U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2011, 03:49 PM
 
30 posts, read 29,370 times
Reputation: 22

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Concerning Plato's Timaeus:
"WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the AIDION [imperceptible] gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was AIDION [imperceptible], he sought to make the universe EONION, so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was EONIAN, but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of the EON, and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image the EON but moving according to number, while EONIAN itself rests in unity; and this image we call time. For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the AIDION [imperceptible] essence; for we say that He "was," He "is," He "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to Him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates the EON and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of expression."

Plato just proved he used aion and aionion for time and that it is improper to use aion and aionion of God since God IS.
Plato clearly distinguishes between the image (copy) and the original, which he describes as aionios.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2011, 09:21 AM
 
30 posts, read 29,370 times
Reputation: 22
Nuttin?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2011, 11:53 AM
 
30 posts, read 29,370 times
Reputation: 22
Oh well...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2011, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Tucson, Arizona
987 posts, read 880,724 times
Reputation: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShanaBrown View Post
Great topic, Eusebius. Thanks!
SHANA!!! Lovely to hear from you!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2011, 05:29 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,466,870 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by samuel cripps View Post
Plato clearly distinguishes between the image (copy) and the original, which he describes as aionios.
He says the original was aidion or imperceptible. He then says "we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the AIDION [imperceptible] essence"

Then Plato says that there is "is" "was" and "will be." And says God is "is" but eonian is "was and "will be" because eonian is always changing but God does not change.

Therefore, according to Plato it is improper to ascribe to God the word "eonian".

Therefore any lexicon that says eonian is eternal because Plato used it of God is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2011, 11:37 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,302 posts, read 5,297,289 times
Reputation: 420
Eusebius...cripps....aionios and the various conjugations thereof, was used not so much in a quantitative sense...but more quality centered...like....I am with Him always...the focus isn't about a spiritual and incorporeal existence, but rather, what's it going to be like?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2011, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Germany
1,652 posts, read 1,714,587 times
Reputation: 845
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
Eusebius...cripps....aionios and the various conjugations thereof, was used not so much in a quantitative sense...but more quality centered...like....I am with Him always...the focus isn't about a spiritual and incorporeal existence, but rather, what's it going to be like?
I agree that in the discussion universalism vs. "eternal" punishment the focus should not be on the word "aionios", adherents of "eternal" punishment cannot prove that it always or even sometimes meant "endless" while universalists cannot prove that it was NEVER understood as "endless"

the focus should rather be if "gehenna" denotes a place of irrevocable misery and if the passages about eschatological punishment necessarily contradict passages teaching the salvation of the whole creation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2011, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,302 posts, read 5,297,289 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by svenM View Post
I agree that in the discussion universalism vs. "eternal" punishment the focus should not be on the word "aionios", adherents of "eternal" punishment cannot prove that it always or even sometimes meant "endless" while universalists cannot prove that it was NEVER understood as "endless"

the focus should rather be if "gehenna" denotes a place of irrevocable misery and if the passages about eschatological punishment necessarily contradict passages teaching the salvation of the whole creation
Exactly svenM....about Gehenna...well...that's easy....has nothing to do with Hell...it's all about Israel "standing" as a people before God....their "soul" or "life" and their body as that people ended in the fires of Gehenna...70 AD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2011, 10:36 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,466,870 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
Eusebius...cripps....aionios and the various conjugations thereof, was used not so much in a quantitative sense...but more quality centered...like....I am with Him always...the focus isn't about a spiritual and incorporeal existence, but rather, what's it going to be like?
I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.

All we can know about a noun and its adjective is how they are used.

The noun "AIWN" is never used, as far as I know, in a sense of telling us of a quality.

And since AIWNION (eonian) is the adjectival form of its noun AIWN (eon), all we know is when eonian is used it is telling us of something pertaining to either the eon in a singular way or to the eons as to their pluralness.

For instance, Paul tells us to "get hold of eonian life" in 1 Timothy 6:12. One can argue that Paul it telling us to get hold of the quality of the life, we will have in the future eons, now. That life, or quality of life we will have in the future is pertaining to the oncoming eons.

However, in Romans 16:26 where it is talking about the "eonian God" it is not talking about God qualitatively but of God relationally to the eons in that He is over the eons, subjecting humanity to the goal He has for each eon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 10:24 AM
 
30 posts, read 29,370 times
Reputation: 22
Eusebius,

In this text from Timeaus, Plato states that time (kronos) is the "moving image" of aionios, and that aionios "rests in unity". What do you make of this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
He says the original was aidion or imperceptible. He then says "we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the AIDION [imperceptible] essence"

Then Plato says that there is "is" "was" and "will be." And says God is "is" but eonian is "was and "will be" because eonian is always changing but God does not change.

Therefore, according to Plato it is improper to ascribe to God the word "eonian".

Therefore any lexicon that says eonian is eternal because Plato used it of God is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top