Replies

Thank you for your doctrines, too, AG, as always.

But please understand that, to me, they are doctrines of men which I eschew across-the-board

Then be consistent and start with your own.

Christianity has its bounds and doesn't spill into other religions. Some people are universalists and I recognize that, but one cannot be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddihist or a Shinto all at the same time and call himself a Christian.

Also, it is one thing to recognize that all religions contain what Kolokotronis calls "sporoi" (seeds) of truth; it's an altogether different thing to form a personal religion out of cherry-picking those doctrines of men that you do like and eschewing those you don't.

Thus the two statements, that God knows us from the foundation of the world (and to the end, btw) - and that there was a "time" we were not - are not mutually exclusive

Yes they are. What they are definitely not is mutualy inclusive, as some people make them. There was no time when Adam was not known to God, but there was a time when Adam was not.

God's knowledge of Adam is not the same as Adam's created existence, for God actually made Adam and imparted life into him even though He knew Adam (as an idea) all long. In other words, God's knowledge (idea) of Adam is not equivalent to Adam's creation.

The (fore)knowledge does not impart the "breath of life" into a lifeless form.

I AM is a Name of God

I AM means Life. "I am" is also our reality. It means we are alive. Adam could not say "I am" until God created him and gave him life.

” Yes they are. What they are definitely not is mutualy inclusive, as some people make them. There was no time when Adam was not known to God, but there was a time when Adam was not.

God’s knowledge of Adam is not the same as Adam’s created existence, for God actually made Adam and imparted life into him even though He knew Adam (as an idea) all long. In other words, God’s knowledge (idea) of Adam is not equivalent to Adam’s creation.

The (fore)knowledge does not impart the “breath of life” into a lifeless form.”

I find it fascinating, and a bit troubling, that any Christian could profess a belief in the pre-existence of souls. The Church has always taught that we are “psykosomatikoi” souls and bodies. Similarly, The Church has been quite adamant about the pre-existence of souls, a belief in which was anathemized at the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553:

“IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.” I Anathemas Against Origen

Thank you for your reply!

I disagree on the Jewish part. Christ Himself was incarnated a Jew. The apostles did not abandon the law and the prophets - or indeed many of the Jewish traditions though they chose not to burden the Gentiles with much of it – what we might call those things which are not central to the spirit of the law..

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matt 5:17-18

The leaning I have in the spirit is that Christ did not come to establish a new religion but to fulfill the law and prophets in establishing God’s family. It was always Christianity, but most of the Jews didn’t understand that then – nor do they understand it even now.

it's an altogether different thing to form a personal religion out of cherry-picking those doctrines of men that you do like and eschewing those you don't.

If I were to fabricate a religion or doctrine of my liking, it would not resemble that to which I have testified. In my “religion” Christ would have arrived the conquering lion, healed everyone, revealed Himself to all, brought this heaven and earth to an end – all without suffering the Cross. Peter didn't want Christ to suffer either, but that was not God's will and is why Christ said to him "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Now I, like Peter, pray for God's will to be done no matter what. His Name, His will, His kingdom - that is what is truly important. Nothing else compares.

In other words, God's knowledge (idea) of Adam is not equivalent to Adam's creation. The (fore)knowledge does not impart the "breath of life" into a lifeless form.

Not that you are wrong, but the indwelling Spirit has leaned me to the understanding that God is beyond “time” and therefore our concept of “cause/effect.”

Again, I am not asserting “re-incarnation.” The only Scriptural evidence known to me which approximates the concept is a) the resurrection body and b) the two witnesses in Revelation 11. However, there is nothing to indicate that any of these become a new identity when they appear “in” the physical realm. Indeed, our “new life” begins when we are indwelled by the Spirit Himself (John 3) – but our identity continues.

me: I AM is a Name of God

You: I AM means Life. "I am" is also our reality. It means we are alive. Adam could not say "I am" until God created him and gave him life.

The phrase is used in ordinary language to mean that we exist. Cogito ergo sum and all that.

But ”I AM” is not a name for anyone but God. Period.

And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:13-14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58

IMHO, His Name I AM is a very difficult meditation for time-bound observers such as we are - and yet the Name itself answers most every question with overwhelming peace: why, when, what.