Universalism...why not?

[Dartman]

No, you included Revelation, which is what i was clearly referring to.

This illustrates one of your critical errors in exegesis. You fail to consider ALL Scripture on the topic.

God as "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) has nothing to do with authority, but God "in" every being who ever lived.

The context destroys your theory. God being "all in all" is a DIRECT result of Jesus being subject to HIM, and turning the kingdom over to HIM. It has EVERYTHING to do with authority.

It seems that all the references to "they" & "them" in the context are to the saints only:

"4 And ***THEY*** shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. 5 And there shall be no night there; and ***THEY*** need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth ***THEM*** light: and ***THEY*** shall reign EIS the ages of the ages.

So i'd have to disagree with you when you claim the reign of Rev.22:5 is "NOT speaking of the saints. It's speaking of God and the Lamb."

Again, you are failing to consider ALL the immediate context, AND all the OTHER texts on the subject..... like THIS ONE you brought up;

And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, 'The kingdoms of the world did become those of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign into the ages of the ages!' (Rev.11:15)
it is Jehovah and His Christ that reign FOR the ages of the ages.

 

[Dartman]

Heading to Church Camp for the week. I probably won't be able to post again until Sunday.

 

[Shempster]

All of the mortal survivors of Christ's coming, which are going to die DURING the Millennium, and all of their descendants, who are ALSO going to die DURING the Millennium, will be resurrected WITH those who were not worthy of the 1st resurrection.

SOME of them will be righteous, and will have their names written in the book of life.

Good point but I don't see where those are the only ones present. Unless of course you believe that those who died before the millenium are annihilated or thrown into eternal torture. The it makes sense.

 

[ClementofA]

Here are a few OT verses where עולם/olam definitely means forever.

[snip]

Daniel 12:2
(2) And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting [עולם/olam] life, and some to shame and everlasting [עולם/olam] contempt.
Daniel 12:3
(3) And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever [עולם/olam] and ever. [עד/ad]
​

The context supports the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), while v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".

2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life
and these to reproach for eonian repulsion." 3 The intelligent shall warn as the warning
of the atmosphere, and those justifying many are as the stars for the eon and further."
(Dan.12:2-3, CLOT)

The Hebrew word for eonian (v.2) & eon (v.3) above is OLAM which is used of limited durations in the OT. In verse 3 of Daniel 12 are the words "OLAM and further" showing an example of its finite duration in the very next words after Daniel 12:2. Thus, in context, the OLAM occurences in v.2 should both be understood as being of finite duration.

Compare v.3:

l·oulm u·od
for·eon and·futurity

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan12.pdf

OJB Hashem shall reign l’olam va’ed.
Yahweh shall rule to the eon and beyond (Exo 15:18)
Universal Version Bible The Torah By William Petr

Habbukah 3:6:

JPS Tanakh 1917
He standeth, and shaketh the earth, He beholdeth, and maketh the nations to tremble; And the everlasting[ad] mountains are dashed in pieces, The ancient[olam] hills do bow; His goings are as of old[olam].

Young's Literal Translation
He hath stood, and He measureth earth, He hath seen, and He shaketh off nations, And scatter themselves do mountains of antiquity, Bowed have the hills of old, The ways of old are His.

CLV
He stands and is measuring the earth; he sees and is letting loose the nations. And the mountain ranges of futurity are scattering; the eonian hills bow down; his goings are eonian.

Daniel 12:2:

Young's Literal Translation
'And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life
age-during, and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during. (Dan.12:2)

Rotherham
and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, [shall be] to age-
abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence; (Dan.12:2)

-----------------



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

1 Jn.2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

"...it doesn't say what most evangelizers of hopelessness want it to say in that regard either."

"It is false, he maintained, to translate that phrase as "everlasting punishment," introducing into the New Testament the concept found in the Islamic Quran that God is going to torture the wicked forever."

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[Der Alte]

The context supports the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), while v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".

That is only 2. I quoted twenty (20) verses of scripture all of which show the use of the figure of speech Epizeuxis, see quote from E.W. Bullinger at the bottom of the post. FYI Bullinger is quoted as a reliable source in two articles at your pet source tents-Я-us.When you say the context shows something or other the burden of proof is on you to show how. I'll be waiting.
.....The verse which supposedly says "Olam and further' is faulty the word translated "further" is "ad" it means only eternal, it never means further. That is why I do not rely on 'versions" as heterodox do because they can be cherry picked, as you did, and forced to support almost any view.
.....Had you bothered to actually read my post you would have found at the bottom Bullinger says "Compare Rev. 17:14 and 19:16 . Rev. 1:6 . The ages of the ages , i.e. , to the remotest age, for ever and ever." Bullinger is forced to admit that aionios does mean eternal.
And there are a number of verses where olam is paired with ad e.g.עולם ועד "Olam" cannot mean finite duration if it can be paired with "ad." which means only "perpetuity, eternity, ever (-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, + world without end"

עד‛ad
From H5710; properly a (peremptory) terminus, that is, (by implication) duration, in the sense of perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either with or without a preposition): - eternity, ever (-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, + world without end​

2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life
and these to reproach for eonian repulsion." 3 The intelligent shall warn as the warning
of the atmosphere, and those justifying many are as the stars for the eon and further."
(Dan.12:2-3, CLOT)
The Hebrew word for eonian (v.2) & eon (v.3) above is OLAM which is used of limited durations in the OT. In verse 3 of Daniel 12 are the words "OLAM and further" showing an example of its finite duration in the very next words after Daniel 12:2. Thus, in context, the OLAM occurences in v.2 should both be understood as being of finite duration.
Compare v.3:
l·oulm u·od
for·eon and·futurity
OJB Hashem shall reign l’olam va’ed.
Yahweh shall rule to the eon and beyond (Exo 15:18)
Universal Version Bible The Torah By William Petr
Habbukah 3:6:
JPS Tanakh 1917
He standeth, and shaketh the earth, He beholdeth, and maketh the nations to tremble; And the everlasting[ad] mountains are dashed in pieces, The ancient[olam] hills do bow; His goings are as of old[olam].
Young's Literal Translation
He hath stood, and He measureth earth, He hath seen, and He shaketh off nations, And scatter themselves do mountains of antiquity, Bowed have the hills of old, The ways of old are His.
CLV
He stands and is measuring the earth; he sees and is letting loose the nations. And the mountain ranges of futurity are scattering; the eonian hills bow down; his goings are eonian.
Daniel 12:2:
Young's Literal Translation
'And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life
age-during, and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during. (Dan.12:2)
Rotherham
and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, [shall be] to age-
abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence; (Dan.12:2)
1 Jn.2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
"...it doesn't say what most evangelizers of hopelessness want it to say in that regard either."
"It is false, he maintained, to translate that phrase as "everlasting punishment," introducing into the New Testament the concept found in the Islamic Quran that God is going to torture the wicked forever."

The usual copy/paste from tents-Я-us ignored and rates this.

"Why should i respond to those cut & paste quotes from another person, not you? Is there some point to it all?"​

You continue to ignore the fact that even as your own pet source tents-я-us
says the Bible is full hyperbole, it quotes Bullinger. And Bullinger is forced to admit that "olam and olam" and "aionios to aionios" means for ever and ever.

 

[ClementofA]

Bullinger is forced to admit that aionios does mean eternal.

Actually, Bullinger wrote aionios means "of or belonging to an age...."

From Bullinger's notes on Revelation 14:11 (Companion Bible):

"for . . . ever = unto ages of ages. Greek. eis (App-104.) aionas aionon."

Overview - E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes

He also says "aion means "age" in appendix 151 and therein makes no mention of it ever meaning 'eternal' or anything else.

NUMERICAL INDEX OF APPENDIXES IN THE COMPANION BIBLE

In the same appendix he constantly has aion as "age" and also this:

"eis ton aiona tou aionos [to (Appendix 104. vi) the age of the age]..." for Hebrews 1:8 which the KJV renders "forever and ever".

Further along Bullinger wrote these:

"eis tous aionas ton aionon [to (Appendix 104. vi) to the ages of the ages]"
(for Revelation 14:11 & other verses.)

"eis pasas tas geneas tou aionos ton aionon [to (Appendix 104. vi) all the generations of the age of the ages" (for Eph.3:21).

"aionios, of or belonging to an age...."

And likewise re olam he states:

" 'olam. This word is derived from 'alam (to hide), and means the hidden time or age, like aion (see below, II. A), by which word, or its Adjective aionios, it is generally rendered in the Septuagint."

------------------


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

1 Jn.2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

"...it doesn't say what most evangelizers of hopelessness want it to say in that regard either."

"It is false, he maintained, to translate that phrase as "everlasting punishment," introducing into the New Testament the concept found in the Islamic Quran that God is going to torture the wicked forever."

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[Der Alte]

Actually, Bullinger wrote aionios means "of or belonging to an age...."
From Bullinger's notes on Revelation 14:11 (Companion Bible):
"for . . . ever = unto ages of ages. Greek. eis (App-104.) aionas aionon."
He also says "aion means "age" in appendix 151 and therein makes no mention of it ever meaning 'eternal' or anything else.
In the same appendix he constantly has aion as "age" and also this:
"eis ton aiona tou aionos [to (Appendix 104. vi) the age of the age]..." for Hebrews 1:8 which the KJV renders "forever and ever".
Further along Bullinger wrote these:
"eis tous aionas ton aionon [to (Appendix 104. vi) to the ages of the ages]"
(for Revelation 14:11 & other verses.)
"eis pasas tas geneas tou aionos ton aionon [to (Appendix 104. vi) all the generations of the age of the ages" (for Eph.3:21).
"aionios, of or belonging to an age...."
And likewise re olam he states:
" 'olam. This word is derived from 'alam (to hide), and means the hidden time or age, like aion (see below, II. A), by which word, or its Adjective aionios, it is generally rendered in the Septuagint."...

You might wish to make a note, I almost never say anything I have not verified for myself. Unlike some who believe everything they read at selective websites. I knew this argument was coming because I have seen these truncated out-of-context quotes before.
.....As I said, 3 times Bullinger was forced to admit aionios means eternal. The following copied from an actual scanned copy of Bullinger's "Figures of Speech in the Bible" online, link below.

• 1 Tim. 1:17 . Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. pg. 157
• Polysyndeton; or, Many-and, pg 221,. 2 Tm 4:17-18
and will preserve me † unto his heavenly kingdom, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. pg. 245
• Rev. 1:6 . The ages of the ages , i.e. , to the remotest age, for ever and ever. pg. 302​

http://www.biblicalresearchjournal.org/brj-pages_pdf/001ewb_figures_of_speech.pdf

Note, Bullinger cited 1 Tim 1:17, one of the several verses I quoted which prove that "aionios" means "eternal." "Aion" cannot mean a finite period and be paired with "immortal"

1 Timothy 1:17-18
(17) Now unto the King eternal, (1) immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever.(2) Amen.
(1) αιων/aion
(2) εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων/eis tous aionas ton aionon​

 

[ClementofA]

ETA:
Figures of Speech Used in The Bible by E.W. Bullinger Page(s) 189 See at Silva Rhetoricae (rhetoric.byu.edu)
The repetition of the same word in the same sense. When the word is repeated in close and immediate succession, no other word or words coming between, it is called Geminatio ,
a doubling, duplication, a re-doubling . It is also called Iteratio, iteration; Conduplicatio, conduplication , or full doubling .
When the words do not immediately succeed each other, but are separated by one or more intervening words, the figure is then called Epizeuxis.
It is a common and powerful way of emphasizing a particular word, by thus marking it and calling attention to it.
In writing, one might accomplish this by putting the word in larger letters, or by underlining it two or three times. In speaking, it is easy to mark it by expressing it with
increased emphasis or vehemence.
Example(s)
Bullinger's examples:
Gen. 9:25 . A servant of servants shall [Canaan] be: i.e. , the lowest and most degraded of servants, or the most abject slave.
Ex. 26:33 , etc. Holy of holies. In A.V. : the most holy.
Num. 3:32 . Chief of the chief. In A.V. : chief over the chief.
Deut. 10:17 . For Jehovah your Elohim is Elohai of the Elohim , and Adonai of the Adonim , a great El. * In A.V. and R.V. this is rendered, The LORD your God
is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, etc.
1 Kings 8:27 . The heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee: i.e. , the highest heaven. Ecc. 1:2 , etc. Vanity of vanities : i.e. , the greatest vanity.
Song Sol. 1:1 . The song of songs , i.e. , the most beautiful or excellent song.
Dan. 2:37 . Ezek. 26:17 . A king of kings : i.e. , the most mighty king.
Dan. 2:47 . God of gods : i.e. , the great, living, or true God. The most mighty God.
Dan. 8:25 . The Prince of princes : i.e. , the most powerful Prince.
Hos. 10:15 . So shall Bethel do unto you because of your great wickedness. The figure is here translated, and given in the margin Hebrew, the evil of your evil .
Micah 2:4 . A lamentation of lamentations , i.e. , a great lamentation. See above, page 278 . Phil. 3:5 . A Hebrew of the Hebrews , i.e. , a thorough Hebrew. See this verse under Asyndeton
1 Tim. 6:15 . The King of kings, and Lord of lords.
Compare Rev. 17:14 and 19:16 . Rev. 1:6 . The ages of the ages , i.e. , to the remotest age, for ever and ever.
http://www.biblicalresearchjournal.org/brj-pages_pdf/001ewb_figures_of_speech.pdf

Bullinger is certainly entitled to his wrong opinion. However, since Scripture always trumps opinions & bull, in this case it also trumps the bull of Bullinger. Since Christ's reign ends (1 Cor.15:25), His reign "into the ages of the ages" (Rev.11:15) cannot be for ever and ever. Nor can "ages of the ages" be for ever and ever, since it ends along with Christ's reign for the "ages of the ages".

As for Bullinger's biased opinion, AFAIK he was never a universalist. He gives no evidence for his viewpoint of "the ages of the ages" meaning "to the remotest age". Why did he not instead determine it means to the remotest "ages" (plural) since the word is in the plural? Why not "to the most excellent age" or ages, as he states re the "song of songs"? Or "to the greatest ages" as he states regarding "vanity of vanities"? Why blindly accept Bullinger's bald unsupported opinion? Is he a pope? Did he know Greek better than the early church universalists, such as the church father Origen, who spoke of an end of all ages, an end of age of the ages & an end of ages of the ages? If these periods of finite time have an end, then they are not, as Bullinger claims, for ever and ever.

Furthermore, he gives no reason for how he magicly leaps from "to the remotest age" to "for ever and ever". If torment is "to" or "until" a certain age, then it ends before that age starts, so it is not for ever and ever. If torment is "into" (EIS) "the remotest age", that does not necessarily mean it lasts for the entire duration of that age, even if the age is endless. If torment is "into the ages of the ages", the torment makes entrance into those ages, not necessarily throughout the entire duration of them. Therefore the torment "into the ages of the ages" (e.g. Rev.20:10) is of an indefinite period of time. From other Scriptures it is clear that the torment ends.

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[ClementofA]

.....The verse which supposedly says "Olam and further' is faulty the word translated "further" is "ad" it means only eternal, it never means further.

Apparently you think you know more than the early church which accepted the following Greek OT translation of the Hebrew OT of Daniel 12:3:

καὶ οἱ συνιέντες ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι[and further]

Notice the words at the end saying KAI ETI, meaning "and further" or "and still" or "and yet" & other synonyms.

eti: "still, yet...Definition: (a) of time: still, yet, even now, (b) of degree: even, further, more, in addition." Strong's Greek: 2089. ἔτι (eti) -- still, yet

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι means "into the ages and further" as a translation of the Hebrew L'OLAM WA ED[5703, AD] Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

 

[Der Alte]

Bullinger is certainly entitled to his wrong opinion. However, since Scripture always trumps opinions & bull, in this case it also trumps the bull of Bullinger. Since Christ's reign ends (1 Cor.15:25), His reign "into the ages of the ages" (Rev.11:15) cannot be for ever and ever. Nor can "ages of the ages" be for ever and ever, since it ends along with Christ's reign for the "ages of the ages".

Ah yes the old UR switcheroo. I just love this, you quote your pet source tents-я-us supposedly quoting Bullinger as the end all be all ultimate authority but when the same source contradicts UR then it is now "bull." Trying to eat cake and have it too.
Your proof text 1 Cor.15:25 does not say Christ's reign ends, when read in-context. First Luk 1:31-33, which once again proves that aionios means eternal.

Luke 1:31-33
(31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
(32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; (1) and of his kingdom there shall be no end.(2)
(1) εἰς αἰών/eis aion (2) ἔσομαι οὐ τέλος/esomai ou telos. οὐ/ou is the absolutely negative in Greek​

In this passage "aionios" is paired with "there shall be no end." Christ's kingdom cannot be for a finite period and "shall have no end" at the same time. Now let us read Rev 11:15 in light of Luk 1:31-33. Since "aion" means Christ's reign "shall have no end" in Luk 1:31-33. Christ's reign in Rev 11:15 definitely has no end.

Revelation 11:15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever."​

As for Bullinger's biased opinion, AFAIK he was never a universalist. He gives no evidence for his viewpoint of "the ages of the ages" meaning "to the remotest age". Why did he not instead determine it means to the remotest "ages" (plural) since the word is in the plural? Why not "to the most excellent age" or ages, as he states re the "song of songs"? Or "to the greatest ages" as he states regarding "vanity of vanities"? Why blindly accept Bullinger's bald unsupported opinion? Is he a pope? Did he know Greek better than the early church universalists, such as the church father Origen, who spoke of an end of all ages, an end of age of the ages & an end of ages of the ages? If these periods of finite time have an end, then they are not, as Bullinger claims, for ever and ever.

Are the so-called "early universalists" popes that we should blindly accept their "bald unsupported opinions?" You keep saying Origen supposedly said a lot of things. You demand evidence from me and my sources, it is long past time for you to provide evidence for all of your references instead "This guy said this, that guy said that and some other guy said something else." Do not demand of others what you cannot or will not provide yourself. I don't quote bits and pieces I quote full sentences and paragraphs to show context.

Furthermore, he gives no reason for how he magicly leaps from "to the remotest age" to "for ever and ever". If torment is "to" or "until" a certain age, then it ends before that age starts, so it is not for ever and ever. If torment is "into" (EIS) "the remotest age", that does not necessarily mean it lasts for the entire duration of that age, even if the age is endless. If torment is "into the ages of the ages", the torment makes entrance into those ages, not necessarily throughout the entire duration of them. Therefore the torment "into the ages of the ages" (e.g. Rev.20:10) is of an indefinite period of time. From other Scriptures it is clear that the torment ends.

More contradictory arguments about Bullinger. When you quoted him from tents-я-us saying "aionios" means ages etc. he was held up as a pope who must be obeyed but just as soon as I quote him saying "aionios" means "forever" what he said is now "bull." Meaningless rambling "maybe this,""maybe that." "Aionios" the same word that Luke equated with "shall have no end" is the same word which describes the punishment "it shall have no end."

 

[Der Alte]

Apparently you think you know more than the early church which accepted the following Greek OT translation of the Hebrew OT of Daniel 12:3:
καὶ οἱ συνιέντες ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι[and further]
Notice the words at the end saying KAI ETI, meaning "and further" or "and still" or "and yet" & other synonyms.
eti: "still, yet...Definition: (a) of time: still, yet, even now, (b) of degree: even, further, more, in addition." Strong's Greek: 2089. ἔτι (eti) -- still, yet
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι means "into the ages and further" as a translation of the Hebrew L'OLAM WA ED[5703, AD] Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

Just for you information I do not cite my knowledge as superior to anyone, I quote credible, verifiable historical sources. The Greek word "eti" is irrelevant when the Hebrew which it supposedly translates is "ad' and in Dan 12:3 the Jewish scholars translated לעולם ועד/l'olam w'ad as "forever and ever.'

JPS Daniel 12:3
(3) And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn the many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.​

Note the defintion of the Hebrew word "ad" it never means 'beyond," etc

H5703 עד ‛ad
From H5710; properly a (peremptory) terminus, that is, (by implication) duration, in the sense of perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either with or without a preposition): - eternity, ever (-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, + world without end.

​

 

[ClementofA]

Ah yes the old UR switcheroo. I just love this, you quote your pet source tents-я-us supposedly quoting Bullinger as the end all be all ultimate authority but when the same source contradicts UR then it is now "bull." Trying to eat cake and have it too.

First of all, my quotes of Bullinger were not from "tents-r-us". If you had taken 2 seconds to look at the links i provided that would have been obvious.

Secondly, i've never suggested Bullinger as any type of "ultimate authority", but have always referred to the Scriptures & Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, i seek & follow facts & truth. Whether or not a source agrees with UR or not is, therefore, besides the point. What was posted re Bullinger was simply facts to compare with what you had posted.

Are the so-called "early universalists" popes that we should blindly accept their "bald unsupported opinions?" You keep saying Origen supposedly said a lot of things. You demand evidence from me and my sources, it is long past time for you to provide evidence for all of your references instead "This guy said this, that guy said that and some other guy said something else." Do not demand of others what you cannot or will not provide yourself. I don't quote bits and pieces I quote full sentences and paragraphs to show context.

The relevant quotes re Origen have been given to you a number of times. I have them saved in my files. You don't? BTW, nice avoidance of the real issues/points i made in response to Bullinger with your little side show of comments above. ​

More contradictory arguments about Bullinger. When you quoted him from tents-я-us saying "aionios" means ages etc. he was held up as a pope who must be obeyed but just as soon as I quote him saying "aionios" means "forever" what he said is now "bull." Meaningless rambling "

maybe this,""maybe that."

These confused errant remarks are just like what i already corrected above.

 

[Der Alte]

First of all, my quotes of Bullinger were not from "tents-r-us". If you had taken 2 seconds to look at the links i provided that would have been obvious.
Secondly, i've never suggested Bullinger as any type of "ultimate authority", but have always referred to the Scriptures & Jesus Christ.
Thirdly, i seek & follow facts & truth. Whether or not a source agrees with UR or not is, therefore, besides the point. What was posted re Bullinger was simply facts to compare with what you had posted.

When you quote Bullinger or anyone else in opposition to something I have posted yoou are assuming that source is more authoritative than anything I have posted. You made no cogent points about Bullinger. As I said you quote people who appear to support UR, if the same person says something which contradicts UR then as we see above that source is "bull." If you seek and follow facts and truth why is it you only quote from UR friendly sources and summarily dismiss any source that is not UR as biased?

The relevant quotes re Origen have been given to you a number of times. I have them saved in my files. You don't? BTW, nice avoidance of the real issues/points i made in response to Bullinger with your little side show of comments above.

I do not have the time, patience or inclination to to go back and try to find every source you have cited. The rules of the road say if you quote a source you fully identify it every time you quote it, just as I do. I got my instructions in military advance courses and grad school and got big red marks on anything that was not properly cited. I can just see me writing a decision paper for a supervisor and not properly citing as source saying "this guy said this, and that guy said that and somebody else said something else." I'd be out the door.

These confused errant remarks are just like what i already corrected above.

You have argued and dismissed much of what I post but you never corrected anything of mine.

 

[ClementofA]

Your proof text 1 Cor.15:25 does not say Christ's reign ends, when read in-context. First Luk 1:31-33, which once again proves that aionios means eternal.
Luke 1:31-33
(31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
(32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; (1) and of his kingdom there shall be no end.(2)
(1) εἰς αἰών/eis aion (2) ἔσομαι οὐ τέλος/esomai ou telos. οὐ/ou is the absolutely negative in Greek
In this passage "aionios" is paired with "there shall be no end." Christ's kingdom cannot be for a finite period and "shall have no end" at the same time. Now let us read Rev 11:15 in light of Luk 1:31-33. Since "aion" means Christ's reign "shall have no end" in Luk 1:31-33. Christ's reign in Rev 11:15 definitely has no end.
Revelation 11:15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever."

Christ's reign ends:

1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

Therefore He reigns, not forever, but for the eons:

Luke 1:33 He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons.

Therefore "for the eons" is not eternal, but temporary & has an end.

Christ gives up the kingdom to God:

1 Corinthians 15:24a Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father

What is "of" His kingdom [that is, the fruits of it] shall have no end:

Luke 1:33 and of his kingdom there shall be no end

Eventually all, including Christ, become subject to God:

1 Cor.15:28 And when all things shall be subject unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him

The result of this is God becoming "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28), referring to universal salvation:

1 Cor.15:28 And when all things shall be subject unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

"To say that "all in all" signifies "the manifestation of God's supremacy"...is very far indeed from the truth...When we say "Christ is my all," what do we mean? That He is our Lord? Yes, and our Saviour and Friend and our Lover, our Wisdom and our Righteousness, and our Holiness--He is everything to us!...And that is just what God wishes to be and what He will be!...Will He be this only in some? No! He will be All in all!...we have said that when the last enemy [death] is abolished, then the Son abdicates and God becomes All in all. If there were still enmity we might imagine God being over all, but with all enmity gone, it is easy to see how He can become All in all...The "kingdom" is given up to the Father, after all sovereignty and authority and power have been abrogated. What kind of a "supremacy" will God "fully manifest" which has no power, no authority, no sovereignty? Thank God, all these elements, which characterized government during the eons, will be utterly unnecessary when the Son of God is finished with His "mediatorial" work. Instead of God's supremacy being fully manifested at that time, it will be entirely absent, and God, as Father, will guide His family by the sweet constraint of love."

1 Cor.15:22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified." 23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;" 24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power." 25 For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy is being abolished: death. 27 For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him." 28 Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.)" (CLV)

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

 

[ClementofA]

When you quote Bullinger or anyone else in opposition to something I have posted yoou are assuming that source is more authoritative than anything I have posted.

Actually, you cannot tell me why i post something. You don't know, are not a mind reader & are totally wrong.

As I said you quote people who appear to support UR, if the same person says something which contradicts UR then as we see above that source is "bull."

I didn't say Bullinger as a source is entirely wrong. I pointed out one specific comment of his that i thought was wrong & detailed why. You haven't responded to most of my comments re Bullinger with anything besides a brusque dismissal.

If you seek and follow facts and truth why is it you only quote from UR friendly sources and summarily dismiss any source that is not UR as biased?

I don't quote from only UR friendly sources. And you don't see people's hearts to know what they are seeking in the real world 24/7.

I do not have the time, patience or inclination to to go back and try to find every source you have cited.

It's not my issue that you claim to have no records or remembrance of things that have been repeatedly posted here. Furthermore, I'd rather not fill up my posts with info that detracts from the main points being made, which you have not dealt with.

You have argued and dismissed much of what I post but you never corrected anything of mine.

LOL. Any objective observer of even the last few posts should see how wrong that is.

 

[ClementofA]

The Greek word "eti" is irrelevant when the Hebrew which it supposedly translates is "ad' and in Dan 12:3 the Jewish scholars translated לעולם ועד/l'olam w'ad as "forever and ever.'

JPS Daniel 12:3
(3) And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn the many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.​

Note the defintion of the Hebrew word "ad" it never means 'beyond," etc

I wouldn't conclude that a 20th century English translation by a few Jews makes a translation accepted by the early church "irrelevant".

H5703 עד ‛ad
From H5710; properly a (peremptory) terminus, that is, (by implication) duration, in the sense of perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either with or without a preposition): - eternity, ever (-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, + world without end.

​

What is this, Strongs that you said had 15,000 errors in it? Strong's is not far off the mark when it says "duration", before erring with "in the sense of perpetuity", for which it provides no evidence. The end part of your quote is mostly just KJV mistranslations by those biased towards endless punishment. At least the rendering "old" shows that the word is used of finite "duration", which your source was forced to admit. The idea of "duration" is in harmony with the translations of AD[Strongs # 5703] at Daniel 12:3 that i posted & its synonyns, such as "further", "beyond", "still", etc.






​

 

[Der Alte]

Christ's reign ends:
1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
Therefore He reigns, not forever, but for the eons:
Luke 1:33 He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons.
Therefore "for the eons" is not eternal, but temporary & has an end.
Christ gives up the kingdom to God:
1 Corinthians 15:24a Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father
What is "of" His kingdom [that is, the fruits of it] shall have no end:
Luke 1:33 and of his kingdom there shall be no end
Eventually all, including Christ, become subject to God:
1 Cor.15:28 And when all things shall be subject unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him
The result of this is God becoming "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28), referring to universal salvation:
1 Cor.15:28 And when all things shall be subject unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
"To say that "all in all" signifies "the manifestation of God's supremacy"...is very far indeed from the truth...When we say "Christ is my all," what do we mean? That He is our Lord? Yes, and our Saviour and Friend and our Lover, our Wisdom and our Righteousness, and our Holiness--He is everything to us!...And that is just what God wishes to be and what He will be!...Will He be this only in some? No! He will be All in all!...we have said that when the last enemy [death] is abolished, then the Son abdicates and God becomes All in all. If there were still enmity we might imagine God being over all, but with all enmity gone, it is easy to see how He can become All in all...The "kingdom" is given up to the Father, after all sovereignty and authority and power have been abrogated. What kind of a "supremacy" will God "fully manifest" which has no power, no authority, no sovereignty? Thank God, all these elements, which characterized government during the eons, will be utterly unnecessary when the Son of God is finished with His "mediatorial" work. Instead of God's supremacy being fully manifested at that time, it will be entirely absent, and God, as Father, will guide His family by the sweet constraint of love."
1 Cor.15:22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified." 23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;" 24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power." 25 For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy is being abolished: death. 27 For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him." 28 Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.)" (CLV)
https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Remember this post?

Why should i respond to those cut & paste quotes from another person, not you? Is there some point to it all?

 

[Der Alte]

I wouldn't conclude that a 20th century English translation by a few Jews makes a translation accepted by the early church "irrelevant".

Your objection is irrelevant. The 1917 JPS has been accepted by Jews for 100 years.

The Jewish Publication Society's plan called for a committee of six editors who would be responsible for the entire translation. The editors, who included Solomon Schechter, Cyrus Adler and Joseph Jacobs, included faculty members of Hebrew Union College (associated with Reform Judaism), the Jewish Theological Seminary (part of the Conservative Judaism movement), and Dropsie College (a graduate school not affiliated with any movement).[4] The editors were led by Editor-in-Chief Max Margolis. The work was accordingly completed in November 1915 and published two years later.[1]
[1]Greenspoon, Leonard J. (2004). "Jewish Translations of the Bible". In Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 2013. ISBN 0-19-529751-2.​

What is this, Strongs that you said had 15,000 errors in it? Strong's is not far off the mark when it says "duration", before erring with "in the sense of perpetuity", for which it provides no evidence. The end part of your quote is mostly just KJV mistranslations by those biased towards endless punishment. At least the rendering "old" shows that the word is used of finite "duration", which your source was forced to admit. The idea of "duration" is in harmony with the translations of AD[Strongs # 5703] at Daniel 12:3 that i posted & its synonyns, such as "further", "beyond", "still", etc.

More irrelevant objections. Unless you have a degree in Hebrew your opinion is meaningless.

†I.עַדS5703, 5704, 5705, 5706 TWOT1565a, 1565b, 1565c, 2899 GK6329, 6330, 6331 and וָעֶ֑ד (so always) n.m. perpetuity ( = advancing time, cf. Assyrian adû, time, at the present time);— 1. of past time: מִנִּי עַד Jb 20:4; הררי עד Hb 3:6 ancient mountains (cf. עולם 1) so Gn 49:26 (read הַרְרֵי עַד for הוֹרַ֔י עַד). 2. of future time, לָעַד (usually לָעַ֑ד) for ever: a. during lifetime, of king ψ 21:7 Pr 29:14; of others ψ 9:19; 22:27; 61:9 Pr 12:19. b. of things, לָעַד בַּצּוּר יֵחָֽצֵב֑וּן Jb 19:24. c. of continuous existence, of nations, גְּבֶרֶת עַד (of Babylon, cf. עולם 2 c) Is 47:7 (yet v. III. עַד II 3); anger, לעד Am 1:11; elsewhere עֲדֵי עַד ψ 83:18; 92:8 Is 26:4; 65:18. d. of divine existence, שֹׁכֵן עַד Is 57:15; attributes, לָעַד ψ 111:3, 10; 112:3, 9; residence in Zion, עֲדֵי עַד 132:14; law of God, לָעַד 19:10; promise as to dynasty of David, לָעַד 89:30; עֲדֵי עַד 132:12; inheritance of land, לָעַד 37:29; continuous relations between God and his people 1 Ch 28:9; Is 64:8; Mi 7:18 לעד. e. phrases (see עולם 2 m): (לְ)עוֹלָם וָעֶ֑ד ψ 9:6; 10:16; 21:5; 45:7, 18; 48:15; 52:10; 104:5; 119:44; 145:1, 2, 21; Ex 15:18; Mi 4:5; Dn 12:3; לָעַד לְעוֹלָם ψ 111:8; 148:6; עַד־עוֹלְמֵי עַד Is 45:17.—Is 30:8 read (עַד־עוֹלָם) לְעֵד for a witness ( Ges Ew Di Che Du) for MT לָעַד.
Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 723). Oxford: Clarendon Press.





​

 

[ClementofA]

.....The verse which supposedly says "Olam and further' is faulty the word translated "further" is "ad" it means only eternal, it never means further.

You quoted a source that says the word has been translated "old". Old does not mean "eternal".​

 

[ClementofA]

Your objection is irrelevant. The 1917 JPS has been accepted by Jews for 100 years.

​

How is it irrelevant? I said:

I wouldn't conclude that a 20th century English translation by a few Jews makes a translation accepted by the early church "irrelevant".




​