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

RE: [revelation-list] Second death

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.