Topic: Annihilationism and disbelief in immaterial souls

[PeterTheAleut]

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".

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.

A hermeneutic is considered good

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?

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?

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.  

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]

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.     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?

[PoorFoolNicholas]

PtA flexes his mod muscles? Never!...

[PeterTheAleut]

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.     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]

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.     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]

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.     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]

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.    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]

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.

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.    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.

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.

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.

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.

Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.    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.

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 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:

ABADDON [Heb ʾăbaddôn (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.”

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]

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]

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.

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.    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.

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.

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.

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.

Last time I checked, voicing one's opinion wasn't against forum rules.    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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.    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):

 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

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]

Stay on topic and refrain from ad hominems.

[Rufus]

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]

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.

[Rufus]

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]

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]

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.

[Shiny]

orthonorm I though it was Ge'ez

English a close second.

Can we go back to saying Holy Ghost? Thanks.

[orthonorm]

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]

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]

@Rufus

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

[Rufus]

@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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.