second, there is no before and after in timeless state.That is missing the point that there is a difference in time between pre or post anything.
How do you tell the difference between pre-civil war and post-civil war?
How do you tell the difference between pre-breakfast and post-breakfast?
Now, you are correct that there is usually a noticeable change between your pre-haircut and your post-haircut.
Maybe the problem is not necessarily your eyesight.
B
Bahman
Guest
By God I meant the second person of Trinity.
D
davidv
Guest
Really? What change was that? When did it happen?
This has nothing to do with whether God changes.
It the god you are envisioning changes, that god is imperfect and cannot be God.
Not only that your OP begins with a false assumption. Namely that the Incarnation is a concept. This is incorrect. The Incarnation is a historical event.
B
Bahman
Guest
You didnāt get what I mean so I repeat again. All events in a timeless framework are simultaneous but God should know events in time order way.
Again, any event must be consistent in two frameworks. I mean if incarnation is a change in temporal framework then there must be a change in timeless framework too otherwise we are dealing with a logically impossible event.
No, I am not missing anything.
Please read the second comment.
D
davidv
Guest
Why must it be that way?
Eternity is not framework. There can be no comparisons of frameworks.
Why do you presume it wasnāt read?
B
Bahman
Guest
Free choice has nothing to do here.
We are not talking about creation here.
That is not true. God has only divine nature before the incarnation but has both divine and human nature after incarnation.
B
Bahman
Guest
It was incarnation which presumably happened a while ago.
It has since God assume an extra human nature.
That in fact is your God who is subjected to change.
How that could be a historical event when it requires a change in God?
B
Bahman
Guest
D
davidv
Guest
Godās Incarnation exists eternally. No change in God is required. Why do you keep limiting God?
B
Bahman
Guest
The problem is that there is a change in God in temporal perspective. Any event must be consistent in two perspectives. So you cannot have an event which deals with a change in temporal perspective while there is no change in timeless perspective because this is logically inconsistent.
L
Lucretius
Guest
There isnāt a change in God at all, including a temporal perspective. God didnāt change with the Incarnation.
Christi pax,
Lucretius
U
utunumsint
Guest
Another interesting corolary to this discussion is the doctrine of divine simplicity. A good talk here about this:
youtube.com/watch?v=CUqXuwh-9EY&list=PLAWiXw_kBp-z_O1_fJnHcTUrPrx1NCYff&index=8
God bless,
Ut
youtube.com/watch?v=CUqXuwh-9EY&list=PLAWiXw_kBp-z_O1_fJnHcTUrPrx1NCYff&index=8
God bless,
Ut
O
o_mlly
Guest
I attempt to only refute the OPās claim that the Incarnation is (rationally) a false concept using logic.
The temporal world is all the moments in the created universe. In the temporal world, there was a moment when the Word was not flesh and at another moment when the Word becomes flesh. In the logical scheme I put forward, in eternity the Word is eternally flesh. Therefore, God the Son does not change.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I can go with āsimultaneousā if stripped of its relation to time. And I can go with Omniscience. But neither changes the validity of the conclusion: God does not change.
No. Time is a subset of eternity (to which you have already agreed.) Events that happen, have happened or will happen in time are in eternity happening. There is no inconsistency in events only in the ephemeral duration of the event in time.
Good.
I believe in subsequent posts that you have picked up on the importance of evaluating perspective in judging the changeable and the changeless.
V
Vico
Guest
Free choice does have something to do with it, but since you do not see it, I wonāt elaborate.
Yes it is about creation, because a human being is created, including Jesus Christ.
God always has divine nature. The human nature is not part of the nature of God. God is simple without composition.
G
grannymh
Guest
How is Jesus Christ created? (see words in bold) He is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. He has a Divine Nature. As a Divine Person, Jesus Christ assumes human nature. He takes on a pure human nature without sin. Luke 1: 26-38
- Status