Christos Anesti
Junior Member
"ilasterion" doesn't seem to be that differnt than "hilasterion"?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Propitiation is translated from the Greek 'ilasterion (hilasterion), ... Another Greek word, 'ilasmoV (hilasmos), is used for Christ as our propitiation
Jesus went to hell for 3 days, so was he burned in a fire torture pit too? Of course not.
It's called the harrowing of Hell..
Jesus has all authority over Hell and Heaven and all that is under Heaven. Obviously he is not hurt by it because he is King over it. The fires of hell and the demons curtail to his authority. Haven't you read revelation where Jesus says he hold's the Keys of Hades? Christ's passion and ressurection burst open the doors of Heaven, which were closed shut until his sacrifice. And when Christ went to Hades for 3 days he took with him all the patriarchs and faithful with him who were waiting in sheol for his harrowing.
No one if worthy of heaven unless the merits, passion, and atonement of Christ are applied to them.
"ilasterion" doesn't seem to be that differnt than "hilasterion"?
Jesus went to hell for 3 days, so was he burned in a fire torture pit too? Of course not.
Jesus did NOT go to hell! Jesus preached to the spirits in prison. Prison is never called hell and hell is never called prison in scripture. Jesus preaching to those in prison was part of his earthly ministry. You can see preaching deliverance to the prisoners, right there between, "heal the brokenhearted" and "recovering of sight to the blind."Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
I think this article does a good job of providing an Orthodox understanding of the attonment. It's a little vociferus in its attacks on "Western theology**" (and for that I apologize) but it makes some really good points so i will link to it anyway.
** He seems to lump all of the diverse theologies of the West into one single "Western Theology" and then attack it for example. I also don't like the fact that he implies that St Augustine should have been labeled a heretic ! He may not have been right on everything but he was still a great Christian.
THE RIVER OF FIRE
Here is a brief excerpt:
The "God" of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]What is the Western dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it not by this infinite satisfaction that He deigns to accept the salvation of some of us?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]What is salvation for Western theology? Is it not salvation from the wrath of God? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Do you see, then, that Western theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the hands of God![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]How can one love such a God? How can we have faith in someone we detest? Faith in its deeper essence is a product of love, therefore, it would be our desire that one who threatens us not even exist, especially when this threat is eternal.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Even if there exists a means of escaping the eternal wrath of this omnipotent but wicked Being (the death of His Son in our stead), it would be much better if this Being did not exist. This was the most logical conclusion of the mind and of the heart of the Western peoples, because even eternal Paradise would be abhorrent with such a cruel God. Thus was atheisrn born, and this is why the West was its birthplace. Atheism was unknown in Eastern Christianity until Western theology was introduced there, too. Atheism is the consequence of Western theology. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Atheism is the denial, the negation of an evil God. Men became atheists in order to be saved from God, hiding their head and closing their eyes like an ostrich. Atheism, my brothers, is the negation of the Roman Catholic and Protestant God. Atheism is not our real enemy. The real enemy is that falsified and distorted "Christianity".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]III[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Westerners speak frequently of the "Good God" (E.g., in France le bon dieu is almost always used when speaking of God.). Western Europe and America, however, were never convinced that such a Good God existed. On the contrary, they were calling God good in the way Greeks called the curse and malediction of smallpox,[/FONT]EULOGIA[FONT=Arial,Helvetica], that is, a blessing, a benediction, in order to exorcise it and charm it away. For the same reason, the Black Sea was called[/FONT]Eu xeinoV PontoV [FONT=Arial,Helvetica] the hospitable sea although it was, in fact, a dreadful and treacherous sea. Deep inside the Western soul, God was felt to be the wicked Judge, Who never forgot even the smallest offense done to Him in our transgressions of His laws.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]This juridical conception of God, this completely distorted interpretation of God's justice, was nothing else than the projection of human passions on theology. It was a return to the pagan process of humanizing God and deifying man. Men are vexed and angered when not taken seriously and consider it a humiliation which only vengeance can remove, whether it is by crime or by duel. This was the worldly, passionate conception of justice prevailing in the minds of a so-called "Christian" society.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Western Christians thought about God's justice in the same way also; God, the infinite Being, was infinitely insulted by Adam's disobedience. He decided that the guilt of Adam's disobedience descended equally to all His children, and that all were to be sentenced to death for Adam's sin, which they did not commit. God's justice for Westerners operated like a vendetta. Not only the man who insulted you, but also all his family must die. And what was tragic for men, to the point of hopelessness, was that no man, nor even all humanity, could appease God's insulted dignity, even if all men in history were to be sacrificed. God's dignity could be saved only if He could punish someone of the same dignity as He. So in order to save both God's dignity and mankind, there was no other solution than the incarnation of His Son, so that a man of godly dignity could be sacrificed to save God's honor.[/FONT]
Hell is a general term. Meaning Hades. There are different compartments in Hades. Abraham's Bosom in Sheol where the righteous and the patriarchs died, Tartarus/Gehenna the confines of temporal punishment for the non-believers, and the lake of fire, reserved for judgment day for the reprobate.
So if your meaning that Christ did not goto hell as in the place of Gehenna/Tartarus, yes that is true. He went to Abraham's Bosom, the abode of the dead of the righteous.
2. He makes a SERIOUS strawman, in that he doesn't even represent "western" theology correctly, so he establishes a false caricature and attacks that
NOT ONE SCRIPTURE IS EVEN REFERRED TO . . . just a rant against a structure that doesn't even exist
To an extent I think you are right about his classification of THE Western theology. That certainly isn't the theology of John Wesley for example. I noted that I didn't fully agree with that aspect and apologized for it before I pasted the article. I linked to it more for the soteriology that he was teaching and for some of the misconceptions that many people have that he was correcting rather than for the fact that I thought he was an impartial judge of "western theology". It also had some great patristic quotes including my all time favorite St Isaac of Syria
It does exist. I've heard people right here on CF teach variations on the theme of God the Father who suffers from the passion of anger and who needs to take it out on someone... thankfully he took it out on Jesus instead of us...etc..
The article itself , which is a long article, does quote Scripture fairly often just not the part I pasted.
I noted that I didn't fully agree with that aspect and apologized for it before I pasted the article
It does exist. I've heard people right here on CF teach variations on the theme of God the Father who suffers from the passion of anger and who needs to take it out on someone... thankfully he took it out on Jesus instead of us...etc..
Abraham's bosom was not a place it was a position. It is the position of honor at a feast, immediately in front of host. The diners reclined on their left elbow, at a low table, with their feet extended away from the table. This is why John lay his head on Jesus' bosom. The only way John could look directly at Jesus at the supper was to lean back placing his head on Jesus' bosom. I know of no scripture which lists several compartments in hell, or whatever name you choose to use.
Hmm, so
Luke 16:22
22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
NASU
is referring to a dinner table? I dont see a feast anywhere in this context . . . . but I do see a concept of the afterlife for the guy doesnt go there till he dies? Am I missing something?
AFAIK, Abrahams Bosom was the abode of the Old Covenant righteous who awaited the rending of the veil upon the cross for access into "heaven."
AHH
Bosom of Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
you are referring to the etymology of the word . . . but origin is not what determines meaning . . . it aids in understanding meaning . . . but in this case it only points to the fact that the concept of the afterlife that AROSE from the origin was connected to favor and rest as opposed to the place of torment where there was no favor nor rest.
But ongoing usage that was understood at the time of Jesus' statement was a place in the afterlife that follows the "feast/place of favor" meaning by about 3-400 years (being that the concept arose in the 2nd temple period).
So it seems that the concept here is true, Abrahams Bosom was a place that the religious views of the day held was where the righteous dead were kept.
BTW the only way that Jesus going INTO this place would really be a problem theologically would be if He went to the place of torment, not the holding tank of the righteous.
You have expressed a widely held view but, other than the highly unreliable Wiki, which OBTW supports my position, I do not see any evidence supporting your position.
John Gill commentary on the Whole Bible - Luke 16:22 and sometimes, as here, by being in his bosom. So it is said (q), that Eliezer his servant (Abraham's, the same name with Lazarus) מונה בחיקו, "is laid in his bosom": and which may refer to the account in the Talmud (r), that when R. Benaah, the painter of caves, came to the cave of Abraham, he found Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, דקאיקמיה, "standing before him". And it is also said (s) of Rabbi, when he died, היום יושב בחיקו של אברהם, "this day he sits in the bosom of Abraham"; for as it was usual with them to represent the joys of heaven by a feast, so the partaking of them, by sitting down at a table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; see Mat_8:11 and as their manner at meals was by lying along on couches at eating; he that lay next another might be said to lie, or lean, in his bosom: hence Abraham's bosom came to signify the near and intimate enjoyment of happiness with him in the other world.
Matthew Henry - (4.) It was carried into Abraham's bosom. The Jews expressed the happiness of the righteous at death three ways: - they to go to the garden of Eden: they go to be under the throne of glory; and they go to the bosom of Abraham, and it is this which our Saviour here makes use of. Abraham was the father of the faithful; and whither should the souls of the faithful be gathered but to him, who, as a tender father, lays them in his bosom, especially at their first coming, to bid them welcome, and to refresh them when newly come from the sorrows and fatigues of this world? He was carried to his bosom, that is, to feast with him, for at feasts the guests are said to lean on one another's breasts; and the saints in heaven sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham was a great and rich man, yet in heaven he does not disdain to lay poor Lazarus in his bosom. Rich saints and poor meet in heaven. This poor Lazarus, who might not be admitted within the rich man's gate, is conducted into the dining-room, into the bed-chamber, of the heavenly palace; and he is laid in the bosom of Abraham, whom the rich glutton scorned to set with the dogs of his flock.
Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Luk 16:22 -
died — His burial was too unimportant to mention; while “the rich man died and was buried” - his carcass carried in pomp to its earthly resting-place.
in to Abraham’s bosom — as if seen reclining next to Him at the heavenly feast (Mat_8:11).
Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
hence Abraham's bosom came to signify the near and intimate enjoyment of happiness with him in the other world.
I agree that Wikis are highly unreliable.
BUT, the wiki only supports your postion insofar as it establishes the ROOT of the concept of being your posit . . . NOT the historical concept at the time being referred to.
And, BTW, each citation that you give refers to the afterlife . . . so I am still not sure how this contradicts a concept of Jesus translating the righteous dead from a intermediate holding tank into the Holy of holies . . .
AND, BTW, the citation of sources is the issue with the wiki's, the sources state what they state, Jewish thought had progressed at that point to hold Abrahams Bosom as a concept for the abode of the righteous in the afterlife. Your own quote
hence Abraham's bosom came to signify the near and intimate enjoyment of happiness with him in the other world.
shows it.
So, the BAD thing about wiki's is the ability to spin, but the correct citation of sources has nothing to do with this, it is interpretation of facts, not the facts themselves, that is the problem. As is, the citations are straight forward enough, with no spin, to show the 1st Cent Palestinian Jewish theology had within it a concept of the afterlife that included a place called ABRAHAM'S BOSOM.
AND EVEN HATRED OF THOSE WHO SIN.
To paraphrase st Isaac:
"We cannot even believe such a thing can be found in those human beings who live a virtuous and upright life and whose thoughts are entirely in accord with the divine will- let alone believe this of God"
God told us to love our enemies and sacrifice ourselves for sinners just as His Son did. He told us this because it's in His nature to love His enemies (sinners). Why would the son sacrafice Himself for people he hated?
"We cannot even believe such a thing can be found in those human beings who live a virtuous and upright life and whose thoughts are entirely in accord with the divine will- let alone believe this of God"
"9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
Where this has nothing to do with our perspective but the objective reality of what we are saved from
In his discourse entitled That God is not the Cause of Evil, Saint Basil the Great writes the following: "But one may say, if God is not responsible for evil things, why is it said in the book of Esaias, 'I am He that prepared light and Who formed darkness, Who makes peace and Who creates evils' (45:7)." And again, "There came down evils from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem" (Mich. 1:12). And, "Shall there be evil in the city which the Lord hath not wrought?" (Amos 3:6). And in the great Ode of Moses, "Behold, I am and there is no god beside Me. I will slay, and I will make to live; I will smite, and I will heal" (Deut. 32:39). But none of these citations, to him who understands the deeper meaning of the Holy Scriptures, casts any blame on God, as if He were the cause of evils and their creator, for He Who said, "I am the One Who makes light and darkness," shows Himself as the Creator of the universe, not that He is the creator of any evil.... "He creates evils," that means, "He fashions them again and brings them to a betterment, so that they leave their evilness, to take on the nature of good." [SIZE=-1]35[/SIZE]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]As Saint Isaac the Syrian writes, "Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this" (Homily 83, p. 317).
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Saint Basil in the same discourse [SIZE=-1]36[/SIZE] gives the explanation of these expressions of the Holy Scriptures: "It is because fear," says he, "edifies simpler people," and this is true not only for simple people but for all of us. After our fall, we need fear in order to do any profitable thing and any good to ourselves or to others. In order to understand the Holy Scriptures, say the Fathers, we must have in mind their purpose which is to save us, and to bring us little by little to an understanding of our Creator God and of our wretched condition.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]But the same Holy Scriptures in other places explain to us more accurately who is the real cause of our evils. In Jeremias 2:17, 19 we read: "Hath not thy forsaking Me brought these things upon thee? saith the Lord thy God.... Thine apostasy shall chastise thee and thy wickedness shall reprove thee; know then, and see that thy forsaking Me hath been bitter to thee, saith the Lord thy God."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Holy Scriptures speak our language, the language which we understand in our fallen state. As Saint Gregory the Theologian says, "For according to our own comprehension, we have given names from our own attributes to those of God." [SIZE=-1]37[/SIZE] And Saint John Damascene explains further that what in the Holy Scriptures "is said of God as if He had a body, is said symbolically... [it contains] some hidden meaning, which through things corresponding to our nature, teaches us things which exceed our nature." [SIZE=-1]38[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/FONT]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?