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)
 
Old 11-12-2014, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 4,001,012 times
Reputation: 386

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zur View Post
This sentence shows us that you are not interested in answers from Daniel, which he gave to you, but because you do not want to exept them, you as a layperson wants to proof an expert that he is wrong by pasting other scholars that you do not even know. You have an interest in argueing and deceiving others. Everyone that has the Holy Spirit knows that you are wrong. You and others are stuck in lava, God have mercy!
Huh? what answers has Daniel given? And if he says something that is wrong should it not be pointed out to him that he was wrong? If I was wrong do you not think Daniel would point that error out to me?

speacially when Daniel said no one showed him he was wrong.

Get a grip zur your bias is showing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2014, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 4,001,012 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan View Post
Link me to those three questions and I will answer then under one condition: you either translate the Greek sentence I gave you or acknowledge that you do not know Greek. If you promise to do that I'll be happy to answer your three questions.

Daniel what does E have to do with MY 3 questions? Why do you bring him into this at all? I am the one that asked the questions not E.

So basically what you are saying is that if E does not answer your question you will not answer mine, how petty is that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 951,249 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Daniel what does E have to do with MY 3 questions? Why do you bring him into this at all? I am the one that asked the questions not E.

So basically what you are saying is that if E does not answer your question you will not answer mine, how petty is that.
He's the one pretending to know Greek. I will not get into an argument about Greek lexicography with someone who knows absolutely no Greek. You're not arguing from knowledge, you're just arguing from dogmatism. I've already demonstrated that. You don't even know how to tell if you're right or wrong. There's no point in trying to reason with that kind of position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 4,001,012 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Daniel what does E have to do with MY 3 questions? Why do you bring him into this at all? I am the one that asked the questions not E.

So basically what you are saying is that if E does not answer your question you will not answer mine, how petty is that.
Here are the 3 questions again Daniel.

1. Can you prove aionios means eternal (without beginning and without end) in scripture?

2. Can you give me a scripture where aionios means without beginning and without end/eternal? You said all of them in your reply to E, which is hardly the case. If you are following this thread you will see that I supplied scripture that states aionios has a beginning.

3. Can you explain from the scripture you use to show aionios means without beginning and without end/eternal and why it must mean without beginning and without end/eternal?

In other word what criteria do you use that makes the aion eternal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 4,001,012 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Daniel what does E have to do with MY 3 questions? Why do you bring him into this at all? I am the one that asked the questions not E.

So basically what you are saying is that if E does not answer your question you will not answer mine, how petty is that.
[quote=Daniel O. McClellan;37243848]He's the one pretending to know Greek. I will not get into an argument about Greek lexicography with someone who knows absolutely no Greek. You're not arguing from knowledge, you're just arguing from dogmatism. I've already demonstrated that. You don't even know how to tell if you're right or wrong. There's no point in trying to reason with that kind of position.[/quote]

Again what does E have to do with you and me?

Concering dogmatism you have given nothing but your own dogmatism that the aions mean eternal, you have failed to provide or prove one single point. all you do is say nope your wrong and exspect everyone here to bow to your scholarship.

Where have you demonstrated that I am arguing from dogmatism?

Well there you go again with the ignorant savages comments again. Well everyone reading Daniel can see where this ignorant savage corrected you already on one point, so it would seem it is you that does not even know whether you are right or wrong.

Something you might want to take into concideration Daniel is that it was not the scholars of the day that turned the world on end it was the ignorant fishers of men.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 951,249 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Here are the 3 questions again Daniel.

1. Can you prove aionios means eternal (without beginning and without end) in scripture?
Nothing in lexicography is proven. It is all a balance of probabilities, and semantic sense is relative and dynamic. The notion that anything can be "proven" betrays your ignorance of the nature and function of lexicography. If you're asking whether I can show it likely means "eternal," of course I can. First, we can show that in non-biblical Greek literature the term referred to eternity in the philosophical sense. Plato's Timaeus (37c–39e) shows this:

Quote:
When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal, he sought to make the universe eternal, so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting, but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity, and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal but moving according to number, while eternity 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 eternal 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 eternity 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. But perhaps this whole subject will be more suitably discussed on some other occasion.
Quote:
Ὡς δὲ κινηθὲν αὐτὸ καὶ ζῶν ἐνόησεν τῶν ἀϊδίων θεῶν γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ͵ ἠγάσθη τε καὶ εὐφρανθεὶς ἔτι δὴ μᾶλλον ὅμοιον πρὸς τὸ παράδειγμα ἐπενόησεν ἀπεργάσασθαι. [37d] καθάπερ οὖν αὐτὸ τυγχάνει ζῷον ἀίδιον ὄν͵ καὶ τόδε τὸ πᾶν οὕτως εἰς δύναμιν ἐπεχείρησε τοιοῦτον ἀποτελεῖν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ζῴου φύσις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος͵ καὶ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῷ γεννητῷ παντελῶς προσάπτειν οὐκ ἦν δυνατόν· εἰκὼ δ΄ ἐπενόει κινητόν τινα αἰῶνος ποιῆσαι͵ καὶ διακοσμῶν ἅμα οὐρανὸν ποιεῖ μένοντος αἰῶνος ἐν ἑνὶ κατ΄ ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν αἰώνιον εἰκόνα͵ τοῦτον ὃν δὴ χρόνον ὠνομάκαμεν. [37e] ἡμέρας γὰρ καὶ νύκτας καὶ μῆνας καὶ ἐνιαυτούς͵ οὐκ ὄντας πρὶν οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι͵ τότε ἅμα ἐκείνῳ συνισταμένῳ τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῶν μηχανᾶται· ταῦτα δὲ πάντα μέρη χρόνου͵ καὶ τό τ΄ ἦν τό τ΄ ἔσται χρόνου γεγονότα εἴδη͵ ἃ δὴ φέροντες λανθάνομεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀίδιον οὐσίαν οὐκ ὀρθῶς. λέγομεν γὰρ δὴ ὡς ἦν ἔστιν τε καὶ ἔσται͵ τῇ δὲ τὸ ἔστιν μόνον κατὰ τὸν ἀληθῆ λόγον προσήκει͵ [38a] τὸ δὲ ἦν τό τ΄ ἔσται περὶ τὴν ἐν χρόνῳ γένεσιν ἰοῦσαν πρέπει λέγεσθαι - κινήσεις γάρ ἐστον͵ τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον ἀκινήτως οὔτε πρεσβύτερον οὔτε νεώτερον προσήκει γίγνεσθαι διὰ χρόνου οὐδὲ γενέσθαι ποτὲ οὐδὲ γεγονέναι νῦν οὐδ΄ εἰς αὖθις ἔσεσθαι͵ τὸ παράπαν τε οὐδὲν ὅσα γένεσις τοῖς ἐν αἰσθήσει φερομένοις προσῆψεν͵ ἀλλὰ χρόνου ταῦτα αἰῶνα μιμουμένου καὶ κατ΄ ἀριθμὸν κυκλουμένου γέγονεν εἴδη - καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι τὰ τοιάδε͵ [38b] τό τε γεγονὸς εἶναι γεγονὸς καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον εἶναι γιγνόμενον͵ ἔτι τε τὸ γενησόμενον εἶναι γενησόμενον καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν μὴ ὂν εἶναι͵ ὧν οὐδὲν ἀκριβὲς λέγομεν. περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων τάχ΄ ἂν οὐκ εἴη καιρὸς πρέπων ἐν τῷ παρόντι διακριβολογεῖσθαι.
Then we can point to parallel usages in the New Testament like 1 Tim 1:17, where the author refers to glory and honor offered to τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ σοφῶ θεῷ, "the king, eternal, immortal, invisible––the only wise God." The juxtaposition of αἰώνων and ἀφθάρτῳ is not accidental. John 3:15–16 similarly places "eternal life" twice in apposition to a promise that someone would μὴ ἀπόληται, or "not perish." Someone who does not perish is someone who lives forever. In John 10:28 we read that Jesus will give them ζωὴν αἰώνιον, clarifying that οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, "you will never die." εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα means "through eternity." I know you all assert this silly notion of "into the ages," but that's just a result of your lexicographic harmonization and homogenization, which is just laughable for anyone who knows anything about linguistics. It also makes no sense in this context. The consistent and emphatic contrast of death and destruction with "eternal life" leaves absolutely no room for insisting the latter actually does not preclude death. I know the foundation of your whole case is rejection of the notion of eternal punishment, but theological dogamtism is not how you determine semantic sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
2. Can you give me a scripture where aionios means without beginning and without end/eternal? You said all of them in your reply to E, which is hardly the case. If you are following this thread you will see that I supplied scripture that states aionios has a beginning.
Yes, the word has different meanings. See above for scriptures where the meaning is most likely "eternal."

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
3. Can you explain from the scripture you use to show aionios means without beginning and without end/eternal and why it must mean without beginning and without end/eternal?
Because it's repeatedly contrasted with death and destruction. A life that does not end is eternal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
In other word what criteria do you use that makes the aion eternal.
First, I consider extra-biblical usage. The Bible would be absolutely meaningless if its languages were not based in some way on contemporary common usage. Plato's Timaeus demonstrates that the term has reference to timelessness and no end/beginning. Second, I look at the contexts in which the word occurs. The only keys to the specific usage consistently and emphatically contrast the meaning with ending and destruction, which makes it clear the sense is consonant with the usage in Plato. Third, I know about lexicography and am not so ridiculously uninformed as to think each word can only have one unilateral meaning. Fourth, I am not bound by theological sensitivities or dogmas, so I'm not forced into certain readings only because my theology won't let me interpret the words correctly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 10:38 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,449,437 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan View Post
He's the one pretending to know Greek. I will not get into an argument about Greek lexicography with someone who knows absolutely no Greek. You're not arguing from knowledge, you're just arguing from dogmatism. I've already demonstrated that. You don't even know how to tell if you're right or wrong. There's no point in trying to reason with that kind of position.

First of all, I am not the one who asked the three questions.

Secondly, why would ***I*** have to translate your pet Greek phrase when, after all, pneuma was the one who asked you the three questions.

Thirdly, it is another fallacy you bring out that since (according to you) pneuma argues from dogmatism, that you, therefore, do not need to answer his three questions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 951,249 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
First of all, I am not the one who asked the three questions.
You're asking me to answer them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Secondly, why would ***I*** have to translate your pet Greek phrase when, after all, pneuma was the one who asked you the three questions.
Because it's you who have repeatedly challenged my understanding of Greek and touted your own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Thirdly, it is another fallacy you bring out that since (according to you) pneuma argues from dogmatism, that you, therefore, do not need to answer his three questions.
Someone who argues from dogmatism cannot address or engage the evidence, they can only assert their dogmatism. Why would I be required to answer questions when the responses are only going to be assertions of dogmatism?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 12:12 PM
 
5,506 posts, read 4,410,026 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Young's literal in green

Hebrews 5:6
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

6 as also in another [place] He saith, `Thou [art] a priest -- to the age, according to the order of Melchisedek;'
Ask yourself what is it about the pattern of Melchizedek that would make the priesthood of Jesus changeable, ending, non-enduring, temporary, etc.? The answer nothing.

Quote:
Psalm 110:4
Quote:
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

4 Jehovah hath sworn, and doth not repent, `Thou [art] a priest to the age, According to the order of Melchizedek.

Ps. Olam and Heb. Aion. So olam and aion must mean the same thing here. I think every one will agree with that. The Greek as you pointed out means into/unto the age.

So that scripture can be read, and should be read the LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest unto the age after the order of Melchizedek.
No problem here other than the phrase eis ton aiona is used as meaning forever given the context - it does not makes sense otherwise.

Quote:
Hebrews 7:3
Quote:
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, and being made like to the Son of God, doth remain a priest continually
What about abides continually do you not understand? This phrase corresponds to the phrase eis ton aiona. Again his priesthood is patterned after Melchizedek. It is patterned after an endless life - which certainly the Son of God is said to have. The concept of an endless life is the basis for why his priesthood never ends. It is contrasted to the death of the earthy priest and therefore their need to have the priesthood change. It is clear as day.

Quote:
Hebrews 7:16-17
Quote:
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

16 who came not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according to the power of an endless life, 17 for He doth testify -- `Thou [art] a priest -- to the age, according to the order of Melchisedek;'
Notice the linking of an endless life with why his priesthood never ends. What correspondence is there to say 'according to an endless life YHWH testifies thou are a priest temporarily.' Yeah that makes sense!

Quote:
Hebrews 7:21-24
Quote:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

21 and he with an oath through Him who is saying unto him, `The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest -- to the age, according to the order of Melchisedek;') 22 by so much of a better covenant hath Jesus become surety, 23 and those indeed are many who have become priests, because by death they are hindered from remaining; 24 and he, because of his remaining -- to the age, hath the priesthood not transient,
Again you are missing the clear teaching of the writer here. He here mentions the death of the earthy priests which is why it did not continue. Now contrast that with an endless life and this is why the heavenly priesthood abides forever - not temporarily to some 'age.' The phrase eis ton aiona is clearly being used synonymously for forever.

Quote:
Notice these sets of scriptures speak of an
Quote:
endless life, this endless life has nothing to do with the word aion, it is the word akatalutos. And it is because Jesus has an endless life that He will remain a priest into the age.


Wrong it has everything to do with WHY his priesthood is forever - JEEZ! It is the fact that it corresponds to akatalutos that helps us understand how the writer is using the phrase eis tov aiona. It is clear as day.

Quote:
The priesthood is not endless, Jesus life is.


Wrong! The writer of Hebrews completely disagrees with you and the context, concepts, and phrases do as well.

Quote:
Now I seen you asked the other for some scripture that states the priesthood ends. So I will answer that also.
Quote:

First thing to note is that the Aaronite priesthood was also called an olam priesthood, yet that priesthood came to an end. This shows a precedence in that olam does indeed come to an end.
No, the earthy priesthood comes to an end not the heavenly one.

Quote:
Second, scripture tells us that the aions ( plural) end. That alone should put all debate to rest, for as the aions end how can they be eternal? So Which aion is it that does not end?


Hebrews is not talking about a specific age - it is adapting the phrase eis ton aiona to mean forever which is clear from the context.

Quote:
Third, the priesthood was established to be a mediator between God and man, Hence Jesus is our high priest and our mediator. Now if there is no longer need for a mediator then there is no longer need for a priesthood.
Quote:

Jesus said:

25These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. 26At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: 27For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

In other words there is a day coming when Jesus won't ask (mediate with) the Father for us , but we can ask the Father ourselves because the Father loves us.
Jesus was talking about when he ascended to the father that they then can ask in his name and he would pray the father for them. It does not say that there is a day coming when he will not mediate - in fact it says just the opposite - there is a day coming (from the standpoint of when he was on earth) that they will be able to ask in his name and Jesus will show them to the father plainly because he has ascended to the father to mediate for them.

Quote:
Also of note is Jesus reign in the kingdom is an aion reign.
Quote:

UNTIL............

24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him

..... Death is destroyed.

Notice that Jesus only reigns until death is defeated and then delivers up the kingdom to the Father.
First of all there is nothing in I Corinthians about the priesthood ending. Second, the kingdom does not end it is just handed over. Third, you are presuming that there MUST be a unity of thought throughout the different books because of your theological bias. Fourth, you are arbitrarily putting I Corinthians above Hebrews by making Hebrews conform to your theology regarding I Corinthians - as if the two must be unified. Fifth, Hebrews stands on its own and nothing in that book says that the priesthood ends - Period! Sixth, if we grant your interpretation of I Corinthians that the priesthood ends because the kingdom is handed over all you have done is create a contradiction with the writer of Hebrews.

Anyway, I understand you position - I just don't buy the need to unite everything under some theological framework - which frankly is distorting your ability to properly read each individual writer and their usage of the koine Greek. I have shown how the writer of Hebrews has given such a usage to the phrase eis ton aiona as 'forever.'

We will just have to disagree. Like I said I have no theological ax to grind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 01:24 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,449,437 times
Reputation: 989
Daniel, I'm not sure why you quoted Plato's Timaeus and the KPONOS (Plato's dealing with TIME] section to prove aion or aionios means eternal since Plato used it here in a way proving it did not mean eternal:
I just highlighted the important words:

Ὡς δὲ κινηθὲν αὐτὸ καὶ ζῶν ἐνόησεν τῶν ἀϊδίων θεῶν [imperceptible gods] γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ͵ ἠγάσθη τε καὶ εὐφρανθεὶς ἔτι δὴ μᾶλλον ὅμοιον πρὸς τὸ παράδειγμα ἐπενόησεν ἀπεργάσασθαι. [37d] καθάπερ οὖν αὐτὸ τυγχάνει ζῷον ἀίδιον [life imperceptible] ὄν͵ καὶ τόδε τὸ πᾶν οὕτως εἰς δύναμιν ἐπεχείρησε τοιοῦτον ἀποτελεῖν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ζῴου φύσις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος [eonian]͵ καὶ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῷ γεννητῷ παντελῶς προσάπτειν οὐκ ἦν δυνατόν· εἰκὼ δ΄ ἐπενόει κινητόν τινα αἰῶνος [eon] ποιῆσαι͵ καὶ διακοσμῶν ἅμα οὐρανὸν ποιεῖ μένοντος αἰῶνος [eon] ἐν ἑνὶ κατ΄ ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν αἰώνιον [eonian] εἰκόνα͵ τοῦτον ὃν δὴ χρόνον [time] ὠνομάκαμεν. [37e] ἡμέρας γὰρ καὶ νύκτας καὶ μῆνας καὶ ἐνιαυτούς͵ οὐκ ὄντας πρὶν οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι͵ τότε ἅμα ἐκείνῳ συνισταμένῳ τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῶν μηχανᾶται· ταῦτα δὲ πάντα μέρη χρόνου [of time]͵ καὶ τό τ΄ ἦν τό τ΄ ἔσται χρόνου [of time] γεγονότα εἴδη͵ ἃ δὴ φέροντες λανθάνομεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀίδιον [imperceptible] οὐσίαν οὐκ ὀρθῶς. λέγομεν γὰρ δὴ ὡς ἦν ἔστιν τε καὶ ἔσται͵ τῇ δὲ τὸ ἔστιν μόνον κατὰ τὸν ἀληθῆ λόγον προσήκει͵ [38a] τὸ δὲ ἦν τό τ΄ ἔσται περὶ τὴν ἐν χρόνῳ [to time] γένεσιν ἰοῦσαν πρέπει λέγεσθαι - κινήσεις γάρ ἐστον͵ τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον ἀκινήτως οὔτε πρεσβύτερον οὔτε νεώτερον προσήκει γίγνεσθαι διὰ χρόνου [through time] οὐδὲ γενέσθαι ποτὲ οὐδὲ γεγονέναι νῦν οὐδ΄ εἰς αὖθις ἔσεσθαι͵ τὸ παράπαν τε οὐδὲν ὅσα γένεσις τοῖς ἐν αἰσθήσει φερομένοις προσῆψεν͵ ἀλλὰ χρόνου [of time] ταῦτα αἰῶνα [eon] μιμουμένου καὶ κατ΄ ἀριθμὸν κυκλουμένου γέγονεν εἴδη - καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι τὰ τοιάδε͵ [38b] τό τε γεγονὸς εἶναι γεγονὸς καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον εἶναι γιγνόμενον͵ ἔτι τε τὸ γενησόμενον εἶναι γενησόμενον καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν μὴ ὂν εἶναι͵ ὧν οὐδὲν ἀκριβὲς λέγομεν. περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων τάχ΄ ἂν οὐκ εἴη καιρὸς πρέπων ἐν τῷ παρόντι διακριβολογεῖσθαι.
[/quote]

Concerning Plato's Timaeus: KPONOS
"WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving
and living, the created image of the AIDION gods, he rejoiced, and in his
joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this
was AIDION, 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 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."

Please note above that Plato says there is “was,” “is” and
“will be” and that only “was” and “will be” are properly spoken of
time
and since the eons and eonian is an image of time it is improper,
according to Plato, to ascribe “was” and “will be” to God. Only “is” is
applicable to God since He never changes nor grows old. So “is” is not
applicable to eon or eonian since only “was” and “will be” are applicable to
eon and eonian. Therefore, according to Plato, eon and eonian are not
eternal since they are not applicable to God who is eternal.

Also, according to Plato's Timaeus, time was created when the heavens were created: the Sun, moon
and stars mark out the times and seasons. And eon and eonian are,
according to Plato a moving image of time. Therefore since the heavens
had a beginning it is impossible for eon or eonian to be eternal (without
beginning). And when the heavens are destroyed time will cease and thus
eon and eonian will cease as well.


Nathaniel Scarlett on Jude 1:6 "unseen chains" . . .
"Most Lexicon writers derive the word aidios from aei, ever or always: but
it may have the same etemology as hades, which they derive from a
negative, and idein, to see; and therefore it signifies invisible, unseen, or
unknown. In Romans 1:20 where it is applied to the power of the Deity, it
means unknown; because we see or know only a very small part of God's
power. The word is used in a limited sense by the Greeks: thus
Thucydides has this phrase--othen aidion (imperceptible)
misthophoran uparchein
, "from whence he expected a
perpetual salary." But this could only be a salary during his life: therefore
the word here in Thucydides means a period unknown; though it will
certainly end."

Last edited by Eusebius; 11-12-2014 at 01:33 PM..
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