quote:

---

Does sequence exist in the divie realm?

---

quote:

---

Please forgive the pedantry. It's "Arminian" from the name, Jacobus Arminius. When one says "Armenian" one speaks of someone who is native to the country, Armenia. The confusion of the two words happens often, but it gets on my nerves. I'm a schoolmarmish twit sometimes. Sue me.

---

Pot quotes:

Maximus writes: ". . .the Monad moves in virtue of its richness, in order that the Divinity should not be poor, reduced as it would be, in a Jewish manner, to the limitations of one single person." And he continues: "The Triad marks the limit in virtue of its perfection. . . . Alone, indeed , absolutely alone in being perfect is the noncomposed being, the nondispersed being, who escapes at the same time both the unicity of the person, duality of matter, and the multiplicity of essence."

Why should the perfection stop at Trinity? If man is the 4th number (and I think there is some good argument that we are), is the 4th step a movement outward from self that the Trinity did not express until (that's the old 'time' factor again--forgive it) creation of man?

IF you bought that, man would never become divine (part of the trinity), but redeemed heavenly man would become part of the next level of perfection as God expands His dimensions.

The entire idea of being the 'body of Christ' makes this entire line of thought very intriguing.

Of course, if you buy the idea that perfection cannot progress this entire idea is repugnant to you.

Joe Moore



Edited by - joemoore on 10/03/2001 09:25:07 AM

quote:

---

Pot quotes:

Maximus writes: ". . .the Monad moves in virtue of its richness, in order that the Divinity should not be poor, reduced as it would be, in a Jewish manner, to the limitations of one single person." And he continues: "The Triad marks the limit in virtue of its perfection. . . . Alone, indeed , absolutely alone in being perfect is the noncomposed being, the nondispersed being, who escapes at the same time both the unicity of the person, duality of matter, and the multiplicity of essence."

AGAIN, SPEND SOME MORE TIME WITH THIS...

Why should the perfection stop at Trinity? If man is the 4th number (and I think there is some good argument that we are) * YOU ARE MISSING HOW THE SON CAN BE SEEN AS ANTICIPATING THE CREATION. MAKING A NUMBER-FOUR SCREWS THAT UP. , is the 4th step a movement outward from self that the Trinity did not express until (that's the old 'time' factor again--forgive it) creation of man? THE INCARNATION WAS PROBABLY THE PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING. BUT IT MAN AND THROUGH US THE WHOLE CREATION IN FELLOWSHIP WITH THE GODHEAD THROUGH THE UNION WITH THE SON THAT WAS/IS-STILL THE GOAL. *THAT* IS TOO BEAUTIFUL, TOO *ALL* TO MESS WITH. (SO STOP WALKING IN THE ROSES!) ONLY A SCHOLASTIC WOULD GO FURTHER.

IF you bought that, man would never become divine (part of the trinity), but redeemed FROM WHAT -- THE INCARNATION WAS THE PLAN, SIN OR NO. WE SINNED. 0heavenly man would become part of the next level of perfection as God expands His dimensions. THIS SOUNDS DEMONIC. ISN'T IT? ISN'T THAT, *THAT* WHAT SATAN SUGGESTED?

The entire idea of being the 'body of Christ' makes this entire line of thought very intriguing.

"BODY OF CHRIST", AT LEAST TO ME, POINTS MY NOSE TO HOW I MUST PARTACKE OF HIS LIFE. "NO LONGER I WHO LIVE, BUT CHRIST LIVES IN ME. THAT IS NOT A FIGURE OF SPEACH OR IMAGINATION IN THE FATHERS HEAD; AS I WONDER WHETHER IT IS IN THE SATISFACTION THEORY...

HOW WERE YOU THINKING?

Of course, if you buy the idea that perfection cannot progress this entire idea is repugnant to you.

NO, JUST GOING WHERE I'M NO WELCOMES, AND HAVING TO LEAVE HOME TO GO OUT INTO THE COLD TO DO IT.

WHAT LEAD THIS ALL?

Joe Moore

---

quote:

---

Cibertus: a person gets welcomed by having his view challenged. If a person doesn't want his view critiqued, rolled over and looked upon (and disagreed with) he shouldn't post it. That's what its all about. We learn by being stretched...theology isn't for the faint of heart...

---

...or for the easily angered (I might add)

Thanks friendly writer and welcome to you too

Must be that guy thing we do.

Cibertus

quote:

---

theology isn't for the faint of heart...

---

Theology, at *my* paltry level, is for the NEEDY at heart....like me. At another level, it is the actual revelatory vision of God--like St. John in Revelation. Is this here, then, the "Third Wave?"

quote:

---

Well now, was Abraham saved when he lived and walked this earth or was he saved 100s of years later, the second that Jesus died?

I would think that he was saved when he walked this earth. At least we would have more Biblical evidence to that effect. For Abraham was saved by virtue of the faith that he had in the promise to come.

So it seems then that the effect came first (with respect to time sequence)--Abraham was saved and cause came 100s of years later‹Jesus did the saving work. The first event happened second and the second event happened first. We could say from this that there is distance between events but the order is either according to what we know as years minutes and seconds marching into the future OR the order could be different as in the illustration.

Does anyone know of any thinker that would resonate with this. I had to have heard it somewhere cause I doubt that I thunk it up on the drive home last night. Modes? Pot Man?

Cibertus

---

I'll try...however badly.

That non-sequitor interested me too. Another is the one where Christ is Adam's salvation too. "Time travel" is a tempting idea; but I've got a few sources of reasons to counsel against letting that cat in the door, even. But when I watched an Eastern Orthodox communion liturgy for the first time what sprang to my imagination was the TRANSPORTER BEAM on the old, old Star Trek shows. The reason for this was that the meaning of time kept going back and forth. The liturgical topics and the various use of space and actions and movements, and symbols left only that Transporter Beam, or something like it capable of keeping up with the show. Nothing wrong with the show, either. So the question was begged, what is true. Let me just leave something that feels a bit more solid here. Rather than terms of time, I think that the most helpful language I've heard/read...and can at least remember is "fulness." With Christ humanity is fulfilled with his being both risen and ascended. We participate in that fulness; and we shall moreso at the completion of all. "Fulfill" and "complete" both avoid measurable units of time; yet aren't they both infinitely measurable qualitatively. (Like "a little bit pregnant.") They are, or they aren't. Yet in our salvation we are, and we await. In the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (find a link to it on the internet) it says "Remembering this saving commandment [preceding this: ...He took the cup, saying: 'Drink...'] and all those things which have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into Heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious Coming: Thine own, we offer unto Thee, in behalf of all and for all!" With no reservations the events which we partake in through Christ's fulness, but have not yet happened in time, are "remembered" And God is praised for them, and thanks is given! No matter the attempt at ideas, THIS is the non-turning point in the world, in my reckoning. I'll let other things be adjusted. As to time, God isn't "outside of time" because logically that puts God into something subject to time--as not in Chicago compares you to Chicago. "Red" can't be compared to Chicago, because they are just different. God is creator, which can't in every way be compared to the Creator. (BUT, God, at least in the economic activity of the Trinity, and in the way the Creation was designed to interact mutually with its creator ["Man and the Cosmos" is a great book!] can be compared with God. The verse "...to will and to work for..." has elements of that.) Time IS the activity of God within creation; isn't it? But of course God is not limited to activity within creation. The similarity between God's inner Trinitariannnnn (How shall I name it?) bears likeness to his image-bearer....OR the OTHER way around....or both--indicating planning/preparation. (Who knows.) But I'd start with the things of your relationship to God, and us together with God, and Him to us. Don't speculate. Just get to know God more, and let God be more in you, and become more part of the community of His Body.

"May these Gifts be to those who partake for the purification of soul, for the remission of sins, for the communion of the Holy Spirit, for the fulfillment of the Kingdom of heaven, for boldness towards Thee, and not for judgment of condemnation."

And then here is the reality of the Kingdom. You don't loose your church membership when you die!

"Again we offer unto Thee this reasonable worship for those who have fallen asleep in the faith: ancestors, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and every righteous spirit made perfect in faith -- especially for our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary."

Christ's ONCE FOR ALL SACRIFICE is once for all!

Between Easter and Pentecost they then sing: "Shine, Shine, O new Jerusalem. The glory of the Lord has shown on you. Exult, now, exult and be glad, O Zion, Be radiant, O pure Theotokos, in the resurrection, the resurrection of you son."

Then, after a few more things, they take communion.

Later, as the service nears its end, here is the blessing:

"The blessing of the Lord be upon you through His grace and love for mankind, always, now and ever and unto ages of ages. // Amen. // Glory to Thee, O Christ our God and our hope, glory to Thee. // Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life. // May He Who is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life, Christ our true God, through the prayers of His most pure Mother; of the holy, glorious, and all laudable apostles; ......and all the saints, have mercy on us and save us, for He is good and lovest mankind.

. . . . .

Both now and ever, unto ages and ages of time, and the fulness of time, be glory to our Lord and God Jesus Christ. For he loves mankind.



PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

God bless

Joe Moore

quote:

---

Pot, could you lighten up on me a bit?

---

quote:

---

This is a question in regard to time and God being timeless and that whole issue.

As I understand some people have argued that time is an intrinsic characteristic of existence--God's included. The reason being that there is sequence--one event follows another and each event has measurable space between it. This is the support they use. I don’t know, but I think Yankee thinks somewhat along these lines. (BTW the question I have for these people is, Is living outside of time and experiencing it as an eternal now the correct comperable alternative to living in time and experiencing it as past present future?)

Anyway if I were to disagree and say that time is how humanoids, who die, understand sequence. I could say that time doesn't really exist but sequence might. I could talk about this sequence in terms of the various directions it could go and it wouldn't necesarily be following the linear time path. For example: If we look at various events throughout history, according to the time path second things have happened first and first things have happened second. For example:

Was Abraham saved?
Yes

How was Abraham saved?
He was saved by virtue of the faith he had.

Who saved Abraham?
Jesus did.

Well now, was Abraham saved when he lived and walked this earth or was he saved 100s of years later, the second that Jesus died?
I would think that he was saved when he walked this earth. At least we would have more Biblical evedence to that effect. For Abraham was saved by virtue of the faith that he had in the promise to come.

So it seems then that the effect came first (with respect to time sequence)--Abraham was saved and cause came 100s of years later—Jesus did the saving work. The first event happened second and the second event happened first. We could say from this that there is distance between events but the order is either according to what we know as years minutes and seconds marching into the future OR the order could be different as in the illustration.

Does anyone know of any thinker that would resonate with this. I had to have heard it somewhere cause I doubt that I thunk it up on the drive home last night. Modes? Pot Man?


Cibertus

---