eternal suffering

[Der Alte]

The following url review says "Aristotle never uses the word aiônios." You say (above) that he did.
https://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/summary-terms-for-eternity-aionios-and-aidios-in-classical-and-christian-texts/

You are correct. What Aristotle [384-322 BC] said in Peri Ouranou 1, 9 (ed. Bekker, 1, 279) "the completeness which embraces all time and infinitude is aion, having received this name from existing for ever (apo tou aei einai), immortal (athanatos, undying), and divine."

You include 2 Greek philosophers & a single quote from Philo & call that more than occasional? How many writers from Moses to Thomas Aquinas do you suppose used the words aion & aionion?

You seem to forget that the first known use of aionios is in Plato's writing and he used it synonymous with aidios. Since aionios is first found in Plato, some scholars think he coined the word from aion. Moses did not speak or write in Greek. If you want to believe that writers years after Plato were right and Plato was wrong you will have to prove it. When we read the word "square" in a 1st century document should we assume that it means "a person who is dull, rigidly conventional, and out of touch with current trends" or should we assume that it means something that has four equal sides?

Der Alter claimed: That later writers used it to mean a limited period of time is irrelevant.
=====
After your two Greek philosophers, the LXX, the NT Scriptures and other writings show aion used of limited time periods. Likewise writers more ancient than your two Greek philosophers give examples of aion used of limited time periods. Its first meaning, long before your two Greek philosophers (Plato & Aristotle), was "life" or lifespan.

I provide evidence you make unsupported claims.

"We have seen that lexicons agree in giving "life" as the first meaning of aion: the life of a human."
[Life Time Entirety. A Study Of Aion In Greek Literature And Philosophy, The Septuagint And Philo, p.16]

No, we have not seen that. What does this writer say about Philo?

As to one of your two pagan Greek philosophers, Aristotle, your own quote of him (at post 544) says:
"But the force of aion for both is a settled point; and Aristotle's explanation of aion as used for finite things, I have long held to be the true one; that is, the completeness of a thing's existence, so that according to its natural existence there is nothing outside or beyond it. It periechei the whole being of the thing."

And your point is?

As for Plato:
"Plato uses both aiônios and aïdios in the sense of “eternal”. He uses the term aion in the following senses: “long time”, “our times”, “life”, and “eternity”. He uses aiônios in the following senses: “eternal”, “continuous”, and “what is beyond time”/”timeless”. Later Platonists also used the terms in the senses that Plato did."

And your point is?

Der Alter claimed: That later writers used it to mean a limited period of time is irrelevant. Some examples from our time. The word “gay” originally meant “happy,joyous” in our time it came to mean “homosexual.” The word “cool” originally meant “a temperature closer to cold than warm.” In later times it was used to mean “someone who fits in or is acceptable with a certain group.”
=====
Words often change meaning over time. So? Who would be more likely to give the more accurate New Testament meaning of the words aion and aionion written in Koine Greek, your pagan Greek philosopher, Plato, who used the Classical Greek language hundreds of years before the written koine Greek NT, or those Spirit filled Christians such as Origen who were scholars of Biblical Koine Greek and were hundreds of years closer to the time of the complete written NT?

Evidently the meaning of aionion did not change see e.g.

Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. [εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας] Amen. ​

Just as the meaning of cool, gay and square did not change although the words were used in a different way.

Der Alter says: The earliest known use of aionion, ca. 423–347 BC it meant “in eternity [aioni] nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but only subsists.” Plato did not change the meaning, Origen and other later writers did.
=====
Just saying it doesn't "make it so", Captain.

The evidence proves it amigo. This is the meaning from 423-347 BC, “in eternity [aioni] nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but only subsists.” Origen wrote 184–254, about 500 years later and the word was still being used to refer to unending, everlasting etc. Origen said "the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments." see my [post #99] in the Lake of Fire thread.

 

[Timothew]

Hello Timothew,

I've don't remember hearing you use the 'conditional immortality' term before. How is this different than the annihilation POV which you've had in the past?

It is the same, as in "light is the same as absence of darkness". Immortality is conditional, those without it will perish.

 

[Timothew]

The original statement was " "eternal suffering is not possible without eternal life."

My understanding of that, perhaps mistaken, is this is saying that for some folks to get eternal life there MUST be other folks to get eternal sufferings.

What i'm saying is, that is simply not true, logicly speaking. Because there are two other possibilities wherein there is no "eternal sufferings":

1. All are eventually saved. None lost.

2. All are saved except the lost who are endlessly non-existent.

Does that mean there's a 2 to 1 chance against ECT being true. ;

The statement doesn't say that some people must suffer in order for other people to receive eternal life. A person has to have eternal life if that person is going to be alive forever in hell being made to suffer.

ECT is not true. There is no question about that.

 

[Timothew]

Well, I finally found it. It was from your #543 post and the URL was:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/chri...-thomas-mean-verse-john-24.html#ixzz4EAyokSEs

Go to that URL and then scroll down to your 3/3/13 6:12 AM post. At the bottom of that post is the Link I'm speaking of.

"Hell: Eternal Torment or Annihilation"
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm

Maybe it's not even something as relevant as I first anticipated. But Timothew was the very one I was thinking of when I saw it. So it was really a bit of a 'coincidence' to subsequently see him here several days later. Although 'co-incidences' are quite often 'god-incidences' IMO.

I went to the first link which didn't have much to do with the topic. The second link was dead.

 

[Timothew]

I've been gone for a while and I'm banned from GT because i believe the Bible.

 

[Der Alte]

The statement doesn't say that some people must suffer in order for other people to receive eternal life. A person has to have eternal life if that person is going to be alive forever in hell being made to suffer.
ECT is not true. There is no question about that.

There are 3 Greek words translated "life", "ζωή/zoe,""βίος/bios" and "ψυχή/psuche." Only "zoe" ever occurs with aionios, never "bios" or "psuche." Here are three passages which show the unrighteous dead in sheol and hades, we know they do not have aionios zoe, but they do have some kind of conscious existence moving, speaking etc. Isaiah 14:9-11, Ezekiel 32:21-23 and Ezekiel 32:31-32.

 

[Hillsage]

I went to the first link which didn't have much to do with the topic. The second link was dead.

I'm sorry, that post was supposed to have been for ClementofA, and not you....my bad. I had asked him earlier what the "dead" link was supposed to be, since it dealt with your annihilation POV. But now that you're here I suppose you and he can cover the subject and I can just watch and learn.

 

[ClementofA]

Der Alter says [post 581]: You seem to forget that the first known use of aionios is in Plato's writing and he used it synonymous with aidios.

Scripture's use is what ultimately matters.

Der Alter said: Moses did not speak or write in Greek.

No one said otherwise.

Der Alter: If you want to believe that writers years after Plato were right and Plato was wrong you will have to prove it.

How would one do that? Go back in a time machine & bring back Plato & Origen for you. Pray to God for His Spirit to teach the truth?

BTW it's been said one of Plato's uses of aionion is beyond time/timeless. I don't see Scripture anywhere using the term in that sense. And please don't refer to the erroneous KJV translation in Revelation about time being no more.

After your two Greek philosophers, the LXX, the NT Scriptures and other writings show aion used of limited time periods. Likewise writers more ancient than your two Greek philosophers give examples of aion used of limited time periods. Its first meaning, long before your two Greek philosophers (Plato & Aristotle), was "life" or lifespan.

Der Alter re my statement above: I provide evidence you make unsupported claims.

Are you that unfamiliar with the topic? If so i suggest reading your Bible or lexicons. There's no point leaving them on the shelf forever unused.

Even your 2 Greek pagan philosophers used aion or aionion in the sense of limited durations.

"We have seen that lexicons agree in giving "life" as the first meaning of aion: the life of a human."
[Life Time Entirety. A Study Of Aion In Greek Literature And Philosophy, The Septuagint And Philo, p.16]

Der Alter replied re the above statement: No, we have not seen that. What does this writer say about Philo?

The word "we" above refers to those who have been reading the book. Evidently you didn't or you'ld know the lexicons she was refrring to. Three ancient lexicons. Or you could simply dust off some of yours on the shelf, if they even touch upon the subject.

As to Philo it has pages upon pages re his use of aion & aionion. Not some lines at most as with your lexicons. Your lexicons treat lightly 100's of words. OTOH two scholarly works i have posted to you before write entire books specializing & focusing on the ancient usage of two words, aion and aionion. Your lexicons have a few sentences or pages at most. And I have previously given you links to where both of these can be read for free online. They are relatively recently published as compared to your 'old' KJV tradition biased resources.

Der Alter said: Origen wrote 184–254, about 500 years later and the word was still being used to refer to unending, everlasting etc. Origen said "the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments."

Did you check the Greek to see what words are used, especially for "everlasting". In any case, how does this alleged quote of Origen prove your point?

"...in a passage in Origen in which he speaks of “life after aionios life” (160). As a native speaker of Greek he does not see a contradiction in such phrasing; that is because aionios life does not mean “unending, eternal life,” but rather “life of the next age.”

Ilaria Ramelli, <i>The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena</i> | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology



"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" "

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter9.html


https://ia800300.us.archive.org/4/items/biblestudiescon00deisuoft/biblestudiescon00deisuoft.pdf

 

[Timothew]

I'm sorry, that post was supposed to have been for ClementofA, and not you....my bad. I had asked him earlier what the "dead" link was supposed to be, since it dealt with your annihilation POV. But now that you're here I suppose you and he can cover the subject and I can just watch and learn.

Here it is, in a nutshell:
God created humans and told them that if they sinned, they would die. Humans did sin, and so death entered the world. Now people die. Dead people do not live forever, they are dead. Dead means "Not Alive". However, Jesus Christ took the death penalty in our place, He died on the cross paying the death penalty for us. He is resurrected, overcoming death. He will return to resurrect the dead, and He will give the gift of eternal life to anyone who has put their faith in Him. There is only ONE WAY to have eternal life, and that is by faith in Jesus Christ. Just as the Bible says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Do you see that? The penalty for sin is death, but we can have eternal life by faith in Christ Jesus. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." This verse is so familiar that people don't even think about what it says. It says that whoever believes in Christ will have eternal life. They will not perish. This means that those who reject Christ WILL perish. They will not have eternal life in hell being tortured alive forever.

When the plain sense of the Bible makes good sense, it is nonsense to go looking for some other sense.
Whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life.
Words mean things. Words have meaning. Words have meaning even when they are written in the Bible. Especially when they are written in the Bible. Jesus said "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
People try their damnedest to explain away what the Bible clearly says, so that they can hold onto their doctrine of eternal torment in hell. The plain language of Scripture is that people perish or they receive eternal life as a gift from Jesus Christ.

BTW, I have DerAlter on ignore.

 

[ClementofA]

Here it is, in a nutshell:
God created humans and told them that if they sinned, they would die. Humans did sin, and so death entered the world. Now people die. Dead people do not live forever, they are dead. Dead means "Not Alive". However, Jesus Christ took the death penalty in our place, He died on the cross paying the death penalty for us. He is resurrected, overcoming death. He will return to resurrect the dead, and He will give the gift of eternal life to anyone who has put their faith in Him. There is only ONE WAY to have eternal life, and that is by faith in Jesus Christ. Just as the Bible says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Do you see that? The penalty for sin is death, but we can have eternal life by faith in Christ Jesus. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." This verse is so familiar that people don't even think about what it says. It says that whoever believes in Christ will have eternal life. They will not perish. This means that those who reject Christ WILL perish. They will not have eternal life in hell being tortured alive forever.

When the plain sense of the Bible makes good sense, it is nonsense to go looking for some other sense.
Whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life.
Words mean things. Words have meaning. Words have meaning even when they are written in the Bible. Especially when they are written in the Bible. Jesus said "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
People try their damnedest to explain away what the Bible clearly says, so that they can hold onto their doctrine of eternal torment in hell. The plain language of Scripture is that people perish or they receive eternal life as a gift from Jesus Christ.

BTW, I have DerAlter on ignore.

"Der Alter on ignore". LOL.

Re the word "perish" please refer to the thread titled:

The Second Death of Those Thrown Into the Lake of Fire, Gehenna, Hell

With my comments on the word for perish, which is apolumi.

God bless!

 

[ClementofA]

Der Alter quote from post # 544:
That this is the proper sense of aionios in Scripture, is as certain as it is evident. In 2 Corinthians 4: 18, we have ta gar blepomena proskaira, ta de me blepomena aionia. That is, things that are for a time are put in express contrast with aionia, which are not for a time, be it age or ages, but eternal. Nothing can be more decisive of its positive and specific meaning.

A typically specious argument from ECTers!

So this is saying the "proper sense of aionios in Scripture" is always eternal & you're agreeing with that? Try not to dodge answering this as you have in the past.

That's funny. Even highly regarded by ECTer biased sources such as yours admit to instances where aionion [lit. eonian, of the eons, or ages] does not mean eternal in the Scriptures. Besides all the others examples in the LXX, church fathers & elsewhere.

"It is often claimed that in 2 Corinthians 4:18, “eonian” (aiõnion) must mean “eternal” because it is set in contrast to the word “temporal,” meaning pertaining to time as opposed to eternity. The Greek word, however, translated “temporal” in the AV (proskaira) has no connection with the word for “time” (chronos); in English form, the Greek is literally TOWARD-SEASON, and means “temporary” or “for [only] a part of a season.”

"Contrastive terms need not be antithetical in meaning. Our Lord deemed it sufficient contrast to compare temporary (i.e., a part of a season) with a single season–less than a year (Matt.13:21). Yet here, in 2 Corinthians 4:18, while the contrast is far greater, it does not follow that it is therefore infinite. The contrast is between our afflictions, which last, so to say, but for a brief “partial season,” and our promised, long-enduring “eonian” glory which lasts throughout the oncoming eons, until the consummation, when God is All in all. The eonian life and glory which is our special portion (cp 1 Tim.4:10b; 2 Tim.2:10,11), no more debars the endless life and glory in which we shall participate as well (cp Luke 1:33b; 1 Thess.4:17b; 1 Cor.15:28), than youthful happiness precludes the happiness of maturity.”

Do you have any idea of the meaning of what was just posted above? If so please respond with a paraphrase of it in your own words.

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter says [post 581]: You seem to forget that the first known use of aionios is in Plato's writing and he used it synonymous with aidios.
======
Scripture's use is what ultimately matters.

When the NT was written did they use koine Greek as it was spoken and written at the time or did they make up an entirely new language or change the meaning of some words? It appears to me that the NT writers used koine Greek and retained the meaning of all the words. For example “oikos” meant “house” before the NT was written and in the NT it means “house.” Strange that the only time the Hell, no! crowd changes the meaning of words is when it contradicts their false doctrine.

Der Alter said: Moses did not speak or write in Greek.
=====
No one said otherwise.

Did you write this in post #577? “How many writers from Moses to Thomas Aquinas do you suppose used the words aion & aionion?” That implies that Moses used the words “aion” and “aionios.”

Der Alter: If you want to believe that writers years after Plato were right and Plato was wrong you will have to prove it.
=====
How would one do that? Go back in a time machine & bring back Plato & Origen for you. Pray to God for His Spirit to teach the truth?

If you intend to show that Plato’s use of aionios is wrong cite other writers contemporary with or prior to Plato. That later writers use Greek words in a figurative way does not change the inherent meaning. Once again I remind you the first known use of aionios is in Plato’s writings and he used it synonymously with aidios. Since Plato is the first known use of “aionios” some scholars believe he coined the word from “aion.”

BTW it's been said one of Plato's uses of aionion is beyond time/timeless. I don't see Scripture anywhere using the term in that sense. And please don't refer to the erroneous KJV translation in Revelation about time being no more.

If you wish to discuss Plato quote from his writings not something that has been said somewhere. Your opinion of the KJV and other sources I quote is irrelevant. Do not quote from amateurs at tentmaker, forums, blogs or books by biased anti-Hell writers.

After your two Greek philosophers, the LXX, the NT Scriptures and other writings show aion used of limited time periods. Likewise writers more ancient than your two Greek philosophers give examples of aion used of limited time periods. Its first meaning, long before your two Greek philosophers (Plato & Aristotle), was "life" or lifespan.
Even your 2 Greek pagan philosophers used aion or aionion in the sense of limited durations.

No, zero, none evidence for your claim. Jesus called Herod a “fox.” Lk 13;32 Was he actually a fox? Jesus called two of His disciples “sons of thunder” Mar 3:17. Were they actually sons of thunder? Jesus called Peter, “rock.” Was he actually a rock? That is called figurative language, for example saying someone "is as big as a house."

Der Alter re my statement above: I provide evidence you make unsupported claims.
=====
Are you that unfamiliar with the topic? If so i suggest reading your Bible or lexicons. There's no point leaving them on the shelf forever unused.

I am the only one here who has been quoting lexicons. You only quote from tentmaker and random blogs. The same verse in Hebrew and Greek. I can read them can you?
בטח אל־יהוה בכל־לבך ואל־בינתך אל־תשׁען׃
ἴσθι πεποιθὼς ἐν ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ ἐπὶ θεῷ, ἐπὶ δὲ σῇ σοφίᾳ μὴ ἐπαίρου·

"We have seen that lexicons agree in giving "life" as the first meaning of aion: the life of a human."
[Life Time Entirety. A Study Of Aion In Greek Literature And Philosophy, The Septuagint And Philo, p.16]
Der Alter replied re the above statement: No, we have not seen that. What does this writer say about Philo?
The word "we" above refers to those who have been reading the book. Evidently you didn't or you'ld know the lexicons she was refrring to. Three ancient lexicons. Or you could simply dust off some of yours on the shelf, if they even touch upon the subject.

Quoting from a book is not quoting from a lexicon. Take your own advice and actually read the lexicons.

As to Philo it has pages upon pages re his use of aion & aionion. Not some lines at most as with your lexicons. Your lexicons treat lightly 100's of words. OTOH two scholarly works i have posted to you before write entire books specializing & focusing on the ancient usage of two words, aion and aionion. Your lexicons have a few sentences or pages at most. And I have previously given you links to where both of these can be read for free online. They are relatively recently published as compared to your 'old' KJV tradition biased resources.

No, zero, none evidence! This is only saying “Neener, neener. Neener I’m right and you’re wrong! Am too! Nuh Huh!. You have given me links to tentmaker, some blogs and some books not lexicons.

Der Alter said: Origen wrote 184–254, about 500 years later and the word was still being used to refer to unending, everlasting etc. Origen said "the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments."
Did you check the Greek to see what words are used, especially for "everlasting". In any case, how does this alleged quote of Origen prove your point?

Did you check the Greek text or any accredited Greek lexicon? If you have the Greek text please post it and show how the translation I quoted is wrong. If you cannot do so please spare me these desperate puerile objections.

Quotes from biased secondary sources omitted

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter quote from post # 544:

That this is the proper sense of aionios in Scripture, is as certain as it is evident. In 2 Corinthians 4: 18, we have ta gar blepomena proskaira, ta de me blepomena aionia. That is, things that are for a time are put in express contrast with aionia, which are not for a time, be it age or ages, but eternal. Nothing can be more decisive of its positive and specific meaning.​

=====
A typically specious argument from ECTers!
So this is saying the "proper sense of aionios in Scripture" is always eternal & you're agreeing with that? Try not to dodge answering this as you have in the past.

Quoted from Philo [25 BC-50 AD] and Aristotle [384-322]. See Philo for the first known use of “aionios” and its meaning. Many words are used figuratively in the NT. I have already given examples above.

That's funny. Even highly regarded by ECTer biased sources such as yours admit to instances where aionion [lit. eonian, of the eons, or ages] does not mean eternal in the Scriptures. Besides all the others examples in the LXX, church fathers & elsewhere.

You have not provided any evidence from the LXX, or church fathers, only elsewhere i.e. biased Hell, no! books, blogs and websites.

[Spurious, specious quotes from biased Hell, no! sources omitted.]
Do you have any idea of the meaning of what was just posted above? If so please respond with a paraphrase of it in your own words.

Typically specious quotes from unknown Hell, no! sources do not merit reading or replying.

 

[Hillsage]

Here it is, in a nutshell:
God created humans and told them that if they sinned, they would die. Humans did sin, and so death entered the world. Now people die. Dead people do not live forever, they are dead. Dead means "Not Alive".

So when Jesus died on the cross, what died? His spirit, his soul or his blood drained body? I believe his spirit went to the father and then went and preached to spirits in prison. Uh, so much for the orthodox view that Adam/Eve's spirit died after eating IMO.

When Jesus died it was a 'physical death', which was the sentence for sin. IOW nobody's spirit ever dies, for all spirits are eternal and "the spirit shall return to God from whence it came."

Anyway, we know that the spirit of Jesus never died on the cross, because body death was the price. And I'm going to assume his soul never died because scripture says that "the soul that sins shall die." But I also assume that the souls don't die, but like; "Lazarus has fallen asleep"
even as Jesus said. That is, until Jesus was pressed and referred to the body; "Lazarus is dead". It was something Jesus had to say since that was all their shallow minded understanding could....understand.

However, Jesus Christ took the death penalty in our place, He died on the cross paying the death penalty for us. He is resurrected, overcoming death. He will return to resurrect the dead, and He will give the gift of eternal life to anyone who has put their faith in Him.

My only problem with what you say of course is "death penalty" of what, and the word "eternal". It does not exist in the Greek texts and the better translations based upon that fact. Quite a few translations, as you already know.

There is only ONE WAY to have eternal life, and that is by faith in Jesus Christ. Just as the Bible says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Do you see that? The penalty for sin is death, but we can have eternal life by faith in Christ Jesus. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." This verse is so familiar that people don't even think about what it says. It says that whoever believes in Christ will have eternal life. They will not perish. This means that those who reject Christ WILL perish. They will not have eternal life in hell being tortured alive forever.

All I see is they will have an 'age' of correction. They will have an opportunity 'then' that wasn't given to them by God in the ages they've lived in since Genesis. And then the ignorant one, wants to say they're getting a 'second chance', but that's simply not true. They simply weren't "called, drawn, chosen, predestined to believe"....like lucky us.

When the plain sense of the Bible makes good sense, it is nonsense to go looking for some other sense.

I agree, so make your case with any one of the following good sense Bible translations. Young's Literal, Weymouth's, Rotherham's, Concordant Literal. If you can do that, then you have something for me to consider.

The plain language of Scripture is that people perish or they receive eternal life as a gift from Jesus Christ.

I 'plainly' agree.

John 3:16 for God did so love the world, that His Son - the only begotten - He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

Isn't dead meat the 'perishable' that you put in your refrigerator? The spirit/life is gone from dead meat...right? Your soul can't perish, because it isn't meat, though it does relate to 'meat headed-ness'....

 

[Der Alte]

. . .BTW, I have DerAlter on ignore.

I hope I don't have to remind you again.

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not personally attack other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.

http://www.christianforums.com/help/rules/​

 

[Hillsage]

I hope I don't have to remind you again.

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not personally attack other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.

http://www.christianforums.com/help/rules/​

FYI it will be hard for him to read your threat...since he has hit the 'ignore' button on you. He mentioned it in the post to me because we talked about you in a PM last night and he'd forgotten to tell me then. So if you want to make your threat known to him, guess you could ask someone else who isn't 'ignored' to do it for you.

 

[Timothew]

"Der Alter on ignore". LOL.

Re the word "perish" please refer to the thread titled:

The Second Death of Those Thrown Into the Lake of Fire, Gehenna, Hell

With my comments on the word for perish, which is apolumi.

God bless!

I went there. The argument doesn't hold water (sorry) because a person can SEEK to destroy Jesus without actually destroying Jesus, and that doesn't change the meaning of "destroy" to "failed to destroy".

 

[Timothew]

So when Jesus died on the cross, what died? His spirit, his soul or his blood drained body?

When Jesus died on the cross, Jesus Himself died on the cross. You are making an unnecessary assumption. Why complicate things for no reason?

I believe his spirit went to the father and then went and preached to spirits in prison. Uh, so much for the orthodox view that Adam/Eve's spirit died after eating IMO.

The evidence that Jesus travelled all over hell and back when he was dead is not firmly established in Scriptures. The proof texts for that belief can be understood in many ways, not just astral projection or whatever.

When Jesus died it was a 'physical death', which was the sentence for sin. IOW nobody's spirit ever dies, for all spirits are eternal and "the spirit shall return to God from whence it came."

You are making an assumption when you say "physical death". You are making another assumption when you say "nobody's spirit ever dies". The Bible doesn't actually say that. In fact, the Bible says that the soul who sins shall die.

Anyway, we know that the spirit of Jesus never died on the cross, because body death was the price.

"Body Death"??? What the heck is "Body Death"? The Bible doesn't say "The wages of sin is body death, but the gift of God is eternal spirit life while you rot in the grave."

Your post is full of unwarranted assumptions, so I'm going to address each one.
If you accept the Bible as written, whoever believes in Jesus Christ will not perish but will have eternal life.

 

[ClementofA]

I went there. The argument doesn't hold water (sorry) because a person can SEEK to destroy Jesus without actually destroying Jesus, and that doesn't change the meaning of "destroy" to "failed to destroy".

I've added more comments on the subject of destruction in the other thread, including re Jn.2:19-21, etc.

 

[ClementofA]

You have not provided any evidence from the LXX, or church fathers, only elsewhere i.e. biased Hell, no! books, blogs and websites.

Did you not say Origen changed the word aionion? From what, Plato's eternal to eonion that ends? Where was your evidence of that, from my posts?

Your own sources also admit to uses of aionion, in Scripture, not meaning eternal.