- Messages
- 2,925
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Points
- 108
Are there any known facts about it?
Does every religion or even any religion explicitly clarify this?
Definitely not taught in those denominations that teach conditional immortality.
What the Hell?
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
Does every religion or even any religion explicitly clarify this?
Definitely not taught in those denominations that teach conditional immortality.
Perhaps you should ask @Thomas ..
Are you saying that the concept does not exist in the Christian Bible?
- Messages
- 2,925
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Points
- 108
Debatable. Some denominations say no.
In Judaism the ideas vary depending upon denomination as well, or particular scholars or rabbis.
But you asked about concept. I asked about facts. Does anybody have factual knowledge about souls?
Does anybody know what they are? It's one thing to pick up the idea from the culture around you, ghost stories, etc, hearing that Eastern religions believe the soul is reincarnated (assuming Westerners understand them correctly) or from ever-ambiguous biblical passages, etc. Does anybody have any knowledge of them beyond scriptures, cultural depictions, myths, legends? Can they be measured or verified? When we talk about souls, are well talking about the same thing? Are we sure what they are?
If you are talking about empirical evidence, I don't think the 'Christianity forum' is
the place for such discussion.
Suffice to say, that Christians believe in a life after death.
OK ... getting back to basics
Aion (noun) – Aionios (adjective)
Aion means 'age'. Every concordance states such. Aionios is the adjective derived from the noun. Thus if aion means age, then its adjective aionios means 'age-lasting', that is, lasting throughout the age or ages spoken of.
(Annoyingly, the KJV and others translates the noun as 'world', which doesn't do the term proper justice.)
I have recounted some verses here with aion in place, and also added an 's' when the noun is plural.
"which God predestined before the aions to our glory" (1 Corinthians 2:7)
"which for aions has been hidden in God who created all things." (Ephesians 3:9)
"the mystery which has been hidden from aions and generations" (Colossians 1:26)
"so that He might rescue us from this present evil aion" (Galatians 1:4)
+++
There is the present aion, and past aions, and the future aion, and future aions:
"so that in the aions to come" (Ephesians 2:7)
Clearly 'aion' infers a period of time, a duration between beginning and end. It is also clear that 'the age' can mean in then life and times of a person or a people, the life of an individual, as well as an era or epoch.
What is does not mean, is eternity.
Aionios
The adjective aionios is almost always translated as "eternal," whereas it should more correctly be "age-long." The adjective itself has its plural form, and the eternal cannot be plural.
Aion (noun) – Aionios (adjective)
Aion means 'age'. Every concordance states such. Aionios is the adjective derived from the noun. Thus if aion means age, then its adjective aionios means 'age-lasting', that is, lasting throughout the age or ages spoken of.
(Annoyingly, the KJV and others translates the noun as 'world', which doesn't do the term proper justice.)
I have recounted some verses here with aion in place, and also added an 's' when the noun is plural.
"which God predestined before the aions to our glory" (1 Corinthians 2:7)
"which for aions has been hidden in God who created all things." (Ephesians 3:9)
"the mystery which has been hidden from aions and generations" (Colossians 1:26)
"so that He might rescue us from this present evil aion" (Galatians 1:4)
+++
There is the present aion, and past aions, and the future aion, and future aions:
"so that in the aions to come" (Ephesians 2:7)
Clearly 'aion' infers a period of time, a duration between beginning and end. It is also clear that 'the age' can mean in then life and times of a person or a people, the life of an individual, as well as an era or epoch.
What is does not mean, is eternity.
Aionios
The adjective aionios is almost always translated as "eternal," whereas it should more correctly be "age-long." The adjective itself has its plural form, and the eternal cannot be plural.
While on the topic –
The Greek words aion and aionios were used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word olam.
The noun aion is used 349 times (aionios 110 times), and in all but 4 occasions it is of the Hebrew word olam.
If one examines Hebrew lexicons, olam means:
"What is hidden; specially hidden time, long; the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or else not defined."
"We find, since there are many ages, or periods, that olam is used in the plural... we find such expressions as 'an age of ages' (olam of olams), and other reduplications. Duplication infers a rhetorical amplification of the idea, without inferring the idea of ages by a greater age. When olam is in the singular in both parts, we get 'To the age of the age.'
"The use of the word in the plural is decisive evidence that the sense of the word is not eternity, in the absolute sense, for there can be but one such eternity. But as time past and future can be divided by ages, so there may be many ages, and an age of ages."
Classical Greek uses aidios (not aionios) ... and that the translators of the Septuagint chose aiónios to represent olam, means they did not mean eternal.
Jeff Benner his The Living Words; Volume One offers:
"In the ancient Hebrew words that are used to described distance and direction are also used to describe time. The Hebrew word for east is qedem and literally means 'the direction of the rising sun'. We use north as our major orientation ... the Hebrews used the east and all directions are oriented to this direction. For example one of the words for 'south' is teyman from the root yaman meaning “to the right'. The word qedem is also the word for the past. In the ancient Hebrew mind the past is in front of you while the future is behind you...
The Hebrew word olam means 'in the far distance,' at which point it becomes difficult to discern details (and this idea of indeterminacy is carried by the term). Olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as 'eternity' or 'forever' but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is l'olam va'ed and is usually translated as 'forever and ever' but in the Hebrew it means 'to the distant horizon and again' meaning 'a very distant time and even further' and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time." (pps. 34-37)
The Greek words aion and aionios were used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word olam.
The noun aion is used 349 times (aionios 110 times), and in all but 4 occasions it is of the Hebrew word olam.
If one examines Hebrew lexicons, olam means:
"What is hidden; specially hidden time, long; the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or else not defined."
"We find, since there are many ages, or periods, that olam is used in the plural... we find such expressions as 'an age of ages' (olam of olams), and other reduplications. Duplication infers a rhetorical amplification of the idea, without inferring the idea of ages by a greater age. When olam is in the singular in both parts, we get 'To the age of the age.'
"The use of the word in the plural is decisive evidence that the sense of the word is not eternity, in the absolute sense, for there can be but one such eternity. But as time past and future can be divided by ages, so there may be many ages, and an age of ages."
Classical Greek uses aidios (not aionios) ... and that the translators of the Septuagint chose aiónios to represent olam, means they did not mean eternal.
Jeff Benner his The Living Words; Volume One offers:
"In the ancient Hebrew words that are used to described distance and direction are also used to describe time. The Hebrew word for east is qedem and literally means 'the direction of the rising sun'. We use north as our major orientation ... the Hebrews used the east and all directions are oriented to this direction. For example one of the words for 'south' is teyman from the root yaman meaning “to the right'. The word qedem is also the word for the past. In the ancient Hebrew mind the past is in front of you while the future is behind you...
The Hebrew word olam means 'in the far distance,' at which point it becomes difficult to discern details (and this idea of indeterminacy is carried by the term). Olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as 'eternity' or 'forever' but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is l'olam va'ed and is usually translated as 'forever and ever' but in the Hebrew it means 'to the distant horizon and again' meaning 'a very distant time and even further' and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time." (pps. 34-37)
So to assume aion and its adjective aionios, when used in the NT means 'eternal,' is wrong.
The authors of the Gospels were not illiterate, not even Mark, and they would have known the semantic difference between aionios and aidios, and if they meant everlasting, they would have used the correct Greek terms – words like ἀΐδιος (aïdios) or the adverb ἀεί (aei), both understood in their day to mean eternal. They would have used ἀϊδιότης (aïdiotēs) 'eternity'; ἀτέλευτος (ateleutos) 'endless', 'eternal'; or ἀτελεύτητος (ateleutētos) 'without end', 'interminable'. But they didn't ...
However, another first-century Jew did just that – Josephus Flavius. He tells us that the Pharisees:
"... believe that wicked spirits are to be kept in an eternal imprisonment (eirgmos aidios – The Wars of the Jews 2.155). The Pharisees say all souls are incorruptible, but while those of good men are removed into other bodies those of bad men are subject to eternal punishment (aidios timoria – Antiquities 1814).
And of the Essenes:
"allot to bad souls a dark, tempestuous place, full of never-ceasing retributions (τιμωριῶν ἀδιαλείπτων timoria adialeipton – Wars 2.155), where they suffer a deathless retribution (ἀθάνατον τιμωρίαν athanaton timorion – Wars 2.157)."
+++
If Jesus had intended to approve of this doctrine of the Pharisees He would have used similar language. But the only word that He uses to define the duration of punishment is aionios; whereas between them Philo and Josephus refer to aidion, adialeipton and athanaton.
Not once does Jesus endorse or elude to the Pharisaic or Essene doctrine of endless punishment. One could say He takes a stand against it by using aionios instead of aidios. He does warn his disciples not to fall prey to the teachings of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:12).
But Jesus uses "aionios kolasis," in Matthew 24:46 – and aionios means a limited duration, and kolasis describes suffering with a positive end in view.
Hart renders the text as "chastening of that Age" – God chastises, but does not exact vengeance nor punish retributively (timoria) – rather God 'corrects', 'cures', 'disciplines', 'reforms', all meanins inherent to kólasis.
This corrective meaning goes back as far as Aristotle. In late antiquity speakers used kólasis in a retributive sense, thus it’s impossible to pin down the exact meaning of Matthew 25:46, but the only other use of the noun in the NT is in 1 John 4:18, where it refers not to retributive punishment, but to the suffering experienced by someone who is subject to fear because not yet perfected in charity.
If Jesus intends a corrective punishment in Matthew 25:46, then aiónion cannot mean eternal. Chastisement comes to an end when its reforming purpose is accomplished.
Clement of Alexandria clearly distinguished between kólasis and timoria:
"For there are partial corrections which are called chastisements [kólasis], which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish, for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually." (Stromata 7:16)
The authors of the Gospels were not illiterate, not even Mark, and they would have known the semantic difference between aionios and aidios, and if they meant everlasting, they would have used the correct Greek terms – words like ἀΐδιος (aïdios) or the adverb ἀεί (aei), both understood in their day to mean eternal. They would have used ἀϊδιότης (aïdiotēs) 'eternity'; ἀτέλευτος (ateleutos) 'endless', 'eternal'; or ἀτελεύτητος (ateleutētos) 'without end', 'interminable'. But they didn't ...
However, another first-century Jew did just that – Josephus Flavius. He tells us that the Pharisees:
"... believe that wicked spirits are to be kept in an eternal imprisonment (eirgmos aidios – The Wars of the Jews 2.155). The Pharisees say all souls are incorruptible, but while those of good men are removed into other bodies those of bad men are subject to eternal punishment (aidios timoria – Antiquities 1814).
And of the Essenes:
"allot to bad souls a dark, tempestuous place, full of never-ceasing retributions (τιμωριῶν ἀδιαλείπτων timoria adialeipton – Wars 2.155), where they suffer a deathless retribution (ἀθάνατον τιμωρίαν athanaton timorion – Wars 2.157)."
+++
If Jesus had intended to approve of this doctrine of the Pharisees He would have used similar language. But the only word that He uses to define the duration of punishment is aionios; whereas between them Philo and Josephus refer to aidion, adialeipton and athanaton.
Not once does Jesus endorse or elude to the Pharisaic or Essene doctrine of endless punishment. One could say He takes a stand against it by using aionios instead of aidios. He does warn his disciples not to fall prey to the teachings of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:12).
But Jesus uses "aionios kolasis," in Matthew 24:46 – and aionios means a limited duration, and kolasis describes suffering with a positive end in view.
Hart renders the text as "chastening of that Age" – God chastises, but does not exact vengeance nor punish retributively (timoria) – rather God 'corrects', 'cures', 'disciplines', 'reforms', all meanins inherent to kólasis.
This corrective meaning goes back as far as Aristotle. In late antiquity speakers used kólasis in a retributive sense, thus it’s impossible to pin down the exact meaning of Matthew 25:46, but the only other use of the noun in the NT is in 1 John 4:18, where it refers not to retributive punishment, but to the suffering experienced by someone who is subject to fear because not yet perfected in charity.
If Jesus intends a corrective punishment in Matthew 25:46, then aiónion cannot mean eternal. Chastisement comes to an end when its reforming purpose is accomplished.
Clement of Alexandria clearly distinguished between kólasis and timoria:
"For there are partial corrections which are called chastisements [kólasis], which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish, for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually." (Stromata 7:16)
Any interpretation of Gehenna, Judgement and Punishment must be compatible with the claim that "God is love" (1 John 4:7) and would not act in a way towards a person that was not ultimately compatible with what is best for that person.
An interpretation of Gehenna as a punishment must be compatible with the claim that divine punishment has a corrective intention. Purely retributive punishment towards no good end, and particularly the idea of eternal punishment to no good end is incompatible with God's love for His creation, and the Son's fulfilling of His Father's will in redeeming all His creatures.
There is no argument against corrective chastisement as administered for the good of the chastised.
There is a strong argument against the idea that suffering is inflicted on the sinner for no good end or purpose, simply that eternal suffering is the just desert for temporal sin – it's entirely disproportionate.
If the soul is so thoroughly corrupted by sin, then nothing survives the purifying fire – once all the corruption is burned away, as it were, nothing remains.
This would be a great loss to God, and would mean that, in the end, the divine plan was to some degree thwarted by humanity's intransigent evil.
That I can accept.
An interpretation of Gehenna as a punishment must be compatible with the claim that divine punishment has a corrective intention. Purely retributive punishment towards no good end, and particularly the idea of eternal punishment to no good end is incompatible with God's love for His creation, and the Son's fulfilling of His Father's will in redeeming all His creatures.
There is no argument against corrective chastisement as administered for the good of the chastised.
There is a strong argument against the idea that suffering is inflicted on the sinner for no good end or purpose, simply that eternal suffering is the just desert for temporal sin – it's entirely disproportionate.
If the soul is so thoroughly corrupted by sin, then nothing survives the purifying fire – once all the corruption is burned away, as it were, nothing remains.
This would be a great loss to God, and would mean that, in the end, the divine plan was to some degree thwarted by humanity's intransigent evil.
That I can accept.
That assumes that any "punishment" that a soul experiences is due to actions of "a person called G-d".
I don't think that that is the case.
Well, we know that pain serves as a signal to "correct" what is causing it.
..which is why you believe in a doctrine of 'blotted out' souls .. it's what makes sense to you.
..but what if souls are NOT created and destroyed .. what then?
..no more than a guess .. my guess is that souls, not being made of physical matter, are NOT
created and destroyed .. they simply are.
G-d is Absolute .. His Divine plan is Holy, without flaw.
Yahweh kid
I am blessed!
The goats and the sheep will be split...... Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels..... a place was prepared for satan and his comrades..... this is the place where God will send those who do not love Him. I guess if you want to hangout with God haters for an eternity you can.....we have a free will. 
- Messages
- 2,925
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Points
- 108
I have heard that Tikkun Olam means "repairing the world"
That is the literal translation. The question becomes what does the term entail? That depends upon who you ask and at what point in time you ask the question.
Nor do I.
I'm working from what Scripture says, not from demonstrably flawed interpretations of what Scripture says.
When we boil it down, we're left with one of three positions:
Universalism, or
Annihilationism, or
Infernalism.
All three seem indicated in Scripture. Jesus and the Hebrew Scriptures warn and talk of the death of the soul; Jesus talks of the chaff being burnt in unquenchable fire, but then the fire is unquenchable, that does not mean the chaff is unburnable, or burns everlastingly – simply that the fires are always burning; the chaff is consumed in moments.
(As for 'eternal damnation' – I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that error rose from a poor translation of the Greek.)
+++
Of those three, I find the first the most preferable, and the most logical and rational with regard to a God who is good.
Annihilationism: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in the Vale of Hinnom" (Matthew 10:28).
If not universalism, this is the least-worst scenario.
I just cannot fathom a God who allows the soul to be subject to eternal, pointless pain.
Well I am going by Scripture, which says souls are created.
Scripture disagrees. (Islam disagrees, is not the soul, ruh, a created entity?)
Angels are not physical matter, but they can be destroyed.
Absolutely, and God wills that all will be saved:
"This is a good and acceptable thing before our saviour God, who intends all human beings to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of truth... (Jesus) who gave himself as a liberation fee for all persons, the proof rendered at their own proper times" (1 Timothy 2:3-4, 6 emphasis mine.)
"For he (God) must reign till he puts all enemies under his feet. The last enemy rendered ineffectual is death... And, when all things have been subordinated to him, then will the Son himself also be subordinated to the one who has subordinated all things to him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:25-26, 28 emphasis mine).
Paul describes three phases in the reconciliation of all things to God: Christ’s resurrection, then the salvation of those who already belong to Christ at the time of his parousia ('presence,' second coming), and finally the full completion of this universal renewal, perhaps on the far side of that purging fire of judgment, when all things and persons will have been "set in order beneath" Christ, including the celestial powers, who will be rendered powerless, but not (as so often assumed) 'abolished'.
Then will the whole of the cosmos will be returned in its fullness and perfect order to the Father by Christ.
With regard to the Judgement:
"For no one can lay another foundation beside the one laid down, which is Jesus the Anointed. Now, if on this foundation one erects gold, silver, precious stones, woods, hay, straw, each one’s work will become manifest; for the Day will declare it, because it is revealed by fire, and the fire will prove what kind of work each person's is. If the work that someone has built endures, he will receive a reward; if anyone’s work should be burned away, he will suffer loss, yet he shall be saved, though so as by fire. Do you not know that you are God’s Temple and that
God’s Spirit dwells within you?" (1 Corinthians 3:11-16).
+++
I guess you haven't been reading my posts.
1: The fire is not an eternal fire – that's a mistranslation of aionios – it doesn't mean eternal.
2: Matthew 25:46 explains it:
"And these will go to the chastening of that Age, but the just to the life of that Age" (Matthew 35:41).
αἰώνιον κόλασιν – aiōnios kolasis – the chastening of that age.
'Chastening' because in Jesus' day the Greek term 'kolasis' means a discipline aimed at correction, improvement, or reformation. It's not punishment per se, it's a corrective measure to heal the soul.
The Essenes and the Pharisees preached eternal torment, Jesus did not.
Well, most creeds claim that they have 'got it right' ..
..and here you go preferring a 'literal reading' in this instance.
I see the destruction of a soul in a metaphorical sense .. breaking down .. total failure.
Well, this is what atheists claim, when they say that so many people are suffering in this life.
They say why has G-d created such a world? Why doesn't He put a stop to the suffering?
If G-d can allow suffering in this life, I have no good reason to believe that G-d cannot allow
suffering in a life hereafter.
Again, you take verses literally when it fits your "theory" of what G-d is and is not.
..and as I have already pointed out, you are unable to tell us what souls are created FROM!
The Quran describes the rūḥ in various ways. It refers to ruh as (Arabic: الروح القدس al-rūḥ al-qudus), which means 'the holy spirit' and ar-rūḥ al-amin, which means 'the faithful' or 'trustworthy spirit', terms that are commonly understood to be references to the archangel Gabriel. The Quran also refers to ruh as God's own spirit ("My/His Spirit"), which was blown into Adam, and which is considered the source of human life. Most commentators interpret the phrase "My/His (God's) Spirit" in 15:29, 32:9 and 38:72 figuratively as God's power and way of honoring Adam, with some taking a more literal view. This spirit leaves the human body at death, and continues to exist in the afterlife. Further, ruh appears to be a metaphysical being, such as an angel.
Ruh - Wikipedia
Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
- Genesis 2:7 -
Yet again, it is down to interpretion.
- Messages
- 2,925
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Points
- 108
I did not realize that.
- Messages
- 2,925
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Points
- 108
Almost no atheist believes in eternal hell. The idea may contribute to them being atheists however
Now that is a good question
Continues to be a good question
- Messages
- 2,925
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Points
- 108
It's one thing for there to be suffering, it's another for it to be eternal with no hope of change, forever and ever. Which is what is claimed.
Hard to see that as rational or moral, really.
- Messages
- 2,925
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Points
- 108
- Messages
- 2,925
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Points
- 108
Sounds reasonable
Indeed... so... what gets corrected in the afterlife? It all makes sense if hell is purgatory rather than endless torturous eternity.