I'm glad it was useful. Old Aristotle ain't so bad.
And this is kind of how we back into the whole "eternity" line of thought. The notion is that God "in Himself" does not change. If all there is is God, then there is no time, because there is no change.
The Son is, in one formulation "eternally begotten of the Father" <contra the Arians whose initial position (I am told - haven't done the original research) was "There was a time when the Son did not exist," and their fall-back was to "There was when the Son did not exist," neither of which was acceptable to Athanasius. (And I would have objected to the second on the grounds that it was senselessly different from the first.)
Then, to maintain the idea that things don't "happen to God" -- His impassibility, His NOT "suffering" in any sense of the word, ancient or modern -- we have to put Him sort of "around" or "above" or "outside" of time, so that He can apprehend the whole mishegoss at once.
To start the thought, I envision a cottonmouth swimming across a pond. All he sees, with his eyes at water level, is where he is. But we are above the pond, and we see everything around him.
Then if we were to apprehend his every position in the pond at once, it would be sorta kinda like God and time. And then we can throw pebbles into the pond, before the snake, after him, or right at him. We see the whole thing and our view does not change, but for him every second is new and is swiftly slipping into the past, with NOW as the nexus where the water touches his eyes.
(What actually happened was that the farm owner shot him with #4 shot. This does not fit into my metaphor.)
And for God, all times are Now. (And a subset of, or reflection on, that observation is what Aslan says on Coriakin's island in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: All times are soon to me.)
Clearly this is a very inadequate image.
Well, that doesn't sound bad at all, but my understanding of the Bible is that at some (any) point before creation, there was some "thing" called predestination. Whatever that was, and I have my ideas :), it involved change. But, if all that counts as "in Himself", then I suppose I could accept the idea that time started upon creation.
I agree with you on the Arians, they were all wet. The Son is eternal.
To start the thought, I envision a cottonmouth swimming across a pond. All he sees, with his eyes at water level, is where he is. But we are above the pond, and we see everything around him.
Then if we were to apprehend his every position in the pond at once, it would be sorta kinda like God and time. And then we can throw pebbles into the pond, before the snake, after him, or right at him. We see the whole thing and our view does not change, but for him every second is new and is swiftly slipping into the past, with NOW as the nexus where the water touches his eyes.
AMAZING! A while ago, on this very thread, I made up the following to describe God's omnipresence. Imagine a two-dimensional man who "lives" on a sheet of paper. He can see up, down, right and left, but not outward. I could sit with my nose one inch from his and he wouldn't have the slightest idea. I could reach around and waive my hand behind the sheet of paper and he would be oblivious. I could also stick my finger through a hole in the paper, but he would not recognize me for what I am. Thus to him, I am everywhere and no where all at once! Our comparisons sound very similar.
And for God, all times are Now.
Yeah, BUT :), I don't think that means that God doesn't act within time. From our existence, He does act within time, without being subject to it or limited by it. So, when God throws a pebble, while His view doesn't change, He notices the ripples that weren't there before. It's just that my experience has been that your particular phrase here has been thrown against me (not by you) in the past in order to quash further discussion (due to "declared" irrelevancy) when I was sure that I was winning. LOL!