Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

[Dartman]

The Scriptures are VERY clear, the wicked ..... ALL the wicked, are going to be "burned up", "ashes", "destroyed", "return to the grave/sheol". They are going to be equally dead, forever.

So, how can the Scriptures state some will be "beaten with few stripes" .... while others are "beaten with many stripes"? (Luke 12:47,48) ... or, the Scriptures state one punishment will be worse than another ... 2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

I am convinced, the answer is not; one will be deader than the other.
I am also convinced the "beating" isn't literal.
I believe the answer is, all sinners will confess;
Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

I am ALSO convinced, the confession will be genuine.
A genuine confession requires an accurate understanding of guilt.
An accurate understanding of guilt requires seeing from God's perspective.
It appears the sinner will be granted a clear mind, with clear understanding of God's view of their sins.
The result of this understanding is shame.
No wonder there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth".
No wonder greater guilt = greater punishment/beating.

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

That annihilationist proof text was already refuted along with a number of other posts Mark Corbett (& other endless annihilation supporters) have never answered

You say "have never answered" when we have actually answered and interacted in detail. You're so fixated on convincing people that you're willing to openly make blatantly false statements. How do you live with yourself?

Seriously, there's no way I'm going to go back and interact when you're just going to say it never happened. This is a big deal, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Willie, I've already given you examples from the Greek OT where "eis ton aiona" (and the plural form) are used of finite duration, contrary to your claim it always means "forever". And told you that i could provide more examples. So i gave you evidence for my position.

I'm "William", by the way.

We both gave evidence, but it's false that you can claim actively disputed evidence as though it were conclusive, and you are being needlessly false to any principles of debate when you re-tender the evidence as though I had not considered it when actually I am currently actively discussing it.

Where is your evidence for your claim that i already refuted?

You did not refute my claim; what you did was claim it was false and offer specific verses into evidence. But your offered evidence consisted entirely of the same claims that were already in the evidence I had offered (which I see you are falsely denying I'd offered); you provided no new or clarifying information which, in principle, COULD settle our disagreement.

To settle this argument you must have some reason to believe Christ's reign is temporary, in contradiction of the passages you've admitted into evidence which explicitly say it has no end. The actual Biblical evidence that Christ's reign will not end, some of which you yourself tendered, is precisely the same sort of evidence you claim you would accept if the Bible offered it regarding final punishment -- and I pointed that naked hypocrisy out without any response from you.

Scripture clearly reveals Christ's temporary rule for the eon and eons (1 Cor.15:26; Lk.1:33, etc).

I rebutted all five of your points you claimed as support for 1 Cor 15:26 (which we will discuss below), and you have yet to deal with Luke 1:33 which I introduced as my evidence EXCEPT by first splitting it up and ignoring that it's a parallel, and second by quoting other texts which like it also say Christ's reign will have no end.

You have no reason at all to claim Christ's rule is temporary; none at all; and many reasons to think it has no end (because that's the only way its duration is ever described). Therefore, your interpretation of /eis ton aiona/, which is the duration of His reign, has no grounding and must be rejected.

John's Revelation refers to His temporary 1000 year millennial age reign.

John's Revelation also unmistakably shows Christ on the Throne with God after the millennial age reign, and continues to show men acting as "kings of the Earth" as well, over whom Christ is identified as "the archon of the kings of the Earth" in chapter 1. The culmination of the vision shows that "The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city,and His servants will serve Him. Night will no longer exist, and people will not need lamplight or sunlight, because the Lord God will give them light;" we see that this is an endless state and simply the way things will be; "And they will reign forever and ever," concomitant to that previously endless state.

The verse you just cited to show an "end" of Christ's reign actually immediately precedes Christ's glorious reign. Your evidence again _directly_ disproves your hypothesis. And you know this; you admit in the same post that even Rev 22 is not an end of Christ's reign. Yet you pretend not to know this here, merely for the sake of scoring a cheap debating point.

BTW, Jewish literature (before, during and after Jesus) also speaks of a temporary Messianic reign, so it's not like Paul & John invented an idea that no one had ever thought of before.

As you should know, that Jewish literature is operating from a completely different concept of who and what Messiah is.

Paul and John both spoke of an endless reign of Christ, as did Luke and Daniel. Your only pertinent evidence regarding a temporary reign has been your claim that Paul meant "until" to mean that Christ abdicates at that point, when actually Paul's purpose is to establish a sequence of events to set in order the resurrection, so that "until" offers one of those points and shows that Christ's reign exists prior to it (without denying that it also exists after it).

What secular uses? Can you quote even a single one in accord with your theory?

"Can" I? Are you playing pretend again? I pointed to the LSJ when I said that, which lists many specific examples. There's a full text version at Perseus which I recommend (scroll to /aion/, click "LSJ"). It's natural that many of the examples are LXX, which I admit would beg the question due to your claim that the Bible might be assuming a many-ages system rather than using the phrase with its customary force, so I expect you'd look at the examples which are not from the LXX.

The natural force of the word /aion/ is the lifetime of someone, and when used without specific qualification, it means the lifetime of a ruler, and by extension (for general Greek usage) a god or a force of nature. From this latter unqualified use we can see that "the aion", when unqualified, is expected to mean limitless time, at least so far as it's ruled by a common principle. This is how Plato and Aristotle used it, and how it's used by all the surviving texts. Most interesting are its uses in prepositional phrases like /apo ton aiona/ (since the age [began]) and /eis ton aiona/ (for the age [of the ruler]), along with the /heos ton aiona/ (until the age [begins]) which appears in Judith's famous hell passage and some places in the LXX.

Because the word itself inherently means "lifespan" or even "life", I accept there's some ambiguity about the noun by itself. But there's nearly no ambiguity about the unqualified prepositional phrase /eis ton aiona/. I can compose a sentence which would make it mean something else (for example, I could make it mean "approaching the new king's coronation", given a sentence in which "the age" would be obviously the rulership of the king-about-to-take-the-throne), but none of those sentences seem to be in the Bible.

Even more obvious, though, is the systematic use throughout the LXX and NT of the negated /eis ton aiona/, either to mean "never" or to mean "not forever". The first example suffices: in Genesis 3:22 in either Hebrew or Greek, Adam is forbidden to live /L'olam/ and /eis ton aiona/. If the Greek has its ordinary finite meaning, Adam is forbidden to live his own lifetime, which makes no sense; but in its most common sense in the Bible, Adam simply cannot live without end. His life will end when he dies.

Finally, I must note the book you quoted a reference from, "Life Time Entirety. A Study of AION ...". It restates everything I've said above, and much more. It gives probably as many facts as are available. I cite it, in its entirety and in its own self-summaries, as final proof that the overall meaning of /eis ton aiona/ at the time of the NT was "forever".

There's nothing in Dan.7:14, CLV, that states His rule never ends. It says "as an eonian jurisdiction, will not pass away" which is like saying His millennial eon reign, as an eonian reign, will not pass away. IOW it will endure for the entire 1000 years.

You think it will endure 1000 years, AND THEN PASS AWAY. But that's not what Daniel says; he says nothing about 1000 years, and affirms that it won't pass away and won't be destroyed. Daniel uses three terms for everlastingness and three terms for rulership; he juggles them in various forms, but the one thing common to all three is lack of limiting end; the point is that the Son of Man's rule is not going to end.

Unlike earthly rulers reigns which don't last for an entire epochal eon, but only as long as they live, at the longest, so probably less than 50 years.

No, that's not even close to true. Rulers lives last as long as their rule does; that's why Nebuchadnezzar's proclamation of God as the one who lives forever is so important. The use of /aion/ to mean a temporary time is _always_ associated with the life of the ruler. Your attempt to evade Daniel's phrasing is therefore doubly ironic; not only are you throwing away evidence you claimed you'd accept, you're also throwing away the only way /aion/ itself can possibly mean a limited time.

The translation as "destroyed" doesn't effect anything i've said above or before, so is irrelevant.

True. I was only complaining about the horrible glossed word-for-word version you're using as though it had more authority than an actual translation. That's not actually irrelevant, since we're also discussing the fact that your glossed versions are very bad for comprehension.

IMO your interpretation goes contrary to the natural and literal reading of the passage as well as Revelation 5:13 and other considerations here:

My interpretation simply takes honest note of what Daniel is saying. Your claim about the passage is not an interpretation at all, but rather attempts to eisegete your complex system of aions into the passage, not to mention that it insists on an end that the passages actually denies.

As for Rev 5:13, that is another example of how Revelation is not chronologically linear -- this passage shows sea-creatures praising Christ, who will a few chapters later kill every single one of them. I'm not even going to try guessing what your argument about it is supposed to be; you didn't make one.

The verses above indicate Christ & the saints shall be reigning "into the ages of the ages", including the millenial age & the age when the lake of fire (= the 2nd death) is abolished.

The text doesn't say the saints reign "into the ages ... when the lake of fire is abolished." That's your own invention, not present in the text at all.

Since He is still reigning at the time of Revelation 20-22, all enemies are not yet under His feet. So neither is God yet "All in all" (1 Cor.15:28) nor is death [e.g. 2nd death] abolished yet.

And yet Revelation _directly_ says "death is no more" immediately following the judgment. So your interpretation _again_ directly contradicts scripture. This keeps happening.

In Revelation 22:2 we also have leaves that are for the healing of the nations. Who at this time would need healing?

You're the one whose interpretation got yourself into this mess; don't ask me to solve your problem.

The weakness in your interpretation of eschatology is that it stops short of seeing what is the real final destiny & mistakes the process leading to it for the real thing.

That "weakness" comes directly from my desire to say only what the Scripture says, and to deny what it denies. If you wish to persuade me, you will need to make arguments that proceed from Scriptural teaching. If you wish to harden me against your arguments, you will continue your words of scorn and dismissal.

If you continue your current path, you should not be surprised to find me more and more unimpressed by what few arguments you've mustered.

God as "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) has nothing to do with authority, but God "in" every being who ever lived. "To say that "all in all" signifies "the manifestation of God's supremacy"...is very far indeed from the truth...

Where are you _getting_ these things? This has nothing to do with anything I've ever said. Are you just cutting and pasting from random documents?

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?

As Paul JUST SAID, "But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him." So also we can see that when he says "all rule and all authority and power" it is manifest that he is excepted who did put all things under him.

I mean, how can you get any more self-interpreting than this?

The scribes & Damnationist Pharisees were scholars of their day, just like many appeal to the Damnationist versions and scholars of our day. Did Jesus disciples follow them? No.

This does not prove your claim that all scholars are Pharisees and should not be followed.

"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.

I agree, except for "θάνατος αἰώνιος" which is not a Biblical expression. But this doesn't prove what she needs to prove; she's doing nothing more than repeating a thoughtless ambiguity and omitting the importance of the authors who actually _did_ cache out the terms more thoroughly, such as Justin Martyr (forever and not just 1000 years), Irenaeus (deprived of continuance), and so on. One has to wonder why she fails to respond in those terms; she should know, and yet does not seem to.

Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment.

Why would she say "eternal punishment" when that's a Biblical term which she previously ruled out as being dispositive? He does mention that those in submission to the bishops break together the bread which is the medicine of immortality so that we would live forever. He was a conditionalist -- at least in his argument for meeting together, if not in his final evaluation (which I admit he left vague).

"I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists,

I looked up her evidence for a couple of these. It's BAD (probably the worst is her claim about Augustine). It's at least as bad as the evidence she was complaining about above, where people assume that because a father quoted from the Bible that father agreed with them about the Bible's meaning. People should not be satisfied to make these kinds of arguments.

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.

That's _precisely_ the meaning of the word "unambiguous". Her comment here amounts to agreement with the claim as stated; Origen was early and important, but he's the first unambiguous one, just as Irenaeus was the first unambiguous conditionalist. I'm not saying that to be negative; I'm just trying to handle the evidence fairly.

Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others.

McC's comment was correct (I read both essays, by the way, both very good): her argument would have been far stronger if she hadn't attempted to convert every possible fragment into support for universalism, meanwhile ignoring how the surrounding church interacted with it. That's not to dismiss her argument, which I've only peeked at (the cost is prohibitive). I must spend time with it, and I'm grateful she produced it. I just wish the same effort had been spent in a more carefully weighed manner.

(I speculate that I won't be impressed with McC's book on the topic, although its table of contents is *incredibly* interesting. I'm certainly unimpressed with his currently extant writing on hell.)

"When Augustine described the Universalists as “indeed very many” (immo quam plurimi), what he meant is that they were a “vast majority” (Ramelli, Christian Doctrine, 11). That is what the Latin word plurimi, from the adjective plurimus, implies. "

No, it does not. "Immo" is a punctuation-word expressing surprise at finding something not as expected; "quam" is an interrogative asking for a number; and "plurimi" means "very many." The English word derived from it is "plurality", if that helps -- which is not "majority". Furthermore, Augustine is here expressing surprise that so many people are busy being wrong, not neutrally claiming to be outnumbered. (In his opinion.)

I was easily able to find some appeals in which someone was begging their superior for help on the grounds that "how many suffer from leprosy? How many from hunchback?" and so on. He was not implying that he needed help because his people were majority disabled, but just because so many of them were.

"St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379) in his De Asceticis wrote: "The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." "

I can't find an in-context source for that quote, let alone an original-language one. Some sources (including universalist ones) say it's in a dubious work, so perhaps that's why. As you've quoted it I find it very likely to support your case, but I'd like to see the context and actual language (since as you observe it's easy to twist things and repeat a bad translation).

I wouldn't call references to Plato & Philo's philosophical ideas of aion/ios as normal usage while ignoring koine Greek scholars such as Origen referring to biblical usages of aion/ios. Or including some Early Church Fathers & leaving out universalists ECF. That reeks of lexical bias & cherry picking. For what purpose?

Neither philosophical use nor "referring to Biblical usages" is normal use of language, I agree. That's why the use of the critical phrases in Greek plays is more important, as cited in the LSJ. The worst mistake one can make in lexicography is trusting a philosopher's or theologian's attempt to make a word fit his doctrine. The trouble is that in Origin's case he cannot select his words; he MUST make that word bend to his meaning or lose his doctrine. Whereas Plato was under no such constraint; he had a number of words and used them all.

(On the other hand, Aristotle's famous etymology of /aion/ as being from /aiw on/ is completely bad lexical data, and is precisely the kind of fabricated claim one finds in patristic etymologies -- one must remember that they were neither linguists nor witnesses to the times they studied.)

He was referring to the problems with lexicons copying Damnationist translations & each other.

You obvious have no idea at all what he was talking about; I don't think you even read the part you quoted, let alone his work. He was talking about how older lexicons included only a word or two of gloss, completely ignoring the problem of how to figure out how to translate the original word. His own Louw-Nida lexicon was a first attempt to fix this problem (you should note that this lexicon is "damnationist", as you would call it; it's frankly unfortunate how much of the eternal-torment ideas are needlessly embedded in it). The next edition of BDAG imitated him by including a sentence or two rather than only the one-word gloss.

That's quite different than creating a consistent translation for the purpose of trying to eliminate translator bias that's so obvious in Damnationist versions.

His goal was to fix the problem of simplistic glosses that your so-called "translations" (actually word-for-word glosses) are entirely based on. Not that I'm saying translator bias doesn't exist -- it does, and it's terrible. But we can't get rid of bias by eliminating the expert judgment of translators. If we try, we replace it with people who do not know the languages assuming that the resulting glosses are unambiguous proof of their pet theories.

In Rev.19:3 smoke is to ascend "forever & ever" according to Damnationist translations. That "forever & ever" ends & is a lie is evident by the previous chapter where what is burned is "utterly consumed". Clearly the burning will not even be "for" finite "ages of the ages", either. So the idea that EIS always means "for" in relation to time is wrong. In this context it means "to" or "into".

Note that you're attempting to translate based on your theories about the world, rather than allowing the translation to inform your theories. The consistent Biblical use of smoke ascending is to show that some act of destructive judgment has happened or will happen -- it is NEVER used to show that destruction is _currently_ happening while the smoke goes up. This is true from the very first use, in which it means that Sodom is already completely destroyed, to its last use, where it means the great harlot is completely destroyed. When smoke ascends from Sinai in Hebrews and Exodus or from God's nostrils in Psalm 18, it means a threat of future judgment.

(And of course you can check my claims -- and use this argument in favor of universalism, since it's absolutely compatible with it.)

But the important thing is that we don't need to modify translations based on an assumption about metaphysics. Only semantic concerns, and not theories of eschatology, should determine whether /eis/ is translated "into" or "for."

εἰς
a to (extension): 84.16
b into (extension): 84.22
c on (location): 83.47
d inside (location): 83.13
e among (location): 83.9
f in order to (purpose): 89.57
g so that (result): 89.48
h by (means): 89.76
i with reference to (content): 90.23
j to the point of (degree): 78.51
k to (change of state): 13.62
l to (experiencer): 90.59
m on behalf of (benefaction): 90.41
n by (guarantor): 90.30
o for (time): 67.117
p at (time): 67.160
q until (time): 67.119

Notice that the last three types show that when we're talking about time -- which is definitely the case with eons -- the translation "into" is completely impossible; that works only for "extension". Your choices are "for", "at", and "until" (but that last ALWAYS means continuing into for the word /eis/ according to Louw's examples).

God is not the author of doctrines that make Him a sadist for eternity.

None of the translations we're discussing do that either. The Biblical evidence for eternal torment comes entirely from an overliteral application of one verse about three visionary symbols. There's absolutely no reason to use that one verse as an excuse to dismiss all translators, secular and Christian.

What "evidence" do they provide to support any of your views we've been discussing? The eminent scholar & lexicographer, Lee, & the other sources i referenced & quoted already pointed out how unreliable & error prone lexicons are. Lexicons that are created not by Damnationists but by sinful pagans are not any less immune from the sordid history of lexicography.

Not using lexicography isn't how we cure bad lexicography. It's how we do WORSE than they did.

Mt.25:46 doesn't use the phrase "eis ton aiona" that my comment was referring to.

I recognize and respect your reservations for this verse. I don't agree ultimately, because the context of eternal fire makes the meaning of eternal punishment too clear, but I have no problem admitting that this use of /aionias/ might mean "of the age" rather than "everlasting". Although I don't accept your dismissal of the alternative, I understand that scholars are right to insist that it doesn't ALWAYS mean "everlasting", only sometimes.

I disagree with your unsupported opinions re L'olam & eis ton aiona.

Thanks, so you agree with all my opinions then? (Drum roll.)

If Christ wanted to teach endless punishment, He would have used this word meaning "endless" at Mt.25:46 instead of aionios. Therefore He didn't teach endless punishment.

I agree. If he'd done that, I would have a harder time being a conditionalist; that would sound more like the burning would simply affect the people without end, suggesting that the people would remain in existence forever.

But He didn't; he used a word meaning either "everlasting" or "of the age" instead of "endless." Clearly this verse isn't an anti-universalist or anti-conditionalist trump text; although also clearly, it's not the most universalist-friendly text, because Jesus used an expression which actually includes a non-temporary punishment in its primary semantic range.

Philo applied it to a time, not space, word, aion in Exo.15:18.

Fair enough -- but that's as much a problem for you as for me. He's interpreting the LXX to mean what I would say it means. And because Philo often (always!) included more words than the LXX did, this merely makes this normal for him.

In Aristotle the same phrase Philo used, ton apeiron aiona, meant "all, endless, time" ("Life Time Entirety. A Study of AION in Greek Literature and Philosophy, the Septuagint and Philo", Heleen M. Keizer, 2010, p.212).

BTW, I've not read that book before -- but it's an INCREDIBLE source. It does, of course, completely reject your interpretation of /aion/, saying positively that in the Bible it does refer at least to everlasting time, so I'd highly recommend you read it.

More than that, Helena is VERY clear in saying that Philo goes to great lengths to avoid using the LXX phrase /eis ton aiona/, instead using words that greatly expand on it in order to establish what he thinks the meaning is rather than just what he seems to have felt was repeating a formula (pg 207-208). So his use of a nonstandard form would actually be _expected_.

Aristotle I can't explain. I see she mentions it's in a fragment.

If Christ, a contemporary of Philo, wanted to teach endless punishment, He would have used the unambiguous word "apeiron" of punishment at Mt.25:46 instead of the ambiguous word aionios. Therefore He didn't teach endless punishment.

I'm glad you're at least admitting the ambiguity in this one passage (a point I've made from the start). That's good for both of us. But that doesn't mean He didn't teach it -- it means he was in this one verse ambiguous rather than definite about it. And I think Christ's context makes it clear what the duration and nature of the future punishment is; it's as long as the aionias zoe, which is forever. And its nature is deprivation of zoe by means of the aionian fire.

 

[Der Alte]

I actually think they're the same thing, and I discussed that above -- because death is _ultimately_ the end of life, and if your life is made unending by a resurrection to immortality, then even if what you went through felt like death at first, it wasn't. I would suggest that if you're going to deny the normal meaning you should be the one to propose an alternate meaning. Until then, since the normal meaning works, and indeed was the meaning understood by the people around him, it seems that it's plausible and even likely.

"death is _ultimately_ the end of life, and if your life is made unending by a resurrection to immortality, then even if what you went through felt like death at first, it wasn't." Does not make any sense. 'Death is the end of life." So far so good. If a person has died, i.e. their life has ended, their life cannot be made unending. They can be resurrected but their life that has ended cannot be made unending. You say I am denying the normal meaning of death but that is exactly what you have done here.

But really, there's a LOT more than just this one verse if you want to know what Jesus said about "death". For another example with more text, there's John 6 and John 11, in both of which the "not die" promise is likewise made (although they use the word "die" instead of "death" which is why your earlier count doesn't include them). In both He explains Himself in MUCH more detail, and it's hard to miss that he's _certainly_ talking about being resurrected from out of death. In John 5 the promise to pass from death to life is given, and then interpreted as being fulfilled when the Son gives life to those who believe and are raised from the graves to life (versus those who are raised from the graves to punishment).

None of this addresses the verse in question.

John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. ​

Do you still insist that dying and being resurrected is the same as if a man keeps Jesus' "saying, he shall never see death?"

This is the claim of conditionalism: we are saved from death, NOT from eternal torment. It is of first importance that Christ died for our sins.

We are saved from death but it is appointed unto man to die after that the judgement.

Arguments from what might have been aren't very useful.

I don't understand this comment.

But to turn your argument back on you, isn't it strange that Jesus didn't use "everlasting torment" if that was His meaning? Or for that matter, "everlasting punishing"? He used an expression which is ambiguous on its face.

"Eternal punishment" didn't seem to be ambiguous for many of the ECF. I find it hard to believe that you made the argument "isn't it strange that Jesus didn't use ..."everlasting punishing?" The distinction you are suggesting between "punishment" and "punishing" does not exist in Greek or English. Does "eternal life" not mean life that is unending or should Jesus have said "eternal living?"

In fact, since you mention it, why do you think Jesus used /apollumi/ SO much? It's one of the hell words, after all -- /apollumi/ body and soul in hell for example.

Good question why did Jesus use the same word to refer to physical death?

Matthew 22:7
(7) But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
Matthew 26:52
(52) Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Mark 9:41
(41) For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Mark 12:9
(9) What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
Luke 11:51
(51) From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Luke 13:3
(3) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:5
(5) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 15:17
(17) And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
Luke15:24
(24) For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
Luke 15:32
(32) It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Luke 17:27
(27) They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:29
(29) But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.​

They might have wondered why he was being so vague. Their own teachers were much more clear. The phrase form "eternal X" is used many times to describe the permanent results of a short act -- most notably the "eternal redemption" in Hebrews 9:12, but also "eternal judgment" in Heb 6. The redemption is forever, but verse says the redeeming only happened once and is now done. Likewise, I'd say the punishing will only happen on the Day of Wrath, and then the punishment is everlasting -- the punishment of death.

Again the nonexistent distinction between "punishing" and "punishment." The ECF did not find "eternal punishment" to be ambiguous. Here are several verses which show conclusively that "aion" meant "eternity" and ".aionios" meant "eternal," The fact that the words are sometimes used for finite things is know as "hyperbole."

1 Timothy 1:17
(17) Now unto the King eternal, (1) immortal,(2) invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever (1) and ever (1). Amen.
(1) αἰών/aion (2) ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos​

In this verse “aion” is in apposition, see def. below, with “immortal.” If “aion” means “age(s),” a finite period, God cannot be for “a finite period” and “immortal” at the same time. God is “eternal” and “immortal” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”

Romans 2:7
(7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,(2) eternal (1) life:​

“Aion” is in apposition with “immortality.” If “aion” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternity” and “immortality” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”

2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal (1a) weight of glory;
(18) 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;(3) but the things which are not seen are eternal.(1a)
(1a) αἰώνιος/aionios (3) πρόσκαιρος/proskairos​

Here “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Aionios” cannot mean “age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is.

2 Corinthians 5:1
(1)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 (1a) in the heavens.​

Here “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” An “aionios” house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” “Aionios” means “eternal.”

Hebrews 7:24
(24) But this man, because he continueth ever,(1) hath an unchangeable (4) priesthood.
(4) ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos ​

Here “unchangeable” is in apposition with “aion.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Melchizadek cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”

1 Peter 1:23
(23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,(2) by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.(1)​

Here “incorruptible” is in apposition with “aion.” The seed of God cannot be “incorruptible” and only for “a finite period” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
The definition of “apposition” from a Greek grammar.

III. Nominative in Simple Apposition
The nominative case (as well as the other cases) can be an appositive to another substantive in the same case. The usage is quite common. There are four features of simple apposition to be noted (the first two are structural clues; the last two features are semantic): An appositional construction inz’olz’es (1) two adjacent substantives (2)in the same case (40) (3) which refer to the same person or thing, (4) and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause.
The first substantive can belong to any category (e.g., subject, Predicate nom., etc.) and the second is merely a clarification, description, or identification of who or what is mentioned.(41) Thus, the appositive “piggy-backs” on the first nominative’s use, as it were. For this reason simple apposition is not an independent syntactical category.
The appositive functions very much like a PN in a convertible proposition that is, it refers to the same thing as the first noun.(42) The difference, however, is that a PN makes an assertion about the S (an equative verb is either stated or implied); with appositives there is assumption, not assertion (no verb is in mind). In the sentence “Paul is an apostle,” apostle is a PN; in the sentence, “Paul the apostle is in prison,” apostle is in apposition to Paul.
(40)The nom. occasionally is in apposition to an oblique case, but the semantics are the same. See discussion below.
(41) An appositive, strictly speaking, is substantival, not adjectival. Thus, adjectives or Participles in second attributive position are not generally appositives, but usually hate an adjectival force.
(42) The significance of this will be seen in our discussion of the gen. case, for the gen can also involve a syntactical category, vi.t., the gen of apposition. The semantics involved in such a category are quite different from those involved in simple apposition.
With proper names typically the first noun is anarthrous and the appositional noun is articular.
Matt 3:1 παραγινεται ιωαννης ο βαπτιστης κηρυσσων
John the Baptist came Preaching
Mark 15:4 0 εν αις ην και μαρια η μαγδαληνη
among them also were Mary the Magdalene...
Luke 1:24 συνελαβεν ελισαβετ η γυνη αυτου
Elizabeth his wife conceived
Rev 1:5 ο μαρτυς ο πιστος ο πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων
the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Daniel Wallace, pp.48-49
• A. T. Robertson 2 Co 4:17
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
2 Corinthians 4:17
Literally, “the for the moment (old adverb parautika, here only in N.T.) lightness (old word, in N.T. only here and Mat_11:30).”
More and more exceedingly (kath' huperbolēn eis huperbolēn). Like piling Pelion on Ossa, “according to excess unto excess.” See note on 1Co_12:31.
Eternal weight of glory (aiōnion baros doxēs). Careful balancing of words in contrast (affliction vs. glory, lightness vs. weight, for the moment vs. eternal).
• Vincent Word Studies
A far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (καθ' ὑπερεβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης)
Rev., more and more exceedingly an eternal weight, etc. An expression after the form of Hebrew superlatives, in which the emphatic word is twice repeated. Lit., exceedingly unto excess. The use of such cumulative expressions is common with Paul. See, for example, Phi_1:23, lit., much more better; Rom_8:37, abundantly the conquerors; Eph_3:20, exceeding abundantly, etc. Note how the words are offset: for a moment, eternal; light, weight; affliction, glory.​

That objection has nothing at all to do with our discussion that I can see. Can you interact with my arguments on the topic? (Note that John used a LOT of Biblical imagery in Revelation that's still being discovered -- but also note that he explicitly interpreted that millstone image, as did Jeremiah.)

Where did John or Jeremiah interpret the "millstone image?"

To avoid you begging the question, there are some essential clarifications.
1) "Eternal punishment" includes capital punishment (death).

I would say that the great majority of people at the time of Jesus knew that everybody died old, young, male, female, rich, poor etc. and that punishment had nothing to do with it. So eternal punishment would not have meant death to them. See e.g. ECF.

2) We DO agree that eternal torment is worse than death, and that's what you should have said.
3) You're purely speculating to suppose that *anyone* would have thought of eternal torment when picturing someone being thrown into the water with a millstone.

I neither said not implied that.

Even if they believed the wages of sin is torment, there's no reason at all to jump to the idea that the only thing worse than being thrown into the sea with a millstone around your neck is eternal torment.

Assumes that 1st century Jews believed that the unrighteous would be either destroyed or universal reconciliation. But as I have shown there was a belief in hell. Yes I know you quoted one guy, secondhand, who said otherwise.

I think the only reason you think it is, is because you're so used to that phrase you assume its meaning without picturing it.

No, many of the ECF believed in hell, as we know it. Even Origen and Clement, poster children for UR, were ambiguous on it.

This millstone picture isn't a parable. And you know it isn't, and you're arguing in all ways assuming it isn't. You're also depending on all the other verses we're discussing not being parables. And finally, if this WERE a parable it wouldn't help your case without you making an argument for it

.

I'm simply saying that Jesus was talking about death and something worse than death. I doubt very much that Jesus' audience stood around thinking what kinds of death were worse than another. A horrible death would be better that the alternative that Jesus meant.

 

[ClementofA]

You say "have never answered" when we have actually answered and interacted in detail. You're so fixated on convincing people that you're willing to openly make blatantly false statements. How do you live with yourself?

William, i'm not sure we're understanding each other here. if you can show me where you or Mark have responded to the specific posts i referenced i'll be happy to retract. The only exception i can think of would be your recent comments in our discussion re 1 Corinthian 15:22-28, which were not specifically an answer to my post on the subject as listed in my referred to posts. But since you have addressed that topic, i should delete that one, or at least specify who has not answered it.

As to convincing people, i have no illusions. I don't consider that my job, but something between other people & the Lord. It is the Holy Spirit who convinces and convicts. Human beings are at best simply vessels through whom He may work or use toward His "purpose of the eons" (Eph.3:11). "It is not by might or power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord." But for the grace of God, there go i.

To settle this argument you must have some reason to believe Christ's reign is temporary, in contradiction of the passages you've admitted into evidence which explicitly say it has no end. The actual Biblical evidence that Christ's reign will not end, some of which you yourself tendered, is precisely the same sort of evidence you claim you would accept if the Bible offered it regarding final punishment -- and I pointed that naked hypocrisy out without any response from you.

If this is regarding your reference to Phil.3:19, in the list of posts & urls i provided that verse was specifically mentioned. For your convenience here it is again, at post #220 on page 11 of this topic:

Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

As for Christ's reign, see below.

John's Revelation also unmistakably shows Christ on the Throne with God after the millennial age reign, and continues to show men acting as "kings of the Earth" as well, over whom Christ is identified as "the archon of the kings of the Earth" in chapter 1.

Yes, indeed, all of this is true. However, the same is what i consider evidence that 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 is not yet fulfilled in Revelation 20-22, but only spoken of as yet being future (as in Rev.5:13; 15:4; 21:5):

Rev.15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

This sounds like just payback, not endless annihilation or tortures:

Rev.18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

Rev.21:5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making all new!”

This includes everyone in the universe, including the dead and demons:

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

John speaks of "every creature" & to emphasize this again he repeats "and all that are in them":

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

This worship (v.13) uses the same worshipful words as the redeemed of vs 9-10 use in v.12:

12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

All this being in the context of salvation - "the Lamb that was slain" (v.12 & 13).

Robin A. Parry's "The Evangelical Universalist" book & his take on Rev. 15:4 & chapters 21-22 can be read in part for free online at:

The Evangelical Universalist

The culmination of the vision shows that "The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city,and His servants will serve Him. Night will no longer exist, and people will not need lamplight or sunlight, because the Lord God will give them light;" we see that this is an endless state and simply the way things will be; "And they will reign forever and ever," concomitant to that previously endless state.

If night will no longer exist anywhere, then what does that say about those being tormented "day and night" EIS "the ages of the ages"? Also, for what purpose are they being tormented? And how can annihilation be true if even one being is tormented "for ever and ever"?

The verse you just cited to show an "end" of Christ's reign actually immediately precedes Christ's glorious reign. Your evidence again _directly_ disproves your hypothesis. And you know this; you admit in the same post that even Rev 22 is not an end of Christ's reign. Yet you pretend not to know this here, merely for the sake of scoring a cheap debating point.

I distinguish between Christ's millennial reign & His reign during the age of the second death, at the end of which death is abolished, as per 1 Cor.15:22-28. IMO both of these reigns are temporary, most obviously the millennial. Putting the two together, you have a reign for eons (plural, Lk.1:33), until Christ gives up the kingdom, "for He must reign until..." (1 Cor.15:24-28). I don't know if you read it, William, but the linked article i provided has quite a bit of detail re this topic: As in Adam all die

As you should know, that Jewish literature is operating from a completely different concept of who and what Messiah is.

I'll have to confess ignorance on the topic. I mostly stick with studying the Bible.

Paul and John both spoke of an endless reign of Christ, as did Luke and Daniel. Your only pertinent evidence regarding a temporary reign has been your claim that Paul meant "until" to mean that Christ abdicates at that point, when actually Paul's purpose is to establish a sequence of events to set in order the resurrection, so that "until" offers one of those points and shows that Christ's reign exists prior to it (without denying that it also exists after it).

I see that whole passage (1 Cor.15:22-28) extending beyond everything that occurs in the book of Revelation. Likewise the verses i gave above from Revelation re universalism extend beyond (or speak of times) after the events described in Revelation. So i don't see Rev.5:13 has been fulfilled anywhere in Revelation, including chapters 20-22. It is like a Revelation chapter 23. Likewise with Rev.21:5 & 15:4. The gates to the city are ever open, is what we see, but all have not come in yet by Rev.20-22. It is only foretold as per 1 Cor.15:22-28 & other Restoration of all passages in the Bible.

"Can" I? Are you playing pretend again? I pointed to the LSJ when I said that, which lists many specific examples. There's a full text version at Perseus which I recommend (scroll to /aion/, click "LSJ"). It's natural that many of the examples are LXX, which I admit would beg the question due to your claim that the Bible might be assuming a many-ages system rather than using the phrase with its customary force, so I expect you'd look at the examples which are not from the LXX.

Thank you for that helpful link. It is appreciated. However here is what you led me to & i'm not sure what examples you want me to look at. I see nothing re "eis ton aiona":

αἰών , ῶνος, ὁ, Ion. and Ep. also ἡ, as in Pi.P.4.186, E.Ph.1484: apocop. acc. αἰῶ,
A.like Ποσειδῶ, restored by Ahrens (from AB363) in A.Ch.350: (properly αἰϝών, cf. aevum, v. αἰεί):—period of existence (“τὸ τέλος τὸ περιέχον τὸν τῆς ἑκάστου ζωῆς χρόνον . . αἰὼν ἑκάστου κέκληται” Arist.Cael.279a25):
I. lifetime, life, “ψυχή τε καὶ αἰών” Il.16.453; “ἐκ δ᾽ αἰ. πέφαται” Il.19.27; “μηδέ τοι αἰ. φθινέτω” Od.5.160; “λείπει τινά” Il.5.685; ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος νέος ὤλεο (Zenod. νέον) 24.725; “τελευτᾶν τὸν αἰῶνα” Hdt.1.32, etc.; “αἰῶνος στερεῖν τινά” A.Pr.862; “αἰῶνα διοιχνεῖν” Id.Eu.315; “συνδιατρίβειν” Cratin. 1; αἰ. Αἰακιδᾶν, periphr. for the Aeacidae, S.Aj.645 s. v. l.; “ἀπέπνευσεν αἰῶνα” E.Fr.801; “ἐμὸν κατ᾽ αἰῶνα” A.Th.219.
2. age, generation, αἰ. ἐς τρίτον ib.744; ὁ μέλλων αἰών posterity, D.18.199, cf. Pl.Ax.370c.
3. one's life, destiny, lot, S.Tr.34, E.Andr.1215, Fr.30, etc.
II. long space of time, age, αἰὼν γίγνεται 'tis an age, Men.536.5; esp. with Preps., ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος of old, Hes.Th.609, Ev.Luc.1.70; “οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰ. Ῥωμαῖοι” D.C. 63.20; δι᾽ αἰῶνος perpetually, A.Ch.26, Eu.563; all one's life long, S. El.1024; δι᾽ αἰῶνος μακροῦ, ἀπαύστου, A.Supp.582,574; τὸν δι᾽ αἰ. χρόνον for ever, Id.Ag.554; εἰς ἅπαντα τὸν αἰ. Lycurg.106, Isoc.10.62; εἰς τὸν αἰ. LXX Ge.3.23, al., D.S.21.17, Ev.Jo.8.35, Ps.-Luc. Philopatr.17; “εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος” LXX Ps.131(132).14; ἐξ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως αἰῶνος ib.Je.7.7; ἐπ᾽ αἰ. ib.Ex.15.18; ἕως αἰῶνος ib.1 Ki.1.22, al.:— without a Prep., τὸν ἅπαντα αἰ. Arist. Cael.279a22; “τὸν αἰῶνα” Lycurg. 62, Epicur.Ep.1p.8U.; eternity, opp. χρόνος, Pl.Ti.37d, cf. Metrod. Fr.37, Ph.1.496,619, Plot.3.7.5, etc.; “τοὺς ὑπὲρ τοῦ αἰῶνος φόβους” Epicur.Sent.20.
2. space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age, ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος this present world, opp. ὁ μέλλων, Ev.Matt.13.22, cf. Ep.Rom.12.2; ὁ νῦν αἰ. 1 Ep.Tim.6.17, 2 Ep.Tim.4.10:—hence in pl., the ages, i.e. eternity, Phld.D.3 Fr.84; “εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰ.” LXX To.13.4; εἰς τοὺς αἰ.ib.Si.45.24, al., Ep.Rom.1.25, etc.; “εἰς τοὺς αἰ. τῶν αἰώνων” LXX 4 Ma.18.24, Ep.Phil.4.20, etc.; ἀπὸ τῶν αἰ., πρὸ τῶν αἰ., Ep.Eph.3.9, 1Cor.2.7; τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰ. ib.10.11.
3. Αἰών, ὁ, personified, “Αἰὼν Χρόνου παῖς” E.Heracl.900 (lyr.), cf. Corp.Herm.11, etc.; as title of various divine beings, Dam.Pr.151, al.; esp.=Persian Zervan, Suid. s.v. Ἡραἰ̈σκος.
4. Pythag., = 10, Theol.Ar.59.
B. spinal marrow (perh. regarded as seat of life), h.Merc 42, 119, Pi.Fr.111, Hp.Epid.7.122; perh. also Il.19.27.

Greek Word Study Tool

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, αἰών

The natural force of the word /aion/ is the lifetime of someone, and when used without specific qualification, it means the lifetime of a ruler, and by extension (for general Greek usage) a god or a force of nature. From this latter unqualified use we can see that "the aion", when unqualified, is expected to mean limitless time, at least so far as it's ruled by a common principle. This is how Plato and Aristotle used it, and how it's used by all the surviving texts. Most interesting are its uses in prepositional phrases like /apo ton aiona/ (since the age [began]) and /eis ton aiona/ (for the age [of the ruler]), along with the /heos ton aiona/ (until the age [begins]) which appears in Judith's famous hell passage and some places in the LXX.

Because the word itself inherently means "lifespan" or even "life", I accept there's some ambiguity about the noun by itself. But there's nearly no ambiguity about the unqualified prepositional phrase /eis ton aiona/. I can compose a sentence which would make it mean something else (for example, I could make it mean "approaching the new king's coronation", given a sentence in which "the age" would be obviously the rulership of the king-about-to-take-the-throne), but none of those sentences seem to be in the Bible.

These examples are given by the author of the following article & he considers them to be finite usages, though i guess you consider them hyperbolic anomalies:

"2 Kings, v:27, "The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed forever." (ton aióna)."

"Daniel ii:4, "Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac, O king, live forever: eis tous aióna." The Chaldean's live forever meant precisely what the French Vive, and the English "Long live the King" mean. Eternal duration never entered the thought."

"Jerem. xvii:25, "Then shall there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they, and their city shall remain forever," eis ton aióna. Eternity was not promised here. Long duration is the extent of the promise."

"Josh. iv:7, "Then ye shall answer them, That the waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD: when it passed over Jordan, the waters of Jordan were cut off; and these stones shall be for a memorial unto the children of Israel forever," tou aiónos. These stones are no longer a memorial. This forever has ended."

AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS

Even more obvious, though, is the systematic use throughout the LXX and NT of the negated /eis ton aiona/, either to mean "never" or to mean "not forever". The first example suffices: in Genesis 3:22 in either Hebrew or Greek, Adam is forbidden to live /L'olam/ and /eis ton aiona/. If the Greek has its ordinary finite meaning, Adam is forbidden to live his own lifetime, which makes no sense; but in its most common sense in the Bible, Adam simply cannot live without end. His life will end when he dies.

Young's Literal Translation
And Jehovah God saith, 'Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,'

That is the same L'olam that in Daniel 12:3 has "and further" added to it, thereby making it finite. In Gen.3:22 the thought may be that God did not wish Adam to live for the entire present eon of his time, or to a future unspecified eon. As it was, Adam didn't drop dead on the day he sinned, but before he became 1000 years old, which is to the Lord as a day (2 Pet.3:8). Later God limited man's lifespan even further, to 120 years (Gen.6:3). The Psalmist makes it even less, 70, perhaps 80 years, he says. There appears to be a pattern here. Why God did these things is not stated, other than what is written, which doesn't say much. In Revelation 22:2 the tree of life only confers healing, not immortality.

And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--! [CLV]

Finally, I must note the book you quoted a reference from, "Life Time Entirety. A Study of AION ...". It restates everything I've said above, and much more. It gives probably as many facts as are available. I cite it, in its entirety and in its own self-summaries, as final proof that the overall meaning of /eis ton aiona/ at the time of the NT was "forever".

It refers on p.134 to the following passage where "eis ton aiona" is finite:

I Maccabees 14:41

καὶ ὅτι οἱ Ιουδαῖοι καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς εὐδόκησαν τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῶν Σιμωνα ἡγούμενον καὶ ἀρχιερέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἕως τοῦ ἀναστῆναι προφήτην πιστὸν

Also that the Jews and priests were well pleased that Simon should be their governor and high priest for ever [eis ton aióna], until [eós]there should arise a faithful prophet

Keizer translates this "into the aion". BTW you'll notice that she renders EIS as "into" for this time word, namely aion.

Likewise on p.133 she gives the same type of example of "eis ton aióna" being of finite duration in Isa.32:14-17.

Life, Time, Entirety

You think it will endure 1000 years, AND THEN PASS AWAY. But that's not what Daniel says; he says nothing about 1000 years, and affirms that it won't pass away and won't be destroyed. Daniel uses three terms for everlastingness and three terms for rulership; he juggles them in various forms, but the one thing common to all three is lack of limiting end; the point is that the Son of Man's rule is not going to end.

The 1000 years was just an illustration of a finite eon of finite reigning. The reign of Christ as per 1 Cor.15:24-28 goes beyond the millennium into the time of the second death/new earth eon. Exactly what eon or eons are in view in any specific passage requires a contextual analysis and is not always clear.

Daniel 7 uses the same word eonian which occurs again twice in Dan.12:2-3 and is finite in both occurrences of verse 2, as indicated by the immediately proceeding context of verse 3. On that basis i'd argue that not only does 1 Cor.15:22-28 support an end to the eonian reign in Daniel 7, but also the internal evidence of the book of Daniel itself:

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, CLV)

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.

The early church 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]

So this early church Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures agrees with the above translation (& those below) using the words "and further" & similarly.

3 and·the·ones-being-intelligent they-shall- warn as·warning-of the·atmosphere
and·ones-leading-to-righteousness-of the·many-ones as·the·stars for·eon and·futurity (Daniel 12:3, Hebrew-English Interlinear)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan12.pdf

2 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;
3 and, they who make wise, shall shine like the shining of the expanse,—and, they who bring the many to righteousness, like the stars to times age-abiding and beyond. (Daniel 12:2-3, Rotherham)

2 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.
3 And those teaching do shine as the brightness of the expanse, and those justifying the multitude as stars to the age and for ever*. (Dan. 12:2-3, YLT)
* for "for ever" Young of YLT says substitute "age during" everywhere in Scripture: http://heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/bibles/ylt.pdf

Daniel 12:2-3 was the only Biblical reference to "life OLAM" Jesus listeners had to understand His meaning in John 3:16 & elsewhere.

Verse 3 speaks of those bringing "many" to righteousness. The "many" of verse 2, i.e. universal salvation.

The text doesn't say the saints reign "into the ages ... when the lake of fire is abolished." That's your own invention, not present in the text at all.

Yes, that's one possible interpretation, or position, i can take, i.e. 1 Cor.15 saying "death" will be abolished & applying that to the LOF = 2nd "death". Or just that the death holding those in the LOF will be abolished when they are raised "in Christ" (1 Cor.15:22). Whether or not the LOF itself continues forever is not significant, unless as some universalists say, such as in the Orthodox church, the fire refers to God Himself, which many understand as a consuming & purifying fire.

And yet Revelation _directly_ says "death is no more" immediately following the judgment. So your interpretation _again_ directly contradicts scripture. This keeps happening.

Is that in reference to all, i.e. absolute, including even those dead in the death of the LOF, or regarding only those in the New Jerusalum, or only amongst the saved? The same context says pain is no more. Does that include those being tormented "for ever and ever" (EIS the ages of the ages) in the LOF? My take is that death will be no more amongst those of the context, i.e. the saints, but it is not yet abolished as per 1 Cor.15:25-26 re all or those in 2nd death in the LOF. That's why the gates into the NJ are never shut to those "dogs" outside its gates & what the healing leaves of the tree of life in Rev.22 are for, i.e. the nations of the unsaved who will be entering its gates (21:24-26). Why would the saved need "healing" if they are immortal & incorruptible?

"Just as surely as the abolition of slavery entails freedom for those formerly enslaved, the abolition of death entails life for those formerly dead."

McC's comment was correct (I read both essays, by the way, both very good): her argument would have been far stronger if she hadn't attempted to convert every possible fragment into support for universalism, meanwhile ignoring how the surrounding church interacted with it. That's not to dismiss her argument, which I've only peeked at (the cost is prohibitive). I must spend time with it, and I'm grateful she produced it. I just wish the same effort had been spent in a more carefully weighed manner.

(I speculate that I won't be impressed with McC's book on the topic, although its table of contents is *incredibly* interesting. I'm certainly unimpressed with his currently extant writing on hell.)

Thanks for your interest & feedback re the articles. If you wish to read or download the entire book for free: www.faulknerfornewyork.com/library/download/asin=900424509X&type=full

Ramelli also has coauthored a book on the subject of aion:

Ilaria Ramelli, David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: aiônios and aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2009.02.16

No, it does not. "Immo" is a punctuation-word expressing surprise at finding something not as expected; "quam" is an interrogative asking for a number; and "plurimi" means "very many." The English word derived from it is "plurality", if that helps -- which is not "majority". Furthermore, Augustine is here expressing surprise that so many people are busy being wrong, not neutrally claiming to be outnumbered. (In his opinion.)

I was easily able to find some appeals in which someone was begging their superior for help on the grounds that "how many suffer from leprosy? How many from hunchback?" and so on. He was not implying that he needed help because his people were majority disabled, but just because so many of them were.

The Latin sources i referenced said plurimi means most, majority, however here is one that agrees with you:

""There are very many (imo quam plurimi, which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29)" Appendix Five

I can't find an in-context source for that quote, let alone an original-language one. Some sources (including universalist ones) say it's in a dubious work, so perhaps that's why. As you've quoted it I find it very likely to support your case, but I'd like to see the context and actual language (since as you observe it's easy to twist things and repeat a bad translation).

I searched the word "mass" in the Ramelli tome & found nothing. The source of this quote is De Asceticis according to:

St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379) in his De Asceticis wrote: "The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished."
Appendix Five

Note that you're attempting to translate based on your theories about the world, rather than allowing the translation to inform your theories. The consistent Biblical use of smoke ascending is to show that some act of destructive judgment has happened or will happen -- it is NEVER used to show that destruction is _currently_ happening while the smoke goes up. This is true from the very first use, in which it means that Sodom is already completely destroyed, to its last use, where it means the great harlot is completely destroyed. When smoke ascends from Sinai in Hebrews and Exodus or from God's nostrils in Psalm 18, it means a threat of future judgment.

(And of course you can check my claims -- and use this argument in favor of universalism, since it's absolutely compatible with it.)

How do you go from:

1] It is used of past or future, not present +
2] Complete destruction =
3] An argument favorable to universalism?

But the important thing is that we don't need to modify translations based on an assumption about metaphysics. Only semantic concerns, and not theories of eschatology, should determine whether /eis/ is translated "into" or "for."

εἰς
a to (extension): 84.16
b into (extension): 84.22
c on (location): 83.47
d inside (location): 83.13
e among (location): 83.9
f in order to (purpose): 89.57
g so that (result): 89.48
h by (means): 89.76
i with reference to (content): 90.23
j to the point of (degree): 78.51
k to (change of state): 13.62
l to (experiencer): 90.59
m on behalf of (benefaction): 90.41
n by (guarantor): 90.30
o for (time): 67.117
p at (time): 67.160
q until (time): 67.119

Notice that the last three types show that when we're talking about time -- which is definitely the case with eons -- the translation "into" is completely impossible; that works only for "extension". Your choices are "for", "at", and "until" (but that last ALWAYS means continuing into for the word /eis/ according to Louw's examples).

Could you provide an online link to this opinion? Or book title with page number quoted? I looked through the biblical examples given by Thayer & IMO they did not support the idea EIS is never used to mean "into" re time. You can see for yourself:

Thayer's Greek: 1519. εἰς (eis) -- to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, fig. purpose, result)

I don't see why it should be "impossible". And if "until" means "continuing into" re time, then the word can mean "into" re time. "I will be with you until tomorrow". That can mean "into" tomorrow.

None of the translations we're discussing do that either. The Biblical evidence for eternal torment comes entirely from an overliteral application of one verse about three visionary symbols. There's absolutely no reason to use that one verse as an excuse to dismiss all translators, secular and Christian.

I'm guessing this verse is in Revelation. Of course ET advocates also "see it" implied in other portions of scripture, e.g. unquenchable fire with gnashing of teeth, immortal worms & so forth.

I agree. If he'd done that, I would have a harder time being a conditionalist; that would sound more like the burning would simply affect the people without end, suggesting that the people would remain in existence forever.

But He didn't; he used a word meaning either "everlasting" or "of the age" instead of "endless." Clearly this verse isn't an anti-universalist or anti-conditionalist trump text; although also clearly, it's not the most universalist-friendly text, because Jesus used an expression which actually includes a non-temporary punishment in its primary semantic range.

Nothing should have been more important to Jesus, if He knew there was endless punishment awaiting people, than to be crystal clear on this subject, by using the best words available & repeating it continually, so that even a child would understand & have no doubt what He was saying.

Fair enough -- but that's as much a problem for you as for me. He's interpreting the LXX to mean what I would say it means. And because Philo often (always!) included more words than the LXX did, this merely makes this normal for him.

But didn't Philo shorten the LXX phrase to "unlimited aion"? And if aion held only the meaning of eternal, there would be no need to qualify it with "unlimited". Similarly:

" 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." "

Chapter 21 - Unsuccessful Attempts to Suppress Universalism

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

None of this addresses the verse in question.
John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Do you still insist that dying and being resurrected is the same as if a man keeps Jesus' "saying, he shall never see death?"

Yes, and the reason I'm saying that is that I think Jesus explained his meaning much more completely elsewhere (eg John 5, 6, 11) using the same basic expressions, and here he was terse because his purpose was to deal with his attackers who wanted to murder him, not to establish a calm and clear philosophical position.

I see what you're doing as ignoring the clear evidence you can't explain and spending all your time on a terse passage that I explain the same way Christ explained in other passages were He took more time -- John 11:25-26 (and context) being the most exact match.

"death is _ultimately_ the end of life, and if your life is made unending by a resurrection to immortality, then even if what you went through felt like death at first, it wasn't." Does not make any sense. 'Death is the end of life." So far so good. If a person has died, i.e. their life has ended, their life cannot be made unending. They can be resurrected but their life that has ended cannot be made unending. You say I am denying the normal meaning of death but that is exactly what you have done here.

Yes, I say you're denying the normal meaning of death, and I explained why. Your response here is a "tu quoque" which does not defend your position, nor can I see how your position handles this verse OR any of the others.

As for myself (and of course I will defend): I'm not denying the normal definition of death by making up an opposite meaning as you are, but I am pointing out how the event of normal-definition death would be effectively undone, from an ultimate point of view, if Christ brought us back to life and kept us alive forever.

One other thing. The normal definition of death is the end of life, but it's not _quite_ enough to call it that. Larger dictionaries also add that it's the _irreversible_ end of life. The reason they say that is medical -- doctors can sometimes take a "dead" person and make them alive again. When this happens, we say the person wasn't actually dead, but was "near death"; this is why we talk about NDE (near-death experiences). When a doctor declares someone dead, if some other doctor heals them, the first doctor is considered wrong. A person's funeral will note only one time of death; any other time is considered incorrect. This is the same kind of exception-tests-the-rule that I believe Christ is using here.

This test can be applied to the unrepentant as well. When do they die? It's a bit harder to say, since in a sense they die twice; but in another sense their first death is the end of their life, with the rise to judgment and second death not being a substantial addition to their lifespan (it'll be short enough that the Bible consistently calls it "the Day"). For this reason, Jesus says the wicked rise only to judgment, while the righteous rise to life -- technically the wicked are briefly alive (the term "came alive" is used of them in Rev 20 for example), but the duration of their life is so insignificant that Jesus ignores it.

That's the conditionalist position, at any rate. It fits all the dictionaries, all the Biblical texts that mention death and life -- and there are a LOT of them. It fits Paul's explanation, and even his hypotheticals, in 1 Cor 15. There are a couple of passages that put tension on it -- most famously Rev 20:10, but also Matt 25:46. It's very clear to me that Rev 20:10 isn't speaking of the fate of all humans, and Matt 25:46 is actually slightly more favorable to conditionalism than traditionalism when the whole verse is considered. But we'll see that later.

Good question why did Jesus use the same word to refer to physical death?

I notice that you say "good question", but you evade answering it. AGAIN: you claim that if my position were true, Jesus would have used /apollumi/ to refer to final punishment. I showed that Jesus DID use /apollumi/ to refer to final punishment, emphatically and clearly. You made an argument, and you are avoiding the implications of your own argument.

Jesus (and other people) use the same word to refer to "physical death" (by which you mean the event in which the body dies) because they're essentially the same. It's essential to gehenna that "God kills and then throws into gehenna." Gehenna contains only corpses "whose worm does not die, and whose fire is not quenched." Inside gehenna, God /apollumi/s body and soul -- whereas man can only kill the body but can do nothing to the soul. Every passage mentioning gehenna is consistent with a literal valley of corpses. No passage hints at anything breathing, feeling, or doing anything in gehenna -- at least nothing that mentions the word "gehenna."

The essence of gehenna is normal death as it's understood -- but a death which affects the whole man, not just the body. What you call "physical death" is actually death, but God can kill more completely than man.

I don't understand this comment.

I'm talking about your argument that Jesus "should" have used the unambiguous word /apollumi/ (to destroy) instead of the ambiguous word /kolasis/ (punishment). My point is that this is _normally_ what we see in long texts -- different ways of speaking about an event. In this case Jesus wanted to emphasize that it's a punishment; in other cases He said it's destruction. In NO case did Jesus say it's eternal torment.

"Eternal punishment" didn't seem to be ambiguous for many of the ECF.

The ECFs never discussed any assignment of meaning to "punishment" as an argument for their view of hell. They DID assign meaning to /aionias/ (everlasting), but not to "punishment" -- at least not until hundreds of years after. (I see that you're trying to change the topic from the meaning of "punishment" to the meaning of "eternal punishment.")

I find it hard to believe that you made the argument "isn't it strange that Jesus didn't use ..."everlasting punishing?" The distinction you are suggesting between "punishment" and "punishing" does not exist in Greek or English. Does "eternal life" not mean life that is unending or should Jesus have said "eternal living?"

I'm going to reverse your questions. First, YES, "eternal life" means "life that does not end." And what's more, "eternal punishment" means "punishment that does not end." I'm not a universalist -- I proudly proclaim that death, as the penalty for sin, is an eternal punishment which forever deprives a person of the age to come.

Your previous claim is _ridiculous_. "Punishment" is a noun, "punishing" is a verb in the present participle form. Both Greek and English express the same difference. "Eternal punishing" means an action of punishing which never ceases -- this is what you believe happens. "Eternal punishment" can also mean that the action of punishing begins and ends, while the consequences of the punishing (called the "punishment") last forever.

Further, there is good reason to think that this is the intended meaning, both from passages that talk about the wicked paying the penalty for their sins and in grammatical close parallels.

For an example regarding time, the wicked are said to "pay the penalty" for unbelief and for persecuting believers in 2Thess 1:5-10; crucially, the time at which they "will pay the penalty" is "when He comes, on that day" (vvs9-10). Yet the penalty itself is eternal -- "eternal destruction." This is precisely what conditionalism requires; the active payment is on "That Day", while the consequences are eternal.

For an example regarding grammar, Hebrews 9:12 says Christ redeemed us by entering "once and for all", a past event; but it calls what He secured an "eternal redemption." "Redemption" (/lutrosis/) is exactly the same form of word as "punishment" (/kolasis/); the same type of noun (-/sis/ ending) and using the same eternal modifier. And yet it _must_ involve an action that is only temporary in duration. Nor is this the only such example; in fact, every Biblical combination of /aionias/ with a noun ending in /-sis/ seems to refer to the consequence as being everlasting rather than the action.

Again the nonexistent distinction between "punishing" and "punishment." The ECF did not find "eternal punishment" to be ambiguous. Here are several verses which show conclusively that "aion" meant "eternity" and ".aionios" meant "eternal," The fact that the words are sometimes used for finite things is know as "hyperbole."

Thank you, but I'm not a universalist -- I affirm that aionias normally means "everlasting" or "eternal". There's no doubt in my mind that the punishment is everlasting. The question we're discussing is what /kolasis/, "punishment" must mean.

Where did John or Jeremiah interpret the "millstone image?"

In the passages I referenced. Here are the full texts.

Jer 51:62-64 - and say, ‘O LORD, you have said concerning this place that you will cut it off, so that nothing shall dwell in it, neither man nor beast, and it shall be desolate forever.’ 63 When you finish reading this book, tie a stone to it and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates, 64 and say, ‘Thus shall Babylon sink, to rise no more, because of the disaster that I am bringing upon her, and they shall become exhausted.’

Rev 18:21 - Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more...

I would say that the great majority of people at the time of Jesus knew that everybody died old, young, male, female, rich, poor etc. and that punishment had nothing to do with it. So eternal punishment would not have meant death to them. See e.g. ECF.

Would *you* say that? That's interesting. What does the Bible say?

First, it says they avoid giving the just penalty of death to others: "Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." This means they think death is bad, and want to give them good things instead.

Second, to the Biblical writers, death IS the penalty for sin, in hundreds of passages. Torment and shame go along with that cases, but death is of the essence -- one cannot avoid the actual penalty merely because torment is also bad.

Third, it says Christ came to free those who were held in captivity to the fear of death; it also says Christ Himself "offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death." It also says of the Davidic king, "He asked life of you; you gave it to him, length of days forever and ever." What would, logically, happen to the one who does not ask life of God? Would he not fail to receive that gift? And of course that it what Romans 2 goes on to say -- those who do not seek immortality (and receive it by means of eternal life) instead receive tribulation and wrath on the Day of Wrath, and therefore perish -- gentiles as well as those who have the Law, because God treats all of them equally in punishment.

And finally, when "the great majority" believed that everyone died, they unanimously believed that this was the penalty for sin passed on from Adam. They _knew_ it was a punishment, and always called it that. Their hope, if they had one (which Paul says they didn't) would have been, like Paul, in ESCAPING DEATH by means of resurrection, not in pretending death doesn't matter because everyone lives forever.

Assumes that 1st century Jews believed that the unrighteous would be either destroyed or universal reconciliation.

We're talking about Jesus saying that "it would be better to have a millstone hung, and be thrown into the sea." Interpreting this passage does NOT require assuming anything about universalism, annihilationism, or eternal torment. It ONLY requires us to react to what Jesus is saying. Listening to what he _said_ is what matters, not listening to what you imagine people might have thought about what He didn't say.

Jesus says nothing in this passage to make us think it'll be worse because of more pain. That's because the situation he describes takes a common method of dying, and makes it finish _faster_. And when we look at how the Biblical texts use the same language, we find it consistently interpreted as not only a _fast_ death (or destruction), but a _permanent_ one.

But as I have shown there was a belief in hell. Yes I know you quoted one guy, secondhand, who said otherwise.

You have only shown that there was a belief "in hell"; you have not shown, except in a couple of quotes, that they believed in eternal torment at all; and the quote that mentions it clearly says it's NOT in gehenna. YOU believe gehenna means eternal torment; so you assumed that anyone who uses the word "hell" believes everything you do about it, so you quoted a bunch of people who say "gehenna" and ignored what they actually believe.

Now, suppose that a person heard Christ who believed that Judith meant eternal torment, AND believed that it was Scripture (that's the only quote you gave that could _possibly_ teach eternal torment in Christ's time). Why do you think "millstone around the neck" will remind them of "worms in the flesh and they will cry out until the eon?"

No, many of the ECF believed in hell, as we know it. Even Origen and Clement, poster children for UR, were ambiguous on it.

Even if true (and it's true that unambiguous eternal torment was early, MUCH earlier than unambiguous universalism and a little bit earlier than unambiguous conditionalism), this doesn't answer my claim that "I think the only reason you think it is, is because you're so used to that phrase you assume its meaning without picturing it."

Again: you're accustomed to preaching eternal torment from the millstone teaching, so even though it doesn't have anything to do with that, and isn't used to teach it an the ECFs, it makes YOU think of it, so you imagine it makes everyone think of it.

I'm simply saying that Jesus was talking about death and something worse than death. I doubt very much that Jesus' audience stood around thinking what kinds of death were worse than another. A horrible death would be better that the alternative that Jesus meant.

Lots of people have lots of doubt. Make a case for your POSITIVE belief, don't just doubt. I've made my positive case, by showing what a millstone teaching connoted, and by showing how punishments could be made worse or better in ways ASIDE from making them infinitely more painful. (And my case didn't involve imagining people "standing around thinking"; it was about what Jesus' words would immediately make people picture.)

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, and the reason I'm saying that is that I think Jesus explained his meaning much more completely elsewhere (eg John 5, 6, 11) using the same basic expressions, and here he was terse because his purpose was to deal with his attackers who wanted to murder him, not to establish a calm and clear philosophical position.

Was Jesus speaking to the same audience in Joh 5, 8 and 11? The Jews did not attempt to kill Jesus until vs. 59 after vs. 51.

I see what you're doing as ignoring the clear evidence you can't explain and spending all your time on a terse passage that I explain the same way Christ explained in other passages were He took more time -- John 11:25-26 (and context) being the most exact match.

Only if Jesus was talking to the same exact audience as in 5:51. Jesus' audience did not have computers where they could pull up, compare and contrast multiple passages.

Yes, I say you're denying the normal meaning of death, and I explained why. Your response here is a "tu quoque" which does not defend your position, nor can I see how your position handles this verse OR any of the others.

No and no! I have very clearly stated what I believe death is.

As for myself (and of course I will defend): I'm not denying the normal definition of death by making up an opposite meaning as you are, but I am pointing out how the event of normal-definition death would be effectively undone, from an ultimate point of view, if Christ brought us back to life and kept us alive forever.

See above comment. I have not made up an opposite meaning.

One other thing. The normal definition of death is the end of life, but it's not _quite_ enough to call it that. Larger dictionaries also add that it's the _irreversible_ end of life. The reason they say that is medical -- doctors can sometimes take a "dead" person and make them alive again. When this happens, we say the person wasn't actually dead, but was "near death"; this is why we talk about NDE (near-death experiences). When a doctor declares someone dead, if some other doctor heals them, the first doctor is considered wrong. A person's funeral will note only one time of death; any other time is considered incorrect. This is the same kind of exception-tests-the-rule that I believe Christ is using here.

Somewhat interesting but what was your purpose?

This test can be applied to the unrepentant as well. When do they die? It's a bit harder to say, since in a sense they die twice; but in another sense their first death is the end of their life, with the rise to judgment and second death not being a substantial addition to their lifespan (it'll be short enough that the Bible consistently calls it "the Day"). For this reason, Jesus says the wicked rise only to judgment, while the righteous rise to life -- technically the wicked are briefly alive (the term "came alive" is used of them in Rev 20 for example), but the duration of their life is so insignificant that Jesus ignores it.

All somewhat interesting.

That's the conditionalist position, at any rate. It fits all the dictionaries, all the Biblical texts that mention death and life -- and there are a LOT of them. It fits Paul's explanation, and even his hypotheticals, in 1 Cor 15. There are a couple of passages that put tension on it -- most famously Rev 20:10, but also Matt 25:46. It's very clear to me that Rev 20:10 isn't speaking of the fate of all humans, and Matt 25:46 is actually slightly more favorable to conditionalism than traditionalism when the whole verse is considered. But we'll see that later.

I have heard that Matt 25:46 is more favorable to conditionalism before but I have not seen a compelling explanation. Rev 20:10 includes at least one person, the false prophet.

I notice that you say "good question", but you evade answering it. AGAIN: you claim that if my position were true, Jesus would have used /apollumi/ to refer to final punishment. I showed that Jesus DID use /apollumi/ to refer to final punishment, emphatically and clearly. You made an argument, and you are avoiding the implications of your own argument.

I was not arguing that Jesus should have used "apollumi" in Matt 25:46. You appeared to be arguing that "apollumi" only, ever meant "annihilation" etc. I showed that Jesus used “apolummi” for ordinary death more than once.

Jesus (and other people) use the same word to refer to "phyical death" (by which you mean the event in which the body dies) because they're essentially the same. It's essential to gehenna that "God kills and then throws into gehenna." Gehenna contains only corpses "whose worm does not die, and whose fire is not quenched." Inside gehenna, God /apollumi/s body and soul -- whereas man can only kill the body but can do nothing to the soul. Every passage mentioning gehenna is consistent with a literal valley of corpses. No passage hints at anything breathing, feeling, or doing anything in gehenna -- at least nothing that mentions the word "gehenna."

Scripture which shows that Gehenna contains only corpses "whose worm does not die, and whose fire is not quenched?" Only one vs. says that God kills then casts into Gehenna." Most of the gehenna verses say nothing about death before or after being thrown into gehenna.

The essence of gehenna is normal death as it's understood -- but a death which affects the whole man, not just the body. What you call "physical death" is actually death, but God can kill more completely than man.

Would Jesus' audience be concerned about what happened to their dead bodies after they died?

I'm talking about your argument that Jesus "should" have used the unambiguous word /apollumi/ (to destroy) instead of the ambiguous word /kolasis/ (punishment). My point is that this is _normally_ what we see in long texts -- different ways of speaking about an event. In this case Jesus wanted to emphasize that it's a punishment; in other cases He said it's destruction. In NO case did Jesus say it's eternal torment.

Jesus used the word "aionios" twenty six times. Of that Jesus used "aionios" with "zoe"/life twenty four times. Jesus used "aionios" one time with "skenes"/tent, dwelling. Jesus used "aionios" one time with "kolasis." Jesus never used "aionios" with any word for death or die.

The ECFs never discussed any assignment of meaning to "punishment" as an argument for their view of hell. They DID assign meaning to /aionias/ (everlasting), but not to "punishment" -- at least not until hundreds of years after. (I see that you're trying to change the topic from the meaning of "punishment" to the meaning of "eternal punishment.")

Justin Martyr [A.D. 30-100] First Apology VIII
and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.
Chap LII
And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: “Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched;” (Isa_66:24) and then shall they repent, when it profits them not.
Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies. Book IV. Chap. XXVIII.
2. thus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His advent, and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also eternal. For to whomsoever the Lord shall say, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,” (Mat_25:41) these shall be damned for ever;
Tatian [a.d. 110-172.] Address to the Greeks. Chap. XIII.
The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal.37 Yet it is possible for it not to die. If, indeed, it knows not the truth, it dies, and is dissolved with the body, but rises again at last at the end of the world with the body, receiving death by punishment in immortality.
Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen. Chap. VII Chap. X.
For God bestows life freely; but evil custom, after our departure from this world, brings on the sinner unavailing remorse with punishment.
Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] Part First Apology Chap. XLVII.
For, like us, the poets and philosophers set up a judgment-seat in the realms below. And if we threaten Gehenna, which is a reservoir of secret fire under the earth for purposes of punishment, we have in the same way derision heaped on us.
Chap. XLVIII.
but the profane, and all who are not true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment of everlasting fire — that fire which, from its very nature indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility.
A notable proof this of the fire eternal! a notable example of the endless judgment which still supplies punishment with fuel! The mountains burn, and last. How will it be with the wicked and the enemies of God
The Octavius of Minucius Felix.[a.d. 210.] Chap. XXXIV
And I am not ignorant that many, in the consciousness of what they deserve, rather desire than believe that they shall be nothing after death; for they would prefer to be altogether extinguished, rather than to be restored for the purpose of punishment.
Hippolytus [A.D. 170-236] Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe
3. the lovers of iniquity shall be given eternal punishment. And the fire which is un-quenchable and without end awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which dieth not, and which does not waste the body, but continues bursting forth from the body with unending pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no voice of interceding friends will profit them.
The Treatises of Cyprian.[A.D. 200-258.] Treatise V.
24. What will then be the glory of faith? what the punishment of faithlessness? When the day of judgment shall come, what joy of believers, what sorrow of unbelievers; that they should have been unwilling to believe here, and now that they should be unable to return that they might believe! An ever-burning Gehenna will burn up the condemned, and a punishment devouring with living flames; nor will there be any source whence at any time they may have either respite or end to their torments.​

I'm going to reverse your questions. First, YES, "eternal life" means "life that does not end." And what's more, "eternal punishment" means "punishment that does not end." I'm not a universalist -- I proudly proclaim that death, as the penalty for sin, is an eternal punishment which forever deprives a person of the age to come.

And I disagree with your belief.
[continued next post]

 

[Der Alte]

[Previoous ppost continued]

Your previous claim is _ridiculous_. "Punishment" is a noun, "punishing" is a verb in the present participle form. Both Greek and English express the same difference. "Eternal punishing" means an action of punishing which never ceases -- this is what you believe happens. "Eternal punishment" can also mean that the action of punishing begins and ends, while the consequences of the punishing (called the "punishment") last forever.

Now use that definition on “aonios zoe” in Matt 25:46

For an example regarding time, the wicked are said to "pay the penalty" for unbelief and for persecuting believers in 2Thess 1:5-10; crucially, the time at which they "will pay the penalty" is "when He comes, on that day" (vvs9-10). Yet the penalty itself is eternal -- "eternal destruction." This is precisely what conditionalism requires; the active payment is on "That Day", while the consequences are eternal.

Someone who is destroyed, i.e. no longer exists, cannot be “from the presence of the Lord” or anything else. Maybe “apolummi” does not mean destroy in this vs. Tertullian didn't think it meant destruction.

 Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] The Five Books Against Marcion. Book V. Chap. XVI.
For as the apostle declares that the Lord will come “to take vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel, who,” he says, “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power” (2Th_1
 Tertullian book VI. On the Resurrection of the Flesh Chap. XXXV
If, therefore, any one shall violently suppose that the destruction of the soul and the flesh in hell amounts to a final annihilation of the two substances, and not to their penal treatment (as if they were to be consumed, not punished), let him recollect that the fire of hell is eternal - expressly announced as an everlasting penalty; and let him then admit that it is from this circumstance that this never-ending “killing” is more formidable than a merely human murder, which is only temporal.
 Tertullian Part First Apology Chap. XLV
No doubt about it, we, who receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and who look forward to eternal punishment from Him for sin, — we alone make real effort to attain a blameless life, under the influence of our ampler knowledge, the impossibility of concealment, and the greatness of the threatened torment, not merely long-enduring but everlasting, fearing Him, whom he too should fear who the fearing judges, — even God, I mean, and not the proconsul.​

For an example regarding grammar, Hebrews 9:12 says Christ redeemed us by entering "once and for all", a past event; but it calls what He secured an "eternal redemption." "Redemption" (/lutrosis/) is exactly the same form of word as "punishment" (/kolasis/); the same type of noun (-/sis/ ending) and using the same eternal modifier. And yet it _must_ involve an action that is only temporary in duration. Nor is this the only such example; in fact, every Biblical combination of /aionias/ with a noun ending in /-sis/ seems to refer to the consequence as being everlasting rather than the action.

Such as?

Thank you, but I'm not a universalist -- I affirm that aionias normally means "everlasting" or "eternal". There's no doubt in my mind that the punishment is everlasting. The question we're discussing is what /kolasis/, "punishment" must mean.

See Tertullian above.

In the passages I referenced. Here are the full texts.
Jer 51:62-64 - and say, ‘O LORD, you have said concerning this place that you will cut it off, so that nothing shall dwell in it, neither man nor beast, and it shall be desolate forever.’ 63 When you finish reading this book, tie a stone to it and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates, 64 and say, ‘Thus shall Babylon sink, to rise no more, because of the disaster that I am bringing upon her, and they shall become exhausted.’
Rev 18:21 - Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more...

”a stone” and “a stone like a great millstone,” both referring to Babylon is a very tenuous or should I say nonexistent connection to Jesus' warning about a person having a millstone around their neck and being cast into the sea.

Would *you* say that? That's interesting. What does the Bible say?
First, it says they avoid giving the just penalty of death to others: "Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." This means they think death is bad, and want to give them good things instead.

This was written to Christians in Rome by Paul, Jesus was talking to Jews in Israel several years earlier.

Second, to the Biblical writers, death IS the penalty for sin, in hundreds of passages. Torment and shame go along with that cases, but death is of the essence -- one cannot avoid the actual penalty merely because torment is also bad.

Hundreds of passages? Did the Jews Jesus was talking to understand that death was always punishment?

Third, it says Christ came to free those who were held in captivity to the fear of death; it also says Christ Himself "offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death." It also says of the Davidic king, "He asked life of you; you gave it to him, length of days forever and ever." What would, logically, happen to the one who does not ask life of God? Would he not fail to receive that gift? And of course that it what Romans 2 goes on to say -- those who do not seek immortality (and receive it by means of eternal life) instead receive tribulation and wrath on the Day of Wrath, and therefore perish -- gentiles as well as those who have the Law, because God treats all of them equally in punishment.

When Jesus was talking to the Jews in Israel did they have a copy of the epistle to the Romans?

And finally, when "the great majority" believed that everyone died, they unanimously believed that this was the penalty for sin passed on from Adam. They _knew_ it was a punishment, and always called it that. Their hope, if they had one (which Paul says they didn't) would have been, like Paul, in ESCAPING DEATH by means of resurrection, not in pretending death doesn't matter because everyone lives forever.

How could the Jews in Israel understand all this when it was not written until later?

We're talking about Jesus saying that "it would be better to have a millstone hung, and be thrown into the sea." Interpreting this passage does NOT require assuming anything about universalism, annihilationism, or eternal torment. It ONLY requires us to react to what Jesus is saying. Listening to what he _said_ is what matters, not listening to what you imagine people might have thought about what He didn't say.

Nothing I said relies on or refers to something Jesus did not say. Your argument seems to be that when Jesus talked about someone having a millstone around their neck and being thrown into the sea the Jews would have thought about some other more painful death rather than a punishment worse than death which I said.

Jesus says nothing in this passage to make us think it'll be worse because of more pain. That's because the situation he describes takes a common method of dying, and makes it finish _faster_. And when we look at how the Biblical texts use the same language, we find it consistently interpreted as not only a _fast_ death (or destruction), but a _permanent_ one.

I said nothing about more pain, you did. I don't see how this has anything to do with the verse in question.

You have only shown that there was a belief "in hell"; you have not shown, except in a couple of quotes, that they believed in eternal torment at all; and the quote that mentions it clearly says it's NOT in gehenna. YOU believe gehenna means eternal torment; so you assumed that anyone who uses the word "hell" believes everything you do about it, so you quoted a bunch of people who say "gehenna" and ignored what they actually believe.

Wrong!

Now, suppose that a person heard Christ who believed that Judith meant eternal torment, AND believed that it was Scripture (that's the only quote you gave that could _possibly_ teach eternal torment in Christ's time). Why do you think "millstone around the neck" will remind them of "worms in the flesh and they will cry out until the eon?"

Wrong again! I did not say or imply the millstone reference would make the Jews think of “worms in the flesh” etc.

Even if true (and it's true that unambiguous eternal torment was early, MUCH earlier than unambiguous universalism and a little bit earlier than unambiguous conditionalism), this doesn't answer my claim that "I think the only reason you think it is, is because you're so used to that phrase you assume its meaning without picturing it."

Wrong again! I quoted more than one verse.

Again: you're accustomed to preaching eternal torment from the millstone teaching, so even though it doesn't have anything to do with that, and isn't used to teach it an the ECFs, it makes YOU think of it, so you imagine it makes everyone think of it.

Logical fallacy, argument from silence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Lots of people have lots of doubt. Make a case for your POSITIVE belief, don't just doubt. I've made my positive case, by showing what a millstone teaching connoted, and by showing how punishments could be made worse or better in ways ASIDE from making them infinitely more painful. (And my case didn't involve imagining people "standing around thinking"; it was about what Jesus' words would immediately make people picture.)

You have given your unsupported opinion what the millstone connoted and what Jesus' words would make His audience think.

 

[Dartman]

Your previous claim is _ridiculous_. "Punishment" is a noun, "punishing" is a verb in the present participle form. Both Greek and English express the same difference. "Eternal punishing" means an action of punishing which never ceases -- this is what you believe happens. "Eternal punishment" can also mean that the action of punishing begins and ends, while the consequences of the punishing (called the "punishment") last forever.

Now use that definition on “aonios zoe” in Matt 25:46

First, either refute this point, or concede it.

Someone who is destroyed, i.e. no longer exists, cannot be “from the presence of the Lord” or anything else.

On the contrary, someone who is destroyed is "from the presence of" EVERYTHING.

 

[Der Alte]

First, either refute this point, or concede it.
On the contrary, someone who is destroyed is "from the presence of" EVERYTHING.

Only something/someone that exists can be "from" anything. If someone no longer exists there is nothing to be "from" anything.

 

[Dartman]

First, either refute this point, or concede it.
On the contrary, someone who is destroyed is "from the presence of" EVERYTHING.

Only something/someone that exists can be "from" anything. If someone no longer exists there is nothing to be "from" anything.

Hogwash. How long has Hitler been absent from German politics?
How long has the passenger pigeon been absent from the American plains?
How long have the dinosaurs been absent from the ecosystem?

ALL sinners will be absent from God's New Heaven, and New Earth. They will all be "left out" of the Holy City.
Because they no longer exist.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Hogwash. How long has Hitler been absent from German politics?
.

Hitler may be absent from German politics, but he doesn't cease to exist.

He awaits the resurrection of the dead for judgement like everyone else

 

[Dartman]

Hitler may be absent from German politics, but he doesn't cease to exist.

He awaits the resurrection of the dead for judgement like everyone else

Like Jehovah stated, he was dust, and he returned to dust (Gen 3:19). He is now "sleeping in the dust" (Dan 12:2). He is in the Grave (John 5:28,29).
Do you call that "existing"??

 

[stuart lawrence]

Like Jehovah stated, he was dust, and he returned to dust (Gen 3:19). He is now "sleeping in the dust" (Dan 12:2). He is in the Grave (John 5:28,29).
Do you call that "existing"??

Let me ask you.
When Jesus died at calvary he went and made proclamation of the message to those who had previously died( 1peter3:18-20) you can only proclaim a message to those able to understand what is proclaimed to them. So how can they completely cease to exist?

 

[Dartman]

Let me ask you.
When Jesus died at calvary he went and made proclamation of the message to those who had previously died( 1peter3:18-20) you can only proclaim a message to those able to understand what is proclaimed to them. So how can they completely cease to exist?

When Jesus died on the cross, they took him down, and placed him in the tomb. The actions Jesus performed by the spirit, as recorded in 1 Pet 3:18-20 did NOT happen while Jesus was dead, instead they began when Jesus was anointed with his God's spirit as Jesus explained in Luke 4:16-21 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written, 18 The spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because He anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, Today hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears.

Remember, Jesus' soul was in hell/the grave for the 3 days before his God resurrected him from the dead.
Acts 2:31

 

[stuart lawrence]

When Jesus died on the cross, they took him down, and placed him in the tomb. The actions Jesus performed by the spirit, as recorded in 1 Pet 3:18-20 did NOT happen while Jesus was dead, instead they began when Jesus was anointed with his God's spirit as Jesus explained in Luke 4:16-21 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written, 18 The spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because He anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, Today hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears.

Remember, Jesus' soul was in hell/the grave for the 3 days before his God resurrected him from the dead.
Acts 2:31

He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom he also went and preached to the Spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built
1cor3:18-20

Your explanation is ludicrous

 

[stuart lawrence]

So 1peter 3:18-20 refers to Jesus starting his public ministry on earth?
I guess the Spirits of those who died in Noah's day came back to life then, and got new bodies of flesh, (for the old ones would have decomposed long ago) so Christ could preach to them!!

I'm outta here. Nothing to be gained by staying

 

[Dartman]

So 1peter 3:18-20 refers to Jesus starting his public ministry on earth?

That's the only place Jesus had any public ministry.

I guess the Spirits of those who died in Noah's day came back to life then, so Christ could preach to them!!

Those who died in Noah's day heard Noah preach by the "same spirit", and they were equally prisoners to sin, and mortality.

 

[Der Alte]

Hogwash. How long has Hitler been absent from German politics?
How long has the passenger pigeon been absent from the American plains?
How long have the dinosaurs been absent from the ecosystem?
ALL sinners will be absent from God's New Heaven, and New Earth. They will all be "left out" of the Holy City.
Because they no longer exist.

The dead are not destroyed, as in cease to exist. Let us consider some nonexistent things e.g. Yeti, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Tooth fairy, etc. They do not exist thus they cannot be "from the presence" anything. People who are "destroyed" do not exist thus they cannot be "from the presence" of anything.
.....The ECF who quoted or referred to 2 Thessalonians 1:9 did not believe it said the unrighteous would be "destroyed" i.e. cease to exist.

Irenaeus Against Heresies. Book IV. Chap. XXVII[student of Polycarp a student of John]
2. For as, in the New Testament, that faith of men [to be placed] in God has been increased, receiving in addition [to what was already revealed] the Son of God, that man too might be a partaker of God; so is also our walk in life required to be more circumspect, when we are directed not merely to abstain from evil actions, but even from evil thoughts, and from idle words, and empty talk, and scurrilous-language: thus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His advent, and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also eternal. For to whomsoever the Lord shall say, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,” (Mat_25:41) these shall be damned for ever;
...in the Epistle to the Thessalonians: “Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, at the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ from heaven with His mighty angels, and in a flame of fire, to take vengeance upon those who know not God, and upon those that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall also be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power; when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them who have believed in Him.” (2Th_1:6-10)
Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] The Five Books Against Marcion. Book V
For as the apostle declares that the Lord will come “to take vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel, who,” he says, “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power” (2Th_1:8-9) - it follows that, as He comes to inflict punishment, He must require “the flaming fire.”...
To Him, therefore, does it appertain to punish such as know not God, for none ought to be ignorant of Him. In the (apostle’s) phrase, “From the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power,” (2Th_1:9) he uses the words of Isaiah who for the express reason makes the self-same Lord “arise to shake terribly the earth.” (Isa_2:19.
Tertullian I. Apology. Chap. XLV
No doubt about it, we, who receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and who look forward to eternal punishment from Him for sin, — we alone make real effort to attain a blameless life, under the influence of our ampler knowledge, the impossibility of concealment, and the greatness of the threatened torment, not merely long-enduring but everlasting, fearing Him, whom he too should fear who the fearing judges, — even God, I mean, and not the proconsul.
Hippolytus [A.D. 170-236] Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture. On Proverbs
(Pro_11:30) He has brought forth the fruits of knowledge and virtue like a tree, whereof they that eat shall receive eternal life, and shall enjoy the tree of life in paradise, with Adam and all the righteous. But the souls of the unrighteous meet an untimely expulsion from the presence of God, by whom they shall be left to remain in the flame of torment.​

 

[Dartman]

Hogwash. How long has Hitler been absent from German politics?
How long has the passenger pigeon been absent from the American plains?
How long have the dinosaurs been absent from the ecosystem?
ALL sinners will be absent from God's New Heaven, and New Earth. They will all be "left out" of the Holy City.
Because they no longer exist.

The dead are not destroyed, as in cease to exist.
Let us consider some nonexistent things e.g. Yeti, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Tooth fairy, etc. They do not exist thus they cannot be "from the presence" anything. People who are "destroyed" do not exist thus they cannot be "from the presence" of anything.

There is a difference between things that NO LONGER exist, and things that HAVE NEVER EXISTED.
....

 

[Der Alte]

There is a difference between things that NO LONGER exist, and things that HAVE NEVER EXISTED.

The native Greek speaking early church fathers I quoted prove you wrong.