Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

[ClementofA]

Further, since Matthew 25:46 contrasts "eternal punishment" with "eternal life",

Stop right there.

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959
"And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life."

Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898:
"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."


The vast majority of learned sources agree the word aionios, & the noun, aion, can 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):

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


"...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)."
http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/viewFile/jat.2015-3.181913130418a/271

"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." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book45.html

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.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd21.html

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?"
https://tentmaker.org/forum/word-studies/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?" "

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


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").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Talbott
http://www.thomastalbott.com/index.php

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

I strongly disagree with this convoluted reasoning but in the future I will change my argument to say that "Jesus knew what the Jews believed about hell including the belief in eternal punishment, He never corrected the Jews

You can feel as strong about your disagreement as you want; with your admission that the Jews did not have a single unified view of hell, your argument that Jesus' "never corrected the Jews" falls to the ground. There was no single dominant view to correct; He'd be expected by the people at the time to teach His Own view. Which He did.

Additionally, your newly edited argument above actually requires the premise that Jesus "never corrected the Jews" about *any* view of gehenna (since you no longer restrict your premise to the eternal-torment view), which is transparently false even with all your presuppositions intact. He corrected them, and the Gospels record them as corrections.

Rubbish! I did exactly what your guy did, he only quoted one parable and that was supposed to refute everything I posted from the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. Lets get real here.

Once again, Der Alter, and for the eleventeenth time, nobody is trying to refute any of your sources -- we all agree that those are genuine Jewish views. I'm showing that the evidence you quoted don't lead to the conclusion you claimed.

Unlike all of your sources, the guy I quoted actually is presenting a synchronic study of what the Jews believed when Jesus was here. Your sources have nothing at all to tell us about what Jews believed in Jesus' time, and they don't claim to. You didn't even look for dates, so you didn't notice that. If you had looked, you would have found that the Talmudic quotes are from AD 300-600ish; they're NOT from the Mishna that would have been around in Jesus' time, but from vastly later analysis accumulated on top of that. (And we know that for sure, because we have copies of the Mishna.)

Nonsense.

It's NOT nonsense to point to cherry-picking together with other problems; it might be wrong, but it's not nonsense. For a specific example, when you cherry-picked the quote about Christians being withered forever without escape, which was your ONLY support for claiming that Jews believe the punishment of gehenna is eternal, that was a cherry-pick because the sentence right before it said that for everyone else gehenna ends, some because they burn up utterly and some because they ascend to heaven. The data you looked at didn't support your view, so you kept reading until you found data you liked.

Unlike you, I accept your data, and point out what I know about it -- from the very first message, I told you that your data is from way later than the life of Jesus.

I looked briefly I saw one apparent misrepresentaton of the Talmud and one parable.

Maybe you did see a misrepresentation, or maybe you didn't; either way, you didn't show me it (and still haven't, I wonder what you imagine it is!). Instead you flunked your SAT "reading comprehension" by accusing the quote of a bunch of errors that aren't even possible to find in the quote.

(The parable was, of course, part of the evidence he was presenting, so I'm puzzled that you list it as though it were a problem.)

I'm not interested in some scholars conclusions. I am interested in credible, verifiable, historical evidence such as I provided i.e. the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud.

Seriously? You don't know those articles are all scholars' conclusions too? Less than that; they are brief collective summaries of MANY scholars conclusions, including mentions of contradictions where scholars disagree. Your best reference was merely a _list_ of old (not ancient) Jewish claims, without any attempt to put them in any kind of chronological order. Even the Talmud is scholars' conclusions, although the scholars then had different concerns than ours do.

More importantly, they're not the right kind of evidence to prove the argument you made -- because they don't claim to be about what the Jews at Jesus' time believed, and your argument was that Jesus was not correcting the belief of the Jews at the time about the views you quoted.

Which means he might be a Christian with a particular agenda. A Jewish scholar probably would not care how Jewish beliefs did or didn't influence Christianity.

Wow, that's great -- now you add an unsubstantiated speculative ad hominem. I dunno, maybe! I wonder, Der Alter, are YOU "a Christian with a particular agenda?" (Of course you are. And there's no shame in that, except the shame you just brought to it.)

Individual quotes from my post.

I'm not sure why you posted those. Just bang, a bunch of repeated quotes with no explanation.

I judged the article at your link on the paucity of credible, verifiable, historical evidence.

All of your specific accusations were false (even your claim that he was a modern Jew), and you spoke as though you witnessed the problems. Guess what it's called when you speak as a witness but are saying false things? "False witness."

Your current claim of "paucity" is also false witness by your own admission -- not only have you not clicked on the link (according to you), you didn't even go back to check whether my quote included an attribution of the ancient quote. As follows:

The same thing can be said about the parable your guy "quoted." I don't recall, did he cite a source?

See what I mean? You say things without even _checking_ to see if it's true. You don't care. This is only an internet debate. You're right to not care. But you're wrong to make stuff up and pretend it's true when you don't care enough to check.

[Following his claim that his sources included no myths and didn't include any statements presented as though they were myths, I quoted one of the myths in his biggest source. His reply:]

That's only one, got any more?

I don't need any more, since I've disproved your ridiculous claim that none of the statements are presented as myths; posting more and more evidence isn't needed.

But you know they're presented as myths, if you read the entire article. It's chock-full of quotes attributed to angels and demons, actions which are supposed to take place in the future, explicitly contradictory details of cosmic geography such as the size and location of gehenna, and so on. Your claim that nothing in it is presented as myth is simply impossible. Nobody who's glanced at it believes it.

But again, this is trivial compared to the fact that your evidence is all for the wrong time period to support your argument; and that's trivial compared to the fact that your argument is based on the disproven and now-conceded assumption that Jesus was speaking against the background of an exclusively eternal-torment view of Gehenna. Your argument is falsified three times over. The only one your argument COULD survive (if it survived the others) is the point about myths, but you apparently didn't even read your own source there to assess what I was saying.

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

In the gospels Jesus used the word death 17 times. When Jesus meant death He said death.

Right, He did. And when He said "perish" he also meant it; and when He said the saved attain to the age to come and can no longer die He meant that. And when Jesus said "fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell," he used the word that means to make someone dead, and very clearly and specifically said that this making dead is part of why you should fear (obey) God rather than men.

Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4
“‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.

This is a rhetorical dialogue with someone who believed in metempsychosis. He's talking specifically about the person's claim that the punishment for not preparing oneself to see God is to be incarnated as an animal, but he points out that this punishment actually doesn't correct the person's behavior at all, because they don't remember it. He's not giving a general statement about the definition of a punishment; he's only pointing out that his opponent is wrong in a specific claim about the purpose of the alleged reincarnation.

Twice Jesus mentioned a punishment worse than death.

Funny, your examples are neither one compared to death. You could have quoted Luke 12:5 like I did, which actually IS a comparison to killing. You didn't want to, because it says the punishment of gehenna includes being killed.

The verse about Judas says it's worse for him to have existed than not existing; the one about those who cause little ones to stumble says the fate is worse than having a millstone hung about your neck and being thrown into the sea. Neither one says the fate doesn't include death.

The prophecy about Judas would be true merely if he suffered more than life gave him joy. How long that would take I have no idea.

The comparison to a millstone does include death -- in fact, adding the millstone makes the death by drowning quicker and therefore less painless then throwing a man in without a millstone. This suggest the point is to suggest a _certain_ and _rapid_ death without any hope of rescue, not to compare any measure of pain. The same measurement is used elsewhere, for example for the unholy city Babylon in Revelation, which is destroyed "in a single day."

That's from Mark 9; if you keep reading you'll find explanations of Gehenna. In that passage, gehenna is always said to be worse than "entering the kingdom" (or some other expression for eternal glory) "without a hand" (or otherwise crippled). NEVER is Gehenna directly compared to a painful experience; always it's said to be worse than the permanent loss of a part of your body (a common mistake is to assume it's being compared to the pain of amputation, but you will find the language obvious once you look at it). In Matt 5:29, this comparison is explicitly extended -- there Gehenna is specifically said to be the loss of one's "whole body."

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

The vast majority of learned sources agree the word aionios, & the noun, aion, can refer to a duration which is of a limited time period that has an end.

I'd be surprised if all of them didn't agree that aionios can mean either one, depending on context (in other words, I accept that point, although it's a case-by-case contest and not merely an ambiguity). But you're simply wrong about aion, but not for the reason you appear to think.

The problem is that although the Greek word /aion/ means an age of definite but unspecified length, the phrase /eis ton aiona/ means "forever", in all known cases and without exception (well, except for figures of speech like hyperbole). It appears in Plato, the LXX, and the New Testament, and as I've mentioned, all translators render that phrase "forever."

Your argument here depends on all the translators being wrong, and on so-called "word-for-word" translations being the least misleading. But every preface to those will always warn that they are misleading. It's risky to assume that the idioms and phrases of one language can be thrown into another language without change.

 

[ClementofA]

I'd be surprised if all of them didn't agree that aionios can mean either one, depending on context (in other words, I accept that point, although it's a case-by-case contest and not merely an ambiguity). But you're simply wrong about aion, but not for the reason you appear to think.

The problem is that although the Greek word /aion/ means an age of definite but unspecified length, the phrase /eis ton aiona/ means "forever", in all known cases and without exception (well, except for figures of speech like hyperbole). It appears in Plato, the LXX, and the New Testament, and as I've mentioned, all translators render that phrase "forever."

That's false. The translator here does not render the plural of the phrase "forever", but "to the ages":

Luke 1:33 Interlinear: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages; and of his reign there shall be no end.'

Neither do at least 4 other translations of Lk.1:33 listed on that site. And there are others also that do not translate the phrase "forever" at Lk.1:33. And that could be multiplied many times over where the phrase occurs elsewhere in ancient usage.

Also, I've already pointed out how the phrase in Lk.1:33 refers to a limited period of time that has a beginning and an ending. Since Christ's reign ends as per 1 Cor.15:24-26.

Furthermore, in the LXX, Mic. 4:5 has eis ton aióna kai epekeina, "into the eon and beyond". If eis ton aiona meant "forever" there would be nothing after "forever", no "beyond".

Likewise Dan. 12:3 has eis tous aiónas kai eti, "into the eons and further".

And so on similarly with other examples that could be provided.

Your argument here depends on all the translators being wrong, and on so-called "word-for-word" translations being the least misleading. But every preface to those will always warn that they are misleading. It's risky to assume that the idioms and phrases of one language can be thrown into another language without change.

I think what you should have said is my argument rests on the pro Damnationist translators biased to the theological position of endless punishment being wrong when they change the literal meaning "to the ages" into "forever". In so doing they change the word of God and deceive the masses. In so doing they also interpret instead of faithfully translate the Holy Scriptures.


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[stuart lawrence]

And as you point out, this good news includes the wonderful fact that we do not have to do anything to earn God's acceptance, it is a gift of grace received by simple faith.

Do you ever preach on the parable of the sower Mark? I used to wonder how satan could snatch the word out of someone's heart that was placed there.
Imagine a new convert. They stand before God spotless in his sight. They are justified before him, not because of anything they did, but because Christ died for them. You do well to say they were accepted by God without having to do anything to be accepted apart from having simple faith in order to be saved.
So how does satan snatch the word out of their heart? Well he would have a tough time trying to convince them Jesus didn't die at Calvary for the convert is convinced he did. But satan doesn't have to convince the convert of that. For he is very subtle. He appeals to logic and reasoning.
He reminds the convert that God hates sin, you cannot be a Christian if you live a sinfull lifestyle, everyone knows that. So now the convert is saved they must live a pure and holy life and cease their sin, otherwise they cannot be a Christian.
The convert accepts this, for who could argue against such logic. And so they set out on the Christian path, determinined to live a pure and holy life, one of not committing sin, so they may remain saved.
Satan has now snatched the word out of the converts heart that was planted there.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Do you ever preach on the parable of the sower Mark? I used to wonder how satan could snatch the word out of someone's heart that was placed there.
Imagine a new convert. They stand before God spotless in his sight. They are justified before him, not because of anything they did, but because Christ died for them. You do well to say they were accepted by God without having to do anything to be accepted apart from having simple faith in order to be saved.
So how does satan snatch the word out of their heart? Well he would have a tough time trying to convince them Jesus didn't die at Calvary for the convert is convinced he did. But satan doesn't have to convince the convert of that. For he is very subtle. He appeals to logic and reasoning.
He reminds the convert that God hates sin, you cannot be a Christian if you live a sinfull lifestyle, everyone knows that. So now the convert is saved they must live a pure and holy life and cease their sin, otherwise they cannot be a Christian.
The convert accepts this, for who could argue against such logic. And so they set out on the Christian path, determinined to live a pure and holy life, one of not committing sin, so they may remain saved.
Satan has now snatched the word out of the converts heart that was planted there.

stuart, do you really think Jesus would state it so abstrusely?

Haven't you gone to bed yet? Or are you just getting up?

 

[stuart lawrence]

stuart, do you really think Jesus would state it so abstrusely?

Please explain

 

[1stcenturylady]

Please explain

It would just be so difficult to understand if Jesus meant what you are meaning.

 

[stuart lawrence]

It would just be so difficult to understand if Jesus meant what you are meaning.

My dear lady, I like you( as a sister in Christ) tis the truth.
And I agree, for many it would be difficult to understand. Can we leave it at that? Let's play nice

 

[1stcenturylady]

My dear lady, I like you( as a sister in Christ) tis the truth.
And I agree, for many it would be difficult to understand. Can we leave it at that? Let's play nice

Why are you still up?

 

[stuart lawrence]

Why are you still up?

I haven't felt well, found it difficult to sleep

 

[stuart lawrence]

Why are you still up?

Hows that minister of yours who views the message as I do? I've taken much comfort from him

 

[Darren J. Clark]

It would just be so difficult to understand if Jesus meant what you are meaning.

The argument from Stuart does appear to be speculative.

 

[stuart lawrence]

It would just be so difficult to understand if Jesus meant what you are meaning.

I will explain.
The new convert stands before God spotless in his sight. For they have a saviour from their sin. They are justified before him because of What Christ did for them. Faith in him is their righteousness/ rightstanding before God. The word is in their heart:

But now a righteousness apart from law has been made known, to which the law and prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe
Rom.3:21&22

But satan appeals to human logic and reason. The result is, the converts righteousness/justification before God changes and subsequently hinges on not committing sin, it no longer hinges on faith in Christ, the word has now been taken out of their heart.

Sin is the transgression of the law. 1john3:4

Therefore, if you observe the law you do not commit sin, if you fail to observe it you do:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous/ justified in his sight by observing the law, rather through the law we become conscious of sin
Rom3:20
The convert is now trying to be righteous/ justified before God by observing the law/ not committing sin. For that is what their christianity now hinges on, it does not therefore hinge on faith in Christ.
Hence, the true word has been removed from the converts heart

 

[1stcenturylady]

I will explain.
The new convert stands before God spotless in his sight. For they have a saviour from their sin. They are justified before him because of What Christ did for them. Faith in him is their righteousness/ rightstanding before God. The word is in their heart:

But now a righteousness apart from law has been made known, to which the law and prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe
Rom.3:21&22

But satan appeals to human logic and reason. The result is, the converts righteousness/justification before God changes and subsequently hinges on not committing sin, it no longer hinges on faith in Christ, the word has now been taken out of their heart.

Sin is the transgression of the law. 1john3:4

Therefore, if you observe the law you do not commit sin, if you fail to observe it you do:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous/ justified in his sight by observing the law, rather through the law we become conscious of sin
Rom3:20
The convert is now trying to be righteous/ justified before God by observing the law/ not committing sin. For that is what their christianity now hinges on, it does not therefore hinge on faith in Christ.
Hence, the true word has been removed from the converts heart

I hope you are feeling better today, and got enough rest.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I hope you are feeling better today, and got enough rest.

Thanks, I'm feeling much better. Hope you are well also

 

[stuart lawrence]

I hope you are feeling better today, and got enough rest.

I'm going to visit a Christian community tomorrow I once lived in. They are predominantly catholic( though charismatic) but hey, no one's perfect!

 

[1stcenturylady]

I'm going to visit a Christian community tomorrow I once lived in. They are predominantly catholic( though charismatic) but hey, no one's perfect!

Has the Holy Spirit taught them not to pray to dead people?

 

[stuart lawrence]

Has the Holy Spirit taught them not to pray to dead people?

Now now, don't be like that!
Coming from a fundamentalist background, when I went to stay with them, I felt it my duty to point out their doctrinal errors! It went down like a lead balloon, but they bore with me!
They live in one of those quaint English villages you said you would love to visit, in an area known as the Cotswolds, with plenty more of those quaint villages.
Why not go and stay there for a couple of weeks, they take guests. Then you can discuss praying to the departed with them