I never lost my senses. The only thing that happened to Plato's Timeaus is God just has not yet given you the grace to see that Plato didn't use aion/aionios as eternal.
Why don't you answer the question I asked you? What do you think Plato meant when he wrote that time is the moving image of the aeonian order? Don't be shy now
Dear Gabe, my reticence to give an answer to Plato's philosophical ideas is not a barometer as to any degree of shyness on my part. As a Christian we are not required to be knowledgeable concerning the philosophers and their philosophies. As a matter of fact, the Bible tells us to . . .
Col 2:8 Beware that no one shall be despoiling you through philosophy and empty seduction, in accord with human tradition, in accord with the elements of the world, and not in accord with Christ,
But like O.J. Simpson, I can take a stab in the dark at it.
According to Plato, God put the planets, sun and moon in the heavens as a means to show us a picture of the eons. The planets have their yearly cycles and, as Plato said in His Xronos part of Timeaus that the heavens and time were created at the same instant and that their marking out of time is an image of the eons just as the eons mark out time. Eons don't mark out eternity. They come and go just as the planets, sun and moon comes and goes. Just as the planets had a beginning so do the eons. They are not eternal.
Tony wrote: Gorgeousness is the noun. Gorgeous is the adjectival form of Gorgeousness. Gorgeous is that which pertains to that which has gorgeousness. It is not greater than its nounal form.
Gave replied: The noun gorgeousness is derived from the adjective gorgeous. The adjective gorgeous is derived from the noun gorge, meaning "throat". As I demonstrated earlier, gorgeous is an example of an adjective that is not semantically bound to its nounal root. Tony, why bother trying to snake your way out of this?
Dear Adversary, If you will look in the dictionary you will note that Gorgeousness is the noun and Gorgeous is its adjectival form. Gorgeous is not pertaining to gorge. You are using the root word fallacy. Now slither to your next question.
Oh dear, Gabe, I think you need to rethink your position on that passage. Jesus never said that aeonian life is immortality or that that life lasts forever. That life He spoke of would allow His follower to live for the duration of the eon to come. The meat which endureth unto eonian life is the meat which endureth to the life pertaining to the eon.
Oh dear, Tony, Jesus clearly contrasted between the sort of life that dies, and the sort of life that never dies. Once again, you are failing to see the contrasts of opposites. Aeonian life is the immortal life of the Heavenly Father in contradistinction to the perishable life of this passing world. Tony, there is no reason to keep your eyes wide shut. Universal Salvation is not at all at stake here.
Tony's reply: Wrong Gabe. Every time something is contrasted it need not be between temporary and eternal in the bible. The Bible often contrasts seasons with eras, days with hours, months with years. Christ was contrasting the food which doesn't last very long with food that lasts a lot longer. It's not that difficult a concept.
Here is the verse again:
Joh 6:27 Do not work for the food which is perishing, but for the food which is remaining for life eonian, which the Son of Mankind will be giving to you, for this One God, the Father, seals."
The food which is perishing does not last long. The food the Son of Mankind is giving is "remaining for life pertaining to the eon." No eon is eternal. The bible says they all end. So the food Christ is giving will, instead of you living a short life, allow you to live for the duration of the eon to come. So you see it is not a contrast between that which perishes and eternity but that which perishes and that which last for an eon.
No, Universal Salvation may not be at stake but our sanity is: 2Ti 1:7 for God gives us
, not a spirit of timidity, but of power and of love and of sanity
Furthermore we are to be "fond of that which
is good, sane
, just, benign, self-controlled;" (Titus 1:8)" So I cannot be fond of what you are teaching.
And "The younger men, similarly, entreat to be sane as to all things," (Titus 2:8).
Your teaching is not a part of the "all things" we are to be sane about.
So you see, it may not hurt Universal Reconciliation but it does hurt our proper thinking for the minds God has given us.
I never said there was no contrasts involved. You are setting up a straw man argument.
Gabe wrote: You are not acknowledging the fact that each of these contrasts involves opposites. The opposite of earthly life is heavenly life. The opposite of perishable life is immortal life. The opposite of temporary is permanent.
Tony's reply: How can I acknowledge that which does not exist? If Jesus wanted to contrast between perishable life and immortal life He could have done so. The contrast is between that which perishes and that which lasts for the coming eon. The opposite of perishing for this eon is not perishing for the next eon.
Tony wrote: How did you fail to notice the contrasts of opposites, Gabe? Notice the contrast is not between momentary and eternal but between momentary and eonian or that which is pertaining to the future eons which we look forward to.
Gabe replied: Verse 18 makes it quite clear that the contrast is between that which is passing and that which lasts forever:
Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Well, sure, according to King James mistranslation you might have a leg to stand on. But the problem is that "for ever" is not in the Greek. It is "for the eon." They shall live for the eon, Gabe. No eon is "for ever." All the eons end.
Gabe replied: The earthly bread is perishable and can sustain only mortal life. The heavenly bread is imperishable and can sustain immortal life. It is clear: The contrast is between perishable life and imperishable life.
Jesus never said it was immortal life. He surely knew the Greek word "thnetos," the word for immortal. Since He did not use it neither did He mean it. He told His hearers to "work for . . . the food which is remaining for life eonian," in John 6:27. That is the life pertaining to the eon to come.
I have a passage that applied to you, Gabe:
Isa 5:20-21 Woe to those saying for evil, good, and for good, evil, placing darkness for light and light for darkness, placing bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (21) Woe to those wise in their own eyes, and in front of their own face have understanding!"
You are one who says a word can have two completely opposite meanings.
Gabe replied: Actually, a word can take on opposing meanings. Such words are known as contronyms, or antagonyms.
The semantic evolution of aion/aionios is not so astounding, however
Please, Gabe, enough of your philosophy. Just give me a word in a properly translated Bible which means two completely opposite meanings.
Does hate mean love? Does light mean darkness? Wow! Isaiah 5:20,21 really does apply to you! Woe to you!