A great explanation of the trinity

[Guest]

I thought how I would set you among my children, and give you a pleasant land, the most beautiful heritage of all the nations. And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife leaves her husband, so you have been faithless to me, O house of Israel, says the LORD. Jeremiah 3:1,20

Jer 3:19 "Then I said, 'How I would set you among My sons And give you a pleasant land, The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!' And I said, 'You shall call Me, My Father, And not turn away from following Me.'
Jer 3:20 "Surely, as a woman treacherously departs from her lover, So you have dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel," declares the LORD. (NASB)


Paidion,

What translation are you using for this verse? I have been unable to find one with this particular wording. Perhaps you are using the Septuagint?

I am not very learned in Hebrew (not at all actually), but upon consulting some dictionarys, the word 'âmar, seems to be "I said" not "I thought".

This would seem to change the meaning significantly. Even in the version that you quoted He says "I thought how" as in He considered that/how He would have set them among his children. It's the same word the next time only your translation has it rendered "I thought" instead of "I though how" even though it's the same word.

I don't see why the fact that God has a certain intention for a people group, and then changes that plan according to the people group's actions, would mean that He didn't have knowledge beforehand of their actions.

On the other hand, when predicted events involved free will agents, the often didn't come true.

It would seem that in the instances you mention, it's not so much that the event didn't "come true" but that the men/nation repented. This would line up with Jer. 18:7-8.

Jer 18:7-8 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it."

Again this doesn't mean that He didn't know beforehand what would happen.

It would seem (to me) that God uses such language such even though He knows how things will turn out, which would logically preclude Him "changeing His mind", so that we can understand Him in some way. He condescends to relate with us in a way that mere humans can communicate meaningfully with Him. This would require a bit of anthropomorphication on His part I think.




God bless,

[Guest]

Paidion,

You said:

Michelle, time never was created! It didn't have to be. It is not a physical entity that needed creation. Time is simply a measurement of the passing of events, or, if you prefer, the change in matter and beings, including movement. God performed his first act, the begetting of His Son, and thus time began. Nothing happened before that, since there was no "before".

Did God exist before he "begat" Jesus and, in your mind, time began? If so, and there was nothing but God, did God have the ability to think? And if so, did any thought of His precede any other? Was God "outside time before you say He "begat" Jesus or did sequential thinking imply time? And how did He think if not in Words (capitalization intentional - hint) or some symbol serving the purpose of Words?

You also said:

As the ancient creeds stated, He was "begotten not created."

Creeds are nothing more than the opinions of men. A group of fallible men do not produce, by a majority vote, an infallible decision.

And you said:

God does not know what free will agents will choose. I have shown elsewhere that statements about future choices of free will agents are neither true nor false. But God can state what He intends to do. Nothing, including free will agents, can stop God from doing what He intends to do.

Let us accept that, as you say, God can not foresee the future. John Doe is married to Mary Doe. John lusts for Mary's sister Sally and Sally for him.
Sally lives 100 miles away. John and Sally conspire to meet for a weekend together. John tells Mary he is going fishing for the weekend and leaves to meet Sally. God says "for this sin I will take John's life in an accident on his way home". On the way to meet Sally, John's conscience gets to him and he goes fishing instead and returns safely home.

Did John's change of intentions (free will) prevent God from doing what He intended? Or would God cause John to go through with the adultery so He could take John's life as He intended?

My own opinion, we are in over our heads (again) here.

[_Paidion]

Did God exist before he "begat" Jesus and, in your mind, time began?

Homer, I don't understand why you are asking this question again. I have already answered it in past posts. However, I don't mind repeating my answer.

"Before time began" is an oxymoron. There was no "before."

Or, stated another way, if there was a period of time before time began, then time didn't begin when time began. Rather, it began some time earlier.

So, if time really had a beginning it is meaningless to ask, "Did God exist before time began?

I disbelieve that there is any existence "outside of time", since I think that "outside of time" is also a meaningless concept.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You said:

God performed his first act, the begetting of His Son, and thus time began.

And you said:

So, if time really had a beginning it is meaningless to ask, "Did God exist before time began?

I disbelieve that there is any existence "outside of time", since I think that "outside of time" is also a meaningless concept.

You said time began when God begat His Son then you said "if time really had a beginning". It seems to me you are saying God did not exist before time began, when He begat His Son. I hope you can clarify your position.

Would also be interested in your respose to the other questions in my earlier post which are relevant to this discussion.

[_Paidion]

It seems to me you are saying God did not exist before time began, when He begat His Son.

And once again:

I am not saying God did not exist before time began.

If I were saying that, I would be affirming that there was a time before time began. That's a contradiction.

And one more time:

Nothing existed before time began because there was no before.

I think, Homer, your difficulty in understanding lies in your difficulty in comprehending a real beginning of time. You, like the rest of us, have been conditioned to believe in an eternal regression of time in the past, what some Christians call "eternity past." If you could break out of that conditioning, my statements might make more sense to you.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You are saying there was a point when "time began". What was going on with the Father in the statement below before He "begat His Son"? Before the "and thus"? Was He "outside" of time? I think you have already said that that is not what you think...

God performed his first act, the begetting of His Son, and thus time began.

[Guest]

Barnes Commentary on John 1:14

Only-begotten - This term is never applied by John to any but Jesus Christ. It is applied by him five times to the Saviour, Joh_1:14, Joh_1:18; Joh_3:16, Joh_3:18; 1Jo_4:9. It means literally an only child. Then, as an only child is especially dear to a parent, it means one that is especially beloved. Compare Gen_22:2, Gen_22:12, Gen_22:16; Jer_6:26; Zec_12:10. On both these accounts it is bestowed on the Saviour.

1. As he was eminently the Son of God, sustaining a special relation to Him in His divine nature, exalted above all human beings and angels, and thus worthy to be called, by way of eminence, His only Son. Saints are called His “sons” or children, because they are born of His Spirit, or are like Him; but the Lord Jesus is exalted far above all, and deserves eminently to be called His only-begotten Son.

2. He was especially dear to God, and therefore this appellation, implying tender affection, is bestowed upon him.

It may be of interest to note that before Pentacost, Jesus was referred to as the "only-begotten". After Pentacost, Jesus is referred to as the "first-born" implying that there are more than one "sons of God" -- us!

[_Paidion]

You are saying there was a point when "time began". What was going on with the Father in the statement below before He "begat His Son"? Before the "and thus"? Was He "outside" of time? I think you have already said that that is not what you think...

In my statement, "God performed his first act, the begetting of His Son, and thus time began", I did not mean, "... and then time began." Perhaps I could have avoided misunderstanding if I had said, "God performed his first act, the begetting of His Son. In this way, time began."

My position is that the begetting of His Son was an instantaneous act which marked the beginning of time. There was no time prior to that, and therefore it makes no sense to speak of existence prior to that act.

I think I understand why people find this incomprehensible. I admit that it is difficult or impossible for us limited human beings to understand how the Father could beget His Son at the beginning of time without prior existence. I think this is due to the limits of our human reasoning. To my mind the concept of an infinite regression of time into the past poses far more problems. What was God doing eighty-twelve jillion years before He created anything? Nothing?
Was it just an impersonal existence with no events? You can consider any amount of time before "The Beginning". Nothing happened.

If there's "eternity past" and "eternity future", at what point did God begin to create the universe? And as someone else asked, "If God exists outside of time, in something called "eternity", how did He break into time?
And what exactly is "time"? Did God have to create it? Or if you propose that God may have done many things before The Beginning of which we do not know, then He must have done things at various "times" before He created time. Those are some of the contradictions I've heard bandied about which never made sense to me.

After I began to think of "The Beginning" as the beginning of time, my problems in understanding were greatly reduced.

[Guest]

I admit that it is difficult or impossible for us limited human beings to understand...

Amen to that.

[Guest]

if any of you are up for some heavy, but interesting reading on this topic, check out this article:

http://www.ldolphin.org/craig/index.html

the paper is essentially a response to Hugh Ross's assertion that God exists within a time/space continuum. the author rejects this proposal.

p.s. if you dont know, Hugh Ross is as astrophysicist christian apologist. he argues that a billions of year old universe is compatible with the Bible, and is actually quite convincing. but he believes that God indeed created the universe and that evolution is not biblical. he believes in a "local" vs global flood. there is some interesting stuff on his website at reasons.org

i am not plugging for him; this is just one of the areas that i am interested in.. my views of the early genesis chapters have not yet settled. of course this may never happen.

TK