I don't even think Enyart would have said that about him. It was more, I think, that he wasn't prepared for the debate. I think Enyart and staff prep well for debates.Sometimes, I exaggerate a point. I should have just called him an idiot.
Sorry I missed this. The conundrum: God is literally the source of everything so 'entering' that everything is literally entering inward, if you follow. I believe, from Colossians 1:15-20, John 15:5 and Acts 17:28 (a further sense of this in Philippians 2:13 etc.) that God is 'in all' Ephesians 4:6From your pov, do you think God entered time, and if so, when did He create it? Do you believe that God literally said “Let there be light”, if so, how would you define the duration between "let" and "light"?
Most do (I do, incidently). I'd simply say: believe what is in the Bible and be careful with what is not. There are scriptures that talk about not being able to flee from God's presence from David, Psalm 139:7-12 for example. At the very least, your conversation with Open Theists will cause you to delve into scriptures further, for what you believe, and that is always a good thing.I admit not all Christians believe like I do that God is omnipresent.
Its a good verse for thought and thanks. If I'm to change to any Open Theist position, it does have to be upon scriptural basis. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says literally 'prosopone' (face) of the Lord. It does indeed present a dilemma to omnipresence unless 1) men are annihilated in the lake of fire, such that there is literally 'no' presence for God to be, 2) that He can see them, but they not He 3) it could only mean God isn't Omniscient. If so, then along the same line that if one Omni, then all omnis logically, and you'd show the opposite, if not one, then none. If you can prove it, there would be no room for any to believe the omnis (many of us would have to be Open when/if such a thing were the only possible interpretation). -Lon"These people will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power"
JudgeR, let me start with the definition of time, as it will affect my grasp of this scripture:
A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration.
I've given this visual representation prior, but briefly:
Time can only be represented by the lower two, a segment (given as part of the second definition above) and an 'irreversible succession' given as the ray.
Because time is ONLY capable of defining the lower two, such cannot be mathematically nor by definition, applied to a line with no measurement.
Ephesians 3:18 would apply to all three, but as it relates to 1) ability to discover (the lower two) then 2) superseded by the first 'beyond.'
. . . most of our math comes from the Greeks AND they happen to be right.
Your accusatory would be like trying to 'accuse Einstein of general relativity.' Now if you tried to somehow tie a mathematician to Einstein's poor conduct, it'd become an odd conversation and out of the purview of meaningful for most people. In this case, the Greeks just happen to be right.
As a side note, the Jews believe God is timeless. It is written in their literature predating any Greek philosophy.
JudgeR, The 'same' doesn't mark a 'separation' (segment).
While incarnation DOES enter your equation, it is simply the 'durative' sense of the line that represents Christ.
Thus, you are correct as far as His segmented durative aspect with man.
God's interactions with us are always durative (in time) for we are beings that have a beginning.
Colossians 1:15 can be likened to a contain[er],
though for us, in a physical sense, a ever-expanding container,
but God is already 'infinite.'
Duration is 'finite.' It is definite.
Colossians 1:15 states that 'nothing exists' neither without nor outside Him.
It means He is the source of literally 'every last thing'
and John 1:3, that literally nothing (time?) exists that exists without Him.
While rationalization suggest God has to 'move' thus is ruled by time as we are,
it isn't actual when 'nothing exists' that exists.
It is why God is 'the immovable mover': Because "in Him, we live and move and have our being."
Very often, the Open View paradigm has the universe, by argument, as God's habitat.
The problem: According to this scripture, the universe is 'in' Him.
Does it mean He doesn't move? No, but it'd be all movement 'within' His own being. Such things can have 'time' but only because at that point we are talking about 'parts' and not the whole.
The whole is 1) God,
and 2) must logically be timeless
OR God is subservient to some ruling factor outside of Himself
(and that's not possible if I understand this scripture),
and it wouldn't be true that He is the creator of everything.
If the illustration above helps you grasp this, it must mean timeless by necessity.
"before" (was) "I am?"
That isn't at least some sort of traverse of time from then to 'now?' The statement itself is saying that 'then' is 'my now.' Do you see that as necessarily true?
Without your and my 'moment and duration' certainly,
ESPECIALLY as a thousand years becomes a day because a thousand years,
for God, does indeed fit into a 24 hour period.
While you might surmise that both are duration, as soon as you compare them, the one necessarily goes backwards 365000 days....from one day. I believe all God's truths are true. Somehow this isn't a simile but a metaphor.
If you can show this as 'like a thousand years' I'd have to rethink this verse.
Appreciate that, but looking at definitions, at least on paper, it seems they must mean that
Agree, not to be mistaken. Next then, what does it 'teach' about time? 1) that a certain one (Melchizedek) had 'no' beginning? Or more specifically, 'no beginning of days?' Which does it say?
|* Who Was Melchizedek? Was he a man? Or was he God appearing to man, that is, a theophany? Pre-Incarnation divine appearances seem to be by Christophany, as both priestly and in-person revelations are the domain of God the Son. Yet Melchizedek wouldn't have been a Christophany because it is potentially catastrophic to say of Jesus that He had "no father". And Melchizedek certainly wasn't some co-eternal being other than God, as "no beginning of days" may imply to some. Was he then God the Father, the Holy Spirit, or a normal human being? The Book of Hebrews describes him as remaining "a priest continually." So that would seem to exclude him from being one of the other Persons of the Trinity, since only the Son is the priestly Mediator, and not the Father nor the Spirit. The Genesis passage provides the earliest reference to nascent Jerusalem. In that time of patriarchy/city states, the more familiar that Abraham was with the political leaders of Canaan the more likely it is that Melchizedek was a normal human being. As the King of Salem, Melchizedek was probably previously known to Abraham. After the "slaughter of the [other] kings" Abraham met first with the King of Sodom and then with the King of Salem. The fascinating Hebrews 7 passage says "so to speak" i.e., not literally, not about Melchizedek though, but about Levi. And the description of Melchizedek likewise could have been "so to speak", that is, containing symbolic language, which of course is so very common especially in the eastern/Hebrew/biblical use of metaphors and analogies. The brevity of the account, leaving out his earthly heritage, made Melchizedek an even better fit as a spiritual type. (The "king of Sodom" too had no genealogy reported in the text, but obviously that doesn't mean that he was yet another eternal being.) God, of course, had the authority to establish a human priesthood, as He did through Aaron. And likewise, He had the authority to establish a human priesthood, if He wanted to, through this guy Melchizedek, whose mantle Christ then inherited, not unlike Him inheriting David's throne.|
You even said 'without succession or sequence' in your quote!
Clearly? It is difficult to prove a negative, but doesn't 'without beginning of days' mean without beginning of days?
Doesn't it at least teach that Melchizedek, if not Christ, literally, verbally has 'no beginning of days?' If not, what IS it actually teaching if not those exact words?
What does 'without' even 'beginning' of days [mean]?
how would/could that be possible?
I'd not say 'no past'
- is timeless Hebrews 13:8 And Colossians 1:16,17 and John 1:3
- in an eternal now John 8:58 'before' 'am' (both)
- without sequence or succession Hebrews 13:8
- without moment or duration " " 2 Peter 3:8 Psalm 90:4
- atemporal and outside of time Hebrews 7:3? Without 'beginning of days'?
- not was, nor will be, but only is John 8:58
- has no past Hebrews 7:3
- has no future. "Is" the future Acts 17:28
but rather 'a past that has absolutely no beginning, forever.'
It is an incredibly difficult concept
but quite outside of 'duration' as a proponent definition, by necessity, of time.
Did I get that from Greek, or is it actually (demonstrably?) from scripture (Asking for Clete's benefit here)?
|In the section heading just above, the word Greek does not refer, as many would assume, to the text of the New Testament that was originally written in Greek. Rather, it was used to refer to pagan Greek philosophy, which insisted that God exists outside of time. In contrast, the Hebrew and Greek terms in the Bible about God and time are TOTALLY different and refer not to timelessness but to unending duration. The phrases in the Scriptures all speak of God existing through unending time and an everlasting duration. The above timelessness terms are foreign to the reader of God's Word, whereas the Bible's many terms, as listed below, are all so very familiar from our reading of Scripture.|
Appreciate that but for many of us who know the definition of time, this is a necessity, Greek or no.
Time IS temporal thus a 'no beginning' has to mean atemporal.
It is part of the definition.
"Without days" and "without beginning" are atemporal characteristics.
The [passage] could be argued to say "Melchizedek, existing apart from most time considerations (atemporal) summing up what he'd just said if we take literally 'no days (without) and no beginning.'
I'd not want to argue every point and concede this one (good call on appeal to Him as well, appreciated). I've not read 'not was, nor will be' from classic theology so I'd have to have the quote. All I can say is that you and I agree on this particular (and a couple others). Some make the mistake of removing God from time altogether. That's wrong/incorrect. God is relational to, unrestricted by, time. It means He is 'wet' in time but 'not all wet.' The only way I know of, that He can interact and communicate with us, is in time, so I'd have to join you on this one and say "I disagree."
He isn't exactly 'a'temporal when He is involved with and in Time.
It is similar when we see Him involved with us physically and consider the incarnation: PART at least of His experience with us is physical BUT 'physical' comes from Him thus, as best as I can guess from scripture, the physical universe comes from His Spiritual being John 4:24 (The Lord Jesus Christ telling the Samaritan woman that God is Spirit, a good verse to remind Unitarians that the Holy Spirit IS God btw, Our Lord declares it so). If we read Colossians 1:15, then the 'change' Open Theists are talking about are already 'from (literally) Him.' Analogy: Like melting a candy bar, casting it in the shape of an egg (that already exists) and saying "Its new!" "Well....sort of." It isn't that I don't somewhat agree with Open Theists, just that I'm always trying to balance the view with all scriptures and what scripture teaches about the nature of God.
Didn't we just discuss them 'from' the Bible?
Well, no. You cannot demonstrate such. If someone is showing Bible words, and you are seeing them and more, YOU are even posting them, then it is 'exact(ly the) opposite: you, an Open Theist, posted that someone was without 1) succession AND without 2 sequence. YOU posted that. It isn't 'the exact opposite' JR.
Its a tired carnard. I realize it is said enough in Open Circles that you think it actually means something, but it really doesn't. Simply read scripture with me and discuss them. It doesn't matter AT ALL if such coincides with 'Plato' or Greek. "If" it does, then the Greeks were right and 'who cares?' If not, then the Greeks were wrong and 'who cares?' Apparently Open Theists. None of the rest of us give a rip.
Remember when I corrected Enyart, concerning Augustine whom he thought loved the Colosseum? It wasn't Augustine, it was a student of his. Just because a figurehead in Open Theism makes a statement, they can and have been shown enough times where they are wrong.
In this case? Why should I, or you, or anybody care a whit what Greeks think about scripture.
I've shown Hebrew scholars predating Greek influence very much maintaining these supposed 'Greek' ideas. It means, clearly, they aren't. They are "Bible" ideas.
Who said that?
I think there are some odd ideas floated around Open circles that have postulated a LOT of misinformation. As I said, I can and have previously PROVED that HEBREWS came up with these thoughts, FROM THE BIBLE, long before any Greek influence 'could' have been accused.
I actually EXPECT your education to have gone much further than this.
Simply look up what the ancient Hebrews believed and you'll find, LONG before Greek influence, commentaries that talk of the omnis of God etc. If anything, the Greeks were influenced by Hebrews and Arabs.
I don't, and certainly not poorly researched accusation and repetition either.
Sure Augustine influenced Catholics, but if Hebrews did as well (and they did) then whatever they agreed upon is of importance. Where they didn't? We need to pay attention to that as well OR, like YOU said, ignore them, but that isn't what "Open Theism" is doing in conversation, is it??? Do you realize that Open Theists are more versed in Greek philosophy (right or wrong)than most Christians?
"Without Him, NOTHING exists that exists."
I know your position
and it isn't tenable.
Time is 'finite' therefore cannot NOT be part of His creation.
For the Open Theist, this is the proverbial nail in the coffin: Unless God "didn't" create the properties of time (He did)
then there is no such thing as "Open Theism." The only thing I have to prove, not to the rest of the world, they know this, but to the Open Theist is: That time is a finite property.
It is a an 'artificial' segmenting of 'eternity.'
You are stuck in the your thinking "IN" the physical universe.
The universe, indeed nothing, exist(s/ed) outside of God. There is no such thing as "outside" of God.
Most if not all Open Thinking comes from this physical plane and confuses it with His. He is 'apart' from His creation.
That isn't Plato, that is scripture.
|- is timeless|
- in an eternal now
- without sequence or succession
- without moment or duration
- atemporal and outside of time
- not was, nor will be, but only is
- has no past
- has no future.
This unemployed guy believes, like you, that most Christians are influence 'incorrectly' by Greeks.
Down the list, a Jew corrects him. He is wrong that God isn't apart from His creation and wrong in his apparent lack of knowledge that it wasn't a 'Greek' but a Jew, both in thread and Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible
Yes, if Colossians 1:15 says it.
Where then did or 'could' it have come from?
The problem is you have God as co-existing with the universe AND it wipes out a lot of scriptures in its path such as Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 11:3
Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16 just above too. "without Him, 'nothing' exists that exists. Acts 17:28 says 'in Him, we live and move and "have our being."
Except it means all properties of time as part of 'everything.'
You have to be careful with your 'duh' agreement when you don't mean that particular and likely when Open Theism believes God isn't in our bathrooms or during a human atrocity (not sure the number that believe each, it isn't an indictment, just part of conversations with Open Theists).
Scriptures already . . . discuss[es] problems with time and our understanding of time. Nobody can ever argue that point, it is quite clear:They do, but they don't allow for the conclusion that God is outside of time.
Again, 'relation to' is important lest I argue the complete opposite. I don't. God is relational to us too, yet isn't human etc.
It does show that it isn't the same for Him,
thus at least: outside of 'our' time constraints for sure.
It actually would have caused 24 hours and about 38 minutes, thus all of time is bumped like a permanent daylight savings.
It does go back to definitions. If God authored time as most of us believe,
without a lot of help from Greeks or Einstein, then He altered His creation but I see the problem of trying to get an Open Theist on board, thus perhaps not the best scripture point. It at least does, in fact, show God manipulating time measurement and concept.
It does in the sense that a 24 hour day didn't exist. Moving a shadow backwards affects the progression of time
AND the mention of a shadow moving backwards carries strong implications regarding time as well.
Well, yes it does. "All and Mighty" literally mean Omni (all) and Potent (mighty).
Er, are we reading the same dictionaries???
Having absolute power; all-powerful.
How about Merriam's where you got the above ( :Z ):
First line: : having absolute power over all Almighty God (as an adjective, as a noun: "God" as only definition), i
Even 'if' it were obscured, Hebrew doesn't allow it:
El (all) Shaddai (Mighty).
I've just proved otherwise.
]Except El Shaddai literally 1) Biblical and 2) 'All Mighty' :noway: It means, by necessity, the spokesmen for Open Theist got this one completely wrong, demonstrably.
Well, perhaps now? What will convince if you cannot grasp one of His names literally means this? Would The spokesmen for OT literally rob God of His name just to turn a blind eye???
We Christians have been predestinated by God to be adopted into Christ to receive the inheritance promised to the children of God.I would love to debate Jeremy. Specific people are not predestined.
It's like wedding invitations. Those who come are predestined to receive all that the wedding includes.
No kidding, and here once again, you look like an idiot, talking about things that have nothing to do with anything I was talking about. Are you drunk, by chance?
First time I've ever heard anyone use that example, besides me. I even searched the internet, after it came to me, to see if anyone else saw it that way. Very cool!Time, like math and logic, for example, are not created entities, but rather they are aspects of reality.
The barbarian is the one who blurts out comments without understanding what's going on. Try reading what is said, and why. And here is a free tip, it also works when reading the Bible.Don't be so hard on strangers or you might be mistaken for a hard-hearted barbarian.
Job 12:4The barbarian is the one who blurts out comments without understanding what's going on. Try reading what is said, and why. And here is a free tip, it also works when reading the Bible.
Define 'reality.' It is a necessity that 'math' is created because it only deals with physical properties and 'created' numerals. If by 'reality' you mean 'the physical universe' then great. If you mean aspects of God Himself, you'd have to show that.Time, like math and logic, for example, are not created entities, but rather they are aspects of reality.
Again, if by 'reality' you mean the physical universe, yes, it part of His created 'reality.'Thus: Time is the endurance of reality.
I know of no definition of time that says 'non-physical.' Einstein showed time is a physical property.Time is the dimension of change. And to add more descriptors, time is the beginningless, endless, present, continuous, invariable, irreversible future-to-past non-physical dimension of change.
No, because literally nobody but Open Theists, think otherwise. Honestly? The burden of proof is on you guys as the usurpers.Because you say so?
Appreciate that, but let's go back over what "I" believe "is" better: Time only measures what is measurable. The line represents no point A nor B. You must have at least a break, somewhere, to even suggest time. By it, we somewhat grasp an eternal nonbeginning of God but ONLY as we understand a starting point somewhere. Time is nothing but a constructed mathematical concept AND we 'conceive' it by observation of our physical universe. Time, tape measures, temperature, etc. etc. is all mathematics applied to observation for meaning.Lon, you're better than this. I know you are.
First, yes! I'm not terrible at mathematics and very good at logic. Next? "Yes" because I say so because I can show it. Read further, that the only way to even know 'when' time starts is only by physical indicators. Time is inextricably connected to our physical universe and the theory of time is called a 'block universe.' It means, all that is contained 'in' the universe moves, but the universe itself, does not, therefore time ONLY applies to whatever moves 'within' and is a illusion. It is, physics states, an illusion, because the only movement is a sense of looking from 'one space within the block to another.' It means that an appeal to 'Greek' influence of an immovable mover, is actually a long held observation of physicists. I'm not a physicist but I'm versed well enough to be able to discuss these in laymen terms and explain why they must be so.1) You are begging the question. "Time can only be represented by the lower two..."? Because you say so?
Yes, the other two represent 'parts' of a line, or a line that has been segmented. The reason it cannot apply to the line is it has no place at all (like the block universe) to apply time. Time MUST be conceived by a starting point. God has none. The idea that God only moves 'forward' in sequential increments, is a construct of only man's ability to grasp Him. Time is part and parcel of a physical construct, as is Mathematics. Mathematics are not an absolute, they are the properties of a physical universe. Insisting God is somehow locked into only His universe make Him the product 'of' the physical (His creation).You provide no argument as to why the first line (and if I may, I'd like to point out that the second two "lines" are not technically lines at all, but rather the second is a "ray," and the third is a "line segment," to use their proper geometric names) cannot be used.
As I linked above, you are describing something bigger than time if it is beginningless.On the contrary, I assert that ONLY the first can represent time, BECAUSE time, as the dimension of change, is beginningless, endless, present, continuous,
Yet see what you did to conceive this? You made, invariably, a random access point to even start the idea of time. It is invariably true, you will always have to use an artificial construct (like zero degrees) to apply any concept.invariable, irreversible, future-to-past non-physical dimension of change, is infinitely long, just as a line is infinitely long, extending in two opposite directions.
Not to the first, yes to the second. Simply: You cannot have 'time' which is not but a mathematical concept, without a made-construct. It is true of all applied math. There has to be a construct of a starting point, to measure 'one foot' and a 24 hour day. God did create the measurements, 'the first day' and the shores etc.As such, and fitting of your visual representation, the "ray" and the "line segment," which are half of a line and a fraction of a line, represent other things.
As such, the "line" best represents what time is. Or, to put it another way, God's eternal existence is best represented by a line.
AgreeThe "ray" could be used, when overlaid onto the line, to represent:
A) the point at which God created the earth, and its existence since then
B) the point at which a human being comes into existence, and how the human's soul will last forever
C) the point at which Christ had two natures, and no longer just one, and how He will forever more have two natures.
The "line segment"could be used, when overlaid onto the line, to represent:
A) A human's/humanity's fleeting existence on this earth
B) The Millennial Kingdom
C) The duration of Christ's earthly ministry
First of all, let's take the metaphor of the line. There is no such thing as 'the length of a line.' There is no mathematical formula that can be written. Two observations then: 1) without measure and 2) only constructs give any kind of 'length' meaning (constructs either by God or man).2) Time, like a line, and not a ray or segment, while it cannot be measured in totality, at least not by humans, does not have "no measurement," EXCEPT in that it is not possible to measure something that is infinitely long, except to say that it is so. A "point" has "no measurement," because there is nothing to measure, but a "line" has infinite measurement. Thus, your position further falls apart.
And all constructs imposed upon the line to make a meaning. As such they are 'made.'3) A line does not fit into a point, but infinitely many points make up a line.
A couple of considerations:As such, saying that God, who you claim exists in an eternal now (a "point"), sees time as if seeing a parade coming along a street, while He sits above it on top of a building, able to see the entire parade (a "line"), while humanity, the people on the street, can only see what's happening where they are, is quite backwards.
You should have asked instead of declared. You are starting to posture at this point. It isn't a good place to be when we are only interested in what is true. If either your or my position can be shown wrong, it simply means we adjust or leave an idea behind. Ephesians gives 1) measure then 2) says that the object to measure cannot be measured. The concepts of a 'measureless' God are important and 'time' is a 'measurement.' The scripture in question says at least in dimensions, God's attribute is 'beyond' measure. The purpose of including it, then, was to show, beyond doubt, that God AT LEAST in some of His aspects is absolutely beyond measure. Scripture isn't giving a platitude of meaninglessness. If It says He is beyond measure, then that is an absolute. Time is a measurement virtually the same as 'length.'Ephesians 3:18 has literally nothing to do with this discussion.
You guys are really stuck on the Greeks. I'd suggest they have ruined YOUR thinking because Open Theists seem to know only Greeks while clueless as to "Physics" for interest. A good class on physics would be good for any Open Theist interested and apt for such a class. Imho? "Greeks" is a scapegoat with only perhaps a few exceptions. Open Theists talk about Greeks. I haven't read even Augustine, who I like, for a very long time.Ephesians 3:14-19:
14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
This is a poor argument, and an even shoddier defense of the Greeks.
No, but onus is upon one calling them on the carpet.Just because someone is right on one topic, does not guarantee that they are right on another.
It can, if they have the authority and other does not. At least it can go unchallenged without the necessary information to challenge it.Saying it doesn't make it so.
For something YOU can easily look up???Cite please, rather than just making bald assertions.
This is one of those points where one either is able to think fourth dimensionally, or is not. God is the source of all things, literally, which means His own incarnation. You are pitting God against the physical world and physical concepts with these two sentences. He is not a slave the physical universe. He is the creator of it.The passage is talking about Christ's character.
It's not saying that he's a stone idol that cannot change in any way. He BECAME flesh, He GAINED a new nature, one which He never had before the incarnation.
It is an aspect 'of' the line. It is part of the Open misconception: Open Theism insists a segment, not a line. You yourself say its a 'law of noncontradiction.' It is confusing yourself regarding a line and a segment. Do you not realize that a segment IS part of the line? Do you then insist that the superimposed segments are the sum of the line? Isn't it rather you that isn't grasping that God is both 'part' of a segment AND outside according to correct mathematics and definition?That would be a line segment. Not a line.
What was the length of time God existed before He created the universe?
Looks like time as humans understand it cannot adequately explain eternity as God sees it.Answer: ∞ years
past___<(∞ years)>___creation___<(about 7000 years)>___present___<(∞ years)>___future