God and time

[Robert Michael Mahoney]

I'm in a discussion with a friend about Openness Theology. I made the point that O.T. seems to make God subject to time. Do you know if any of the Fathers discussed God's relationship to time? The only one I could come up with off the top of my head was Augustine.

Robert
ICXC+NIKA

[Christopher Encapera]

Robert, I find this question interesting because I have recently been attempting to understand 'general relativity' and it's assertion that time is but another coordinate of four dimensional space (or more accurately "space-time"). Our subjective experience of time is that it is outside our 3 dimensions that we readily understand - it seems to be 3 dimensional itself, in that we experience a "past", a "present", and a future.

Coming to your point that God is "subject" to time, I my first reaction is that time is a creature, a 'being' or aspect of creation, and that God is certainly "above", "beyond", infinitely so, any of His creatures including time. God in no way is "subject" to time. Let me quote some St. Maximos that I believe speaks directly to this:

"God is one, unoriginate, incomprehensible, possessing completely the total potentiality of being, altogether excluding notions of when and how, inaccessible to all, and not to be known through natural image by any creature" The Philokalia Vol. 2, First Century on Theology, #1

"So far as we are able to understand, for Himself God does on constitute either an origin, or an intermediary state, or a consummation, or anything else at all which can be seen to qualify naturally things that are sequent to Him. For He is undetermined, unchanging, and infinite, since He is infinitely beyond all being, potentiality and actualization." Ibid, #2

"Origin, the intermediary state and consummation characterize things divided by time, as indeed they characterize things existing in the aeon. For time, by which change is measured, is defined numerically; while the aeon, whose existence presupposes a 'when', possesses dimensionality, since its existence has an origin. And if time and the aeon have an origin, how much more so will those things that exist within them." Ibid, #5

"....Thus, nothing whatsoever different in essence from God can be envisaged as coexisting with Him from eternity - neither the aeon, nor time, nor anything which exists within them. For substantive being and being which is not substantive never coincide." Ibid, #6

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Christopher,

Thanks for bringing up this subject. There is much of wonder in God's creation including time. I believe St. Augustine deals with this subject whether in his City of God or Confessions I forget.

From my own thoughts & trying to compare these with the quotes from St Maximos above I wonder if the created will have an experience of time also after death as an inherent aspect of its being: a past, present & future. After all St Paul speaks of "from glory to glory" even after death.

I bring this up because we often say that after death or Christ's Second Coming we will be "in eternity" as if we will be in the timeless state of God Himself. I am thinking that this is not exactly correct. Time will be 'completed' or 'healed' by Christ when death is trampled down finally, but still we will be in a kind of resurrected sense of time.

I wonder if a major difference will be that time will not be circular as now. Several Patristic texts I think refer to our present circular time (ie day-night, day-night) as a way by which God provided compensation for the Fall. In other words it is a chance in this life to start again, a chance at a mini-resurrection each day after any failures of the previous day. Time in this circular sense somehow has this spiritual effect on a person it seems (at least on a Christian). The sense in the morning that we can start again is not imaginary. If this is so then this could be a kind of root of Church time which after all is liturgical; circular. Liturgical time refers to the future but it also is now; it brings the resurrection into the our present state where sin still is found.

If time is circular now then it will be a constant "Day" at the completion of all things (see Revelation). Then the Sun of Christ's grace will be present continuously.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alex Haig]

I have often wondered about things like this, in particular why in the Old Testament is God given attributes of Man: for example Adam and Eve tried to hide the fact that they had eaten of the tree of knowledge, implying that He was not omniscient. Why is this? Is it because the people of the OT's understanding of God was incorrect or rather not as "developed" as ours? Was the giving of human attributes to God used as a teaching purpose, either from God to Man, or from author to reader? Is there some other reason or do we have to say that we just don't know?

Sorry for so many questions and for slightly extending the topic.

With love in Christ

Alex

[ronald j. brotzman]

God is beyond understanding. Time is a function of man's reason. Reason is a creation. There is no time outside of man's understanding and knowledge. If there is who cares. God is beyond time in every sense of the word. We have placed him into time because that is the way we understand him. He placed himself through Christ into time and material because he can do all things. Yet time is a creation as is material. God will redeem both the spirit and the material in each of us at the resurrection and at that moment there will not be time for us anymore.

[Charalambos Andrew Geo]

I advise to read St siluoan the Athonite, like God does pity and has compassion because God Loves, is Love and treats all with love. Even though we may not agree at times and think we are being treated harshly. St Silouan writes about it in another way, i.e that God does not suffer as there is not degrading in God but that he is compassionate to the creature and pities and i am sure is pleased when we seek Him while He seeks us like the Father in the Prodigal Son, St Silouan i am sure if one has time and the prayer to experience will answer this question and should ask their spiritual Fr for their prayers to know this.

In Christ
Charalambos

[Daniel Jeandet]

Alex, you asked -

"for example Adam and Eve tried to hide the fact that they had eaten of the tree of knowledge, implying that He was not omniscient. Why is this? Is it because the people of the OT's understanding of God was incorrect or rather not as "developed" as ours?"

Forgive me, but your question doesnt work. What you have quoted only describes how Adam and Eves understanding of God was incorrect or rather not as "developed" as it was before they fell.

This part of Genesis reveals something about the change the first people underwent after eating, they forgot God in the sense that they no-longer knew him directly, and they lost their awareness of His omniscience. It does not imply that the Old Testament authors thought people could hide from God. Moses was just describing thier new, fallen way of thinking about God.

Im thinking maybe Adam and Eve's knowledge of God's power and omniscience constituted the "clothing" they lost after transgressing the commandment. Stripped of that wisdom, they tried to hide that nakedness by attempting to replace thier lost knowledge using purely human thoughts, clothing themselves in a fantasy, denying thier nakedness, imagining God instead of really knowing Him, imagining they could hide from Him, as if he was a creature limited by the sense world. After losing thier direct knowledge, all they would have to base thier ideas of God on would be themselves, so they imagined God was like a creature.

These are just thoughts, ideas. I do not get them from the Fathers or the Church. Should I still share them? Or is it best not to? I would like some advice on this, if anyone can offer it.

I see time as the fallen way of experiencing eternity. But only God knows how well I see.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Mr Jeandet wrote:


This part of Genesis reveals something about the change the first people underwent after eating, they forgot God in the sense that they no-longer knew him directly, and they lost their awareness of His omniscience. It does not imply that the Old Testament authors thought people could hide from God. Moses was just describing thier new, fallen way of thinking about God.

This is one interpretation. Here's another:


The case of Adam, however, had no analogy with this, but was altogether different. For, having been beguiled by another under the pretext of immortality, he is immediately seized with terror, and hides himself; not as if he were able to escape from God; but, in a state of confusion at having transgressed His command, he feels unworthy to appear before and to hold converse with God. Now, "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; "457 the sense of sin leads to repentance, and God bestows His compassion upon those who are penitent. For [Adam] showed his repentance by his conduct, through means of the girdle [which he used], covering himself with fig-leaves, while there were many other leaves, which would have irritated his body in a less degree. (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.23.5)

INXC, Matthew

[Daniel Jeandet]

Thankyou. Maybe it is my imagination that is broken.

Matthew, help me with this:

I thought, mainly from reading Saint Ephrem, that Adam did not repent of his sin, but blamed it on Eve, who blamed it on the serpent. Saint Ephrem says they would not have been cast out of the Garden if they had repented when God questioned them about what had happened. Saint Irenaes is saying Adam was not only repentant, but shows it before God offers the opportunity for repentance in His questions.

I know all the Fathers dont have to agree, I havent read Saint Irenaeus and Im assuming you have read both he and Saint Ephrem, so how do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

My question is off topic, I hope you all dont mind http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Deiniol Clarke]

Hi,

Coming off Alex's post I thought of a question. Myself and Alex go to an Orthodox camp in England, and it was there that Fr. Stephen Maxwell brought up an interesting topic (God and time.) He mentioned that The Father lives in the "Eternal Present" which is actually outside of time. If this is the case, God (who is uncreated) cannot interfere with that which is created.

If the above mentioned is true, then this is rather contradictive of some Old Testament literature - again pointing to Adam and Eve, after the sin committed, we read:

Gen 3:8

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden...

How can an uncreated God walk in the garden of Eden?

It is even more of a mystery to me to think that God was made flesh and dwelt among us - surely this is an interference! The incarnation is a mystery to me although I suppose that subject is expanding this topic a tad too much!

[Alex Haig]

The problem here is the vocabulary we have falls short of describing God, in fact God is undescribable. Yes, God is uncreated and the world around us is created but that does not mean that God does not cause effect in the world - we see it all the time.

What you've mentioned in Genesis is actually a consequence of the Incarnation. God, that is the person of Jesus Christ, ascended to the right hand of God the Father with a body, that is His body was taken into the 'eternal present'. Now, if Christ's human body is in the eternal present then there's no reason why it can't reappear on Earth at any time - past, present or future - that includes in the Garden of Eden.

With love in Christ

Alex

PS, I think you mean Fr Stephen Maxfield

[Alex Haig]

PPS, yes, the Incarnation is a Mystery, the Church refers to it as such - it has turned the whole order of things upside down: the boundless God is bounded in the Mother of God, the unoriginate has a beginning and the Giver of the Law subjects Himself to the Law.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

If this is the case, God (who is uncreated) cannot interfere with that which is created

Dear Deiniol Clarke,

Your post seems to imply two parallel realities, one uncreated for God and another one created for humans. You wonder how these parallel realities crossed one another – if they did then they would no longer be parallel any more!

The answer is a simple one, God and humans are not meeting each other under specific circumstances. The meeting is taking place in the heart. “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’ ” (Galatians 4:6). Now, where is the human “heart” placed regarding “time” and “space” ?

According to Church Fathers, the meeting place with God is beyond “time” and “space”. It is not a parallel reality, it is a relation – the meeting is a relation. When Adam and Eve “heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8) they did not literally heard the sound of the walking feet of God, because God has no feet. What they have “heard” was His “presence”: “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden” (Genesis 3:8). The Presence of God is either being heard (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2019:9;&version=31;), or seen (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2019:21;&version=31;), or touched (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2019:12;&version=31;), or smelled (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2019:18;&version=31;) or tasted (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=119&verse=103&version=31&context=verse) by the Saints, and by every human being.

The personal meeting with God is felt as being taken place in time, confirmed by all human senses, yet it is not a natural/physical meeting, it is a meeting with the ontological Presence of BEING beyond existence.

At mountain Sinai humans were being in front of the Presence of God: “ the people stood afar off, but Moses drew near the thick darkness where God was.” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:18-21;&version=50;). The thick darkness where God was is the mystery of facing God’s Presence in a darkness so thick that looks like Moses had a blind meeting with God, yet at the same time: “Moses took his tent and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the tabernacle of meeting. And it came to pass that everyone who sought the LORD went out to the tabernacle of meeting which was outside the camp. So it was, whenever Moses went out to the tabernacle, that all the people rose, and each man stood at his tent door and watched Moses until he had gone into the tabernacle. And it came to pass, when Moses entered the tabernacle, that the pillar of cloud descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses. All the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the tabernacle door, and all the people rose and worshiped, each man in his tent door. So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle”. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2033:7-11;&version=50;)

It is important that in every case Moses met God in a “cloud”, or a “thick darkness” where God was into, yet “the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend”. There was no interference. God remained unseen.

Then Moses said, “Please, show me Your glory.” Then He said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2033:18-20;&version=50;)

St Gregory of Nyssa says that man meets God in “trance”. This is not to be confused with psychological or physically caused trance (from the consumption of substances). St Peter fell into a holy trance before eating anything: Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again”. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=act%2010:10-16;&version=50;) St Gregory explains that in this passage Apostle Peter was sober drunk. The “sober drunkenness” is a term used by St Gregory show that there is a holy trance that is produced by the Presence of God, just like St Peter and Prophet Moses experienced. This Presence is not a presence that is experienced by sober observation, neither is it realized from strange human brain functionality. The Presence of God is at the same time beyond our world and it is experienced by a human creature of our world. The Presence of God is not a Presence of an object but a Presence of a person with whom we are related with.

The Presence of God is similar to the presence of a loving person. When a mother is in the presence of her child she is in a kind of a trance: she “goes” beyond reality as she relates in love with her offspring. She does non-sobern deeds for her child’s sake, yet at the same time nobody accuses her for being physically pathological “drunk”. She acts “normally” within her relation with her child, yet from the outsiders’ point of you she enters into a “thick darkness cloud” of paradox behaviour. Of course what is giving a perfect explanation for her way of acting is that she is a “mother”. And by that term we introduce her child into the explanation. The meeting of a child with her mother is taking place in a specific time and place, but the maternal affection is irrelevant of the specific time and place. The personal relations are always beyond specific time and place, they just depend on the specific respective persons.

It is common mistake to assume that a personal relation is taking place because the respective persons are bodily present facing each other. But this is just affection. The personal relation, in love, is the relation between two persons that remain un-experienced among themselves because each subjective awareness of reality is ontologically un-communicative. For example, neither the mother nor her child can communicate the reality of being a mother and the reality of being a child with the other person, yet at the same time this absolute isolation of existential realities is an unbreakable personal tie among the two loving persons (the mother and her child). As each person in relation realises that the other person has a private way of being, so uncommunicative and personal that it is absolutely non-sensible, the otherness becomes an inconsumable person that is provided as a presence beyond the specific time and place. The presence of the related otherness becomes the source of a trance beyond reality because the relation itself is expressed by two specific distinct and unmixed personal realities that are represented by the two specific persons.

The relation is based in faith, hope and love. The faith and the hope are referring to otherness: the related persons have faith and hope that the other related person is presented authentically and that will honour the relationship. Love is referring to self. It is an intrinsic reality that is experienced by each person and it does not have a source other than the relation itself. Love is not produced by the related persons nor is it being consumed by them. “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13) The hope and the faith are being consumed either by their refutation or by their verification: in either case there is no way to hope for, or to have faith to the other person because reality has proven or has refuted the hope or the faith. But, love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:7-8;&version=50;)

This is exactly the way that we are being related with God, in LOVE.

The way of Divide Life is irrelevant and it will never be known/experienced by us. Our, based on love, relation with Christ will never fail. The incarnation of Christ is not a way of natural divinization of World. The incarnation of Christ is not just a presence in time and place. Of course it is a human presence in time and place but beyond that Christ's presence is a Presence of a Person: the Son. The Son is a Person related with His Father, just like a child is anywise presented with the respective mother. The incarnation of Christ, is an incarnation of the Son in relation with the Father in Spirit and this is the whole issue of incarnation, because only then we can say along with St Paul: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved”. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:3-6;&version=50;)

The time and space has nothing to do with Love. In love we become what we are not and what we will never be.

Love is our introduction to trance/ecstasy of being who WE ARE NOT. Love does not make us someone else. When God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26;&version=50;), He created an uncreated created creature. The creature that was created according to the image and the likeness of God, was not a finite creature. Human being is a creature that was introduced in the uncreated way of Life of God. The Son of God is the uncreated Person in whom we become adopted sons of God. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:11-12;&version=50;)

Technically, there is no other way of being than the uncreated way of being! To say that God is "beyond" our world is like saying that we are what God is not. Existentially this is not the case! But existence and reality are not identical, because we are being created, by God, as persons. We create and live “our” reality/world that is isolated from personal loving relations. This is the death of our personhood. The incarnation of Christ provided the experiential exit from “our” world/reality, by Him becoming a part of it. By that “our” reality can not ignore Him. We are forced to take Him in account. We can reject Him but we are no longer in “our” reality. We are in a common human reality with Him. The issue is that our common reality is problematic as long as it is exclusively defined by us and it is consumed exclusively by us. So, the Orthodox issue is not whose reality is the real/best one, but if reality is experienced as a personal extension, or is it experienced as a personal relation with others that will never be part of our self.

May God bless us, all.

[Deiniol Clarke]

Hi Leandros,

I just wanted to comment on a few things you wrote and ask a few questions. Thanks for your detailed response.

You said:

... God and humans are not meeting each other under specific circumstances. The meeting is taking place in the heart. “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’ ” (Galatians 4:6). Now, where is the human “heart” placed regarding “time” and “space” ? ...

Does this mean, therefore that there was, and has never been any "physical" meeting with God (except through the mysterious incarnation)? The reason I ask is because there are countless places in the Old Testament where an objective meeting is evident - firstly where I have mentioned in Genesis earlier, but also the "burning bush" and when Moses met God on Mount Sinai - and when Moses "saw" God his own face became glorious.


At mountain Sinai humans were being in front of the Presence of God: “ the people stood afar off, but Moses drew near the thick darkness where God was.”. The thick darkness where God was is the mystery of facing God’s Presence in a darkness so thick that looks like Moses had a blind meeting with God, yet at the same time: “Moses took his tent and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the tabernacle of meeting. And it came to pass that everyone who sought the LORD went out to the tabernacle of meeting which was outside the camp. So it was, whenever Moses went out to the tabernacle, that all the people rose, and each man stood at his tent door and watched Moses until he had gone into the tabernacle. And it came to pass, when Moses entered the tabernacle, that the pillar of cloud descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses. All the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the tabernacle door, and all the people rose and worshiped, each man in his tent door. So the LORD <u>spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.</u> And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle”.

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion; the conclusion that there was no physical meeting. The language in the verses you quoted seems to provide manifold evidence of a physical meeting. Not only does the verse state that Moses met with God, but it mentions that He met with God face to face!

The concept you mention about time, space and love seems very distant to me. Solely because at first glance it seems to portray the Father as a very impersonal God; a person who can't be known (save through Jesus Christ) but simply a person who's influence can be felt everywhere.

Love is our introduction to trance/ecstasy of being who WE ARE NOT. Love does not make us someone else. When God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, He created an uncreated created creature. The creature that was created according to the image and the likeness of God, was not a finite creature. Human being is a creature that was introduced in the uncreated way of Life of God. The Son of God is the uncreated Person in whom we become adopted sons of God. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

Can you tell me what you mean by an uncreated created creature? As far as the "creation" out of nothing is concerned I find this hard to understand. I don't know if you're refering to pre-destination in the human form or the infinate characteristics of Christ which we have come to obtain. Either way, we still have created flesh and bones which would suggest that it is impossible for God - outside time and space, to have an objective reality with.

Technically, there is no other way of being than the uncreated way of being! To say that God is "beyond" our world is like saying that we are what God is not.

Exactly though? We are what God is not? Isn't this a truth? Isn't this the idea that separates us from the glory of God? Isn't it this one thing that makes it impossible for such a direct physical connection to the Father - which I find deeply saddening if such is the case.

Many thanks for your indepth response! I'll look forward to hearing your reply!

Alex- Am I therefore correct in the assumption that the incarnation surpasses time and space also? In other words, was Christ incarnated in the "eternal present" in Old Testament times (according to our time) even though that period of our history hadn't come yet? If not I don't really understand the relevance of the incarnation in Old Testament discussion of whether Christ met physically with man in the garden of Eden etc...

In XC,
Deiniol

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Brother Deiniol,

You have asked of many things, and I will try to clarify the main issue that brings up all other side-issues.

As Orthodox Christians we pray to God saying: “Our Father, Who You are in the heavens,…” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2011:1-4;&version=15;)

Why are we calling God Our Father ? Because Christ taught us to call Him so.

But, Christ is the only begotten son of God and Christ is the only One that could address Him as His Father.

Nobody else, before Christ, has ever addressed God as Father. Actually when Christ was brought before the council of Jews he was asked by the high priest: “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:63-68;&version=15;) and Christ answered “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven”. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:63-68;&version=15;) Having heard this answer the high priest “tore his clothes, saying, ‘He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! What do you think?’ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:63-68;&version=15;) and the council replied “He is deserving of death” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:63-68;&version=15;).

The last answer of Christ that He was the Son of God was the reason for His sentence of death.
The council of Jews was proclaiming one God and the answer of Christ was considered blasphemous because it was interpreted as a statement of polytheism: If there is a Son of God, then they would be TWO Gods: a Father-God and His Son-God. Then how was it that Abraham has spoken with ONE God: “I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017:1-4;&version=15;). And how was it that Moses also has spoken with ONE God: “I AM WHO I AM&#34;; and He said, &#34;Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, &#39;I AM has sent me to you’ ” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:13-14;&version=15;). And every other prophet has always presented ONE God. All saints of the Old Testament met him in one way or another and they mediated between Him and the people of Israel. For instance, Prophet Ezekiel saw God in a vision: “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee. And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.” (%20http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%201:28-2:2;&version=9;)
So, was the council of Jews right in its decision to put Christ to death because He was saying that He was the Son of God? – But God is ONE, how could it be that He would have a Son, when was this Son of His until that time?

Let us examine Christ’s answers to this crucial question.

Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:54-56;&version=15;)

“All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011:27;&version=50;)

“ And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:37-40;&version=50;)

Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:19;&version=50;)

Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:5-11;&version=50;)

“A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” Judas &#40;not Iscariot&#41; said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:19-24;&version=50;)

He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:23-24;&version=50;)

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:20-26;&version=50;)


Apostle John also wrote:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:1-4;&version=50;)

I write to you, fathers, because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, because you have known the Father. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:13;&version=50;)

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:23;&version=50;)

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. (%20http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:1-3;&version=50;)

There are many other verses from the scriptures that show how meaningless and abstract and substantially impersonal Deity the God-Father becomes when He is valued without His Only begotten Son, in Spirit. This mistake was made by the Jewish council, when Christ was presented to confess His Sonship.

I will try to answer more specifically to your questions tomorrow, because I run out of time.

May God bless us, all.

[Owen Jones]

Time has its literal and figurative meaning. Literally, it is a measurement of planetary revolutions. Figuratively, it is symbolic of our in between existence. We experience our existence as one of tension in between that which is lasting and that which is passing away. It is out of this tension of existence that arises our intense longing for God. Immortality is part and parcel of this paradoxic experience of time, and the paradoxic nature of time, since it is the nature of reality to point beyond itself. Heraclitus, famous for saying that you cannot step in the same river twice, is actually referring to this experience of both lasting and passing at the same time. This in between experience gives rise to the spiritually ordering forces in the psyche of faith, hope and love. &#40;Heraclitus is the first, extant example we have of the theological virtues -- they arise out of the paradoxic structure of consicousness of participation in both lasting and passing. God reveals His presence within this paradoxic structure of things. The desire, from Adam onward, is to overcome the in between structure of reality. There seems to be something that goes beyond mere rebellion or wilfullness operating here. All heresies deal in absolutes, as an attempt to out imagine the comprehending reality in the belief that it can be overcome, either through some intellectual trick, or belief in the triumph of the will, or reliance on emotion and feeling -- it is always an attempt to overcome the Mystery.

Depending on our inner spiritual disposition, the problem of time becomes either a burden and curse, or it is a blessing that moves us to a state of openness to God&#39;s Presence.

[nurse-aid]

I’m that wild and that hungry cat…
For me its not enough to be just daily fed…
I swallow quickly and I always have an empty space…
Forever, always endless hunger thirst, this IS my case!
I always hungry, always on the run, I always hunt for HIM, until its done…
Until for minute or for day I’m satisfied and its all over day by day…
HE said I’ll give you water and you’ll never starve, it is a truth…
I do not care for the other food I have no clue….No desire and not even need…
When HE is in that Well from were I can drink and drink…
And this is hunt will never stop, I born for that, that wild style cat…
I have a claw, and I will fight for Food, for what I have to have to live for good!
And I’m jealous wild ugly cat, without fern abused and hurt, but strong!
The more I beating up the faster I can run, from net to Freedom…HUNT!
The more I luck of food, the better hunt for IT and strong!
It gives me anger and the chance to want IT long…
I’m that wild cat and I’m so glad! Don’t try to pet me!
I will bite and fight with no regret!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Owen wrote:


Time has its literal and figurative meaning. Literally, it is a measurement of planetary revolutions. Figuratively, it is symbolic of our in between existence. We experience our existence as one of tension in between that which is lasting and that which is passing away. It is out of this tension of existence that arises our intense longing for God. Immortality is part and parcel of this paradoxic experience of time, and the paradoxic nature of time, since it is the nature of reality to point beyond itself.

Time as we presently experience it is a function of the Fall- is it that time itself as an objective reality unto itself has changed or just our experience of it? In any case time before and after the Fall was different in that after it is also subject to death the fruit of sin and this would relate to its 'passing' (perhaps) in the sense that Owen refers to. Conversely time before the Fall or redeemed time after the End of all things (and isn't there obviously time since man was supposed to mature spiritually or after death go from glory to glory?)is lasting.

But as Owen says there is now an 'in-between' time between what is passing and what is lasting. And as he says the effort to overcome this is not just rebelliousness or sinful. It is in fact a nostalgia for that time before the Fall & that hope for the future when being in-between will not have anything of the clash of life & death in it but rather will express the love of the meeting of created with Uncreated. Not to get too cute with words about it but the in-between time is in fact in-between for it too awaits redemption.
Wonderful post Owen!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

The question of time and eternity, like created and uncreated, seems to me often misunderstood. The common set-up is to interject &#39;versus&#39; in between them, or to distinguish them as separate, perhaps parallel, distinct realities. But the whole Christian confession is rooted in the experience of time and eternity as one reality in the mystery of Christ. &#39;Behold, he is born, the pre-eternal God&#39;, sung at the Nativity, is a confession that the eternity &#40;or rather, beyond-eternity&#41; of God is present in the time and ordering &#39;of planetary revolutions&#39; &#40;to borrow Owen&#39;s nice phrase&#41;. Eternity has not &#39;trumped&#39; time, has not surpassed or overrun it &#40;Christ grew, he experienced human life day to day&#41;, but has entered and met time. On icons of the Saviour, the physical, temporal body of Christ incarnate is portrayed, inscribed with the title &#39;ho on&#39;, &#39;the existing one&#39; -- a title of eternity.

The real mystery is not how eternity interjects itself or crosses into time, but how eternity and time are united in Christ.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

We don&#39;t just live in an in between time, the structure of all created reality, as we are able to experience it, is in between, including our consciousness of it. I&#39;m not sure that this is a consequence of the FAll or not. It is perhaps intrinsic to creation. Most of our anxieties, our rebelliousness, our intellectual errors, our desire to dominate and control, stem from our resistance to this in between structure of reality and consciousness, because it REQUIRES faith, hope and love.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Mr Owen has presented time as a subjective reality. He is right that we stand in between “reality” and “our reality” and we struggle to equate them, which is a vain effort.

Greek philosopher Heraclitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraklitos) is famous for his motto: “Everything flows, nothing stands still”. Present can not be stopped, it flows always. What present is, at a blink of the eye becomes past. This transformation of present into past has ontological implications. Reality changes and it seems that our self is also changing in a way that we can not recognize our self as a fixed – unchangeable ontological occurrence. If time was fixed at present, then our self would have a perfect reassurance of existential safety – but it is not.

The “in between” position, creates the death of self, and Mr Owen is right in saying “Most of our anxieties, our rebelliousness, our intellectual errors, our desire to dominate and control, stem from our resistance to this in between structure of reality and consciousness, because it REQUIRES faith, hope and love.

St Paul says about one of his experiences &#40;the man is himself&#41;: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter”. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%2012:2-4;&version=50;)

And the same St Paul says: Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:25-28;&version=50;) ...And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:30-31;&version=50;)

How is it possible for the same human creature to be into Paradise -beyond time and space - and also to have all these down to earth adventures to the point of daily death and daily concerns ?

What was the present for St Paul ? Was it a participation to God’s uncreated Energies and Glory, or an imprisonment to created human reality ?

Was St Paul “in between” even in a deeper sense than our “in between” ? We are “in between” reality and our cognitive subjective consciousness of it, but he was “in between” two realities &#40;the earthly and the paradisiac&#41; and of his cognitive subjective consciousness of them, this is double “in between”.

And as that was not enough, St Paul says: And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%2012:7-10;&version=50;).

Is it God’s purpose to put us in the “in between” position and to maintain it, as He did with St Paul?

“Time” is an external event, as far as ontological self acquires self awareness. If St Paul had no earthly concerns then time would have been vanished, as he said in Paradise he was “whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows”, which means that in the Presence of God created realities are not parts of self awareness, but everything becomes part of God’s awareness. Subjective reality has no place in the Presence of God. The ontological personal relation with God is beyond and yet within self, above and yet under self, out of and yet along self. The ontological personal relation with God is a new creation and yet it has no starting point because all that the meeting with God is, it is expressed exclusively by Him.

St Paul says for that: Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingship to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:24-28;&version=50;#en-NKJV-28740).

What time does to us, if it does anything, is to show us that we are not those who will be in the future and that we are not those who were in the past, and yet we are not able to define who we are at the present – because in the present “everything flows, nothing stands still” as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus concluded - and Mr Owen reminded us of.

At this point St Paul solves the mystery of time for us: For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.” Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “ Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:4-10;&version=50;%20)

Let us now see the same issue in dialectic mode as it is presented by Metropolitan Vlachos: According to platonic system, souls being in the world of ideas felt saturation and for that they moved. The result of their movement is the creation of the world, so the movement is the cause of the evil creation of the world and so the souls must be guided to rest in order to be saved from the evil world. The platonic schema is movement-generation-rest.

St Maximus the Confessor took the platonic schema and changed it according to Orthodox Cosmology: The movement was not preceded generation, but generation took place before movement. The world was generated by God’s uncreated Energies and then the movement took place, as a fall, which is going to be restored by the rest as the world will return towards God. This final rest is called restless rest, which is a paradox.

Aristotle said that the Supreme Being is the first immobile motioning. The first principal of metaphysics is that the Supreme Being is absolutely immobile. Plato said that that eros &#40;love&#41; is the movement of beings towards the Supreme Being, the Supreme Being is motionless and it does not move against beings - this is the second principal of metaphysics.

St St. Dionysius the Areopagite wrote exactly the opposite proposition from Greek philosophers’: “And &#40;God&#41; being the cause of every being from excessive goodness He loves all beings, He creates all, He perfects all, He overwhelms all, He restores all and the divine Love is virtuous from the Virtuous for the virtuous. Because this love for the beings that is practising virtuous, pre-existed excessively in the Virtuous, did not let Him stay unproductive by Himself, but impel Him to practice excessive generation of all beings….And He Who is the cause for all, by His perfect Love for all, from His immense loving kindness, He comes forth out of Himself towards to non-beings providing them every providence and every love and every kindness, being lovingly attracted by them.…. Eros with love that has a moving power all together as a force that is bringing Him up by Himself”

St Maximus The Confessor commenting St Dionysius wrote: “God is called by theologians either Eros, or love, or adorable, or lovable. Because as Eros and Love He moves, and as adorable and loveable is attracting all that are capable for eros and love.

It is obvious that the Orthodox proposition is against the principles of metaphysics that define a Supreme Being immobile, because Christian God is presented having Love for all beings and making the first move to meet them.

The Orthodox Cosmological Schema is generation-movement-restless rest.

Then, there is another major difference between metaphysics and Orthodox Theology:

From the metaphysical point of view, to be defines the absolute, the permanent reality, regardless of experience, in contrast to becoming. What is becoming, it has stopped being. And when it is, it has stopped becoming. So, while to be means the permanent reality, the becoming means the transition “from being that to being this”. There were two classical schools: Philosopher Parmenidis proposed that becoming, the movement, is an illusion of senses while to be is simple and changeless. Contrarily Philosopher Heraclitus, proclaimed that becoming is the substance of all beings, and that all beings are permanent apparent signs of transitional conditions of becoming.

St Maximus The Confessor took this metaphysical philosophical propositions and presented the Orthodox Theology using the same terminology, but he proposed a new ontology: St Maximus proposed that the Supreme Being is constantly in move towards all beings and also makes them move by His Uncreated Energies and at the same time the beings are moving by themselves towards the Supreme Being, but their movement is stationary and their rest is restless. He presented the stationary movement and the restless rest. God is practising upon creation His Uncreated Energies, which are being called words of beings, that is “uncreated words”, and the man is moving constantly towards God, while at the same time being united with Him. The stationary movement and the restless rest are being presented in the Holy Eucharist and in the ascetic life of the Church.

The movement is the means to achieve perfection and when man meets God, perfection is achieved and the movement is replaced by immobility/rest. The movement starts with the start of time and it ends with the end of time. So the start and the end are same timeless. This transition from the movement to immobility is the transition from time to beyond time ; it is the excess of the division of uncreated and created. But then only the time related things are being put to rest. The virtuous things continue to move even after being perfected.

As Gregory of Nyssa has said: “we have learned only one boundary of perfection, that perfection is limitless”.

May God bless us, all.

&#40;Message edited by lpap on 31 August, 2005&#41;

[Owen Jones]

Time is not a &#34;subjective&#34; reality. It is paradoxic in its structure, as iconic of creation as a whole. It points to the in-between nature of existence. The Christian life is all about movement in this in-between or intermediate realm. Truth, according to the Fathers, is neither &#34;objective&#34; nor &#34;subjective&#34; but a realm of existence that we consciousness participate in. The liturgy is, of course, the supreme symbol of the in-between nature of time/eternity, world/heaven, mortality/immortality. This is why we say that it is true, a true representation of reality in its fullest dimension insofar as we can humanly experience and comprehend.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen wrote:


We don't just live in an in between time, the structure of all created reality, as we are able to experience it, is in between, including our consciousness of it. I'm not sure that this is a consequence of the FAll or not. It is perhaps intrinsic to creation.

This depends on how one is defining the metaxy, or the definition of 'in between'. In the thought of most of the fathers, the original creation was itself a meeting of time and eternity: there is presence a sense and reality of immortality, combined with temporality, change and growth. Adam and Eve are eternal, but have yet to eat of the tree of life. They have knowledge, but have yet to eat of the tree of (full) knowledge of good and evil. They are eternal-yet-mortal. In this sense, yes, this 'paradoxical structure' of time is inherent in creation -- it is not, per se, a consequence of fallen reality. Fallen reality is, in fact, a reality based on a mis-use of this structure.

INXC, Matthew

[time bandit]

In the glossary of the Philokalia it says that all time is simultaneous, and that our unillumined perception of it is an illusion. Is this because, seeing things the way God sees them, there is no future or past?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear 'time bandit',

You wrote:


In the glossary of the Philokalia it says that all time is simultaneous, and that our unillumined perception of it is an illusion. Is this because, seeing things the way God sees them, there is no future or past?

In the incarnation, time and eternity meet in Christ, the Son of God and himself God. To say that to God there is no future or past is to deny the truly incarnational reality of the Son: in Christ there is past, present and future to God, for the Son is temporal as incarnate. Yet this incarnate one is also eternal -- neither reality is diminished. It is here that the mystery of the incarnation is met: the eternity of God does not 'move beyond' or 'stand outside' time and our experience of time, but is united to it, wed to it, as a singular reality.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Time is a reflection of the fact that wherever there is the created there is change. Only God is changeless but as Matthew says, "in Christ there is past, present and future to God, for the Son is temporal as incarnate."

Perhaps what is being referred to above is the fact that time after the Fall also reflects the Fall in man's nature- as the Holy Frs say there is an "instability" now in man's nature which is due to sin. This alerts us to the fact (combining the question above perhaps & Matthews' post) that there is an important distinction between the change which is according to nature and the change which goes against nature. Time reflects this.

That there is a God-given aspect to time and change can be seen from the fact that even after death we will be capable of going from 'glory to glory'; also isn't this reflected in the prayer of the Memorial service (Panichida)?

I also found this very interesting passage about the Jesus Prayer in the book- Elder Barsanuphius of Optina (St. Herman of Alaska Press; p. 296)

"Therefore God grants prayer to him who prays for it. If he has not attained interior prayer, He gives it to him either before his death, or even after death; for after death too, there is growth in the Jesus Prayer."

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS-Matthew- For some reason when I hit the ' key a search bar appears at the bottom of my page & the page jumps to about half-way up. This is the first time this has ever happened so I wonder if it is connected to the changes at Monachos.
PPS- I use Mozilla if that has anything to do with it.
PPPS- Talk about instability!

[time bandit]

Thankyou M.C. Your reply is very helpful.

I once read, &#40;in a &#34;choose your own adventure&#34; book&#41; that time is what prevents everything from happening at once.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Friends,

St Gregory of Nyssa in his essay “Against Arius And Sabelius” says:

“ …As we have already said, it is obvious from the Scriptures that the human language does not have the capability to describe God and the notions regarding Him. Because it was not suitable for any form of language to describe the self-eternal-being of the Son, the coeternity with the Father is described in the form of an enigma with the preposition “before” in the Scriptures at &#40;Psalm 110:3&#41; “I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning” and at Proverbs &#40;8:22-25&#41; “The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. He established me before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth: even before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me”. By prefixing the form of “before” the Scripture presents Him who has no beginning. The Being that pro-exists everything and He is presented as pro-existing “before time”, He should be beginning-less and eternally self-existed….

…And the phrase &#40;Psalm 2:7&#41; “Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee”, although He &#40;the Son&#41; was born already and He was with Him &#40;the Father&#41; all the time since then, by defining in the Scriptures a birth that is happening at the time intersection of today, is making clear that He is always begotten at the time that the humans are coming into existence, as long as the “today” is having a meaning. And if at sometime the “today” of this world is going to be squeezed between its two ends, then He would not be begotten any more, but, since He was begotten once for each and every one and then He was seated in the throne of judge and trier of the living and of the dead, he will reign with the Father in eternity….

…And since the humanity was not submitted yet to the Son, He was Himself also seemed and was assumed as not being submitted either, by taking upon Him, in front of the Father, the non-submission of the people. If at sometime in the future all are going to be submitted to the Son -at the present we see that not all are submitted to Him, yet- then He will say “all things are put under Me” <font size="-2"> &#40;1 Corinthians 15:27&#41;</font> (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:27;&version=50;). And when all will be submitted to Him, then He will also be presented submitted to Whom, Who&#40;the Father&#41; submitt all under Him&#40;the Son&#41;. Because, if we all belong to Christ, He Will also belong to God and all will be submitted to Him. But if we are not yet all belonging to Christ, then He is also not yet belong to God, Who is in anguish for us.

When we will all achieve to become Christ’s, then Christ will also be God’s, by submitting in Him all under God, from Whom He had received them previously, that God may be all in all. <font size="-2"> &#40;1 Corinthians 15:28&#41;</font> (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:28;&version=50;). Because, in a way He has not submitted yet to the Father, since those for whom He guaranteed and has taken their image are not yet submitted to Him. But When they are going to be submitted, then it will be shown that He gives the Reign to the God Father. The Reign is not to be taken as the possession of the royal office. Because the Father does not need the Royalty to be returned from the Son, like taking back from Him what was previously being given for His usage. Because He&#40;the Son&#41; will not return the Royalty, but He will return those were His subjects and over whom He had his Reign. By offering and submitting this Reign He will say “this is the royal priesthood, the holy nation, the chosen generation”<font size="-2"> &#40;1 Peter 2:9&#41;</font> (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%202:9;&version=50;). And also: Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.<font size="-2"> &#40;Hebrews 2:13&#41;</font> (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%202:13;&version=50;). Because all was given to Him according to the word: I will give You the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession.”<font size="-2">&#40;Psalm 2:8&#41;</font> (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%202:8;&version=50;) “


The proposition that “at sometime the “today” of this world is going to be squeezed between its two ends” &#40;its start and its end&#41; is not a new one. It is a living reality of the Church. In every liturgy of St Chrysostome (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html) the priest at the Holy Anaphora – just at the point in which he is praying for the transformation of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ – he is saying “Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming, we offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all.”

It is on purpose that the past, the present and the future &#40;!&#41; events are “remembered” as united in the memory of the Church, because the “sometime the “today” of this world is going to be squeezed between its two ends”, which St Gregory of Nyssa talks about, is a living reality in the presence of Christ, within the Holy Liturgy.

May God bless us, all.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Deiniol Clarke,


Does this mean, therefore that there was, and has never been any "physical" meeting with God (except through the mysterious incarnation)? The reason I ask is because there are countless places in the Old Testament where an objective meeting is evident - firstly where I have mentioned in Genesis earlier, but also the "burning bush" and when Moses met God on Mount Sinai - and when Moses "saw" God his own face became glorious.

No. It has never been any “physical” meeting with God.
“Moses said, “Please, show me Your glory.” Then He said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”


I don't understand how you come to that conclusion; the conclusion that there was no physical meeting. The language in the verses you quoted seems to provide manifold evidence of a physical meeting. Not only does the verse state that Moses met with God, but it mentions that He met with God face to face!

“So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend”. This passage is describing the intimacy between God and Moses (as they were being engaged in a close personal honest loving relation)– this is not a description of the actual meeting.


Exactly though? We are what God is not? Isn't this a truth? Isn't this the idea that separates us from the glory of God? Isn't it this one thing that makes it impossible for such a direct physical connection to the Father - which I find deeply saddening if such is the case.

The separation from the Glory of God, is an illusion. “What are we? – What are we not?” are meaningless questions when they are phrased as defined ways of existence, because they have obvious answers: we are what we know ourselves to be.

The ontological question is “Who are we?” and this question can not get an answer from ourselves but, it can only receive an answer from the persons with whom we are related with.


The concept you mention about time, space and love seems very distant to me. Solely because at first glance it seems to portray the Father as a very impersonal God; a person who can't be known (save through Jesus Christ) but simply a person who's influence can be felt everywhere.

Can you tell me what you mean by an uncreated created creature? As far as the "creation" out of nothing is concerned I find this hard to understand. I don't know if you're refering to pre-destination in the human form or the infinate characteristics of Christ which we have come to obtain. Either way, we still have created flesh and bones which would suggest that it is impossible for God - outside time and space, to have an objective reality with

Let us examine the two ways of being: the created and the uncreated.

The created way of being is defined as our universal way of being. There was once a time that we were not and then a time came that we “started” to exist. The edge between our non-existence and our existence is defined as our generation. After our generation we become parts of Creation. We are created according to a predefined way of being by the laws of generation.

Let us assume that a creature is generated, but it is not defined by the laws of generation. Let us assume that it has no known qualities, it has no material structure, no volume and no physical attributes like, thermo-electro-mechanical-magneto-quanto- gravitational characteristics and that it has no soul and no logic. Of course such a creature is a creature of void and it’s a factual creature having nothing in common with actual creatures. What makes created beings to exist in ontological reality is that they are generated according to the laws of generation, that is, they are generated in relation with each other. A singular being, with exclusive characteristics unrelated with everything else is just the same as non-being. This principal of generation in relation is established both in the material world and in the spiritual world.

There is no physical and material being that is neutral, isolated and unrelated with all other beings. We know today that all physical “substances” like gravity, electromagnetism, space and time are all related between them in an unbreakable way. If we assume that a tiny entity is isolated in space and time from all other created beings, then quantum-mechanics reveals to us that this fundamental being/“particle” becomes indefinable. It is actually defined by its “horizon” and when it is taken in account without its “horizon” it becomes non-existed. All “particles” (beings) are surrounded by other “particles” (beings) which create a “surrounding” horizon for the specific time and space and which are being related with the specific particle. Only then the fundamental being (“particle”) assumes a specific ontological presentation.

A single light beam, or a single subatomic particle considered isolated from the universal laws (these are the laws of generation that are inherited to the created beam or the created subatomic particle) and from other entities and from space and time becomes an illusion of existence. But when it is related with these other beings then it is also being generated – according to the laws of generation.

The created way of being is the way of coming to existence from non-existence generated by the generation of relations with pre-existed entities. These relations define the way of being but they also provide an absolute degree of freedom. Nevertheless, as relations are part of the generation of being, they create a harmonic sum. The harmony is consisted by the presence of previously non-existed beings that are attract/repulse each other in freedom. The horizon of each created being is expanded or contracted according to related existential otherness that is either neighboring, or alienating.

The created way of being is the generation of relation.

What in many cases – and today this false resolution is considered as such only in humans relations, because in science this false has been resolved by a specific scientific method- seems as a generated created being which is an agent in relation with otherness, actually it is not an ontological created being but it is a role playing illusionary performance presented by the absence of the specific created being.

Let me give you a simple example: when a scientist watches a light beam passing through a prism and he witness the “generation” of the rainbow spectrum, he/she is clever enough to understand that this new “creation” is not a new created being but it is the performance of the “missing” light beam.

Likewise, the ways of being of a specific human, whether he/she is good, or bad, or serial killer, or compassionate is the perceived performance of the actual “missing” human being.

Unfortunately, in most cases the illusionary role playing actor (which is the realization of the absence of the specific human being) is considered as the authentic human being, just because it is not understood that the created being is enforced to act upon otherness all the time as it is obliged to be related with its horizon of otherness, or else it will cease to exist.

The realization of obligatory constant relation with otherness brings upon created beings the blindest quest of existence: how to define self as a non-related entity? The relations with otherness, as a generated way of created being, restricts and defines existence as a role playing performance that is being depended from otherness just as it is being depended by itself.

The creature is in need for other to exist!

In contrast the uncreated being has no such need. The uncreated being is free from every restriction. Even its natural substance is irrelevant to its existence because it is in itself a being in-wrought with the absolute existence. The substance (material or spiritual) that provides to the uncreated being the foundation for its existence is not necessary for the uncreated being because it is self-existed – and by self we mean a tautology with existence. While for the uncreated being there are two periods: the period of absence and the period of presence, for the uncreated being there is only one period: the period of presence.

Now to make this clear let us examine how St Paul talked about these differences between the uncreated and the created when he was addressing the Corinthians:

And in this confidence I intended to come to you before, that you might have a second benefit to pass by way of you to Macedonia, to come again from Macedonia to you, and be helped by you on my way to Judea. Therefore, when I was planning this, did I do it lightly? Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No? But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me, Silvanus, and Timothy—was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes. For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us. Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. Moreover I call God as witness against my soul, that to spare you I came no more to Corinth. Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand. But I determined this within myself, that I would not come again to you in sorrow. For if I make you sorrowful, then who is he who makes me glad but the one who is made sorrowful by me?<font size="-2">( (2 Corinthians 1:15-2:2)</font> (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%201:15-2:2;&version=50;)

In this passage St Paul writes two clauses, the first one is “Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No?” and the second one is “But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me, Silvanus, and Timothy—was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes. For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us”. What is the meaning of those?

The Corinthians were introduced in the Christian Faith, but they made a series of serious faults. For that, St Paul wrote and send them a letter (1 Corinthians (http://%20http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians;&version=50;)) by which he marked all of their mistakes and gave them instructions how to behave in certain instances. Then he addressed a second letter to them where he wrote the above sentences. He said to them that he wanted to visit them but not in the usual way, because “the things that he planed, he did not according to the flesh so that with him the yes to be yes and the no to be no”. His visit to them was not an option, it was not a created decision under which he might or he might not be presented. The “plan” to visit the Corinthians for St Paul was not a created period of his absence which would be followed by a period of his presence. “But as God is faithful” his word also was not “yes” and “no”. The uncreated continues presence of God was also in his word and there was not a yes-no succession. Because his word, which was preached among Corinthians, about the Son of God, was not a word about Someone who was a yes-no creature. It was a word about the uncreated Son of God, Who is only YES. The gospel, and the scriptures are presenting the affirmative way of being of the Son of God, which is the uncreated way of being. The relation that St Paul had with the Corinthians was not a created relation but it was a relation “established in Christ and being anointed by God, who also has sealed the relation and have given to them the Spirit in their hearts as a guarantee”. Moreover St Paul said to Corinthians that “he did not have dominion over their faith, on the contrary their faith is his joy”, but if he would have visited them and made remarks about their weak faith he would bring sorrow to them instead of bringing them joy.

So, the uncreated God is only ontologically YES. This is not a restriction in his way of being. It is the result of being identical with existence.

But humans are being ontologically yes and no. This is the uncreated way of being.

In Christ, by His Spirit we are being adopted by the Father as His sons and we are no longer ontologically subjects to no. We become exclusively yes. This is an unimaginable proposition, which St Paul had revealed to us: “Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No? But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me, Silvanus, and Timothy—was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes". The uncreated Sonship of the Son is adopted by all the sons of God and thus they are afterwards uncreated created creatures! They can say with St Paul “As God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no". The created way of being as a generation of relations with otherness in a attractive / repulsive way of being stops and the only ontological way remains the attractive.

This is why Christ came as a God-man on this earth, so that all become only "yes".

May God bless us,all.

[M.C. Steenberg]

God is met physically in Christ. This is absolute. There is a physical meeting of God.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

God is met physically in Christ. This is absolute. There is a physical meeting of God.

This is true Dr. Steenberg (although I think that your statement needs to be clarified in order to be understood in a non-anthropomorphic context), but as I understand the question that was originally asked by Mr. Deiniol Clarke, it was a question about the physical meeting of God before the incarnation of Christ as a direct physical contact with the Divine nature.

.

[Owen Jones]

Please, let&#39;s all understand that God is present in all of His Creation from the beginning, and present in each human person. The uniqueness of the Incarnation in Christ is that the fullness of Divinity dwelt in Him. Without God in us, how would we recognize God in Christ? Our whole doctrine is based on the deification of man, union between man and God so that as we make progress in faith, the very fabric of our being becomes more and more a part of the Divine Nature. Pre-Christian times revealed God in nature. Christianity reveals the True God Who is Beyond all things. But He does not cease to be in nature.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

There is a great difference between &#34;the image of my brother&#34; and &#34;my brother&#34;.

This analogy is between the image of Christ that is in our hearts and Christ Himself.

Also, as Church Father&#39;s say: Christ is the actual image of God and we are the image of the image. This is why we can &#34;recognize&#34; Him.

As for the proposition that &#34;the very fabric of our being becomes more an more a part of the Divine Nature&#34; it seems that the word &#34;Nature&#34; is needed to be defined in order to realize what is the actual meaning of Mr Owen&#39;s clause.

According to my readings and to the teachings of my parish priest, every each one of the Church Fathers proclaim that the Divine Nature/Essense is absolutely non experienced by all humans. Even in Christ, His human nature and His Divine nature remained absolutely unmixed.

[AndyHolland]

In the glossary of the Philokalia it says that all time is simultaneous, and that our unillumined perception of it is an illusion. Is this because, seeing things the way God sees them, there is no future or past?
Wow - that makes allot of physical scientific sense. After all, we do know scientifically that time and space are intrinsically linked.

That is, if you drop a watch from a mountain, it is the Earth that rushes up to meet the watch - and the time the watch keeps changes (imperceptibly)as the ground rushes up to meet it (general relativity). Time and space are actually a geometric continuum and are inseparable. This has been proven by direct measurement - it is more than special relativity. Also, the mathematics for this understanding of reality was invented by a young Christian believer named Riemann many decades before Einstein, and Riemann discovered the Lorentz transform years earlier as well (special relativity).

So taken as a whole, the universe (all things) is a singularity even in time.

Yet we experience the Universe in time and in a real sort of way, it is an illusion. Also, we see the Universe using photons - and photons traveling the speed of light experience no time from their creation to their termination.

Have you ever noticed, especially when reading the Gospels for the first time, how when you remembered a passage you would refer to it as though you were actually there? As in, "do you remember when the Lord...." - that happened to me allot when first reading the Bible, and now it happens in the Divine Liturgy. We are there.

Andy