Alien Worlds? More Q's than meets the eye

[Areopagite]

I’m late into this discussion, so apologies for that. But I was chatting with someone one time about Satan having been “cast down to the earth” and the ambiguity about whether that means the physical planet Earth or out of the heavenly “dimension” into the physical created universe. I commented (somewhat tongue in cheek) that if it meant the planet Earth, we humans could escape him by moving to Mars. My interlocutor said (also somewhat tongue in cheek) that no, we’d take him with us

Interesting idea. My question then would be this:

1. Is Satan stuck on Mars now, unless he hitches a ride back to earth?
2. Or, can a demon simply teleport to wherever a human is? (that is, if humans land on Mars, can any demon now go to earth as well as Mars, simply because there are human in both locations now?)

I’d be interested to know his answer. But do what you feel like.

Back to the OP’s queries, I’m four chapters from finishing a novel where an older, advanced, unfallen race is allowed by the Creator to discover fallen, sinful humanity.

Interesting. Pray tell, what is the series called?

Well, literally speaking, yes, that would make ‘outer space’ out as ‘heaven’. But, we both know it’s not. Don’t we? What heaven is now, I can only conceive of as another dimension, thanks to my deceased Godmother, God rest her. Of course, I think the OT Biblical rendition of ‘heaven’ included our skies as well as above our skies. And, then the NT concept of heaven presents the New Jerusalem, yet to come.

I guess it could be. On the other hand, it could be a metaphor. Just like when it speaks of “God’s anger” (because anger is an emotion, and God does not have emotion). But I’m not necessarily going to contradict you here. You could be right. I haven’t thought about it enough.

Here, we disagree, because I view the other incarnations of either the Heavenly Father or God the Son of the Holy Trinity as I have previously described. And, of course, with that bias, would say that’s what St. Augustine referring to. I would like to agree to disagree with you, here, because of the ‘could be’ nature of both my and your interpretations of this. If we agree to disagree, we each keep our stand and don’t get off into going 'round and 'round over and over again . So, would you do that, with me? Instead of doing the latter?

Honestly, I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here. I think I’m a little unclear still what your position is on this. I do admit though that I only have a cursory idea of what I’m talking about on this subject, and I am more than willing to suspend judgment on many of these issues … but on the other hand, I would like to grow in knowledge here through discussion. As of now, once again, I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying in regard to multiple incarnations and what your objection is. My apologies.

 

[donsnow]

Interesting idea. My question then would be this:

1. Is Satan stuck on Mars now, unless he hitches a ride back to earth?
2. Or, can a demon simply teleport to wherever a human is? (that is, if humans land on Mars, can any demon now go to earth as well as Mars, simply because there are human in both locations now?)

I’d be interested to know his answer. But do what you feel like.

Interesting. Pray tell, what is the series called?

I guess it could be. On the other hand, it could be a metaphor. Just like when it speaks of “God’s anger” (because anger is an emotion, and God does not have emotion). But I’m not necessarily going to contradict you here. You could be right. I haven’t thought about it enough.

I don’t want to follow your tangent about God and emotions; because it’s late and I’m tired.

Honestly, I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here. I think I’m a little unclear still what your position is on this. I do admit though that I only have a cursory idea of what I’m talking about on this subject, and I am more than willing to suspend judgment on many of these issues … but on the other hand, I would like to grow in knowledge here through discussion. As of now, once again, I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying in regard to multiple incarnations and what your objection is. My apologies.

I’m saying just because God can or could do something, doesn’t mean He will.

I’m also saying that when it comes to your quoting St. Augustine, I think he wrote about incarnations in the traditional context of God appearing as an old man, or a beggar, or a cripple or an orphan, to test the people who meet Him in that incarnation.

I’ll be back tomorrow, good to hear from you.

 

[DaveBj]

Interesting idea. My question then would be this:

1. Is Satan stuck on Mars now, unless he hitches a ride back to earth?
2. Or, can a demon simply teleport to wherever a human is? (that is, if humans land on Mars, can any demon now go to earth as well as Mars, simply because there are human in both locations now?)

I’d be interested to know his answer. But do what you feel like.

I’m just guessing, but I would interpret that verse as meaning that Satan was cast into the created universe, not just the planet earth. But that’s just a guess. The real answer may be something else.

Interesting. Pray tell, what is the series called?

The working title of the novel is Children of the Maker
.
DaveBj

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Areopagite and DaveBj -

The only thing I disagreed on was the interpretation of St. Augustine’s multiple incarnations. I wanted to go on around that and continue the discussion; (agree to disagree that one point).
Don’t stop because of me.

 

[Areopagite]

I’m saying just because God can or could do something, doesn’t mean He will.

Very true. I don’t disagree. I question, however, why you think He wouldn’t necessarily incarnate himself again.

I’m also saying that when it comes to your quoting St. Augustine, I think he wrote about incarnations in the traditional context of God appearing as an old man, or a beggar, or a cripple or an orphan, to test the people who meet Him in that incarnation.

Just to clarify, I’ve been quoting Aquinas, not Augustine. But it’s all good.

Also, let me ask you a question … what’s the difference between the Incarnation as seen with Jesus Christ compared to the “theophanies” (I think that’s the right word) that you speak of? I do believe there’s a difference. I’m wondering what the distinction is in your mind though.

I’m just guessing, but I would interpret that verse as meaning that Satan was cast into the created universe, not just the planet earth. But that’s just a guess. The real answer may be something else.

I think you’re right. But, yes, I’m also open to correction of course.

Hi, Areopagite and DaveBj -

The only thing I disagreed on was the interpretation of St. Augustine’s multiple incarnations. I wanted to go on around that and continue the discussion; (agree to disagree that one point).

I don’t think we can compromise on this point. This is kind of the crux of the matter in my opinion. So, once again, I ask, “What is the difference between the Incarnation of Jesus and those other kind of ‘theophanies’?”

 

[spauline]

to clarify where I’m coming from, let me post some essays:
…
in the posts following. thnx, scott

 

[spauline]

**Amongst all Possible Worlds , the Things that would Always Be - Part V **

**Review **

Before we progress, let us review what we have seen.

Firstly, we have learned that the reason that God creates is to share the life and love of the Trinity with creatures who possess intellect and will, that is, the capacity to know truth of an abstract and spiritual nature and to offer oneself in love back to God and other creatures possessing the same capacity for truth and love.

We have seen that there are two creations, the angelic, or purely spiritual, and the second creation, or material creation. The Angelic Creation, because of its nature, cannot be redeemed for those creatures that fall. This is because, firstly, their first free choice is irrevocable, and, secondly, since God will reveal to them to fullness of the Plan of the mystery of the material world to come, a mystery that is the greatest and most complete of things that can be comprehended of God short only of the Beatific Vision , the nature of the angels’ fall is a total rejection of God with full depravity and so, in nature, is unforgivable. Thirdly, we have seen finally that God cannot redeem the spiritual creatures since He cannot suffer in a purely spiritual sense for them as an atonement, seeing as His Divine Nature is already pure spirit and, in which, again, He cannot suffer. For this reason, God is not able to have mercy and to redeem the angelic creatures that fall.

We have further seen that God, nevertheless, because His love is unbounded and incomprehensible, desires to have mercy on fallen creatures and, not only that, but to suffer for the creatures as an atonement for their own offense. This desire to suffer in solidarity and for the redemption of creatures is the central mystery of the material creation. It is called the Incarnation , in that it implies that at some point in a fallen material world, God shall acquire a material nature and suffer within it for the creatures.

Further, we have seen that God desires to pass this power of redemptive suffering on to the creatures themselves that are just, so that they may participate in the love that suffers for wrongdoers and that is merciful to them.

We have further seen that God desires to reveal to the material creatures spiritual mysteries in and through signs of the very material creation itself. Also, we have seen, by implication, that two essential aspects of this, that would always exist in any world God would create, are the need for physical sustenance and sexuality, physical sustenance symbolizing the need for spiritual sustenance [the requirement of truth and grace for the soul] and sexuality mirroring the Trinity and spousal relationship between the Just People of God and God Himself.

We have also seen that although God does not desire sin, either as an end or even as a means to an end, He nevertheless *foresees and allows *the fall of the material creatures so as to provide for the greater good He can draw from it, namely, the possibility of God to have mercy upon the creatures, to suffer in love for them through the Incarnation, and finally to pass this redemptive suffering on to the just of the creatures themselves.

Further, we have seen that the nature of the fall is governed by two overarching principles, anti-Baptism and anti-Marriage. Anti-Baptism consists in the negation of any desire to know and love God [which is the reason for the creature’s creation], and anti-Marriage is the disposition that lives for the material world only, for its mere brute superficialities, that is, that spiritually fornicates with the creation, rather than to offer oneself for the eternal marriage with God.

…

 

[spauline]

…

Finally, we have seen that the nature of the fall will continually, of necessity, cause man to fall under its weight repeatedly, even as the Messias shall fall down several times in the carrying of the cross, which symbolizes the weight of this Original Sin , although remembering that as the Christ is able to arise from some of the falls , so God can raise humanity up repeatedly from these falls through great acts of Redemption, saving, of course, a final fall from which a spiritual redemption is not possible, even as the Christ could not arise in His Human Nature from the third fall of the Way of His Cross.

A final consequence of this is that the inevitable trajectory of the material world’s redemptive history is a constant alternation between a fall and an uplifting, a great stage of spiritual darkness followed by a stage of light, or Redemption. This implies that in any created world, God will create the course of its time to image this repeated succession and alternation between darkness and light precisely through the “day”, which, like the history of an age, shall begin with literal physical darkness and end with literal physical light.

**The Requirement of a Prefiguring Covenant prior to the Incarnation **

Now, we recall that the fall, in anti-Marriage, predisposes humanity toward materialistic tendencies, which are to take the material world as a final end unto itself instead of as only pointing, mystically and sacramentally, to the spiritual end, God and His Mysteries. Further, we remember that whereas the angelic creature, freed from the impediments of physical steps of intellectual development, is able to digest the profound mysteries in a single instant, the material creature, of necessity, can only progress in *stages *to comprehend the profound. In other words, just as a child must develop in intelligence into maturity only by a slower process, so also must humanity as a whole *progress *in its capacity to comprehend the spiritual mysteries. The conclusion from both of these preliminary laws leads us to the reality that *God can only progress humanity in stages of Revelation to prepare for their capacity to accept the fullness of truth that comes in the Incarnation. *

This is due to at least two additional primary factors. Firstly, the sufferings of the fallen world will especially inflict the just, the consequence of which is that humanity will tend to deny the existence of one all-powerful God precisely because there is no sense, on a superficial level, of why the just should suffer while the wicked prosper if God is supposed to be all-good. Moreover, when we consider that they are also at infancy in both their theological and scientific development in the earlier stages of their history, the result is that humanity shall tend toward a severe paganism, projecting the problems of the human condition onto the divine (polytheism, pantheism) and using the paganism as a means of explaining what are merely natural phenomenon (scientific ignorance).

Fourthly, when we consider that the disposition of anti-Baptism influences the creatures to deify themselves, all these factors pose insurmountable obstacles toward God’s introducing to humanity the fullness of the truth regarding the Trinity and Incarnation immediately after the fall of the human race. Consequently, we shall see in our subsequent dialogue that, in fact, several ages of Revelation and Intervention by God [namely, five] shall be essential before God can send the Incarnate One into the world in a manner in which His Coming can be efficacious toward humanity’s Redemption in the broader sense, which is to say, that a substantial portion of the material creatures shall embrace the fullness of God at some point prior to the final manifestation of the fall, after which subsequent stages of spiritual resuscitation are not possible.

To explain this, let us take the various conditions of fallen man in his earlier stages to demonstrate, in a more clear fashion, why the Coming of the Incarnate One cannot occur too early in the human history.

…

 

[spauline]

…

Firstly, the more obvious one is the need for progressive religious maturity. In other words, the fullness of truth, which in any world would be Catholicism, is like advanced calculus, and man, in his earlier stages, is like a child who can only learn basic math. Hence, just as a child must grow into an adult and mature, in the normal cases, to a college senior before they can grasp the abstract principles to learn and master the advanced theory of calculus, so also must humanity progress in stages of Revelation and grace before they are ready to comprehend the Supreme Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, which can be summarized in the following: that although God is pure spirit in His Divine Nature, and One in terms of existence, He is nevertheless Three Distinct Divine Persons within His One Godhead , and that One of these Divine Persons, the Eternal Son, has become a man, yet at the same time, this man being both fully God and fully Man, yet possessing a human soul and body that are created, notwithstanding the Eternal Son who is uncreated, and having both a human nature and a Divine Nature, yet still only One Person, and so forth.

Secondly, the other condition, humanity’s severely materialistic tendencies, means that in earlier stages, humanity as a near whole shall not even be able to be brought into a general eagerness to fathom the unseen truths of the spiritual realm. This means that, at a minimum, the fallen nature weighing upon so much of humanity, only a remnant of man can in the beginning be open to this eagerness.

Thirdly, precisely because of man’s materialistic existence, he will tend to need to learn or discern the spiritual dimensions through *visible *signs, or types, before the abstractions that transcend the material signs are more palatable. For this reason, it in fact implies that God must first establish stages of Revelation and Covenant that, in the beginning, use material things that only later shall be unveiled to point to their respective fulfillments. For example, killing a literal lamb must prefigure the sacrifice of the Eternal Lamb, the Christ; a literal land, or nation, as the Holy End to prefigure the ultimate Promised Land , the union with God in the eternal Beatific Vision in heaven; the miraculous but merely physical bread fulfilled in the spiritual bread of God Himself, the Eucharist, and so forth.

Fourthly, the other condition, humanity’s extreme tendencies toward paganism, presents several reasons why the Incarnation cannot be brought immediately. These include the following. First, that humanity tends to either deify the creation itself [pantheism] or believe in multiple gods, the unicity of God is of supreme importance to be ingrained in the introductory stages. Which is to say, it must be made utterly clear that God is not physical in His Divine Nature, but that He is a pure spirit, that His power is not limited–as in the world of the pantheist, or the conflicting deities of polytheism–and that He is all-Good, as opposed to the forms of paganism that ascribe problems to divine (e.g., pantheism, which sees god as the world, that god is having a bad dream, or as in polytheism, that the divine powers are themselves finite in power, and not always benevolent toward humanity). Secondly, the very fact that, *nevertheless *, God has Three Distinct Divine Persons within His One Nature is itself a central stumbling block that would surely confound itself amongst a world that has great tendencies toward paganism. Why? Well, since the material creatures shall tend toward seeing multiple gods, how shall the unicity of God that nevertheless is unfathomable in the Family of Love of distinct Persons within the Godhead not be confounded if an attempt on God’s part was made to reveal such incomprehension in these very early stages? This means that such a mystery cannot be unveiled until the Incarnate One, if for no other reason that it is difficult enough to engrain first to humanity the unicity of God before attempting to unfold the central mystery, the Trinitarian nature of God.

And, were this not enough, there is also, fifthly, the conundrum of how, if God assumes a material nature, that such a mystery cannot be confounded by a world that tends to already deify their own human subjects, especially rulers of the state, in a manner that, contrary to the nature of the Incarnate One, which is done out of love and sacrifice, is rather twisted in blasphemous pride and selfish ambition? Which is to say, since the great pagan rulers shall tend, by the very disposition of the fallen nature, to exalt themselves above their subjects and claim deity out of diabolical pride, selfish avarice, lust, and arrogance, what can we say if the Godman shall be prematurely introduced to such a world that, for all practical purposes, shall assume victory when they slay the Christ, for they still are not prepared for the notion of suffering in love for others, and rather consider power as an end to be grasped at in and of itself and for its own sake, rather than ultimately for love of God and fellow man?

All these conditions, therefore, show us that the Incarnate One can in no wise come to the world prematurely, and that certain stages of understanding–the supreme of which are the utter emphasis on the unicity of God, His Spiritual nature, omniscience and omnipotence–must first progress before any substantial portion of humanity shall be prepared to accept, if even grudgingly, the deeper of the mysteries of God as Trinity and Incarnation.

…

 

[spauline]

…

For this reason, as we recall that man, because of his materialistic tendencies, must first learn of God through the visible structure of things and be given at some point in the beginning stages visible signs that point to the spiritual realities that are later unveiled by the Incarnate One, it necessarily means that God, from all eternity, knows that He can never send the Messias efficaciously to the world unless at least some portion of the material world first pass through a Revelatory Covenant that itself serves as the very preparation and prefigurement of the ultimate Revelation and Grace to be revealed by the Incarnate One.

In the subsequent essay, we shall probe that even before the prefiguring Covenant is introduced, two preliminary, or preeminent, stages, must first arise concerning the totality of the material world before even this foreshadowing Relationship can be given to what we shall see is but a remnant of the creatures, namely, the People of God that would always exist, the People of the Prefigurement, which, in this world, are known as the Jews.

 

[spauline]

**Amongst All Possible Worlds - the Things that would always be - Part VI

Review
**
Let us review what we have learned. We recall that because of man’s severe tendencies toward the material world and paganism, God cannot send the Incarnate One immediately into the world after the Fall, but that, rather, He must prepare the way for this coming with a Prefiguring Covenant that is given to a smaller portion of humanity and that uses many material things of the Creation as signs of what shall be their fulfillments when the fullness of Divine Revelation is given by the Incarnate One.

In this essay, we shall probe that even before the prefiguring Covenant is introduced, two preliminary, or preeminent, stages, must first arise concerning in the near whole of the human race before this foreshadowing Relationship can be given to the remnant portion of humanity [derivatively, the Jews].

**The Fallen Nature is too strong in the beginning to give the Foreshadowing Covenant immediately

**Before we begin, let us recall that the fallen nature has two primary lies that God shall allow the evil spirits to induce into the order of original justice:

**Anti-Baptism **: the negation of the desire to accept the Divine Truths [which are mainly revealed] and the resolve to obey the Divine Will.

**Anti-Marriage **: materialism, choosing to *fornicate with the Creation * rather than to *marry the Creator *. This is done when humanity rejects their ultimate destiny of the eternal marriage with God in order to superficially flirt with the Creation and its finite goods–the pursuit of a materialistic glory and utopia that blasphemously asserts its independence from God and that likewise asserts that such merely material wonders can satiate the intrinsic human desire for fulfillment in an ultimate sense.

Now, I am arguing that it is not arbitrary, in our history, that the establishment of the Prefiguring Covenant was preceded by two great epochs that affected the majority of humanity, namely, the wickedness of Noah’s day with its associated Flood, and the Tower of Babel, which was frustrated by God’s Positive Divine Intervention of dividing humanity through the confounding of human language. The purpose of this article is to establish that these prelimary stages were necessary precedents to the formation of the Prefiguring Covenant, that is, the calling of Abraham.

The first step in this analysis is to recall that the evil one shall introduce the two primary lies that we have seen at the fall, namely, first anti-Baptism and then anti-Marriage and to argue that these lies must be introduced in their *proper order *, that is, FIRST anti-Baptism, THEN anti-Marriage.

…

 

[spauline]

…

Let us explore what we mean.

Firstly, if we assume that a person has the Baptismal disposition, which is to seek God’s truth and to be faithful to it as one’s ultimate desire, how can one be living for the Creation instead of the Creator (which is anti-Marriage)? Therefore, the dragon must first dismantle the Baptismal disposition, for, in doing this, he can then easily persuade humanity to turn away from the Creator and toward the Creation.

To illustrate this from a more practical and profound sense, simply look at the experience of the last 1700 years of Christian history. With Constantine’s conquering, the fullness of Catholic light shown for the first time in Church history. Obviously, the evil one is not at all pleased with this and desires the world to turn back to the ways of pagan Rome, which were, like all other ages of sin, a darkness of these same lies of the dragon: no faith and no repentance (resisting the Christian revelation and persecuting Christians viciously, *anti-Baptism *) and living for materialistic glory rather the eternal marriage with God ( *anti-Marriage *).

But, now, I ask you, shall the dragon, in the wake of so much fresh blood of martyrs, especially bishops and clergy, be able to seduce humanity to revert to anti-Marriage immediately?

Heaven forbid. Hence, the dragon knows that he must first dismantle, within man, the **Baptismal **faith in Catholicism completely before they return to a brute selfish materialism, that is, **anti-Marriage **. That is, the dragon must cause the world to progressively lose more and more faith in the Catholic Church and its sources of truth before they shall turn once again toward the world.

Indeed this is how the history has gone, a progressive assault on the Church’s sources of truth:

The Trinitarian and Christological Heresies and Islam (attack the nature of the Trinity and Incarnation, the highest source)

The Great Schism, (attack the Petrine Successor, the next most reliable source under God)

The Protestant Rebellion, (attack the Bishops and Oral Tradition, the next highest source under Peter)

The Enlightenment (attack the Scriptures and leave only Reason as a source of truth, as in the diests and rationalists)

And now, in our own day, what can we say except that most persons of the societies that were traditionally Christian do not even live according to Reason, from which God and the natural law can be known (even APART from Divine Revelation)? And have they not, therefore, having finally fully turned aside from the **Baptismal **disposition, given themselves over to the Creation, as though it alone can completely fill the human longing [materialism, or **anti-Marriage ]?

So, therefore, in a similar vein, as the evil one spoke unto our first parents, does he not first undo the trust of Divine Benevolence, that is, sow **anti-Baptism **, before telling them to take the creation in place of God, **anti-Marriage **? That is, did not the dragon first say to Eve that God was a liar and not interested in humanity’s well being, so that Eve first fell in her intellect, ceasing to have faith in God’s Revelation [anti-Baptism], before she actually took the forbidden creation in place of union with God [anti-Marriage]?

Therefore, the first lie of the dragon is anti-Baptism, and the second lie is like it, anti-Marriage.

…

 

[spauline]

…

**The Necessity of the Preeminent Stages [the Flood and Babel] to Precede the Prefiguring Covenant

**Now, let us return to the world that we know and how it has gone. Again, the prefiguring Covenant, Judaism, was not introduced immediately, but was preceded by two great darknesses…:

i. the wickedness of Noah’s day and the Flood and
ii. the Tower of Babel and God’s confounding of languages

We might ask ourselves, why is this?

Is it not because they were *necessary *antecedents to the calling of Abraham?

Let us probe it. We must first remember that anti-Marriage seduces man to selfishly cooperate toward a materialistic dominion and glory that blasphemously asserts itself in mocking indepence of God, just as the fallen angels desired to ascend above God.

Now, let us consider, that, as we have seen, since the fallen nature is so strong in the beginning ages, we see that the creatures shall, as a near whole, pursue this materialistic dominion with great vigor, so much so, that a certain “wound” from the Creator must initially forestall such pursuit. That is, the Original Sin shall be so strong in its force in the beginning, the material creatures’ pursuit of the worldly glory and dominion shall be too strong to turn aside by pleading in mercy (as the prophets did to the wayward Jews prior to the exile). Hence, something must be done to frustrate the condition and yet in a manner that does not end the human race. The biblical model proposes the solution: *to confound human communication *, so that the selfish ambition that cooperates can be broken in smaller pieces, hence at least temporarily forestalling the tendency of the anti-Marriage from becoming utterly global.

A person may respond, yes, a good example, but why wouldn’t God do this from the beginning, so that the fallen nature cannot rise even to this occasion, which is to say, why not create man in separated language from the outset?

Well, that is a good question, but alas, God has prudence, which does not act *prematurely *. For, remember, little child, that, in the end, God wants the world to live in peace as one human family. Do you not know this, you who are Catholic? Does not Catholicism mean “universal”, in that God desires *all *nations and tongues to live in peace, loving Him and Neighbor as One happy family? And were that not enough, would not humanity complain from the outset if God made them divided, saying, “Why have you done this, setting us up already for war and divisiveness?” Therefore, God creates the human family initially with a more or less singular language, so as not to *prematurely * wound the human pride.

However, we now also have to consider that the wickedness of Noah’s day and the Flood actually preceded the confounding of languages. That is, even before Babel, the first greater development of the human history was not a selfish ambition that sought to cooperate toward materialistic glory, but rather a greater stage of wickedness. And God’s response to this state of disregard of the Divine truth and will (no regard for God’s truth as at least evident in the natural moral law) was not dividing of humanity but a cleansing destruction, the Flood.

But, alas, let us look at the broader picture. What was the Flood except a **Baptism **, and what was the calling of Abraham immediately after the confounding of languages except a **Marriage **made in heaven, where God, amongst all the nations He had just made through the division of humanity, chose ONE of them to be His BRIDE, the Hebrew People?

Which sort of leads us to conclude the following: if the dragon’s seduction to the material creatures of *any *world will be *first *anti-Baptism and *then *anti-Marriage, if the fall is so strong in force in the beginning, and if humanity is even *slow *and simplistic, like a child, how much more so shall they need to first *digest *the *two *lies in *two big steps *, first the *one *(with a *meaningful *Divine Chastisement, i.e., one that *wounds *appropriately) and then the *second *(with a similar Divine Chastisement that wounds *appropriately *, hint, hint), even as the child must be spanked in earlier phases, seeing as one cannot reason with a child?

For this reason, we see it is *highly likely *that in *any *created world, since the lies of the fall instigated by the evil spirits shall be first anti-Baptism and anti-Marriage, the material creatures shall first pursue anti-Baptism as a near whole, prompting its **Baptism **(the Flood, in order that God may convey the notion of *cleansing *away sin), and then anti-Marriage, prompting a **Marriage **(a wound that divides the selfish aspiration into many nations, so that God may *marry *a remnant nation), which precisely also provides the *perfect *timing of the commencement of the Prefiguring Covenant!

And so the mind of God is not arbitrary but truly fathoms the Plan that is best able to heal the wound of fallen humanity.

In the next session, we will explore how to determine when the Prefiguring Covenant has reached its climax, so that, in other words, the world is ready for the Incarnate One, for, as we shall see, the Prefiguring Covenant itself must pass through its own unique stages before the coming of Incarnate One is appropriate, so that history may pass over from the times of Old, to the age of the New, when all that has happened may be fulfilled!

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Areopagite -

Very true. I don’t disagree. I question, however, why you think He wouldn’t necessarily incarnate himself again.

Just to clarify, I’ve been quoting Aquinas, not Augustine. But it’s all good.

Because I see no need for him to do so. If and only if there were fallen planets, he could either send his Holy Spirit to make prophets or send angels with messages. Also, he could go himself, in his own glorified resurrected body.

Thank you for your correction. St. Aquinas it is.

Also, let me ask you a question … what’s the difference between the Incarnation as seen with Jesus Christ compared to the “theophanies” (I think that’s the right word) that you speak of? I do believe there’s a difference. I’m wondering what the distinction is in your mind though.

Well, to my understanding, the Theophanies were before he incarnated in his own body. The other appearances, old man, cripple, beggar, orphan and the like have another term, but I don’t know what it is.

I think you’re right. But, yes, I’m also open to correction of course.

I don’t think we can compromise on this point. This is kind of the crux of the matter in my opinion. So, once again, I ask, “What is the difference between the Incarnation of Jesus and those other kind of ‘theophanies’?”

Okedoke, I answered that question in the paragraph of mine above this one. To further reply, Jesus’ Incarnation is God of gods, King of Kings, Savior, the Good Shepard, etc. In my mind, there can be only one. Don’t need more than one God of gods, King of kings, etc.

I didn’t want to compromise; ‘agree to disagree’ is, we each keep our convictions without further argument.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Scott -

From what I understand, your entire thesis is based upon the unproven speculation that there shall be a fall on (an)other planet(s).

Well, I can see where other planets may not suffer the fall. After all, there were three creatures made by God in the Garden: Adam, Eve and Lucifer. Please let me point out, that Satan was outnumbered and that Adam stood right beside Eve while ("…the man with here…") while Satan tempted her. The odds were two to one, against Satan.

I’m saying, it could so easily, any next time, go like this:

Serpent: "If you eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall be as your Creator.
Other Adam, in his heart: “Gee, a talking snake.”
Other Eve: “But our Creator said if we eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that we will surely die.”
Other Adam (in his heart) “What is the talking serpent saying?”
Satan: “Ah, but you surely will notdie…”
Other Adam : “Hold on, there. He said we will surely die if we eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How can you say we won’t?”
Other Eve : “Adam! My man! You come to my rescue!”
Satan: slithers away.

And, that’s if and only if Satan breaks free of his prison on Earth, and teleports there, because he’s not omnipresent. And, that’s only if he breaks free from his earthly prison, where he is to languish until the second coming of Jesus Christ.
(You have yet to establish more than one Lucifer and more than one heaven for a finite number of rebellious angels to have fallen from.)

And, since the odds are two to one in favor of my proposed scenario in defense of no fallen world in another solar system, I submit, if and only if your predication of falls on other planets has any truth, it’s likely there will be more unfallen than other fallen planets.

Basically, I’m forwarding the unproven speculation that our Creator is still walking with the people of any other inhabited planets. That they did not fall away. And that Satan and his rebel host are confined to this planet, by our Creator. To save the rest of the universe, from Lucifer and his rebel angels.

 

[Areopagite]

Because I see no need for him to do so. If and only if there were fallen planets, he could either send his Holy Spirit to make prophets or send angels with messages. Also, he could go himself, in his own glorified resurrected body.

Are you assuming here that Christ’s sacrifice atones for the sins of any possible fallen race besides our own? Because that’s not very obvious, even if it’s true. I personally have reservations about that. What do you think?

Well, to my understanding, the Theophanies were before he incarnated in his own body. The other appearances, old man, cripple, beggar, orphan and the like have another term, but I don’t know what it is.

Right. Those theophanies did not involve having a full human body … did not involve having a human nature united to the divine nature. In the Aquinas passage I quoted, it’s clear that Aquinas is talking about much more than those minor theophanies. He says:

Hence it may not be said that a Divine Person so assumed one human nature as to be unable to assume another.

The Old Testament theophanies did not assume created natures but produced some symbolic visions of the divine nature. But clearly, Aquinas is saying that there can be multiple and different hypostatic unions, besides that of Jesus Christ’s.

To further reply, Jesus’ Incarnation is God of gods, King of Kings, Savior, the Good Shepard, etc. In my mind, there can be only one. Don’t need more than one God of gods, King of kings, etc.

This is a good point. Perhaps you got me there.

Let me ask this first: was Jesus always the God of gods, King of Kings, Savior, and the Good Shepard, etc.?

I didn’t want to compromise; ‘agree to disagree’ is, we each keep our convictions without further argument.

I think there’s really no need to stop this argument. It’s extremely good-natured still. And I think we’re both considering things with greater depth because of it. No?

 

[Areopagite]

Spauline,

I’m a bit overwhelmed by the breadth of your posts, and that is why I have, perhaps, not directly addressed your concerns. It’s my fault, since I’m easily scared .

If you could … if you want … could you concisely state the issue(s) that you feel are not being addressed?

 

[donsnow]

Good morning Areopagite -

Are you assuming here that Christ’s sacrifice atones for the sins of any possible fallen race besides our own? Because that’s not very obvious, even if it’s true. I personally have reservations about that. What do you think?

In one of his epistles, Paul wrote that Christ’s crucifixtion cleansed all creation. Which, makes sense. Since Christ is the God of gods, King of kings in all creation… then, although not obvious, he saved all creation by his sacrifice. So, my answer is ‘yes’.

Right. Those theophanies did not involve having a full human body … did not involve having a human nature united to the divine nature. In the Aquinas passage I quoted, it’s clear that Aquinas is talking about much more than those minor theophanies. He says:

This format didn’t show your quote of St. Aquinas, but I read it. Well… deep breath … I guess a disagree with this church father about multiple incarnations of the second person of the Holy Trinity.

The Old Testament theophanies did not assume created natures but produced some symbolic visions of the divine nature. But clearly, Aquinas is saying that there can be multiple and different hypostatic unions, besides that of Jesus Christ’s.

Yes. And I have stumbled into disagreeing with St. Aquinas on this one point.

This is a good point. Perhaps you got me there.

Well, that’s good, because that’s the main foundation of my argument.

Let me ask this first: was Jesus always the God of gods, King of Kings, Savior, and the Good Shepard, etc.?

Yes: was, is and always will be.

I think there’s really no need to stop this argument. It’s extremely good-natured still. And I think we’re both considering things with greater depth because of it. No?

OK

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Scott -

I was thinking last night, after I went to bed, about having read all your articles on this. I think you have superbly presented a deep and faithful analysis of that part of the OT. I wanted you to know that.

Like Areopagite, I was overwhelmed at the prospect of reading all of them. But, I did. About 3/4 of the way through, I could begin to see what you have done. And, what you did is quite respectable, yes indeed.

It’s, just that it looks to me, like you’re projecting Earth’s condition onto other planets. And, I’m not sure that that applies. So, that’s where I’m at.

 

[spauline]

Spauline,

I’m a bit overwhelmed by the breadth of your posts, and that is why I have, perhaps, not directly addressed your concerns. It’s my fault, since I’m easily scared .

If you could … if you want … could you concisely state the issue(s) that you feel are not being addressed?

Hi, Areopagite,

thank you for the response, and it is OK, I should have made a more concise statement rather than flood a huge dissertation on it.

I guess the short, short answer is this:

I am only dealing, first, with worlds that fall. If a world doesn’t fall, I think the situation is simple, they just walk with God, and possibly observe other worlds that have fallen, like the angels.

So, given that a world falls (not that it MUST, but only IF, by circumstance it does), I argue that God would not give the complete Revelation beforehand, so that He might draw a greater good, namely, to progress revelation and redemption, so as to afford the possibility of having mercy on the creatures, which is the greatest good

that being said, if the world that falls has limited understanding of God, i am saying that the nature of the fall in ANY world would be the same, TWO principles:

1. Don’t care about God’s truth and to do His Will (no faith, no repentance, which is opposed to the Baptismal disposition)
2. Live for the material creation rather than for God (“spiritually fornicate” with the world and its superficial goods rather than live for the marriage with God that will never end, that is, against the ultimate spiritual meaning of Marraige)

So I am saying, the devil would use these same two primary lies in ANY created world. THEN, i am saying lie number 1 comes first, THEN lie number 2, because if the creatures don’t buy into lie number 1, then they ARE living for God, and therefore don’t believe lie number 2.

THEN, i am saying that because the creatures will be slow, they will first digest lie number 1), which would prompt God to destroy that world and spare a righteous remnant (like the Flood), and THEN the world will digest lie number 2 (seek a materialistic, selfishly and arrogantly ambitious glory), prompting God to divide the communication of the world and spiritually marry a remnant Nation, so as to begin the derivatively Prefiguring Covenant (the Jewish One)

I argue that in any world, the Derivatively Jewish Covenant is necessary to prepare the world to accept the Fullness of the New, if only because children can only use pictures in the beginning before they can contemplate the abstractions that the pictures represent. Also, I argue that any world in the fall, would tend to flip Genesis: rather than accepting that man is created in the Image and Likeness of God, they will tend to see God in the image of man, and so, because fallen man is antagonistic, suffering, and selfish, they will project they will project these conditions onto the Divine, that is, be pagan, especially polytheistic. Given this, imagine God trying to get across to such a world, that not only is God pure spirit and all powerful and benevolent, but that He is three Divine Persons in One Nature and that one of them has become a man? How will that go down, when pagans tend to see their rulers as gods themselves (as in pagan Roman Emperors, and the Greek King Antiochus of the Maccabees)?

So I am saying, actually, that the greater ages of Flood, Babel and Prefiguring Covenant would be needed in ANY world that fell, based on the common characteristics that would exist, seeing as the essence of the fallen nature in ANY material creature would be similar to what is like in humans, regardless of what the alien creature might look like physically.

Does that make sense?

Sorry, that was more like greater form of short, than short short.

Scott