ECT Time & Anthropomorphism with GOD

[Jerry Shugart]

Exactly! He chooses... THOSE WHO BELIEVE! If they don't believe, then He doesn't choose them.

What do you think that the words in "bold" in the following verse is speaking of?:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Wouldn't it be in regard to the same thing spoken of in "bold" in the following verses?:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:1-2).​

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Wasn't the fate of Jerusalem already sealed the second this prophecy was revealed?:

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-2).​

 

[JudgeRightly]

What do you think that the words in "bold" in the following verse is speaking of?:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

"From the beginning" is an idiom that means "since creation." It's placing emphasis on the intervening time period.

It's saying that those who believed and were sanctified gained salvation. Again, the people who believed were saved. It was a choice by those who were saved to believe.

Wouldn't it be in regard to the same thing spoken of in "bold" in the following verses?:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:1-2).​

"Elect" just means chosen to accomplish a task. For example, in a representative democracy, leaders are elected to lead the country. It doesn't mean that they're saved, just that they were chosen to lead.

The same word is used here in 1 Peter. It's not saying they were saved, but that they were elect, ie, chosen for a purpose. That election was known by God the Father. There is nothing in this verse that indicates that God knew every single individual that would be elect.

Wasn't the fate of Jerusalem already sealed the second this prophecy was revealed?:

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-2).​

This prophecy is talking about the Great Tribulation, no?

Was what was happening in Acts 2 occurring according to the prophecies concerning the time of Jacob's trouble (ie the GT)?

If so, then why do we not see the Mount of Olives split into two today? What happened between Acts 2 and today?

Israel was cut off. The murder of Stephen was when God cut off Israel, and then God used Paul to graft in the Gentiles.

So to answer your question, in a way, yes and no.

Yes, it was sealed in that it will eventually happen. But no, in that it was already supposed to have happened.

There are some things that are truly predestined to happen. For example, everything in Revelation WILL happen, and it will be pretty close if not exactly as written. But things like, for example, the looming war with N. Korea may or may not happen.

In other words, some things are sealed, and guaranteed to happen. Other things are not sealed, and not guaranteed to happen.

 

[Derf]

Time is only and simply the same thing all indicators/artificial (created) measurements are - just measurements that are abstract and nothing but a convenient mark. God isn't bound by an inch or a centimeter. He isn't constrained by a barometer, and He isn't at all stuck in succession of seconds, minutes, hours. It is simply an artificial way for all men to keep track of something they are all going through and help with checks and balances like an 9-5 workday 5 days a week or a 6' ladder. Thus, because both (and all measurement) coincides with other universals like the sun and moon etc. we think in terms of those movements. Think of it this way. Does the sun really rise and fall in a 365 1/4 days? :nono: Nope, rather, we arbitrarily, and with the seasons, created something to help check the 'movement' of those things.

Seem odd? Your life is 'bound' to 120 years by God BUT it isn't time that is the factor. What is actually the factor is that you go through changes, thus 'time' is but an artificial measure between states.

True or false: God doesn't change. Malachi 3:6 James 1:7,17 1 John 1:5 Hebrews 6:18; 13:8

Literally, the difference is how we answer.

If God doesn't change, there is no 'movement' thus "Time exists in God because there is nothing Greater our outside of Him. "Movement" necessarily HAS to happen within his infinite being. Colossians 1:17 (another reason the Lord Jesus Christ MUST be God btw, it is necessary).

ANY lack and then something outside of God controls God, including a movement of time specifically because time is but a measurement of change within the infinite parameters of God. It necessarily must be. I appreciate Open Theists, but God cannot (impossible) be constrained by time AND it is important to know it is a construct of movement. No movement-no time. Example: things that do not change are said to have 'stood the test of time' and/or 'defied its ravages.'

There is a significant difference between a measurement of something and the something itself. What is a man? Is he not a body of flesh and bone, hair, eyes, arms, legs? but we know that a man is more than what we see. Time is more than a clock, whether that clock be on the wall or a combination of a planet orbiting a star.

Does God change? even a Calvinist will say yes if the question is properly worded. Look at your verses:
Malachi 3:6 If God does not change, then He can't "consume" the Jews. Nor can He withhold His consumption. Jews exist because God made Jews (and He didn't consume them). If God didn't "change" enough to make Jews (whereas He hasn't always been making Jews), then no Jews would exist. So the verse itself helps us define the limits of God's changelessness.
James 1:7,17 If God does not change, then how can He give gifts to men? Has God for all eternity been in the process of giving gifts to men? Obviously not, since men have not always existed. So if God at one time was NOT giving gifts to men, and then He gave even one gift, He changed. The verses give some limit on what "shadow of turning" means.
1 John 1:5 I'm not sure why you included this one. Is it a "change" passage?
Hebrews 6:18; 13:8 Yet Jesus Christ was born a baby and grew to be a man. He died and rose again. He has not been forever in those different states. The verse gives the limits to the changelessness of Jesus Christ.

God cannot be constrained by time, I agree. But what does that statement mean? Does it mean that He never does anything in sequence? That's what Jerry was suggesting (though He quickly refuted Himself). If God does things in sequence, then there are "states" (as you put it) of God. For instance, there was a "time" when He wasn't creating the world. Then there was a time when He was. And now He is again NOT creating the world. Can God go back and undo His creation of the world? I don't know. You and I exist today. We might not exist tomorrow. Can you and I cease to have ever existed? If God is not constrained by time, then He could erase us from existence even after we have existed, I suppose, but can He erase us from His memory? Can God forget something He has created?

These concepts are born out in scripture. God never goes back and changes something He or anyone else already did, He only corrects it in the moment. (I would suggest He doesn't need to mess with anything in the past, because that would suggest he wasn't able to handle something in real time.)

Does God not have any movement? The second verse of the bible (not much more foundational than that, is there?) says no. Or is that anthropomorphic language?

Do you see why it can be detrimental to apply the anthropomorphic or anthropopathic label too quickly to scriptures that tell us about God? Aren't we then making God in our own construct instead of letting Him tell us about Himself?

 

[JudgeRightly]

What do you think that the words in "bold" in the following verse is speaking of?:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Wouldn't it be in regard to the same thing spoken of in "bold" in the following verses?:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:1-2).​

Wasn't the fate of Jerusalem already sealed the second this prophecy was revealed?:

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-2).​

By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question above:

Did the potter at the wheel (Jeremiah 18) ever finish the first vessel?

 

[Derf]

So once the prophecies concerning Cyrus were revealed then he was going to fulfill those prophecies no matter what?

If your ideas are correct then his will was in bondage from the moment those prophecies were made known because if those prophecies were not fulfilled as written then the LORD would have made a mistake!

And what about the Lord Jesus?

From the moment when the prophecies concerning His sufferings were revealed then His will was also in bondage because if He didn't submit to the Cross then those prophecies would have been false.

Is that a problem? If God says He will do something, is He not binding Himself to do it? But that is the key--He is binding Himself, no one else can bind Him. He can certainly bind someone else (Rev 20:2).

But here is what the Lord Jesus prayed to the Father on the eve of the Cross:

"And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt.26:39).​

I'm not getting your point. Are you saying that Jesus could have avoided the cross with no repercussions on God's reputation? I don't see how. Was it possible for Jesus to do so? I go back and forth on that.

How does this relate to our conversation?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Is that a problem? If God says He will do something, is He not binding Himself to do it? But that is the key--He is binding Himself, no one else can bind Him. He can certainly bind someone else (Rev 20:2).

So you admit that Cyrus had no free will after the prophecies were revealed?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Did the potter at the wheel (Jeremiah 18) ever finish the first vessel?

He finished it but it was marred. So he started over with the same clay.

 

[glorydaz]

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Yep, that's the way man gets saved.

 

[Derf]

So you admit that Cyrus had no free will after the prophecies were revealed?

You mean, like, he couldn't choose for himself what to eat for breakfast? Or just whether he went to Babylon?

But even in the case of the latter, he probably exercised his free will (or desire) in going to Babylon. Did he exercise his free will in getting born of parents that would name him Cyrus? No. Did they exercise their free will in naming him Cyrus? Not so sure.

I'm not opposed to God binding the will of man on regular occasions. I don't think He binds the will of man to commit sin. And I don't think He binds the will of man to believe in Him. According to AMR, neither do Calvinists, though I don't agree with him on that.

I'm interested in the means for how God accomplishes all His purposes without everybody being a puppet. I like to use the example of turning a river, like in Prov 21:1. If you've ever turned a river (or a small stream), there are a couple ways to do it that I know of. 1. You can dig a channel in the direction you want it to go. 2. You can block its path with a dam of some sort. I can see God using either of these two means to turn the heart of a king to do something--He might make it an easier path for the king, or he might block the way of the king. Both of these things God used at the edge of the Red Sea to protect His people from Pharaoh and to bring down the nation of Egypt.

What did He do to get Cyrus to Babylon and let the Jews go home? I don't know all of the possible details. But along the way, He might have sent a prophet to Cyrus to tell him that He would give him Babylon if he would let the Jews return to their land. How did Cyrus's parents decide to name him Cyrus? I don't know, but He might have sent an angel who told the parents, "You will have a son. Be sure to name him Cyrus." Nowhere did the prophecies say who Cyrus's parents would be. Maybe He was looking for a couple who would obey Him, and if He tried a first or second, He might have gone with the second. This is all conjecture, but the biblical story doesn't really prohibit it.

Maybe God always has contingency plans (except for a few cases, like Jesus and John the Baptist??). I just don't know. But He seemed to allow for contingencies in other places in scripture, so I expect He could have done it with Cyrus.

 

[JudgeRightly]

He finished it but it was marred. So he started over with the same clay.

The Bible explicitly states:

And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. - Jeremiah 18:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah18:4&version=NKJV

Jerry, if the first one was finished, then that implies that the clay was baked or hardened, and that it couldn't be changed. You can't make a finished clay vessel into another one. Yet the passage clearly says the potter took the clay and used it to make a different vessel (as you yourself said), meaning the clay was still wet and malleable, and the first vessel was not finished.

Jerry, that passage is one of the main verses used to show the settled view, Calvinism, those that think that God makes some people to bring to heaven and the rest to send to hell, yet the passage does not show that, and you were just shown why it doesn't say that.

 

[Lon]

There is a significant difference between a measurement of something and the something itself. What is a man? Is he not a body of flesh and bone, hair, eyes, arms, legs? but we know that a man is more than what we see. Time is more than a clock, whether that clock be on the wall or a combination of a planet orbiting a star.

Does God change? even a Calvinist will say yes if the question is properly worded. Look at your verses:
Malachi 3:6 If God does not change, then He can't "consume" the Jews. Nor can He withhold His consumption. Jews exist because God made Jews (and He didn't consume them). If God didn't "change" enough to make Jews (whereas He hasn't always been making Jews), then no Jews would exist. So the verse itself helps us define the limits of God's changelessness.
James 1:7,17 If God does not change, then how can He give gifts to men? Has God for all eternity been in the process of giving gifts to men? Obviously not, since men have not always existed. So if God at one time was NOT giving gifts to men, and then He gave even one gift, He changed. The verses give some limit on what "shadow of turning" means.
1 John 1:5 I'm not sure why you included this one. Is it a "change" passage?
Hebrews 6:18; 13:8 Yet Jesus Christ was born a baby and grew to be a man. He died and rose again. He has not been forever in those different states. The verse gives the limits to the changelessness of Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of immutability is well worth a study. Basically it is this: Since all is contained 'in' (need to qualify that I'm not talking physically 'in') God, then there is no movement. One thing I've used to discuss this is a clock. It is built and a done deal, no change. It 'moves' and the hands are made relational to you, that they mean something. The clock then is a good limited 'physical' analogy of immutability. It will only move certain ways as in its nature. If you mean 'movement' by some parts move, yes God is able to do all things. If you mean 'different' by 'change' it isn't part of the character of God. Even an open theist believes in a sense of immutability. He/she believes the Character of God does not change etc.

God cannot be constrained by time, I agree. But what does that statement mean? Does it mean that He never does anything in sequence? That's what Jerry was suggesting (though He quickly refuted Himself). If God does things in sequence, then there are "states" (as you put it) of God. For instance, there was a "time" when He wasn't creating the world. Then there was a time when He was. And now He is again NOT creating the world. Can God go back and undo His creation of the world? I don't know. You and I exist today. We might not exist tomorrow. Can you and I cease to have ever existed? If God is not constrained by time, then He could erase us from existence even after we have existed, I suppose, but can He erase us from His memory? Can God forget something He has created?

I disagree. God has an eternal nonbeginning. In a nutshell, it is expressed thus: God's past and future "is still going." Man has no appreciation for such a truth. We cannot grasp an eternal past. Necessarily, God is NOT bound to your and my conception of sequence.

These concepts are born out in scripture.

God speaks to us in terms of 'our' limitation. True.

God never goes back and changes something He or anyone else already did, He only corrects it in the moment. (I would suggest He doesn't need to mess with anything in the past, because that would suggest he wasn't able to handle something in real time.)

As far as you and I know. Colossians 1:17 and John 15:5 Acts 17:28 You are moving in Him, He isn't moving in or around you (still may have physically constrained connectors to truly appreciate this).

Does God not have any movement? The second verse of the bible (not much more foundational than that, is there?) says no. Or is that anthropomorphic language?

It intimates a concept. Is God 'smaller' than the waters? "ONLY" above the waters? Colossians 1:17 again. If every atom holds together by the Lord Jesus Christ alone, there is no 'just' hovering over the waters. It is everywhere at once not JUST over the waters thus, and truly, 'no movement, already there, all contained within His being.

Do you see why it can be detrimental to apply the anthropomorphic or anthropopathic label too quickly to scriptures that tell us about God? Aren't we then making God in our own construct instead of letting Him tell us about Himself?

Absolutely, that's why it is important for all of us to get it right. It is equally important to discuss it Romans 12:5

 

[Derf]

The doctrine of immutability is well worth a study. Basically it is this: Since all is contained 'in' (need to qualify that I'm not talking physically 'in') God, then there is no movement.

I think you are moving toward my conception of normal "time" (that we experience) as an increase of entropy. If that's the "movement", then I agree. Time, then, is equivalent to corruption. More time=more corruption. Once we are made incorruptible, time will cease for us. But what then? do we become like your description of God, with no "movement"? Will we not then have a never-ending past and future (as you express below)? What is the difference between us and God at that point?

One thing I've used to discuss this is a clock. It is built and a done deal, no change. It 'moves' and the hands are made relational to you, that they mean something. The clock then is a good limited 'physical' analogy of immutability. It will only move certain ways as in its nature. If you mean 'movement' by some parts move, yes God is able to do all things. If you mean 'different' by 'change' it isn't part of the character of God. Even an open theist believes in a sense of immutability. He/she believes the Character of God does not change etc.


I disagree. God has an eternal nonbeginning. In a nutshell, it is expressed thus: God's past and future "is still going." Man has no appreciation for such a truth. We cannot grasp an eternal past. Necessarily, God is NOT bound to your and my conception of sequence.


God speaks to us in terms of 'our' limitation. True.

If we cannot grasp the concept, and the concept is not found in scripture (because our language doesn't allow it to be expressed, supposedly, and God has to use time-based anthropopathisms), then where does it (the concept) come from? is it something that God implants in some of our minds but not others? But if it isn't in scripture, then can it be confirmed reliably? Can any such truth about God come from a source more reliable than the bible?

As far as you and I know. Colossians 1:17 and John 15:5 Acts 17:28 You are moving in Him, He isn't moving in or around you (still may have physically constrained connectors to truly appreciate this).

It intimates a concept. Is God 'smaller' than the waters? "ONLY" above the waters? Colossians 1:17 again. If every atom holds together by the Lord Jesus Christ alone, there is no 'just' hovering over the waters. It is everywhere at once not JUST over the waters thus, and truly, 'no movement, already there, all contained within His being.

If the earth is a sphere and the Spirit hovers "above" the waters, it certainly doesn't make me think He's "smaller" than the waters. Rather the opposite.

But now that you've introduced "movement" to define "time" and "change", I need a definition of "movement". I can see in your clock example that there is a beginning of the clock, and a continuous set of "happenings" (each second as it ticks off), and you are allowing for the latter, but not the former for God. I'm good with that (though it seems to contradict your suggestion that with God there is no movement), but it confirms that God has a type of "time" that He experiences, unless your analogy broke down before it could bring home any point to me.

Absolutely, that's why it is important for all of us to get it right. It is equally important to discuss it Romans 12:5

And a great discussion it is! Though I wonder how important it is for us to "get it right", as long as we don't "get it wrong" too powerfully.

Thanks.
Derf

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yep, that's the way man gets saved.

So are you saying that this verse is speaking about a corporate salvation?

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

What do you think that the words "from the beginning" are about?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Maybe God always has contingency plans (except for a few cases, like Jesus and John the Baptist??). I just don't know. But He seemed to allow for contingencies in other places in scripture, so I expect He could have done it with Cyrus.

What about the prophecies about the Cross? Did the Father make that happen? Was the Father responsible for the killing of the Son?

 

[Danoh]

So are you saying that this verse is speaking about a corporate salvation?

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

What do you think that the words "from the beginning" are about?

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Put your books and dictionaries down for a minute already, and just read and re-read both Epistles a dozen times through.

"The beginning" there refers to when they first believed, at which point they were "sanctified" or set apart by the Spirit, and "chosen" unto the "salvation" there - their being "delivered from the wrath to come" their Pre-Trib Catching Away "to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ...and so shall we ever be with the Lord..."

And is just some of its own evidence.

Only amateurs separate a passage or two from their overall narrative.

Acts 17: 11, 12.

 

[Derf]

What about the prophecies about the Cross? Did the Father make that happen? Was the Father responsible for the killing of the Son?

Absolutely..., and no to both questions. Jesus' description of the evil vine dressers (Matt 21:33ff) is pretty clear that Jesus was sent to receive what was due the vineyard owner, but they killed Him. Did God know they would kill Him? The parable doesn't say so, but Jesus' telling of it does.

Is that different than the prophecies of the cross from the OT? I think so, but I don't know for sure. It is possible that while God knew His son would die, and planned for such, He didn't know specifically who would do it, at least until those people were alive, and He could actually read their thoughts.

It might be that He removed some of those that might have prevented the crucifixion along the way (various ways He might do that, but the attitude of the rulers of the Jews, who would cast out from the temple those that would have sympathy toward Jesus, helped, no doubt). Nicodemus, for example. And Joseph of Aramathea. Why weren't they dissenting, if they were there, since a death sentence had to be unanimous?

It wouldn't be outside of precedent for Him to send a deceiving spirit to talk some of the rulers into the actions they were already somewhat inclined to do.

 

[Danoh]

Absolutely..., and no to both questions. Jesus' description of the evil vine dressers (Matt 21:33ff) is pretty clear that Jesus was sent to receive what was due the vineyard owner, but they killed Him. Did God know they would kill Him? The parable doesn't say so, but Jesus' telling of it does.

Is that different than the prophecies of the cross from the OT? I think so, but I don't know for sure. It is possible that while God knew His son would die, and planned for such, He didn't know specifically who would do it, at least until those people were alive, and He could actually read their thoughts.

It might be that He removed some of those that might have prevented the crucifixion along the way (various ways He might do that, but the attitude of the rulers of the Jews, who would cast out from the temple those that would have sympathy toward Jesus, helped, no doubt). Nicodemus, for example. And Joseph of Aramathea. Why weren't they dissenting, if they were there, since a death sentence had to be unanimous?

It wouldn't be outside of precedent for Him to send a deceiving spirit to talk some of the rulers into the actions they were already somewhat inclined to do.

Respectfully, derf, and hopefully you are not as thin-skinned as others on here are, when the following is pointed out to them...

It is never a safe bet to allow oneself to form a conclusion on conjecture ("well maybe this...possibly that...").

The thing to do is to get back in the Scripture and remain there, wrestling with It until, like Jacob with that Angel, the Scripture reveals Its answers via how It always does that - via the resulting picture of one thing or another that only more and more time in Scripture eventually results in.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Rom. 14: 5 - in memory of Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

 

[Derf]

Respectfully, derf, and hopefully you are not as thin-skinned as others on here are, when the following is pointed out to them...

It is never a safe bet to allow oneself to form a conclusion on conjecture ("well maybe this...possibly that...").

The thing to do is to get back in the Scripture and remain there, wrestling with It until, like Jacob with that Angel, the Scripture reveals Its answers via how It always does that - via the resulting picture of one thing or another that only more and more time in Scripture eventually results in.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Rom. 14: 5 - in memory of Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

I appreciate the admonition, Danoh. Yet there are a number of things the scriptures don't tell us, and we can only conjecture about. In the case of Christ's life, death, resurrection, it's pretty clear what happened. In the cases of what the other people were thinking and the reasons why they did things, it's not so clear. Thus, any conjecture is as good or as bad as another--good if it doesn't violate other scripture and bad if it does.

And, no, I'm not forming a conclusion from my conjectures, just offering a possible way to harmonize different scripture. Thought you might appreciate the different scripture approach.

And yes, I hope that I and all others here will take the opportunity of refutations and challenges to our conjectures to dive back into scripture often.

 

[Lon]

Once we are made incorruptible, time will cease for us. But what then? do we become like your description of God, with no "movement"? Will we not then have a never-ending past and future (as you express below)? What is the difference between us and God at that point?

Thanks.
Derf

Yes, I think in a sense. Even natives and indigenous people aren't 'clock' watchers like we are. They pay attention to the seasons, but as it relates to their needs. Some have nothing near our sense of time.

We are also going to be 'like' Him 1 John 3:2 but still creations. We won't be like God so I'm not exactly sure how the physical universe will affect us. I'm left to guessing what the heaven and earth will be like. 1 Corinthians 2:9

I ran across AMR's impassibility blog that might be of service.

 

[patrick jane]

What about the prophecies about the Cross? Did the Father make that happen? Was the Father responsible for the killing of the Son?

Matthew 16:21 KJV - From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.