I think the "man-focused" vs "God-focused" is usually a red herring--what we are trying to do is figure out what God tells us about Himself. Any view that doesn't get it right is the man-focused one--since we are using our own view of God over His.
Couple of points: 1) for me, not a red herring. God reaches 'us' where we are at. That doesn't mean everyone will
get it the same, and in point of fact,
they can't (less than half can even 'begin' to think in formal operational stages). It means, God's message reaches everyone (similar to mathematical grasps). It just doesn't reach us all the same. Anyone who has not gained in formal operational thinking, doesn't really grasp the latter description. Problem? Probably from us who don't relate well. Not everybody can explain algebra for instance, some are better at it than others, yet scripture, itself, reminds us Isaiah 55:8,9 Ephesians 3:18 etc. That's why John 15:5 applies to all of us, wherever we are at.
His thoughts and ways are not ours, but He provides, or "reveals" His thoughts to us, at least some of them. Admittedly we are also limited in our understanding, but that doesn't mean God has to turn a "this" into a "not this" for us to understand His thoughts, else we start to think that His thoughts are really the opposite of His thoughts. God's word then is one mass of contradictions.
It is important to realize we all reach different levels of what we can assimilate and attain. It should never come across bad. I should never mean by "Oh, you don't know algebra, sorry" that you (hypothetical you) aren't as smart. That simply is not true. It ONLY means one is not equipped with that particular ability. For instance, if I had all A's, you'd not think me stupid if I couldn't drive a car. The two are unrelated and it is similar here. Metaphysics "with or beyond" what we physically see or understand. Many cannot think in this stage, or at least never do (I think it takes awhile and a desire, but one can get there if they desire over time, imho (not all, but I 'think' most could given the desire).
Sorry for the intermixing--it's coming from trying to understand time as we understand space. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Time is really a measure of one thing against another, at its basic level. Space is, too. And if God is the only thing, I admit of a fault in my measuring rods (which don't exist). When we get down to it, we are both coming from the same basic premise--God can't lie--and branching off from that to see if we can figure out what He's telling us about Himself. But my "lie" accusation was what we make God to do if we anthropomorphize too much of Him and His revelation to us, to the point where He is contradictory to His revelation.
:up:
Time definitely began for us! Time began for angels. Time began for God when you talk of Him interacting with other things/beings, I suppose. In that way, if God has always been trinitarian, then He has always interacted with "others" in relationship. That implies progression of time of some sort, doesn't it? Maybe not, but We have so little else to go on except that God did things "before" time, which means there was something that marked progression for Him even before we had something to mark progression for us.
Yes, sort of. It again is akin (to me) of God being 'all wet' in time vs a finger.
I always tend to go back to a definition of our time that includes corruption--entropy is the best I have to offer--which is inadequate even within the created realm (oops, there's that concept of space again). And when we will no longer be corruptible, we will no longer experience "time" as we know it. But we will experience something--learning, perhaps, since we won't know everything God knows.
The hardest part, for me (and it seems you) regarding formal operations and metaphysical thinking is that we don't have adequate language to describe it. As I said, some of us are better at explaining algebra. I'm not very good at explaining it (did better with some of the higher maths).
In connection, His ways begin to flitter away from my grasp rather quickly. I suppose, in and of that, it is a bit of a red herring because it is genuinely unattainable, but it also allows me to understand, very clearly, why God isn't bound by physical qualities. The moment that happens, God is a product of the universe. We know He isn't and cannot be, both metaphysically and by revelation (Isaiah, Ezekiel etc.).
Is "knowledge", then, our third "dimension of dimensions"--Space, Time, Knowledge?
Yes, and again for most. Even of the other half, that does delve into metaphysical abstract thinking, a good number of those don't walk there comfortably. It is about the same attrition rate as with those math classes. That kind of meta thinking goes closely hand-in-hand. So, if you do well in higher math, you also are doing well in higher (non-physical or 'not just' physical thinking). That said, someone will try and describe it as I've done with the fishbowl analogy and boom, we are back to physical concrete sequential, concrete operational discussion. Again, God reaches us similarly too. If a person doesn't get all of algebra, at least they can grasp some of it. 3n= someone can do if they know the value of 'n.' When they understand 'n' is a variable that can be given, they catch a tiny bit of introduction into formal operational thinking. When we understand 'principles' in scripture, we also begin to delve into that formal operational stage as well.
Your fish analogy suggested such. Did God always know He would make the earth (fishbowl)? Or did He decide at one point to do so? Can He still decide today, or is it impossible for Him to do so, making the earth and its inhabitants an eternal thing. This was the argument from Duffy (can God create a new butterfly?) in the debate, if you watched that.
This is a bit of what I mean. With algebra, as SOON as I say n equals 20, if you think 'n' ONLY equals 20, you are somewhat stuck in concrete (physical, graspable) terms. Your question 'comes from' time in and of itself. It is like asking "was there water before water existed?" If all things are contained in God and NOTHING exists outside of Him (again, all concrete operational terms) then we can somewhat (small percentage) understand that yes, somehow water has always existed as far as we understand OR 'nope.' Once we say either, we are either thinking of the big picture OR closing it down. Whichever way we go indicates our operational thinking parameters. Even among formal operational thinkers, there is debate going on. Why? Because "Always" and "never" are times thus chronological considerations but, that's all we know.
In that way, if God has always been trinitarian, then He has always interacted with "others" in relationship. That implies progression of time of some sort, doesn't it?
I'm not sure how well this will go over, but here goes: Before there was time (before is a time consideration so again, problematic), quality existed in God (likely), not quantity/qualitative change (God is perfect thus there is nothing but absolute quality already). IOW, because God is perfect, all things are already arrived. Only in a system like we are in, where we are NOT perfect but 'moving toward it' would time be a factor. Acts 17:28
Again, I'm not always the guy to go to for all of this. I can't always give the exact means one needs to arrive at what I'm saying. I do think beyond physical parameters but I haven't the vocabulary for explaining it well. Before I knew algebra, I would have had a very hard time with 'n.' This is somewhat akin.
Christmas was very nice. Laid back, except staying up too late wrapping presents. This was the first since My daughter's wedding, so she wasn't here for it. The concept of the infinite being birthed the same way we are is mind-boggling--even more so now than before (and getting more so every year).
I think that is why Paul says in Ephesians 3:18,19 to 'discover' that which is 'beyond' our ability to fully discover YET that we would 'discover' it. A God without measure is, well, not quantifiable or able to be 'fully' discovered (else "we" would be without measure). I'm with you on that. -Lon
