Is Jesus unchanging?

[mdcpensive1]

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

I don’t see your logic. Or else your logic is not logical which I think is the case. You say that if God acts in time He must change. I see no reason why that happens other than you say it does. If God is outside of time then everything for Him is “Right Now”. It is like we are standing in the middle of a river and can see a bit up and downstream. God is up high and can see all the water down and upstream that we cannot. That does not put Him in with us as the only place He is.

 

[InternetWoman]

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

Jesus’ human nature was inside time. His divine nature was, and always will be outside time. What was it like for the 2nd person of the Trinity to take a human nature? We won’t know until heaven, and perhaps not even fully then.

 

[rossum]

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.

Is the Bible true? Did God part the Red Sea? Did God create the universe? The Christian God does act because Christian scripture says that He acts.

Given that God acts, then either God is changing, or a part of God (the part which acts) is changing. A single thing cannot both change and not-change at the same tine. Either God is in two (or more) parts or God changes.

Change is fundamental to Buddhism, and what you are seeing from me here is the opening of a standard Buddhist analysis of change.

It has been said that God is outside of time.

But God is also inside time, since He acts inside time. He cannot simultaneously be both inside time and not-inside time, that is logically impossible. The Red Sea is inside time, so God, or some part of God, was inside time actually moving water around. He was exerting some force, either physical or miraculous, to cause the water to move, and that exertion of force was inside time.

In Buddhism all your gods change because they are not gods at all.

In Buddhism everything changes.

In Christianity, God does not change because he is the one true God.

Then your God is inactive and can never ever do anything different. Difference is change, and with no change there can be no difference. “I’m sorry Moses, I can’t part the Red Sea for you today because I didn’t part it yesterday and since I don’t change, I can only do the same today that I did yesterday.”

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!!!

That is a completely different discussion, which is OT for this thread.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Jesus’ human nature was inside time. His divine nature was, and always will be outside time. What was it like for the 2nd person of the Trinity to take a human nature? We won’t know until heaven, and perhaps not even fully then.

Then there are two Jesuses (?). One inside time and one outside time. It is logically impossible for a single entity to be simultaneously inside time and not-inside time. You have split Jesus into two.

rossum

 

[jameswalter]

Rossum,
Are you 6 years old or 8?
This is simple English. The red sea parted, yes. YOU have the burden of proving the action God took to cause such and any other action of his occurred inside of time as you and I know it. Good Luck with that.

That doesn’t even really matter because, as you failed to address from my post, God is Perfect, in the past present and future so he is UN-changing. If you consider diff/time as change then what if diff = zero OR time = zero… You get zero change or undefined change neither of which supports any of your claims herein.

Once you realize Jesus is one of three of the same single God you will be on track to understanding this stuff. For now, you have no chance of contributing to this conversation anything other than the hysterical nature of your relentless theorem.

Your a mere human, his creation, trying to figure him out without the faith requisite for such an endeavor. I don’t mind the humor but I am stating to pity your reputation on this forum.

By the way, if God wanted to change it could only be for the better and that is fine by me but in Buddhism, change can be a negative. That is , I could wake up a snail tomorrow, no wonder your problem with Change! Let it be said, Rossum, you have been cordially invited to explore Christianity and learn the Gospel of Jesus Christ and we all pray that you do. It would be our gain for you to become a son of God.
God Bless you my friend,
JW

 

[jameswalter]

Rossum,

There is one Jesus both inside and outside time. Again, your intellect will fail you here without a faithful foundation in God. Jesus existed eternally, before during and after time as you and I know it. At some point in our time continuum that same Jesus took flesh and dwealt among us, later to die and rise unto where he sits this very moment with God his Father.

The single entity that is Jesus has two natures but they are not separated, they are hypostatically joined. Wrap your head in duct tape now because this may really hurt…

God is a “single entity” (to borrow your term) that has by nature, three beings. Rejection of these truths may result in eternal damnation which no one wants for you. Please re consider your bias of intellect over the revealed truth of your creator.

God Bless

 

[rossum]

Are you 6 years old or 8?

Neither. Guess again.

YOU have the burden of proving the action God took to cause such and any other action of his occurred inside of time as you and I know it.

God physically moved the water. The water was inside time, and was physically moved inside time. The water was moved in the past; it is not being moved in the present. God’s action with the water took place inside time and has now ceased. QED.

God is Perfect, in the past present and future so he is UN-changing.

Your Bible says differently.

rossum

 

[rossum]

There is one Jesus both inside and outside time.

One single thing cannot have two opposed properties. Nothing can simultaneously be both X and ~X.

Is Jesus around 2000 years old? Yes or no? If yes, then He is not outside time. If no, then He may be outside time, but He is not the Jewish man born about 2,000 years ago.

1. God is omniscient, so knows everything.
2. Jesus does not know the day of the Last Judgement.
3. Jesus is God.

Pick any two from three. You are not allowed to pick all three, otherwise you will set up a contradiction.

rossum

 

[Telstar]

Then there are two Jesuses (?). One inside time and one outside time. It is logically impossible for a single entity to be simultaneously inside time and not-inside time. You have split Jesus into two.

rossum

Once again, the crux of problem lies in your complete lack of belief and understanding of God, and not a problem found within God, Himself. Buddhism teaches that the only thing of importance is found within man, himself. So, it’s impossible for a Buddhist to ever believe in a Supreme Being. This is a purely humanistic view of the world that leads to seeking after worldly knowledge, as if it was the only ultimate goal worthy of pursuit. But, Buddhists, ultimately, only glorify and worship themselves in the process. They put great value on the things of this world that are all, finite and transitory. So, they worship God’s creation, instead of worshiping the One God that created it all, including them.

This is why Buddhism is so detrimental to the human soul. There are many admirable things that it teaches, all under the premise of finding ‘enlightenment’, unfortunately, we can never find true enlightenment without first seeking truth, and the ultimate Truth can only be found in Jesus Christ. Buddha was just a man with lofty goals, but they all lead him to glorifying himself, instead of glorifying the God that created him. It’s a way of life, ultimately based on human pride. All who follow him do the same thing, but they can never achieve their ultimate goal of enlightenment, no matter how hard they try, until they are willing to humble themselves and see that there really is a Supreme Being that is far above all of us.

The human soul constantly yearns to find and connect with the God that created it, but that can never be achieved by following Buddhism. It’s a complete impossibility, because in Buddhism there is no room for belief in God. To me, that’s the saddest part of all.

 

[catholictiger]

One single thing cannot have two opposed properties. Nothing can simultaneously be both X and ~X.

Is Jesus around 2000 years old? Yes or no? If yes, then He is not outside time. If no, then He may be outside time, but He is not the Jewish man born about 2,000 years ago.

1. God is omniscient, so knows everything.
2. Jesus does not know the day of the Last Judgement.
3. Jesus is God.

Pick any two from three. You are not allowed to pick all three, otherwise you will set up a contradiction.

rossum

you have stumbled upon one of the paradoxes of the faith. You are EXACTLY correct when you say two things can’t take on one thing. Something can’t be x and ~x, this is one of the most fundamental truths of logic and all of reason.

So how can Jesus be all of these things

1 and 2 can’t be both true

3 necessitates 1 but not 2

but scripture says 2 is the truth

so there appears to be a contradiction in scripture.

This has plagued theologians for about 1500 years. Of the top of my head I can’t go and find stuff that can help explain this in Church fathers or Thomas Aquians while I could do it with some basic searching.

but I’ll just say this, somehow while the two natures are in fact one in Christ they are still different. Christ’s human nature isn’t his divine nature, and visa versa. Because of this, When we say that God is in time we are talking about the human nature of Christ. When we say God is outside of time we are talking about the divine nature. How it works that Christ who is both divine in human can be both in time and out of time at the same time is a mystery, but this is what is necessitated by the Catholic faith. Somethings our finite minds can never understand.

 

[catholictiger]

Rossum,
Are you 6 years old or 8?
This is simple English. The red sea parted, yes. YOU have the burden of proving the action God took to cause such and any other action of his occurred inside of time as you and I know it. Good Luck with that.

That doesn’t even really matter because, as you failed to address from my post, God is Perfect, in the past present and future so he is UN-changing. If you consider diff/time as change then what if diff = zero OR time = zero… You get zero change or undefined change neither of which supports any of your claims herein.

Once you realize Jesus is one of three of the same single God you will be on track to understanding this stuff. For now, you have no chance of contributing to this conversation anything other than the hysterical nature of your relentless theorem.

Your a mere human, his creation, trying to figure him out without the faith requisite for such an endeavor. I don’t mind the humor but I am stating to pity your reputation on this forum.

By the way, if God wanted to change it could only be for the better and that is fine by me but in Buddhism, change can be a negative. That is , I could wake up a snail tomorrow, no wonder your problem with Change! Let it be said, Rossum, you have been cordially invited to explore Christianity and learn the Gospel of Jesus Christ and we all pray that you do. It would be our gain for you to become a son of God.
God Bless you my friend,
JW

just to give you a warning the comments at the beginning of this post were a little offensive. the forums don’t like name calling and the like so be careful, we love having you a part of this discussion I would hate to see you be taken out of it because you are banned. God Bless

 

[InternetWoman]

Then there are two Jesuses (?). One inside time and one outside time. It is logically impossible for a single entity to be simultaneously inside time and not-inside time. You have split Jesus into two.

rossum

God created time. He is above/beyond it. He can stand outside time and “reach” into it without himself changing. He probably uses Angels for most of his actions, since they are his messengers, but in the case of Jesus he assumed a 2nd nature just so he COULD enter time interact with us. This did not split Jesus in two, it made it possible for us to see him.

If an invisible person put on clothing so that others could see and interact with them it would not change the PERSON it would only make them visible. This isn’t a totally good analogy because I’m guessing that you’ll argue that to put on the clothing changed the person but God’s assumption of the human nature did not change the PERSON of God. It just made it visible (in a very concrete way).

 

[mdcpensive1]

you have stumbled upon one of the paradoxes of the faith. You are EXACTLY correct when you say two things can’t take on one thing. Something can’t be x and ~x, this is one of the most fundamental truths of logic and all of reason.

So how can Jesus be all of these things

1 and 2 can’t be both true

3 necessitates 1 but not 2

but scripture says 2 is the truth

so there appears to be a contradiction in scripture.

This has plagued theologians for about 1500 years. Of the top of my head I can’t go and find stuff that can help explain this in Church fathers or Thomas Aquians while I could do it with some basic searching.

but I’ll just say this, somehow while the two natures are in fact one in Christ they are still different. Christ’s human nature isn’t his divine nature, and visa versa. Because of this, When we say that God is in time we are talking about the human nature of Christ. When we say God is outside of time we are talking about the divine nature. How it works that Christ who is both divine in human can be both in time and out of time at the same time is a mystery, but this is what is necessitated by the Catholic faith. Somethings our finite minds can never understand.

On a side note, I think you can pick all three. It makes sense and is not contrary to Church teaching I believe.

But rossum has a problem when he says that in Buddhism everything changes. If that is true then truth changes also which philosophically cannot be. There are absolutes. An absolute does not change. We can respond all we want but it will fall on deaf ears if he does not see that a physical act doesn’t necessarily change the one who causes or allows it. I would say that things are allowed by God in His providence but rossum cannot prove that an allowance changes God. He also cannot prove that the Supreme Being that is perfect changes. Change requires time to move from one thing to another. God’s nature does not have to exist in time but He can be there if He wants. No big thing since He is all powerful and supreme.

I think rossum is just trying to tell us that our God is not who we say He is. It is a test of our faith.

 

[rossum]

God created time.

But God also acts inside time. God cannot do the logically impossible: He cannot create a square triangle. Similarly He cannot both change and non-change. If He has parts, then part can change, while another part can not-change. In that case we can analyse the parts separately.

If God is one, with no parts, then He cannot both change and non-change, since that would be like creating a square triangle.

He is above/beyond it. He can stand outside time and “reach” into it without himself changing.

Your “reach” is the problem. The reaching is the problem, since it requires action in time, “and the spirit of God moved over the waters…” Movement is change, so do we have two entities, God and Spirit-of-God?

rossum

 

[AndrewW94]

Rossum, this is bogus. First, the usual statement of the principle of non-contradiction is that A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. You forgot that last part.

As regards the original question, I won’t pretend to fully understand this, but it seems to me that the answer would be along the lines of S. Th. III. 2. 7. ad 1.

Objection 1. It would seem that the union of the Divine and human natures is not anything created. For there can be nothing created in God, because whatever is in God is God. But the union is in God, for God Himself is united to human nature. Therefore it seems that the union is not anything created.
Objection 2. Further, the end holds first place in everything. But the end of the union is the Divine hypostasis or Person in which the union is terminated. Therefore it seems that this union ought chiefly to be judged with reference to the dignity of the Divine hypostasis, which is not anything created. Therefore the union is nothing created.
Objection 3. Further, “That which is the cause of a thing being such is still more so” (Poster. i). But man is said to be the Creator on account of the union. Therefore much more is the union itself nothing created, but the Creator.
On the contrary, Whatever has a beginning in time is created. Now this union was not from eternity, but began in time. Therefore the union is something created.
I answer that, The union of which we are speaking is a relation which we consider between the Divine and the human nature, inasmuch as they come together in one Person of the Son of God. Now, as was said above (I, 13, 7), every relation which we consider between God and the creature is really in the creature, by whose change the relation is brought into being; whereas it is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, since it does not arise from any change in God. And hence we must say that the union of which we are speaking is not really in God, except only in our way of thinking; but in the human nature, which is a creature, it is really. Therefore we must say it is something created.
Reply to Objection 1. This union is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, for God is said to be united to a creature inasmuch as the creature is really united to God without any change in Him.
Reply to Objection 2. The specific nature of a relation, as of motion, depends on the subject. And since this union has its being nowhere save in a created nature, as was said above, it follows that it has a created being.
Reply to Objection 3. A man is called Creator and is God because of the union, inasmuch as it is terminated in the Divine hypostasis; yet it does not follow that the union itself is the Creator or God, because that a thing is said to be created regards its being rather than its relation.

We know that God is immutable. We know that God is one. We know that Jesus is God. Obviously, Jesus changed humanly. (eg. He grew and moved about.)

When we say God is immutable, we deduce this from the fact that He is Pure Act–He has no potency. To say that God changed in the Incarnation is to say that He reduced from potency to actuality. But it seems clear to me, if to no one else, that this is not any sort of normal reduction from potency to act. If you change the shape of some clay, it loses what it had before and gains something new instead. This isn’t what happened in the Incarnation. Therefore, I think you can say that the Incarnation isn’t a “change” (reduction from potency to act).

 

[rossum]

We know that God is immutable. We know that God is one. We know that Jesus is God. Obviously, Jesus changed humanly. (eg. He grew and moved about.)

We are back to:

1. God does not change.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Jesus changed.
   The Arians solved the dilemma (trilemma?) by denying #2.

When we say God is immutable, we deduce this from the fact that He is Pure Act

Then you have lost. If God is pure Act, then there is no separation between God and the Acts-of-God, as some here have proposed. In the time of Abraham God did not act to part the Red Sea. In the time of Moses God did act to part the Red Sea. In the time of David God did not act to part the Red Sea. God (as pure Act) changed from not-parting to parting, and changed a second time from parting to not-parting. If God acts, temporarily, in time then there are a minimum of two changes. God as pure Act must change, and the Bible tells us so.

Do you deny that God acted in time to part the Red Sea?

rossum

 

[ericc]

Hello everyone.

I am just looking for some clarification about Hebrews 1:12 and 13:8. 13:8 reads, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” How do we square this with the fact that Jesus coexisted eternally with the Father and Holy Spirit without a human body, then came the Incarnation and He took on flesh, and now He has ascended into Heaven and exists eternally with His glorified human body? That sounds like changing.

Any thoughts will be appreciated. Thanks.

It depends on what you mean by “change”. The nature of God is changeless. However, this does not mean he can not change the way he chooses to interact with us. He can appear to us in many forms:

1. as a burning bush
2. as a human being, Jesus
3. as a voice from heaven
4. as bread and wine
5. as a dove etc

If your definition of change is absolute, then all the above is at odds with your definition. But I don’t think the verses you quoted refer to an absolute definition.

 

[catholictiger]

We are back to:

1. God does not change.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Jesus changed.
   The Arians solved the dilemma (trilemma?) by denying #2.

Then you have lost. If God is pure Act, then there is no separation between God and the Acts-of-God, as some here have proposed. In the time of Abraham God did not act to part the Red Sea. In the time of Moses God did act to part the Red Sea. In the time of David God did not act to part the Red Sea. God (as pure Act) changed from not-parting to parting, and changed a second time from parting to not-parting. If God acts, temporarily, in time then there are a minimum of two changes. God as pure Act must change, and the Bible tells us so.

Do you deny that God acted in time to part the Red Sea?

rossum

rossum you aren’t going to get it if you don’t understand that Christ has two natures in one person. Every single human person ever to live has one nature, while Christ has two, Human nature and Divine Nature. Because Christ has two natures we believe that Christ can have two things in him that doesn’t bring in the principle of non contradiction, an at the same time not making it to where Christ has a dual personality.

Christ who is God has a human nature and a divine nature. We understand these as separate but at the same time in one person. It is a mystery how this can happen. It is impossible for our minds to wrap our heads around this. No matter the analogies that we use to try and explain it we will always fall short of how it works. It really comes down to one thing and that is faith. There are some things in the Catholic faith that no matter how many analogies and explanations we give we will never fully understand something what it comes down to is faith, only God can give that.

God doesn’t change (Christ’s divine nature)

Jesus is God (Christ’s divine nature)

Jesus changes (Christ’s Human nature)

Augustine deals with this problem I believe in the de trinitate I will look it up later.

 

[catholictiger]

It depends on what you mean by “change”. The nature of God is changeless. However, this does not mean he can not change the way he chooses to interact with us. He can appear to us in many forms:

1. as a burning bush
2. as a human being, Jesus
3. as a voice from heaven
4. as bread and wine
5. as a dove etc

If your definition of change is absolute, then all the above is at odds with your definition. But I don’t think the verses you quoted refer to an absolute definition.

the burning bush is a created manifestation of God not actually the divine nature. The divine nature can never be contained in one single object you go up to it and say this is the divine nature itself.

1. is a mystery
2. created manifestation
3. is a mystery
4. a symbol I think (which they all are but this one is only a symbol and doesn’t have the divine nature in it somehow)

but no matter what we have to understand that God is unchanging this is a central truth of the faith. God MUST be unchanging or he wouldn’t be God. Something that changes necessarily needs something to cause the change, if something is changing it goes from potentially being something to actually being something, anything that has potentiality in itself must have an external cause to exist. God can’t have any actuality in him because he necessarily must be unchanging, if God isn’t unchanging none of us can possibly exist. The first cause, or I think better language would be the supreme cause, must have no potentiality in himself and be uncaused.

one more note: God only “changes” from our perspective, If God actually changed the way he interacted with us than he would be changing. Somehow what appears to change of the action of God is actually not change.

 

[catholictiger]

Is the Bible true? Did God part the Red Sea? Did God create the universe? The Christian God does act because Christian scripture says that He acts.

Given that God acts, then either God is changing, or a part of God (the part which acts) is changing. A single thing cannot both change and not-change at the same tine. Either God is in two (or more) parts or God changes.

if you understand that God is outside of time than he can interact with time without changing himself. God is constantly manifesting the burning bush, parting the red sea, etc.

you must understand that God is outside of our time.

also acting doesn’t necessitate change, something can be constantly acting and never change. For example a spinning tire is constantly rotating, while yes there is change it that the act of spinning is not changing, if somehow that tire was uncreated and was always spinning you would say that the tire is doing the act of spinning while not changing.

This is the same with God. We say that God is eternally creating the universe, begetting the son, spiriting the spirit, etc. We see the acts of God in time but he acts inside time but as one act. Much of this can’t be explained. Some things about God defy logic, for some people they can’t live with that, for others it takes an act of faith to believe.

no matter how hard you push the questions and the you can only pick two questions you will never find a sufficient answer. The Catholic Faith is fully of paradoxes and mysteries.

God is inside and outside of time at the same time
God is changing and unchanging at the same time (well human nature of Christ chaining and divine nature unchaining)
Jesus knows and doesn’t know the end times at the same time
Christ bellow the father and equal to the father at the same time
etc.

These contradictions can never fully be resolved.