www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Melchisedec

hmmm...
<scratching head...>

and it all seemed to fit so well together ...too.

Yup.. I found that (Advent) begins the cycle.

wait <flipping pages> in the CCC article 1168, for the Roman Catholic...

Easter Triduum being Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter, I would paraphrased: beginning with Easter the resurrection fills the entire liturgical year (before Easter and after Easter).

where does that get me?? dunno.
That the liturgical year (before and after) takes it meaning from the Resurrection (ground zero?) but the Liturgical cycle does being with Advent.

OK... well that has got to be changed so that I can be entirely right (kidding)

we have pulled away a leg from the table but I think the table still stands. � That Paul envisioned time and history as divided by the Resurrection into two epochs. Both flowing from the Resurrection.

The history before - looking forward (being reflective of, prophetic of) the Resurrection - and the history after looking back at the Resurrection.

It is curious that in my brush with Mystical Theology (and this is confirmed by John of the Cross I believe) I have found to be true what a mystical director once told me� as regarding visions and things� those of the Old Testament speak of the coming event of the crucifixion and resurrection in a spiritual way (reflective, symbolic) � while those after (today), if genuine, will be reflective back to the crucifixion and resurrection (not that this is the only test of the genuine). Some of these things Mystical directors do not speak of, especially to the seer, so that the seer does not know enough to fake it.

As intriguing as this whole discussion is to me - I think it is time I leave it. It has not fully crystallized even though my intuition tells me something very special is there.

Yesterday, my mind was wandering to Jesus in the Garden and his words and how, he who was sinless, became cursed as if the most sinful man ever had been. My mind wandered to the 110th Pslam (�Adonia, Adonia, why have you forsaken me?� ) and the remainder of the psalm in which the speaker (Jesus) speaks of himself as having sinned (�I am a worm... and not a man...�) and I thought to myself...

How - strange. Jesus, who had longed for this task� who had said he longed for it and �How long must I be with you??� longing for the event which would return him to his father... and told them all about what must happen - yet! in the Garden he said �Let this cup pass from me.� and pleaded what we would have pleaded (spare me from facing this!). His human nature - was afraid!! just hours away from becoming the New Adam. And then came to my mind �And Adam heard God walking in the Garden - and he was afraid.� The tip of a grand mystery here for my meditation.

I thank you all for this discussion.

-ray

Dear Deacon John Montalvo:

here it is, 4AM and I can not sleep any longer. I was up at 3AM and found my mind still involved with these things. Half baked ideas that promise to be fully baked if left in the oven longer.

Let me jump into this one more time Deacon John, because like iron to magnet I am so drawn to it.

You have read several of my posts, over time, at this board and you know that I do not mind coming off half-baked at all. And I am sure that the few people who might be interested in what I say here, are very few indeed while 99.9% of others will disagree with me or just pass me over as uninteresting at all.

Here it is.

Years ago, I read this book, The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ by Professor Eugenio Corsini� and having some familiarity with the structure of early Semitic literature (coming from my background research of my own study of the allegorical interpretation of Genesis by many of the early fathers of the Church). To my pleasant surprise, Corsini found the exact same structure within Revelations, as I had found in the first four narrations of Genesis. That is, four narrations which are unfolding but at the same time each is a repetition of the one before it. In essence, four narrations which repeat the same thing treated under different symbols.

With the genius of Corsini, he very ably displayed much about the meaning of Revelations be referring back to Daniel and Ezekiel (the prophecies regarding the Son of Man). Without further explanation here - I was convinced that Corsini had nailed Revelations. It is a prophetic book which looks back on the historical event of the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It begins with the history of his coming (within Jewish history) and ends with his crucifixion and resurrection (the decent of the New Jerusalem. I dare say that a reasonable man like you would understand this book and agree with Corsini.

Revelations, (originally called in Greek the book of �Apostasies� - misspelled here bit meaning �the restoration of all things� .

Prophecy, as opposed to what the TV would have us believe, has little to do with predicting the future and everything to do with the treatment (in images) of the �deep things of God�. The display or understanding of the deep realities of God. We call them mysteries. It is a bit diffrent from 'revealed faith' and so items of prophecy will either alighn with revealed faith but not shape revealed faith or change revealed faith. A reflection of revealed faith but not revealed faith itself.

John�s book is a prophetic book. A book of prophecy. Not a treatment of something that will happen at some future date (in a geopolitical way) but a parting of the veil to reveal (in imagery tied to the Jewish mind and experience that was John�s) a peek into the Holy of Holies (reality as God sees it).

In any even, Johns book chronicles the coming of Jesus and culminates with the historical event of his crucifixion and resurrection in the fourth vision about the area in which the earth quakes happen. The fourth vision is the pouring out of the bowels (which bowels are the brazen bowels of the Temple used to pour out the sacrificial blood upon the ground in front of the Ark within the Holy of Holies).

In any event - John claims the vision is of �things to come� and goes on to describe - things that already took place (the historical crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ). A curious turn. In a way, �that which is to come� is but a reflection of the one pivotal event of all history (to God�s mind, the death and resurrection of his son).

Out habit is to see time and history in Darwin�s way: a mechanical march. But before the 17th century (the rise of this type of scientific view divorced from God and religion) people held a more experiential view. Let us for a moment, discard Darwin and Newton�

Let us look at the past and the future - within our minds� what do we experience??

Here is a comparison.

If we stood in the center of some great super long tunnel - we can clearly see the details of the tunnel where we stand. And if we look to the left (where the tunnel comes from) we can see well down it - but the further we look the less detail we can see - until - looking as far as we can (without moving from the spot on which we stand in the tunnel) our eyes begin to lose detail and as hard as we try (even though we know the tunnel has a beginning, an opening, everything is so small and blended together that our eyes are just not capable of seeing that opening which is surely there. Our vision is lost in the darkness of the recesses of the tunnel. If we turn and look to the rigt (the direction which the tunel is going to its end) we experience about the same thing. Of the tunnel walls and floor near us we can see well and see its details. The further down it we look, we begin to lose details - and when we try to see its end - our sight is lost into the dark recesses and we can not see its end, which surely has an opening end, we can not see it at all. The beginning and the end are beyond the capabilities of our vision.

So it seems to me is - history.

Where we stand in its tunnel, is very clear to us and we can look around and see all its details. It is the now - the present moment in which we live. As we look into its past (where it came from) the further we look down it the less details we can see untill - all site is lost in the darkness of its recesses. Although we think �surely it has a beginning� we can not really see - its beginning/ We can speculate on it - but our human ability has no real way of knowing it. So too with history into the future. We can look into the future with our minds, and know, near to us, what it shall be like. What next month will contain, what next year will be like - with some certainty� but the further we look, the less detail we see until all sight of our mind is lost in the dark recesses. We think �I know it has and end� but we really can not see it.

I believe this is similar to the view that Paul took when he divided time and history into the epoch before the Resurrection, and the epoch after the Resurrection. It is a very experiential view and not tainted by the later Darwin and Newton.

To John (and I believe to Paul also) the very end of history and time - was a reflection of the pivotal act of the crucifixion and Resurrection. To John, the Judgment at the end of time - is a judgment that reflects (takes its shape from and origin) its origin - which event was the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The �judgment of the world and all in it� took place upon Calvary. While we (trained to be of Darwin�s mind and the mechanical universe) read time and history from Adam, to Christ, to today and beyond into the future (left to right as it were) it is clear that for John and Paul the event of the Resurrection is the origin. The origin from which all time flows - as far as God is concerned.

For Paul all history before Jesus prefigured his coming and his Revelation as the Son of God (crucifixion and resurrection) and for John the same is true and further in that all history since post-figures that same event as its origin.

In the mystery of God - all judgment of the entire world fell upon Jesus Christ with his crucifixion and resurrection. We were judged, we were found wanting, and the consequences of that were laid upon Jesus Christ!

Do you see? Do you hear the echos of the early fathers?

It is very clear to me, through years of study of how many early father treated the images of Genesis, that at least the first four narrations are - a prophetic book. On the road to Emmaus - Jesus himself �beginning with Moses and all the prophets, Jesus explained how it is that they spoke of his crucifixion and resurrection.� (paraphrased of course).

The book of Moses. Genesis. The only one he himself wrote.

Much less a book of history - it is like John�s book - a book of prophecy. Jesus calls him (on the road to Emmaus) the prime prophet, the man (and book) which is the origin of all Jewish prophets.
Could it be to the �beginning of time� what John�s book is to �the end of time�??

If it is (what an intriguing thought!) than it is (just like John�s book) a reflection in prophetic imagery - of the event of - the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus - in the same way as John�s book is.

Wow.

We, who do not see things rightly, are concerned with a mechanical history of time - and God is not. God is concerned with the one pivotal event which is the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And now you know why the images of Genesis (keep in mind they have been my study for 30 years and they are as familiar to me as a second language) fascinate me right now as to reflecting the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

They begin in a garden.

Both the old Adam, and the New Adam - hear the voice of God in the garden and - are afraid. In the garden was the only time in Jesus� life - that he was afraid. What a mystery.

It is the woman (forever known as a symbol of �we the church�) who was beguiled by Satan and ate the fruit of the tree. And it is for our sins that Jesus became guilty and was judged as guilty.

She ate the apple (the symbol of sin) and gave it to the old Adam to eat. We have sinned and through the people present that day we gave that sin to Jesus - we put it upon him. We demanded he be crucified.

To eat the fruit of the tree is to be exiled from Eden. Jesus was crucified �upon a tree� (that is the Hebrew expression for crucifixion upon a cross) and crucified outside of the walls of Jerusalem, exiled in his crucifixion - outside of the city of God. Both the old Adam and the new Adam experience the �fruit of the tree� and that fruit is exile from God (�My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?�)

It seems to me right now, that very likely, according to God�s mind (and God�s mind - is reality) that the beginning of �time� is not 0 hours plus 1 minute 1 billion years ago on a planet with no humans yet and one celled microbes that would evolve into humans - but rather - the foundation of time was at the moment of Resurrection of the Son of God. All time, all history - looks to that one moment as its beginning and end.

OK.. With that - I shall try (yet again) to leave that whole thing alone - as drawn as I am, like iron to the magnet, to explore these parallels further.

Perhaps a meditation very fitting for this Lenton/Passion season.

(No one need agree nor disagree with me regarding this post - because I am not presenting anything as �true� but have merely been exploring / examining / wondering. Simply a meditation of imagination which is bound to be hard to read and misunderstood. But that has never stopped me before. ).

-ray

If RayK can do that (see above) at 4:00 in the morning, I can only wonder what he could do with a full night's rest and an good stiff cafe expresso.

To quote Johnny Carson, "I did not know that."

Now RayK, are you saying that the crucifixion is the "cheiron" or "appointed time?" (this is what I did not know)

And that all judgement comes in relation to that "appointed time" and for that reason the Church has always insisted that we, the Church, the Israel of God, crucified Christ? (I knew this part).

[Incidently folks, this is why the blood of Christ that "the Jews" (read the OT Church/Israel) called down upon themselves and their Children at the Crucifixion, is really upon us and our children, unfaithful lot that we are.]

In Christ,
Andrew

I am not sure what cherion means. I understand �appointed time� but that is difficult to answer right now because we are dealing with - time - as to say (and explore) that time (and therefore our concept of history) which we habitually think of in Darwin/Newton/science and a necessary mechanical way - is not the same concept of time that the doctrine of Providence sets forth.

The concept of Providence has it that at every present moment - God is entirely in charge of every moment of time - past and future also. It has no self-sufficiency of its own. He does not create as we do (by the way - we �make� make things out of other existing things). God alone creates.

We make something and we can set it down of the table and walk away and forget about it - and come back again and find it there. God, on the other hand, does not do it that way. If something were �out of his mind� then it has no existence and never was in the first place. No-thing and no-event has a self-subsistence of its own. What the past was or what the future will be - is all contingent upon God�s mind and will at this moment - and any moment.

This, does not jive with our own concept of time. One of us must be wrong and I do not think it is God.

And that statement is about as easy to understand for us, as algebra would be for a dog to understand. God has never explained the �how� of it - but God does explain the - why - of it. And THAT he has made understandable to us in a simple way within the doctrine of Providence.

Keep in mind that we, as his church - already say we believe in something that goes against all our concepts of time. The mystery of the Eucharist - which is a making-present-again of the crucifixion and resurrection that took place only once in time and history. The We are become present to it - as well as it to us.

Time is - what time is to God - and not what it seems to be to us.

In any event, I have already begun to write more for you and it is not short. But what I will do (in order not to prolong this thread) is send you a link to it when done. You can read it at my web site and that will spare anymore in this thread. I will send that link to anyone who send me a private message that they would like to read it.

It will take me some time to present and argument of how I think John and Paul (Ringo and George - sorry, I could not resist) see time and history. And then once I have given contect I should back that up with quotes from them - which (if all goes well) will become clear and tied together as having to had come from the premise I will present. Actually - the premise that they already presented but we did not take seriously as anything more than romantic, poetic, and metaphorical.

As almost always with me, it is tightly bound to the doctrine of Providence as explained by the doctor's of the Church and explained by Jean Pierre Caussade. If anyone get his book and practice it daily - they need not read my yakking.

-ray

Hello Andrew�

I needed some back-away time - some time to let these thoughts simmer - so here is now my reply.

Cherion - I am not familiar with that� is that Greek for �good thoughts�?? or something like that? The Greek name for the Centaurs (half man half god) constellation is Cherion or �The Pierced�. So I am not sure what you are using as a meaning for cherion or appointed time as I am not familiar with these in the sense of Eastern theology. I can only guess a bit.

I will tell you this, there is an obvious confusion of �time� in scriptures, on our part when we read. The �theology� present in scriptures often uses �beginning� or �first� in a foundational way and we often mistake that (due to our habits) in a time sequential way. Hence we have Creationalists (the literal interpretation of Genesis) and to the other extreme those who dismiss Genesis as compiled myths.

For example, Origin saw well the scriptural use of what he called �pre-existing� although he sometimes did confuse it - he had a pretty good idea of it. To understand the scriptural use one must take it off of the mindset of a time sequence. One must look �inside� rather than out there to the sense world. One must think of �what constituted this moment right now�. One must take a theological or philosophical view.

Think of it this way�.

At his moment right now - God �thinks� of you and so - you are. You, the real you, the essence of �you� - exists (now we are bending that word) within God�s mind. That is the real - you. The you that you are called to be by voluntary cooperation.

Now let us follow this procession of the creation of you as you spring from God�s thoughts into and existence �wrapped� about with mind and body.

The �you� that exists in God�s mind - we are thinking of it in a way that is not yet created spirit (psychological mind) nor yet body (soma or flesh).

This �you� we are speaking of is what modern philosophy calls �person�. We most often refer to it when speaking of it - as the �I� or �me� or the �real me inside�. Scriptures often refers to it as the �heart�. This is still evident in such sayings as �A man must be true to his heart.�

The next �step� of �you� into creation at this moment now: is the part of you that is created spirit (the mind). It is not bound by time or space (limits appropriate to the body). In as much as the person is not his thoughts and not his body (our two created natures) the person is un-created.

And the next step is body (sense and flesh).

So we humans are three layers (so to speak) which should work in concert (equity) and the �power� which binds them together in this working relationship is called soul. In-equity is the loss of this wholeness or proper balance of working together.

Only two of these �layers� are considered as created. Mind and body.
Person or the �I� - is uncreated spirit just as God is uncreated spirit.
Mind - created spirit or psychological mind
Soma - created physical body and its senses.

Our un-created nature of �person� is not the same nature as God nature. It is human nature.

The �first�, or beginning, or foundation, of us - is person.

Person is the cause of the spiritual mind and the cause of the body (flesh). To say it another way would be to say that the material body does not produce either the mind nor the �I� . The idea that life arose from a lighting strike in the mud is completely impossible according to all ranks of philosophy and theology That which is higher generates that will is lower - not the other way around. This is a evidence across all nature.

So, often when used in scripture, the beginning, the first, etc� has little to do with a time sequence but rather has to do with the act of creation as - a procession out of God into creation - at this moment now.

We tend to think of creation in a historical and time sequential way of the senses (thanks to modern science) - while scripture is often thinking of creation as a precession emanating out from God.

Simply put, that which exists is defined as that which we experience. That which we experience by our senses (body) and mind (psychology). If it is of a human experience of either mind or body - it has existence. And so this table here exists and so does math and whatever my thoughts can experience.

Because all senses of mind and body have their origin in - person - we can not perceive the �person� or the �I�� in the same way that the eye cannot see itself because it is the origin of sight. Because all faculties of mind and body come from a procession out of - person - things of mind and body are said to have created existence while the person itself (the I or Me) does not have created existence (it is not an experience to any of our senses of mind or body).

Neither the senses of our mind nor our body can be turned - onto - �person�.

So, in the theology of scriptures and philosophy, while the spirit of mind and our body are - created - they have existence - our �person� exists not in a created way but in a way of foundation - and pre-existence. Again, this is not to be taken in a time sequence way but in a foundational and generative way that has nothing to do with our senses of the body. Meta-physical (beyond or above the physical). Origin was condemned by people who could not make this difference and so mis-read him (which is not to say that Origin had it all down pat either).

So in as much as �person� is not an object of either the senses of our mind or body - our person has no created existence. It remains - uncreated in the same way that God is uncreated.

In this way, scripture often present this portion of us as pre-existing (not in way of time sequence but by way of the procession of creation as it proceeds out of God at any - this moment now).

Theology today calls this �essential union�. A union with God by way of his bring our essence (the �I�) into be-ing.

All one really need to do to grasp this in a simply and non-confused way - is to turn one�s �vision� inside. The body is our lowest nature, the thoughts and experience of mind are of a higher nature - and �deep� inside in the �darkness� is the �I� or �real me� which is the cause or origin of our thoughts and body.

The �first� or �beginning� and foundation of creation (in this processional view) is then - person. Mind and body are (in some way) a reflection of person - a reflection of further procession out into creation of created nature (that natures which can be experience by mind or body).

And didn�t we know that already?? It is really so simple.

In the processional view of creation, the death and crucifixion of Jesus Christ - is the foundation by which all creation proceeds from. Either that which cam before it (in time sequence) and that which comes after it.

In other words - that which takes place in time (sensate nature) is a reflection of its origin (where eternity enters time at the point of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ).

In this way, in scriptures, the beginning (Genesis) and the ending (John�s Revelation) are mirrors of the their origin (the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ). Which, I find to be true. In a surprising way.

Our problem with reading scriptures has always been that we try very hard to fix scriptures into our present mindset (culturally formed) instead of assuming that there is something wrong with our current mindset. And it is up to us to discover and adopt what mindset of the author of scripture was using.

We must ask which has the primary value to us? The form and generation of matter? Or the meaning of creation as used by God to form us into the image of himself? And that answer will tell us how to read scriptures.

So I can sit her and say that to my research, John, Paul, Jesus and Moses� were all using the processional view of creation which I outlined above� and I can point out many history books and writings of theologians and such to back this up (that they used a processional view)� but it is such an un-habitual concept to our usual view of creation as a time sequence of events (as totally experience by the senses) that I will be dismissed quickly and seem to be a fanatic.

Obviously, Darwin saw something and there is something to evolution - but in a limited and local way. To expand that theory into a rule covering all creation - is not only unjustified by evidence - but a great dis-service to theology and all philosophy. There is simply no call to expand Darwin beyond a limited and local setting. Darwin mistook the evolution within species - for an evolution of species. In a desire for taking a shot at fame he guessed, he leaped from evidence, and hoped it was right.

Time - and space - is a product of - procession - in as much as they are bound to sense expereince. As such, it seems very reasonable to me that the Judgment of the world (a world view of fate and destiny and that the world is mechanical by rules that even God must follow) the judgment of this view as false has already taken place within the event of the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. While our own personal knowledge and experience of that Judgment will come to us either within the Spiritual Union (in this life) or after our death (when we are no longer veiled from reality by our attachment and obsession and almost total belief in our senses of animal nature).

When we do come face to face with reality - I assure you that we will not be kneeling before Darwin and Isaac Newton.

Yet, while still in the body, we must pay attention to and use the bodies concepts of time for our daily life.

It is not a hard concept to grasp. What is hard is to de-throne the other more habitual concepts that we try to bend scriptures to fit into.

- ray

I've read the first two pages here. RayK had several good points on page two.
My guess is that Melchisedek is someone Abraham picked up upon in a vision when he saw how stupid idol worship was. I think I understand this mystery, but too many may disagree with me. In short there are simularitys between king Melchisedek and the kingdom of Christ.

With God past present and future are all like a single object. (Like a man and a yo-yo toy) This is my opinion.

I have never heard it put like that before but hold onto that because you got something there. Time - is not a restriction to God.

-ray