 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Exegetes, HO! Eternal Conscious Punishment vs Annihilationism | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 8/21/2005 10:23 PM (GMT -6) |   |
jefscott said...Klock, I agree with your basic view, but it does seem that in Rom. 7 Paul speaks of sin leading to death. Sin revived and he died, it says. I have thought that the idea is simply a metaphorical affirmation of the fact that sin leads to physical death. Or maybe it is literal, meaning I know not what. How do you take that verse?
Jefscott...
Rom. 5 tells us that through sin death entered the world and even though there was no law, death still reigned. The law was given that the offense should be increasing! Rom. 7 adds to this by saying before law comes into the picture sin is dead, but when law enters, sin is revived and that which was to bring life to those who kept it wholly, brings death. That which looked like would conquer death and bring life, instead gave sin the incentive to produce more sin and to continue to lead towards death. Plus, the curses attached to breaking the law brought death much earlier for many of those under the law then would a natural death.
Just as people warn not to be so "literal", I see much danger in "spiritualizing" what God has directly laid out in scripture. As you posted, death is described as a return, the body returns to the earth, the spirit returns to God. If spiritual death was also a result of sin should it not be included with the other curses involved? It is sad that some have come to the conclusion that the serpant was speaking the truth in the garden (AND NOT GOD) because of the confusion surrounding Gen 2:17, but that is axactly what it leads to!
As for Bullinger, I do not agree with all that Bullinger believed, but that does not take away from what can be learned through his writings. Even though Martin Luther became anti-semetic later in his life does not mean that I am going to reject his teaching that we are justified by faith alone! Bullinger was as human as the rest of us and of course made mistakes, but he was seeking God's truth which is hidden behind the many vain human traditions that control the church and christian theology.
Klock
Post Edited (klock) : 8/21/2005 10:26:05 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/22/2005 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | | | Klock: The law was given that the offense should be increasing! Rom. 7 adds to this by saying before law comes into the picture sin is dead, but when law enters, sin is revived and that which was to bring life to those who kept it wholly, brings death. That which looked like would conquer death and bring life, instead gave sin the incentive to produce more sin and to continue to lead towards death. Plus, the curses attached to breaking the law brought death much earlier for many of those under the law then would a natural death.
Jeff: I see your point, but there must be some meaning to "sin revived, and I died," even if it's metaphorical - since, i.e., "died" is aorist. If the aorist is like the aorist in 8:30, then I suppose it can refer to future physical death.
Klock: Just as people warn not to be so "literal", I see much danger in "spiritualizing" what God has directly laid out in scripture.
Jeff: Agreed. Just curious. How do you explain John 5:25?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 8/23/2005 9:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: I see your point, but there must be some meaning to "sin revived, and I died," even if it's metaphorical - since, i.e., "died" is aorist. If the aorist is like the aorist in 8:30, then I suppose it can refer to future physical death.
This verse speaks of the result of sin, physical decay as we age and the actual final result of death. Even though the Greek Aorist tense has no regard to time (past, present, or future) it is translated here "died" because of the context in which Paul is speaking. The law, which was to bring life, instead produces death through sin.
Jeff: Agreed. Just curious. How do you explain John 5:25?
Judging by the context, Jesus is here speaking to the people of Israel. The hope of Israel was that Christ would set up the Kingdom at that time. The Israelites of Christ's time knew that the "weeks" of Daniel were nearly fulfilled. John and Jesus came proclaiming that the Kingdom was at hand. Jesus was proclaiming that all was in place for the final fulfillent of Daniel which included the resurrection spoken of Daniel 12:2 (which parallels John 5:29). Every Israelite listening to Jesus speaking those words knew axactly what He was alluding to. But the Messiah was rejected and crucified (all according to God's purposes). The kingdom was delayed. The resurrected Christ comissioned His disciples to again exhort Isreal to repent so that the times of refreshing could come (Acts 3:15-21). But sadly again the message was rejected by the majority of Hebrews. The kingdom was set aside during this current age of grace in which anyone has access to God through Christ becoming part of the "body" of Christ. The prophecy of Daniel is stalled at 69 "weeks", with the final week yet to come. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/24/2005 8:08 PM (GMT -6) | | | Klock: Judging by the context, Jesus is here speaking to the people of Israel. The hope of Israel was that Christ would set up the Kingdom at that time. The Israelites of Christ's time knew that the "weeks" of Daniel were nearly fulfilled. John and Jesus came proclaiming that the Kingdom was at hand. Jesus was proclaiming that all was in place for the final fulfillent of Daniel which included the resurrection spoken of Daniel 12:2 (which parallels John 5:29). Every Israelite listening to Jesus speaking those words knew axactly what He was alluding to. But the Messiah was rejected and crucified (all according to God's purposes). The kingdom was delayed. The resurrected Christ comissioned His disciples to again exhort Isreal to repent so that the times of refreshing could come (Acts 3:15-21). But sadly again the message was rejected by the majority of Hebrews. The kingdom was set aside during this current age of grace in which anyone has access to God through Christ becoming part of the "body" of Christ. The prophecy of Daniel is stalled at 69 "weeks", with the final week yet to come.
Jeff: Okay, but I think HB was alluding to the fact that amillenialists and postmillenialists argue that the phrase, "an hour is coming," negates the possibility of a 1st AND 2nd ressurection, if "coming out of their graves" refers to physical ressurection. In other words, they contend that the phrase demands a single, general physical ressurection. How would you argue to the contrary, grammatically and exegetically, concerning that phrase and it's implications about multiple, physical ressurections?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
klock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 8/24/2005 9:42 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: Okay, but I think HB was alluding to the fact that amillenialists and postmillenialists argue that the phrase, "an hour is coming," negates the possibility of a 1st AND 2nd ressurection, if "coming out of their graves" refers to physical ressurection. In other words, they contend that the phrase demands a single, general physical ressurection. How would you argue to the contrary, grammatically and exegetically, concerning that phrase and it's implications about multiple, physical ressurections?
First look at John 5:25...
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Note the phrase "the dead" and that those who hear shall live. Only believers have a part in this resurrection and according to Rev. 20:6 this will occcur at the beginning of Christ's thousand years reign and only those who hear Christ's voice are raised from the dead and will live and reign with Christ.
Then look at John 5:28...
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Note here that now ALL THAT ARE IN THE GRAVES HEAR HIS VOICE.
verse 29 then speaks of the white throne judgment which according to Rev. 20:12 does not occur until at least a thousand years after the "former" ressurrection of those in Christ.
When comparing the finer points of each passage it becomes obvious that they speak of two seperate resurrections, the first resurrection, or former resurrection, where only those who hear Christ's voice will live and the second resurrection when all that are in the graves will hear His voice and stand before the white throne judgment.
Klock | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/26/2005 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello folks, I'm back from holidays and I see we haven't made much progress.
klock said...
Even though the Greek Aorist tense has no regard to time (past, present, or future) it is translated here "died" because of the context in which Paul is speaking.
*Sigh*. I've already pointed out that the aorist indicative almost always means past tense. It's no use arguing, klock, you are simply wrong. Anyone who can read the Greek NT, which you clearly can't, knows this. I've cited Wenham, I've cited all the major English translations - do you want me to cite other translations as well? I could cite the LXX and show that past events in the Masoretic Text are consistently translated as Greek aorist indicative when it is a single event. I could cite the Peshitta, the Vulgate and Old Latin, and other early translations which all translate the aorist indicative as past tense in nearly all cases. I could cite the early church fathers who quoted the NT. Or you could just try reading any historical narrative, such as the gospels and Acts, in Greek, which would soon demonstrate the principle!
It is the fact that you won't be honest about these things, klock, that is particularly troubling. Whether you realize it or not, you are actually changing the Word of God to make it read how you want it to read. Revelation 22:18-19 contains a warning, which applies by extension to all scripture, that you need to take heed of:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
klock said...
It is sad that some have come to the conclusion that the serpant was speaking the truth in the garden (AND NOT GOD) because of the confusion surrounding Gen 2:17, but that is axactly what it leads to!
It only leads to that conclusion if you refuse to acknowledge the reality of spiritual death that the Bible teaches. It is you who make out the serpent to be telling the truth. I say God was right - they did die as soon as they ate of the tree.
klock said...
Just as people warn not to be so "literal", I see much danger in "spiritualizing" what God has directly laid out in scripture.
But you're only "literal" when it suits you. You're not literal, for instance, about the phrase "and now is" in John 5:25, as noted below. And you ignore what God has directly laid out in scripture, instead imposing your own views of what the text should mean, instead of allowing scripture to interpret scripture. You ignore, for instance, the clear teaching of a spiritual birth contrasted with a physical birth in John 3:6. One of numerous scriptures which you conveniently don't mention. In fact, the issue is not really "literal" interpretation at all. I'm just as literal, if not more literal, than you. The real issue is your arbitrary rule that words cannot refer to spiritual realites. I'd be interested for you to show me a scripture, klock, where it says "verily, you should always interpret every statement in scripture as referring to the physical realm, and words cannot refer to spiritual realities". If you can't show me that, then I am entitled to conclude that you are basing your theology on your own human reasoning, rather than what the scripture teaches. I cannot reiterate enough: how we interpret scripture should be governed by scripture, not by our own thinking about how things ought to be interpreted. Orthodox Christian interpretations are explicitly governed by scripture. Yours are not.
klock said...
Note the phrase "the dead" and that those who hear shall live. Only believers have a part in this resurrection and according to Rev. 20:6 this will occcur at the beginning of Christ's thousand years reign and only those who hear Christ's voice are raised from the dead and will live and reign with Christ.
Nice try, but John 5:25 clearly states that the hour in question now is (present active indicative). It is quite clear: the resurrection in question was actually occurring in a continuing fashion at the very moment he spoke. So your interpretation that Jesus is referring to something which is soon to happen but which hadn't yet commenced is impossible. It also completely ignores the wider context and ignores the distinction between "the dead" and "those in the graves".
And by the way guys, I'm still waiting to hear your interpretations of Matthew 8:22 & Luke 9:60. Was Jesus saying that this fellow should expect some corpses to come to life, pick up spades, and bury his father? I think the meaning is rather obvious. But go ahead, surprise me!
jefscott said...
Okay, but I think HB was alluding to the fact that amillenialists and postmillenialists argue that the phrase, "an hour is coming," negates the possibility of a 1st AND 2nd ressurection, if "coming out of their graves" refers to physical ressurection.
While amillennialists and postmillennialists might try to make that argument, such an argument is obviously flawed. The first "hour" extends for two thousand years. To insist that the second "hour" must be a literal hour or a moment is nonsense. In fact, the interpretation I gave is accepted by virtually all premillennialist scholars as well, so it's hardly an argument for amill or postmill. Furthermore, if it were valid, the same argument could be employed from other scriptures such as Daniel 12:2. That the two events, one at the end of this age and one at the end of the millennium, are frequently "telescoped" or described together, is quite clear from 2 Peter 3:10-13, which would be a much better argument for amillennialism than John 5:28-29.
But what is more important, is that you both seem to be overlooking something rather crucial. In the second resurrection described in Rev. 20:11-15, there is no mention whatsoever of any righteous people being resurrected. This is in fact implicitly excluded by verse 6, which implies that you only escape judgment if you participate in the first resurrection. It is also indicated by the fact that this passage mentions that "death and hades" gave up people for judgement, without any counterbalance, and perhaps also by the fact that those resurrected are referred to even after their resurrection as "the dead" (verse 12). Futhermore, everyone who is resurrected in the second resurrection faces the great white throne of judgment according to works for salvation (verse 12). But the Bible tells us that believers will not face judgment for salvation (John 5:24, 1 Cor. 3:15). It is true that there will presumably be some righteous from the millennium that will have to be resurrected, but they can't be part of this resurrection. Their fate is simply not discussed in scripture. Even the second resurrection is focussed only on those who died prior to the millennium, because verse 5 states "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended", which sets the scene for those who are resurrected and judged in verses 11-15. We should not theologically interpolate things into scripture which scripture doesn't address, such as the fate of those who live and die during the millennium.
In conclusion, it seems quite clear to me that the real problem here is simply that you start with the fixed assumption, not derived from scripture (but from modernism), that words cannot describe spiritual realities. Then you go ahead and distort the text, really badly in some cases, to force it to fit your preconcieved assumption. Of course, lo and behold, you come to the conclusion that there are no spiritual realities. But how is that a surprise? It is totally governed by your a priori assumptions. I would suggest that you don't really need to do exegesis at all. You have your theology already, before you even look at the Bible.
There is a real sense in which your position, like that of the JWs, Christadelphians and so forth, is just as much a product of modernism as is liberalism. In fact, you are almost the mirror image of liberal theology. They deny all unrealized eschatology, whereas you deny all realized eschatology.
Since you don't seem very interested in following what the Bible explicitly teaches, I would urge you at least to be more logically consistent. If whenever the word "spirit" occurs in relation to the human spirit, it does not describe an actual real component of the human being, then consistency simply demands that you apply the same logic to the spirit of God. It also demands that you apply it to all other spirits, including the demons and angels. In fact, in this regard, the Christadelphians are most consistent, because they deny the reality of the devil and demons as well as the personality of the Holy Spirit (I'm not sure of their position on angels, but I assume they would not believe in them). Conversely, if there is this spiritual reality, and these beings do exist, then how can you possibly argue that words can't relate to the spiritual realm? The Christadelphians are in fact much more "literal" in your strange sense of the word than you are.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/26/2005 7:42:05 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/26/2005 4:23 PM (GMT -6) | | By the way guys, one more thing on John 5:25. As if the above considerations were not enough, the immediate context puts the matter totally beyond doubt. The preceding verse, 5:24, states:
Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.
This verse plainly states that anyone who believes HAS ALREADY PASSED FROM DEATH TO LIFE. The tense is perfect so even klock with his terrible Greek grammar should have to acknowledge this one. It is plainly talking about spiritual death and life. This leads directly into Jesus' statement that people right then and there were coming to life in 5:25.
Come on, guys! Get with the program!
A question for Jefscott:
Back to the original topic, I am afraid I might have misunderstood your position. I have been discussing the issue with a friend of mine who unfortunately tends to annihilationism, and it seems that there are actually three different annihilationist interpretations of the aionios/aion word group, not two as I thought. It seems that although annihilationists agree that there is not eternal conscious punishment, they cannot agree amongst themselves as to what the correct meaning of aionios/aion is, but advance three mutually exclusive explanations. The one that I overlooked is claimed by Fudge, that aionios/aion is non-temporal, and describes the quality of the life or destruction/punishment rather than than the duration. If this was what you were saying, I am sorry. I interpreted your statements to mean that you thought aionios/aion was temporal but finite.
In any case, Fudge's view can be readily excluded, not just by looking at the meaning of the Greek in contemporary writings and translations such as the LXX, but also directly from the following scriptures:
Heb. 13:8: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. [eis tous aionas].
Jude 25: to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time (pro pantos tou aionos) and now and forever (eis pantos tous aionas). Amen.
Both these verse use a temporal trilogy of "past, present, future", so it is pretty ludicrous to deny that the term eis tous aionas is being used in a future temporal sense in these cases. Personally, I also think they both, but especially the first, are pretty clearly using the term in the sense of unending or forever. It seems pretty clear that the writer of Hebrews is saying that Jesus is always the same, not that he is the same in the past, now, and for some long finite duration, after which he may or may not be the same.
It is the fact that annihilationists can't get their story straight on aionios/aion, I think, that has made responding to the position frustrating. Some writers deal well with one annihilationist argument presented by one group or writer, and thereby think that the position is disproved, without realizing that completely incompatible views are held by other annihilationists. So any response to annihilationism has to deal with these three views on aionios/aion, which actually disprove each other:
(a) That aionios/aion is non-temporal.
(b) That aionios/aion is temporal but finite.
(c) That aionios/aion is temporal, infinite and endless, but refers to the consequences of destruction (i.e. its permanence), rather than the actual destruction.
I was assuming you were group (b), but I was overlooking group (a).Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/27/2005 4:03:14 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/27/2005 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | OK, klock & jefscott, just for fun, let's do a little test about the meaning of the aorist indicative. Our test passage will be Romans 8:30, since this verse repeatedly uses the aorist indicative and is a classic case of a passage that klock claims should have the verbs translated in different tenses. Klock claimed that it should be God predestinates (past), God calls (present), and God glorifies (future). So here's our test. We'll check the Peshitta.
The Peshitta is a definitive test, because it is an Aramaic translation of the New Testament made in about the 4th century AD in the Eastern Roman Empire. This means that at the time it was translated, Greek essentially the same as that found in the New Testament was in widespread use, as the dominant language in the broader region. In other words, we are looking at a translation done at the time the Greek language was actually in common use for writing and speech, in a region in which it was in such use. Therefore, I would ask you to consider that how the Peshitta translates this verse is extremely good evidence for meaning. No-one, not even the best Greek scholar alive today, can claim to have the level of familiarity with the Greek of the NT that these translators had. So if anyone should know the meaning of the aorist indicative, they should.
Now Aramaic, like Hebrew, has two primary tenses, the perfect and the imperfect. The perfect denotes basically completed action and hence, leaving aside some verbs called statives and a few other uses such as with imperative force, and without the vav consecutive, the perfect has the meaning of past tense. Conversely, leaving aside various grammatical exceptions such as when the vav consecutive is attached etc etc which are irrelevant here, the imperfect, which denotes uncompleted action, has the meaning of future tense. So if the aorist indicative should be translated as past for "predestinates" but future for "glorifies", for example, then we would expect the perfect to be used for the former but the imperfect for the latter. So let's see, shall we? The text of Romans in the Peshitta can be found at this link: http://www.peshitta.net/peshitta/syriac1905/romans.php. My Hebrew is excellent but I'm only a learner at Aramaic; nonetheless it is a relatively simple matter to determine whether each verb is perfect or imperfect for reasons you will understand if you know Hebrew (Aramaic conjugations being very similar) - because the imperfects have a prefix which the perfects lack. The Syriac script is a pain, however, and had to be increased in size numerous times before I could clearly read it. Here's the verse in English, with the Aramaic tenses noted after each verb which is aorist indicative in the Greek:
And those whom he predestined [Aramaic Perfect] he also called [Aramaic Perfect]; and those whom he called [Aramaic Perfect] he also justified [Aramaic Perfect]; and those whom he justified [Aramaic Perfect] he also glorified [Aramaic Perfect].
What a surprise! They're all translated as past tense in the Peshitta! I guess those ancient Eastern Roman Empire people surrounded by Greek speakers just didn't know the meaning of the aorist indiciative as well as you do, guys!Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/27/2005 5:01:21 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/27/2005 10:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert: What a surprise! They're all translated as past tense in the Peshitta! I guess those ancient Eastern Roman Empire people surrounded by Greek speakers just didn't know the meaning of the aorist indiciative as well as you do, guys!
Jeff: How many Christians who have learned greek think that "He glorified" refers to something prior to death? And what does it mean if so? The very point of the passage, it seems to me, is to prove that all things work together for good to those who love God. That's why is starts with "for." That would seem to make it future, for Paul elsewhere argues that we are of all men the most miserable if we have hope in Christ in this life only AND that we should "eat and drink" if there is no ressurection. Indeed, just a few paragraphs back, Paul had said that we shall be GLORIFIED with Christ if we SUFFER with him. That would seem to mean that the suffering is in THIS life, while the glorification is NOT.
If there can be a historical present, why can't there be a usage of the aorist which refers to the future? Especially since that particular aorist may have been used for symmetry only in the Rom. 8 passage, perhaps to allow for the universal application of the relative order - i.e., predestination first, then call, then justification, then glorification (in other words, the aorist was meant to include people who had YET to be called, as well as those who HAD BEEN called already, in the same SEQUENCED process). That's all I think that is going on there.
I have just as much right to INFER what authors were trying to say from the context as greek teachers. In the same way we know from context that there can be a historical present, we can INFER other exceptional cases also.
Let me ask you this. If I remember correctly, Hebrew doesn't have as many distinctions in verb tense as Greek does. And yet the Septuagint is a translation of Hebrew verbs to Greek verbs. If that can be done, doesn't that indicate that context DOES provide information that is not explicit in tense alone? And isn't that how the original studiers of koine greek determined that there WAS a historical present? Because the context demanded it? EVEN THOUGH the vast majority of present verbs were NOT historical presents?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/27/2005 10:10:33 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/28/2005 12:31 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
How many Christians who have learned greek think that "He glorified" refers to something prior to death?
Everyone that I know of agrees that the verse should be translated in the past tense, even if they don't think that "he glorified" refers to anything prior to death. But in any case, many Christians, especially in times past prior to the rise of modernist-influenced evangelicalism and its downplaying of spiritual realities, took "he glorified" to mean something prior to death. The earliest Christian writing I can find that specifically addresses this verse and comments on the matter is Chrysostom in his Homilies on Romans, and he writes:
Now He justified them by the regeneration of the layer. “And whom He justified, them He also glorified” by the gift, by the adoption.
In other words, Chrysostom (347-407 AD) - a native Greek speaker born in Antioch by the way - sees this glorification as something already accomplished at salvation in our adoption as sons. The point is not whether this interpretation is fully correct or not, but that he understood the aorist indicative as I do, and therefore assumed that "he glorified" had to refer to something that had already happened prior to death.
But in any case, the ultimate test is not what some people think, but what the Bible teaches.
jefscott said...
And what does it mean if so?
Stop and think, jefscott. Is Christ presently glorified? Answer: yes. Are our spirits united with Christ's spirit, in a real, ontological sense? Answer: yes. So are we presently glorified? Answer: yes we certainly are glorified with Christ. We are in the spirit realm presently seated with Christ at the right hand of the Father. Please note the following passage in Ephesians 2:5-7:
even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--(OUR PAST) and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, ( OUR PRESENT STATUS) so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (OUR FUTURE).
If you don't understand that we are presently glorified with Christ, then you have profoundly misunderstood the whole message of great slabs of the apostle Paul's writings. To say nothing of the rest of the NT. And implicitly what you believe denies the whole scheme of salvation.
In 2 Cor. 5:17, it is stated that believers are a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! The new creation is the final, eschatological world to come. When we believe we enter into that world spiritually already. Note the parallel:
2 Cor. 5:17 Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
Rev. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away
jefscott said...
The very point of the passage, it seems to me, is to prove that all things work together for good to those who love God. That's why is starts with "for."
I agree. But the whole point is that all things work together for good because of who we presently are, not just because of what we will become. Please note verse 37:
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors (present tense) through him who loved us.
Why are we more than conquerers presently? Because we are presently glorified with Christ! Romans is full of realized eschatology. This is why you have such difficulty with Paul's teaching in Romans 7 and elsewhere that we have already died and risen with Christ - because you don't acknowledge that it speaks of a spiritual reality that has already been accomplished, as well as a future reality still to be consumated. It is both.
jefscott said...
That would seem to make it future, for Paul elsewhere argues that we are of all men the most miserable if we have hope in Christ in this life only AND that we should "eat and drink" if there is no ressurection.
Have a closer look at the text. When Paul says all is in vain if there is no resurrection, he says this primarily because it negates Christ's past bodily resurrection. The negation of our future bodily resurrection he sees as simply following from this. Here is what he actually says:
For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then (i.e. logical implication of the preceding) those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Note that Paul is concerned with a denail of Christ's resurrection, and the impact that has on our present status, namely, that we are still in our sins. Paul's concern about the denial of our future bodily resurrection, simply flows from on from this as a corollary. He is primarily concerned about the implications of a denial of the resurrection for the past fact of Christ's resurrection and it's implications on our present status, which then would result as a logical implication of this in our also not being raised in the future. That's why he spends so much time reassuring his readers about the historical accuracy of the accounts of Christ's resurrection. For Paul, to deny our present glorified status necessarily also involves denying our future resurrection, and vice-versa. Your problem is that you separate off our future resurrection from our present state. But that is utterly antithetical to Paul's teaching and to the NT in general.
jefscott said...
Indeed, just a few paragraphs back, Paul had said that we shall be GLORIFIED with Christ if we SUFFER with him. That would seem to mean that the suffering is in THIS life, while the glorification is NOT.
But you are imposing your own theological either/or which is alien to Paul's teaching. We are glorified now AND we will be glorifed then. That is what the text teaches. The fact that you can't cope with this doesn't justify your altering the text, anymore then the fact that someone can't cope with Jesus being both God AND man justifies them altering the text.
jefscott said...
If there can be a historical present, why can't there be a usage of the aorist which refers to the future?
This is like saying, if the word "sheep" in English can be plural, then why can't the word "cow" be plural also? Language is governed by conventions which are determined by usage. The conventions of koine Greek are that the present tense can be used to describe past events in historical narrative. The conventions of koine Greek are also that the aorist indicative is almost always past tense in meaning. That's just the facts of the matter.
jefscott said...
Especially since that particular aorist may have been used for symmetry only in the Rom. 8 passage, perhaps to allow for the universal application of the relative order - i.e., predestination first, then call, then justification, then glorification (in other words, the aorist was meant to include people who had YET to be called, as well as those who HAD BEEN called already, in the same SEQUENCED process). That's all I think that is going on there.
Paul is writing to a particular group of people who are already Christians to encourage them. That's why he keeps using the pronoun "we". "We" know all things works together for good for those who are called (present tense). Obviously, what he says to these Christians can be generalized to other Christians as well, including those who would believe later. But at least you're coming closer to acknowledging that the Greek aorist indicative is generally past in meaning, which I suppose is encouraging.
jefscott said...
I have just as much right to INFER what authors were trying to say from the context as greek teachers. In the same way we know from context that there can be a historical present, we can INFER other exceptional cases also.
You do not have the right to alter the meaning of standard Greek grammar simply because you have theological difficulties with what the text actually says, especially since your knowledge of Greek is extremely limited. Note that, regardless of their particular theological biases, all of the major English translations, and the Aramaic Peshitta, and I would bet my bottom dollar every other reputable translation in every other language you care to mention, translates Romans 8:30 all in the past tense. Maybe some of these translators didn't believe that we are currently glorified. But at least they had the integrity not to alter the text on that basis.
jefscott said...
Let me ask you this. If I remember correctly, Hebrew doesn't have as many distinctions in verb tense as Greek does. And yet the Septuagint is a translation of Hebrew verbs to Greek verbs. If that can be done, doesn't that indicate that context DOES provide information that is not explicit in tense alone?
Of course. A translator of a Hebrew perfect used indicatively, for instance, would have to choose whether to use a Greek aorist indicative or Greek imperfect indicative, and would have to do so based on other considerations. But that doesn't mean that you can translate words directly contrary to their grammatically governed tense, as you are attempting to do. A translator would never, for instance, translate a Greek future tense as a past. That would just be wrong.
jefscott said...
And isn't that how the original studiers of koine greek determined that there WAS a historical present? Because the context demanded it? EVEN THOUGH the vast majority of present verbs were NOT historical presents?
Nope. That is just part of the reason. They also studied translations of Greek writings into other languages that were made at the time that the language was in use, in order to determine how the people at the time understood the tense conventions. Remember the Rosetta stone? An argument based on contextual considerations alone would (generally speaking) be weak, because there would always remain the possibility that we had misunderstood the text. But an argument based on seeing how the Greek historical present was translated into Aramaic, Latin, and other languages by people at the time would be much stronger. That is exactly what I have done with the Peshitta. And I am certain that if I looked at how passages which employ the Greek historical present are translated in the Peshitta, they will be translated as perfects - in other words, those who lived at the time understood this Greek convention in that way.
A final note: in rare instances, the aorist indicative can be used with meanings other than past tense. But if you want to argue this, you have to tell me what grammatical usage is being employed here (e.g. ingressive, culminative, gnomic, etc), and give grammatical reasons. Even so I would think that the past meaning is far more likely just on a probability basis.
Many people, of course, would not regard "he glorified" as referring to anything prior to death. But they usually argue that Paul is adopting the perspective of the end of time looking back in this verse. I think that is implausible and theologically motivated, myself, but at least it's consistent with the tense. In the end, no doctrine can stand or fall on one individual verse. But what annoys me more is cavalier overturning of standard translations without a proper appreciation of grammar. Although klock is far more guilty in that regard than you are, it has to be said.
By the way, I'm still waiting to hear from you on John 5:24-25 and "let the dead bury their dead".
Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/28/2005 4:10:25 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/28/2005 10:59 AM (GMT -6) | | |
ALBERT: Stop and think, jefscott. Is Christ presently glorified? Answer: yes. Are our spirits united with Christ's spirit, in a real, ontological sense? Answer: yes. So are we presently glorified? Answer: yes we certainly are glorified with Christ. We are in the spirit realm presently seated with Christ at the right hand of the Father. Please note the following passage in Ephesians 2:5-7:
even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--(OUR PAST) and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, ( OUR PRESENT STATUS) so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (OUR FUTURE).
JEFF: I believe that passage has a literal meaning, too. But you didn't say WHAT it meant. To say that it HAS a literal meaning, but not explain it is to no avail. I can only think of two possible meanings. Either our human spirit has literally been taken up to heavenly places and the holy spirit is now our only spirit causing us to live; OR it is referring to our resurrection body being there already. Now, WHAT do you think it means, literally? To say our spirits are united doesn't tell me that my spirit is in heaven. It means that Christ's spirit is in the world, in us.
ALBERT: If you don't understand that we are presently glorified with Christ, then you have profoundly misunderstood the whole message of great slabs of the apostle Paul's writings.
JEFF: Again, WHAT does that mean to YOU? What PRESENT reality does it communicate?
ALBERT: You do not have the right to alter the meaning of standard Greek grammar simply because you have theological difficulties with what the text actually says, especially since your knowledge of Greek is extremely limited.
JEFF: I'm not arguing that we should TRANSLATE the verb as future. I'm arguing that the context demands that it looks FORWARD to the future to give it coherent meaning.
ALBERT: Your problem is that you separate off our future resurrection from our present state. But that is utterly antithetical to Paul's teaching and to the NT in general.
JEFF: What have I said that makes you think that I separate the two? Nothing could be farther from the truth.
ALBERT: Why are we more than conquerers presently? Because we are presently glorified with Christ! Romans is full of realized eschatology. This is why you have such difficulty with Paul's teaching in Romans 7 and elsewhere that we have already died and risen with Christ - because you don't acknowledge that it speaks of a spiritual reality that has already been accomplished, as well as a future reality still to be consumated. It is both.
JEFF: Right, Albert. It IS both. But it is the future reality BECAUSE of the former reality. But apart from the hope of the FUTURE reality, Paul could not claim that all things work together for the good to the called. If so, I don't know what he means by "good." For some believers at that time were being persecuted and being martyred shortly after conversion.
ALBERT: A final note: in rare instances, the aorist indicative can be used with meanings other than past tense. But if you want to argue this, you have to tell me what grammatical usage is being employed here (e.g. ingressive, culminative, gnomic, etc), and give grammatical reasons. Even so I would think that the past meaning is far more likely just on a probability basis.
JEFF: I'm not sure if it's gnomic or not. But I think the emphasis of the structure is to give a RELATIVE order - with glorification being the LAST event of the redemptive process. That's why I think the Romans understood, contextually, as I do, that the glorification refers to the receiving of the glorified body. That way, the whole context of the chapter remains coherent.
For all I know, Paul was thinking of the relative order like a check list, subjectively in his mind. Maybe that was part of his Hebrew idiomatic way of thinking, sometimes. Just like the historical present is a subjective point of view, rather than an ACTUAL timing of the related events. To me, it's so obvious what it means in context, I don't even care if there is a technical name for the usage in question.
ALBERT: By the way, I'm still waiting to hear from you on John 5:24-25 and "let the dead bury their dead"
JEFF: Then quit wasting time with such arguments as these. You, yourself, KNOW that the future ressurection is necessary to make sense of redemption. Why quibble over technicalities. Can't you see we basically agree? It is just plain silly to suppose context does not play a paramount role in understanding how verb tenses are used. The original greek studiers did NOT have grammar books in english which told them all the possible uses of the tenses of ancient languages. They INFERRED these usages, inductively - USING context! SO YES, I DO have the same right to do that. If you think it is more plausible that all things work together for the good of ALL christians whether or not they have any post-mortem existence, more power to you. I, personally, think such a view is totally IMplausible.
And how does "let the dead bury their dead" have anything to do with the union of Christ's spirit. At the time Christ said that, his own disciples who WERE following him didn't even have the holy spirit?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/28/2005 9:22:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/28/2005 11:48 PM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
I believe that passage has a literal meaning, too. But you didn't say WHAT it meant. To say that it HAS a literal meaning, but not explain it is to no avail. I can only think of two possible meanings. Either our human spirit has literally been taken up to heavenly places and the holy spirit is now our only spirit causing us to live; OR it is referring to our resurrection body being there already. Now, WHAT do you think it means, literally? To say our spirits are united doesn't tell me that my spirit is in heaven. It means that Christ's spirit is in the world, in us.
Then you're not interpreting it literally. Make no mistake: I am claiming that our human spirit is literally seated with Christ in the heavenly places WHICH IS WHAT THE EPHESIANS TEXT ACTUALLY SAYS. So I, and I alone, can claim to really be interpreting the text literally. You are not. Klock is not.
You assume that if our spirit is seated in heaven with Christ that it cannot also be in communion with our physical body here. But where did you get that assumption, JS? Do you know all the spatial geometry of the spiritual realm? Can you tell me it is impossible for the one entity to occupy these two different locations simultaneously? Can you assure me that spiritual spatial geometry is such that it is impossible for these two spaces to be adjacent in any direction? I would suggest that there may be something fundamentally different about the spatial geometry of the spiritual realm and its relationship to the physical world. When Jesus was in his resurrected body, he was able to appear and disappear at will. Can you do that? Perhaps there are multidimensional geometric manifolds that we just don't know about.
My point is this. The Bible plainly and emphatically teaches that I have a human spirit which is seated in the heavenly places with Christ now, and also plainly and emphatically teaches that said human spirit continues to inhabit and interact with my body. So I believe these two together, regardless of whether or not I can explain how it can be so. Because I am not willing to say on the basis of my puny human intellect that these things can't be true.
jefscott said...
Again, WHAT does that mean to YOU? What PRESENT reality does it communicate?
I don't know how I can put it more plainly. There is a component of the human makeup called a spirit. For believers, our spirit is really, truly seated with Christ in glory in the heavenly places, and we possess all the authority that derives from that. That is quite meaningful to me. If it's not to you, well, that's your business I suppose!
jefscott said...
I'm not arguing that we should TRANSLATE the verb as future. I'm arguing that the context demands that it looks FORWARD to the future to give it coherent meaning.
Well that's different to klock's original comments, which clearly were aimed at arguing that the aorist indicative should not be translated as past tense. And, as noted, I disagree with you on the context. I will simply take the passage literally, as did Chrysostom, and as have numerous Christians before me.
jefscott said...
What have I said that makes you think that I separate the two? Nothing could be farther from the truth.
You argued that Paul couldn't be speaking of a present glorification, because elsewhere (1 Cor 15) he is worried about denying a future glorification. That was your argument, as I understood it! Otherwise, how was 1 Cor 15 relevant to the meaning of Rom 8:30?
jefscott said...
Right, Albert. It IS both. But it is the future reality BECAUSE of the former reality. But apart from the hope of the FUTURE reality, Paul could not claim that all things work together for the good to the called. If so, I don't know what he means by "good." For some believers at that time were being persecuted and being martyred shortly after conversion.
Paul is saying that all things presently work together for good for those who believe. The verb is present active indicative. He is not talking about some future good to come disconnected from what is happening now. The working together for good is presently underway. This confirms that the glorification refers to our present glorification, which is a spiritual reality working towards an ultimate completion when we experience "the redemption of our body".
So let me ask. If your view is true and the "good" in question is just our future resurrection, then how are things presently working together for good? Wouldn't Paul have used the future tense (all things will work together for good)?
jefscott said...
I'm not sure if it's gnomic or not.
Nope, it isn't, at least not if you accept any temporal ordering of the events described, which you seem to. It also is hard to see how the events described could extend through all time or be "outside of time". In any case, the gnomic is exceedingly rare. Not all grammarians even agree that there is such a thing as the gnomic use of the aorist. So it's questionable whether it even exists.
jefscott said...
But I think the emphasis of the structure is to give a RELATIVE order - with glorification being the LAST event of the redemptive process. That's why I think the Romans understood, contextually, as I do, that the glorification refers to the receiving of the glorified body. That way, the whole context of the chapter remains coherent.
The context remains coherent on my view too. But the difference is that I interpret verse 30 literally whereas you do not. You say the context overrules the literal meaning and causes you to interpret it less literally. That's your opinion, fine. I disagree. But at least concede that I am the one interpreting the verse literally in this case, and stop insisting that "literal" interpretation demands your view. Literal interpretation involves taking tense literally as much as taking anything else literally.
jefscott said...
For all I know, Paul was thinking of the relative order like a check list, subjectively in his mind. Maybe that was part of his Hebrew idiomatic way of thinking, sometimes. Just like the historical present is a subjective point of view, rather than an ACTUAL timing of the related events. To me, it's so obvious what it means in context, I don't even care if there is a technical name for the usage in question.
It isn't any Hebrew idiom that I'm aware of. If you want to claim that it is, fine, but show me some examples. And it would be at the very least somewhat unusual to use the past tense to describe something in the future. It's not the way people typically spoke in Greek, and it isn't the way they typically speak in English. There was a simple way of speaking about the future in Greek - use the future tense. The fact that Paul chose not to do this, I think he did for a reason. I'm not willing to dismiss the literal grammar as readily as you do.
jefscott said...
You, yourself, KNOW that the future ressurection is necessary to make sense of redemption.
No, I know that the future resurrection is necessary to complete redemption. At the moment it is incomplete. That is a very different thing to saying that it doesn't make sense now. It does.
jefscott said...
Can't you see we basically agree?
But we don't, do we? I, and Chrysostom, and many others, regard the phrase "he glorified" in Romans 8:30 as referring to something that happened when we believed. You, on the other hand, regard it as something future. So how do we agree?
jefscott said...
It is just plain silly to suppose context does not play a paramount role in understanding how verb tenses are used. The original greek studiers did NOT have grammar books in english which told them all the possible uses of the tenses of ancient languages. They INFERRED these usages, inductively - USING context! SO YES, I DO have the same right to do that.
The local context plays a role, but only a minor role. The major role in the meaning of words is played by the grammatical conventions of the language. The meaning of words is not determined just by their local context. Otherwise, dictionaries would be an impossibility. The meaning is determined primarily by conventional usage in the language. The local context plays a role only within that framework of the conventions of the language. I could use local context to argue that the English word "cool" meant either "of low temperature" or "extremely hip and groovy". But I can't use local context to make it mean "dog" or "moon" or "hot in temperature". It just can't mean those things, because of convention. It is these broader grammatical conventions of Greek that you haven't taken into account. The original Greek readers knew these conventions because they either spoke the language as a native speaker, or if not, had access to people who did speak the langauge to teach them. Anyone who has any experience in foreign languages knows that learning a second language as an adult is a completely different cognitive process to acquiring a language as an infant. It is much more difficult and requires much more effort and structure. It is not acheived perfectly by many people. Do you know any immigrants who speak English as a second language which they learnt as an adult? Is their English perfect? Do they make grammatical mistakes? Is that just because they are lazy or they ignore the local context of statements they hear? And they have only had to learn a language which is currently spoken by many other people, not an ancient language which is now defunct. It is "just plain silly" to think that you can simply infer verb meanings from local context in a language that you haven't learned. You must go to the trouble of learning the language. Then you will be able to make sensible inferences from context, which certainly can be made, about verb tenses and many other things.
In the meantime, you need to trust the translators, especially where they all agree. There is no giant conspiracy, lasting from the 17th century until now, to mistranslate English Bibles to hide Bullinger's special truths. There are no special literal meanings that all the translators somehow mistakenly overlooked. If all the English translations agree, then you should not attempt to argue against them unless you know the language well. You can bet there is a very good reason that they all agree. Learning the original languages is mainly going to be helpful in situations where there is disagreement amongst translators, because it allows you to make an informed decision for yourself between the various options. It is also does give some deeper insight that is not always evident in English. But rarely indeed does it allow you to find an identical fault in all of the English translations. The translators did not approach the text like klock does - "now how can I make this fit my theology?". They just attempted to translate it as it stood.
But, you now seem to agree with me that the aorist indicative should be translated as past tense, and instead are arguing on the basis of higher-level interpretation rather than grammar. That is perfectly legitimate. Your interpretation is less literal than mine, but that's not out of court. We just disagree about the broader context and the theology; in my case a literal reading is perfectly natural, in your case it's not. That is, in my opinion, a point in my favour, but it's not an overwhelming one. No doctrine can stand or fall on just one verse.
jefscott said...
And how does "let the dead bury their dead" have anything to do with the union of Christ's spirit. At the time Christ said that, his own disciples who WERE following him didn't even have the holy spirit?
I don't recall saying anything about "let the dead bury their dead" having anything to do with the union of Christ's spirit. It just is yet another example where Jesus taught the concept of spiritual death.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/29/2005 6:12:44 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/29/2005 10:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert, don't have but a minute so let me address this one point:
There is a component of the human makeup called a spirit. For believers, our spirit is really, truly seated with Christ in glory in the heavenly places, and we possess all the authority that derives from that. That is quite meaningful to me. If it's not to you, well, that's your business I suppose!
It's meaningful to me, too. But because of the other verses that MAKE it meaningful, like the one that says the SAME power worked in Christ when God seated Him is worked IN US. But the spatial geometry of spirit does not make it meaningful to me at all. I have no idea how the spatial geometry of spirit is related to glorification or authority, per se.
Will try to find time to respond to more later. BTW, I'm neither a dualist nor a monist. I believe in the tri-part view.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/30/2005 1:57 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
Will try to find time to respond to more later. BTW, I'm neither a dualist nor a monist. I believe in the tri-part view.
OK, look forward to hearing from you. I think I've misunderstood you as being too close to Bullinger. So do you believe in an intermediate state i.e. conscious existence after death but prior to the resurrection?
By the way, I also hold to the tripartite view, but a version which is compatible with a broader dualism. Let me put it this way. There are, on my view, two basic realms of existence: the spiritual and the physical. The human, however, consists of three parts, the spirit (which belongs to the spiritual realm), the soul (which spans the gap between the two realms and is the locus of the union of the spirit and body), and the body (which belongs to the physical realm). I think the soul represents a bridging component, which is analogous to the role of the Word of God (which bridges the heavenly and the earthly realm [Isaiah 55:8-11] and is the locus of the union of the divine and the human in the person of the Word, Jesus). Why I think this is a long story, but I would regard Genesis 2:7 as an important starting point: God creates Adam from the dust of the ground, but then breathes into him the "breath of life" which I take to be impartation of spirit, and he becomes a living soul. We "are" a soul because that is the centre of our consciousness, our ego, our "I", but we have a body and we have a spirit.
I find heaps of evidence in the NT and, in a more hidden form, in the OT, for there being two realms of existence, the heavenly/spiritual on the one hand and the earthly/physical on the other. Indeed, the very first verse of the Bible introduces the two realms of existence - in the beginning God created "the heavens and the earth". But I cannot find any evidence of a middle "soulish" realm of existence anywhere at all. Therefore, since it is also true that there is plenty of Biblical evidence for the tripartite view of humans, I conclude that the soul has to be some kind of intermediate component between the two realms.
At the present our soul is "body-oriented" and blind to the spiritual world. This is why I think Paul describes our pre-resurrection bodies as "natural bodies", or literally, "soulish bodies". After the resurrection from the dead we will have full awareness of the spiritual side of reality and will be able to move in that dimension as well as the physical - hence our post-resurrection bodies are described as "spiritual bodies".
Do you think it's time to start a new thread? This one was supposed to be on annihilationism.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/30/2005 3:12:04 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/30/2005 9:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Still low on time, but with respect to:
So do you believe in an intermediate state i.e. conscious existence after death but prior to the resurrection?
Not CONSCIOUS existence, but existence. Just like I exist when the doctor's put me under, and yet I have no consciousness of the passing of time until I "wake up." That's because I think the soul is the self, whose conscious experience is conditioned by a body, with causal feedback being mediated both ways (self-->body & body-->self) by the activity of the spirit. When we die, I think our spirit returns to God and our soul goes to sheol/hades.
But I think God CAN and HAS caused dis-embodied souls to be conscious for purposes of His own. Whether or not angels (fallen or unfallen) can do this, I don't know. One passage in the OT (can't remember it now) seems to suggest the possibility of it.
My view is somewhat constrained by the fact that the bible seems to indicate that animals are tri-part, too. But more when I get time. I don't see any need to change threads. We're the only ones here, now, and we're moving towards the "final state," indirectly, hereby.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Dragon Chaser
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 70
| Posted 8/30/2005 10:49 PM (GMT -6) | | | http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2005-02-0228-002.shtml
I’m halfway through this book at the moment and this guy vividly describes what he had consciously seen in Heaven. It sounds very convincing. Chapter 2 he describes what he had seen and chapter 3 pertains to what he heard. He’s a Baptist minister so I doubt he’d be inclined to lie. This book is also a good witness to the power of prayer.
Maybe there is an atheist neuroscientist out there that could ague that it was the brain “dreaming,” or something on that matter, but I highly doubt it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/31/2005 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
Not CONSCIOUS existence, but existence. Just like I exist when the doctor's put me under, and yet I have no consciousness of the passing of time until I "wake up." That's because I think the soul is the self, whose conscious experience is conditioned by a body, with causal feedback being mediated both ways (self-->body & body-->self) by the activity of the spirit. When we die, I think our spirit returns to God and our soul goes to sheol/hades.
OK, your view is not too far from mine I don't think, but there is some difference. I guess a good point to begin then would be with the issue of conscious existence after death. I'll begin by stating the case for it, as I hold to it, anyway. I'll leave off the she'ol/hades issue for the moment and just go to scriptures that directly teach conscious existence after death. I'll leave off Lazarus and the rich man to the end because it is so complex. Here, then, is the scriptural basis of conscious existence after death:
Luke 23:43 He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
Now people who oppose conscious existence after death, and some Roman Catholics who believe in purgatory, argue that because there was no punctuation in the original (which is of course true), that the comma should be placed after the word today, so that this reads "truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise". This, however, is readily refuted. On over 80 occasions in the gospels, Jesus commences teaching by saying either "truly I tell you" or "truly, truly I tell you". Never once, not even on one occasion, does he commence teaching by saying "truly I tell you today". So I think that establishes pretty conclusively that the introductory statement here is "truly I tell you", and that he is asserting that the theif will be with him in paradise today. And it seems a bit of a stretch to say that this would not be conscious. Surely the whole point of Jesus' reassurance is that that very day he would experience being with him in paradise.
2 Cor. 5:8 Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
This speaks of being "away from the body" but at home with the Lord. It seems rather pointless in looking forward to that if you're not aware of it.
2 Cor. 12:2 I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows.
Now some argue that Paul says here that he doesn't know whether he was in or out of the body, so this verse can be set aside, but that kind of misses the point. The fact that Paul didn't know whether he was in or out of the body, shows that he thought it was possible that he was out of the body. Furthermore, he was clearly conscious during this time, so it shows that Paul thought it was possible to be conscious whilst also out of the body.
Phil. 1:22-24 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which I prefer. I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you.
Now here Paul states that he would rather depart and be with Christ than be amongst the Christians there. There are two things that are clear. Firstly, that he must expect to be conscious, because it is hard to see how being unconscious could be "far better" than anything. Secondly, he must be talking about the intermediate state, not the final resurrection, because whether he died now or later would not affect his resurrection one jot. So this is a strong argument.
Heb 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,
Most people overlook this verse but it clearly implies a conscious intermediate state. Why? Because the "great cloud of witnesses" to which the author refers, are of course, the Old Testament saints he has just talked about at length in chapter 11. A witness, by definition, must be conscious. Furthermore, he is drawing the analogy of an ancient Greek athletic contest. We are running the race in the arena. The "great cloud of witnesses" are the spectators in the stands, cheering us on. That is the picture he is drawing.
2 Pet. 1:13-15 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to refresh your memory, since I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
Peter refers to his being alive as "as long as I am in this body". The pronoun "I" refers to the self, the ego. He refers to his death as his "departure". Granted, this passage isn't as strong as the others, but is worth mentioning.
The next two go together:
Rev. 6:9-10 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; they cried out with a loud voice, "Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?"
Rev. 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and those seated on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
In both cases John refers to the "souls" of those slain, and in the first case it is clear from context and in the second from the verse itself, that they had not yet been bodily resurrected. Yet they speak.
1 Sam. 28:15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; so I have summoned you to tell me what I should do."
Here Saul goes to the medium at Endor and asks her to bring up Samuel. In most cases, the spirit brought forth by a medium is a deceiving evil spirit, not the spirit of the departed. But in this case the text plainly says that it was Samuel. He replies "why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?". He seems pretty conscious!
Luke 16:19-31
This is the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Some say this is a parable, I don't agree for various reasons, but even if it is, the subject matter of parables always involves things which are possible (sheep being lost, treasure being found, or whatever), never fictional and impossible subject matter. Indeed, that would defeat the point of the parable. Some argue that this passage reflects current Jewish thinking; but much of Jesus' teaching reflects current Jewish thinking. Much of his teaching has virtually word-for-word parallels in preceding Jewish literature, such as his summary of the commandments ("do unto others" ). So I don't find that relevant. And I think Jesus would be downright deceptive to teach this without qualification in an environment where people believed it, if it wasn't true. Some argue that the parable teaches salvation by works - evidently, they haven't read it to the end, since verse 31 brings it back to the heart of the problem - the man and his brothers did not believe the Word of God. Their selfish behaviour just reflected their unbelief.
The rich man in the parable is certainly conscious, and this is clearly prior to the bodily resurrection, since his brothers are alive and well on the earth.
Anyway, that's my starting point! I certainly think that there's something "deficient" about existence in the intermediate state compared to being embodied. It's not the normal human condition or how we were intended to be. But it seems to me the evidence for consciousness is pretty strong.
jefscott said...
Whether or not angels (fallen or unfallen) can do this, I don't know.
Surely angels are conscious? Perhaps there is some confusion about the term conscious? I would take it to mean a subjective awareness of oneself and one's environment. Language is a certain sign of consciousness. If something speaks, then it must be conscious. Don't angels speak? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/31/2005 8:54 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...
Whether or not angels (fallen or unfallen) can do this, I don't know.
Surely angels are conscious? Perhaps there is some confusion about the term conscious? I would take it to mean a subjective awareness of oneself and one's environment. Language is a certain sign of consciousness. If something speaks, then it must be conscious. Don't angels speak?
Jeff: Only have a moment, so let me at least clarify, here. I believe angels are conscious. I believe animals are conscious--they just don't have a concept of self since they are non-conceptual beings. I was questioning whether angels can CAUSE a dis-embodied soul to be conscious the way God can. For I believe dis-embodied souls lose consciousness when their spirit returns to God at death (and the body returns to dust).
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/31/2005 8:58:42 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/4/2005 12:21 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Albert: The translators did not approach the text like klock does - "now how can I make this fit my theology?". They just attempted to translate it as it stood.
Jeff: Right. And they most certainly SHOULD have translated that way. But people who STUDY the tenses learn their subtleties, inductively. Consider the link below, for example, which shows that people are STILL debating it:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2002-May/021348.html
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 9/5/2005 2:18 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
Right. And they most certainly SHOULD have translated that way. But people who STUDY the tenses learn their subtleties, inductively. Consider the link below, for example, which shows that people are STILL debating it:
Thanks Jeff. As the guy you linked to notes, the proleptic aorist is "not a common occurrence". That is putting it mildly - it is exceedingly rare. Also, as noted in his discussion, in the few cases where it is claimed it is often a subjective matter whether the reference really is proleptic or not. I'd certainly put significant weight on the fact that a native ancient Greek speaker like Chrysostom seems to have thought that the aorist "he glorified" in Romans 8:30 was past tense, because he knew the language better than anone living today and I'm sure he wasn't ignorant of the context, yet he seems to have just assumed that it had to be past. But as you note, the interpretation, although not the translation, remains a matter of debate.
There is one thing that would convince me of the proleptic aorist. That is, if you could find in the writings of an ancient Greek speaker (such as one of the church fathers, or even a non-Christian writer) where they explicitly interpreted an aorist indicative as proleptic. Alternatively, if you could find an ancient translation that translated the aorist indicative somewhere as a proleptic future, that would also convince me. Or a translation into Greek were the original was proleptic. In this regard, it would be interesting to know if anyone has found an example of a proleptic aorist in the LXX. If they haven't, then that really kills it I think. But, anyway, until someone shows me such evidence, then because of the overwhelming evidence of past reference, I remain sceptical about the proleptic. I am not willing to trust "inductive inference" by modern scholars alone, not even if they are experts, because they don't have the same level of knowledge of the language, and they might simply be overlooking a grammatical convention that was then well known (if unspoken) but is now lost. An inductive inference based on context by a modern scholar should be considered only as a grammatical hypothesis, which has to be then subject to empirical testing by looking for evidence in the early writings. If there is contrary evidence in the early writings, as in this case, then that pretty strongly refutes the hypothesis. If no evidence can be found, then in general we might accept the hypothesis but only on a tenuous basis.
But one other point: my comments regarding klock were not made just on the basis of a possible proleptic aorist in Romans 8:30. He has persistently mistranslated texts in an indefensible manner. Such as insisting that the tense of participles in Greek was absolute, as in English, when in fact it is relative. His translation of Ephesians 2:1, for instance, is just plain wrong. Another example is his misuse of the adverbial infinitive absolute in Hebrew. So there is a consistent pattern of distortion of scripture, not just one example. Of course, it's fair enough to make mistakes. But klock persists in his mistranslations because they are required to support an equally faulty theology.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 9/5/2005 7:18:41 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 124 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:11 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|