Is Jesus unchanging?

[JohnGerard]

Then we have two different entities, God, who does not change and What-God-is-doing which does change.

I agree.
Since one thing cannot both change and not change, then we have two different things here.

I agree. We have the perfect God who does not change, and His actions which do.
God does not change, but cannot create.

I do not see how that follows. God does not change because He is perfect, but He can act and when He does He acts perfectly. I think we are splitting hairs if we are going to say God “changes” because sometimes He is acting and sometimes He isn’t. That doesn’t change who He is.
What-God-is-doing creates but is not unchanging.

I do not see how that follows either. It isn’t “what-God-is-doing” that creates, but God Himself. If a potter is making a clay pot, we would say, “That person is creating” not “What-that-person-is doing creates.” So we would say God is creating.
There is indeed. Being unchanging very much limits what you can do. You can only do today exactly what you did yesterday. Doing anything different is a change. Being unable to change is extremely limiting.

I don’t see how being perfect limits what God can do at all. Isn’t that the ultimate freedom? He can do all things perfectly. He can only do today what He did yesterday…Be Perfection and act Perfectly. How is that limiting?
rossum

Thanks for the conversation, Rossum, and sorry for the messy post. I am obviously a rookie and still trying to learn how to post and respond.

 

[rossum]

I do not see how that follows. God does not change because He is perfect, but He can act and when He does He acts perfectly. I think we are splitting hairs if we are going to say God “changes” because sometimes He is acting and sometimes He isn’t. That doesn’t change who He is.

You are using essentialist thinking. Your “who He is” refers to God’s essence. Does God’s essence change? If not, then His essence cannot be involved in any actions. If is does, then it can be involved in actions but it cannot be the essence of an unchanging God.

Is God’s esence the same as God? If so then it is a useless distraction. If it is not the same, then we have three entities: God, Essence-of-God and Works-of-God.

If you look at the top right of my post you will see that I am Buddhist. Buddhism rejects all reified essences, and you are bumping up against that here. In Buddhism everything changes, including all the gods.

I do not see how that follows either. It isn’t “what-God-is-doing” that creates, but God Himself.

We agreed that whatever is doing the creating must change, since it does different things at different times. If God is directly creating then God changes. If God is not directly creating, then something else is doing the creating on His behalf. Both Gnostics and Kabbalah have a great deal to say about possible resolutions of this problem.

I don’t see how being perfect limits what God can do at all.

Being perfect doesn’t in itself limit Him. Being unchanging does. If He can never change, then He can never do anything different. A bit limiting for an omnipotent being: “I’m sorry, I can’t do that because I didn’t do it yesterday.”

Thanks for the conversation, Rossum, and sorry for the messy post. I am obviously a rookie and still trying to learn how to post and respond.

Use [noparse][/noparse] to stop quoting the poster you are replying to. Then type your reply. Then use [noparse]

[/noparse] to start quoting again.

For example:

[noparse]

[/noparse]
What is one plus one?[noparse]

[/noparse]
The answer is two.

appears as:

What is one plus one?

The answer is two.

rossum

 

[JohnGerard]

Hey rossum,

Thanks again for the conversation.

I think I’ll step back and just do some thinking for awhile. I did notice that you were a Buddhist ( I noticed you have over 8,000 posts, too ) I don’t know that I’ve ever “conversed” with a Buddhist before.

Thanks alot for the advice on how to start and end quotes when responding, too. I appreciate that. You’ve probably noticed I’ve only hit around a baker’s dozen for total posts.

God Bless.

JohnGerard

 

[Telstar]

Seriously? You’re asking me to answer a question which requires steering within spitting distance of the Monothelite Heresy? Are you trying to get me burnt at the stake?

I would say that much the same applies to his mortal mind as to his mortal body: it grew, and it changed (Lk 2:52), but it was not the whole of who Jesus was. Let me call that one Jesus-M (mortal). Existing in the same person at the same time was the divine aspect, which had pre-existed the body (Jn 1:1). Let me call that one Jesus-D (divine)

Then, there is the combination of M and D in Jesus-A (absolute), the Jesus of the Chalcedonian Definition: two natures not confused, not changeable, not individually divisible, not separable. Being timeless, D not only always existed, but always existed in its relation to M, even though M did not exist for most of our perception of linear time (think of that as “Jesus, being omniscient, always had absolute knowledge of being the Incarnation, and so effectively ‘experienced’ the Incarnation before it ‘happened’ in our understanding of the universe”, if it helps). As a result, Jesus-A, the hypostatic union, is also unchanging.

Jesus-A appears to have been the one in view in Hebrew 13:8, not least since the text was written after Jesus’ return to the Father, and so its “yesterday” was not a day when Jesus-M was walking around with them.

So, yes, his mind grew and changed, but that mind was only one part of him, and it only grew and changed with respect to our linear perspective on time, not with respect to D or A’s omniscient and timeless perspective.

There! Did I manage it without straying into unforgivable heresy? Or should I reach for the marshmallows?

You really, really can (although that might be easier for those of us who are disabled). The mind can be altered merely by altering the chemical or the electrical state of the brain, but, when you remove the alteration, the same character is there: the mind is not the self. The body, meanwhile, is just the vehicle: you can do all manner of things to it without changing the character.

:clapping:

This is a very good explanation. I think we can save the marshmallows for another time.

 

[Telstar]

God changes, the Bible tells you so. If God didn’t change, then Genesis would read very differently:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day …"

Being unchanging means that you cannot change, and that is extremely restricting. Whatever the words in Hebrews, they do not mean “stays exactly the same over time”, because God, and hence also Jesus, obviously does not stay exactly the same over time.

Some aspects of both God and Jesus might not change, but there are other aspects of them that do change.

rossum

This only proves that God’s creation changes, but God does not.

 

[rossum]

This only proves that God’s creation changes, but God does not.

So, whoever created Adam on day six was not the same God as the one who created light on day one. Any God that acts in the real world has to change. Is the Red Sea currently parted? It was once, but things have changed. Is the River Jordan currently not flowing? It was stopped once, but things have changed. Is Egypt still overrun with frogs? It was once, but things have changed.

God has done many things that started and then stopped. Those actions require God to both start acting at the beginning of the action and then to stop acting at the end of the action. That is two changes for each action.

An unchanging God can never either start acting or stop acting. Hence my unorthodox version of Genesis.

rossum

 

[InternetWoman]

Thanks for you post from the Catholic Encyclopedia, InternetWoman, that is interesting and helpful.

JohnGerard

 

[InternetWoman]

So, whoever created Adam on day six was not the same God as the one who created light on day one.
rossum

There is no time with God. There is no yesterday, today, or tomorrow. There is only NOW. Genesis’ talk of six days of creation are not meant to be 24 hour days. They are “phases” that we as human perceive. How timelessness is perceived by God is not something us mere humans will understand – until perhaps we get to Heaven.

 

[InternetWoman]

We agreed that whatever is doing the creating must change, since it does different things at different times. rossum

But God is outside time. He created time for us finite folk. All that ever was, is or will be is NOW to God.

 

[Telstar]

So, whoever created Adam on day six was not the same God as the one who created light on day one. Any God that acts in the real world has to change. Is the Red Sea currently parted? It was once, but things have changed. Is the River Jordan currently not flowing? It was stopped once, but things have changed. Is Egypt still overrun with frogs? It was once, but things have changed.

God has done many things that started and then stopped. Those actions require God to both start acting at the beginning of the action and then to stop acting at the end of the action. That is two changes for each action.

An unchanging God can never either start acting or stop acting. Hence my unorthodox version of Genesis.

rossum

Everything that you point to are changes within the physical world that God created, not actual changes in God. Time is also a part of that creation. But, God is not subject to time (as someone already said). Time was only created to make the physical universe and everything in it, possible. God doesn’t need to do things at any particular point in time, because everything is in the present tense to Him. He exists, and always has existed, outside of time and space.

The ‘big bang theory’ is a scientific theory that demonstrates how God can create everything, including time, space, and everything else necessary for time to flow through all eternity, in a millisecond. That millisecond in time is absolutely meaningless in relation to God’s existence, but it is extremely important to ours. God has always existed, since long before time or space ever did. He didn’t need to create time or space, but He wanted to, because He had so much love that He wanted to share. He doesn’t need us to exist, but we need Him to sustain us, or we will all cease to exist in that same millisecond.

I don’t think it’s God’s lack of changeability that’s the real problem, here. I think it’s yours. It’s your very narrow point of view (Buddhism) that is what severely limits your own ability to understand anything about God, or the things that He created out of His tremendous love. To me, that’s very sad for you, because you will never be able to see past your own beliefs, to recognize just how great and powerful God truly is. Or, to ever know and understand the endless love that He has for all of us, including you. A love that caused Him to send His Beloved and Only Son to save us, by dieing the most despicable death possible, on the cross, to redeem us all from our sins. I think that’s the real pity in this whole discussion. Are you sure that you don’t want to change your mind?

 

[mdcpensive1]

You have to ask the question of whether God does things perfectly. If He is God then the answer has to be yes. If He can do things more perfectly or less perfectly He would not be God because He is all knowing and omniscient. To do things perfectly means they don’t change from the way they are done by God.

It is our problem that we don’t understand His perfectness.

 

[Mystophilus]

I would imagine however, if she somehow became male, that would profoundly alter the relationship between you, although a priori only the embodiment would be affected.

It would certainly prove an interesting test of my sexual orientation, and of the role which sexual attraction plays in my love for her.

Robot “bodies”, if complete, are impossible because not alive. As soul beings, we require an embodiment that holds life.

Sorry, but where is the proof that robotic bodies are incapable of holding life? They are not separately alive, but neither are my hands: remove them from my body, and they first become inert and then rapidly degenerate; reattach them soon enough, and they operate as before. With existing technology, we can transplant most of the body, which demonstrates that the flesh is replaceable. Further, we can synthesize almost all of the functions necessary for survival, which means that we could produce a cyborg, for anyone sufficiently rich and willing: a human brain in a non-human body.

Only when we can synthesize a sufficiently-complex neural network will we be able to determine whether or not consciousness can be transferred to a machine, but I rather suspect that the answer is that it can, because the psyche is more robust than many give it credit for being.

Financial assets are extrinsic to the person. Body is not.

That merely assumes your initial claim without demonstrating it in any way. As noted, both financial status and physical status alter the opportunities and challenges available to the person, making the analogy a fair one until proven otherwise.

By the way, I asked a group of a dozen people, from five countries, about this: 4 said that they felt that they would remain the same person if transported into another human or artificial body; 8 said that they felt that they would become someone else. It is a small sample, but nonetheless interesting.

 

[rossum]

But God is outside time.

1. God is outside time.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Jesus was inside time.

Pick any two from three. You can’t pick all three.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Everything that you point to are changes within the physical world that God created, not actual changes in God.

The changes in the physical world are consequences of actions by God. If God had not acted then the consequences would not have happened. Many years ago God acted to part the Red Sea. Since the Red Sea is not currently parted, then God has ceased that action. God acted in the past. God is not acting now. Hence God is different over time. God was acting; God is not longer acting. Difference over time is change. God has changed.

Any God that acts within time must change, or at least a part of that God must change.

rossum

 

[GEddie]

Sorry, but where is the proof that robotic bodies are incapable of holding life? They are not separately alive, but neither are my hands: remove them from my body,

Your hands do not hold life on their own because life is held by the whole body, and not its parts, extremities or organs.

The same can be said of any body part. The lungs do not hold life on their own outside a body, although unlike the hands, the body does not hold life without them. The whole body holds the life.

A robot body however, is no more alive than an automobile.

and they first become inert and then rapidly degenerate; reattach them soon enough, and they operate as before. With existing technology, we can transplant most of the body, which demonstrates that the flesh is replaceable. Further, we can synthesize almost all of the functions necessary for survival, which means that we could produce a cyborg, for anyone sufficiently rich and willing: a human brain in a non-human body.

Only when we can synthesize a sufficiently-complex neural network will we be able to determine whether or not consciousness can be transferred to a machine, but I rather suspect that the answer is that it can, because the psyche is more robust than many give it credit for being.

I’d like to know where you get that, since we can study the “psyche” only in union with its “soma.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[catholictiger]

easy answer

his human nature no

his divine nature yes

 

[catholictiger]

1. God is outside time.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Jesus was inside time.

Pick any two from three. You can’t pick all three.

rossum

Um the Catholic Faith necessitates that you take all three.

 

[Telstar]

The changes in the physical world are consequences of actions by God. If God had not acted then the consequences would not have happened. Many years ago God acted to part the Red Sea. Since the Red Sea is not currently parted, then God has ceased that action. God acted in the past. God is not acting now. Hence God is different over time. God was acting; God is not longer acting. Difference over time is change. God has changed.

Any God that acts within time must change, or at least a part of that God must change.

rossum

Like I already said (and you completely ignored), God exists outside of time and space. Therefore, all of His actions can be said to actually occur in one thought of His, but seemingly to us, occur at different points in our limited perception of ‘physical time’. God is spiritual, not physical. He is a total Mystery that none of us will ever fully comprehend. Also, He is All-Powerful, so nothing is impossible to Him.“Isaias 55: [8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. [9] For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.”

Even Jesus has always existed outside of time and space, but we perceived Him to be within our physical world, when that part of Him was formed in the physical world. It is my own personal opinion, that it was Jesus, Himself, Who was said to have ‘walked’ in Paradise with Adam and Eve, as well as in other accounts of God ‘walking’ with men in the Old Testament. This is only possible because God (The Holy Trinity) exists outside of time and space. He has no limits. But, when we try to limit Him according to our own lack of understanding, and intellectual flaws, it keeps us from ever actually learning anything about Him.

 

[jameswalter]

Rossum

Its time to re read this post from the beginning. You are not listening to those responding to you.

If you believe that actions taken by God indicate that he is changing you have the burden of proving that he is actually taking actions. It has been said that God is outside of time. Do you understand this? You may not as your faith is limited to the realm of human understanding.

For all we know, his existence before time as we know it contained all the actions (all at once and forever) necessary for everything you perceive to play out. That said, your further wrong any way because God is perfect and if he has been, is and always will be perfect than by your own definition of change (diff/time) God is not changing. How about a third way to prove your wrong? In Buddhism all your gods change because they are not gods at all. In Christianity, God does not change because he is the one true God. In your quote at bottom of your posts you claim there is no ultimate truth…Rossum, meet Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, the Way, the “ultimate” Truth and the Life!!!

 

[jameswalter]

Got so wrapped up with Rossum’s irrationality I neglected the OP.

It is a tough question for me as well. However, I am of the opinion that the verse in Hebrews transitions from speaking of moral or character/social issues to matters of doctrinal discipline.

Since the original bearers of the word/gospel are dying off and being replaced, the letter stresses that those who read it should continue to believe what Jesus taught in the past as true in the present and pass it on to future generations. Later in the verse it warns that since Jesus died separated from his people, that his followers should also not revert to Judaism but remain separate.

Great thread!