The Christian Thread

thellama73 wrote: Ruach has a rather more complex and specific meaning than imply "breath" though.

"More complex and specific" are not co-descriptors of the Hebrew language. 

To be fair, There is the Verse in Chapter 32 of The Guodian Tao Te Ching that compares the Tao to Water.

thellama73 wrote: Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: Ruach has a rather more complex and specific meaning than imply "breath" though. "More complex and specific" are not co-descriptors of the Hebrew language.  I suppose I meant that it can have a variety of meanings (and so is a complex word), each of which is more specific than a broad term like "spirit" or "breath."

What does spirit mean though?  I think biblical literature took on a life of its own when Westerners got a hold of it.

Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: Ruach has a rather more complex and specific meaning than imply "breath" though. "More complex and specific" are not co-descriptors of the Hebrew language.  I suppose I meant that it can have a variety of meanings (and so is a complex word), each of which is more specific than a broad term like "spirit" or "breath." What does spirit mean though?  I think biblical literature took on a life of its own when Westerners got a hold of it.

In Qabalah, ruach is the rational center of the soul and the seat of morality. It's not spirit, but a specific part of the spirit contrasted with others.

Just a Question, Are there still Neo-Scholastics and Neo-Thomists? I'm just curious.

Looks like it.

I don't know much about Aquinas, or Scholasticism though.

EDIT: Oops, replying to Jonathan


Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - August 02 2013 at 21:29

Acts 17 ftw

dtguitarfan wrote: Let me start by asking you a simple question: How can a word have one meaning in the first part of a sentence and the opposite meaning in the second part of the sentence?   If I as a communicator change the fundamental definition of a word within the same sentence without telling you…I am an agent of confusion, not a communicator!   Dear friends, no word ever changes definitions to the opposite of its own meaning within the same sentence. This is a common sense rule of language that helps us understand each other. There may be a rare instance where the context makes it clear that the word has a slightly different meaning in two parts of a sentence because the word is commonly used in two different ways (e.g. “I’m working on my multiplication table at the kitchen table”), but even in those cases the word’s core definition (“table” means “a flat surface”) does not change. I just love that.  It points out the foolishness of interpreting the following verse a certain way: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” I Corinthians 15:22

I realize there were many other parts to your argument, as well as a video. I will read/watch those and consider them carefully; however, I want to point out something here. The word "all" CAN change within a sentence meaning if specified. For instance, "All tigers have fur; all fish do not." "All" in the first usage refers to tigers; the other, fish. It's true that the word itself doesn't change its "core meaning" (whatever that means), but, if specified, it can refer to very different things. In your interpretation of the verse, you ignore the prepositional phrases, "in Adam" and "in Christ." The word "in" is not a superfluous addendum. In most biblical usages, it refers to being "united with" or "represented by," referring, at the same time, to communion with, federal headship of, and conformity to Christ Jesus. Some examples:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Romans 8:1).

“I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39).

“In Christ we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses” (Ephesians 1:7).

While there are other, obviously different usages of the phrase "in Christ," it's not difficult to see the similarity between these and the usage in 1 Corinthians 15:22. In that case, the verse could be rewritten as follows:

"For as in communion with, federal headship of, and conformity to Adam, all die, so in communion with, federal headship of, and conformity to Christ, all will be made alive." The resurrection is conditional to the man that the "all" are "in."

Even reducing all of that to "federal headship" (a very regrettable reduction, in my opinion) we still encounter the truth that "all" doesn't explicitly refer to "all men," but all those in the states described, hence the differentiation of the states themselves. You may argue that all men are under the federal headship of Christ, but that must be found in another verse, because it is not here.

Now, again I realize that there is much more to your arguments, and that this doesn't knock the whole thing down. I will, again, carefully consider your other arguments, and even reconsider this one, upon your response. I just felt I should voice my disagreement on this particular point so far.

Polymorphia wrote: I realize there were many other parts to your argument, as well as a video. I will read/watch those and consider them carefully; however, I want to point out something here. The word "all" CAN change within a sentence meaning if specified. For instance, "All tigers have fur; all fish do not." "All" in the first usage refers to tigers; the other, fish. It's true that the word itself doesn't change its "core meaning" (whatever that means), but, if specified, it can refer to very different things.

Here's the problem though - when you use a simile, you want to make a good comparison.  You don't compare two things that are completely unlike.  So when Paul says in I Cor. 15:22:
“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”
The first part of the simile implies universality.  So it would be a terrible simile if the second part of the simile did not.  Since the first part of the simile obviously means all of humanity, it doesn't make much sense to assume that the word changes meanings halfway through the sentence.

Polymorphia wrote: In your interpretation of the verse, you ignore the prepositional phrases, "in Adam" and "in Christ." The word "in" is not a superfluous addendum. In most biblical usages, it refers to being "united with" or "represented by," referring, at the same time, to communion with, federal headship of, and conformity to Christ Jesus. Some examples: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Romans 8:1).

You are assuming that what I believe is that all people, right now in this moment, are "in Christ" in the way that this verse implies.  That's not my believe.  A better description of what I believe is "ultimate redemption" rather than "universalism".  Yes, "universalism" also describes what I believe, but people tack on meaning to that word that does not describe what I believe.  Because people tend to think, right off the bat, that what I believe is that the moment after Adolf Hitler died, God say "well, you had a rough childhood, welcome into the pearly gates."  First off, I don't really believe in Heaven in the same way that most people believe in Heaven - as a place you're instantly transported to the moment you die that has literal streets paved with gold and angels sitting on clouds playing harps for all of eternity.  That's not what I believe Revelations describes when it talks about the resurrection of the dead, and a New Jerusalem coming down from Heaven to earth, and a wedding ceremony with Jesus and Jerusalem as the bride (which is an interesting illustration of Heaven and Earth coming together in the same plane of reality).  And something you need to notice in this passage, by the way - in Revelations 21:25 you see that the gates of the New Jerusalem will never be shut.  This is interesting, because earlier in the passage we definitely get the picture of insiders and outsiders, and yet the gates are never shut.

Careful consideration of the other verses you mentioned with "in Christ" is merited, and I would argue each one adds nuance to what the phrase means.

Polymorphia wrote: Now, again I realize that there is much more to your arguments, and that this doesn't knock the whole thing down. I will, again, carefully consider your other arguments, and even reconsider this one, upon your response. I just felt I should voice my disagreement on this particular point so far.

Thank you for voicing your disagreement so thoughtfully, and for promising to consider my other arguments.  I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding them, or any other passage that adds confusion to the position of universalism.  When I came across the possibility of universalism, I had a lot of questions myself, and it took a number of months of research and careful thought before I was completely convinced.

Polymorphia wrote: Not all are in Adam, I might add.

I am guessing you'd point to Enoch as someone who wasn't?  There are some interesting things that could be said about him as well.  If you read the Marc Speed series here, he talks about that.

Polymorphia wrote: What I don't know: At what point do you think nonbelievers will ultimately believe? Within their lifetime? Or do you believe Hell to be a time of pruning?

I really can't say.  That is very unclear.  And that's one thing that I think everyone needs to learn, today, is that the purpose of the Bible is not to answer every question we have and give us complete certainty.  One book that has been very influential in my thinking was The Idolatry of God: Breaking Our Addiction to Certainty and Satisfaction by Peter Rollins.  I read that book after all the research I did into Universalism, but it added a very important puzzle piece for me.  Basically, the whole point of his book is that if we reduce God into a character who is supposed to fulfill all our desires and give us complete certainty, then we've just made Him into another idol.  But the model Jesus gives us is of a God who empties himself, and asks us to follow Him and do the same (take up your cross). 

Now, it's interesting you mention Hell as "pruning", because that is something I've though about, along with the analogy used throughout scripture of the refiner's fire.  The refiner's fire is a very interesting analogy because what happens when you refine gold in the fire is that the impurities rise to the top in the intense heat, and then the refiner scrapes them off.  This process is repeated until the refiner can see his reflection in the gold.  So this is an analogy I think of when I'm thinking about Hell.  The duration and nature of Hell is probably different for everyone, as when you think about Paul, he had a dramatic and sudden conversion after he was struck blind and healed.  And that's something that kind of messes with our natural tendency to want retribution - "what about all the people Saul stoned?  Shouldn't he be punished for that?" is something we might want to shout out.  But God doesn't always work that way - sometimes people experience a dramatic apocalypse (we usually associate this word with the destruction of the world, but a more accurate definition seems to be "revelation of the truth").

Polymorphia wrote: Certainly, for with the presence of other words, certain phrases have certain connotations that they might not have otherwise. I think I made that argument, myself, a bit earlier. What I do want to point out is that all of them do have more or less the same "core meaning," if I may, that I think I have defined pretty well (I could be wrong). What I do want to emphasize is the inclusion of "communion with Christ" in that definition, for that is possibly the most important part.

I would actually argue that some of the verses you provided might better be seen as reading "through Christ" than "being in community with Christ".

Polymorphia wrote: That which prevents God from being merely a puppeteer is his intimate involvement with those who seek him.

Ah, but I would argue that none of us seeks God - in the parables Jesus tells, such as the shepherd who seeks after the one lost sheep, the widow and the lost coin, etc., it is God who seeks us.  This is subtly reinforced in the parable of the Prodigal Son, when the Father runs to him when he is "still a long way off".  Indeed, when you think of the Prodigal Son, he hasn't really repented - he just got hungry.  There are also interesting connotations about the older brother who resents his younger brother, which seems to really be the point of the whole story, since Jesus told it in response to the Pharisees and other disciples who resented the fact that Jesus was participating in a party with tax collectors and other "rejects" of society.

Polymorphia wrote: If it is in Hell that those who did not believe believe, wouldn't that be belief based upon circumstances rather than the person of the Trinity?

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at, but I'm going to take a stab at your question.  I think you're pointing out that it is circumstances that convinced people to turn to God and asking if this is true repentance.  My argument would be: isn't this how it is for everyone?  No one has come to an understanding of God outside of their circumstances.  Every human being who has a belief in God has developed his/her belief through what people have taught him/her, and through their circumstances.  And this kind of points out the injustice of the belief that eternal conscious torment is given to those who never had a chance to hear the gospel - what universalism says is that in the end, they will hear, and they will have an opportunity.  We all have filters through which we view truth, and what universalists believe is that in the end, these filters will be removed for all.  We can't guess as to what the timeline of this looks like, or exactly how it will happen.  Does that answer your question?

You also mentioned Jesus talking about those he does not "know".  I'm assuming you're talking about the parable of the sheep and the goats.  I heard a very interesting story about that one that I really liked.  It came from a book called "Good Goats" by Dennis, Sheila, and Matthew Linn.  I think it was a story Dennis told, where he had just finished presenting his material to a group of Catholic nuns.  One of the nuns raised her hand and asked about the parable of the sheep and the goats.  Dennis said "let me ask you something - raise your hand if you've ever seen someone in need and helped them, or invited a stranger in, or visited someone in prison, or cared for the sick."  Every nun raised her hand.  Then he said "that's great!  You're all sheep!  Congratulations."  Then he paused.  "Uh oh...well, let me ask you this...raise your hand if you've ever seen someone in need and NOT helped them, or seen a stranger and NOT invited them in, or NOT taken an opportunity to visit someone in prison, or NOT cared for a sick person you knew about?"  Slowly, all hands were raised.  Dennis said "oh no...I'm sorry to inform you...you're all goats."  There was a long, uncomfortable silence, and then one nun spoke up excitedly: "I get it!  We're all good goats!"  The point of the illustration is that all of us have done good things and bad things, and some of us are working on living more redeemed lives and acting in the Holy Spirit more and more, while some of us are resisting the Holy Spirit.  But not one of us can claim perfection and say we've helped every person in need that we've ever come into contact with.  So it would be dangerous to take a legalistic view on this parable, or Jesus' statement that we should not judge or we will be judged will turn our judgment back on ourselves.


Edited by dtguitarfan - August 03 2013 at 17:50