- Jim, it seems to me that it is very important to recognize what is meant when it is said, “the moment is that point where eternity touches time or comes intoMessage 1 of 203 , Jul 3, 2010View Source
Jim, it seems to me that it is very important to recognize what is meant when it is said, “the moment is that point where eternity touches time or comes into time.” This is an extraordinary moment and yet it is always there at every moment. So that time does not in fact separate us from the eternal, the incarnation or any other eternal moment. The eternal is eternal and unchanging at whatever moment it touches time. It encompasses all moments in any one moment.
In PC Anti-Climacus talks about two views of history (p 23 ff in Hong) – profane history and sacred history. Profane history is history in time, as I read it, and is about knowledge but Anti-Climacus insists that nothing can be known about Christ (I take it that he is speaking of Christ as eternal), but that it must be believed. He asks the question, “can one come to know about Christ from history?” His answer is simply “No.” (p 25). By history here he means profane history, history in time. Is there an eternal history, the history faith knows? I must posit and experience the eternal now before the reality of the incarnation in time comes into view for me. So objective time does not matter, only that we believe Jesus was Christ.
Perhaps this is what you are saying below I am not sure.
Donald "Don" Anderson
Home Phone: 808-961-6460
Cell Phone: 808-896-2545
Thank you for your very good description of time in CA. It fits what I recall -- we probably could add some detail by looking at specific passages, but I think that you have the general parameters right. I think I had pictured the "moment" as a single point at which time intersects eternity in the individual's subjective experience.
I don't have my copy of CUP with me, but I think that in the terms you set out, the paradox of RB is that the individual's subjective experience of Christ -now- stands against the historical reality of the incarnation 2000 years ago (separation by time understood in an objective sense), but which the RB individual accepts as the basis of his/her experience of Christ in the present. Thus, the RB individual is contemporary with a 2000 year old Christ in the present.
I think that it's wise to keep in mind that the paradox of RB is an offense to thought and crucifies the intellect.
On Jun 28, 2010, at 7:00 PM, "Don Anderson" <don@...> wrote:
Jim, thanks for your helpful recent discussion.
K’s understanding of time is based on the New Testament understanding of time expressed as Kairos. K is opposed to the Greek understanding of time which is Chronos. Chronos is linear time, clock time and K and some of the pseudonyms call it “a passing by”. K also calls it spacialized time. Some people call it object time or objective time because it is based on the linear movement of objects. Kairos on the other hand is usually defined as a time of opportunity or fulfillment. Taylor calls it life-time. K and others call it the moment, the instant, and even “the fullness of time.” Kairos is experienced time or subjective time.
- Don -- When you get back, come up with some specific quotations that actually support your claims, or respond to the quotations I ve already provided. Jim RMessage 203 of 203 , Jul 17, 2010View SourceDon --When you get back, come up with some specific quotations that actually support your claims, or respond to the quotations I've already provided.Jim R