Posted on 10/21/2008 1:22:49 PM PDT by Truth Defender
The term used by Christ to describe the state of endless happiness enjoyed by the just in heaven (Matthew 25:46; Mark 9:44; Luke 18:30; John 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12). It means not only everlasting duration but also fullness of life, which the believer possesses already here and now through participation in the life of God.
The lot of the wicked who die estranged from God. It is called death because the person is deprived of the possession of God, who gives life to the soul. And it is eternal because it will never end.
in its full sense, duration of being without beginning, succession, or ending. Only God possesses the fullness of eternity, since only he always existed (no beginning), has no succession (no change), and will never end (no cessation). It is defined Catholic doctrine that God possesses the divine Being in a constant undivided now. His eternity is the perfect and simultaneous total possession of interminable life.
Rational creatures share in God's eternity, but only approximate it, by participation. Angels have a beginning, and they have a succession of past, present, and future, but they have no cessation since they are pure spirits that will never die or cease to be. Human beings likewise have a beginning and they have succession, but unlike the angels they will die in body, to be later resurrected, while the souls live on forever. In God's absolute power, however, angels and human souls could be deprived of existence. Their eternity depends on the goodness and will of God.
As I said, I figure I just have to keep reading it and reading it and reading it until it sounds natural -- though I don't know if I have that many good years left! I can only take so much at one sitting, even early in the a.m. when I'm (relatively) fresh . . .
The only reason I mentioned "olam" and it derivatives is that the Greek "aion" and its derivatives are representative of the Hebrew language. I am not, nor do I claim to be, a paleolinguist of oriental languages which includes Hebrew. What I was taught of Hebrew occurred 40 years ago, and nost of it hid itself in the deep crevices of my brain in places I can no long rappel down into to retrieve. That is age and time at work in me. So, I'm not all too concerned with the Hebrew as we have the LXX as its representative.
I take it the above is something you are quoting, right? This is a late addition of language to the terms used. The Midrash is a commentary on the Talmud which was originated in Babylon by the Pharisees sect of Judaism. The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
I guess this substantiates what I just revealed of myself. Midrash - Mishnah, my knowledge base buried deep in the recesses of my brain sent up the wrong word. I humbly appoligize. Again, age and time at work :-)
The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
It doesn't contain any references to resurrection either, except in 2 Maccabees, which Protestants don't accept as canonical. The Pharisees of Jesus' time, however, believed in it. In Matthew 12:32, Jesus mentions the world to come, so presumably it was a concept understood by the Jews of the time.
I realize that. But IMHO I would question the assertion that the Pharisees believed 2 Maccabees was a part of their "sacred scrolls." Matt. 12:32 mentions "age" to come, not "world to come". That is a translators input for the word "aioni". Literally, the Greek rendering says, "It will not be forgiven to him neither in this age (aioni) nor in the coming (one)." I think that you know that the word "world" is used for "age", and does not mean a planet. Am I right?
You cited above le-natsach netsachim -- same structure. Netsach can be used adverbially, but is sometimes a noun. I Samuel 15:29 has Netsach Israel, which is translated "The Eternal One of Israel." Alcalay says it originally meant "glory."
Yes, I did cite that usage. I am aware that it means glory, among other terms, just as I indicated. I did bring up the Lexicon wherein it is shown. That was at the bottom of that paragraph.
I appreciate your expertise of the Hebrew. It is very interesting. It helps me recall some - but very little - of what I once supposedly learned.
Let me ramble on a bit (you can discard this if you wish - no need to respond). The question of the inherent immortality of the sould may seem impertinent in a discussion of the final destiny of man, and yet, it must be discussed; for, if the soul indeed cannot cease to exist in a conscious state, then oly two options are left as far as a doctrine of future life is concerned: eternal conscious, either in a hell or heaven and universal salvation.
Much of modern Biblical scholarship agrees that God alone has immortality by nature, int he sense of "impossible NOT to exist" (I Tim. 6:16). However, this is not true of Christianity in general; for most actually believe that, in the nature of the soul, every soul MUST exist forever, for it is a part of God Himself which makes man a living soul.
I strongly disagree with traditional Christianity that man has an immortal soul. To me, God alone has immortality inherent in His nature. Man is a creation of God, and is not by nature immortal in any respect; and what God has chosen to reveal does not indicate that man has something within the body that is immortal. To find out what God has actually revealed one must use an exegesis based upon sound hermeneutical principles.
I find it amazing how much has been written on the subject of an immortal soul, which incorporates the topics of the meaning of words depicting the concept of endlessness. however, the great majority of thse writing exhibit the employment of a poor methodology, being mainly philosophical speculation. Writers on both sides of the issue have used philosophical argumetns as if they were the last word, surpassing what has been said in the Bible. Shallow scriptural usage provides no strong methodological foundation. As an example, thew writings of Tertullian and later Augustine exhibit that last sentence.
This is why the threads I have posted all relate to the issue of the immortal soul doctrine found in almost all churches of Christendom. I beleive questions must be asked and answered; for I find that many will nto even look open-mindedly at what God has revealed in scriptures because their belief in the unbiblical, Platonic doctrine of personal immortality.
I don't imagine I'll be around to see the results of what I write, along with hundreds of other writers of the same stance; for I'm living on "borrowed time", so to speak. However, today, thousands and thousands are involved in this discussion, and a great number of churches of all denominations are involved around the world. I am not surprised that those traditionalist believing individuals who really read and study on this topic are convinced enought to become its most ardent proponents - it happened to me and hundreds of others.
Sorry to ramble on so long. Go and enjoy another cup of tea :-)
The only reason I mentioned "olam" and it derivatives is that the Greek "aion" and its derivatives are representative of the Hebrew language. I am not, nor do I claim to be, a paleolinguist of oriental languages which includes Hebrew. What I was taught of Hebrew occurred 40 years ago, and nost of it hid itself in the deep crevices of my brain in places I can no long rappel down into to retrieve. That is age and time at work in me. So, I'm not all too concerned with the Hebrew as we have the LXX as its representative.
I take it the above is something you are quoting, right? This is a late addition of language to the terms used. The Midrash is a commentary on the Talmud which was originated in Babylon by the Pharisees sect of Judaism. The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
I guess this substantiates what I just revealed of myself. Midrash - Mishnah, my knowledge base buried deep in the recesses of my brain sent up the wrong word. I humbly appoligize. Again, age and time at work :-)
The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
It doesn't contain any references to resurrection either, except in 2 Maccabees, which Protestants don't accept as canonical. The Pharisees of Jesus' time, however, believed in it. In Matthew 12:32, Jesus mentions the world to come, so presumably it was a concept understood by the Jews of the time.
I realize that. But IMHO I would question the assertion that the Pharisees believed 2 Maccabees was a part of their "sacred scrolls." Matt. 12:32 mentions "age" to come, not "world to come". That is a translators input for the word "aioni". Literally, the Greek rendering says, "It will not be forgiven to him neither in this age (aioni) nor in the coming (one)." I think that you know that the word "world" is used for "age", and does not mean a planet. Am I right?
You cited above le-natsach netsachim -- same structure. Netsach can be used adverbially, but is sometimes a noun. I Samuel 15:29 has Netsach Israel, which is translated "The Eternal One of Israel." Alcalay says it originally meant "glory."
Yes, I did cite that usage. I am aware that it means glory, among other terms, just as I indicated. I did bring up the Lexicon wherein it is shown. That was at the bottom of that paragraph.
I appreciate your expertise of the Hebrew. It is very interesting. It helps me recall some - but very little - of what I once supposedly learned.
Let me ramble on a bit (you can discard this if you wish - no need to respond). The question of the inherent immortality of the sould may seem impertinent in a discussion of the final destiny of man, and yet, it must be discussed; for, if the soul indeed cannot cease to exist in a conscious state, then oly two options are left as far as a doctrine of future life is concerned: eternal conscious, either in a hell or heaven and universal salvation.
Much of modern Biblical scholarship agrees that God alone has immortality by nature, int he sense of "impossible NOT to exist" (I Tim. 6:16). However, this is not true of Christianity in general; for most actually believe that, in the nature of the soul, every soul MUST exist forever, for it is a part of God Himself which makes man a living soul.
I strongly disagree with traditional Christianity that man has an immortal soul. To me, God alone has immortality inherent in His nature. Man is a creation of God, and is not by nature immortal in any respect; and what God has chosen to reveal does not indicate that man has something within the body that is immortal. To find out what God has actually revealed one must use an exegesis based upon sound hermeneutical principles.
I find it amazing how much has been written on the subject of an immortal soul, which incorporates the topics of the meaning of words depicting the concept of endlessness. however, the great majority of thse writing exhibit the employment of a poor methodology, being mainly philosophical speculation. Writers on both sides of the issue have used philosophical argumetns as if they were the last word, surpassing what has been said in the Bible. Shallow scriptural usage provides no strong methodological foundation. As an example, thew writings of Tertullian and later Augustine exhibit that last sentence.
This is why the threads I have posted all relate to the issue of the immortal soul doctrine found in almost all churches of Christendom. I beleive questions must be asked and answered; for I find that many will nto even look open-mindedly at what God has revealed in scriptures because their belief in the unbiblical, Platonic doctrine of personal immortality.
I don't imagine I'll be around to see the results of what I write, along with hundreds of other writers of the same stance; for I'm living on "borrowed time", so to speak. However, today, thousands and thousands are involved in this discussion, and a great number of churches of all denominations are involved around the world. I am not surprised that those traditionalist believing individuals who really read and study on this topic are convinced enought to become its most ardent proponents - it happened to me and hundreds of others.
Sorry to ramble on so long. Go and enjoy another cup of tea :-)
**If you would like to comment on the threat topic**
No threat here, I hope!
Blessings.
By "derivatives" do you mean that olam most often occurs with the preposition governing it? I think you're overstating things to posit aion as representative of the Hebrew language: wouldn't it be more accurate to say perhaps that aion is the preferred Septuagint translation of olam? In any case, I'm pinging kosta and Kolokotronis -- since they know Greek, apparently "from the inside," they probably have insights to offer.
I would question the assertion that the Pharisees believed 2 Maccabees was a part of their "sacred scrolls." Matt. 12:32 mentions "age" to come, not "world to come". That is a translators input for the word "aioni". Literally, the Greek rendering says, "It will not be forgiven to him neither in this age (aioni) nor in the coming (one)." I think that you know that the word "world" is used for "age", and does not mean a planet. Am I right?
The question of why Maccabees were not finally included in the Jewish canon remains open. (There's an overview at myjewishlearning.com.) In any case the Jewish canon was not established until after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D., at Yavneh in approximately 90 A.D.
Arguing for its acceptance in the time of Christ (IMO) is the reference in John to the Feast of the Dedication, in winter -- Hanukkah, the story of which is only in Maccabees. (Presumably as a result of the later exclusion of Maccabees when the canon was established, Hanukkah was very much in eclipse among the Jews -- until enthusiasm for the establishment of the State of Israel renewed interest, though -- as I understand it -- the renewed interest was in large part nationalistic.) But anyway, the Jews were never anything like sola Scriptura, the Oral Torah being just as important. And any kind of developed belief in resurrection, as held by the Pharisees of Christ's time, would seem to have been developed in oral tradition; even in Maccabees, it is mentioned as accepted, not as an innovation.
I didn't check the KJV too -- the DR has "world to come." My feeling or intuition about olam, though is that it's much less specific or defined than you seem to assume. And once you get to words less concrete and specific than "mother," "father," "tree," etc., the chances of a real one-to-one correspondence between languages decline.
To me, God alone has immortality inherent in His nature. Man is a creation of God, and is not by nature immortal in any respect; and what God has chosen to reveal does not indicate that man has something within the body that is immortal.
The Catholic view (the only one I ever heard of) is that it is God's nature to be; it is not our nature -- we are contingent beings. If it's not our nature to be, and yet we are, why can't we be immortal, even if it's not strictly our "nature"?
That "something within the body" rings strange -- sort of like those guys in the 16th, 17th century who weighed bodies before and after death looking for what difference the soul made . . . We learned (not as doctrine, but as philosphical description) that the soul is the form of the body, but I'm pretty rusty on Aristotelian form and matter, so I'll leave it at that.
It does sound, though, as if you're trying to get something out of the Bible that's not there.
By "derivatives" do you mean that olam most often occurs with the preposition governing it? I think you're overstating things to posit aion as representative of the Hebrew language: wouldn't it be more accurate to say perhaps that aion is the preferred Septuagint translation of olam? In any case, I'm pinging kosta and Kolokotronis -- since they know Greek, apparently "from the inside," they probably have insights to offer.
Yes, that's close to what I meant. I have in other posts (maybe not on this particular thread) stated that a single word in one language many times cannot be stated as a single word in another language. When I use the word olam or aion, I'm using the basic term to mean what it is translated into our language to mean.
I think I would prefer to accept what the 70 scholars who translated the Biblical Hebrew into the Greek language knew what they were doing; for they knew their own language better than any modern man does, and they knew the use of the Koine Greek at that time also. Modern Hebrew is not representative of the Biblical Hebrew IMHO. And yes, I do use the LXX in my studies over any of the Hebrew (you may consider that a fault if you like).
The question of why Maccabees were not finally included in the Jewish canon remains open.
Yes, it remains open to many people, but not to all.
It does sound, though, as if you're trying to get something out of the Bible that's not there.
I suppose that could be said of Catholicism and other religious organizations, or with anyone who disagrees with another also, right? Anyway, that is not what the question is. It is "what does the Bible say about any topic of discussion?" What the Bible says is in the realm of hermeneutics and exegesis, not in esigesis - which is "reading into" instead of finding out "what is said". This will always, IMHO, be a point of contention among philosophers and exegets. One should stop and think why this same thing is not a point of contention when discussing what is said in, say, the writings of Plato, Virgil, and other ancient works.
Sorry to have to run, but a nice boat called me to come and enjoy some time on the water. I'll most likely will not be back before the start of next week. Now to get dressed, put my life-jacket on and leave. Go enjoy another cup of tea in my absence :-)
Since by your own account, you forget most of your Biblical Hebrew and don't know modern Hebrew, it's hard to see where your opinion here would be worth much. Biblical Hebrew stands in approximately the same relation to modern Hebrew as Shakespeare's English stands to present day English. Incidentally, Shakespeare died in 1616, and the KJV was first printed in 1611 -- do you find the English of the KJV inaccessible?
It is not to be found in the Torah (the Law). The Sadducee Party, who were in charge of the Temple, did not believe in this, and in afterlife precisely because it is not in the Torah. And because they considered only the Torah as the inspired part of the Tanakh (the Jeiwsh Bible, aka the Old Testament).
Olam Ba-Ha is also the term used to describe the messianic age, a period of prosperity and peace following the appearanc eof the (Jewish) messiah.
The Nicene Creed uses that concept in the last sentence "And life in the world to come. Amen."
In that sense the term "the world to come" is synonoymous with the aion (as used in +Matthew 12:32, +Luke 18:30, or Hebrews 6:5), which in English is better translated as "age to come."
Interestingly, in Hebrew 2:5 the author uses the word "oikoumene" (the world) as in "the world comming"
The Church Slavonic, reads
BTW, I am not Greek. Kolo is your Greek expert. I am merely studying biblical Greek, but I do understand Church Slavonic, which is extremely helpful in conveying the inteded Greek meanining because it is (by design) word-for-word, concept-for-concept, equivalent to Greek.
“the world comming” should read the “world coming.” Apologies.
For a cousin from across the mountains, you're doing just fine, Kosta mou!
"The Nicene Creed uses that concept in the last sentence "And life in the world to come. Amen."
καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Ἀμήν.
vs.
τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν,
These are at base different concepts. The former speaks of an "age to come" with age meaning a long time period, an aeon (!). The latter describes a concrete place or people, here probably the Roman Empire. It basically means the civilized world or commonwealth. The term was used in Byzantine times to describe the Empire and/or the Roman people. It does't have any time span implications the way "αἰῶνος" does.
Thank you both! I may be back with questions later! :)
Thank you Kolo. As they say—I'm tryin' :)
καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Ἀμήν. vs. τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν, These are at base different concepts...These are at base different concepts. The former speaks of an "age to come" with age meaning a long time period, an aeon (!). The latter describes a concrete place or people, here probably the Roman Empire.
Just curious: what makes τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν specific to Roman Empire other than the historical usage of the word?
Nothing more, really, than the times within which the words were written. The "οἰκουμένe" originally meant the inhabited world but it came to mean the civilized world which was seen as being co-extensive with the Roman Empire. Later and today, when used by The Church, it means the commonwealth of the Orthodox Christian people of the world (which down deep also is seen as definitional of being truly civilized in a Roman/non-barbarian sense).
In other words, some "sola scripturalist," reading the Bible "cold," and in Englsh, as
would not be able to understand that contextual difference?
” In other words, some “sola scripturalist,” reading the Bible “cold,” and in Englsh, as
“It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.” [Heb 2:5]
would not be able to understand that contextual difference?
“
I should think not, my friend.
I regret (deeply) that I don't know Greek. I did get through a first-year book years (lots of years) ago, but I didn't know anyone who knew it, so I couldn't get the sound. At the time, I did memorize (and have pretty much forgotten) declensions and conjugations. Do either of you know any resources on the web I could start with? An actual course is pretty much out of the question right now. But I'd like to be doing something toward it!
“Do either of you know any resources on the web I could start with?”
The best resource available in the Commonwealth is the local Greek priest, Maryz, and of course there’s the bookstore over at Holy Cross seminary in Brookline, or for that matter, the great book store at BC. At least you can be sure you won’t be getting “spun” translations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.