Originally posted by NemesioI don't understand the significance of your question. 'Eternal' clearly has more than one meaning in scripture, e.g. "He is the only true God, and he is eternal life" (1 John 5:20). It may refer to an 'inheritance' with a definite inception as well. The classic definition, however, is simply "without beginning or end," which any dictionary can attest. Are we speaking in this thread specifically about a Christian God? I was under the impression that we are at least attempting to be objective in our language.
So, when Jesus said, 'Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life...' (St John 6:54a)
He didn't mean that those who did so (metaphorically, of course) would actually have eternal life?
Or, is it just possible that something can live eternally and have a definite inception?
Nemesio
P.S., Do Strong's search on 'eternal' or 'everlastin ...[text shortened]... n the Christian Scriptures... I think your notion of 'classic' definition is wrong.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI disagree. Can you provide a link to any dictionary that claims that that is the classic definition?
The classic definition, however, is simply "without beginning or end," which any dictionary can attest.
I have checked both dictionary.com and Meriam-Webster and neither support you. dictionary.com does list it as a possible meaning but does not imply that it is the 'classic' or preferred meaning at all. Merriam-Webster doesn't even list that as a definition.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnswers.com does agree with him, however.
I disagree. Can you provide a link to any dictionary that claims that that is the classic definition?
I have checked both dictionary.com and Meriam-Webster and neither support you. dictionary.com does list it as a possible meaning but does not imply that it is the 'classic' or preferred meaning at all. Merriam-Webster doesn't even list that as a definition.
It does mean the the Christian concept of "eternal life in God", or the idea of spending "the rest of eternity in heaven" into complete fallacies. How can you spend "the rest" of time somewhere, when your definition specifically excludes time as a component.
So, if John in the above quote is right, Jesus was lying. He cannot give "eternal life".
Originally posted by ahosyneyI would have agreed with you six months ago. However, God (capital "G"😉 is a proper noun, a name for a specific being, i.e. the Christian god, God.
That is why it doesn't make any sense in this argument.
This argument is not to prove (and it can't) any special concept about the creator or what you can call it GOD.
So saying GOD of christians and GOD of Muslims has no relation with what you are discussing here.
The word GOD in English doesn't refere to any special GOD. It is used to refere to ...[text shortened]... lf if he exist.
EDIT: I'm sorry for any spelling Mistaks, you know I the master of them.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIndeed. This is true. I didn't mean to suggest it was a "classic" definition, rather just that it did indeed list that definition.
No it doesn't. It lists it as no 1 of the 4 possible meanings it lists. At no point does it say that No 1 is the 'classic' meaning.
However, the definition itself is deeply unsettling, due to its logical flaws. If something exists "independently of time", we're saying it exists for no seconds. Something that exists for no seconds doesn't exist within our current understanding of logic or physics.
Originally posted by epiphinehasLook, just eat your hat on this one. It's utter BS that the 'classic' definition of 'eternal' refers to
I don't understand the significance of your question. 'Eternal' clearly has more than one meaning in scripture, e.g. "He is the only true God, and he is eternal life" (1 John 5:20). It may refer to an 'inheritance' with a definite inception as well. The classic definition, however, is simply "without beginning or end," which any dictionary can ...[text shortened]... s under the impression that we are at least attempting to be objective in our language.
something without an inception, merely something without an end. I'm not disputing that 'eternal'
can refer to something without a beginning, but doesn't require it.
Just swallow your pride and drop this, because no dictionary nor theology book or philosophy text is
going to support you on this, especially since the eternal life promised by Jesus necessarily has a
definitive beginning.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOK, hat eaten.
Look, just eat your hat on this one. It's utter BS that the 'classic' definition of 'eternal' refers to
something without an inception, merely something without an end. I'm not disputing that 'eternal'
can refer to something without a beginning, but doesn't require it.
Just swallow your pride and drop this, because no dictionary nor theology bo ...[text shortened]... the eternal life promised by Jesus necessarily has a
definitive beginning.
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzJust to be clear, scottishinnz:
I would have agreed with you six months ago. However, God (capital "G"😉 is a proper noun, a name for a specific being, i.e. the Christian god, God.
The 'Christian God' is the same entity as the 'Moslem God.' There is no distinction: they all derive
from the same Semitic 'tetragramaton' (Yahweh or Elohim, as you prefer).
So, the proper noun referring to the 'Christian God' would necessarily be referring to the Moslem God.
Of course, the latter does not recognize the 'Three-in-One' nature of that God. So, perhaps you might
want to specify the 'Trinitarian God' the next time you specifically want to address Christians and not
Jews or Moslems.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioTrue, and I've thought hard about this, believe me. Of course, I understand that they have the same root, but they have diverged somewhat since their (somewhat acrimonious) split.
Just to be clear, scottishinnz:
The 'Christian God' is the same entity as the 'Moslem God.' There is no distinction: they all derive
from the same Semitic 'tetragramaton' (Yahweh or Elohim, as you prefer).
So, the proper noun referring to the 'Christian God' would necessarily be referring to the Moslem God.
Of course, the latter does not recogniz ...[text shortened]... ime you specifically want to address Christians and not
Jews or Moslems.
Nemesio
If common ancestry, or a common root is all that is required to make two things the "same" then I'd probably be forced to retort by asking my protagonist just how many biological species exist. If anyone will, Nem, I trust you see my point!
No one has yet addressed the main thrust of my earlier post. If the term war is indeed over, it would be nice to hear a continued discussion. Here is the revised post, seeking to take into consideration the objections raised:
"The main implication, it seems to me, of some 'thing' without a beginning or an end is that such a 'thing' was never created, for nothing could have preceded it.
Of course, conceptualizing this 'thing' as existing in lifeless flux from age to age in perpetuity in the form of plasma or subatomic structures merely, elevates the universe itself to eternal status (the only viable option for those who refuse to posit a creator for lack of evidence).
Yet we see towards the beginning of the universe clear indications of an evolution dictated by unchanging and immaterial laws, in place at inception. Were (and are) these laws expressions of a reality 'outside' of the time-space continuum?
A rudimentary time-line extending to an infinite future lacks any immanent characteristics; but whatever does not have a beginning or an end must also subsist immanently. The 'arrow' of time is 'classicly' pointing towards the future,
INCEPTION -----------------> ETERNAL FUTURE
but where in the amaranthine depths of that 'thing' which has no beginning or end is that arrow really pointing?
A drastic reconceptualization of the First Cause is in order.
Does a First Cause necessarily connote some 'thing' 'outside' of space-time? Re-imagining the idea of a contingent universe as a perpetually contingent universe is, I believe, the key to the whole affair.
The universe is perpetually contingent upon the consistency of its laws. The question I'm interested in is, what are the laws which govern the universe contingent upon?
I would suggest the First Cause is immanent within the universe, and that the verifiable expression of itself is Law."