A Timeless, Spaceless, Unchanging God

[choux]

If God is outside space-time and unchanging then He couldn't have become Christ and took on flesh. This requires change. Moreover, He would have to have underwent another change as He exited space-time back into a timeless-spaceless existence with a physical body. This makes no sense

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

I think "unchanging" is more about God's spiritual state, than rather than Him putting on "clothes" once and taking them back off again.

 

[choux]

If you are outside space-time you don't change at all. Moreover, to have a physical body requires an extension in space. To move back outside space-time and relinquish the properties of time with a physical body in a spaceless timeless existence is absurd.

 

[ananda]

I believe that Elohim is indeed outside of space-time. In His eyes, He is simultaneously experiencing the creation of the world, giving the commandments to Moses, sending Messiah, watching Messiah's crucifixion, coming back, and reigning in the end time.

 

[Ran77]

If you are outside space-time you don't change at all. Moreover, to have a physical body requires an extension in space. To move back outside space-time and relinquish the properties of time with a physical body in a spaceless timeless existence is absurd.

Perhaps the changes that take place just are not observable to 3-dimensional beings.

 

[PureDose]

If God is outside space-time and unchanging then He couldn't have become Christ and took on flesh. This requires change. Moreover, He would have to have underwent another change as He exited space-time back into a timeless-spaceless existence with a physical body. This makes no sense

According to that awkward definition of the word "unchanging" he could not have opened his mouth to speak, if it was closed, nor could have in anyway altered his state such as to use his right hand to smash or create or to move to create anything at all.

But, this is of course, not what God meant when he said he does not change.

People often say this about others or their own selves, it is not uncommon to say a person does not change -- or can not change. And no one takes this to mean they can not change form by dying or move from place to place.

You really, really have to *want* to believe God did not become Christ to believe such things. I am not sure why anyone would even want to believe that, especially when they know God exists.

People were saying He did not come in the flesh back then, this is not a new teaching. Many say in many different ways He did not come in the flesh.

We are made in the image of God, and if we were then God could come us we are. It was righteous for him to do so.

I see people arguing "this is impossible", but this is not at all impossible and they themselves know it. Every night each of them sleeps and dreams in the first person while also controlling and having created the entire dream world for their own self. So, it is not unusual for us to see God both controlling and creating this world and to come into it -- every single human being does this every single night when they dream.

But they pretend otherwise, and I do not understand why anyone pretends this is an alien concept.

What is the real reason? What advantage do they have for teaching this?

I know atheists often have problems with the Law, because they wish to sin, so they explain it away. But why would people want to explain away Christ? Is it a "Other" problem, that Christ is foreign to them, like a foreign city too close? Or is it an authority problem, that they would not wish for Christ to be their authority?

I would really like to hear some straight answers on this.

 

[elopez]

If God is outside space-time and unchanging then He couldn't have become Christ and took on flesh.

This is simply false. When we are talking about the Trinity, there are three different persons as one God. God the Father was not incarnated, the Son was. If the Father was not incarnated, then He must have remained the same as He did without creation, which timeless. So, while the Son is incarnated and so 'in time' the Father remains timeless.

This requires change. Moreover, He would have to have underwent another change as He exited space-time back into a timeless-spaceless existence with a physical body. This makes no sense

Yes, an external change, as in taking on the flesh. God the Father does not change. Only the Son. I don't really get the last part of what you're saying there.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Perhaps the changes that take place just are not observable to 3-dimensional beings.

yeah like when multiverse dimensions merge and all of a sudden parts of the past didn't happen anymore .. oops . i'm not supposed to remember that .

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If God is outside space-time and unchanging then He couldn't have become Christ and took on flesh. This requires change. Moreover, He would have to have underwent another change as He exited space-time back into a timeless-spaceless existence with a physical body. This makes no sense

God isn't outside space-time. Space-time is external to God. God is primary and uncreated; space-time is created. God is not spatially represented relative to fixed creation; fixed creation is relative to God.

There is no eternity past; eternity had an inception. Heaven and time are not eternally uncreated and without beginning. God doesn't inherently dwell in "Heaven". God is trancscendent.

Exceedingly few know, or want to know, what that means.