Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [revelation-list] Second death

Expand Messages
  • MORIAH
    shhhhh. You will awaken a monster! ... From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Bob MacDonald Sent: 11
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 10, 2005
      shhhhh. You will awaken a monster!

      -----Original Message-----
      From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Bob MacDonald
      Sent: 11 November 2005 09:19 AM
      To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [revelation-list] Second death



      quiet list,

      what precedent is there for the phrase second death?

      to the author of Revelation, what death is first?

      thanks

      Bob

      Bob MacDonald
      http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
      Victoria, B.C., Canada

      Catch the foxes for us,
      the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
      for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)





      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • KennethGentry@cs.com
      In a message dated 11/11/2005 2:15:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... I believe John the Apostle wrote both Revelation and the Gospel. I suspect John 5:24-29 is
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
        In a message dated 11/11/2005 2:15:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
        bobmacdonald@... writes:


        > to the author of Revelation, what death is first?

        I believe John the Apostle wrote both Revelation and the Gospel. I suspect
        John 5:24-29 is the backdrop for the imagery of Revelation 20. The first death
        is spiritual death into which we are born. The second death is eternal
        punishment into which those who do not turn to Christ descend.

        This would fit with the Pauline conception, as well: Ephesians 2:1, 5 speaks
        of the original spiritual death overcome by the new spiritual life -- which is
        entered into by a spiritual resurrection (Eph. 2:6).

        The first death / second death parallel in some respects the "born again"
        concept that appears in John 3. In that case, however, the first birth is the
        physical birth, the new or second (born again) experience is the spiritual birth
        by the grace of God (cp. also John 1:12-13.



        Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., M.Div, Th.M., Th.D
        www.KennethGentry.com
        "Serious Studies for Serious Christians"

        Chancellor and Research Professor in Theology
        Christ College, Lynchburg, Virginia
        www.Christ-College.edu


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bob MacDonald
        Thanks Kenneth your answer is traditional, perhaps however, making a unity out in a way that what was not so intended by the author(s). Not that there is
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
          Thanks Kenneth

          your answer is traditional, perhaps however, making a unity
          out in a way that what was not so intended by the
          author(s). Not that there is disunity but perhaps a
          differing coherence than the traditional.

          Not exactly out of line with your traditional thought
          process, I want to suggest that the first death is baptism -
          a death in the death of Christ. The second death is then
          physical death - the consequence of observable first birth.

          Whatever the ancients believed about 'life after death' is
          then not required as part of our speculation. After the
          first death, they claim they have a taste of the presence of
          God by the Holy Spirit. Whoever overcomes then is not
          afraid of the second death because the overcomer knows the
          eternal fire is love not judgment. The image of fire is
          consistently one of these two in the Scripture, particularly
          the fire of the Spirit. Consider the use of seraphim in the
          fiery serpents, Isaiah 6, and the referent in John 3 just as
          a start.

          This thesis needs more exegetical and historical critical
          and linguistic support in order to get inside the mind of
          the first century writers. I do not find the traditional
          interpretation a helpful start. It seems to me to be an
          accretion of theology and imagined cosmology.

          Bob

          Bob MacDonald
          http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
          Victoria, B.C., Canada

          Catch the foxes for us,
          the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
          for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)



          -----Original Message-----
          From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
          KennethGentry@...
          Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 5:01 AM
          To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Second death


          In a message dated 11/11/2005 2:15:28 AM Eastern Standard
          Time,
          bobmacdonald@... writes:


          > to the author of Revelation, what death is first?

          I believe John the Apostle wrote both Revelation and the
          Gospel. I suspect
          John 5:24-29 is the backdrop for the imagery of Revelation
          20. The first death
          is spiritual death into which we are born. The second death
          is eternal
          punishment into which those who do not turn to Christ
          descend.

          This would fit with the Pauline conception, as well:
          Ephesians 2:1, 5 speaks
          of the original spiritual death overcome by the new
          spiritual life -- which is
          entered into by a spiritual resurrection (Eph. 2:6).

          The first death / second death parallel in some respects the
          "born again"
          concept that appears in John 3. In that case, however, the
          first birth is the
          physical birth, the new or second (born again) experience is
          the spiritual birth
          by the grace of God (cp. also John 1:12-13.



          Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., M.Div, Th.M., Th.D
          www.KennethGentry.com
          "Serious Studies for Serious Christians"

          Chancellor and Research Professor in Theology
          Christ College, Lynchburg, Virginia
          www.Christ-College.edu


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
          Sponsor --------------------~-->
          Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo!
          your home page
          http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/D1XolB/TM
          ------------------------------------------------------------
          --------~->


          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • George F Somsel
          ... _______________ The term second death is peculiar to the Apocalypse so the only context which we have by which to determine its meaning is that of the
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
            On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:01:11 EST KennethGentry@... writes:
            > In a message dated 11/11/2005 2:15:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            > bobmacdonald@... writes:
            >
            >
            > > to the author of Revelation, what death is first?
            >
            > I believe John the Apostle wrote both Revelation and the Gospel. I
            > suspect
            > John 5:24-29 is the backdrop for the imagery of Revelation 20. The
            > first death
            > is spiritual death into which we are born. The second death is
            > eternal
            > punishment into which those who do not turn to Christ descend.
            >
            > This would fit with the Pauline conception, as well: Ephesians 2:1,
            > 5 speaks
            > of the original spiritual death overcome by the new spiritual life
            > -- which is
            > entered into by a spiritual resurrection (Eph. 2:6).
            >
            > The first death / second death parallel in some respects the "born
            > again"
            > concept that appears in John 3. In that case, however, the first
            > birth is the
            > physical birth, the new or second (born again) experience is the
            > spiritual birth
            > by the grace of God (cp. also John 1:12-13.
            >
            >
            >
            > Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., M.Div, Th.M., Th.D
            > www.KennethGentry.com
            > "Serious Studies for Serious Christians"
            >
            > Chancellor and Research Professor in Theology
            > Christ College, Lynchburg, Virginia
            > www.Christ-College.edu
            _______________

            The term "second death" is peculiar to the Apocalypse so the only context
            which we have by which to determine its meaning is that of the book
            itself. In Re 2.9-11 he contrasts the condition of the Church at Smyrna
            as being about to suffer persecution in which he encourages them to "Be
            faithful unto death" with that which is promised to them if they
            "overcome." This term is used throughout the Apocalypse with respect to
            the faithful as indicating the suffering of persecution and even death.
            "To conquer" is to suffer for the name. The church is considered to be
            martyrs as Jesus Christ himself was the first martyr. As such they are,
            in the words of Paul, "being killed all the day long" yet living. Thus
            in Re 20.4-6 they are viewed as already having been beheaded. The "first
            death" is thus an actual physical death which all, including the
            followers of Christ must undergo and which they are viewed proleptically
            as having suffered in the persecution which they undergo. The 1000 yrs
            is thus the life of the Christian who experiences the new life
            (resurrection) in Christ. This is in keeping with Is 65.20
            No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an
            old man who does not fill out his days, for the child shall die a hundred
            years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
            This is part of the view that the Kingdom is even now present in the New
            Jerusalem "coming down from God out of heaven."

            george
            gfsomsel
            ___________

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • dtrini
            The Fall. West Band and Gaza threat: After Shabbat comes Sunday Helen http://caribpundit.com
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
              The Fall.

              West Band and Gaza threat: "After Shabbat comes Sunday"

              Helen

              http://caribpundit.com



              On Nov 11, 2005, at 2:37 AM, MORIAH wrote:

              > shhhhh. You will awaken a monster!
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Bob MacDonald
              > Sent: 11 November 2005 09:19 AM
              > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [revelation-list] Second death
              >
              >
              >
              > quiet list,
              >
              > what precedent is there for the phrase second death?
              >
              > to the author of Revelation, what death is first?
              >
              > thanks
              >
              > Bob
              >
              > Bob MacDonald
              > http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
              > Victoria, B.C., Canada
              >
              > Catch the foxes for us,
              > the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
              > for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
              > ~-->
              > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
              > home page
              > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/D1XolB/TM
              > --------------------------------------------------------------------
              > ~->
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • ottoerlend
              Hello, Usually pistin Iesou in Rev 14:12 is translated as faith in Jesus (NET, NAB) or faith of Jesus (NRSV) . I guess it s possible to understand the
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
                Hello,

                Usually "pistin Iesou" in Rev 14:12 is translated as "faith in Jesus"
                (NET, NAB) or "faith of Jesus" (NRSV) . I guess it's possible to
                understand the genitive as both subjective and objective; I am not
                able to see that the context favours either of them. I have also seen a
                translation like "faithful to Jesus" (cannot remenber where).

                Now, I was wondering if the following translation might be possible /
                likely: "faithfulness of Jesus". ("Faithfulness" does seem to be within
                the semantic realm of "pistis".)

                What do you think? All kinds of comments (context, semantics, syntax,
                etc.) might be useful!


                Best wishes

                Otto E. Nordgreen
              • Christian Maymann
                Dear Otto Nordgreen The Greek text runs hoi têrountes tas entolas tou theou kai pistin Iesou In 13:10 the referent for pistis most likely is the faith of the
                Message 7 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
                  Dear Otto Nordgreen

                  The Greek text runs hoi têrountes tas entolas tou theou kai pistin Iesou


                  In 13:10 the referent for pistis most likely is the faith of the holy one.
                  I think that we compare 13:10 and 14:12 for several reasons:
                  i) They belong together, as part of the "Sign" running from 12:1 to 14:20
                  ii) They have two themes in common the pistis and the hypomonê.

                  Therefore pistis Iêsou most likely referees to something that describe the
                  Christians, not Jesus himself, and therefore Iesou is (as I see it) an
                  objective genitive.

                  As You know, there have been an For several years debate about exactly that
                  problem in the letters of Paul. For some general semantic consideration You
                  can read the article "Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians" in Carson et
                  al. Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol 2, Mohr Siebeck 2004


                  Christian Maymann
                  M.Theol.
                  Copenhagen

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                  [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ottoerlend
                  Sent: 11. november 2005 20:07
                  To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [revelation-list] Rev 14:12 ("pistin Iesou")

                  Hello,

                  Usually "pistin Iesou" in Rev 14:12 is translated as "faith in Jesus"
                  (NET, NAB) or "faith of Jesus" (NRSV) . I guess it's possible to understand
                  the genitive as both subjective and objective; I am not able to see that the
                  context favours either of them. I have also seen a translation like
                  "faithful to Jesus" (cannot remenber where).

                  Now, I was wondering if the following translation might be possible /
                  likely: "faithfulness of Jesus". ("Faithfulness" does seem to be within the
                  semantic realm of "pistis".)

                  What do you think? All kinds of comments (context, semantics, syntax,
                  etc.) might be useful!


                  Best wishes

                  Otto E. Nordgreen





                  ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get
                  fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
                  http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/D1XolB/TM
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


                  Yahoo! Groups Links






                  --
                  No virus found in this incoming message.
                  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                  Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/166 - Release Date: 10-11-2005


                  --
                  No virus found in this outgoing message.
                  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                  Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/166 - Release Date: 10-11-2005
                • Bob MacDonald
                  George writes: proleptically as having suffered Ken references a suspicion of a link to John 5:24 George - thanks for the note. I think your explanation is not
                  Message 8 of 11 , Nov 12, 2005
                    George writes: proleptically as having suffered
                    Ken references a suspicion of a link to John 5:24

                    George - thanks for the note. I think your explanation is
                    not far off from supporting my thesis that the implied first
                    death in Rev is like Paul's image of baptism in Romans, a
                    real identification with the suffering and death of the
                    firstborn and an overcoming through this death. Thank you
                    for the interpretation of the 1000 years - nice work and
                    good idea - one day in thy courts is better than a thousand
                    also comes to mind as an indication of the notion of
                    'eternal' - a subject that has been debated at least since
                    Aquinas

                    Ken - re John 5:24-29; these verses are part of a double
                    chiasm with the centre of each focussing on opposites -
                    believing and non believing. Given the complex concentric
                    structures in Revelation, it is possible that the same poet
                    wrote both - but hardly necessary. (For the double chiasm
                    see http://bmd.gx.ca/synoptic/tuej_only_viii.htm#141

                    I have no axe to grind on this - but sometimes I wonder if
                    the reputed young man in the rich young man story (only in
                    Mark) might not have been the poet of G John (but not John
                    of Patmos) - too many inferences to resolve...

                    Bob

                    Bob MacDonald
                    http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
                    Victoria, B.C., Canada

                    Catch the foxes for us,
                    the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
                    for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
                  • KennethGentry@cs.com
                    In a message dated 11/12/2005 8:39:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Bob: I do not used the seeming relationship between Rev 20 and John 5 as evidence for
                    Message 9 of 11 , Nov 12, 2005
                      In a message dated 11/12/2005 8:39:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                      bobmacdonald@... writes:


                      > Ken - re John 5:24-29; these verses are part of a double
                      > chiasm with the centre of each focussing on opposites -
                      > believing and non believing. Given the complex concentric
                      > structures in Revelation, it is possible that the same poet
                      > wrote both - but hardly necessary.

                      Bob:

                      I do not used the seeming relationship between Rev 20 and John 5 as evidence
                      for Johannine authorship of Rev. 20. I already have in mind (from other
                      evidence) that John is the author of both the Gospel and the Revelation. Having that
                      in mind, I see a double resurrection in John 5 and suppose that since (on
                      other grounds) John wrote Rev 20, that he would be picking up on his already
                      established two resurrection motif.

                      I see Rev 11:2 as reflecting Luke 21:24 also. But I (obviously) wouldn't say
                      this is evidence Luke wrote Revelation.

                      I am afraid I may have made you think I was using the Rev 20 / John 5
                      similarity as evidence of authorship. That was a mistaken impression that I didn't
                      intend.

                      Thanks,

                      Ken

                      Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., M.Div, Th.M., Th.D
                      www.KennethGentry.com
                      "Serious Studies for Serious Christians"

                      Chancellor and Research Professor in Theology
                      Christ College, Lynchburg, Virginia
                      www.Christ-College.edu


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.