Physics and Jesus

[Obsidian]

If time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe, how did God create Jesus before the universe? And if God did not create Jesus before the universe, then why does the Bible say that Jesus created or helped create the entire universe?

[gerry]

If time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe, how did God create Jesus before the universe? And if God did not create Jesus before the universe, then why does the Bible say that Jesus created or helped create the entire universe?

If time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe, how did God create Jesus before the universe?

One can also ask the question, if color did not exist prior to the creation of the universe, how did God create Jesus before th universe?

So also if place or space did not exist prior to the universe, how did God create Jesus before the universe?

Likewise, if water did not exist prior to the creation of the universe, how did God create Jesus before the universe?

And on and on and on...

I will tell you how, mysteriously of course.

And if God did not create Jesus before the universe, then why does the Bible say that Jesus created or helped create the entire universe?

In order that you will be tested most sorely on your faith that is or surpasses or more correctly should surpass human logic -- and is there any logic known to man that is binding on God.

Anyway, just believe that Jesus created or helped create the entire universe, as the Bible says so and you read it to say so.

Or don't believe in the Bible and in the God of the Bible -- which should make you feel a superior mind to believers of the Bible?



All such questions the asking of seem to you to make you appear sharp, as also questions atheists ask if God makes everything who made God, or can God make a stone so big He cannot carry it.

But you should ask the atheist evolutionists who tell us that random mutation leads to natural selection which together explain the rise of the variety of species of life, when random mutation will just lead to more and further and ever unceasing random mutation, and is not any possible situation for anything to come about which is of any permanency like any living species.



Gerry

[JB]

Since the JW presence on this board is so pitiful, I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, even though I think Obsidian has a quite good point.


Let us posit that a relational view of time is correct. We may say, first of all, that time is not a "thing", but perhaps rather a state of affairs of some sort. Second, let us distinguish between absolute time on the one hand and its quantification and measurement within the physical universe on the other, with the latter being that measured by science and subject to the effects of gravitation and speed. Let us further posit that the creation of the physical universe was not the beginning of absolute time.

Suppose, then, that time begins when God begins to count down from ten, with the divine will deliberately selecting to do this successively, thereby instituting a temporal sequence of events. Let us further suppose that, simultaneous with God's "ten", he wills the creation of the Word. Then we may suppose that, when God reaches the 'zero' point in his counting, he creates all else in reality instrumentally through this Word. Excluding the Word himself, no created thing has been created apart from the Word's instrumentality; thus, this scenario coheres with Jehovah's Witness doctrine and defeats the objection.

[Obsidian]

But that doesn't make sense because it would mean that Jesus existed for ten full seconds prior to the existence of time itself. Ye canna change the laws of physics!

Let us further posit that the creation of the physical universe was not the beginning of absolute time.

Well that's kinda cheating. According to Stephen Hawking time only began after the creation of the universe. If you start saying that Jesus was created before time, then you're basically saying that Jesus is the same age as the Father, who also existed before time. Thus, you're essentially admitting that Jesus is himself God.

If there aren't any real JWs around, maybe I should try this thread in the Mormon room.

[JB]

But that doesn't make sense because it would mean that Jesus existed for ten full seconds prior to the existence of time itself. Ye canna change the laws of physics!

But note that I specified time beginning at the moment of Jesus' creation (within this postulated defense of JW doctrine, of course), not ten seconds later.

Well that's kinda cheating. According to Stephen Hawking time only began after the creation of the universe.

Ah, but Hawking, as a physicist, is referencing physical time, time as science can measure it, rather than absolute time. To assume that the former exhausts time is to import verificationism illicitly and to impose it upon the empirical reality. I recall an excellent chart in one of W. L. Craig's books that enumerated many of the properties of time and showed how differing fields of science approximate time in a measurable way by stripping it down to a subset of those properties. I believe that was in Time and Eternity, but his The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination also includes a very thorough and more technical examination of the relationship between metaphysical time (absolute time) and physical time (time as measured by science and intrinsically related to space).

If there aren't any real JWs around, maybe I should try this thread in the Mormon room.

You'd probably be likely to get a very different range of answers from the LDS folks than from the JW folks, since in historic LDS teaching, all truly sentient beings--Gods, angels, and us--are equally eternal insofar as the intelligence of man is eternal (cf. Abraham 3:18), such that the standard model is that any being will have a first stage of its existence in which, from eternity past, it has existed as a genderless pure intellect; a second stage of its existence in which it has existed as a corporeal, gendered spirit in a spirit world; a third stage of its existence in which it exists as a tangible, physical, probably mortal person on some physical world; and, ideally, a final, fourth stage of its existence, extending indefinitely into eternity future, as a divine being with a tangible, physical, immortal body. (Of course, this model probably cannot be wholly constructed and justified fully from the canonical LDS Standard Works, but requires some synthesis of sources such as the King Follett Discourse; still, it is the rough outline presupposed by any remotely coherent outworking of LDS notions of the Plan of Salvation.)

[apostoli]

If time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe, how did God create Jesus before the universe?

How did the Father beget the Son? Scripture is silent.

I suspect you misunderstand JW opinion. Via my ex-wife who was a fanatic, I associated and studied with them for about 18years (but was never convinced by them).

Any mature JW will agree that there isn't a single inference in the NT that suggests Jesus is a creature like other creatures. To think such, as some sects believe (but not JWs) is a philosophical assumption based on a particular perspective of a primordial being deemed God.

JWs hold relative reference ie: begotten and created are taken as synonymous terms. According to scripture the Son was begotten by God, but more importantly the only thing begotten by God. All other things whether in heaven or earth were created by the Son. cp New World Translation of Colossians 1:16. The Son being begotten is therefore subsequent to the Father. Thus begotten/formed/created. Just as the heavens and earth are subsequent to the Son and deemed created by means of him.

The Athanasian/Nicene/Orthodox type arguement against such an Arian type arguement is very simple. Yes, the Father precedes the Son as the natural implication of the words suggest (Thus is God from God as the Nicene creed declares). However, to understand precedence within the confines of time one would have to measure time by reference to events and have a means of measuring duration between events. The Son was begotten in eternity, and by definition there is no conception of time within eternity.

The typical response: a means of measuring duration did not occur until the first day (Gen 1:2) and more particularly for earth bound critters until the 4th day (Gen 1:14-18). Thus the heavens and the earth came to exist within eternity just as the Son. The scriptures explicitly say God "created" the heavens and the earth.

My response: Gen 1:1 tells us it was God that created the heavens and earth, and the NT says the Son created all things in heaven and earth (Col 1:16; Heb 1:1-3; John 1:1-3). Therefore, Moses refers to the Son throughout Genesis.

And if God did not create Jesus before the universe, then why does the Bible say that Jesus created or helped create the entire universe?

Shaking my head. Where did you get such silliness, definitely not from any informed JW.

A typical JW response: Proverbs 8:22-23;29-30 "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from times earlier than the earth...when he decreed the foundations of the earth, then I came to be beside him as a master worker and I came to be the one he was specially fond..." (NWT)

Peace

[Obsidian]

So JB is arguing that time could exist before the universe, and it sounds like Apostoli agrees.

Like I said in my last post, though, even if I argued against that idea, it would seem like a waste of time. That is, if Jesus is older than all the universe, he is already divine. Who cares if the Father created him before physical time existed? It seems like his being created before the universe wouldn't really negate his divinity because as Apostoli points out, he would still be eternal.

[apostoli]

Like I said in my last post, though, even if I argued against that idea, it would seem like a waste of time. That is, if Jesus is older than all the universe, he is already divine. Who cares if the Father created him before physical time existed? It seems like his being created before the universe wouldn't really negate his divinity because as Apostoli points out, he would still be eternal.

The extreme Arian Eunomius imo gives the best argument. The JW issue, like his, is precedence not state. IE: the Father could do away with the Son, but the Son is powerless concerning the Father. Its a valid hypothetical but one not supported by scripture.

Both the Nicenes & Arians battled against Sabellian concepts (eg: oneness pentecostals). Where the Nicenes & Arians agreed is that the Father precedes the Son. Where they disagreed is the Arians argued that the Son was God unto himself - an over reaction to the sabellian different prosopon same hypostasis=ousia. The Nicean solution is that the Father and Son are same prosopon to us, different hypostasis, common ousia. The Arians said different ousia. This is the core issue. If different ousia then the Son is not truely son but a fabrication.

Participation in eternity doesn't make an individual God, merely a participant in a single attribute of divinity eg: the angels. Remember JWs teach Jesus is merely an angel albeit the first in rank, status and begettal.

So JB is arguing that time could exist before the universe, and it sounds like Apostoli agrees.

Following Athanasius, Apostoli doesn't agree aka "by definition there is no time in eternity".

Time is a measure of duration used to differentiate events/states/motions. See Einstein's paper, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, VIII. On the Idea of Time in Physics.

From a purely philosophical viewpoint, the Father could not experience time before the begettal of the Son as there was no comparative, no motion that we know about. Einstein's theory of relativity makes this obvious (hence the word relative in the title of the theory). Samewise with the Son, for he cannot compare his duration with the Father's as the Father would be said to have no duration prior to the begettal of the Son, and the Son's only experience of the Father is of same duration (Does the Father age?). However, if it can be said that the Father might perceive a duration between the event of the Son (0) and the event of creation (n) he is dependent, experiences change of state and therefore, by definition is not God. Of interest the same must be said of the Son. In any case as there is no time in eterniity there can be no perception of duration.

From a theological viewpoint, if God became Father or occasioned time he suffered change and therefore is not God. Thus we find throughout scripture no perception of God experiencing time. Gen 1 & John 1:1-3 would indicate that time is relative to that created by the Son alone.

The Arian's et al argue/d that the Son in the the event of the incarnation experienced change of state and experienced time therefore though true God was not God absolute. The Nicenes basically argued that both are relative, the Son did not change state in terms of his hypostasis but participated in humanity. It was his personal prosopon that experienced time etc

I disagree with JB's proposed JW objection that time could exist before the universe. Absolute time is a hypothetical where all durations are measured by a constant instead of a variable. And that constant in terms of us would need to be an "agreed" as opposed to what is true eg: GMT.

Peace

[Obsidian]

Participation in eternity doesn't make an individual God, merely a participant in a single attribute of divinity eg: the angels.

I think we can pretty easily assume that God created the angels within time.

I disagree with what you said about God being unable to experience time or otherwise change, although I agree with you that time wouldn't make much sense prior to the creation of the universe.

[apostoli]

I think we can pretty easily assume that God created the angels within time.

How so? Some Jews have them coming to exist at Gen 1:1 (before time). Some have them created with all winged creatures. Some that they are created for a limited duration on a needs/purpose basis. And others state it is not revealed (ie: might have existed before Gen 1:1). In any case in the NT it is obvious they are conditionally immortal = see Revelation.

I disagree with what you said about God being unable to experience time or otherwise change, although I agree with you that time wouldn't make much sense prior to the creation of the universe.

The core argument is about God's simplicity. 101, if he can change he is not God.

The Arian types discuss this within the context of a primordial being ie. the Father (to the Arians a metaphor). The Nicene's argue that for he to become Father (prime cause) under the Arian propositions makes him complex, thus not God. The Arians have been unable to reconcile their own opinion to the concept of prime cause in the last 1600 years. Hence their demise as an influential force.

The Nicene argument is about the hypostasis/ousia, the individual and its reality. While the prosopon (face = our experience of the individual) is variable the essentiality of the identity is unchanged. Thus as we see the Son we see the Father according to scripture = homoousia = distinct individuals (hypostases) and activity (physis), same essentiality (ousia) and face towards us (prosopon).

Peace

[Jedidiah]

But that doesn't make sense because it would mean that Jesus existed for ten full seconds prior to the existence of time itself. Ye canna change the laws of physics!

The laws of physics are a part of the creation.

[Obsidian]

I guess the answer to your objection, Apostoli, is that whereas Jesus existed prior to time (see John 1), the angels were created at either the same time as time or else afterward. Hence Jesus has at least that one superiority over everything else -- that he himself created time.

[apostoli]

I guess the answer to your objection, Apostoli, is that whereas Jesus existed prior to time (see John 1), the angels were created at either the same time as time or else afterward. Hence Jesus has at least that one superiority over everything else -- that he himself created time.

So Col 1:16 would lead us to understand!

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether
thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him."

Though many criticise the NWT in this verse I thing "[other]" is a helpful addition. Especially given 1 Cor 15:27 ie: the Son did not beget the Father.

Peace