Ask a Theologian IV

[_random_]

In the post above your's Plotinus said that Aristotle belived in God, but that God did not create the universe. Time is as much part of the universe as anything else to the human perspective. Most theologians just hold to the concept that God is not bound by the universe, neither by time.

Right, but Swinburne is known to be pretty orthodox (big O and small o), so such a deviation from traditional Christian ideas about God seems odd to me.

 

[Arakhor]

How could time in the conventional sense not start until the supposed Fall? There is a linear sequence of events between the Creation, the Temptation and the Fall, yet you suppose that time did not begin until the last point?

 

[madviking]

So I'm reading the Book of Matthew, and I come across chapter 6, verses 5 and 6:

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

The bolded sections seem to conflict greatly with what Paul later says in 1 Timothy 2:8:

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

So what gives? Are there any official stances on public prayer?

 

[Berzerker]

the Christians I've asked about that claim Jesus was telling them its okay to pray openly if they're sincere... Course that aint what Jesus said and they dont explain how the rest of us can tell them from the hypocrites

 

[burleyman]

As Marley puts it, 'Observing the hypocrites, mingle with the good people we meet'

 

[Plotinus]

What are the general arguments for that perspective? I should probably know this, since I've had The Christian God lying on my nightstand for some time, but I'm pretty new to academic literature, so it's a rather thick read.

The main ones are:

(1) The notion that God is literally atemporal is unbiblical.

(2) It is hard to explain how an atemporal entity could have relations with a temporal world, particularly how it could act upon the world, especially if causation is a temporal relation.

(3) If God is atemporal it means that he doesn't exist now (although it is now true that he exists), which is a bit hard to stomach.

(4) The notion of atemporality is just incoherent anyway.

In Swinburne's case, he thinks that before God created anything, time did not exactly exist as we know it because there were no events to demarcate it, so before creation God existed in a sort-of timeless state. It wasn't really timeless, but it was much like it. After creation, however, God is as temporal as anything else.

So they either made it up or they had access to a version that identified the ocean as the source.

Yes. The question is why the latter of these two options is to be preferred to the former. And if it is, then why must that source have been correct?

I dont know what the author(s) knew but I do know Genesis describes a water covered world in darkness acquiring spin closer to a star.

Honestly, you must be reading a different Genesis from the one I know. It doesn't talk about the world acquiring spin. It doesn't talk about being close to a star. It talks about things happening that, if they were really to have happened like that, we know would have been caused by the planet starting to spin near a star. But to assume that this means that the author of Genesis was talking about that is completely unjustified. It's like saying that a child who tells you that his dog is ill understands precisely what causes canine diseases. Of course he doesn't understand it, and to assume that anyone who describes a phenomenon must understand the causes of that phenomenon is to make a very big mistake. In the case of Genesis, just because the author describes certain phenomena such as the succession of day and night doesn't mean he understands what causes those phenomena. To say that any ancient author who talks about the succession of day and night is talking about the revolution of the earth is nothing short of disingenuous. This is so even when the phenomena described by the author are real ones - let alone when they're not real ones, as is the case with Genesis. After all, Genesis makes it pretty clear that the sun was created after the earth, which is somewhat hard to square with science.

And its also clear the author described a world (covered by water and darkness) before Heaven and Earth are "created". Why is that? Why did the author of Genesis make the effort to explain that a dark, water covered world existed before God gave it day and night? Thx again...

I don't know, but again, it's quite inconsistent with science, since there is no way there was ever a time when the earth was covered with liquid water and yet not spinning on its axis.

I don't want to carry on arguing the toss about this, so I will restate my position: I see absolutely no reason to read into ancient creation myths any great and wondrous wisdom about the true nature of reality or the actual history of the cosmos. I see no reason to suppose that the people who wrote those myths had any insight into these things, despite being just as intelligent as us, because they did not have the means to learn them. And I think that trying to read into these myths ideas consonant with modern science is nothing more than an exercise in wishful thinking which only works if you use selectivity and eisegesis - i.e. focusing only on those elements that match and ignoring the others, and reading into them ideas that aren't really there in the first place.

In the post above your's Plotinus said that Aristotle belived in God, but that God did not create the universe. Time is as much part of the universe as anything else to the human perspective.

Aristotle believed that the universe had no beginning. Of course it doesn't follow from that that he didn't think the universe depends upon God in some sense, but as I understand it our knowledge of Aristotle's theology is patchy because it was covered mainly in his lost works.

My question on the matter, is: I cannot be the first one to propose that time started when Adam was cursed. No one has ever mentioned it in a theological reference? IMO time is a restriction just like decay and entropy.

I have never heard such an idea before and I'm afraid that it makes no sense to me. As Arakhor says, if there were no time before Adam were cursed, then how could he have done anything to warrant being cursed? Indeed, if you accept that time had a beginning, how could there have been anything before that at all? Suppose that time starts at t=0. Then if there were anything before this, it would be at t=-1. But then there must be a progression of time in order to get to t=0. In which case, time has already begun before we ever get to t=0, which is contrary to the hypothesis. So if you really think that time began with Adam being cursed, then it must be that the very first thing that ever happened was that Adam was cursed, which seems pretty harsh, to say the least.

So I'm reading the Book of Matthew, and I come across chapter 6, verses 5 and 6:

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

The bolded sections seem to conflict greatly with what Paul later says in 1 Timothy 2:8:

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

So what gives? Are there any official stances on public prayer?

Paul didn't write 1 Timothy - it's deuteropauline. Still, you're right that there seems to be a contradiction here. I don't know if there are any "official" stances on public prayer. I do know that the early Christians prayed regularly at set times throughout the day, but I think generally in private or with each other - hardly surprising given that they could be executed for their faith. I don't know if there's any "official" view on this or on the relation between those two passages other than what Berzerker reports, which seems to me the obvious answer if one is committed to the principle of the unity of scripture.

 

[Jehoshua]

Paul didn't write 1 Timothy - it's deuteropauline. Still, you're right that there seems to be a contradiction here. I don't know if there are any "official" stances on public prayer. I do know that the early Christians prayed regularly at set times throughout the day, but I think generally in private or with each other - hardly surprising given that they could be executed for their faith. I don't know if there's any "official" view on this or on the relation between those two passages other than what Berzerker reports, which seems to me the obvious answer if one is committed to the principle of the unity of scripture.

I don't know of any official stances. However I would think (personal opinion) that the assumption would be that the first passage condemns the attitude of public prayer that was taken, ergo loving to pray on the streetcorners to be seen by people and for the public adulation rather than condemning prayer taken in a public space in and of itself. Of course it then says that prayer in private "in the closet" is better than such prayer for public notice and this is indeed true.

The second one taken in that context would then be seen merely as an exhortation that one should always be praying and thinking of God in all things, which of course is quite a common assertion in christian spirituality. Indeed one example I could think of quite easily is Opus Dei which upholds as its particular charism the sanctification of everyday life, best summed up when Josemaria Escriva said "Your work too must become a personal prayer"

 

[Agent327]

Theodosius' predecessors had spent their time promoting Arianism and trying to suppress the Nicene cause, and yet the Nicene cause had continued to prosper. When Theodosius reversed these policies, the Nicene cause triumphed and Arianism virtually melted away within a decade or two, at least within the Roman empire. That might suggest that Arianism was never very popular and that the Nicene view, or something like it, was always going to win out in the end anyway.

Yes, well, Arianism didn´t ´melt away´, as you put it, it was declared heretical, and survived til quite some time after in the Western empire, not the least because most Germanic conquerors adhered to it. Since the Nicene cause never was a heresy, the comparison doesn´t hold.

In the post above your's Plotinus said that Aristotle belived in God

I must have missed that conversion, but apparently God, being omnipotent, bended time here to make Aristotle believe in him. But seriously, what he meant was that Aristotle believed in a Supreme Being, not that Aristotle believed in a (Jewish) God.

The main ones are:

(1) The notion that God is literally atemporal is unbiblical.

(2) It is hard to explain how an atemporal entity could have relations with a temporal world, particularly how it could act upon the world, especially if causation is a temporal relation.

(3) If God is atemporal it means that he doesn't exist now (although it is now true that he exists), which is a bit hard to stomach.

(4) The notion of atemporality is just incoherent anyway.

To start with

1: obviously; the notion of an atemporal being hadn´t been thought of yet as the biblical books were written.

2: nor would there be any need for an atemporal being to ´have relations with´ the temporal world.

3: actually if God is atemporal it means he exists both now and not now (as God exists irrelevant of time).

4: not at all; it just needs some thinking about. The incoherence usually exists within these thinkers, being temporal beings themselves.

 

[timtofly]

Yes, well, Arianism didn´t ´melt away´, as you put it, it was declared heretical, and survived til quite some time after in the Western empire, not the least because most Germanic conquerors adhered to it. Since the Nicene cause never was a heresy, the comparison doesn´t hold.



I must have missed that conversion, but apparently God, being omnipotent, bended time here to make Aristotle believe in him. But seriously, what he meant was that Aristotle believed in a Supreme Being, not that Aristotle believed in a (Jewish) God.



To start with

1: obviously; the notion of an atemporal being hadn´t been thought of yet as the biblical books were written.

2: nor would there be any need for an atemporal being to ´have relations with´ the temporal world.

3: actually if God is atemporal it means he exists both now and not now (as God exists irrelevant of time).

4: not at all; it just needs some thinking about. The incoherence usually exists within these thinkers, being temporal beings themselves.

Moses and God may have never had the conversation.

God could have lied to Moses.

God could have only told Moses what he needed to know and write down.

Moses could have only written down what he understood.

I am still curious though, because some humans are still figuring out if it is possible to exist on a planet that does not rotate. Time is related to rotation and even the distance from the center of rotation. It is related to gravity and even electromagnetic forces. IMO saying that God exist and does not exist (because of time) is limiting God to the temporal. And thus your own definition of God.

When the earth rotates, is half of the earth in the "sunlight" and half of it not? Do we not call the "lit" half day and the "dark" half night? In fact humans only kept "time" based on this, until they figured out that the sun cast a shadow that could be "tracked". So even our concept of time is different than let's say 3000 years ago? God said that He never changes, even in regards to time.

 

[Plotinus]

Yes, well, Arianism didn´t ´melt away´, as you put it, it was declared heretical, and survived til quite some time after in the Western empire, not the least because most Germanic conquerors adhered to it.

I specified that I was talking about the situation in the Roman empire. And it is true that within about a decade of the council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism in all its flavours simply ceases to cause a blip on the theological radar in the empire.

Since the Nicene cause never was a heresy, the comparison doesn´t hold.

It was effectively a heresy - to the extent that the concept of "heresy" applies to this period - in the 350s and 60s. The point is that two or three decades of imperial attempts to suppress views associated with Nicaea and promote those of either the Homoiousians or even the Homoians did not result in Homoiousianism or Homoianism becoming the generally accepted views throughout the empire. However, the imperial proscription of Homoianism and endorsement of the Nicene view did result in the Nicene view becoming the generally accepted one, and very quickly.

2: nor would there be any need for an atemporal being to ´have relations with´ the temporal world.

The Christian God does, though.

3: actually if God is atemporal it means he exists both now and not now (as God exists irrelevant of time).

No, if God is atemporal that means temporal language cannot be applied to him. If he is atemporal he does not exist now or at any time, just as, if he is not spatial, he does not exist at any point in space. Atemporal means without time, not "irrelevant of time".

I am still curious though, because some humans are still figuring out if it is possible to exist on a planet that does not rotate. Time is related to rotation and even the distance from the center of rotation. It is related to gravity and even electromagnetic forces. IMO saying that God exist and does not exist (because of time) is limiting God to the temporal. And thus your own definition of God.

When the earth rotates, is half of the earth in the "sunlight" and half of it not? Do we not call the "lit" half day and the "dark" half night? In fact humans only kept "time" based on this, until they figured out that the sun cast a shadow that could be "tracked". So even our concept of time is different than let's say 3000 years ago? God said that He never changes, even in regards to time.

It sounds like you're confusing the passage of time with the measure of time. If the Earth did not rotate, time would still pass, and we would know that it passes because we would see a succession of events. There is nothing special about planetary rotation with regard to time - it's just the most basic measure of time that we use because the succession of night and day is the most obvious and dramatic regular cycle that we observe. If we lived on Venus, which has a much slower period of rotation, the cycle of day and night would not be so fundamental to our measurement of time, but time would still pass there just as it does here and we would simply measure it in different ways. The same applies to people in spaceships or in mines deep underground, where the passage of day and night is not perceptible or (in the case of space travel) doesn't happen at all. Yet obviously time passes.

What Swinburne thinks is that before God created the universe there were no events at all, and for that reason time did not exist, at least not in a way that would be recognisable to us, because without any kind of change there is no passage of time. Once God had created the universe, things started happening and thus time because distinguishable. That's got nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth, though. On this view time would have begun with the start of the universe, which happened billions of years before the Earth ever existed.

 

[uppi]

No, if God is atemporal that means temporal language cannot be applied to him. If he is atemporal he does not exist now or at any time, just as, if he is not spatial, he does not exist at any point in space. Atemporal means without time, not "irrelevant of time".

You are contradicting yourself here: First you say that if God is atemporal, temporal language cannot apply to him, but then you go and apply temporal language ("now", "any time").

If God is atemporal, the statement God exists/does not exist now is meaningless, because the concept of "now" cannot be applied to God.

I have touched this in this thread before: Any modern (rational) concept of God cannot claim Him to be a temporal being in the same way we are, unless God is tied down to a specific point in space. If you accept the validity of Lorentz transformations (and we have a huge amount of evidence for that) and postulate a non-local God, the concept of "now" just leads to contradictions and has to be dropped.

An omnipresent God that extends over the whole universe in space also has to extend over the whole universe in time. Maybe the word "atemporal" is the wrong word for it and we can discuss the semantics, but you cannot reconcile omnipresence with a temporal being.

So what was/is the doctrinal status of omnipresence, anyway? Has this always been orthodox, or has the concept of a locally constrained God ever been seriously considered in Christianity?

 

[timtofly]

If God is the universe, and nothing "new" energy wise is created, then time would have no effect on God. The events contained within Himself would happen. It would be similiar to one's body and the events taking place there, ie breathing, digestion, movement of blood. The body is said to have an internal clock that keeps things regulated like the beating of the heart.

I propose that the "Let there be light" was the "Big Bang" that was the beginning of every event that happened in the universe, and which is still the cause of new events and even stars to be formed to this very day. God called this event an evening and a morning, and yes a rotating planet does not signify time. It just means that for 12 hours the planet is in darkness and 12 hours it is in light all things being equal and the axis is not on an angle. I propose that the axis on an angle did not happen until after the Flood and seasons started at that point in current "time".

I also propose that there was not a "gap" in time, but that the events of current decay, did not start until after the "Fall". No one knows what events or even what passage of "time" even occured before this decay happened. Thus time as we know it "started". There could have been billions of earth rotations of perfection before, Adam partook of the fruit and "present" time started.

Mankind's perception of time is the earth's rotation. The body is awake during the day and sleeps at night. We mark a year when the earth does do a complete rotation around the sun. Those are events that mark time for us. If we lived elsewhere, I am pretty sure the body would adjust and "time" would change dramatically unless the conditions we currently live in were exactly duplicated.

John 1, Colossians 1, and Romans 12:36 seems to point out that without the Logos nothing would exist. Everything created is part of God through His Word. God said it and it happened, and events continue to happen every nano second while God is still in control of Himself the Universe.

 

[Agent327]

I specified that I was talking about the situation in the Roman empire. And it is true that within about a decade of the council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism in all its flavours simply ceases to cause a blip on the theological radar in the empire.

Except for the ´blip´ that caused the Roman empire to be cut in half, leaving the Western half prey to those Arian conquerors. The point being that Arianism didn´t die, beacuse it had already spread beyond the Roman Empire. I am not argueing that it faded away in Byzantium, merely pointing out that it took longer than ´a few decades´ for it to die.

It was effectively a heresy - to the extent that the concept of "heresy" applies to this period - in the 350s and 60s. The point is that two or three decades of imperial attempts to suppress views associated with Nicaea and promote those of either the Homoiousians or even the Homoians did not result in Homoiousianism or Homoianism becoming the generally accepted views throughout the empire. However, the imperial proscription of Homoianism and endorsement of the Nicene view did result in the Nicene view becoming the generally accepted one, and very quickly.

If it isn´t being prosecuted, it isn´t a heresy. The fact that the term heresy derives from this period - and this particular concept -, though interesting, isn´t the issue, nor is anyone argueing that.

By the way, would you say that this is the official starting point for Christian persecution of dissenters, i.e. Christian persecution of Christians?

The Christian God does, though.

Does He? How do you know? I´m sure you know we assume that He does - or rather, Christians do. To simply state that ´the Christian God´ interacts with the world is opinion, not fact. But if the Christian God interacts with the world, I´m sure you agree then so does ´the Jewish God´, Allah and... All their believers hold it as truth that their God interacts with the world. But that isn´t the issue.

No, if God is atemporal that means temporal language cannot be applied to him. If he is atemporal he does not exist now or at any time, just as, if he is not spatial, he does not exist at any point in space. Atemporal means without time, not "irrelevant of time".

Following your explanation we cannot talk about an atemporal God, since we are using language - a temporal means. Yet we do, at this very moment. I´m sure what you meant to say was temporal terms do not apply.

But I said that to an atemporal being time isn´t relevant. Time (nor space) applies to an atemporal God.

It sounds like you're confusing the passage of time with the measure of time. If the Earth did not rotate, time would still pass, and we would know that it passes because we would see a succession of events. There is nothing special about planetary rotation with regard to time - it's just the most basic measure of time that we use because the succession of night and day is the most obvious and dramatic regular cycle that we observe. If we lived on Venus, which has a much slower period of rotation, the cycle of day and night would not be so fundamental to our measurement of time, but time would still pass there just as it does here and we would simply measure it in different ways. The same applies to people in spaceships or in mines deep underground, where the passage of day and night is not perceptible or (in the case of space travel) doesn't happen at all. Yet obviously time passes.

What Swinburne thinks is that before God created the universe there were no events at all, and for that reason time did not exist, at least not in a way that would be recognisable to us, because without any kind of change there is no passage of time. Once God had created the universe, things started happening and thus time because distinguishable. That's got nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth, though. On this view time would have begun with the start of the universe, which happened billions of years before the Earth ever existed.

No space, no time. Obvious.

 

[Plotinus]

Flashgordon, if you have a question, please state it (briefly).

You are contradicting yourself here: First you say that if God is atemporal, temporal language cannot apply to him, but then you go and apply temporal language ("now", "any time").

If God is atemporal, the statement God exists/does not exist now is meaningless, because the concept of "now" cannot be applied to God.

There is a difference between "God exists now" and "Now, it is true that God exists." If God exists and is atemporal, the former is false and the latter is true. Neither is meaningless. If God is atemporal that means that temporal categories do not apply to him - it doesn't mean that it's meaningless to attempt to apply those categories to him. It's just wrong to do so.

So what was/is the doctrinal status of omnipresence, anyway? Has this always been orthodox, or has the concept of a locally constrained God ever been seriously considered in Christianity?

I don't think that God is traditionally conceived in either way - he is conceived as non-spatial, so he doesn't literally exist anywhere in space, either in a locally constrained way or in an omnipresent way. Some early Christians were Stoics and apparently retained the belief of some Stoics that God is physical and permeates the whole of the universe (Tertullian may have thought this). But this was a minority view that doesn't seem to have been very influential. I suppose that the Anthropomorphites, who in the fourth century held that God is physical, must have thought him to be locally constrained, in the same way that I take it Mormons do today.

I propose that the "Let there be light" was the "Big Bang" that was the beginning of every event that happened in the universe, and which is still the cause of new events and even stars to be formed to this very day. God called this event an evening and a morning, and yes a rotating planet does not signify time. It just means that for 12 hours the planet is in darkness and 12 hours it is in light all things being equal and the axis is not on an angle. I propose that the axis on an angle did not happen until after the Flood and seasons started at that point in current "time".

I also propose that there was not a "gap" in time, but that the events of current decay, did not start until after the "Fall". No one knows what events or even what passage of "time" even occured before this decay happened. Thus time as we know it "started". There could have been billions of earth rotations of perfection before, Adam partook of the fruit and "present" time started.

One may propose all these things, but what's the evidence for them? Why believe them? This is my basic objection to all arguments of this kind, including most of what flashgordon posted above: it's all very well to assert similarities between different ideas, or to make various claims that seek to reconcile different ideas, but it's just speculation unless you can give a particular reason to suppose that what you're saying is more likely to be true than it is to be false.

Except for the ´blip´ that caused the Roman empire to be cut in half, leaving the Western half prey to those Arian conquerors. The point being that Arianism didn´t die, beacuse it had already spread beyond the Roman Empire. I am not argueing that it faded away in Byzantium, merely pointing out that it took longer than ´a few decades´ for it to die.

The Arian conquerors were later, though. If you look at the western empire in around the year 400, I don't believe you'll find much evidence of widespread Arianism. Indeed, when the Goths and their ilk took over much of the western empire, they may have been Arians themselves but they did not impose Arianism upon the people and they did not find much sympathy for their views. And of course they all converted away from it before very long. So yes, of course you're right that Arianism continued to exist after the time of Theodosius. But not within the Roman empire, at least not to any significant extent. It later existed in the former Roman empire only because it was brought back in from outside, and even then it remained the religion of the rulers, not of the people.

If it isn´t being prosecuted, it isn´t a heresy.

That makes no sense. Heresy is doctrine that deviates from orthodoxy. That remains the case whether there's any prosecution going on or not.

By the way, would you say that this is the official starting point for Christian persecution of dissenters, i.e. Christian persecution of Christians?

No. The Arians weren't particularly persecuted, as far as I know. The Donatists have the best claim to be the first Christians persecuted by Christians, and that happened long before Theodosius came along.

Does He? How do you know? I´m sure you know we assume that He does - or rather, Christians do. To simply state that ´the Christian God´ interacts with the world is opinion, not fact. But if the Christian God interacts with the world, I´m sure you agree then so does ´the Jewish God´, Allah and... All their believers hold it as truth that their God interacts with the world. But that isn´t the issue.

When I say that the Christian God interacts with the world, I mean that that's one of the things Christians believe about God. I don't mean he literally does interact with the world as a matter of fact. A God who doesn't interact with the world is not the Christian God - he is a Deist God.

No space, no time. Obvious.

Well, if it's obvious then it must be true, mustn't it?

 

[Agent327]

There is a difference between "God exists now" and "Now, it is true that God exists." If God exists and is atemporal, the former is false and the latter is true. Neither is meaningless. If God is atemporal that means that temporal categories do not apply to him - it doesn't mean that it's meaningless to attempt to apply those categories to him. It's just wrong to do so.

I´m glad to see that you corrected yourself.

The Arian conquerors were later, though. If you look at the western empire in around the year 400, I don't believe you'll find much evidence of widespread Arianism. Indeed, when the Goths and their ilk took over much of the western empire, they may have been Arians themselves but they did not impose Arianism upon the people and they did not find much sympathy for their views. And of course they all converted away from it before very long. So yes, of course you're right that Arianism continued to exist after the time of Theodosius. But not within the Roman empire, at least not to any significant extent. It later existed in the former Roman empire only because it was brought back in from outside, and even then it remained the religion of the rulers, not of the people.

My point was neither that Arianism was widespread, though, but rather that it had already spread beyond the Empire. And the fact that the Germanic conquerors made little attempt to force their beliefs on their (Catholic) subjects compares rather favourably with the official practice in the Christian Roman Empire, wouldn´t you say? As for Theodosius about-face, it seems to indicate that when he couldn´t suppress the one view, he simply switched sides, showing his true intentions - to preserve Christian unity within the Empire (the empire, even for a devout Christian emperor, being his primary concern). But I appreciate your elucidation, which is as eloquent as ever.

That makes no sense. Heresy is doctrine that deviates from orthodoxy. That remains the case whether there's any prosecution going on or not.

I´m disappointed. For any heresy to be prosecuted, it first needs to be declared heresy officially - which by definition means that it will be prosecuted. I´m sure you are aware that Paul already spoke of dissenters as ´false brethren´, but he yet lacked the means to prosecute any of such people.

The Arians weren't particularly persecuted, as far as I know. The Donatists have the best claim to be the first Christians persecuted by Christians, and that happened long before Theodosius came along.

Being outlawed seems pretty severe to me. But you are correct the Donatist schism occurred in the fourth century, although it was not permanently resolved until the Arab conquest, when sources cease to refer to Donatists - which would indicate that prosecution was hardly as effective as against the Arians. Within the Empire that is, as Arianism last occurred in the same eigth century in the West.

When I say that the Christian God interacts with the world, I mean that that's one of the things Christians believe about God. I don't mean he literally does interact with the world as a matter of fact. A God who doesn't interact with the world is not the Christian God - he is a Deist God.

Or an intemporal God. I believe that was what we were discussing.

Well, if it's obvious then it must be true, mustn't it?

Indeed. Hence I used it as a conclusion.

 

[El_Machinae]

Thanks for maintaining the thread, Plotinus.

It's Christmas season, and so we attended church service. The integrated nativity story is a bit painful to sit through, because all the shoe-horning just leaps out. But a question occurred to me.

Is there any evidence that the author of John knew the apostles? By way of example, the author of Luke is purported to be Paul's companion, and Paul hung out with Peter. So, it would be reasonable to suggest that Luke knew Peter. And it might be unreasonable to suggest that they definitely never met.

But does anything reported by John jive with letters known to be from Paul or Peter or any other letter from someone who's probably first-hand?

 

[Berzerker]

if a 1000 years to man is but one day to God, does God get old and die?

 

[Plotinus]

I was convinced there were no outstanding questions here. It looks like I was wrong. Many apologies for the delay in getting to these.

My point was neither that Arianism was widespread, though, but rather that it had already spread beyond the Empire.

Right.

And the fact that the Germanic conquerors made little attempt to force their beliefs on their (Catholic) subjects compares rather favourably with the official practice in the Christian Roman Empire, wouldn´t you say?

That's a normative judgement - it depends on what your values are. Most of us today would think tolerance superior to trying to change people's beliefs, but that's not typically how people thought in antiquity, whether they were Christians or not.

As for Theodosius about-face, it seems to indicate that when he couldn´t suppress the one view, he simply switched sides, showing his true intentions - to preserve Christian unity within the Empire (the empire, even for a devout Christian emperor, being his primary concern).

Theodosius made no about-face - as far as I know he was always a devout Nicene. The about-face on the part of the government came about because of a change of emperors.

I´m disappointed. For any heresy to be prosecuted, it first needs to be declared heresy officially - which by definition means that it will be prosecuted. I´m sure you are aware that Paul already spoke of dissenters as ´false brethren´, but he yet lacked the means to prosecute any of such people.

If there's a definition of heresy it's simply a belief that contradicts orthodoxy. And orthodoxy is usually defined by some kind of official statement of belief. It's perfectly possible to issue some such statement without actually taking any action against those who disagree. So of course heresy can be defined without any prosecution occurring.

An example comes from the history of christological disputes. Orthodox writers on the incarnation, notably Cyril of Alexandria, are always keen to stress that when the second person of the Trinity became human, this meant that he was united to a human body and soul, not that he was literally transformed into a human body and soul. So they are careful to define this view, that the Son was transformed into the constituents of a human being, as a heretical one. But in fact - as far as I can tell - nobody in antiquity or the Middle Ages actually believed such a thing. They just condemned this view to make it clear what their own view was, not because there were actual people who believed it. (Today there are people who believe it, notably Trenton Merricks, but that's by the by.)

Thanks for maintaining the thread, Plotinus.

It's Christmas season, and so we attended church service. The integrated nativity story is a bit painful to sit through, because all the shoe-horning just leaps out. But a question occurred to me.

Is there any evidence that the author of John knew the apostles? By way of example, the author of Luke is purported to be Paul's companion, and Paul hung out with Peter. So, it would be reasonable to suggest that Luke knew Peter. And it might be unreasonable to suggest that they definitely never met.

But does anything reported by John jive with letters known to be from Paul or Peter or any other letter from someone who's probably first-hand?

There's no good evidence that any Gospel author knew anyone with first-hand knowledge of the historical Jesus, as far as I know. The reason for identifying the author of the Third Gospel with Paul's companion Luke is that parts of Acts, which is by the same author, slip into the first person, so it seems reasonable to suppose that it was written by someone who was actually there. But in fact this is better explained as a rhetorical device (precisely what device is much debated), and there's no good reason to think that the author was really Luke or anyone else named in the story. Even if it were Luke, I don't think that Paul spent much time with Peter - on the contrary, in his letters he is more keen to stress how little time he spent with him and how much his commission came direct from Christ without needing to be authorised by other apostles.

We don't have any texts by anyone known to be first-hand. The letters attributed to Peter are not really by him. The letters attributed to Paul are by him, or at least some of them are, but Paul did not know the historical Jesus. Any knowledge he had of Jesus was at best second-hand too. Also, Paul says very little about the historical Jesus, at least directly, although much of the material in his letters parallels material in the Gospels, suggesting that he had absorbed a lot of Jesus' teaching even though he didn't refer to it explicitly (which seems odd).

As far as I know, where Paul parallels the Gospels, it's the Synoptic Gospels he's parallelling, not John. Just as a case in point, Paul narrates Jesus' actions in blessing the bread and wine at the Last Supper, in 1 Corinthians. This parallels all three of the Synoptic Gospels (though none of them exactly) but not John, who doesn't include this story at all.

if a 1000 years to man is but one day to God, does God get old and die?

No. Why would he?

 

[Agent327]

if a 1000 years to man is but one day to God, does God get old and die?

I think you mean that to the Lord ´a thousand years are as one day´. It´s a simple means to explain eternity. At any rate, I don´t see how that would lead to your question in either case. (A better example might be that God rested, on the 7th day of creation, which would indicate that God was tired. A being that can grow tired might be expected to also grow old and die.)

Theodosius made no about-face - as far as I know he was always a devout Nicene. The about-face on the part of the government came about because of a change of emperors.

I apologize; I must have misread.

 

[Berzerker]

I wouldn't place limits on God's age that show a very long but mortal lifespan, especially one far younger than the age of the universe God supposedly created.