Did God occupy any space before creation?
- Thread starter PaulThomson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
OK, let's solve the hypostatic union 
you're right tho i do tend to emphasize the deity, maybe to a fault.
because i believe both are present, always. i don't have the kenosis position - i dont believe He emptied Himself of deity, but in humility, 'took off His robe' - -the one which filled the temple in Isaiah 6:1 - - hiding Himself in humanity, like the inverse of the ark being wood covered with gold, He became gold covered with wood ((the symbolism being wood, humanity; gold, deity))
the transfiguration, then, is peeling away the 'covering' or the 'veil' of you will, revealing the shekinah glory inside the human, so that the 3 core disciples knew with no shadow of a doubt Who this Man really is.
beyond human comprehension!!
you're right tho i do tend to emphasize the deity, maybe to a fault.
because i believe both are present, always. i don't have the kenosis position - i dont believe He emptied Himself of deity, but in humility, 'took off His robe' - -the one which filled the temple in Isaiah 6:1 - - hiding Himself in humanity, like the inverse of the ark being wood covered with gold, He became gold covered with wood ((the symbolism being wood, humanity; gold, deity))
the transfiguration, then, is peeling away the 'covering' or the 'veil' of you will, revealing the shekinah glory inside the human, so that the 3 core disciples knew with no shadow of a doubt Who this Man really is.
beyond human comprehension!!
i know He does, that's how we became souls
wow, what a question! i will eventually get back to that..
but what i meant was, not like the balloon demonstration i mentioned a few posts up. the expansion of space is hard to visualize and i was trying and failing to come up with a good metaphor, which is why that reply was so curt.
i guess that's why people use the balloon example lol
wow, what a question! i will eventually get back to that..
but what i meant was, not like the balloon demonstration i mentioned a few posts up. the expansion of space is hard to visualize and i was trying and failing to come up with a good metaphor, which is why that reply was so curt.
i guess that's why people use the balloon example lol
You asked, “Did God occupy any space before creation?”
Yes, God occupied space before creation…
There is a God Realm… ONLY God can exist there…
God displays Himself (makes Himself known) in the Heavenly, Spiritual, and Physical Realms but, He also has a Realm all of His own.
Next, you asked, “Does God have size? If God has size, how big is He? If God has size now, was God always this big?”
Yes, God does have size but not according to human finite reasoning because the totality substance of God is unmeasurable - there is no end… God cannot be measured in depth, height, width, weight, or any form of measurement.
There is no way to “measure” God. God does exist but He is unmeasurable.
Yes, God occupied space before creation…
There is a God Realm… ONLY God can exist there…
God displays Himself (makes Himself known) in the Heavenly, Spiritual, and Physical Realms but, He also has a Realm all of His own.
Next, you asked, “Does God have size? If God has size, how big is He? If God has size now, was God always this big?”
Yes, God does have size but not according to human finite reasoning because the totality substance of God is unmeasurable - there is no end… God cannot be measured in depth, height, width, weight, or any form of measurement.
There is no way to “measure” God. God does exist but He is unmeasurable.
whoops typo i caught too late..
that should read, "... God can't be space itself... "
@PaulThomson my apologies i know i am a really frustrating person to argue with. no harm intended. maybe one day i will learn tact haha
very interesting thread no matter how much i might not currently agree with your current stance on the subject, thank you for that
that should read, "... God can't be space itself... "
@PaulThomson my apologies i know i am a really frustrating person to argue with. no harm intended. maybe one day i will learn tact haha
very interesting thread no matter how much i might not currently agree with your current stance on the subject, thank you for that
In what ways do time and space "bind" human beings? I would say they enable human beings to experience freedom.
I don't see how "for [the Trinity] to "agree" on something, no time is even required... they are just in perpetual agreement by nature", follows from "The members of the trinity are, and always have been, in perfect agreement in all things. They all know what they are thinking, and they are all in agreement".
Even if they know each others thoughts as they think them, the thoughts of each, though true, may be different from each another, and each can certainly listen and understand and process three speakers at once. But thoughts and sentences themselves are sequences of ideas that take time to formulate and express. So, though they may instantaneously know each others thoughts, it would still take time to express those logically sequential thoughts.
I don't see how "for [the Trinity] to "agree" on something, no time is even required... they are just in perpetual agreement by nature", follows from "The members of the trinity are, and always have been, in perfect agreement in all things. They all know what they are thinking, and they are all in agreement".
Even if they know each others thoughts as they think them, the thoughts of each, though true, may be different from each another, and each can certainly listen and understand and process three speakers at once. But thoughts and sentences themselves are sequences of ideas that take time to formulate and express. So, though they may instantaneously know each others thoughts, it would still take time to express those logically sequential thoughts.
In what ways do time and space "bind" human beings? I would say they enable human beings to experience freedom.
I don't see how "for [the Trinity] to "agree" on something, no time is even required... they are just in perpetual agreement by nature", follows from "The members of the trinity are, and always have been, in perfect agreement in all things. They all know what they are thinking, and they are all in agreement".
Even if they know each others thoughts as they think them, the thoughts of each, though true, may be different from each another, and each can certainly listen and understand and process three speakers at once. But thoughts and sentences themselves are sequences of ideas that take time to formulate and express. So, though they may instantaneously know each others thoughts, it would still take time to express those logically sequential thoughts.
I don't see how "for [the Trinity] to "agree" on something, no time is even required... they are just in perpetual agreement by nature", follows from "The members of the trinity are, and always have been, in perfect agreement in all things. They all know what they are thinking, and they are all in agreement".
Even if they know each others thoughts as they think them, the thoughts of each, though true, may be different from each another, and each can certainly listen and understand and process three speakers at once. But thoughts and sentences themselves are sequences of ideas that take time to formulate and express. So, though they may instantaneously know each others thoughts, it would still take time to express those logically sequential thoughts.
"...the thoughts of each, though true, may be different from each another...:
God is not like us:
A. Since members of the trinity share in the same essence and nature, and are always in perfect agreement, and they are by nature perfect (which includes their thoughts)... there is no reason to think they ever have any thoughts that differ. In fact, this would seem impossible.
B. If they were capable of having any thoughts that differ (and I don't believe they can) that would still not require any conversation between them which takes up either time or space. All 3 members of the trinity KNOW ALL THINGS. This resolves any need for conversation, even if they were capable of differing in any way.
1.) If you and I knew each other's thoughts perfectly, we would never have to discuss anything.
2.) I would know exactly where you differ from me, and you would know what I think about that, and you would know my views and arguments, and you would know what I would say... we would have nothing to talk about... ever.
3.) But the trinity goes far beyond this: they not only know all things, including each other's thoughts, but on top of this perfect and complete omniscience they are also FLAWLESSLY PERFECT in every way. They have perfect thoughts, and their thoughts are always in perfect harmony.... so they are incapable of having disagreement. They quite literally have nothing to disagree about, and nothing to even discuss.
God is not like us.
Theology proper, the study of God's nature, requires we learn and think about God as he is in his perfection... and that we refrain from our natural tendency to drag his attributes down to a human level so he's more like us. He isn't like us.
God is not like us:
God Bless.
,
God is not like us:
A. Since members of the trinity share in the same essence and nature, and are always in perfect agreement, and they are by nature perfect (which includes their thoughts)... there is no reason to think they ever have any thoughts that differ. In fact, this would seem impossible.
B. If they were capable of having any thoughts that differ (and I don't believe they can) that would still not require any conversation between them which takes up either time or space. All 3 members of the trinity KNOW ALL THINGS. This resolves any need for conversation, even if they were capable of differing in any way.
1.) If you and I knew each other's thoughts perfectly, we would never have to discuss anything.
2.) I would know exactly where you differ from me, and you would know what I think about that, and you would know my views and arguments, and you would know what I would say... we would have nothing to talk about... ever.
3.) But the trinity goes far beyond this: they not only know all things, including each other's thoughts, but on top of this perfect and complete omniscience they are also FLAWLESSLY PERFECT in every way. They have perfect thoughts, and their thoughts are always in perfect harmony.... so they are incapable of having disagreement. They quite literally have nothing to disagree about, and nothing to even discuss.
God is not like us.
Theology proper, the study of God's nature, requires we learn and think about God as he is in his perfection... and that we refrain from our natural tendency to drag his attributes down to a human level so he's more like us. He isn't like us.
God is not like us:
God Bless.
,
-
1
- Show all
More...
To get a little more specific and philosophical (and boring) the members of the trinity, regarding their thought life, probably differ within a few specific categories of non-propositional knowledge, which is merely a natural part of their trinitarian existence.
But these natural and inherent differences in non-propositional knowledge would not create any factual or preferential differences in views "about" anything.
So, if we want to get really technical and specific, we could say there are "thought life" differences in the trinity in the form of certain kinds of propositional knowledge like indexicals. (And even indexicals, within the Godhead, would be very limited because of their shared nature, and their divine properties like omnipresence.) So although there would be some limited differences in non-propositional knowlege, this would in no way change their perfection in harmony, and would not require them to have any conversations about anything whatsoever.
They still have complete and perfect knowledge of all things, meaning they know everything including each other's thoughts; and they still have perfection in all of their thoughts... meaning their thoughts are always in perfect harmony by definition.
They are all perfect, and have perfect thoughts, and have perfect knowledge of each other's thoughts... their thoughts are always in perfect harmony, meaning they never have anything to even discuss.
Conclusion:
If we want to be really nit-picky, we could say the members of the trinity have certain necessary differences in certain, and limited, areas of non-propositional knowledge, but that would have no affect on their perfect unity, and perfect harmony. And it would not require them to have any conversations about it.
.
To get a little more specific and philosophical (and boring) the members of the trinity, regarding their thought life, probably differ within a few specific categories of non-propositional knowledge, which is merely a natural part of their trinitarian existence.
But these natural and inherent differences in non-propositional knowledge would not create any factual or preferential differences in views "about" anything.
So, if we want to get really technical and specific, we could say there are "thought life" differences in the trinity in the form of certain kinds of propositional knowledge like indexicals. (And even indexicals, within the Godhead, would be very limited because of their shared nature, and their divine properties like omnipresence.) So although there would be some limited differences in non-propositional knowlege, this would in no way change their perfection in harmony, and would not require them to have any conversations about anything whatsoever.
They still have complete and perfect knowledge of all things, meaning they know everything including each other's thoughts; and they still have perfection in all of their thoughts... meaning their thoughts are always in perfect harmony by definition.
They are all perfect, and have perfect thoughts, and have perfect knowledge of each other's thoughts... their thoughts are always in perfect harmony, meaning they never have anything to even discuss.
Conclusion:
If we want to be really nit-picky, we could say the members of the trinity have certain necessary differences in certain, and limited, areas of non-propositional knowledge, but that would have no affect on their perfect unity, and perfect harmony. And it would not require them to have any conversations about it.
.
-
1
- Show all
Why do you think God made us in His image. Because He wanted an intelligent loving relqtionship with us. It is because He is like us in many ways, although to a higher order,, that we can find commonalities with God that allow us to communicate, commune and co-operate with Gos as His friends. It is ot possible for humans to have a meaningful loving relatunship with your completely other God.
Why do you think God made us in His image. Because He wanted an intelligent loving relqtionship with us. It is because He is like us in many ways, although to a higher order,, that we can find commonalities with God that allow us to communicate, commune and co-operate with God as His friends. It is not possible for humans to have a meaningful loving relationship with your "completely other" God.
Completely Other?
You accused me of calling God "completely other", but that term has a very specific meaning in theology and philosophy, and that is exactly why I NEVER USED THAT TERM. NOT ONCE.
It isn't generally prudent to accuse people of saying things they didn't say.
That's called a straw man argument.
It's not just annoying, and disingenuous, it's also a logical fallacy.
I would explain, point by point, how you ignored the context of my rebuttal, and ignored all the specific things I said to give clarity, but that's the whole problem - you ignore what people say. If you ignore what people say, it would be paradoxical to explain all of the problems with that... because you aren't listening.
Since you give the impression of intentionally misrepresenting what I say, and just endlessly arguing against rudimentary, simple, basic doctrines that have been settled for millennia... I think it's time for me to opt out of the thread.
Take Care.
.
You accused me of calling God "completely other", but that term has a very specific meaning in theology and philosophy, and that is exactly why I NEVER USED THAT TERM. NOT ONCE.
It isn't generally prudent to accuse people of saying things they didn't say.
That's called a straw man argument.
It's not just annoying, and disingenuous, it's also a logical fallacy.
I would explain, point by point, how you ignored the context of my rebuttal, and ignored all the specific things I said to give clarity, but that's the whole problem - you ignore what people say. If you ignore what people say, it would be paradoxical to explain all of the problems with that... because you aren't listening.
Since you give the impression of intentionally misrepresenting what I say, and just endlessly arguing against rudimentary, simple, basic doctrines that have been settled for millennia... I think it's time for me to opt out of the thread.
Take Care.
.
So, how do you determine in which ways God is like us and in which ways God is unlike us. If God in scripture describes himself as like us in various ways, should we call that an anthropomorphism (meaning he is not really as He describes Himself) or should we take Him as describing Himself honestly?