Aionios: Let's clear the water

[Doc]

I mean, just look at the differences in scholarly opinion on the words aion, aionion and aionios. There is quite a bit of disagreement even among Greek scholars, who should theoretically know what they're talking about.

Here is the problem with that.

Here is the "approximation" you speak of.

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.



The opinion isn't over scripture per sey,  it is the debate to narrow the above approximation so that it can be said with a sense of exactness what the language should say.  

So to say that exactness exists is an error.   When a person learns to understand "how" the approximation actually uplifts scripture, then there is no concern who has to win the debate over terms.

I see what you're saying, but that wasn't really the point I was making. And, that is only one example from one scholar.

[Apocatastasis]

Doc,

Are you not convinced that aionios is used as a contrast to perishable things in say, John 6:27?  If not, why not?  Let's chat.

[bobf]

Each noun is lofty. The idea of "lofty" is already set in stone, so to speak.
The adjective modifies the noun. Look in any good grammar.

But Tony, "lofty" is not modifying the noun in the same way in each case.  So the noun is modifying how "lofty" modifies it!  It's a two way street.

Why would I need to look at a grammar - I'm looking right at some actual sentences with actual nouns and adjectives behaving in certain ways.

[Tony N]

Tony wrote: 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

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

Tony's reply:
No, I did not misunderstand.
Here is the exact quote you posted earlier. Note the bold below:

"Some, with Parkhurst, would render the original, bairachta elohim wamailech, ""Thou hast blessed the gods and Molech;"" a sense, however, which seems extremely forced, and is not acknowledged by any of the ancient versions, though the LXX. and Vulgate render bairachta by [eulogese] benedixit, ""blessed."" It is no unusual thing for a word to have opposite senses. Exd 22:28; Lev 24:15; Mat 26:59-66; Jhn 10:33; Act 6:13"

[Tony N]

Each noun is lofty. The idea of "lofty" is already set in stone, so to speak.
The adjective modifies the noun. Look in any good grammar.

But Tony, "lofty" is not modifying the noun in the same way in each case.  So the noun is modifying how "lofty" modifies it!  It's a two way street.

Why would I need to look at a grammar - I'm looking right at some actual sentences with actual nouns and adjectives behaving in certain ways.

No, Bob, you are just playing word games now.
Why look at a grammar? Because grammar gives us rules to live by. Of course grammar rules are always being broken in our English language but that doesn't make it right.

Lofty mountains
Lofty ideals
Lofty looks

In each case above the adjective "lofty" is not modified by the noun.

[Doc]

it just means that you have to do a lot more work to demonstrate convincingly that it does carry those connotations....

If it doesn't carry those connotations, then why is it used in contrast to that which perishes (John 6)?

This must be the John 6 passage you were talking about: (From CLNT)

26 Jesus answered them and said, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, You are seeking Me, not that you perceived signs, but that you ate of the bread and are satisfied.
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."

See, I don't read the contrast there in the emphasis you are placing on it. Jesus is talking about perishable physical food versus the spiritual food that "is remaining for life eonian". So the contrast is between what is perishable and what is spiritual, which remains for (unto) aionian life. What is being contrasted is the natural and spiritual food (perishable and imperishable), not the life aionian itself. Apples and Oranges, Gabe.

I didn't see your other post before I wrote this one, but there's the answer to your question. 

[Tony N]

As for your point about timelessness, I can see where if timelessness is something that by its nature, transcends time, yet, being a part of it, then yes, I can agree with that.

For Plato, time, like all things having to do with the created world, has its ontological basis in the eternal Forms.  So yes, his notion of eternity/eternal (aion/aionios) was that while it transcends time, it is also immanent in time just as the idea of "the good" is immanent in all things good.  I think this idea is retained in he NT, in that "aeonian life" refers to the eternal life of God as experienced in the world of time.  Hence, the literal meaning of "age"  is conveyed even though the connotations of eternity are still present.

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,

[Apocatastasis]

No, I did not misunderstand.
Here is the exact quote you posted earlier. Note the bold below:

"Some, with Parkhurst, would render the original, bairachta elohim wamailech, ""Thou hast blessed the gods and Molech;"" a sense, however, which seems extremely forced, and is not acknowledged by any of the ancient versions, though the LXX. and Vulgate render bairachta by [eulogese] benedixit, ""blessed."" It is no unusual thing for a word to have opposite senses. Exd 22:28; Lev 24:15; Mat 26:59-66; Jhn 10:33; Acts 6:13

No, Tony, these verses are cited in support of the idea that blaspheming God, not the gods, in in view.  You can figure that out.

[Apocatastasis]

No, Bob, you are just playing word games now.
Why look at a grammar? Because grammar gives us rules to live by. Of course grammar rules are always being broken in our English language but that doesn't make it right.

Lofty mountains
Lofty ideals
Lofty looks

In each case above the adjective "lofty" is not modified by the noun.

Tony, lofty can mean "pompous" and lofty can mean "tall".  Tall does not mean "pompous" and pompous does not mean "tall".  Do you understand that, Tony?  Don't be afraid to ask questions if you don't.

[Doc]

Doc,

Are you not convinced that aionios is used as a contrast to perishable things in say, John 6:27?  If not, why not?  Let's chat.

In case you didn't see it, I answered your question here in my last post.

[Apocatastasis]

Tony,

Colossians 2:8 does not say that philosophy is inherently bad, or that all philosophy is vain deceit. Paul is rather emploring his listeners and readers not to be spoiled by ungodly philosophy.  He is not saying that all philosophy is ungodly.

similarly, doctrine in itself is not bad, although peoplecan be spoiled by doctrine, i.e. bad doctrine.

Get it?

[Tony N]

Tony,

Colossians 2:8 does not say that philosophy is inherently bad, or that all philosophy is vain deceit. Paul is rather emploring his listeners and readers not to be spoiled by ungodly philosophy.  He is not saying that all philosophy is ungodly.

similarly, doctrine in itself is not bad, although peoplecan be spoiled by doctrine, i.e. bad doctrine.

Get it?

Wrong. The philosophy known to the Greeks and Paul's listeners was that of the Greeks such as Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy. Paul was telling them beware that the believers would be despoiled by philosophy. They knew what he was talking about. The philosophy of their day and the philosophers you are citing to try to make the Bible better understood is part of the despoiling of the true faith.

[Apocatastasis]

Doc,

I did miss your post.  Thanks for pointing that out.

See, I don't read the contrast there in the emphasis you are placing on it. Jesus is talking about perishable physical food versus the spiritual food that "is remaining for life eonian". So the contrast is between what is perishable and what is spiritual, which remains for (unto) aionian life. What is being contrasted is the natural and spiritual food (perishable and imperishable), not the life aionian itself.

Let's see if we can get to the bottom of our different readings. In John 6:27 and 51, aion/aionios is contrasted with "perish" and is equated with the notion of immortal life.  Do you agree to this, or is this where we begin to diverge?

[Apocatastasis]

Wrong. The philosophy known to the Greeks and Paul's listeners was that of the Greeks such as Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy. Paul was telling them beware that the believers would be despoiled by philosophy. They knew what he was talking about. The philosophy of their day and the philosophers you are citing to try to make the Bible better understood is part of the despoiling of the true faith.

If youare suggesting that Paul regarded ancient Greek philosophy as utterly wrong, then I'd like to see some evidence for your claim.

I'd also like to see you start addressing more my points. Haven't I addressed all of yours, irrespective of whether you agree with me or not?

[Tony N]

No, Bob, you are just playing word games now.
Why look at a grammar? Because grammar gives us rules to live by. Of course grammar rules are always being broken in our English language but that doesn't make it right.

Lofty mountains
Lofty ideals
Lofty looks

In each case above the adjective "lofty" is not modified by the noun.

Tony, lofty can mean "pompous" and lofty can mean "tall".  Tall does not mean "pompous" and pompous does not mean "tall".  Do you understand that, Tony?  Don't be afraid to ask questions if you don't.

Give an example of lofty meaning pompous.

[Doc]

Doc,

I did miss your post.  Thanks for pointing that out.

See, I don't read the contrast there in the emphasis you are placing on it. Jesus is talking about perishable physical food versus the spiritual food that "is remaining for life eonian". So the contrast is between what is perishable and what is spiritual, which remains for (unto) aionian life. What is being contrasted is the natural and spiritual food (perishable and imperishable), not the life aionian itself.

Let's see if we can get to the bottom of our different readings. In John 6:27 and 51, aion/aionios is contrasted with "perish" and is equated with the notion of immortal life.  Do you agree to this, or is this where we begin to diverge?

Hmm. No, I guess that would be where we begin to diverge. To avoid repeating myself, just go ahead and go back to my previous post where I cut/ pasted the verse in question. I think if you read it again, you'll see that I don't think aion/aionios itself is what's being contrasted with perish/ perishable, but rather perishable food being contrasted with imperishable (spiritual) food. It's a bit confusing, because the way the sentence in John is structured, it's easy to drag the aionion into the comparison as what the perishable food is being compared to.

Another way to put it is: The word Aionian modifies life in that passage. What is being contrasted is the perishable physical food and the "imperishable" spiritual food that has application in the aionian life. The aionian life is not the point of comparison. I hope that helps you see where I see it differently.

[Tony N]

Wrong. The philosophy known to the Greeks and Paul's listeners was that of the Greeks such as Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy. Paul was telling them beware that the believers would be despoiled by philosophy. They knew what he was talking about. The philosophy of their day and the philosophers you are citing to try to make the Bible better understood is part of the despoiling of the true faith.

If youare suggesting that Paul regarded ancient Greek philosophy as utterly wrong, then I'd like to see some evidence for your claim.

I'd also like to see you start addressing more my points. Haven't I addressed all of yours, irrespective of whether you agree with me or not?

I just did show philosophy is just plain bad. The philosophers of Paul's day were those of Plato and Aristotle, Epicurean and Stoci philosophers as well. It was also knows as "the wisdom of this world."

1Co 1:18-25  For the word of the cross is stupidity, indeed, to those who are perishing, yet to us who are being saved it is the power of God."  (19)  For it is written, I shall be destroying the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the intelligent shall I be repudiating."  (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?  (21)  For since, in fact, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom knew not God, God delights, through the stupidity of the heralding, to save those who are believing,  (22)  since, in fact, Jews signs are requesting, and Greeks wisdom are seeking,  (23)  yet we are heralding Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a snare, yet to the nations stupidity,  (24)  yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God,  (25)  for the stupidity of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

I have been addressing your points.

[Apocatastasis]

Tony, are you serious?  Have you resorted to arguing with English dictionaries in order to defend your paradigm?  You poor thing...



Main Entry: lofty
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: arrogant, high and mighty
Synonyms: ambitious, cavalier, condescending, disdainful, grandiose, haughty, high-minded, immodest, insolent, overbearing, patronizing, pretentious, proud, snooty, supercilious

[Tony N]

Gabe, I'm serious.

You told me to ask if I had any questions. Now answer the question.

Give an example of lofty meaning pompous.

[Doc]

Gabe, the answer to your second question is in a post above. I think our conversation is getting lost in the back and forth between you and Tony.   

[Apocatastasis]

I just did show philosophy is just plain bad. The philosophers of Paul's day were those of Plato and Aristotle, Epicurean and Stoci philosophers as well. It was also knows as "the wisdom of this world."

You showed no such thing. I can think of a number of ancient Greek ideas which harmonize with NT teaching. I already cited John's use of logos as an example.  Like I said, Christian theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries.  Is this news to you, Tony?

I have been addressing your points.

 Did you miss posts 243 and 246?

Give an example of lofty meaning pompous.

Here is an example from an English translation of Isaiah 2:11.   I used  Douay-Rheims Bible, since you appealed to it earlier.

"The lofty eyes of man are humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be made to stoop: and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day."

[Apocatastasis]

26 Jesus answered them and said, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, You are seeking Me, not that you perceived signs, but that you ate of the bread and are satisfied.
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."

See, I don't read the contrast there in the emphasis you are placing on it. Jesus is talking about perishable physical food versus the spiritual food that "is remaining for life eonian". So the contrast is between what is perishable and what is spiritual, which remains for (unto) aionian life. What is being contrasted is the natural and spiritual food (perishable and imperishable), not the life aionian itself.

Doc, what do you make of this?

Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die

[Doc]

26 Jesus answered them and said, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, You are seeking Me, not that you perceived signs, but that you ate of the bread and are satisfied.
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."

See, I don't read the contrast there in the emphasis you are placing on it. Jesus is talking about perishable physical food versus the spiritual food that "is remaining for life eonian". So the contrast is between what is perishable and what is spiritual, which remains for (unto) aionian life. What is being contrasted is the natural and spiritual food (perishable and imperishable), not the life aionian itself.

Doc, what do you make of this?

Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die

There is no reference in that verse to aionian anything, which is the point of contention, so I don't see it as directly relevant to our discussion of the John 6:27 comparison. 

[Apocatastasis]

Look at the next verse, doc.   

[Tony N]

I just did show philosophy is just plain bad. The philosophers of Paul's day were those of Plato and Aristotle, Epicurean and Stoci philosophers as well. It was also knows as "the wisdom of this world."

You showed no such thing. I can think of a number of ancient Greek ideas which harmonize with NT teaching. I already cited John's use of logos as an example.  Like I said, Christian theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries.  Is this news to you, Tony?

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.

I have been addressing your points.

 Did you miss posts 243 and 246?

Give an example of lofty meaning pompous.

Here is an example from an English translation of Isaiah 2:11.   I used  Douay-Rheims Bible, since you appealed to it earlier.

"The lofty eyes of man are humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be made to stoop: and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day."
[/quote]

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