Hi, Karen. Thanks for your note. By the time these debates hit the
Millerites, the understanding of eternity that one finds in Augustine,
Boethius, and on into Aquinas is long-gone. It's Platonic, not
"scriptural", and therefore way out of bounds from the 19thC apocalyptic
point of view. For Millerites and post-Millerites, God's eternity is
simply an infinite span of time, with no beginning and no end. It's not
freedom from time, or timelessness, as in Augustine.
Frankly I don't know much about how medieval theologians approached issues
of the resurrection of the dead and eternal reward and punishment in light
of the problem of eternity-as-timelessness, though no doubt others on the
list do. . . .
Patrick Nugent.
>Patrick,
> Thanks for your summation on this tricky theological subject. It
>appears that all new attempts at explanations of the judgment/body
>problem reflect the altered frameworks of their time and place.
> What I am curious about is whether these explanations involve
>theories of time and timelessness (the theme at Leeds this last year).
>To what degree is the "sleep" in Paul and the separation of body and
>soul explained in terms of time in the here-and-now (which passes
>measurably) and eternity (where spiritual beings exist in a timeless
>state). With this distinction, one could argue that someone buried in a
>grave is separated from his/her soul, while the soul is in some eternal
>state (e.g., the saint in heaven communicating into time time through
>the relics). Does medieval theology reflect of the judgment engage with
>theories of time?
>Karen
>
>--
>Dr. Karen Jolly
>Associate Professor, History
>University of Hawai`i at Manoa
>[log in to unmask]
>http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kjolly
__________________________________
Patrick J. Nugent
Earlham College
Richmond, Indiana 47374 USA
(765) 983-1413
[log in to unmask]
__________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|