Triadic Reality (a discussion between oldhermit and Kenisis)

[oldhermit]

This will serve at a starting point. The work will be mine unless otherwise stated throughout the discussion.

To establish this line of reasoning, I feel there are certain foundational principles which must first be understood. I believe there is a universal standard for determining good and evil. I believe its origin is rooted in the eternal unseen reality. I affirm that God alone has the right to decide what is good and evil. Man's relationship with the material world can only be properly understood in the light of the revealed standard.


THE MEANING OF RELATIONAL

Man exists in a world of determined relations which we commonly regard as natural law. Time, space, gravity and physics are regarded as the highest governing forces of the material universe. I would suggest that these are not laws in as much as they can be manipulated and overruled form beyond the material realm. These exist with man in a relational system that allows man to function within the confines of the material world. I contend that a structure of reality exists which consists of the material world and the world of the eternal which I will refer to as a continuum. This structure is a continuous whole in which two planes of reality are bridged by a chain of elements. The realm that science generally regards as reality is the realm that lends itself to empirical observation. This limited concept of life ignores a greater aspect of reality that transcends the boundaries of our world of determined relations. The eternal plain is the reality from which our world is governed. This reality begins in the mind of God and is then carried out in the temporal plain. I propose to demonstrate man’s appointed place in this eternal continuum and how man should represent both God and the world in which he lives.

The will of God is an abstract of ideas that are represented to man in the construct of language. Language, as an extended property of God, is a conveyance framed into the grammatical structure of the biblical text and serves as a bridge which links the two worlds. It is through language that revelation is brought to bear upon human intelligence. This revelation is external to the temporal plain and serves to connect the mind of man on the material side of the continuum to the mind of God. Man must then bring this revelation to bear upon the material world to properly understand the nature of his relationship within the continuum. Revelation is given to man as a point of reference by which to interpret his world. Revelation shows that the material universe is subject to the will and control of God. The idea of prayer is certainly based on this principle. Man can never properly understand human history, events, or experiences until he is able to see them from the revealed mind of God. When man removes revelation from the equation, he loses contact with the mind of God. When this happens, man has no point of reference by which to correctly interpret his experiences. Without revelation, man is unable to know that reality is more than that which he is able to experience empirically. Since this is true, it seems to me this would have a rather profound influence on how we address issues of ethics and morality.


THE FACT OF THE CONTINUUM

This continuum is presented in scripture and reveals how God brings His influences to bear upon the material world. God stands outside this set of determined relations and manipulates and suspends them according to His will. We are all familiar with such biblical examples as the flood, the crossing of the Red Sea, the stilling of the sun, various accounts of resurrections, etc…. Every time we read these examples we are reminded of the power of God to manipulate things in the material deminsion to bring about His will.

The book of Revelation demonstrates the power of God even upon the most desperate of human circumstances. Chapter one is an example of how God uses linking agents to communicate His revelation to the seven Churches. The revelation began in the mind of God on the eternal plain. It was then given to Jesus who in turn sent His angel with this message which was then delivered to the apostle John. This revelation was then given to the messengers of the seven churches and ultimately distributed throughout the Church. It was through this revelation from God that the churches were able to properly context the events and circumstances of their lives during an era of terrible persecution. How does one decide to allow his family to die rather than to renounce Jesus as Lord? Where is the ethic in trading their lives for your convictions? How does one determine the rightness of this behavior? Unless these Christians were able to context their situation in the light of God’s will and design, they could ever have endured such experiences. This revelation from God produced such a confidence in them that the outcome of their faith would not be determined by their circumstances. Without this revelation, they could not know that their experiences of persecution were nothing more than what the apostle Paul clled "light momentary afflictions" when compared to the hope that awaited them in the eternal plain.

Hebrews chapters one and two explain how God has presented His revelation to man since the beginning. Again, God uses language as the vehicle to convey the abstract ideas of His will to the mind of man. Revelation transcends both time and space through the conveyance of language. It is through the grammatical structure of the text that truth is revealed, not in the historical framework. This fact makes scripture both equidistant and equicultural to all generations. When we approach the text strictly from the historical perspective, we limit the significance of the message to the confines of time and space. This is what happens when man brings human intelligence to bear upon the text rather than allowing the grammatical structure of the text to influence the mind. In the past, God spoke to the prophets. What God spoke was then delivered the fathers who heard. In these last days God speaks through the Son to the apostles who in turd recorded the words of God for us. Through the grammatical structure this revealed message will always mean the same thing to us as it did to those to whom it was initially delivered. It will never change based upon varying cultures or personal human experiences. It is through this channel of grammatical revelation that the readers were able to interpret their own history. They could see how Jesus is the reality of what had only been seen by them in shadows and types throughout periods of their history. From the vantage point of their history, the gospel was a mystery. It is only through revelation that the historical context can be understood. History then, cannot be mapped onto revelation to arrive at an understanding of truth. Rather, revelation must be mapped onto historical events to understand how God was working to bring about human redemption.

 

[NiceneCreed]

OldHermit,

Bravo! That was a phenomenal post. Per chance, are you a philosophy major?

 

[oldhermit]

OldHermit,

Bravo! That was a phenomenal post. Per chance, are you a philosophy major?

No. Just a student of scripture.

 

[kenisyes]

I want to question two things. 1. Do you really mean the word "grammatical structure" as the phrase is currently used in linguistics? This concept is tied to culture and historical evolution, so you need to clarify exactly what the structures of Scriture are, so we can separate them from those of human languages. 2. When you say that the scientific laws of earth are controllable from heaven, how do you allow for the fact that humans have certainl powers today that would be considered miraculous in times past? Suppose it should prove that the Red Sea standing, or the sun standing still, was not control from heaven, but some manner of earth phenomenon? More importantly, if a human exercises miraculous power, and changes a natural law (as Elijah made rain, or someone moves a mountain, or curses a fig tree), does this change anything about that part of the relationships between the two planes?

 

[oldhermit]

I want to question two things. 1. Do you really mean the word "grammatical structure" as the phrase is currently used in linguistics? This concept is tied to culture and historical evolution, so you need to clarify exactly what the structures of Scriture are, so we can separate them from those of human languages.

That is a good point. What I mean by the grammatical structure is how the Holy Spirit has orchestrated the syntax of each string of words that are recorded in scripture. If you will recall the presentation on the syntax of John 1:1 that I gave you earlier, this will serve to illustrate what I mean.

2. When you say that the scientific laws of earth are controllable from heaven, how do you allow for the fact that humans have certainl powers today that would be considered miraculous in times past? Suppose it should prove that the Red Sea standing, or the sun standing still, was not control from heaven, but some manner of earth phenomenon?

As you realize, I am sure, there are levels of control just as we will discover later on there are levels of determinacy. What I mean by "natural laws" are those determined relations that God has put in place to structure the universe such as physics. The laws of Physics and thermodynamics, as any scientist can tell you are as far as we can tell fixed. What scripture shows us is that God can suspend these "natural laws" at his discretion to accommodate his will. This is the power of the unseen world being brought to bear upon the natural world in an extraordinary way. The problem with the skeptic is that he will always attempt to use natural processes to explain a non-natural event. This is of course impossible. If you have ever read Greta Hort's Chain Reaction Theory in connection with the Plagues of Egypt, this is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

What the skeptic must confront in the Red Sea parting is that the description given by the Holy Spirit of that event defies all the laws of physics that govern how water molecules behave. Water molecules, by natural process, do not stand on end. Physics demands that water must seek its own level. We will talk more about the sun standing still later.

More importantly, if a human exercises miraculous power, and changes a natural law (as Elijah made rain, or someone moves a mountain, or curses a fig tree), does this change anything about that part of the relationships between the two planes?]

Good question
Not at all. The power by which these things are done does not originate with them nor does it originate anywhere on the material side of reality. Such examples as these we see in scripture are always the power of God overturning natural process. The fact that it is being done through these men in no way invalidates the relationship between the two planes.
"Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-- by this name this man stands here before you in good health," Acts 4:10.

 

[kenisyes]

So, then, we may change the specific lists of natural laws as necessary, if we find out, for example, that the sun stood still for a reason, that is as yet unknown to our scientists? The concept remains the same. Do you then separate the physical ability to be used by God to work a miracle from the power to work the miracle itself? The first occurs naturally, and can be proved in a laboratory; the second is on the other plane.

As far as grammar, do you envision being able to develop consistent grammatical principles, or must we determine the principles new from each Scripture passage, as you did for John 1?

 

[oldhermit]

duplicated............................

 

[oldhermit]

So, then, we may change the specific lists of natural laws as necessary, if we find out, for example, that the sun stood still for a reason, that is as yet unknown to our scientists? The concept remains the same. Do you then separate the physical ability to be used by God to work a miracle from the power to work the miracle itself? The first occurs naturally, and can be proved in a laboratory; the second is on the other plane.

The term natural law merely serves to express a set of determined relations that exist in the natural world. While human understanding of these "laws" may change and expand, the "Laws" themselves do not. They remain fixed unless they are manipulated from beyond this dimension. We will have a lot of time to talk about this is a later study.

As far as grammar, do you envision being able to develop consistent grammatical principles, or must we determine the principles new from each Scripture passage, as you did for John 1?

The thing you have to remember here is that grammar has rules that must be followed or communication become impossible. The Holy Spirit NEVER violates the rules of grammar in the language in which he chooses to convey his message. Otherwise, the message would never be decernable.

 

[kenisyes]

So the answer appears to be we agree on the definition of natural law vs. intervention by God. And we will be able to determine laws that are valid through the whole Bible. That is most encouraging.

 

[iamsoandso]

I want to question two things. 1. Do you really mean the word "grammatical structure" as the phrase is currently used in linguistics? This concept is tied to culture and historical evolution, so you need to clarify exactly what the structures of Scriture are, so we can separate them from those of human languages. 2. When you say that the scientific laws of earth are controllable from heaven, how do you allow for the fact that humans have certainl powers today that would be considered miraculous in times past? Suppose it should prove that the Red Sea standing, or the sun standing still, was not control from heaven, but some manner of earth phenomenon? More importantly, if a human exercises miraculous power, and changes a natural law (as Elijah made rain, or someone moves a mountain, or curses a fig tree), does this change anything about that part of the relationships between the two planes?

hey ken good to see you,glad to see you respond. i was about to begin at the same point as paul,,,,,

let us begin with Zeus,whom we mortals never leave unspoken.
for every street,every market-place is full of Zeus.
even the sea and the harbor is full of his deity.
everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
for we are indeed his offspring.

as we know Paul quoted line 5 of this poem from arathas (acts 17;28),, Aratus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,,,,that is atatus did not agree with the common belief of the customs and gave this as an "pun",,,this is the teaching of Paul (theodus?,)as valentineus branched off into the gnostic teachings,that is they combined faiths by reason in that he confused the example given by Paul to mean that Zeus and god were the same,,,i could not blurt that out in the post where we discussed this for fear of confusing any one watching.

this so called science being so call is only arbitrary to any creature in the creation paying regard to it. that is the tree acknowledging the moon in it's orbit around the earth keeps track of it's day yet it seems only to acknowledge 12.381355 days in it's year,and each year divided into four watches. each watch saying to it grow,bear fruit,drop your leaves,rest each in their watch of time.

but again man whom lives on the same earth gathers in another rule,although the tree and such on the same planet follow one rule,the man another and the same. between the two that is the earth moving around the sun in 365 1/4 days. there is the day and the night,light and darkness but they are an arbitrary sum devised by man and though always changing,it repeated follows the confines dictated by the creator,that is from around the longest time light is shone on earth in what we call June,time progresses to it and then declines from it.

there is another clock,that is "a day is as a thousand years,and a thousand years a day",,,whether an man or a tree say it is this watch or not,i am not bound they,find they are.,,,,,17.5 thousandths per inch,(almost equal to),,,it makes no difference where we stand in the creation,nor what time,the measurement of it are in it's confines as to where it is or was in aspect to the movement of the creation in which the creation exist,it is an expression of the movement of it whether distance ot the amount of time accomplishing the existence of the creature.

here are two objects the moon and the earth. the moon's circle circumference is x,and the earths circle circumference is y,,,now the speed of these two are measured as in aspect to time. the moon is much smaller than the earth and the day is 29 1/2 or so days, in it's path around the sun. the earth in it's movement though accomplishes the same distance in 365 1/4 days.

the moon,it's amount of days per year though shorter travels the same distance around the sun in the same 365 day period as the earth. and the earth(larger) spins around and travels the same orbit as the moon.,,,now the moon travels "both" around the sun and it travels around the earth in the same 365 1/4 set period of time. that is the moon is both traveled the same distance in time as the earth and the sum of it's orbit around the earth,at the same time as it's measured that the earth has traveled(as measured) an year into time.

as it is written,,,,,"and there was time no more",,,this has a certain bound set upon it by the lord,,,i am in the midst of loving you,,,,,,

 

[oldhermit]

So the answer appears to be we agree on the definition of natural law vs. intervention by God. And we will be able to determine laws that are valid through the whole Bible. That is most encouraging.

We will talk more about the concept of "natural law" later. Here are some thoughts on the use of language as a tool for communication and conceptualization.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]GOD AND THE FINITE MIND

By Glen Rogers[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Language exists initially only in the mind. The tongue can only communicate what the mind is able to conceive. In order for one to communicate through the medium of language, one must first be able to attach language to an idea. For example, any time we think about a person or an object our mind automatically creates an image to correspond with that object as a frame of reference. This is simply how the mind works. When we talk to another person about our favorite car, our mind creates an image of that car. We are then able to connect language to that image and effectively communicate that image to the other person. If the other person has had somewhat similar experiences with cars, both parties have a common frame of reference as a foundation for communication. If, on the other hand, we attempt to talk about something with which we have no experience or familiarity we find we are unable to create an accurate image of that unfamiliar object in our mind. As a result, we are unable to connect language to the idea and effectively communicate the idea to someone else. One would not be able to explain the concept of a car to someone who has never seen a car or even knew that such a thing existed. The receiver would not have the language available to create that image in his mind and the communication process would quite naturally break down. The hearer receives the description as a string of words but is unable to formulate the concept of a car in his mind. We simply cannot comprehend or communicate accurately that which we have no language to describe.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]When we talk about God, our mind is unable to formulate an accurate image since we have no experience with God at the sensory level. We simply have no point of reference from which to envision God. Every individual, despite cultural or religious exposure, will envision God in their own mind according to his or her concept of God, which is invariably formed out of one’s exposure to various religious teachings and cultural experiences. We do this because our mind must have some frame of reference to which to connect language. Since we are unable to connect our senses to the unseen world, we connect what is unseen to the natural world. We can only create a mental image of God according to our own individual points of reference. Idolatry creates god in the image of things that are part of human experiences. This is precisely what Israel did when they came to Mt. Sinai. Moses had been their only visible iconic connection with the invisible God. When Moses disappeared for forty days, Israel decided to adopt a familiar image that they could corporately associate as God. What they did was create a familiar frame of reference. They created a god in the form of something with which they all had experience, the golden calf of Egypt. It seems that when visible representations are taken away, man will attempt to replace them in order to maintain some sense of connection with their idea of the unseen. In the Hebrew camp, there is a sense of abandonment and uncertainty. Since their only visible representation had disappeared, they replaced him with another. They turned to the natural world to create something they felt would give them a sense of continuity. Apart from a revelation from God about himself, man will always fall into some form of idolatry. The farther away man gets from revelation the more naturalistic and perverted his image of God will become, Deuteronomy 4:15-19.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]How we understand ourselves and interpret our interaction with the world is directly proportionate to our understanding of God and his involvement in the natural dimension. The reality of God and our perception of God will always be two different things. God will always transcend what man says that he is and man will never be able to grasp all that God says he is. The personality of God is not fully accessible based on the parameters of human language or reason. God never exists on the same plain as man. He always transcends the natural world and stands outside of man’s ability to rationalize. We cannot conceptualize God based on language that is formed out of the natural world. As a result, man is incapable of developing a language use that will allow him to formulate a legitimate understanding of God. The only language use upon which we can rely is a revealed grammar. God uses scripture to provide a linguistic link to the mind of man. Although scripture allows us to see God through the eyes of faith, we are still unable to understand fully all that scripture tells us about God. Since this is true, how will a representational study of scripture help us to develop a clearer understanding of God?

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]One barrier we must confront if we are to approach this study on the nature of God less encumbered must be that of our own intelligence. Since our intelligence is something that we routinely rely upon to help us understand certain things about the natural world, this will not be an easy thing to bring under control. Although it serves us well in this respect and fulfills a proper created function, it will not serve us well as a requisite for understanding God. To understand God, we must look beyond the limitations of human intelligence into revelation. Human intelligence operates from the platform of pragmatic experience. Faith, on the other hand, is grounded in things that are unseen and operates outside experiential parameters. While our intelligence has an assigned place in our connection with the universe, it must be rendered subordinate to the intelligence of God. God does not call us to intellectualism but to faith. If human intelligence were in any way sufficient to understand things of the non-natural world, what need would we have for revelation? [/FONT][FONT=Cambria, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Human intelligence that is unconditioned by revelation will always prove a hindrance to man’s understanding of God. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Therefore, we must bring the human intelligence factor under the control of the superior intelligence of the Creator. God will not prostrate himself to man’s image of who he believes God to be. If we are to develop a clearer understanding of God, it must be on God’s terms. ?[/FONT]

 

[kenisyes]

Yeah, I was a little afraid to bring up the higher level concept that we, as God's emissaries, actually determine the "laws" by what we choose to perceive. In PM, Hermit and I have agreed that for the theory to proceed, there must be three non-overlapping aspects to the continuum. I did mention a directed lattice was a better model mathematically, so such ideas could be integrated. Let's see what he does with this.

 

[oldhermit]

After we finish looking at the things is post #11 we will look briefly at the concept of incommensurables and then talk about [FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the nature of God and the incompatibility of human intelligence.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[kenisyes]

We simply have no point of reference from which to envision God. Every individual, despite cultural or religious exposure, will envision God in their own mind according to his or her concept of God, which is invariably formed out of one’s exposure to various religious teachings and cultural experiences.

How does this include mystical revelation? That is sometimes beyond cultural experience, concept of God, and winds up informing the mind. I would prefer a word such as "generally" be used here, rather than invariably. Or must we deny such experiences as real, in order to proceed?

 

[kenisyes]

After we finish looking at the things is post #11 we will look briefly at the concept of incommensurables and then talk about the nature of God and the incompatibility of human intelligence.

Which will include a specific definition of human "intelligence". That word has a nasty habit of getting used for lots of things, including revealed wisdom and prophetic inspiration.

 

[oldhermit]

How does this include mystical revelation? That is sometimes beyond cultural experience, concept of God, and winds up informing the mind. I would prefer a word such as "generally" be used here, rather than invariably. Or must we deny such experiences as real, in order to proceed?

How do you think scripture would address the idea of mystical revelation

 

[kenisyes]

How do you think scripture would address the idea of mystical revelation

I thought we were looking at the grammar of Scripture. That's another thread, as there is no simple answer. To me, the revelation is a given. If you do not accept it, then your theory is of use to me only to advise those who have had none.

 

[oldhermit]

I thought we were looking at the grammar of Scripture. That's another thread, as there is no simple answer. To me, the revelation is a given. If you do not accept it, then your theory is of use to me only to advise those who have had none.

There are two issues here. First, one must understand how scripture represents the concept of revelation, not how does man define the term. Second, is the goal of mysticism. This is at best a degenerate triad and at worse dyadic idolatry. There can be no synthesis between the two.

 

[kenisyes]

There are two issues here. First, one must understand how scripture represents the concept of revelation, not how does man define the term. Second, is the goal of mysticism. This is at best a degenerate triad and at worse dyadic idolatry. There can be no synthesis between the two.

Let's continue the presentation. I can work the triad into a lattice later.

 

[oldhermit]

Let's continue the presentation. I can work the triad into a lattice later.

Whatever helps you to grasp the concept.

Do you understand why mystic revelation can never be defended in scripture? If not, I can give you any number of biblical examples.