The Lamb Risen from the Foundation of the World

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum. Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri: per quem omnia facta sunt. … Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato; passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in cælum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things are made. … he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of AD 381

The Lamb is begotten of the Father before all worlds. Then from the foundation of our world is he slain – and, as a necessary forecondition of that sacrifice, is he first incarnate from the foundation of the world (for, what is not already mortal cannot be slain) – and so risen to the right hand of the Father from the foundation of the world. The whole story of Jesus happens from the foundation of the world.

Well, but then that means that Pilate too does what he does in that story from the foundation of the world, no? So do Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, the Romans and Jews, aye and the mosquito resting for a moment on the bark of a sequoia in California in AD 33 as Jesus slept in his tomb.

It *all* happens from the foundation of the world. Everything. Including this moment of your life. Thus must be so; for, worlds are integrities. They cohere. You can’t change a jot of a world without getting a different world than you had before you effected the change. Subtract Jesus from the history of the cosmos and you’d have a different cosmos than the one we have. Ditto for that mosquito, and for the sequoia. And for that itch you felt a moment ago. To constitute a world, it must all agree and hang together perfectly, from one end to the other – not just in space, but in time. Not one item of the thing is dispensable; not one sparrow, not one hair of your head. Everything matters; everything counts; the whole of it depends wholly upon each bit of it.

The whole of the history of our cosmos then happens from the foundation thereof.

We must remember that “before all worlds” cannot mean “earlier in time.” For, time began with the beginning of our cosmos. There can be no time of our cosmos, no sequential order of events, that happened before the time of our cosmos began. “Before” must then mean “prior in the order of logic; of the Lógos; of the order of the cosmos.” OK, that’s pretty easy: the Lógos is the forecondition of any world conditioned thereby, so is he the forecondition and foundation and basis of all times, their Alpha and their Omega both; and so, likewise, of time per se: without him is not anything made that is made.

“From the foundation of the world” then means, not that all the things that have happened and will happen in our world were determined before they happened, but rather that they must all cohere and agree perfectly from beginning to end if there is to be such a thing as our world in the first place.

This is amazingly tricky to understand, but once you get it, it seems quite obvious. That’s the way it is with everything that is so normal to us that we don’t notice it, at all. I understood it only a few days ago. Quoting from my Journal entry of the 2nd April, edited a bit for clarity (you do not want to try to cope with the metaphysical shorthand I employ in writing to myself):

The cosmos had to be set up ab initio so as to accommodate this present moment. If things were not so set up at the incipience of a given occasion as to enable it to reach its fully definite realization in such a way as to fit its entire past immaculately, and what is far more to fit with all other contemporaneous occasions, of which in its process of becoming it had to have been entirely ignorant (for, like it, they were not yet as they all together eventuated yet actual, or therefore definite), and so by a straightforward extension with the pasts of all other contemporaneous occasions, why then it could not reach that final fully definite realization of its being. It could not become. Without that immaculate mutual fit of all things, there would in the world proceeding from its past and generating new occasions be no room, no ontological niche, fitted to that occasion. It would disagree somehow with its world: with its predecessors, or with its contemporaries. That would prevent assembly of its world; and so, would prevent its world altogether; indeed, would prevent all occasion, all eventuation.

It is likewise with respect to all future moments. Each present moment must be fitted immaculately to all future moments. The cosmos must be coherent from beginning to end, and not just from one spatial bound to the other.

And the order – the Lógos – of that coherence must be ontologically prior (but not temporally prior) to each occasion of the whole cosmos – and, so to all of them together. If they are to eventuate at all, the whole and all her parts must supervene their Lógos.

Then Omniscient Providence is a forecondition of that complete coherence of the entire extensive continuum.

The whole shooting match happens all at once because he knows all at once that it does.

Christ is risen (note the present tense: the statement, uttered in the present tense, would have been equally true in 2000 BC). Were it otherwise, we would not be here. We are here. So, he is alive, and with us. Aslan is on the move; spring is here. We cannot therefore lose: if God be for us, who can be against us? Deo gracias.

A Happy Easter to you all. Remember, in the coming months, the coming years and yes the decades, when the demons who war always and especially upon such as we – upon such as would be true, righteous, holy, courageous, good (what fiendish knave could want otherwise, forsooth?) – threaten now and then to discourage you, and tempt you to despair: Christ is risen. He is risen from the very foundation of the world. His resurrection is the first reason of the world to begin with (for, it enabled our own). Nothing then – nothing at all – can possibly prevent his total victory.

He’s God, right? I mean, really. How you gonna fight him? What foolishness would want to fight him in the first place, who is all the good there is?

Rejoice, then! And, relax. Join yourself with his angelic Sabaoth. Gird yourself, and make ready to forge into the fray, cheerfully. Recall that when the angels make war upon the demons, they dance. They dance, and sing, and play upon their trumpets of doom. That’s how they bring down the Gates of Hell. Join with them. It’s a beautiful thing, in spite of all the death.

The alternative is after all pretty ugly. I mean, really: look at the photos of our mundane adversaries. Am I right? The beautiful among them are oily, false, sick and unhappy beneath the façade. As for the rest … ugh.

Remember: the thing that made the Christians the most lethal of all was that they had not at bottom any fear of death; because they knew they were members of the Lógos. It’s an impermeable phalanx, so long as we keep up each our own shield, and do not falter. Remember. Onward then, brothers. Deus vult!

Happy Easter. Get on with it now. Don’t forget to kiss the kids. Don’t forget to explain all this to the lads and lasses. Don’t be disappointed if they don’t seem to get it at first. They’ll get it eventually. Just keep on.

22 thoughts on “The Lamb Risen from the Foundation of the World

  1. The idea of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world diminishes the cross, as saying he is risen from the foundation of the world diminishes the resurrrection. But then again so does monotheism because with only one God who is all powerful, rising from the dead is a given and not at all impressive. How could the bejng with all power in the universe, the sole God, not rise? Its a foregone conclusion, i.e. its from the foundation of the world, and hence essentially meaningless. But in an oppositional dithistic system like Marcionism then the resurrection is impressive for it is impressive that the Better God can enter the world of the crappier god and not be held down in death by him but arise; that the alien God defeats the god of this world that created this crap world, and defeats him despite home court advantage, and forces him into a peace treaty whereby He can save all souls that will believe in Him, that is actually impressive. It takes a Jewish or Judaized mind to be impressed by fatalism like “it had to be so from the foundation of the world.” Jew Calvin, Jew Augustine, Jew fatalist circle jerk. Such is Catholic Christianity; Marcionism is clearly the truth. Jesus brought his flesh down from heaven as he says when he devalues the OT story of the bread from heaven in John 6 saying “I am the bread from heaven, not like the one your fathers ate and still died, for he who eats of me shall not die. I am the bread which came down from heaven, and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh”=”I brought my flesh down from heaven, no birth” as also in “Of all those born of women none is greater than John the Baptist” and “Who is my mother? Those who do the will of God.” It is also more impressive for the alien God to bring down his body from heaven to his opponent’s world, than for a monotheistic all there is God to affect a virgin birth.

    • I doubt there is hope that any arguments I might offer would convince you, but I shall respond for the benefit of our readers.

      The idea of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world diminishes the cross, as saying he is risen from the foundation of the world diminishes the resurrection.

      Why? How? That temporal events transpire in eternity does not diminish them. On the contrary; it means that temporal events partake the life of God, to some degree, as arising first in and from him.

      … with only one God who is all powerful, rising from the dead is a given and not at all impressive. How could the being with all power in the universe, the sole God, not rise? It’s a foregone conclusion, i.e., it’s from the foundation of the world, and hence essentially meaningless.

      The point of the resurrection was not to demonstrate that God is stronger than death – that is, indeed, a foregone conclusion, entailed by the definition of God as Ultimate, and so never stood in need of demonstration – but rather to demonstrate that, in communion with God, *man* can surmount death.

      But in an oppositional ditheistic system like Marcionism then the resurrection is impressive for it is impressive that the Better God can enter the world of the crappier god and not be held down in death by him but arise …

      How is it impressive that the better stronger god can defeat the weaker worse god? Would we be impressed with Mike Tyson because he beat up a little girl?

      But then, so what? God is not in Christ trying to burnish his reputation among men. He doesn’t need us to love him. He is *saving* us, because *he loves us.*

      It takes a Jewish or Judaized mind to be impressed by fatalism like “it had to be so from the foundation of the world.”

      LOL! The criticism we usually hear around these orthodox parts is that the notion of God as Ultimate is clearly *not* a Jewish idea, but rather a pagan Greek pollution of the original pure primitive Xian doctrine. The Creed is rejected, not because it is so Hebrew, but because it is so Greek.

      Also, there is no fatalism in orthodox doctrine. Fatalism *really is* a primitive pagan Greek idea. If you think Christianity is fatalistic, you are not thinking of Christianity, but rather a caricature thereof.

      Jew Calvin, Jew Augustine, Jew fatalist circle jerk. Such is Catholic Christianity …

      Jew Paul, Jew John, Jew Peter, Jew James, Jew Jude, Jew Jesus, Jew Matthew, Jew John Baptist … such is Catholic Christianity.

      I wonder what Calvin would think of being characterized as Catholic …

      It is also more impressive for the alien God to bring down his body from heaven to his opponent’s world, than for a monotheistic all there is God to affect a virgin birth.

      Why? Why is an avatar more impressive than a hypostatic union of human and divine natures? The latter is clearly more difficult; we can’t even comprehend it, whereas a space alien landing on Earth from Asgard is easy to imagine. Marcionism is heretical because it tends toward that latter sort of incoherent pagan polytheistic nonsense; towards cargo cult “religion.” It contravenes the First Commandment of the Decalogue, which is the primary premise of the entire Bible.

      But in any case: impressive? Salvation is not a personality contest. It is your means of rescue from unquenchable fire.

      Finally: if Jesus was not born of Mary, where did all his contemporaries get the idea that she is his mother?

      • “Alien God” doesn’t mean space alien or technology. It means a God who didn’t create this world, who is “alien” to its system.

        As to rhe hypostatic union, it seems like adoptionists who were slightly less heretical than Cerinthus, who believed Jesus was born a mwre man and then Christ entered him, but who unlike Cwrinthus didn’t want any possibility of Christ leaving himnon the cross, invented the hypostatic union to make the merger permanent so Christ couldn’t leave him before “my God my God why hast thou forsaken me.” With either a virgin birth or Christ creating his own body there woild be only one pwrson and so no need for two persons to mwrge; hypostatic union requires an adoptionist position that Jesus and Christ are separate persons and theg mwrged at the baptism by John.

      • Jesus is the name of a man. Christ is the name of an office – of priest, prophet or king (the Messiah is all three, as was David; and, each of the three partakes the others) – and of the condition thereof: namely, of being anointed. Jesus and Christ then are not two persons, but a man and his office.

        The hypostatic union is not of two persons – one divine and one human – under the appearance of one human body – “appearance” because Marcion did not believe Jesus was a natural human body, and eliminated all the birth and genealogy passages from his bowdlerization of the New Testament, saying only that Jesus somehow appeared at Capernaum. The hypostatic union is the union of two natures – divine and human – in the person of the Lógos animating the concrete and natural human body of Jesus.

        Adoptionism didn’t get started until the late 700s, in Spain. The hypostatic union had been defined as orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Adoptionism does not require the union of two persons, one divine and one human. So, it has nothing to do with the hypostatic union.

        I get that Marcionism does not suppose that Jesus came to Earth from some other planet in our cosmos. But Marcion does suppose that Jesus appeared on Earth from some other cosmos, rather than having been generated within and by our own; which amounts to the same sort of thing. Namely, that Jesus is not really a man, but an alien of some sort. I.e., not the second Adam, not the Son of Man, not of Jacob’s stem nor of the root of Jesse nor of David’s line, not the King of Israel, not the Son of Mary, *not a human being in any way at all, other than by a deceptive illusion.* So, he didn’t really bleed, didn’t really suffer, didn’t really die, didn’t really sacrifice for us … *and didn’t really rise from the dead* (because, not being human like us, he never really died in the first place).

        All that blood and guts stuff was just too messy and undignified for Marcion to tolerate. He could not abide the idea that in Jesus, God pooped (e.g.), really and truly. Unfortunately for the future of his sect, his silly notion utterly empties the entire gospel story of its salience to us, and renders it a fantasy novel that *didn’t really happen to a real human being,* and so *cannot make a difference.* His fundamentally Gnostic notion of God as too pure and high to truly take on flesh turns out to be a small notion of God; it turns out, in other words, to be a notion of God that falls far short of the only one that can truly suffice as the form of the object of our ultimate worship, and so of our Lord: i.e., that than which no greater can be conceived.

        The Marcionite God is not big or powerful enough to take on humanity in the hypostatic union. The Christian God can do it, no problem. Which is greater? Which is holier? The dainty god who can be sullied by flesh that sweats and hungers and hurts and bleeds and poops, or the God who can take all our bloody guts and effluential procedures and *turn them – turn us – into the stuff of godhood*?

        The notion that God could transfigure pooping animals such as we into gods (who as resurrected will eat, and so poop) is not so outrageous when we consider that God made pooping animals in the first place, and found them good. The foolish Gnostic heresy wants to overlook that, and say that some already polluted sub-god created us dirty disgusting poopers, and not the Most High God. To see how foolish this idea really is, think of how you would feel if your baby stopped pooping. You’d be terrified, right? Rightly so. Or think of how it would be for you if you were suddenly totally stopped up. Torture, right? For animals like us, pooping is as needful as breathing. It is more important – as more basic – than thinking.

        The Christian God is not troubled by any of this. Marcion’s god can’t handle it. He is less competent than the meanest parent, or farmer. He is less competent than the infant who needs to squeeze off a round, and does so healthfully, without qualm, and indeed purely, and happily. He is a putz.

  2. This is the same as saying its all just a play, or worse a video game written to play itself and everyone are mere NPCs. I’d rather reject thr canonicity of any book giving a “it was all done from the foundation of the world” hot take than accept such tripe. And the cryptic obscuring Book of “Revelation” did have a hard time becoming canon in the East, did it not? That didn’t even finally happen until recently when a patriarch bowed to the pope and accepted Augustine as a saint and “Revelation” as canon as a compromise to get some seat at the ecumenism table, or am I wrong?

    • This is the same as saying it’s all just a play, or worse a video game written to play itself …

      Not quite, although I can see how you would gain that impression. I understand and share your aversion to the notion that we are all no more than non-player characters in a script written long ago. Fortunately, that’s not orthodox doctrine. On the latter, the history of the cosmos is indeed a drama, but from that fact it does not follow that the drama is not really happening, or that the acts of the characters are not really theirs. And there is no script; it is an improvisation. Finally, from the fact that Omniscience knows from before all worlds where the improvisation is going it does not follow that the improvisers do not really go there.

      Revelation was declared canonical scripture by the Synod of Hippo (393) and the Council of Carthage (397). The Orthodox Churches have not questioned its canonicity. However, the Peshitta used by the Churches of the East omitted Revelation – and 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude – until AD 616.

    • Saint Augustine is a saint in our confession, as is every saint canonized before the schism. The Orthodox church does not un-canonize a saint because we disagree with their theology.

      • Aye. Furthermore, both lungs of the Church agree that perfection of theology is not a necessary condition of sainthood; that saints can err theologically, and still be saints. Nobody suggests that any of the great doctors of the Church were exactly correct about everything.

  3. This is beautiful, Kristor. Thank you for sharing it with your readers! I should probably resist the temptation to say what I am about to say, but I am not going to in this case.

    The comments of a certain reader above strike me as of the kind, or, as having proceeded from the same spirit, that we sometimes read stating that e.g. ‘Columbus didn’t discover the New World, you dimwit. Oh, and by the way, he was a horrible navigator, so there.’ Of course such persons are generally a lot more “wordy” in their diatribes (as above) than I have given it in my summation, but that is just because they have forgotten the old adage declaring that “less is more” in certain cases of the kind. And, of course, examples of the kind could be multiplied by the thousands. Nay, by the tens of thousands. As you well know. But anyway,

    Thanks again, sir. I’m sending this out to all of my friends and relatives.

  4. All that blood and guts stuff was just too messy and undignified for Marcion to tolerate.

    My colleague at work is a Muslim who immigrated from Afghanistan. I ask her sometimes about the doctrines of Islam and what she knows or thinks of Christian doctrines. This is precisely the belief of Muslims about Jesus: That Jesus and Judas switched bodies before the Crucifixion, because it would be unjust for a prophet to be killed in such a way. Or as you so eloquently put it–all that blood and guts stuff was too messy and undignified. Learning that was fascinating to me and I am not surprised to see it popping up in a Christian heresy, too.

    When people are confronted with the abject horror and violence of the Crucifixion, they can respond as Peter did or as Judas did: Repentance, or despair, respectively. Our reaction says more about us than it says about Christ.

    Happy Easter, Kristor! Thank you as always for the wonderful work you do here!

    • Happy Easter, Scoot! And, thanks for all the work you do at the Times-Dispatch.

      CS Lewis makes the point – I think in Mere Christianity – that all the other religions are easier to take on board than Christianity; that Christianity is the messiest most difficult religion. But he then goes on to point out that *reality* is messy and difficult.

    • [I have edited the original text of Vlad’s comment in an attempt to make it more intelligible. Grammatical and syntactical corrections – of which there are many – are not indicated; substitutions or rearrangements of text are bracketed. KL]

      That seems to confuse two heresies. One is the gnostic gospel of Judas in which Judas is the only disciple [to whom Jesus gives the whole truth]. The other is that when Simon of Cyrene carries the cross for Jesus, Jesus makes himself look like Simon and Simon like himself. This heresy’s concern is with the impossibility of the divine being crucified.

      Omniscience is problematic with free will but solved with some hand waving omnipotence. [I’d have been willing to] go along with that. But one can’t escape that Jesus’ theology is in contradiction with creation. It’s anti-reason and radical leftism. Its alleged Judaic prophetic support is an insanely convoluted nonsensical can of worms.

      No doubt for a long time Christianity was good for the goys. It hasn’t been for a couple hundred years at least. At least not broadly. I had a good experience in 60s Catholicism and am better for it. I know many snake handlers who also are better for [that] in many ways. But it prevents them from thinking clearly or taking responsibility for the world because [God has] a perfect plan. And God always wins.

      God [as] creator and Jesus are two different questions. I can easily know Jesus is not God as easily as I can know none of the world’s sacred texts are God’s dictation. Sure, we can pick out some bits of wisdom, but most of it is stark raving nonsense. Every gospel book contradicts the rest; all contradict the Judaic. The Judaic too is all over the place. Utter nonsense.

      [Yet] there seems to be a universe, which begs the question, whence comes it?

      I see three possibilities, if it exists, which I for [one] think true.

      1. It sprang from nothing.

      This seems impossible. The nothing would have to be [absolute so as not to] be simply an earlier universe of [sorts, and as absolutely nothing] it could not cause anything [to] come into being.

      2. It has always existed.

      In a sense this is surely true since time only came into existence with the universe.

      Nevertheless while admittedly a smoothie unable to grok this level, I think this too dodges the question. Non smoothies put a date on the Big Bang: unlike the end of time or edge of universe, the beginning is finite apparently. This kinda imposes [a] pre-time time, no? The universe wasn’t always 13.4 billion years old.

      3. However there’s another way of arguing the universe has always been eternal. It’s a theory I have, and might be held by others who actually understand these things a bit better. The Big Bang could be [our] side of a black hole [in some other cosmos]. A cosmic soup boiling away collapsing into and out of itself eternally.

      But none of these satisfies our human understanding bias. It can’t not exist it can’t have sprung from absolute nothing it can’t always have existed. So God must have created it!

      I admit my human brain thinks this is more [plausible] than the others. After all God is (wave hands) omnipotent! So impossibility not impossible for [the] big guy. Back to sleep. Not only do I think – or rather, feel – this [is] more [plausible,] I’d like it to be true: who doesn’t want that perfect dad in the sky?

      But my Vulcan half realizes all I’ve done is transfer these seeming impossibilities of matter needing to be eternal or spontaneously self-creating or not actually here at all. None of those things goes away with God the creator they just get transferred to him.

      Nevertheless I admit it’s not actually any less possible. But if true, [creation] is the only thing that can tell us about God. Well it can, unless one thinks God is a cruel trickster that builds matter and life by laws that contradict reality. Laws which develop reason to discern reality and its principles. I can’t prove it but I can say both creation’s matter and life [complement] each other: life stretches toward reason and matter acts reasonably.

      I say God is speaking to us through creation. Creation says do not turn the other cheek, it says, try to eat your neighbor as he would eat you that you might honor the gift of life and carry it forward by any means possible. You needn’t hate your neighbor; he’s delicious after all, we are both part of the only possible way life continues. We may fail to eat our neighbor and feed him instead. The important thing is our love of God’s gift of life, our willingness to try as hard as we can to carry our specific genes into the future. We may or may not have the lottery genes but unless we try as hard as we can by any means necessary, life cannot go on. Christians do not do this; they are dysgenic. Judaism may be a Satan worshipping shitstorm of fucked up [monotheist] thinking theologically but they certainly understood culturally that Jesus was a morbid threat to the continuation of Jewish genes and they took him out. And have been [trying] ever since to take us out.

      • Vlad, thanks for a wide ranging comment. It is clear that you take all this stuff quite seriously, and have thought about it a fair bit. That’s appropriate; these are important topics.

        I recommend however that before you critique scripture, you do some reading in Biblical theology. It helps the modern reader begin to understand Biblical and Patristic texts the way that their authors intended. Books by John Bergsma, Scott Hahn, Michael Heiser, Margaret Barker, Brant Pitrie, Lydia McGrew, and Matthieu Pageau have all been helpful. All of them write for popular audiences (as well as for Biblical scholars). They help by explaining what the symbols of the typological language of the Bible mean, and how that language – and its way of thinking – work.

        To translate the typological thought of the ancient Near East into Western terms – the basic terms of our civilization – you’ll need to get help from some of the intermediate authors. Read Augustine, Anselm, Boethius, and of course Aquinas. Then, to translate the terms they employ, of their medieval, classical metaphysics and anthropology, into terms amenable to us moderns, I recommend Ed Feser and Wolfgang Smith.

        Reading either the ancient Near Eastern writers (including the Fathers) or their medieval heirs by interpreting the terms they use under their modern connotations will end in radical confusion. You won’t be able to understand what you are reading; so it will seem like nonsense to you.

        It helps also of course in approaching Christianity to gain a solid understanding of the basic doctrines of the Church. Most critics of the faith don’t know much about it; they’ve learned lots of what they think they know about it from having read other such critics. The scale and pervasion of ignorance of what the Church actually teaches is staggering. Most critiques of Christianity are aimed at notions the Church rejected from the beginning, or has never even contemplated. Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis, is the classic primer for that study. Chesterton’s Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy are also first rate.

        I recommend also that, if you want to make yourself understood, so as to have some rhetorical effect, you would do well to write more carefully and slowly, paying attention to grammar and sentence construction. It was hard for me to make sense of your comment, and in editing it I found I often had to guess at your intended meaning. I hope I guessed well and accurately.

        That seems to confuse two heresies.

        *What* seems to confuse two heresies?

        Jesus’ theology is in contradiction with creation. It’s anti-reason and radical leftism.

        You cannot say this and also understand the theology of Jesus. Leftism was not a concept back in the 1st Century; people thought in terms of Left versus Right back then just as much as they thought in terms of relativistic physics: not at all. Reading Leftism into Jesus is radical anachronism, resulting in confusion and nonsense.

        Likewise, to characterize Jesus as anti-reason is to misunderstand the sort of reasoning he was doing. He wasn’t trying to do philosophy or natural history as we understand them today. That does not mean he was anti-reason.

        Indeed, Jesus was doing metaphilosophy; was doing the foundation of philosophy, the truth that the project of philosophy supervenes and presupposes. Philosophy tries to clear the ground and make for us straight the way of what he was doing. Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology; theology is the pale abstract image of what Jesus was doing.

        [The] alleged Judaic prophetic support [of the theology of Jesus] is an insanely convoluted nonsensical can of worms.

        Again, a deeper understanding of the religious heritage and circumstances of Jesus will wipe this notion from your mind. The arguments seem like nonsense to you because you don’t understand them, or the terms in which they are couched. To criticize a German poet, you’d need a pretty good understanding of German, right? To criticize an interpretation of quantum mechanics, you’d need a pretty good familiarity with quantum mechanics, right? It’s the same with the jargon of any realm of discourse. Biblical exegesis is no different.

        [Christianity] prevents them from thinking clearly or taking responsibility for the world because [God has] a perfect plan. And God always wins.

        God effects the inevitable success of his perfect plan *by means of* the clear thought and responsible, righteous acts of his servants. The Western tradition of clear thought and righteous action *just is* the Christian tradition of Christendom. Christian belief is not moral permission to intellectual or ethical sloth. It is just the opposite. Sloth of any sort is one of the 7 deadly sins. You’ve got it perfectly bass ackward with this notion of yours.

        Every gospel book contradicts the rest; all contradict the Judaic.

        All those supposed contradictions vanish in the light of Biblical scholarship. Indeed, the agreement of the scriptural texts is far deeper than even most scholars suspect. To get a taste of it, try Hidden in Plain View, by Lydia McGrew. It’s fascinating stuff.

        … unlike the end of time or edge of universe, the beginning is finite apparently. This kinda imposes [a] pre-time time, no?

        It does not. That time began does not mean that it began in time. Time began with the beginning of the cosmos.

        One way to comprehend this (insofar as that is possible) is to remember that the entire present spatial extent of our cosmos *is still within the bound of the initial singularity.* From any perspective within the singularity, it is vast; but all that vastness *is within the singularity.* The same goes then for its temporal extent. From any perspective within the singularity right now, it is 13.4 billion years old; but that entire temporal extent is within the singularity.

        The Big Bang could be [our] side of a black hole [in some other cosmos]. A cosmic soup boiling away collapsing into and out of itself eternally.

        Or, there may be a hypercosmos, within which our own transpires as a singularity. Either way, even an infinite stack of nested cosmoi that had always existed would need an exogenous cause, because cosmoi are by definition contingent: they are not necessary, but might happen in some other way than they do. What is not necessary must be brought to pass, ergo etc.

        One interesting corollary of this consideration is that free agency per se must arise first exogenously to the cosmos in which, having achieved complete actuality, it eventuates and is located. Acts 17:28.

        So impossibility not impossible for [the] big guy.

        On the contrary: God cannot do what it is impossible to do in principle. He cannot, i.e., create a square circle; cannot enact a contradiction in terms. Contradictions cannot be conceived coherently; so, they certainly cannot be enacted, by any being.

        … all I’ve done is transfer these seeming impossibilities of matter needing to be eternal or spontaneously self-creating or not actually here at all. None of those things goes away with God the creator, they just get transferred to him.

        This would be true if God were contingent. But he isn’t.

        Creation says do not turn the other cheek, it says, try to eat your neighbor as he would eat you that you might honor the gift of life and carry it forward by any means possible.

        Not so, actually. It is a truth of game theory that cooperation is more stable and prosperous than the Hobbesian war of all against all. Robert Axelrod has demonstrated that this is so. And the world manifests this game theoretical truth at every turn (as it must; for, each actual must agree entirely with all the necessary truths). Viz., the cell, and by extension any other social organism. In the world of total mutual antagonism you posit, no such organism could be possible.

        Judaism may be a Satan worshipping shitstorm of fucked up [monotheist] thinking theologically but they certainly understood culturally that Jesus was a morbid threat to the continuation of Jewish genes and they took him out.

        Jesus was not a threat to the tribes of Israel, but to the cults of the Pharisees and Sadducees – which the Essene core of the early Church considered apostate (and, therefore, as apostate, so a cultic and thus genetic threat to the tribes of Israel). The vast majority of the earliest waves of conversion to the Christian sect of Israelite religion were Hebrews of Palestine and of the Diaspora (the Hellene God-fearers – who had worshipped Yahweh, albeit not as Hebrews – were the rest). So, the Church was an important factor in the preservation of Hebrew genes all over the Roman and Persian empires.

        PS: A word about ancient and medieval language, and the confusion that results when we interpret their terms under our modern connotations: “Love thy neighbour as thyself” does not mean “feel all mushy and affectionate toward your neighbour.” Nor does it mean, “Have the same opinion or regard of your neighbour as you do for yourself.” It means, “Intend the same sorts of good for your neighbour that you intend for yourself.” It is just a restatement of the Golden Rule.

        So, if you want your neighbour to want to devour you, by all means go ahead and intend to devour him. Have the courage of your convictions, and try to kill the guy, and then eat him. He’ll reciprocate; or no, he’ll just destroy you the way he would a rabid raccoon. Sadly – he would rather have left you to your own devices, to work out the beauty of your life as best you might, unmolested, for that is what he first wants for himself – but dutifully.

        Defection just does not work. Or in other words, crime does not pay. This is not difficult. If you want society – which is to say, humanity, indeed organism as such, and so ecology, in which there can operate such things as predators or prey (or symbiotes) – you need, not pervasive defection, but prevalent profection.

        So, here’s a bet. I bet that, despite your brave avowed moral nihilism, you don’t actually go around devouring your neighbours, or intending to do so, or wanting to do so. I bet that in practice that idea never even occurs to you. I bet that instead you generally try your best to get along with pretty much everyone you meet. I bet, in other words, that in practice you are an incipient Christian. Which is to say, only, that you are a passable start at being a successful human.

        If I’m right – which, of course, I am (for, after all, here you are at the Orthosphere, doing your best to profect by gesturing in the direction of linguistic cooperation with us) – then all your brave avowed moral nihilism is just talk. It’s a specious show. If you had ever really tried to carry it into action, you’d already be dead: wiped out by those who disagree with you, and want the best for each other.

        The really interesting thing about all that moral nihilism is that it supervenes what it says that it contravenes. It can proceed only on the basis of a general moral realism. You can’t talk about defection from an order that is not there to be defected in the first place. Interesting.

        PPS: Dude, get back to Church. If it was good for you in the 60s, it will be good for you in the 20s. But look for a trad parish, that will be harsh and hard, rigorous and difficult. Otherwise you might as well just spend your time on porn and fast food.

        It doesn’t matter that you do not now understand anything that the Church teaches, or find it credible. Just go. Do not for a moment believe that you know better than an institution composed of millions of diligent intellectuals and mystics and saints doing their honest best to figure things out and do the right thing in respect thereto, for four thousand years. Humble yourself before their mastery. Just that single step will do you a world of good.

  5. Quantity of information does not correlate/ confirm its truth.

    Kris, you don’t need to engage in that kind of crap, when your philosophical background goes as deep. With that said, should we be talking about the CTMU?

    • Thanks, Lea. But I don’t mind responding to this sort of thing. In the first place, what good is the work I have so far done, if I am chary in sharing it? In the second, I find I *always* learn something new and good in responding to challenges.

      Happy to talk about Mangan’s stuff at any time. He agrees with me, and I with him. I have read him ardently, and our agreements each independently deduced are massive, deep, and, well, happy. But, I feel sure he has never heard of us here, or of me in particular; no reason he should have done.

      What of this present post or its commentary, I am curious to learn, made you think of Mangan?

  6. Ah i actually ran into him on Curt’s TOE channel first; It took my very sharpest days to really register what they were discussing to be honest, but i loved the essence from the get go. Since i felt compelled to study ontologies as a wider subject recently some of the things he mentioned popped back into my mind immediately, in loose correlation to what you brought up here; Anselms philosophies. Langan stuck with me for being the first modern -complete- model of all that we are dealing with that does not require the invention of a bunch of new forces and mechanisms, and putting language at the front of its mechanisms, but not in a trivial way. I like the respect of Occam’s Razor all around. But i mostly like how he put language centric, and not in a Chomsky-ish way, but as a fundamental information transfer mechanism that supersedes whatever we have invented in relation to it. We assume that our information transfer channels are superior, or even the only options and that is actually very silly upon deeper examination, so his TOE challenges that, and alot of other nonsense, from a logical, philosophical and mathematical viewpoint. Upon the latter of which my expertise fades very quickly but i digress..

  7. And yes i naturally love seeing a non academia affiliated person formulating the most coherent ontology thus far because it proves an idea i had, and vindicates me for holding something similar but different with no credentials. The world needs to get rid of this insane idea that credentials mean anything, i could run selective IQ tests and look fantastic, and then look dumb in the next session, but it will still mean nothing. I am infinitely more intelligent then Malcolm Gladwell even if he scored whatever number. Same for Yuval Harari, or even more so. The same applies to all of you, or so i assume. There is no number for creativity and divinity, but some of these idiots want to make one up.

    • Re language – denotations of forms by terms (a term being an index, and thus an intensional act that is about something other than only itself) – as fundamental: yes. And that is where Anselm and Mangan (and Whitehead, and the Stoics and Hebrews and Platonists who characterized the first principle of actuality as the Lógos: the Word) shake hands: if you can’t think a carefully expressed proposition coherently, then *it cannot come actually to pass.*

  8. Not on my best behavior half-disregarding too many things you said, i apologize.
    I made a bunch of assumptions based on the previous discussion here that felt related to this, but at the very least should have mentioned that. Language is a tricky beast when its human, and Langan has stuck with me for mentioning it as a fundamental force of sorts, at its most essential not being human or mathematical, which i agree with. When im in that space where interesting-ish happens in my mind but i skip 10 words describing them it is time to not hit post anymore 😉
    I do want to go get back to that topic though with the spoiler being creativity as one of the languages of god, but i am not good to open that right now. Why did i feel compelled to respond originally? Because you appeared to spend many many paragraphs agreeing but finding fault in formulation and specific words earlier in comments; we should not be shy to tell each other of semantic timewasting, mutual intellects could be spent better. Yea that was more or less the point i wanted to make.

  9. Pingback: The Sacraments are Prior to Everything Else in Mundane Life – The Orthosphere

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.