Here’s something Anthony Buzzard said in a comment to me on Tom Lenke’s blog:
Would you agree that “the immortal dies” is nonsense?
And my response is that Sir Anthony must not have ever seen any of the Highlander movies or the television series and for that matter he must not be very familiar with vampire film or literature. Immortals die all the time. So no, as a fan of Highlander (both the films and the series) and vampire flicks (and TV shows), I would not agree.
B”H
That’s strange… I thought the idea of “immortal”, almost be definition meant that there was not death.
Cheers!
‘Tis mystery all! Th’ Immortal dies!
Who can explore his strange design?
In vain the first-born seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine!
‘Tis mercy all! let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more!
Rich: You learn something new every day.
Esteban: My ignorance of Wesleyan hymnody is the bane of my existence!
Nick, I understand. This is one of the reasons I LOVE having a mac. The default built in dictionary app for Macs is The Oxford dictionary. So for me (with me keyboard remapping) I just hit command-F4 any time;
immortal |i(m)ˈmôrtl|
adjective
living forever; never dying or decaying : our mortal bodies are inhabited by immortal souls.
• deserving to be remembered forever : the immortal children’s classic, “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.”
noun
an immortal being, esp. a god of ancient Greece or Rome.
• a person of enduring fame : he will always be one of the immortals of hockey.
• ( Immortals) historical the royal bodyguard of ancient Persia.
• ( Immortal) a member of the French Academy.
Will not dying is part of the primary definition. Notice that second one RE deserving to be remembered… Probably the idea used in many of the epic poems and such.
Cheers!
Nick> As it should be! Fortunately for you, this deficiency is easily remedied.
Rich> Here is another dictionary entry that you might find relevant to the subject at hand:
paradox (par·a·dox)
Pronunciation:/ˈparəˌdäks/
noun
• a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory: a potentially serious conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information paradox
• a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true: in a paradox, he has discovered that stepping back from his job has increased the rewards he gleans from it
• a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities: the mingling of deciduous trees with elements of desert flora forms a fascinating ecological paradox
Origin:
mid 16th century (originally denoting a statement contrary to accepted opinion): via late Latin from Greek paradoxon ‘contrary (opinion)’, neuter adjective used as a noun, from para- ‘distinct from’ + doxa ‘opinion’
“Who wants to live forever? Who wants to live forever?”
Nick
Your comparing fiction with non-fiction literature. What an oxymoron!
Nick: Just to throw another example in the pot, I would add the elves in Tolkien’s literature. Like the Highlander, they could fall in combat but left to themselves would never die.
But really, this question of Buzzard’s seems to me to overlook that we are not saying that God one day keeled over and expired on his throne in heaven (do angels know CPR?), but that in the Incarnation He took on flesh, and with it the potential for death. It’s a Philippians 2 thing, Sir Anthony!
Yvette: Queen is a large reason why I love Highlander so much!
Tom: Good example. I forgot about the elves. And Buzzard’s question is ridiculous. It came out of left field and had nothing to do with anything I said. I can’t take him seriously anymore so I post stuff like this in jest.
Benadam312: Sorry, but that’s not an oxymoron. If I had said something like, “Sir Anthony is a married bachelor” then we’d have an oxymoron. At present I haven’t compared anything with anything. I’ve simply stated that it’s not nonsense to say that the immortal dies given that immortals die all the time in literature and films. It makes perfect sense to me and I have to imagine that had Sir Anthony been more versed in such films and literature it would make perfect sense to him as well.
Nick
Would that you were verses in Christian hymnology and then not waste words about vampires and get to the point!
Now, please, affirm that “the immortal dies” is, indeed, an insult to our intelligence. Within the frame of which I obviously asked the question.
Anthony: You’re joking, right? Have you seriously just asked me to agree with you? What if I said to you, “Now please, affirm that unitarianism is an insult to our intelligence.” Would you do it? In any event, I have no clue about the frame in which you asked your question. I can’t see that it pertained to anything I said in the previous comments on Tom’s blog. Also, I wouldn’t affirm what you’ve asked even if I had a clue about the frame in which you asked the question. It certainly doesn’t insult my intelligence. Oh, and the point was that at this point, after having interacted with you extensively, you do not deserve anymore serious interaction from me, hence a lighthearted and humorous post such as this.
Some unitarian/arian objections make more sense to me (though I remained unconvinced by them) but this particular chestnut seems more about semantics than offering any substantive rejoinder to Trinitarian beliefs. This is somewhat of a repetition of foxlemke’s point, but we only believe Jesus’ fleshly body died. He himself carried on existing (as one might want to argue Luke 23:43 points out). It was his flesh, the human, humbled and carnal part of the union (as expressed in Phil 2:5-11) that died.
Apparently, Sir Anthony is an Englishman rather than a Scotsman. As any MacLeod of the clan MacLeod will a-tell ye, immortals can die. Just ask Duncan!
On a serious note, Buzzard’s objection commits a fallacy of equivocation. To say the “immoral dies” is superficially paradoxical, but that’s because it’s just a shorthand expression. What dies is the body of Christ, united to his human soul and divine nature.
Nick, you resettle yet after that hurricane?
Erlend: Yes, of course. I would add that Jesus’ death is not unique. When all humans die it is the death of their bodies. Their spirits/souls continue in conscious existence, at least if we allow the NT to speak to the subject. Sir Anthony doesn’t believe this, of course, but he’s been wrong before so it’s no shock that he’d be wrong again.
Steve: Exactly! That’s the entire point of the gathering; so immortals can fight to the death — there can be only one! And you are of course correct about the shorthand expression. Sir Anthony seems to believe that language should function only as he uses it.
Michael: Everything’s fine, thanks for asking. We got a little bit of water in the basement from the heavy rain and wind but nothing serious. My neighbor down the street wasn’t so fortunate. There’s a crew at his house removing two large oak trees from his living room. They crashed through his roof and totaled two cars in his driveway.
Good to hear you and yours are safe. That’s terrible regarding your neighbor.
Nick:
Very true, and have you noticed how he always argues the English semantics harder than the Greek & Hebrew? It’s like he considers Webster an inspired source.
Tom: I have indeed noticed that.
Pingback: September 2011 Biblical Studies Carnival Episode III: The Final Frontier as the Carnival Strikes Back | Exploring Our Matrix