tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post8046744498934636631..comments2023-07-06T15:14:57.204+01:00Comments on JOHN'S BLOG: Does God Suffer? Part 4Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-47237193570173197772008-12-14T22:56:00.000+00:002008-12-14T22:56:00.000+00:00`How we see God does change with time, but that do...`How we see God does change with time, but that does not mean that God himself changes. God is eternally incarnate on Earth from (say) 5BC to (say) AD33.'<BR/><BR/>So, God himself did not change in 5BC? It's just the way that we see God that changed then? But is the way that we saw him in 6BC true or not? <BR/><BR/>What does it mean to say that `God is <B>eternally</B> incarnate on Earth from (Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-43073853286794529502008-12-14T18:03:00.000+00:002008-12-14T18:03:00.000+00:00I disagree, of course.God's point of view is corre...I disagree, of course.<BR/><BR/>God's point of view is correct, but that does not mean it is the only correct point of view.<BR/><BR/>How we see God does change with time, but that does not mean that God himself changes. God is eternally incarnate on Earth from (say) 5BC to (say) AD33. I think...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-70859532628195979022008-02-12T08:28:00.000+00:002008-02-12T08:28:00.000+00:00'So "God was not incarnate in 500BC" is true from ...'So "God was not incarnate in 500BC" is true from our point of view. From our point of view, God appears to change.'<BR/><BR/>He may <B>appear</B> to change from our point of view, but the point is: does he <B>really</B> change? Is it <B>really</B> true or not that God was not incarnate in 500BC?<BR/><BR/>'from his point of view he does not appear to change.'<BR/><BR/>God's point of view must Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-24123722173909970562008-02-11T15:36:00.000+00:002008-02-11T15:36:00.000+00:00I think that God is really different than he would...I think that God is really different than he would have been had he not chosen to reveal himself to humanity.<BR/><BR/>I'm drawing a radical distinction between the use of time language as applied to us and as applied to God. So "God was not incarnate in 500BC" is true from our point of view. From our point of view, God appears to change. But as far as we can tell, from his point of view he does Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-40474942150319809732008-02-10T15:52:00.000+00:002008-02-10T15:52:00.000+00:00"God is different than he would have been in a hyp..."God is different than he would have been in a hypothetical universe + God without the Incarnation".<BR/><BR/>Do you mean that God is really different or just that our perspective of him is different from what it would have been?<BR/><BR/>'God is different because of the Incarnation, but he is different because of the Incarnation in 500BC as well.'<BR/><BR/>Earlier, you wrote 'In 500BC, God was Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-78154790374735634022008-02-10T15:33:00.000+00:002008-02-10T15:33:00.000+00:00Iconoclast - yes, I think it was. His omnipresence...Iconoclast - yes, I think it was. His omnipresence (<A HREF="http://custardy.blogspot.com/2008/01/omnipresence.html" REL="nofollow">however that's defined</A>) also seems to be affected.<BR/><BR/>It's Philippians 2 and God the Son emptying himself...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-29248491236628590522008-02-10T15:31:00.000+00:002008-02-10T15:31:00.000+00:00Perhaps what I wrote would have been better phrase...Perhaps what I wrote would have been better phrased as "God is different than he would have been in a hypothetical universe + God without the Incarnation".<BR/><BR/>I guess I see the Incarnation as an eternal event - yes, God is different because of the Incarnation, but he is different because of the Incarnation in 500BC as well.<BR/><BR/>See my recent Pratchett quote for some of the fun that canJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-59557882455224553242008-02-10T15:27:00.000+00:002008-02-10T15:27:00.000+00:00I'm afraid you still seem to be contradicting your...I'm afraid you still seem to be contradicting yourself, Custard:<BR/><BR/>`I think the Incarnation does something pretty fundamental to God'<BR/><BR/>`It's the perspective that changes, not God.'<BR/><BR/>Does the Incarnation change God or not?Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-79187161928983411402008-02-10T14:51:00.000+00:002008-02-10T14:51:00.000+00:00Custard,One question that fascinates me about all...Custard,<BR/><BR/>One question that fascinates me about all this is how much Jesus actually knew. <BR/><BR/>Christians state that Jesus was God incarnate but did God the Son have complete knowledge throughout space and time? i.e. did God the Son retain His omniscience when Jesus was in time? <BR/><BR/>Jesus obviously knew things about the past and future and the history of creation. He also Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-68207076908622952612008-02-10T12:55:00.000+00:002008-02-10T12:55:00.000+00:00I think the Incarnation does something pretty fund...I think the Incarnation does something pretty fundamental to God. Jesus is still human.<BR/><BR/>From my point of view, it's clearer to say "In 500BC, God, as seen from a human perspective, was not incarnate. In AD20, he was." It's the perspective that changes, not God.<BR/><BR/>Yes, in a sense Jesus was in time. But I don't think he changed his mind, and in a sense all his actions were Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-52498391811843865812008-02-10T11:55:00.000+00:002008-02-10T11:55:00.000+00:00'In 500BC, God was not incarnate. In AD20, he was....'In 500BC, God was not incarnate. In AD20, he was.'<BR/><BR/>'God has no beginning, end or succession of moments in his own being'<BR/><BR/>This seems like a contradiction to me: if God changes from being non-incarnate in 500BC to being incarnate in AD20, then there is a succession of moments in his own being -- at least one at which he is not incarnate and at least one at which he is. Further, Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-31653228506373810342008-02-10T09:55:00.000+00:002008-02-10T09:55:00.000+00:00ha ha ha . a girlfriend reference.ha ha ha . a girlfriend reference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com