"Eternal": not an origianl Biblical term

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by dauer

luna,

if I may perhaps rephrase what you've said to help Nick understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, heaven and hell are states you believe one can be in on earth, based on their relationship with God, but you also hope and maybe even trust/have faith, in something waiting for you after this life also, thatt you are unwilling to try and define by too many rules and delineations. Is that about right or am I a little off?

That's very well stated dauer, thank you.

Also, I guess you could say unwilling, but really I am unable to define it except by my own imagination. And I do of course have my ideas about that...but they are just that...my ideas. Regardless, the metaphysical importance is, union with God.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Luna,

Thank you for helping me understand. I appreciate your effort and kindliness in explaining this to me.

My pleasure Nick. Not sure if this was the actual intention of your thread or not. I've notcied you've started other threads and made other posts inquiring along these lines.

Perhaps you were mislead by my thread about Dante. That was, as I said, tongue in cheek for me. I don't think anyone spends eternity in hell. In fact I'm something of a universalist. Or as some famous Jesuit said, you can imagine there being hell, but you don't have to imagine anyone in it.

[-James-]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Well, this is confusing. I would not say that once someone enters heaven or hell they will never leave...I would not phrase it that way and I would not agree with (what I think) that statement means. When I accept Christ's invitiation to enter the Kingdom of God, I accept His invitation to see and do things differently, I accept His invitation to Love, then I have turned my will toward God and have eternal life. When I decline His invitation, and turn instead to my own fears and desires, judging, selfishness, not loving, I turn away from God and am 'in' hell. My own state of nearness to God varies all the time.


The Kingdom of God is 'now' and 'not yet.' It is inaugerated, but awaits completion. I participate in it, and I await it in Hope.

Luna, I think our views are very similar regarding heaven and hell. Just thought I'd let you know. Also, do you remember that marriage analogy you gave me some time ago when I was having trouble with the triune nature of God? I think I'm beginning to understand it better now.

Much Love,


James

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by -James-

Luna, I think our views are very similar regarding heaven and hell. Just thought I'd let you know. Also, do you remember that marriage analogy you gave me some time ago when I was having trouble with the triune nature of God? I think I'm beginning to understand it better now.

Much Love,


James

Hey James, Thank you, that's nice to know. Have a great evening.

luna

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,

Thanks again for helping us delve into minute details of Christian teachings.

Since this the Comparative Section, I thought it would be good to give the Theosophical answer to the same questions. Theosophy definitely teaches Heaven and Hell to be places of temporary residence. Heaven/Hell are seen as places we go to between reincarnations. Humans are seen as constantly cycling through physical life --> Heaven/Hell --> physical life --> Heaven/Hell --> etc. Each person continues in this cycle until they are ready to move on to the next level.

That next level is Nirvana. Once a person moves on to Nirvana, Heaven/Hell is never re-entered. (Some people are surprised that Theosophy teaches both Nirvana and Heaven, but both concepts are complimentary, and do not conflict at all.)

Even Nirvana is seen as temporary. When ready, the person leaves Nirvana and goes on to an even higher level. Humanity is seen as going through a seemingly endless numbers of levels. We have already gone through a number of levels, and we have an undeterminable number of levels still awaiting us.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick –

The question of 'eternal' must be addressed within context.

As the Abrahamic traditions believe the world is created, it has a beginning, and as its sacred texts reveal, it has an end. In that context, eternal in cosmological terms means the entire duration between the founding of the world and its end.

In reference to God, however, then 'eternal' becomes an absolute term, outside of any temporal or spatial restriction.

This is especially the case in the New Testament.
"To the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and magnificence, empire and power, before all ages, and now, and
for all ages of ages. Amen.
Jude 1:25

This is why, in my view, such texts should be interpreted from 'within' the tradition, otherwise erroneous assumptions of face-value readings can be made.

Theosophy definitely teaches Heaven and Hell to be places of temporary residence.
The temporality of the eschatalogical state is not a simple one, as the same temporal conditions do not apply, however, one might ask why anyone would want to leave a paradisical state. Again, we have to be clear by what is meant by 'heaven', or 'paradise', etc.

Heaven/Hell are seen as places we go to between reincarnations.
Well, here then Theosophy departs from the Abrahamic traditions.

I would also add that to say that cultures who hold the same truths necessarily derive them from a singular source is an assumption, without firm evidence to the fact, as it would suggest that cultures cannot come to truth independently. The idea of 'age' belongs with every culture, but to suggest they all drew the concept from one source stretches it a bit.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Hi everybody!

I came across something new on this topic.

Psalms 41:13 contains the phrase "from eternity to eternity" (Douay-Rheims version). We also have "from everlasting to everlasting" (King James version).

Psalm 41:13

Clearly, the words "eternity" and "everlasting" refer to a set period of time. (How can one everlasting, or one eternity, be followed by another?)

[ChristianMyst]

I would also add that to say that cultures who hold the same truths necessarily derive them from a singular source is an assumption, without firm evidence to the fact, as it would suggest that cultures cannot come to truth independently. The idea of 'age' belongs with every culture, but to suggest they all drew the concept from one source stretches it a bit.

Really, it seems an easy possibility, if not likelyhood to accept to me. I am reminded how very small the effective civilized world was in the early days, and how close in proximity its peoples were. Given the relatively few thousands to hundreds of years between religions as well as the slow speed of communication in the past there seems an opening to logically entertain the idea of a common source.

Merely a passing thought as I skimmed over the thread. It's not worthy of any focused pondering, simply a little bit of color for you intelectuals to consider in your equations and conclusions.

Blessings,
Christian

[bananabrain]

nick,

you seem to have a problem understanding the use of the phrase "le'olam". the word "'olam" means "world", usually in the sense of the temporal world or the metaphorical "world" used in such phrases as "world-wide". thus "forever", as in "it shall be a statute to you 'forever'" uses the phrase "le'olam", literally meaning "to world", implying, as long as the earth lasts if you ask me. there is another phrase, "le'olam wa'ed", which is commonly translated as "forever and ever", which is generally used, as far as i can see, for eternal concepts, thus "HaShem yimlokh le'olam wa'ed"; "G!D shall rule for all eternity". obviously you will differ from me as to how precisely this is to be understood, but i do urge you to try and study biblical hebrew if you are ever to express a reasonable, well-founded opinion on ancient jewish texts.

b'shalom

bananabrain