[RobbyS]

I meant that in his appearances to the disciples, he does so in the form that the elect —hopefully us—will assume, just as before he had appeared to them as they were. In both cases, he was who they saw and heard

Time-space is our paradigm. how we think of things, today. It is hard to get back to a frame of mind based on Aristotle’s science of Physics, much less into the heads of the Hebrews with a less abstract view of the world. Eternity is, I saw, God’s “point of view.”

[Springfield Reformer]

I meant that in his appearances to the disciples, he does so in the form that the elect —hopefully us—will assume, just as before he had appeared to them as they were. In both cases, he was who they saw and heard

Time-space is our paradigm. how we think of things, today. It is hard to get back to a frame of mind based on Aristotle’s science of Physics, much less into the heads of the Hebrews with a less abstract view of the world. Eternity is, I saw, God’s “point of view.”

I don't have any real disagreement with these statements, as far as they go.  Which is cool.  It's nice to be able to agree on some things. :)

But the Hebrews were indeed more concrete.  Hebrew as a language reflects that.  But we have discrepancies with even more recent slices of history, as you say, paradigms of thought that would lead to some considerable difficulty in understanding one another.  I am attempting to write a novel (to be completed sometime this century) that explores this problem in some detail, a "plausible" time travel story that sets two such paradigms against each other in the search for understanding.  Hard work getting back to a mindset operating so differently.  But hopefully beneficial.  I know I'm getting some good out of it.  Don't know if I'll ever finish the book. Sigh ...

Anyway, good conversation.  I wish you well.

Peace,

SR