• 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

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
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.)

...
"Kill" is not the root meaning of the word. Destruction in reference to persons would almost always imply killing. Hence, the word is more or less equivalent to "kill."

Drowning means (i.e. implies) dying, but the words aren't equivalent.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
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.)

...
"Kill" is not the root meaning of the word. Destruction in reference to persons would almost always imply killing. Hence, the word is more or less equivalent to "kill."

Drowning means (i.e. implies) dying, but the words aren't equivalent.
If they spoke God's language, German, this stuff wouldn't be vague.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
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.
Bingo. I'm right with you on the absurdity of "spiritual death" in contrast to "physical death." Usually it is the product of some weird kind of dualism.

"Spiritual death" is sometimes a legitimate notion, but your bolded text above pretty much exposes the notion that Christ saved us from "spiritual death" only.

EDIT: In case I've confused you, the part of your argument that I'm disputing is the annihilation part. I agree that Scripture speaks of the wicked as suffering death and destruction. In a sense, this could imply annihilation, but not in the metaphysical system that you are thinking within.

More later, if I dare.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
orthonorm I though it was Ge'ez

English a close second.

Can we go back to saying Holy Ghost? Thanks.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Achronos said:
orthonorm I though it was Ge'ez

English a close second.

Can we go back to saying Holy Ghost? Thanks.
Since Ge'ez is used by all creatures thus those without tongues, it would be less than precise to call the symbolic structure used by something like a spore a language.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Achronos said:
orthonorm I though it was Ge'ez

English a close second.

Can we go back to saying Holy Ghost? Thanks.
You're all wrong, it's Aramaic.
 

Aeschere

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Arkansas
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
@Rufus

I'm a little confused. Why won't the metaphysical system I am thinking within preclude annihilation?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
@Rufus

I'm a little confused. Why won't the metaphysical system I am thinking within preclude annihilation?
Sorry, looking back, I think my brain overheated, and the end of my post came out totally unclear. Just dropping the last sentence should make things clearer:

Rufus said:
In case I've confused you, the part of your argument that I'm disputing is the annihilation part. I agree that Scripture speaks of the wicked as suffering death and destruction. In a sense, this could imply annihilation, but not in the metaphysical system that you are thinking within.
Ultimately, this goes to what we think the words "life" and "death" mean.

Death does not imply annihilation in the sense I think you are thinking.

I mean, Paul said he was dead in all sorts of different ways, and he even wrote about it.

Which is why orthonorm's avatar will never quite win five stars from me.
 

Aeschere

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Arkansas
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).

How would you answer my problems with the "spiritual death" interpretation? ("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!")

As for Paul, I think that when he was only speaking metaphorically about death it was much more clear than when people say that the eschatological scriptures about death are metaphorical.

 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
How would you answer my problems with the "spiritual death" interpretation? ("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!")

As for Paul, I think that when he was only speaking metaphorically about death it was much more clear than when people say that the eschatological scriptures about death are metaphorical.
Paul said that we are saved through union with Christ in his death. It is one of his central doctrines, and arguably the crux of his theological system. (<--see what I did there?) Calling it a metaphor is a real stretch. It is hard to imagine that Jesus had to die bodily so that we could die metaphorically.

Hence, when Paul was expecting to be executed, he never said he was going to die. He couldn't: he was already dead (to the world, and thus alive to God).
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Partially-overlapping
I would also add that many Ancient Near Eastern cultures considered those who were totally, absolutely, really dead in the ultimate and tangible sense of the word...

to be lingering somehow as I described in my previous posts.

That's because they didn't understand death along the same lines as say, Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations:

"Death is a cessation of the impressions through the senses, and of the pulling of the strings which move the appetites, and of the discursive movements of the thoughts, and of the service to the flesh."
 

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:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
 

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:
How would you answer my problems with the "spiritual death" interpretation? ("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!")

As for Paul, I think that when he was only speaking metaphorically about death it was much more clear than when people say that the eschatological scriptures about death are metaphorical.
Paul said that we are saved through union with Christ in his death. It is one of his central doctrines, and arguably the crux of his theological system. (<--see what I did there?) Calling it a metaphor is a real stretch. It is hard to imagine that Jesus had to die bodily so that we could die metaphorically.

Hence, when Paul was expecting to be executed, he never said he was going to die. He couldn't: he was already dead (to the world, and thus alive to God).
I wasn't talking about that when I was talking about Paul and metaphorical death. I was talking about when he was saying a sinful woman was "dead" in her sins.

How would you answer my objection about how in your view, the Second Death wouldn't be "second" at all?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
How would you answer my problems with the "spiritual death" interpretation? ("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!")

As for Paul, I think that when he was only speaking metaphorically about death it was much more clear than when people say that the eschatological scriptures about death are metaphorical.
Paul said that we are saved through union with Christ in his death. It is one of his central doctrines, and arguably the crux of his theological system. (<--see what I did there?) Calling it a metaphor is a real stretch. It is hard to imagine that Jesus had to die bodily so that we could die metaphorically.

Hence, when Paul was expecting to be executed, he never said he was going to die. He couldn't: he was already dead (to the world, and thus alive to God).
I wasn't talking about that when I was talking about Paul and metaphorical death. I was talking about when he was saying a sinful woman was "dead" in her sins.

How would you answer my objection about how in your view, the Second Death wouldn't be "second" at all?
Where did I say there was no second death?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
 

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:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
How would you answer my problems with the "spiritual death" interpretation? ("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!")

As for Paul, I think that when he was only speaking metaphorically about death it was much more clear than when people say that the eschatological scriptures about death are metaphorical.
Paul said that we are saved through union with Christ in his death. It is one of his central doctrines, and arguably the crux of his theological system. (<--see what I did there?) Calling it a metaphor is a real stretch. It is hard to imagine that Jesus had to die bodily so that we could die metaphorically.

Hence, when Paul was expecting to be executed, he never said he was going to die. He couldn't: he was already dead (to the world, and thus alive to God).
I wasn't talking about that when I was talking about Paul and metaphorical death. I was talking about when he was saying a sinful woman was "dead" in her sins.

How would you answer my objection about how in your view, the Second Death wouldn't be "second" at all?
Where did I say there was no second death?
When you say that the final punishment of the wicked is not literal death but spiritual death, you are saying that the Second Death isn't really a second death at all, since the unsaved were dead in that sense all along. Remember when I said "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

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:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
How would you answer my problems with the "spiritual death" interpretation? ("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!")

As for Paul, I think that when he was only speaking metaphorically about death it was much more clear than when people say that the eschatological scriptures about death are metaphorical.
Paul said that we are saved through union with Christ in his death. It is one of his central doctrines, and arguably the crux of his theological system. (<--see what I did there?) Calling it a metaphor is a real stretch. It is hard to imagine that Jesus had to die bodily so that we could die metaphorically.

Hence, when Paul was expecting to be executed, he never said he was going to die. He couldn't: he was already dead (to the world, and thus alive to God).
I wasn't talking about that when I was talking about Paul and metaphorical death. I was talking about when he was saying a sinful woman was "dead" in her sins.

How would you answer my objection about how in your view, the Second Death wouldn't be "second" at all?
Where did I say there was no second death?
When you say that the final punishment of the wicked is not literal death but spiritual death, you are saying that the Second Death isn't really a second death at all, since the unsaved were dead in that sense all along. Remember when I said "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!"?
When did I say the "second death" is only "spiritual"? I've been saying more or less the opposite. Only you are using the notions of spiritual vs. literal death. Sure, there are different senses in which the word "death" is used, but they necessarily have some common, underlying essential idea. This is where that intuition I was talking about (which is not a feeling) clearly plays a role.

The "second death" really shouldn't be brought into this discussion to begin with. It's an expression found only in Revelation, which is fraught with figures and metaphors.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
orthonorm said:
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
As long as you are having fun in Random Postings!
 

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
orthonorm said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
So please do.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
So please do.
I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

And in the end, I will end up in what sounds like tautology to you.

Oh well, here we go.

Aeschere said:
The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.
I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.






 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Rufus said:
This is where that intuition I was talking about (which is not a feeling)
Boston will never not be heard whenever I read such stuff.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
orthonorm said:
Rufus said:
This is where that intuition I was talking about (which is not a feeling)
Boston will never not be heard whenever I read such stuff.
Never lived in Boston, and wouldn't want to if I can help it, which I probably can't, given that the rest of the state has been gutted of its formerly robust industries. It's a very nice city in most parts. The other problem is that the men dress like prostitutes.

Thanks for your contribution above.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
orthonorm said:
Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.
Would you mind restating the bolded part? My yankee brain can't parse your Midwestern grammar.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Partially-overlapping
Aeschere said:
When you say that the final punishment of the wicked is not literal death but spiritual death
Rather, it would appear he is saying that a "literal' death" or "to be 'literally' destroyed" entails something quite different than what you claim it does.
 

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
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
So please do.
I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

And in the end, I will end up in what sounds like tautology to you.

Oh well, here we go.

Aeschere said:
The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.
I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.
Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
So please do.
I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

And in the end, I will end up in what sounds like tautology to you.

Oh well, here we go.

Aeschere said:
The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.
I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.
Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.
Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.
 

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
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
So please do.
I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

And in the end, I will end up in what sounds like tautology to you.

Oh well, here we go.

Aeschere said:
The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.
I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.
Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.
Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.
Maybe in your world. In my experience, communicating your thoughts clearly so your audience can comprehend them is the key to understanding.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
So please do.
I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

And in the end, I will end up in what sounds like tautology to you.

Oh well, here we go.

Aeschere said:
The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.
I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.
Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.
Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.
Maybe in your world. In my experience, communicating your thoughts clearly so your audience can comprehend them is the key to understanding.
So how does a child come to understand language?

Not through rules sets and lectures.

Sides, I ain't finished yet. And really not everyone can understand everything.

Do you understand basketball well enough to play in the NBA? Can Lebron explain basketball well enough to enable you to?

There is a difference between understanding and doing something which relies on understanding like intelligibility or cognition.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
PeterTheAleut said:
Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.
Funny you say that. I regard norm as the guy who often says what I think but am unable to articulate.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
So please do.
I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

And in the end, I will end up in what sounds like tautology to you.

Oh well, here we go.

Aeschere said:
The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.
I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.
Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.
Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.
Maybe in your world. In my experience, communicating your thoughts clearly so your audience can comprehend them is the key to understanding.
So how does a child come to understand language?

Not through rules sets and lectures.

Sides, I ain't finished yet. And really not everyone can understand everything.

Do you understand basketball well enough to play in the NBA? Can Lebron explain basketball well enough to enable you to?

There is a difference between understanding and doing something which relies on understanding like intelligibility or cognition.
This is essentially what I am getting at with Aesch.... In your terms, I am groping for an understanding of the words translated life, death, destruction in their Biblical usage. Aesch...'s continual recourse to dictionary entries indicates to me that her comprehension of the Greek words is limited to equating them with English words that she understands.

In the end, since we are writing in English, our only recourse is to try and use English words we understand to give ourselves clues about the meanings of Greek words that we perhaps don't understand.
 

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:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
How would you answer my problems with the "spiritual death" interpretation? ("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!")

As for Paul, I think that when he was only speaking metaphorically about death it was much more clear than when people say that the eschatological scriptures about death are metaphorical.
Paul said that we are saved through union with Christ in his death. It is one of his central doctrines, and arguably the crux of his theological system. (<--see what I did there?) Calling it a metaphor is a real stretch. It is hard to imagine that Jesus had to die bodily so that we could die metaphorically.

Hence, when Paul was expecting to be executed, he never said he was going to die. He couldn't: he was already dead (to the world, and thus alive to God).
I wasn't talking about that when I was talking about Paul and metaphorical death. I was talking about when he was saying a sinful woman was "dead" in her sins.

How would you answer my objection about how in your view, the Second Death wouldn't be "second" at all?
Where did I say there was no second death?
When you say that the final punishment of the wicked is not literal death but spiritual death, you are saying that the Second Death isn't really a second death at all, since the unsaved were dead in that sense all along. Remember when I said "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!"?
When did I say the "second death" is only "spiritual"? I've been saying more or less the opposite. Only you are using the notions of spiritual vs. literal death. Sure, there are different senses in which the word "death" is used, but they necessarily have some common, underlying essential idea. This is where that intuition I was talking about (which is not a feeling) clearly plays a role.

The "second death" really shouldn't be brought into this discussion to begin with. It's an expression found only in Revelation, which is fraught with figures and metaphors.
Why shouldn't it be brought into the discussion? The Second Death is about final punishment, and we're talking about final punishment. If you want to throw out Revelation because it's many metaphors, you'll have to throw out the verses that many ECT proponents consider the most powerful proofs for their position. The only Bible verses that explicitly say that the unsaved humans will be tormented forever are in Revelation. In fact, if those Revelation verses didn't exist, there might well not be a widespread ECT view at all.

You're saying that the Second Death is spiritual when you say that the unsaved die spiritually, but go on being conscious and being tormented.
 

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:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
So please do.
I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

And in the end, I will end up in what sounds like tautology to you.

Oh well, here we go.

Aeschere said:
The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.
I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.
Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.
Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.
Maybe in your world. In my experience, communicating your thoughts clearly so your audience can comprehend them is the key to understanding.
So how does a child come to understand language?

Not through rules sets and lectures.

Sides, I ain't finished yet. And really not everyone can understand everything.

Do you understand basketball well enough to play in the NBA? Can Lebron explain basketball well enough to enable you to?

There is a difference between understanding and doing something which relies on understanding like intelligibility or cognition.
This is essentially what I am getting at with Aesch.... In your terms, I am groping for an understanding of the words translated life, death, destruction in their Biblical usage. Aesch...'s continual recourse to dictionary entries indicates to me that her comprehension of the Greek words is limited to equating them with English words that she understands.

In the end, since we are writing in English, our only recourse is to try and use English words we understand to give ourselves clues about the meanings of Greek words that we perhaps don't understand.
Are you saying that the Greeks (and the Hebrews that talked about Hebrew concepts in Greek) had no concept of death (the literal kind that happens when you drown or are caught in an explosion or whatever that results in loss of consciousness) that they had a word for?
 

Aeschere

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Arkansas
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
PeterTheAleut said:
orthonorm said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
Rufus said:
Aeschere said:
If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).
What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?
Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?
Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).
It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.
Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.
So please do.
I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

And in the end, I will end up in what sounds like tautology to you.

Oh well, here we go.

Aeschere said:
The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.
I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.
Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.
Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.
Maybe in your world. In my experience, communicating your thoughts clearly so your audience can comprehend them is the key to understanding.
So how does a child come to understand language?

Not through rules sets and lectures.

Sides, I ain't finished yet. And really not everyone can understand everything.

Do you understand basketball well enough to play in the NBA? Can Lebron explain basketball well enough to enable you to?

There is a difference between understanding and doing something which relies on understanding like intelligibility or cognition.
Yaaay....fun....
 

Aeschere

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Arkansas
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Here's a new article about linguistics from Rethinking Hell: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2013/11/the-linguistics-of-final-punishment-making-sense-of-complicated-debates/
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Massachusetts
Aeschere said:
Why shouldn't it be brought into the discussion? The Second Death is about final punishment, and we're talking about final punishment. If you want to throw out Revelation because it's many metaphors, you'll have to throw out the verses that many ECT proponents consider the most powerful proofs for their position. The only Bible verses that explicitly say that the unsaved humans will be tormented forever are in Revelation. In fact, if those Revelation verses didn't exist, there might well not be a widespread ECT view at all.

You're saying that the Second Death is spiritual when you say that the unsaved die spiritually, but go on being conscious and being tormented.
I have never taken up that position in this thread, and have argued flat-out against it several times.

Paying attention to what people are saying helps.
 
Top