Salvation for the Dead

[Der Alte]

How about some quotes from the Holy Bible instead?

Notice I was talking to someone else. If you have anything meaningful to add to that discussion I would be willing to address it. John 3:8

 

[Christodoulos]

Notice I was talking to someone else. If you have anything meaningful to add to that discussion I would be willing to address it. John 3:8

I thought this was an open forum? I think that you also joined in one of my discussions, not that I mind!

 

[ClementofA]

I repeat my question is plain English. Do you believe there will be anyone in heaven "for all eternity (without end)" with the Lord? Will those who are "born-again" spend "forever more" with the Lord in heaven? Yes or no?

That was two questions.

Everyone will be saved to endless salvation, including all humans, demons & any other beings that may exist. As Scripture teaches.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[ClementofA]

A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Hebrews speaks of those who reject Christ as deserving a "sorer" punishment than death by Moses' law, i.e. stoning:

10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would suffer endless torments in fire, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is a sadist for all eternity.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[marawuti]

I ask you, why would Jesus hold the keys to hell, if the door could not be opened?

Perhaps to allow for the fulfillment of scriptures when death and hades are emptied into the lake of fire. You appear to be inferring the exact opposite from the intended purpose of the keys. They are not to release spirits from hell due to works. They are to hold the door until it is time for their release into the lake of fire.

 

[ClementofA]

…..Jesus knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, when Jesus taught about man’s eternal fate, such as eternal punishment, He would have corrected them. Jesus did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell must have been correct.

Actually He did correct them in a number of ways:

1) He told the self righteous Pharisees, who thought they would escape hell, that they were headed there.

2) His teachings rejected the Sadducees belief about there being no hell.

Therefore, to use your own reasoning, since Jesus did...correct them...their teaching about hell must have been wrong.

"Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14)

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Tim.3:16)

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[ClementofA]

I did read your post and fully understand it, and disagreed then, as I do now. makes no difference whether Polycarp or Ignatius knew the Apostle John, as their writings are NOT inspired other than the Holy Spirit may have given them insight as He does to any believer. I know Biblical and some Classical Greek, and some Latin, but without the Holy Spirit guiding it means nothing as only He can lead us into His Truth! Why should a native Greek speaking Christian 1000 years ago be any more correct than a person today with Greek knowledge? Your reasoning is faulty!

Correct!

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Tim.3:16)


But for those who like to read such stuff:

"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."

"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.

I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.

It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.

Certainly, “there was a diversity of views in the early church on the scope of final salvation.” Tertullian, for instance, did not embrace apokatastasis. But my monograph is not on patristic eschatology or soteriology in general, but specifically on the doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others."

The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory

 

[Der Alte]

Actually He did correct them in a number of ways:
1) He told the self righteous Pharisees, who thought they would escape hell, that they were headed there.
2) His teachings rejected the Sadducees belief about there being no hell.

Irrelevant! Jesus did not correct these specific beliefs.

• sinners go to hell immediately after their death.
• The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b)
• hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (
• All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them
• When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [ שׁאול /Sheol]] all its inhabitants were afraid he was coming to rule over them. Isa 14:9
–• "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity"
–• The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11
–• they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said Isa. lxvi. 24
–• And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched
–• Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written Psalms, xlix. 15​

Therefore, to use your own reasoning, since Jesus did...correct them...their teaching about hell must have been wrong.

Therefore your conclusions are wrong as shown immediately above.

"Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14)

When you clearly identify some Jewish fables and commandments of men this vs. might be relevant. John 3:8

 

[ClementofA]

Irrelevant! Jesus did not correct these specific beliefs.

[snip]

• All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them
​

According to you Gehenna = Hades to these Pharisees you quoted. Now apply the quote above to the story of the rich man in Hades in Lk.16:19-31. Then your quote reads:

"All that descend into Gehenna/HADES shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them"

Still think Jesus "did not correct these specific beliefs"?

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf​

 

[ClementofA]

Can you provide ONE Scripture to support you THEORY that hell is not eternal? I can give you one that shows you completely wrong.

Matthew 25:46, Spoken by Jesus Christ Himself, Whose Authority is second to none!

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

You will note that the SAME Greek word, "αἰώνιος" is used for the English, "eternal". The one is for the "unrighteous", and the other, for the "righteous". BOTH must have the same force and therefore the same duration. There is NO reason, except for one's theological bias, to suppose that the meaning of "αἰώνιος" is different in both places. To say that hell is not "eternal", you must also say that neither is heaven, for the righteous!

I've posted this before in reply to a similar comment:

"This popular assertion, however, is fallacious. The fact that such a claim should so long endure and conquer, is proof of the power of deception."

Your lexicon is "The Complete Word Study Dictionary" (Spiros Zhodiates). Even it says the word aionion is "from aion, age" and includes the meanings of "perpetual, belonging to the aion, to time in its duration, constant, abiding". So like the vast majority of learned sources, it also agrees the word, & its noun, may refer to a duration which is of a limited time period that has an end. The real issue here, then, is whether or not the word means a limited time period in the context of Matthew 25:31-46 in regards to punishment. That is something that should be a matter of serious study rather than assumptions based on what my pastor or bible study group assumes to be the case.

Considering the Greek word kolasis ("punishment", Mt.25:46, KJV) can refer to a corrective punishment, that should tell the reader of Matthew 25:46 what the possible duration of aionios ("everlasting", KJV) is & that it may refer to a finite punishment. Why? Because since it is corrective, it is with the purpose of bringing the person corrected to salvation. Oncce saved the person no longer has need of such a punishment & it ends. So it isn't "everlasting". [Or if it "everlasting", it is only everlasting in its positive effect]. Therefore this passage could just as easily support universalism as anything else.

From a review of a book by Ilaria Ramelli, namely The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp):

"...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.” Likewise the Bible uses the word kolasis to describe the punishment of the age to come. Aristotle distinguished kolasis from timoria, the latter referring to punishment inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” On the other hand, kolasis refers to correction, it “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer” (quoted at 32). Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament, since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology


"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases.5 However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers. For example, when aionios referred to the duration of Jonah’s entrapment in the fish, it was limited to three days. To a slave, aionios referred to his life span. To the Aaronic priesthood, it referred to the generation preceding the Melchizedek priesthood. To Solomon’s temple, it referred to 400 years. To God it encompasses and transcends time altogether."

"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated. It is similar to what “tall” is to height. The size of a tall building can be 300 feet, a tall man six feet, and a tall dog three feet. Black Beauty was a great horse, Abraham Lincoln a great man, and Yahweh the GREAT God. Though God is called “great,” the word “great” is neither eternal nor divine. The horse is still a horse. An adjective relates to the noun it modifies. In relation to God, “great” becomes GREAT only because of who and what God is. This silences the contention that aion must always mean forever because it modifies God. God is described as the God of Israel and the God of Abraham. This does not mean He is not the God of Gentiles, or the God of you and me. Though He is called the God of the “ages,” He nonetheless remains the God who transcends the ages."

"In addition, Augustine’s reasoning does not hold up in light of Ro. 16:25, 26 and Hab. 3:6. Here, in both cases, the same word is used twice—with God and with something temporal. “In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God” (Ro. 16:25, 26 CLT). An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God eternal, but God makes eonian eternal. “And the everlasting mountains were scattered.…His ways are everlasting” (Hab. 3:6). Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God’s ways however, are eternal, because He is eternal."
Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever?

Philo was contemporary with Christ & we have this translation of his words which use the same words Christ used at Mt.25:46:

"It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment [kolasis aiónios] from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of conduct." Philo: Appendix 2: Fragments

In the year 544 A.D. the emperor Justinian wrote a letter:

"It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does not merely say, "We believe in aionion kolasin," for that was just what Origen himself taught. Nor does he say "the word aionion has been misunderstood; it denotes endless duration," as he would have said, had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that abundant language from which to choose, he says: "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked." If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration.
Chapter 21 - Unsuccessful Attempts to Suppress Universalism

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

Early Church Father universalists who were Greek scholars & many others of the time did not see Mt.25:46 contradicting their belief:

"The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in the æonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "æonian life," to "the life of the coming æon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself (an Early Church Father universalist) declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?"
Another Aionios Thread - These Things Go On Forever


"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?" "

Chapter Nine

As regards the fate of the Jewish people, early in the gospel of Saint Matthew Jesus' word does correct them re the false teachings of endless torments and annihilation, as follows:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.

"Isn't it ironic that the passage most often used to support everlasting punishment is in fact one strongly opposing it when accurately understood?" (Tom Talbott, author of "The Inescapable Love of God").

Thomas Talbott - Wikipedia
Thomas Talbott- The Inescapable Love of God - 2nd Edition

 

[Der Alte]

According to you Gehenna = Hades to these Pharisees you quoted. Now apply the quote above to the story of the rich man in Hades in Lk.16:19-31. Then your quote reads:
"All that descend into Gehenna/HADES shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them"
Still think Jesus "did not correct these specific beliefs"?​

​

Seems you have a lot of difficulty getting it right when responding to me. Actually according to me the Jews believed in a place of eternal unending fiery punishment that they referred to both as Gehinnom and Sheol, as shown in the quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia and Talmud I posted more than once. You did actually read my post didn't you?
.....How about the other 9 beliefs I quoted? What Jesus taught about eternal punishment, Gehenna where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, furnace of fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth etc., matched what the Jews believed about Gehenna/Sheol/hades. Do you want to keep trying?

 

[Light of the East]

​

Seems you have a lot of difficulty getting it right when responding to me. Actually according to me the Jews believed in a place of eternal unending fiery punishment that they referred to both as Gehinnom and Sheol, as shown in the quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia and Talmud I posted more than once. You did actually read my post didn't you?
.....How about the other 9 beliefs I quoted? What Jesus taught about eternal punishment, Gehenna where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, furnace of fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth etc., matched what the Jews believed about Gehenna/Sheol/hades. Do you want to keep trying?

Why don't you read and THINK about the stuff that Clement is posting instead of jumping to your keyboard to prove him wrong?

 

[Light of the East]

I've posted this before in reply to a similar comment:

"This popular assertion, however, is fallacious. The fact that such a claim should so long endure and conquer, is proof of the power of deception."

Your lexicon is "The Complete Word Study Dictionary" (Spiros Zhodiates). Even it says the word aionion is "from aion, age" and includes the meanings of "perpetual, belonging to the aion, to time in its duration, constant, abiding". So like the vast majority of learned sources, it also agrees the word, & its noun, may refer to a duration which is of a limited time period that has an end. The real issue here, then, is whether or not the word means a limited time period in the context of Matthew 25:31-46 in regards to punishment. That is something that should be a matter of serious study rather than assumptions based on what my pastor or bible study group assumes to be the case.

Considering the Greek word kolasis ("punishment", Mt.25:46, KJV) can refer to a corrective punishment, that should tell the reader of Matthew 25:46 what the possible duration of aionios ("everlasting", KJV) is & that it may refer to a finite punishment. Why? Because since it is corrective, it is with the purpose of bringing the person corrected to salvation. Oncce saved the person no longer has need of such a punishment & it ends. So it isn't "everlasting". [Or if it "everlasting", it is only everlasting in its positive effect]. Therefore this passage could just as easily support universalism as anything else.

From a review of a book by Ilaria Ramelli, namely The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp):

"...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.” Likewise the Bible uses the word kolasis to describe the punishment of the age to come. Aristotle distinguished kolasis from timoria, the latter referring to punishment inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” On the other hand, kolasis refers to correction, it “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer” (quoted at 32). Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament, since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology


"In addition, Augustine's reasoning does not hold up in light of Ro. 16:25, 26 and Hab. 3:6. Here, in both cases, the same word is used twice—with God and with something temporal. "In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God" (Ro. 16:25, 26 CLT). An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even
though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God eternal, but God makes eonian eternal. "And the everlasting mountains were scattered.…His ways are everlasting" (Hab. 3:6). Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God's ways however, are eternal, because He is eternal."
Kolasis

"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases.5 However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers. For example, when aionios referred to the duration of Jonah’s entrapment in the fish, it was limited to three days. To a slave, aionios referred to his life span. To the Aaronic priesthood, it referred to the generation preceding the Melchizedek priesthood. To Solomon’s temple, it referred to 400 years. To God it encompasses and transcends time altogether."

"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated. It is similar to what “tall” is to height. The size of a tall building can be 300 feet, a tall man six feet, and a tall dog three feet. Black Beauty was a great horse, Abraham Lincoln a great man, and Yahweh the GREAT God. Though God is called “great,” the word “great” is neither eternal nor divine. The horse is still a horse. An adjective relates to the noun it modifies. In relation to God, “great” becomes GREAT only because of who and what God is. This silences the contention that aion must always mean forever because it modifies God. God is described as the God of Israel and the God of Abraham. This does not mean He is not the God of Gentiles, or the God of you and me. Though He is called the God of the “ages,” He nonetheless remains the God who transcends the ages."

"In addition, Augustine’s reasoning does not hold up in light of Ro. 16:25, 26 and Hab. 3:6. Here, in both cases, the same word is used twice—with God and with something temporal. “In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in
times eonian, yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God” (Ro. 16:25, 26 CLT). An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God
eternal, but God makes eonian eternal. “And the everlasting mountains were scattered.…His ways are everlasting” (Hab. 3:6). Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God’s ways however, are eternal,
because He is eternal."
Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever?

Philo was contemporary with Christ & we have this translation of his words which use the same words Christ used at Mt.25:46:

"It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment [kolasis aiónios] from those who are more powerful, is the result
of the other line of conduct." Philo: Appendix 2: Fragments

In the year 544 A.D. the emperor Justinian wrote a letter:

"It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does
not merely say, "We believe in aionion kolasin," for that was just what Origen himself taught. Nor does he say "the word aionion has been misunderstood;
it denotes endless duration," as he would have said, had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that abundant language from which to choose, he says: "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked." If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration.
Chapter 21 - Unsuccessful Attempts to Suppress Universalism

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)?
Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

Early Church Father universalists who were Greek scholars & many others of the time did not see Mt.25:46 contradicting their belief:

"The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in the æonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "æonian life," to "the life of the coming æon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself (an Early Church Father universalist) declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?"
Another Aionios Thread - These Things Go On Forever


"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?" "

Chapter Nine

Well done, sir. Unfortunately you are dealing with people who do not want the truth. They are plugging their ears and humming at everything you are posting.

One wonders: of what are they afraid, that God might actually be more loving than they wish Him to be to the people the don't like?

 

[Der Alte]

...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.”

Where exactly did Origen say this? I can't find the phrase "life after" in Origen's writings. Please see correct way to cite ECF. Note Origen's contrasting temporal/temporary with eternal.

Origen De Principiis. Book I. Chap. VI
3.But whether any of these orders who act under the government of the devil, and obey his wicked commands, will in a future world be converted to righteousness because of their possessing the faculty of freedom of will, or whether persistent and inveterate wickedness may be changed by the power of habit into nature, is a result which you yourself, reader, may approve of, if neither in these present worlds which are seen and temporal, nor in those which are unseen and are eternal, that portion is to differ wholly from the final unity and fitness of things. But in the meantime, both in those temporal worlds which are seen,
De Principiis. Book II. Chap. III
6. We must see, moreover, lest perhaps it is with reference to this that the apostle says, “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are unseen are eternal. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” (2 Corinthians 4:18-5:1) And when he says elsewhere, “Because I shall see the heavens, the works of Thy fingers,” (Psa_8:3) and when God said, regarding all things visible, by the mouth of His prophet, “My hand has formed all these things,” (Isa_66:2) He declares that that eternal house in the heavens which He promises to His saints was not made with hands, pointing out, doubtless, the difference of creation in things which are seen and in those which are not seen.
De Principiis. Book III chap. VI
4.Since, then, those things “which are seen are temporal, but those things which are not seen are eternal, ” all those bodies which we see either on earth or in heaven, and which are capable of being seen, and have been made with hands, but are not eternal, are far excelled in glory by that which is not visible, nor made with hands, but is eternal.
De Principiis. Book IV. Chap. I.
25. Thy shadow we shall live among the nations;” (Lam_4:20) at the time, viz., when He will more worthily transfer all the saints from a temporal to an everlasting Gospel, according to the designation, employed by John in the Apocalypse, of “an everlasting Gospel.” (Cf. Rev_14:6)
Origen Against Celsus. Book VI. Chap. XIX
Our Paul, moreover, educated by these words, and longing after things “supra-mundane” and “super-celestial,” and doing his utmost for their sake to attain them, says in the second Epistle to the Corinthians: “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are unseen are eternal. ”
De Principiis. Book III. Chap. VI
8.From which it appears to me, that as on this earth the law was a sort of schoolmaster to those who by it were to he conducted to Christ, in order that, being instructed and trained by it, they might more easily, after the training of the law, receive the more perfect principles of Christ; so also another earth, which receives into it all the saints, may first imbue and mould them by the institutions of the true and everlasting law, that they may more easily gain possession of those perfect institutions of heaven, to which nothing can be added; in which there will be, of a truth, that Gospel which is called everlasting, and that Testament, ever new, which shall never grow old.
De Principiis. Book III. Chap. I.
13.For God deals with souls not merely with a view to the short space of our present life, included within sixty years or more, but with reference to a perpetual and never-ending period, exercising His providential care over souls that are immortal, even as He Himself is eternal and immortal. [/color]​

Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament,

Where exactly does Plato say this?

since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."

Where exactly does Clement say this?

 

[Der Alte]

Why don't you read and THINK about the stuff that Clement is posting instead of jumping to your keyboard to prove him wrong?

I did! He misrepresented what I posted. If someone can't even quote another poster correctly, very little of what he says is worth reading.

 

[ClementofA]

​

Seems you have a lot of difficulty getting it right when responding to me. Actually according to me the Jews believed in a place of eternal unending fiery punishment that they referred to both as Gehinnom and Sheol, as shown in the quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia and Talmud I posted more than once. You did actually read my post didn't you?
....

That doesn't even address what i posted. I said:

"According to you Gehenna = Hades to these Pharisees you quoted. Now apply the quote above to the story of the rich man in Hades in Lk.16:19-31. Then your quote reads:

"All that descend into Gehenna/HADES shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them"

Still think Jesus "did not correct these specific beliefs"?"

Would you like me to repost posts where you said the Jews used Gehenna & Hades interchangably? Or are you going to continue to deny you said that?

 

[ClementofA]

Where exactly does Plato say this?

Where exactly does Clement say this?

I could tell you, but don't your 9 lexicons you're always touting as the greatest of all time give you this info?

They wouldn't give you any info re Origen & aionios because they totally ignore him and other Early Church Universalists on the subject, right?

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf


"The classical use of timoria emphasizes the vindictive character of punishment. It was punishment that satisfied the inflicter's sense of outraged justice and that defended his own honor or that of the violated law. The meaning of timoria, then, agrees with its etymology.

"Kolasis refers to punishment that is designed to correct and better the offender. Thus Plato uses kolaseis and noutheteseis together. Several times in one passage in the Protagoras, Plato's use illustrates the distinction we have drawn.

"For nobody punishes wrongdoers... because one has done wrong in the past (unless he is taking blind vengeance like a beast)... but for the sake of the future, in order that one may not do wrong again.

"Plato's use of the terms may be compared with Clement of Alexandria's, who defined kolaseis as "particular instructions" and timoria as "retaliation for evil." Aristotle distinguished the terms this way: "Timoria [vengeance] and kolasis [corrective punishment] differ, for corrective punishment is on account of the one suffering wrong, but vengeance is on account of the one doing wrong, that there may be satisfaction." Aulus Gellius referred to these and similar definitions.

"It has been thought that there should be three reasons for punishing wrongs. One reason is what in Greek is called nouthesia [3559, rebuke] or kolasis [punishment] or parainesis [L-S 1310, admonition]. It is punishment applied for the sake of correcting or reforming in order that one who has erred accidentally may become more attentive and improved. Another reason is what those who have differentiated these words more exactly call timoria [vengeance]. This is the reason for punishing when the dignity and prestige of the person wronged must be protected in order that an omission of punishment may not make him despised and diminish his honor. For that reason people think that this word was derived from the preservation of honor [time, 5092]. "

Punishment - Trench's New Testament Synonyms

 

[ClementofA]

I did! He misrepresented what I posted. If someone can't even quote another poster correctly, very little of what he says is worth reading.

Normally the accuser can point out the alleged misrepresentation, rather than just deny & deflect. I'm still waiting.

 

[ClementofA]

Where exactly did Origen say this? I can't find the phrase "life after" in Origen's writings.

You'll find it in our discussion on the topic from last year, via this sites search engine.

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[Basil the Great]

Well, I am a little surprised that you are Catholic, OP. You sound a lot more like an Eastern Orthodox. As I understand EO thinking, which is not universally held by all EO, some believe that those who die on Earth and are destined for Hell, may still have a chance at salvation, by the prayers of those still on Earth. It seems that most Eastern Orthodox do not believe that we actually go to Heaven or Hell until the Second Coming, but that we receive a foretaste or Heaven or Hell when we die. I am not sure of the difference, except that the implication is that perhaps if souls are not actually in Hell yet, they might still have a chance, even if a small one, of salvation. (Offerings might also be of value? As far as good works, I am not so sure if I have ever read that view or not.) Personally, I doubt that our good works can help the dead. I am also not too optimistic about offerings for the benefit of the dead. Prayers, yes, I think there could be a chance that prayers might help, but I am not certain by any means.

This is a difficult subject to wrestle with for many of us. We do not want to believe that our deceased loved ones could be in Hell or even "destined for Hell", in the view of of some EO. St. Basil's Third Kneeling Prayer seems to be interpreted in two different ways. Some think that is only asking for a measure of relief for souls in bondage, while others believe that it is asking that said souls be allowed to be free and have a chance at Heaven. Myself, I do not know if prayers for those in Hell or now receiving a foretaste of Hell and in essence, "destined for Hell", can be of benefit to them. Having said that, I believe that most Christians, especially Protestants, but to a lesser extent Catholics, are too strict on the subject. The bottom line is that we simply do not know for sure who is or is not now in Hell. We also cannot be certain but what perhaps many souls are in some sort of Intermediate State, other than the Catholic Purgatory, as some claim to see spirits/ghosts walk the Earth. It seems proper to me for us to pray for the souls of the dead, especially asking God to grant them as measure of peace, and that if it be possible and if any souls are now truly repentant, that God might consider giving them a chance at salvation. God is God and He will do what He wants, but I know of nothing in Scripture that forbids us from praying for the dead. Luther even said that it was permissible to pray for the dead, once or twice. (My guess is that he limited it to once or twice as a reaction to the Catholic view of Purgatory, the sale of indulgences, Masses for the dead, etc.) However, if once or twice is fine, then why not three times? Why not four prayers? Why not five or six or seven, etc.?

OP, your thesis does seem to effectively run contrary to Traditional Catholic doctrine, but not to acceptable Eastern Orthodox practice and thinking. Anyway, this Protestant sees nothing wrong in praying for the dead in general, but especially for deceased loved ones. Whether or not it does any good, I leave that up to God.