Aionios: Let's clear the water

[Tony N]

Gabe, you told me to answer your question to posts 243 and 246. Here is 243:

Gabe, you started this thread with this in italic:

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

Here aionios is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption.

You are making the noun modify aionion/eonian. So in fact you are advocating that eonian can be modified by its context which is being modified by the noun it is supposed to be modifying. This is elementary stuff, Gabe.

 

Nouns don't modify context.  Nouns may help to determine context, however.  For instance, if I say "HIV infects a large number of gay males," I am clearly using the term "gay" as a synonym of "homosexual".  If, however, I say "Tony N. is a gay and cheerful man," I am using the term "gay" as a synonym of "happy"....unless there is something I don't know about Tony N.  

I see no question to answer. But I'll make a statement about your sad humor. The two "gays" in your example above are not opposite in meaning. Gay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.
Eonian cannot mean eternal in one verse and pertaining to what is not eternal in another verse.
Context does not modify the meaning of eonian. In the New Testament context does not alter the meaning of eon either.

Furthermore, this is not about a word having different meanings. The point is this: Does aionion/eonian have two opposite meanings in the Bible.

I'm not homosexual, Gabe. Now you know, quit with the stupid stuff.

[Doc]

Look at the next verse, doc.   

Oh, Ok. Would've been easier if you had just posted the next verse, since you were trying to make a point involving it:

50 This is the Bread which is descending out of heaven that anyone may be eating of it and may not be dying.
51 I am the living Bread which descends out of heaven. If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall be living for the eon. Now the Bread also, which I shall be giving for the sake of the life of the world, is My flesh."

The verses are saying that those eating of the bread descending out of heaven "may not be dying", and shall "be living for the eon", but I am not seeing how that is really relevant to our discussion of contrasting things perishable and imperishable from v. 27 .

"Living for the eon" here is the result of eating of Christ. Aionian life however, is something more than simply 'living for the eon'. Notice the verse doesn't say, "If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall have aionian life." which seems to be a different concept. Aionian life has qualities that transcend time. Living for the eon denotes simply 'living for the age'.
 

[Apocatastasis]

"eyes" does not modify "lofty." "lofty" modifies "eyes." Also, "lofty" in that verse does not change its meaning to "pompous."

What do you think lofty means here, if not arrogant, proud, conceited, etc. etc. ?

I never said that the noun acts as modifier of the adjective.  I made this clear already.  What I have argued is that if an adjective (or any word) has more than one meaning, then we have to let the context determine the meaning. Why are you having so much trouble grasping this most basic of concepts?

So Christians theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries.

Ok, so then will you retract your earlier comment about ancient Greek philosophy being entirely bad? Besides, what are you trying to get at with this?

And just because theologians through the centuries have seen glimmers of truth in the philosophers does not mean they are right to go to them for glimmers of truth. Their wisdom is the wisdom God has set aside. Do you understand this? If God set it aside and made it look stupid then we should have nothing to do with it as well.

Truth is truth, dude, no matter who tells it.  The bible nowhere categorically condemns philosophy.  Or do you have some strange definition of "philosophy" that you'd like to share?

But maybe we can get back on topic here....

I see no question to answer. But I'll make a statement about your sad humor. The two "gays" in your example above are not opposite in meaning. Gay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.

I wasn't using gay as an example of a word with oppositemeanings.  Again, pay attention, Tony.  I used it as an example of how context determines which meaning of a word is in view. Simple stuff.  Ya dig?

[Tony N]

And here is post 246 Gabe said I didn't answer so I'm answering it. I've bolded my replies so Gabe will quit saying I never answer his questions.

Gabe, it is a fact that elohim can be gods.

Yes, I'm aware of that, Tony.  Thanks.

Furthermore I checked out your Exd.22:28; Lev.24:15; Mat.26:59-66; Jhn 10:33 and Acts 6:13 above and none of them prove that words can have opposite meanings.

You misunderstood. The TKS did not site those verses as examples where a word can carry opposite meanings.

1Ki 21:10  and cause two men--sons of worthlessness--to sit over-against him, and they testify of him, saying, Thou hast blessed God and Melech; and they have brought him out, and stoned him, and he dieth.'
 and two men--sons of worthlessness--come in, and sit over-against him, and the men of worthlessness testify of him, even Naboth, before the people, saying, `Naboth blessed God and Melech;' and they take him out to the outside of the city, and stone him with stones, and he dieth; (Young's Literal Translation)

You asked yourself why would they kill that guy for blessing God? They wouldn't have. But being a Jew, they would have killed the guy for blessing elohim (with a lowercase e and blessing Moloch (a false god)). They would not have  killed him for blessing God. And they would have killed the guy if he blessed GOD AND BLESSED MOLOCH (the false god). So either way, barach is not curse

Clark's commentary states:  "Moloch, Milcom, and Melech, in the language of different nations, all signify a king, and imply the sun, which was called the king of heaven; and consequently the addition of אדר  adar, which signifies powerful, illustrious, to the one, and of ענה  anah, which implies to return, to answer, to the other, means no more than the mighty or the oracular Moloch. And as the children were offered to him, it appears that he was the same with the Moloch of the Ammonites. See Univ. Hist. and Calmet. Mr. Locke is also of opinion that these two names were expressive of one and the same deity."

Gabe replied: Tony, where are false gods mentioned in this context?  Elohim should have its usual meaning here.

Tony's reply: I thought I made it quite clear after quoting Clark's commentary and the Hebrew meaning of elohim. If the two worthless men heard Naboth blessing Elohim and Moloch (the false sun king god) then he is worthy of the death penalty.
If the two worthless men heard Naboth blessing **elohim** and Moloch then he is worthy of the death penalty. Either way he is worthy of the death penalty. He is not worthy of the death penalty for blessing God.

Tony wrote: The Bible is so against philosophy....

Gabe replied: I wonder what definition of "philosophy" you have in mind.  Philosophy in itself is not bad, or to be avoided, Tonester.  Indeed, Paul himself was a philosopher.

Tony's reply:
No, Paul was not a philosopher. That is patently wrong. How many different definitions of philosophy are there?

.... that by you saying that Plato influenced God's inspired word is so pathetic I hardly have words for your deception.

Ok, Tony.

The New Testament is a revelation from God, not Plato.

Did I say that the NT is a revelation from Plato? No, I didn't.  I merely acknowledged a fact that has been acknowledge for centuries, namely that Plato's philosophy (and that of other ancient Greek philosophers') had an influence on NT thought.  For instance, John's treatment of the Logos is decidedly Greek, as anyone familiar with ancient Greek philosophy will tell you. If this is news to you, then you ought to get out more.

Wrong! John was not influenced to write his gospel due to reading Plato and other philosophers. I think you need to stay in more.

Tony wrote: Paul always warned the church against the philosophers. Read 1 Corinthians 1,2 & 3 and see what Paul says about the wisdom of the wise such as Plato and Aristotle.

[/quote]

Gabe replied: The "wisdom of the world" does not refer to philosophy in general, or science in general.   You include all of Plato and Aritotle's philosophy in the category of the world's widsom, yet Christians throughout the ages have seen in them gems of God's wisdom.  

Tony's reply:
And they were wrong to do so. The wisdom of the word does indeed refer to the philosophers of the world. It does indeed include Plato and Aristotle's philosophies.


Gabe, why don't you just take the next step and say Satanists influenced the Bible?[/quote]

Tony, remember what I told you about people taking you seriously?

Gabe, do you think that I care what your opinion of me is?

Besides, Plato never used aion nor aionion for eternal.

Tony, you know you don't want to go there.  You refuse to address my points on this issue.  Let's see how well you can dance.

Translators mistranslated Plato's usage of aionios as "eternal." But Plato never spoke English and never used the word "eternal." It is impossible for him to have used aion and aionion as eternal because he used it in reference to Xronos (Time) not eternity.

Gabe wrote: In Timaeus 37d, Plato contrast time (chronos), which moves according to number, with aion/aionios, whch rests in unity. Do you acknowledge this? Do you acknowledge that this same thought was expressed by Philo (the Platonist) when he wrote in De Mundo 7, "but in eternity (aion) nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only" ?  Don't evade this any more, Tony.

Tony's reply: Just goes to show what you know of Timaeus. Plato was not contrasting time with aion/aionion but was showing their likeness you nitwit. Learn to read the philosophy Paul told us to avoid.
 

Again, the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived. I didn't make that rule up Gabe.

Again, this rule is broken routinely.  Gorgeous was derived from its nounal root, gorge ("throat").  Gorgeous does not mean "pertaining to the throat".  Sure, gorgeous now pertains to gorgeousness, but this is entirely irrelevant due to the fact that gorgeous is not derived from gorgeousness (in fact, its the other way around). Tony, do you get your kicks by making ridiculous assertions and then watching others invest time and energy refuting them?

Tony's reply:
That rule is never broken in the Bible. Maybe in your alice in wonderland world but not the bible.

[Apocatastasis]

The verses are saying that those eating of the bread descending out of heaven "may not be dying", and shall "be living for the eon", but I am not seeing how that is really relevant to our discussion of contrasting things perishable and imperishable from v. 27 .

The relevance? "Perishable" describes earthly food and life whereas "imperishable" describes heavenly food and life.

"Living for the eon" here is the result of eating of Christ. Aionian life however, is something more than simply 'living for the eon'. Notice the verse doesn't say, "If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall have aionian life." which seems to be a different concept. Aionian life has qualities that transcend time. Living for the eon denotes simply 'living for the age'.

Well we agree on one important thing, namely that aionian life has qualities that transcend time.  But if I understand you, you are saying that aion/aionios does not itself carry the connotations of temporal-transcendence?

[Apocatastasis]

 

Just goes to show what you know of Timaeus. Plato was not contrasting time with aion/aionion but was showing their likeness you nitwit. Learn to read the philosophy Paul told us to avoid.

Are you feeling cranky, Tony boy?  We'll chat tommorrow/

[peacemaker]

A pompous proclamation, ostentatiously lofty ...

"Wherever you are, death will overtake you, although you be in lofty towers; puffed up with vanity."

There is a generation, O how full of pride are their eyes! O how their brows are lifted up!

Like lofty mountains or an eminent peak, these towers are hollowness; all is vanity. 

peacemaker

[reFORMer]

It is certainly true that aionios is used in the Bible in reference to the Divine, which is described as invisible, intanible, incorporeal, permament, etc.

God is invisible and visible.  "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."  I see Him in various ways.  From clouds, not of smoke, but glory of His presence to in and through a stranger at the market that, after a few words, begins to dance with me because we see Him; it's not like that song "We Shall Behold Him."  What are you beholding now!?

God is intangible and felt.  I feel Him in various ways.  His anointing is sometimes like electric rain upon my body, seen and felt.  There is a tangible peace.  He sometimes feels like warm oil in healings.

He is said to be incorporeal; but, He also has embodiment, both of spirit substance and physically.  "Sacrifice and approach present Thou dost not will, Yet a body dost Thou adapt to Me." (Hb 10:5)

God is permanent; yet, what we call the gifts of the Holy Spirit are temporary.  God truly heals; but, one day there will be nothing to get sick, so nothing more to heal. 

[reFORMer]

Indeed, the contrast is between the physical and the spiritual, and we are told that the physical perishes as opposed to the spiritual which does not perish.

Spirit can perish.  When we were dead in our tresspasses and sins what was dead?  Never the less, spirit is more durable than anything in the present physical dimension except for the resurrection body.

[Molly]

Indeed, the contrast is between the physical and the spiritual, and we are told that the physical perishes as opposed to the spiritual which does not perish.

Spirit can perish.  When we were dead in our tresspasses and sins what was dead?  Never the less, spirit is more durable than anything in the present physical dimension except for the resurrection body.

Yes, it happened to Adam.

10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

--Gen 3


Faith without works is dead.  Therefore, ..


... be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. [Jam1:22]

[Tony N]

Gabe quoted only part of what I wrote here:
"So Christians theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries."

Then he has the audacity to ask me this:
Ok, so then will you retract your earlier comment about ancient Greek philosophy being entirely bad? Besides, what are you trying to get at with this?


Here is what I actually wrote:

"John did not get the truth of the Logos from the philosophers. So Christians theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries. There are glimmers of truth in Satanism and witchcraft too I bet. In the Scritpures Satan uses glimmers of truth. And just because theologians through the centuries have seen glimmers of truth in the philosophers does not mean they are right to go to them for glimmers of truth. Their wisdom is the wisdom God has set aside. Do you understand this? If God set it aside and made it look stupid then we should have nothing to do with it as well."

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the discusser of this eon? Does not God make stupid the wisdom of this world?

The wisdom of the Greeks is the wisdom God made stupid.

Gabe, do you honestly believe that is right to just partially quote me like you did above?

Also, Gabe, no one said words don't have different meanings. They do. But in the New Testament aion/eon does not have different meanings and neither does aionios/eonian.

[Tony N]

Just goes to show what you know of Timaeus. Plato was not contrasting time with aion/aionion but was showing their likeness you nitwit. Learn to read the philosophy Paul told us to avoid.

Are you feeling cranky, Tony boy?  We'll chat tommorrow/

What does "feeling cranky" have to do with anything? Please quit deflecting the issue from you to me.
The fact is that Plato was saying that in his Xronos (Time) section of Timeaus that time, the planets etc. are a moving image of the eons and what is eonian. They are not contrasted.
And don't call me Tony boy. I'm not your boy and don't even know you.

[Apocatastasis]

What does "feeling cranky" have to do with anything?

You called me a nitwit, which indicated to me that you were in a bad mood.  I hope you are feeling better today.

Plato was not contrasting time with aion/aionion but was showing their likeness you nitwit.

He was both contrasting and comparing time and aion/aionios, Tony boy.  Time moves according to number whereas aion/aionios rests in unity.  Plato explains that time consists in movement from one moment to the next, whereas aion/aionios transcends the passing of time: "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 (aidion/imperceptible) essence."  I just had my nephew, who is in 5th grade, read 37d and 37e.  He had no trouble comprehending what is plainly written.  Why are you having such a difficult time with this, Tony boy?

As for the aside we've been having concerning "philosophy", why don't we save that for another thread. Let's try to stick to discussing aion/aionios in this thread.

[Apocatastasis]

Gay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.

So gay only means "happy", Tony boy?  Gay doesn't also mean "homosexual"?

[Apocatastasis]

I thought I made it quite clear after quoting Clark's commentary and the Hebrew meaning of elohim. If the two worthless men heard Naboth blessing Elohim and Moloch (the false sun king god) then he is worthy of the death penalty.
If the two worthless men heard Naboth blessing **elohim** and Moloch then he is worthy of the death penalty. Either way he is worthy of the death penalty. He is not worthy of the death penalty for blessing God.

There is nothing in the context to indicate that elohim here has its more unusual meaning of "gods", Tony boy. 

So, about "lofty".....  if it does not mean "arrogant/conceited/pompous/proud in Isaiah 2:11, then what does it mean?

[Paul Hazelwood]

the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived.

Any online references to this specific grammar rule?

[Paul Hazelwood]

 n - Super   adj - Superior

[Tony N]

Gay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.

So gay only means "happy", Tony boy?  Gay doesn't also mean "homosexual"?

Gabe, did I say Gay does not have different meanings? Did I not say words often have more than one meaning?
Didn't I say aion and aionion have only one meaning in the New Testament? Yes, I did.

As to "lofty" the noun does not modify lofty. Lofty modifies the noun.

[Tony N]

the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived.

Any online references to this specific grammar rule?

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ303975&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ303975

[Paul Hazelwood]

Am I looking at the wrong spot in that page?   I see  An Adjective Modifies a Noun.


I do not see the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived   


Superior

Origin:
1350–1400; ME (adj.) < L, equiv. to super(us) situated above (adj. deriv. of super; see super- ) + -ior comp. suffix; see -er 4

[Apocatastasis]

Gabe, did I say Gay does not have different meanings? Did I not say words often have more than one meaning?
Didn't I say aion and aionion have only one meaning in the New Testament? Yes, I did.

As to "lofty" the noun does not modify lofty. Lofty modifies the noun.

Tony, how many times must I tell you that I'm not arguing that the noun modifies the adjective?  Again, what I am arguing is that the context determines which meaning of a word is n view.  You would have us believe that aion/aionios does not carry the meaning of eternity/eternal, but this is a mere assertion on your part.  I have demonstrated that aionios, from its inception, carried the meaning of eternity, and I have shown where it must carry this meaning in the NT where it is contrasted with that which perishes.

And if you're not arguing that "gay" does not also mean "homosexual", then why did you bother writing this silly bit:

Gay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.

[Tony N]

Gabe, did I say Gay does not have different meanings? Did I not say words often have more than one meaning?
Didn't I say aion and aionion have only one meaning in the New Testament? Yes, I did.

As to "lofty" the noun does not modify lofty. Lofty modifies the noun.

Tony, how many times must I tell you that I'm not arguing that the noun modifies the adjective?  Again, what I am arguing is that the context determines which meaning of a word is n view.  You would have us believe that aion/aionios does not carry the meaning of eternity/eternal, but this is a mere assertion on your part.  I have demonstrated that aionios, from its inception, carried the meaning of eternity, and I have shown where it must carry this meaning in the NT where it is contrasted with that which perishes.

And if you're not arguing that "gay" does not also mean "homosexual", then why did you bother writing this silly bit:

Gay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.

If you demonstrated that aionios from its inception carried the meaning of eternity why do I disagree with you. Obviously you have deceived yourself because you have demonstrated no such thing. It is impossible for aionios to be greater than its noun form. Plato never used aionios as "eternal." Just because some nit wit mistranslated Plato's use of aion and aionios as eternal does not mean Plato used it to mean eternal.

As to the gay bit, I already told you I believe that words have more than one meaning but that aion/aionion in the NT do not have more than one meaning. So why continue it on? Gay homo's are happy about being homo and gay straight people are happy being straight. And gay can mean homo and gay can mean happy. So what's the problem? Gheesh!

[sven]

what to you all think of this statement from German universalist Stroeter, i think it has a deep logic, cause only God himself is the real Eternal One

All adjectives that refer to God and His life get their true meaning from there, but not the way round. Wherever the word translated "eternal" (Greek: aionios, eonian or age-lasting), refers to creature, men or mere human conditions or circumstances it never has the meaning of infinity cause nothing creatural can be thought of beeing infinite, unless it partook in the divine nature of divine life and entity.

[Tony N]

what to you all think of this statement from German universalist Stroeter, i think it has a deep logic, cause only God himself is the real Eternal One

All adjectives that refer to God and His life get their true meaning from there, but not the way round. Wherever the word translated "eternal" (Greek: aionios, eonian or age-lasting), refers to creature, men or mere human conditions or circumstances it never has the meaning of infinity cause nothing creatural can be thought of beeing infinite, unless it partook in the divine nature of divine life and entity.

Sven that is what we have been arguing about. This thread started with this:

The late and great Greek scholar and Universalist, William Barclay, understood aionios to be the word of eternity in the sense of timelessness. Wrote Barclay, in his New Testament Words:

"The essence of the word aionios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God. Aionios is the word which describes nothing less and nothing more than the life of God."

It is incorrect. Nouns do not modify the adjectives. The duty of the adjective is to modify the noun. Aionion/Eonian just means "pertaining to the aion(as) eon(s).

"God" in "eonian God" (Rom.16:26) does not modify "eonian." Eonian modifies God. It tells us of a God pertaining to the eons. When the eons end, and they will, God will no longer be the eonian God for He will no longer have eons to be God over. He will be "God" when that happens.

Likewise "life" in "eonian life" (Matt.25:46) and "chastening" in "eonian chastening" does not modify "eonian." Rather, eonian modifies both the life and the chastening. Some will argue that in this case the chastening and the life when connected with eonian does not take on a durative aspect but a spiritual or a kind of chastening, life aspect. But this is just done because they fear if eonian is eternal they will be in hot water as to UR being correct or not.

But it is the life and the chastening pertaining to that eon.

[Paul Hazelwood]

what to you all think of this statement from German universalist Stroeter, i think it has a deep logic, cause only God himself is the real Eternal One

All adjectives that refer to God and His life get their true meaning from there, but not the way round. Wherever the word translated "eternal" (Greek: aionios, eonian or age-lasting), refers to creature, men or mere human conditions or circumstances it never has the meaning of infinity cause nothing creatural can be thought of beeing infinite, unless it partook in the divine nature of divine life and entity.

God is the God of ages,  God does not change,  he is infinite and the God of the ages at the same time. Whether the ages end for ever or not is beside the point.   How does it change the fact that he is both NOW? 

According to some of the assertions in this thread he is either the infinite God or a God who's description is dependant upon circumstance. 

If God is infinite and never changing then we have to consider the meaning behind God being ALL in ALL.  If God is not ALL in ALL now then is God incomplete?   If God is not ALL in ALL now then does that mean when God is ALL in ALL then the unchanging God then changes?
 
Is God being ALL in ALL a statement to US and our destiny?   

I do not see the bible prohibiting God from creating a new batch of creatures at any time he chooses.   

God will ALWAYS be the God of AGES and infinite at the same time.