• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Annihilationism and disbelief in immaterial souls

Romaios

Archon
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Being created by God, and therefore holy and having a certain intrinsic value in its core, the person has a free and creative will, which manifests itself as a system of actions, which is to say an empirical character. In this sense, the person is (a) character.

But a creature of God is a person and must be saved;  yet the wicked character is precisely what precludes the salvation of the person. Hence the clear conclusion is that salvation implies the separation of person and character, the individualization of both. What is one must become distinct. How so? Just as three is one in God, the One par excellence, the I (ego) is split: while remaining him/her-self, it also stops being him/her. Psychologically, this means that the ill will of man, which takes the forms of passions and a prideful character, is split from man himself, acquiring an independent and non-substantial situation in existence and, at the same time, being an absolute nothing “for another” (after the fashion of “you”, which is the metaphysical synthesis of “I” and “him” in the divided person). In other words, the “in oneself” of the person, being essentially holy  (according to the “he” paradigm), is split from its “for oneself” (according to the “I” paradigm), because the latter is wicked. 

The moments of one’s existence acquire an independent meaning, being split from one another, and my “for myself”, since it is evil, abandons my “in myself”, departing into “the outer darkness”, that is outside God, in the “impenetrable darkness” which lies “outside God”, where He “does not reach”, in the metaphysical place where there is no God. The Three-One is the Light of Love, where He is Existence; outside Him there is the darkness of hatred, and thus eternal annihilation. “The Trinity is the unshakable power” and the Ground of all stability. Denying the Most-Holy Trinity, apostasy and isolation from Her, cuts  aseity (this “in myself”) from its power source and condemns it to revolve around itself. For the Gehenna is the negation of the Trinitary dogma. It is not for nothing that at the core of the evil art of magic lies the denial of the trinitarian nature of the symbol “three”. I once happened to hear that a Father asked a wizard during confession how he does his craft; he admitted that he only said: “Three is not three, nine is not nine”.

The meaning of this blaspheming formula is clear: three is the sacred number of Truth, and nine – the same Trinity amplified, “potentialized” (at least this is its significance in symbolic arithmology) – is again a number of Truth. The Trinity is being refused its trinitarian nature, Nineness is being refused its character, that is the numbers of Truth are being refused that which makes them numbers of Truth, their veracity. Thus the spell of “Three is not three, nine is not nine” is an impotent attempt to demolish the “Pillar of Truth”, that is the affirmation of lie as Lie, of evil as Evil, ugliness as Ugly, that is Satan himself. For the essence of evil consists only of a negation of ομοούσιος. In the “outer darkness”, where my “for myself” is cast, that is my aseity, by my negation of ομοούσιος, by the obstinate repetition of “Three is not three, nine is not nine”, the aseity, separated from God, is simultaneously existence and nothingness. Malignant aseity, deprived of any objectivity (because the source of objectivity is the Light of God), becomes crude subjectivity, which exists and always retains its liberty, but only for itself, that is - a non-existent freedom. And my “in myself”, after a mysterious fission, turns into pure objectivity, always real, but only “for another”, to the extent to which it did not act for itself in loving aseity; therefore, being real “for another”, the “in oneself” is eternally real.           

The malignant and wicked “for oneself” is perpetual agony, a continual and impotent attempt at getting out of the state of nude aseity ( “for oneself” only) and therefore it endlessly burns in the inextinguishable fire of hatred. This is one of the aspects of the self perception of the evil creature, a living picture, frozen in its subject-less unreality. It is the void identity of the ego with the self, who cannot overcome the limits of the single, eternal moment of sin, torment and rage against God, against its own impotence, the one demential  εποχή extended into eternity. It is an endless effort, which only proves its own impotence, an impotence of making the effort. On earth, the εποχή still retains a creative character, but εποχή in the next world is utterly passive. On the other hand, good “in itself” is an always beautiful object of contemplation, a part of another, inasmuch as this other is good for himself also, thus being capable of contemplating in his turn the good of another. For he who loves transforms everything he loves in himself; but he who hates doesn’t even belong to himself: “whosoever will save his self/soul, shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his self/soul for My sake shall find it” (Mt. 10, 39; cf. Mt. 16, 25; Mk. 8, 35; Lk. 9, 24; 17, 33; Jn. 12, 25).
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Romeo,

Are these your translations?
 

Romaios

Archon
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The above is a mere rephrasing in ontological language of the “Parable of the talents”. The “talent” is the spiritual faculty with which God endows each human, to create his/her own person, or “the image of God”. In the case of “God’s image”, just as with capital, an effort is required for its multiplication. But the increase of capital depends on the scale of the proprietor’s action, so there is no point in providing him with capital which he will not use; the same is true of the soul: each has its own “increase rate” and therefore everyone is given the adequate spiritual capital. According to the vital development of God’s image which is incumbent on himself, according to his own “type” of spiritual growth and prosperity, everyone receives their talent from God: one is given a single talent, another two, another five – “to each according to his possibility or capacity” -  εκάστω κατά την ιδίαν δύναμιν (Mt. 25:15). Yet through His holy gift, God does not wish to constrain man, by imposing “heavy burdens, grievous to be borne” (Mt 23:4, Lk. 11:46).    

The one who received five talents gained another five; the one who got two – another two. But what do the words of this parable signify? If the talents are God’s image, how can man, by his own effort, by his own devices, increase his existence after God’s image, by doubling the same? It is self-evident that man cannot create it, but only double it, just as the vital force of the organism does not create its food, but only assimilates it. Man does not increase his person, he has no δύναμις for this, but he assumes it by receiving in himself God’s image from the other people. Love – here is that δύναμις through which everyone is enriched and increases, by absorbing another.  How? By giving itself to another. But man only receives as much as he gives of himself; and, when he completely gives himself in love, he receives himself back, but grounded, affirmed, deepened in the other, that is he doubles his existence. Thus, he who got five talents, added as many to them, he who got two added another two, no more, no less (Mt. 25:16-17).  

This doubling of the self is “being faithful over a few things” (επί ολίγα ης πιστός - Mt. 25:21-23), over that which each was granted, over the piece of the Celestial Jerusalem which was given to each for safekeeping. But it’s not just his own joy that awaits the “good and faithful servant”; this great and infinite joy would be but a small and insignificant droplet as compared to the infinite ocean of spiritual joy which is prepared for the faithful servant by “the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God” (Romans 11:33). What awaits him is “entering in the joy of his Lord” (είσελθε εις την χαράν του κυρίου σου - Mt. 25:23), that is sharing the divine beatitude, the joy of the Trinity for the perfection of the Lord’s entire work, resting with God’s rest, which He enjoyed after accomplishing by His grace the creation of the world.  

But joy is only accessible to the one who is aware of his own person, who has worked, that is to the servant who is “faithful over few things”. The one who did not ground his person, who did not earn what was given to him, is blinded by the brightness of the Tri-hypostatic Godhead, he chokes on  the odour of heavenly incense, is deafened by the praises of the heavenly hosts. Such a man cannot bear the face of God, he flees the All-seeing and rejects His immortal gifts. Thus, the servant of the parable who got one talent and did nothing to increase it, that is he added nothing to what was given to him by his own effort, tells his master: “Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering where thou didst not scatter; and I was afraid, and went away and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, thou hast thine own!” (Mt. 25, 24-25). Hatred for the good master rings in these words; with scorn and pride the servant rejects the precious gift he was given. He wants to be “on his own”. And then, granting the wicked and slothful servant his wish, wicked as it might be, but eternally free by God’s mercy, the Master commands the talent which he refused to be taken from him and to be given to the one who has ten talents, “for unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away”  (Mt. 25, 29; cf. Mt. 13, 12; Mc. 4, 25; Lk. 8, 18; 19, 26). If man is slothful and negligent of his spiritual work and wickedly seeks reassurance, justifying his sloth by burying in himself God’s image which he possesses; if, when asked about the same image, he rushes to scornfully reject it, then what he refused is confiscated. But for the sin of one man who refused, God does not punish the entire creation, depriving it of His gift. The rejected divine image ceases to exist only for him who rejected it, not absolutely. The innocent, who entered in the joy of their Lord, rejoicing in every divine image He ever created, receive God in this joy, also assimilating this rejected gift of God; the wicked servant is excluded from the joy of his Master, he isolates himself outside Him, in that which is outside God, “in the outer darkness” (Mt. 25:30)  
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Romaios said:
orthonorm said:
Romeo,

Are these your translations?
Yup, they are. 
Just cause I want to feel inferior, do you have lying around in translation or are just do this translation on fly?

I hope it is former and you are cutting and pasting.
 

Romaios

Archon
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
Romaios said:
orthonorm said:
Romeo,

Are these your translations?
Yup, they are. 
Just cause I want to feel inferior, do you have lying around in translation or are just do this translation on fly?

I hope it is former and you are cutting and pasting.
It's the latter - I've been cropping this up for the past couple of hours or so.  :-[

I had the Romanian text in digital format, so that made it easier.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
18,026
Reaction score
392
Points
83
Age
43
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Romaios is the biggest badass on the internet.  Who else translates old Church texts for an internet forum debate?

*crawls in hole and bemoans wasted life*
 

Romaios

Archon
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
Romaios is the biggest badass on the internet.  Who else translates old Church texts for an internet forum debate?

*crawls in hole and bemoans wasted life*
You'd have to be bored and, literally, have no other talent.

Life can be wasted in innumerable ways - this is just my own.  ;)

Actually, I translated these bits because of the content, not to harvest praises. But I'd be a hypocrite not to admit that some appreciation is always nice.  :p
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
18,026
Reaction score
392
Points
83
Age
43
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Romaios said:
TheTrisagion said:
Romaios is the biggest badass on the internet.  Who else translates old Church texts for an internet forum debate?

*crawls in hole and bemoans wasted life*
You'd have to be bored and, literally, have no other talent.

Life can be wasted in innumerable ways - this is just my own.  ;)

Actually, I translated these bits because of the content, not to harvest praises. But I'd be a hypocrite not to admit that some appreciation is always nice.  :p
I know.  That is what makes it all the more badass.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Romaios said:
orthonorm said:
Romaios said:
orthonorm said:
Romeo,

Are these your translations?
Yup, they are. 
Just cause I want to feel inferior, do you have lying around in translation or are just do this translation on fly?

I hope it is former and you are cutting and pasting.
It's the latter - I've been cropping this up for the past couple of hours or so.  :-[

I had the Romanian text in digital format, so that made it easier.
Interesting. I'll stop the pointless questions centered around my self-loathing.

Thanks.

If you and / or Cyrilic ever decide to redo the travesty committed by Pearse, let me know.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Romaios said:
Actually, I translated these bits because of the content, not to harvest praises.
Get over yourself, this is about me hating myself thus being closer to being Godlike.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
18,026
Reaction score
392
Points
83
Age
43
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
orthonorm said:
Romaios said:
Actually, I translated these bits because of the content, not to harvest praises.
Get over yourself, this is about me hating myself thus being closer to being Godlike.
I can see theosis setting in already.
 

Romaios

Archon
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
If you and / or Cyrilic ever decide to redo the travesty committed by Pearse, let me know.
You mean the Aeneid? I haven't tried my hand at poetry since 7th grade or so, but sure, why not?

We'll dedicate our version to Achronos.  :laugh:
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Romaios said:
orthonorm said:
If you and / or Cyrilic ever decide to redo the travesty committed by Pearse, let me know.
You mean the Aeneid? I haven't tried my hand at poetry since 7th grade or so, but sure, why not?

We'll dedicate our version to Achronos.  :laugh:
No that unreadable English translation of the "Early Church Fathers":

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

 

Romaios

Archon
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
No that unreadable English translation of the "Early Church Fathers":

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
I thought there were dozens of translations of those in English already.  ???
 

Aeschere

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Arkansas
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Wow, there's been a lot of replies since I last checked in.  Was I really gone that long?
 

Aeschere

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Arkansas
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
PeterTheAleut said:
Aeschere said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Aeschere said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Aeschere said:
PeterTheAleut said:
You do realize that, seeing the Scriptures as a product of the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, we Orthodox don't believe in sola scriptura, as you appear to do? The Scriptures are truly foundational to our doctrines, but only when understood within their context as a product of the life of the Church.

My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Prima Scriptura, which means that church doctrines cannot directly contradict scripture.  Is that correct?
We do indeed believe that Church doctrine cannot contradict Scripture, but that's not the definition of prima scriptura in that we also believe that one's interpretation of Scripture cannot contradict Church doctrines.
Yes. You need to be able to interpret scripture to understand what it says. If you don't know what scripture says, you can't know if it's contradicting anything.

Aeschere said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Do you think you may be following the same path most Protestants follow as regards your approach to the Scriptures? Look to the Scriptures as little more than a source text to support the development of your philosophies/doctrines?
Why shouldn't I base my worldview in scripture? I'm a Christian, right?
PeterTheAleut said:
I'm not talking about basing your world view on Scripture. I'm talking about using Scripture as a source text for whatever philosophy you wish to construct. These two approaches are very different.
...You seem to be suggesting that basing philosophies and doctrines off scripture is bad...
Do you not understand what I'm trying to communicate? If not, why not?

BTW, have you read this article from an interview with Dr. Ben Witherington? http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/november/23.66.html This gives the foundation for my question. It seems to me you're doing the same thing he criticized in this interview.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
What I'm saying is that you appear to have already crafted your world view without prior reference to the Scriptures and are only searching the Scriptures for texts that prove the world view you've already created.
Two can play at this game, though for now I'll just ask you why you think I'm an eisegete. 

Scripture says that eternal life is a gift of God only for the righteous, and though I'll agree that scripture doesn't say that eternal life is only eternal existence (it's also communion with God, etc.), it doesn't follow that death is therefore only figurative.  Even though the Bible sometimes compares those without God to the dead, it doesn't follow that therefore their final punishment (the second death) is the same as their state now (separation from God/spiritual death). If it were like that, then why would it be called the "Second Death"? Did they rise to spiritual life and get to know God in between deaths? Furthermore, according to that view, their spiritual death started before their actual first death, so not only is the final punishment not a second death like the Bible says, it actually started before the first death!

Aeschere said:
Aeschere said:
Aeschere said:
PeterTheAleut said:
ISTM that you have defined "life" to be synonymous with "existence", such that eternal life means eternal existence. Is this the right way to define "life"?
I'm not sure whether death has to entail cessation of existence among the other qualifications, but I do know that life entails existence. I don't think that life is synonymous with existence, however.

Aeschere said:
Anyway, I don't think I said that "life" means exactly the same thing as "existence." I said that life means life, and death means death (ceasing to live/ceasing to be conscious, able to make decisions, able to have emotions, growing, etc.)
Recursive definitions are useless as anything but an exercise in tautology. A definition must use words other than the word you seek to define for it to be effective.
Life is consciousness, ability to grow, metabolize, have feelings, act, etc. Death means lack of consciousness, no ability to act or make decisions, having no feelings or mental capacity, no growth, no metabolism, etc. It may also include cessation of existence, but I'm not sure.  Either way, eternal conscious torment is out.
PeterTheAleut said:
On what do you base your definition?
Those were the standard definitions of "life" and "death." I don't really see the problem here...
PeterTheAleut said:
"Standard"... What standard?
Languages have standard meanings of words, or else it would be impossible to communicate.  If you said "I would like a banana," I could think that you meant "That ship is a barquentine," without being considered insane.

Aeschere said:
Aeschere said:
Aeschere said:
Aeschere said:
I have heard the explanation that perishing can mean being apart from God.  And it does mean that.  People who don’t exist can certainly be considered apart from I Am.  But interpreting a word like “perish” in such a straightforward context as meaning 'Living forever (but in a horrifyingly painful place)' is simply bad hermeneutics.
PeterTheAleut said:
The interpretation doesn't make sense for the word and its context.  

(Sorry if the quote formatting is weird.  I'm new to this kind of forum.)
PeterTheAleut said:
How, then, do you know that your hermeneutics are good?
Because it makes sense for the word and its context.
PeterTheAleut said:
Makes sense to whom? It seems to me that you're engaging in some circular reasoning here.
A hermeneutic is considered good
PeterTheAleut said:
Considered good by whom?
By those who have knowledge about the scriptures and how to interpret them (theologians, Biblical scholars, etc.).

What's wrong with looking at a text's context and the meaning of the words that are used in it? That's literally how we understand each other in day to day life. 

Aeschere said:
if it takes into consideration context, the standard meaning of a word, other possible meanings of a word, and word usage. For the word meaning, biblewebapp.com is a good resource (except for in some instances, when it assumes eternal conscious torment)

For the context, the death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute. 
PeterTheAleut said:
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?
So you don't consider context and word meanings when you read the Bible? Eh?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
Scripture says that eternal life is a gift of God only for the righteous, and though I'll agree that scripture doesn't say that eternal life is only eternal existence (it's also communion with God, etc.), it doesn't follow that death is therefore only figurative.  Even though the Bible sometimes compares those without God to the dead, it doesn't follow that therefore their final punishment (the second death) is the same as their state now (separation from God/spiritual death). If it were like that, then why would it be called the "Second Death"? Did they rise to spiritual life and get to know God in between deaths? Furthermore, according to that view, their spiritual death started before their actual first death, so not only is the final punishment not a second death like the Bible says, it actually started before the first death!
Do you buy into the distinction between physical and spiritual death?

PeterTheAleut said:
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?
So you don't consider context and word meanings when you read the Bible? Eh?
The Odox have some of the weirdest hermeneutics you could ever encounter--brace yourself.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
51
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Aeschere said:
PeterTheAleut said:
What I'm saying is that you appear to have already crafted your world view without prior reference to the Scriptures and are only searching the Scriptures for texts that prove the world view you've already created.
Two can play at this game, though for now I'll just ask you why you think I'm an eisegete.
Because it seems that you're ignoring the message in Matthew 25 and in Revelation 20:11-15 in your efforts to make the message of the Bible fit your definitions of the words "life" and "death".

Aeschere said:
Languages have standard meanings of words, or else it would be impossible to communicate.
And words often have multiple meanings, which often does make it impossible to communicate. You're choosing only one definition of "life" and one definition of "death", making your chosen definitions the "standard" definitions, and rejecting the rest. Then you try to make the language of the Scriptures fit the definitions you have arbitrarily declared "standard".

Need I mention that you're also working with only the English translations of the Scriptures? The Apostles didn't write in English, so they may not have been thinking in terms of the "standard" English definitions of "life" and "death", if there even are such standard definitions. If you really want to conduct an analysis of the text, you should be working with the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts of the Bible and not with the English translations where the original meanings of words invariably gets lost at times. If you don't want to conduct your own analysis, then maybe you should trust "scholars and theologians" other than those who believe that Christianity was rediscovered in 1517.

Aeschere said:
Aeschere said:
A hermeneutic is considered good
PeterTheAleut said:
Considered good by whom?
By those who have knowledge about the scriptures and how to interpret them (theologians, Biblical scholars, etc.).
This is, in essence, an argument from authority. How do you know that the authorities you choose to trust are actually worthy of trust?

Aeschere said:
What's wrong with looking at a text's context and the meaning of the words that are used in it? That's literally how we understand each other in day to day life.
And yet we so often misunderstand each other, do we not?

How is it that Protestants look at a text's context and the meanings of the words used therein and still come up with half a million different, often conflicting interpretations of the message?

Aeschere said:
Aeschere said:
if it takes into consideration context, the standard meaning of a word, other possible meanings of a word, and word usage. For the word meaning, biblewebapp.com is a good resource (except for in some instances, when it assumes eternal conscious torment)

For the context, the death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute.  
PeterTheAleut said:
Again, you do realize that your approach to the Scriptures is foreign to Orthodox Christianity?
So you don't consider context and word meanings when you read the Bible? Eh?
We consider that doctrine that has been taught by men who have been taught by men who have been taught by men who have been taught by men who have been taught... going back far enough ...by the holy Apostles themselves. We also trust that this transmission of the Gospel from one generation to the next has been kept pure by the unchanging Holy Spirit. What better way is there to discern what the Apostles originally wanted us to know about Jesus Christ and our salvation then to learn from these men?
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.  :police:  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
1. My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2. You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
51
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   :police:  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
1. My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2. You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.  :police:  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
1. My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2. You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
What of your post chastising Rufus for voicing his opinion? What's sauce for the goose ...
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   :police:  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
1. My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2. You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
What of your post chastising Rufus for voicing his opinion? What's sauce for the goose ...
.... I am also permitted to read threads without necessarily posting in them, am I not? I believe this is known in netspeak as "lurking".
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
51
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   :police:  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
1. My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2. You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
What of your post chastising Rufus for voicing his opinion? What's sauce for the goose ...
LBK, what you are doing to scold me on this thread is off topic, especially seeing that you've contributed absolutely nothing else here. As a moderator, I have the authority to enforce our forum rule that you work to keep threads on topic by directing you to stop this, but since it's me you're chastising, I feel it an abuse of my moderatorial authority to defend myself in this way. What I can do is tell you that what you are doing is tantamount to bullying. I have done nothing to you on this thread to provoke your wrath, nor has Rufus ever objected to any of the posts for which you have upbraided me. I therefore deem it necessary to ask that you stop using this thread to chastise me. If you don't stop, I will file a formal harassment complaint against you.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
I'd prefer to stay out of this, but I feel that your threat to file a harassment complaint merits an explanation providing a second perspective of what is going on here.

PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   :police:  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
1. My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2. You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
What of your post chastising Rufus for voicing his opinion? What's sauce for the goose ...
LBK, what you are doing to scold me on this thread is off topic, especially seeing that you've contributed absolutely nothing else here. As a moderator, I have the authority to enforce our forum rule that you work to keep threads on topic by directing you to stop this, but since it's me you're chastising, I feel it an abuse of my moderatorial authority to defend myself in this way. What I can do is tell you that what you are doing is tantamount to bullying. I have done nothing to you to provoke your wrath on this thread, nor has Rufus ever objected to any of the posts for which you have upbraided me. I therefore deem it necessary to ask that you stop hijacking this thread to chastise me. If you don't stop, I will file a formal harassment complaint against you.
LBK's impressions about my point of view in this thread are correct.


PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
Peter,

1) Can you articulate what an Orthodox approach to Scripture would actually entail in this situation?

2) Do you believe that her argument would be invalidated by being foreign to Orthodoxy?
I hope she will ask her own questions to show that she really wants to know more. Right now she seems inclined to do nothing more than defend her point of view.
PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
LOL! I'm sure you'd rather she wanted to defend your point of view instead!
I know what I'm doing. You only think you know what I'm doing. Therefore, I'd like you to do me a favor and cease your peanut gallery comments long enough to see how Aeschere responds to my probing.
This is why I stopped responding: you told me to.

Rufus said:
Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
No, it is part of an open discussion.

PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   :police:  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.
So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
PeterTheAleut said:
Need I mention that you're also working with only the English translations of the Scriptures? The Apostles didn't write in English, so they may not have been thinking in terms of the "standard" English definitions of "life" and "death", if there even are such standard definitions. If you really want to conduct an analysis of the text, you should be working with the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts of the Bible and not with the English translations where the original meanings of words invariably gets lost at times. If you don't want to conduct your own analysis, then maybe you should trust "scholars and theologians" other than those who believe that Christianity was rediscovered in 1517.
Emphases are mine.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Romaios said:
Rufus said:
I suppose this goes around the Greek word apollymi, which has the root meaning of "utterly destroy," as in eternal destruction/perdition. Interestingly, it also has the meaning of "lose," e.g. to apololos probaton, "the lost sheep." The corresponding Latin word perdo has the same two meanings.

How are the two meanings connected?? I'm thinking of the English expression "we lost a man," being a circumlocuitous way of saying a man died.

Dow we have a Hebraeologist here?
I'm not one, but this seems relevant:

Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary said:
ABADDON [Heb ʾăbaddôn ([size=15pt]אֲבַדֹּון)]. Derived from Heb ʾābad, “became lost,” “be ruined, destroyed,” “perish,” Abaddon has a variety of nuanced meanings.

A poetic synonym for the abode of the dead, meaning “Destruction,” or “ (the place of) destruction.” Abaddon occurs in parallel and in conjunction with Sheol (Job 26:6 and Prov 15:11; 27:20). It is also found in conjunction with Death (Job 28:22) and in parallel with the grave (Ps 88:12—Eng 88:11). Although a place of mystery which is hidden from human eyes, Abaddon is clearly known by God (Job 26:6; Prov 15:11). It is twice personified: (1) along with Death, it speaks (Job 28:22); and (2) along with Sheol, it is insatiable (Prov 27:20). It is also remote: in Job 31:12, adultery becomes “a fire that consumes unto [as far as] Abaddon.” See also DEAD, ABODE OF THE.

In Rev 9:11, the word “Abaddon” is personified as “the angel of the bottomless pit.” It is also identified as the king of the demonic “locusts” described in Rev 9:3, 7–10, and is explained for Greek-speaking readers as Apollyon (Gk apollyōn), “destroyer.”
The LXX usually translates Heb ʾabaddon as Gk apōleia, “destruction”; the Vg renders it as Latin perditio, “ruin, destruction” (whence Eng “perdition,” which ordinarily means “hell”); in Syr (Peshitta), the cognate word means “destruction,” and is sometimes used in the Psalms to render “the Pit,” which is another OT synonym of Sheol.

In rabbinic literature, the word has come to mean the place of punishment reserved for the wicked. Current English versions render this word variously in the OT: “Abaddon,” “Destruction/destruction,” “the place of destruction,” “Perdition/perdition,” “the abyss,” “the world of the dead.” In the single NT occurrence, the word is consistently transliterated as “Abaddon.”
[/size]
Luke 15:32 in Hebrew: akhikha zeh haya met vehine chazar lachayim, avad vehine nimtsa.

Aramaic (Peshitto): hono achukh mitho hwo wachyo, wavidho hwo weshtkach.

("This brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.")

Lost sheep: tson 'ovdot (from the same root 'bd in Hebrew), but 'edhbe dt'aw in Syriac.
Oops, I missed this. Thanks, Romaios!

So we're once again looking at a connection between destruction and "lostness." Here, it's also connected with death. As Nick pointed out earlier, the Hebrews did not consider the person to be annihilated by death. I guess the best way to make sense of this is that death--including the second death--is a sort of partial existence, if that makes sense. Or perhaps that "existence" is to be understood in multiple senses.

Incidentally, does anyone else feel weird scientifically scrutinizing eternal torment?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
So now we get to the most interesting question, which is how the same word can mean lost and destroyed in such disparate languages.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
51
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Rufus said:
I'd prefer to stay out of this, but I feel that your threat to file a harassment complaint merits an explanation providing a second perspective of what is going on here.

PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   :police:  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
1. My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2. You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
What of your post chastising Rufus for voicing his opinion? What's sauce for the goose ...
LBK, what you are doing to scold me on this thread is off topic, especially seeing that you've contributed absolutely nothing else here. As a moderator, I have the authority to enforce our forum rule that you work to keep threads on topic by directing you to stop this, but since it's me you're chastising, I feel it an abuse of my moderatorial authority to defend myself in this way. What I can do is tell you that what you are doing is tantamount to bullying. I have done nothing to you to provoke your wrath on this thread, nor has Rufus ever objected to any of the posts for which you have upbraided me. I therefore deem it necessary to ask that you stop hijacking this thread to chastise me. If you don't stop, I will file a formal harassment complaint against you.
LBK's impressions about my point of view in this thread are correct.


PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
Peter,

1) Can you articulate what an Orthodox approach to Scripture would actually entail in this situation?

2) Do you believe that her argument would be invalidated by being foreign to Orthodoxy?
I hope she will ask her own questions to show that she really wants to know more. Right now she seems inclined to do nothing more than defend her point of view.
PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
LOL! I'm sure you'd rather she wanted to defend your point of view instead!
I know what I'm doing. You only think you know what I'm doing. Therefore, I'd like you to do me a favor and cease your peanut gallery comments long enough to see how Aeschere responds to my probing.
This is why I stopped responding: you told me to.

Rufus said:
Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
No, it is part of an open discussion.

PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   :police:  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.
So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
PeterTheAleut said:
Need I mention that you're also working with only the English translations of the Scriptures? The Apostles didn't write in English, so they may not have been thinking in terms of the "standard" English definitions of "life" and "death", if there even are such standard definitions. If you really want to conduct an analysis of the text, you should be working with the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts of the Bible and not with the English translations where the original meanings of words invariably gets lost at times. If you don't want to conduct your own analysis, then maybe you should trust "scholars and theologians" other than those who believe that Christianity was rediscovered in 1517.
Emphases are mine.
Rufus, I have never criticized the tactics you have chosen to use in your dialogue with Aeschere, since I see your approach as a valuable way to engage Aeschere and get your point across to her. All I ask is that you grant me the same respect I have granted you. All I ask is that you not criticize the tactics I have chosen to use in my dialogue with Aeschere, but rather wait and let her respond to them.

Your approach to dialogue with Aeschere is on topic and welcome. My approach to dialogue with Aeschere is just as on topic, and I have just as much right to voice my opinion on her beliefs as you do yours. Your criticism of my tactics, however, shifts the focus of our discussion away from Aeschere's beliefs and onto my debate tactics. This shift in focus contributes nothing to this discussion except to derail this thread and drive it off topic. All I'm trying to do is keep this thread on topic without doing anything that could be construed as an abuse of my moderatorial authority, considering how it's me whose tactics you criticized. As such, if you still disagree with the way I have chosen to engage Aeschere, I ask kindly that you broach your disagreement with me via private messages so we can keep this thread focused on its original topic.

Thank you.
 

Romaios

Archon
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
So now we get to the most interesting question, which is how the same word can mean lost and destroyed in such disparate languages.
Equivalence by  translation can be one explanation. If one word had both meanings in the original text (Hebrew/Aramaic), the translator might decide to use the same equivalent in all contexts to stay as close as possible to the original, even if different words were available to him for each meaning.

The Scriptures have had a considerable role in the development of many languages spoken by Christians. 
 

Aeschere

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Arkansas
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
What do you know, my computer crashed, too, LBK.  It was a good thing, though, since I was spending way too much time on the internet.

Anyway, I have to prepare for a retreat before my next class, but I don't want to wait until after the weekend to respond.  It seems like everyone is getting hung up on who is committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer, what the Hebrew and Greek words translated as "perish," "die," "slay," etc. mean (Aramaic is only used a few times in the Bible, and I'm not sure if any of those times are about this subject.), and some Revelation verses and parables of Jesus that seem to imply eternal conscious torment. I'll have to be quick, so I'll mostly just post articles answering you concerns.  Sorry! I usually try not to do this.

For the word meaning subject, this article is good: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/the-meaning-of-apollumi-in-the-synoptic-gospels/ It's about the Greek word, but the same principle about illegitimate totality transfer would still apply.  There's more articles on that website, too. 

For the parable of the ten virgins, I don't know of a specific article, but I asked about it elsewhere. I should have something for the people here when I get back.

For the Revelation verses and others that seem to imply eternal conscious torment, follow this link: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/explore/ and go to the scriptures tab, and click on the Traditionalism tab under that (if it doesn't jump to the Traditionalism tab automatically).
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Romaios said:
Rufus said:
So now we get to the most interesting question, which is how the same word can mean lost and destroyed in such disparate languages.
Equivalence by  translation can be one explanation. If one word had both meanings in the original text (Hebrew/Aramaic), the translator might decide to use the same equivalent in all contexts to stay as close as possible to the original, even if different words were available to him for each meaning.

The Scriptures have had a considerable role in the development of many languages spoken by Christians.   
No doubt there is some transference going on, but according to my Liddell&Scott, the Greek word still included "lose" within its range of meanings in its classical usage. This is also true of the root word ollymi.

The primary meaning is clearly "destruction." But "lose" is always still in there. Even in English, the two are connected.

What we need is a philologist. Oh, wait...
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
What do you know, my computer crashed, too, LBK.  It was a good thing, though, since I was spending way too much time on the internet.

Anyway, I have to prepare for a retreat before my next class, but I don't want to wait until after the weekend to respond.  It seems like everyone is getting hung up on who is committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer, what the Hebrew and Greek words translated as "perish," "die," "slay," etc. mean (Aramaic is only used a few times in the Bible, and I'm not sure if any of those times are about this subject.), and some Revelation verses and parables of Jesus that seem to imply eternal conscious torment. I'll have to be quick, so I'll mostly just post articles answering you concerns.  Sorry! I usually try not to do this.

For the word meaning subject, this article is good: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/the-meaning-of-apollumi-in-the-synoptic-gospels/ It's about the Greek word, but the same principle about illegitimate totality transfer would still apply.  There's more articles on that website, too. 

For the parable of the ten virgins, I don't know of a specific article, but I asked about it elsewhere. I should have something for the people here when I get back.

For the Revelation verses and others that seem to imply eternal conscious torment, follow this link: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/explore/ and go to the scriptures tab, and click on the Traditionalism tab under that (if it doesn't jump to the Traditionalism tab automatically).
I'm not trying to argue that the word doesn't means "destroy." I am simply arguing that it does not imply annihilation. The reasoning in the article is circular. His shows that in certain contexts, apollymi is roughly equivalent to kill. Then, he assumes that death implies annihilation, which is exactly what is being disputed in the first place: is the second death an annihilation?

But if a connection can be established between losing something and that thing being destroyed--an existential connection-- then "the destruction of the lost" can become a sensible expression.
 

Romaios

Archon
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
No doubt there is some transference going on, but according to my Liddell&Scott, the Greek word still included "lose" within its range of meanings in its classical usage. This is also true of the root word ollymi.

The primary meaning is clearly "destruction." But "lose" is always still in there. Even in English, the two are connected.

What we need is a philologist. Oh, wait...
Precisely! Greek tragedies are full of olola's ("I'm dead/lost/finished!" - not to be confused with French olala!):

ὄλωλα καὶ δὴ νερτέρων ὁρῶ πύλας - "I'm dying/lost and I already see the gates of the netherworld!" (Euripides' Hippolytus

Also, in Christos paschon, the Theotokos says:

Εἰ γὰρ γενοίμην, Τέκνον, ἀντὶ σοῦ νεκρός·
ὄλωλα, Τέκνον, οὐδέ μοι χάρις βίου.

"If only I could die, O Child, in your stead;
I'm finished, Child, there's no more joy in my life!"

Also, the Iliad begins with Achilles' "destructive anger" (menin oulomenen) which "sent many brave souls of heroes to Hades".

The connection you seek is logical, not etymological: the lost sheep might as well be destroyed, fall in a pit, be eaten by the wolves, etc. Out of sight = out of (my) world.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
LBK said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Rufus said:
Give me a break.
Why? Do you have any special role in this discussion that I need to have your approval on everything I post here?
Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.   :police:  Rufus is entitled to have his say just as everyone else is.
Last time I checked, LBK, I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as Rufus is to voice his, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So now I have to ask, LBK, don't you have something better to do than play Mrs. Moderator? I notice you haven't posted anything else to this thread. Maybe you would actually like to address the original topic of this discussion with something of substance.
1. My silence is due to my computer having crashed two days ago. I am posting from my local library.

2. You responded in a snarky way to Rufus, where he had simply voiced his view, as everyone on this forum is entitled to do.  Isn’t that what forums are about? Or do we all need approval from you before we post?
LBK, the only two posts you have submitted to this thread have been to chastise me. Are you going to ever address the OP? That is, after all, what forums are about.
What of your post chastising Rufus for voicing his opinion? What's sauce for the goose ...
LBK, what you are doing to scold me on this thread is off topic, especially seeing that you've contributed absolutely nothing else here. As a moderator, I have the authority to enforce our forum rule that you work to keep threads on topic by directing you to stop this, but since it's me you're chastising, I feel it an abuse of my moderatorial authority to defend myself in this way. What I can do is tell you that what you are doing is tantamount to bullying. I have done nothing to you on this thread to provoke your wrath, nor has Rufus ever objected to any of the posts for which you have upbraided me. I therefore deem it necessary to ask that you stop using this thread to chastise me. If you don't stop, I will file a formal harassment complaint against you.
Your words, from another thread earlier in the year (red font color is as originally posted, bolded sections my emphasis):
[size=10pt]
 I have become proud and arrogant, which has led me to become overly aggressive against many of you on this forum. This is not behavior becoming a follower of Christ or a moderator of this forum. I am sorry. Please forgive me.

Seeing how much I need to take a break from this forum, I am placing myself on post moderation until Pascha. After my self-imposed Lenten retreat, I hope to be able to resume my duties as a section moderator with renewed perspective. Until then, I have asked the rest of my team to watch the Orthodox-Protestant board in my absence. Please cooperate with them.

Your servant in Christ,
- PeterTheAleut

[/size]
Source: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50880.msg906754.html#msg906754
Harrassment and a violation of the so-called "Contain Conflict" rule. You are being placed under a 40 Day Warning Status.  If you think this warning unfair, please appeal to Cyrillic instead of the section moderator.
-Cyrillic
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Netherlands
Jurisdiction
But my heart belongs to Finland
Stay on topic and refrain from ad hominems.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Romaios said:
The connection you seek is logical, not etymological: the lost sheep might as well be destroyed, fall in a pit, be eaten by the wolves, etc. Out of sight = out of (my) world.
 

Aeschere

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Arkansas
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
What do you know, my computer crashed, too, LBK.  It was a good thing, though, since I was spending way too much time on the internet.

Anyway, I have to prepare for a retreat before my next class, but I don't want to wait until after the weekend to respond.  It seems like everyone is getting hung up on who is committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer, what the Hebrew and Greek words translated as "perish," "die," "slay," etc. mean (Aramaic is only used a few times in the Bible, and I'm not sure if any of those times are about this subject.), and some Revelation verses and parables of Jesus that seem to imply eternal conscious torment. I'll have to be quick, so I'll mostly just post articles answering you concerns.  Sorry! I usually try not to do this.

For the word meaning subject, this article is good: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/the-meaning-of-apollumi-in-the-synoptic-gospels/ It's about the Greek word, but the same principle about illegitimate totality transfer would still apply.  There's more articles on that website, too. 

For the parable of the ten virgins, I don't know of a specific article, but I asked about it elsewhere. I should have something for the people here when I get back.

For the Revelation verses and others that seem to imply eternal conscious torment, follow this link: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/explore/ and go to the scriptures tab, and click on the Traditionalism tab under that (if it doesn't jump to the Traditionalism tab automatically).
I'm not trying to argue that the word doesn't means "destroy." I am simply arguing that it does not imply annihilation. The reasoning in the article is circular. His shows that in certain contexts, apollymi is roughly equivalent to kill. Then, he assumes that death implies annihilation, which is exactly what is being disputed in the first place: is the second death an annihilation?

But if a connection can be established between losing something and that thing being destroyed--an existential connection-- then "the destruction of the lost" can become a sensible expression.
I'm not sure that he's assuming that death implies annihilation.  He is just saying that if we look at the context, it is extremely unlikely that apollumi would mean "lost" or "ruined," and that the meaning that is left to us is the one that refers to literal death.  (I also don't see how he showed that in certain contexts apollumi is roughly equivalent to kill. It literally means kill. As in, beheading or caught in a nuclear explosion kill.)

I have the response to the Parable of the Ten Virgins objection! Firstly, it's a parable, so it isn't meant to be dissected for every detail analyzed for how the details describe how what is actually going to happen.  The point of this particular parable is that some will be caught by surprise and excluded form the kingdom. It doesn't even say what happens to the virgins who were excluded; it only says that they were excluded. No eternal torment, no permanent death.

I'm not sure if anyone has responded to my objection to the interpretation about the interpretation of the language of destruction as meaning only spiritual death implying that the second death isn't really a second death. ["Scripture says that eternal life is a gift of God only for the righteous, and though I'll agree that scripture doesn't say that eternal life is only eternal existence (it's also communion with God, etc.), it doesn't follow that death is therefore only figurative.  Even though the Bible sometimes compares those without God to the dead, it doesn't follow that therefore their final punishment (the second death) is the same as their state now (separation from God/spiritual death). If it were like that, then why would it be called the "Second Death"? Did they rise to spiritual life and get to know God in between deaths? Furthermore, according to that view, their spiritual death started before their actual first death, so not only is the final punishment not a second death like the Bible says, it actually started before the first death!"]

I'll start stating some non-language of destruction arguments.

The death of the wicked is contrasted (often in the same paragraph or even verse) with the eternal life of the saved. Furthermore, immortality/eternal life in scripture is portrayed as a gift of God to the righteous, and so the wicked would not have eternal life.  Also, the Biblical vision of eternity is one where sin and evil are no more, and everyone is united under Christ. How could that be if the wicked are living forever, separate from God? There is no real support of an eternal duality of horror and bliss in the Bible. Jesus' atoning death is another source of context. Jesus was a substitute for us, bearing our punishment on our behalf. What did he bear? Death. Isaiah 53:8-9 says that He was "cut off from the land of the living" and that "they made his grave with the wicked." Romans 5:6 says that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Peter 3:18 says that it was by physical death that Christ became our substitute.

 
Top