Revelation 19:3 smoke of the great City ascending forever

[sdowney717]

And you likewise didn't address anything in the audios. Instead you've turned to a logical fallacy. Are you familiar with the fallacy called, "Poisining the Well"? That's when one tries to refute an argument by presenting something they find repugnant or wrong on the other side. What one believes about one topic doesn't make them right or wrong on another. A person can be wrong on one topic and right on another. But again, you didn't listen to the audios and present rebuttle to what was said. Instead you bring up something completely off topic.

You brought up Arianism which is a "Red Herring" fallacy. The website does not say that Jesus was created. If you actually look at what it says it is in perfect accord with the Nicene Creed. The creed that everyone here is supposed to hold to, yet doesn't. It's funny how the rules say that one must hold to the Nicene Creed, yet I've seen very few who actually do. Instead most here hold to the Athanasian Creed, not the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed states plainly that Jesus was begotten of the Father before all ages. It also say that He is God from God. The Greek word translated "from" is the word "ek" and it literally means, to come out of. So, the Nicene Creed says that Jesus was begotten of the Father before all ages and that He is God out of God. So, there's no Arianism since Jesus was begotten before humans ever even existed. And, as I said, the website is in complete agreement with the Nicene Creed.

So, now, do you care to listen to audios and consider the evidence?

They don't believe in the trinity either!
I find if I am in disagreement with some doctrine, I typically find others I disagree with too.
These issue are not red herring fallacies...
I am curious, are you a non trinitarian?

'Both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism minimize the sacrifice that God Himself made by
offering up His “only-begotten Son” whom He loved just as Abraham loved Isaac. God
tested Abraham, giving him just a glimpse of what God felt. “For this is how God loved the
world, inasmuch as He gave His Only-Begotten Son …”34 – that is His Son whom He fathered
from His own person.35 For Trinitarians, the Son was a co-equal divine Person from all
eternity, not literally procreated from the Father’s own person. For Unitarians, the Son was
nothing more than a created human being, not literally God’s only-begotten Son. Both of
these views greatly diminish the Father’s own sacrifice. Likewise, both views diminish the
Son’s sacrifice, which was two-fold according to Paul in Phil. 2:5-8. First, as Son of God,
being “equal with God,” the same “kind” (γένος), He contemplated His exalted place, but
then willingly chose to “empty Himself” of the “deity” (τὸ θεῖον) in order to “become in
the likeness of men.” This itself was a sacrifice impossible for us to fathom.36 Then, having
been found in fashion as man, He “humbled Himself” a second time in order to become
“obedient unto death” on our behalf.'

 

[Butch5]

They don't believe in the trinity either!
I find if I am in disagreement with some doctrine, I typically find others I disagree with too.
These issue are not red herring fallacies...
I am curious, are you a non trinitarian?

'Both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism minimize the sacrifice that God Himself made by
offering up His “only-begotten Son” whom He loved just as Abraham loved Isaac. God
tested Abraham, giving him just a glimpse of what God felt. “For this is how God loved the
world, inasmuch as He gave His Only-Begotten Son …”34 – that is His Son whom He fathered
from His own person.35 For Trinitarians, the Son was a co-equal divine Person from all
eternity, not literally procreated from the Father’s own person. For Unitarians, the Son was
nothing more than a created human being, not literally God’s only-begotten Son. Both of
these views greatly diminish the Father’s own sacrifice. Likewise, both views diminish the
Son’s sacrifice, which was two-fold according to Paul in Phil. 2:5-8. First, as Son of God,
being “equal with God,” the same “kind” (γένος), He contemplated His exalted place, but
then willingly chose to “empty Himself” of the “deity” (τὸ θεῖον) in order to “become in
the likeness of men.” This itself was a sacrifice impossible for us to fathom.36 Then, having
been found in fashion as man, He “humbled Himself” a second time in order to become
“obedient unto death” on our behalf.'

As I said, what a person believes on one topic has no bearing on whether they are right or wrong on another. However, you continue with the fallacy of posing the well. It's clear you have nothing to say in rebuttal to the audios I presented. Instead you keep bringing up the Trinity. You too are wrong on doctrine. Should we claim that everything you say is worthless and to be rejected because you have one or more of you doctrines wrong. You're wrong on OSAS. Should we therefore argue that since you're wrong on OSAS you're wrong on everything you say? If that's the standard then you really don't need to say anything else because your doctrinal beliefs aren't perfect therefore whatever you say is wrong.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<B5>And you're some anonymous guy on a website posting a lot of religious stuff too. So I guess that doesn't make what you post the truth either. Its obvious you didn't listen to the audios. You didn't even address the arguments in the audios. Instead you did what you always do. You posted from a lexicon as if that's some inspired source. Just because BDAG says something doesn't necessitate that it's correct. You may find this amazing but scholars can be wrong. When you have people who all believe the same thing writing lexicons what do you expect to get? Lexicons that agree with each other.
I've shown you numerous passages that prove aionios cannot possibly mean eternal. Rather than look at the logic you simply turn to your scholars. I'm sorry, but, they're wrong.<end>

end

Wrong! It amazes me that people don't, as a rule, consult anonymous people online for medical, legal etc. advice. Theology is the only discipline where people get a Strong's and think that makes them a Hebrew and Greek expert. Or think that an anonymous website is more authoritative than a peer reviewed, standard reference work which is a required resource in many seminaries.
.....I don't do links especially anonymous ones. You have shown me numerous passages you think prove something. Have you posted even one verse where aion/aionios is defined/described as a finite period? That a aion/aionios refers to things which cannot be eternaI does not prove that it does not mean eternity/eternal.
.....One of the more than 200 figures of speech in the Bible is hyperbole. Here are some examples. There were actual foxes at the time of Jesus but Herod was not one when called him a fox. There were literal stones at the time of Jesus but Paul was not literally a stone when Jesus called him "petros," lit. "a stone." There was literal thunder at the time of Jesus but James and John were not literally "sons of thunder" Do we say that "stone" does cannot mean a literal stone? Do we say that "fox" cannot mean a literal fox? Or that thunder cannot mean literal thunder because all these words are used hyperbolcally?
.....I notice that you have totally ignored the several passages I posted where aion/aionios is paired with other adjectives and phrases which define/describe aion/aionios as eternity/eternal. Here is the complete list of 23 passages.
In the following twenty three verses αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described, by association with other words and phrases, as eternal, everlasting etc.: 1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 7:24, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, John 6:58, John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7, Luke 1:33, Revelation 14:11, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24, John 8:51, Ephesians 3:21, Romans 1:20, Romans 16:26.
…..In the NT “aion/aionios” are used to refer to things which are not eternal but are never defined/described, by other words and phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, as in the following verses.

[1]Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[2]Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous.

[3]1 Timothy 1:17.
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [αἰών/aion] immortal, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [αἰών/aion] and ever [αἰώνιος/aionios]. Amen.​

In this verse “aion” is paired with “immortal.” “Aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and be immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[4]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 [αἰώνιος/aionios] 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;[πρόσκαιρος/proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this passage “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[5]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 [αἰώνιος/aionios] in the heavens.​

In this verse “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” Does the UR crowd think God is going to replace our destroyed earthly house with an ages long house which will also be destroyed at the end of an age? The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[6]Hebrews 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever [αἰών/aion] he has an unchangeable [ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos] priesthood.​

In this verse “aion” is paired with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[7]1 Peter 1:23
(23) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God. …
1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[αἰών/aion] " And this is the word that was preached to you.​

In verse 23 “word of God” is paired with “imperishable.” In verse 25 the word of God “endures εις τον αιωνα unto eternity. ” Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity.”

[8]1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting[αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”
[continued next post]

 

[Der Alte]

[Previous post continued]

[9]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;[φθορά/fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”

[10]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios life” is contrasted with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[11]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

Here “aionios” and “aion” are paired with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[12]1 John 2:17
(17) The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [αἰών/aion]​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “pass away,” “lives aionios” cannot mean a finite period, A “finite period” is not opposite of “pass away.” Thus “lives aionios” by definition here means “lives eternally.”

[13]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [ολιγον/oligon] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “little while” Does the UR crowd think that Jesus will give His followers an finite period of glory then they will eventually die? Thus “aionios” here means “eternal.”

[14]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [ἀφθαρσία/apftharsia] he will give eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aionios life” here means “eternal life.”

[15]Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom there shall be no end.[τελος/τελος]​

In this verse “aionas” is paired with “without end.” “aionas” cannot be paired with “without end” if it means only “ages” a finite period. “Aionas” by definition here means eternal.

[16]Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[εις αιωνας αιωνων/eis aionas aionon] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.​

In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paired with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”

[17]John 10:28
(28) And I give unto them eternal [αιωνιον] life; and they shall never [εις τον αιωνα] perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “[no man can] “pluck them out of my hand.” If “aionion” is only a finite period then at some time they could be plucked out. “Aionion” by definition here means eternal.

[18]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life.​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” They could perish in a finite period, “aionion life” by definition here means eternal life.

[19]John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life.​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” People could eventually perish in a finite period, “aionion life” by definition here means eternal life.

[20]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [αἰώνιος] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from life unto death.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[21]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [αἰώνιος] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​

In this verse “aionios life” is contrasted with death. “A finite period” is not opposite death, “eternal life” is. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”

[22]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [του αιωνος/tou aionios] and ever! [των αιωνων/ton aionion] Amen.​

In this verse “tou aionios ton aionion” is paired with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.

[23]John 8:51
(51) Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ου μη εις τον αιωνα/ou mé unto the aion] see death."​

According to noted Greek scholar MarvinVincent "The double negative “ou mé” signifies in nowise, by no means." Unless Jesus is saying they will die, i.e. see death, unto the age. By definition aion means eternity.

 

[Butch5]

[Previous post continued]

[9]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;[φθορά/fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”

[10]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios life” is contrasted with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[11]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

Here “aionios” and “aion” are paired with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[12]1 John 2:17
(17) The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [αἰών/aion]​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “pass away,” “lives aionios” cannot mean a finite period, A “finite period” is not opposite of “pass away.” Thus “lives aionios” by definition here means “lives eternally.”

[13]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [ολιγον/oligon] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “little while” Does the UR crowd think that Jesus will give His followers an finite period of glory then they will eventually die? Thus “aionios” here means “eternal.”

[14]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [ἀφθαρσία/apftharsia] he will give eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aionios life” here means “eternal life.”

[15]Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom there shall be no end.[τελος/τελος]​

In this verse “aionas” is paired with “without end.” “aionas” cannot be paired with “without end” if it means only “ages” a finite period. “Aionas” by definition here means eternal.

[16]Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[εις αιωνας αιωνων/eis aionas aionon] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.​

In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paired with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”

[17]John 10:28
(28) And I give unto them eternal [αιωνιον] life; and they shall never [εις τον αιωνα] perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “[no man can] “pluck them out of my hand.” If “aionion” is only a finite period then at some time they could be plucked out. “Aionion” by definition here means eternal.

[18]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life.​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” They could perish in a finite period, “aionion life” by definition here means eternal life.

[19]John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life.​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” People could eventually perish in a finite period, “aionion life” by definition here means eternal life.

[20]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [αἰώνιος] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from life unto death.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[21]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [αἰώνιος] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​

In this verse “aionios life” is contrasted with death. “A finite period” is not opposite death, “eternal life” is. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”

[22]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [του αιωνος/tou aionios] and ever! [των αιωνων/ton aionion] Amen.​

In this verse “tou aionios ton aionion” is paired with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.

[23]John 8:51
(51) Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ου μη εις τον αιωνα/ou mé unto the aion] see death."​

According to noted Greek scholar MarvinVincent "The double negative “ou mé” signifies in nowise, by no means." Unless Jesus is saying they will die, i.e. see death, unto the age. By definition aion means eternity.

Dude, you just cut and paste the same thing in every thread. I've addressed this in threads past. There is no debate with you because you don't accept any evidence. Everything that is presented you claim is not credible.

Sure there is hyperbole and figures of speech I. The Bible. However, hyperbole is an exaggeration of something.its to a greater extent. For instance, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse". A horse is larger than person. We know a person cannot literally eat a horse. It's hyperbole used to show that someone is really hungry. However, its always greater, not lesser. No one say, "I'm so hungry I could eat an ant". So, if aionios is being used as hyperbole it would be to greater extent not lesser. So you can't claim that when aionios is used of finite time that it's
hyperbole. It doesn't work that.

Having said that, you still have not addressed the subject. Do you have a rebuttle to the audios or not. All you're doing is derailing the thread.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<B5>Dude, you just cut and paste the same thing in every thread. I've addressed this in threads past. There is no debate with you because you don't accept any evidence. Everything that is presented you claim is not credible.<end>

end

Would you go to an anonymous website for legal or medical advice? I wouldn't. I can read the Bible in 5 languages. So why would I go to an anonymous website for advice about the Bible? It appears that you don't know the difference between peer reviewed sources such as lexicons, concordances, grammars etc. and anonymous sources which you linked to.
.....I am here almost every day and I don't recall seeing where you have addressed what I posted in my my previous post. If you have, point me to one post where you have.

<B5>

Sure there is hyperbole and figures of speech I. The Bible. However, hyperbole is an exaggeration of something.its to a greater extent. For instance, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse". A horse is larger than person. We know a person cannot literally eat a horse. It's hyperbole used to show that someone is really hungry. However, its always greater, not lesser. No one say, "I'm so hungry I could eat an ant". So, if aionios is being used as hyperbole it would be to greater extent not lesser. So you can't claim that when aionios is used of finite time that it's hyperbole. It doesn't work that.<end>

end

If aion/aionios mean eternity/eternal as I have proved from other scripture then it would be hyperbole to use them to refer to things which are not eternity/eternal.

Having said that, you still have not addressed the subject. Do you have a rebuttle to the audios or not. All you're doing is derailing the thread.

I don't do anonymous links and I certainly don't do audio or video links. If you can't say it in your own words I'm not wasting my time.

 

[ClementofA]

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker is one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available. Here is their definition of aionios.

BDAG has been peer reviewed by many Greek scholars for more than one hundred years.

BDAG was only published in 2000. And you've never provided a single critical review of it re the word aionios.

The Greek scholar & early church father, Origen, in his commentary on John implies that aionios life is finite:

(19) "And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. " (Origen's Commentary on John 13:19).

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Tu...rding to John, Books 13-32, By Origen&f=false

BDAG's (W.F. Danker, reviser & editor) entry on aionios omits that & generally ignores Origen, except for one reference to support the BDAG bias. Likewise Danker omits many other references to aionios as finite duration in ancient Koine Greek. Such as, for many examples, the following:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2931562-does-aionios-always-mean-eternal-ancient.html

Elsewhere BDAG is perhaps a bit less biased against a universalist interpretation of Scripture. For example, re the word "destruction" that occurs at 2 Thess.1:9, Danker continues his bias re aionios with a reference to "eternal death", but also states:

"...Hierocles 14, 451b has the thought that the soul of the sinner in Hades is purified by the tortures of hell, and is saved thereby..." (p702)

https://translate.academic.ru/ὄλεθρος/el/xx/

A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (BDAG) https://www.amazon.ca/Greek-English-Lexicon-Testament-Christian-Literature/dp/0226039331

Which opposes rendering aionios there as "eternal", favoring it being finite.

1 Cor.5:4-5 also uses the word in the context of a positive purpose:

4 When you are gathered in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of the Lord Jesus, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Which compares to the following remark:

"In Ancient Greek mythology, Olethros was the personification of Havoc and probably one of the Makhai. Olethros translates roughly in ancient Greek to "destruction", but often with a positive connotation, as in the destruction required for and preceding renewal."

However being from uncited wiki sources, we won't put much stock in that until such can be verified from other sources.

Returning to Danker's quote of "eternal death" above re the BDAG entry on ὄλεθρος, I will note that Scripture never refers to "death" as being "eternal". To the contrary, it speaks of death being abolished (1 Cor.15:26; 2 Tim.1:10; Rev.21:4).

F.W. Danker also remarked regarding ἀποκαταλλάσσω:

"...found only in Christian writers...reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20..." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd edition, 2000, p.112).

This is a prime example of heterodox cherry picking sources to support assumptions/presuppositions.

Checkout the orthodox universalism majority in the early church (and a hope for universalism majority in the present day church):

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...niversalism-since-early-church-times.8042013/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfund...017/04/indeed-many-universalism-early-church/

If you think BDAG is wrong you will have to prove it

If you think the Bible & the early church & the modern church are all wrong, you will have to prove it.

If you think Love Omnipotent's love is finite & expires like a carton of milk so He can torture most of His creatures called human beings in fire with immortal worms eating them for all endless trillions X trillions X trillions of eons, forever and ever and ever, you will have to prove it.

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

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/unique_proof_for_universalism.html

http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/

​

 

[ClementofA]

You posted from a lexicon as if that's some inspired source. Just because BDAG says something doesn't necessitate that it's correct. You may find this amazing but scholars can be wrong. When you have people who all believe the same thing writing lexicons what do you expect to get? Lexicons that agree with each other.

Many people blindly believe such sources like they are a substitute infallible pontiff.

Early church father universalist Greek scholars disagree with such sources.

I've shown you numerous passages that prove aionios cannot possibly mean eternal. Rather than look at the logic you simply turn to your scholars. I'm sorry, but, they're wrong.

Scholars often disagree with each other. That certainly applies re aion & aionios.

If aion means eternity

"Consider the N. T. use of aion. Does “eternity” make any sense in the following passages? To make my point unmistakable, I have translated the Greek word aion with the English word “eternity.”

¨ What will be the sign…of the end of the eternity (Mt. 24:3)?

¨ I am with you…to the end of the eternity (Mt. 28:20).

¨ The sons of this eternity are more shrewd (Lu. 16:8).

¨ The sons of this eternity marry (Lu. 20:34).

¨ Worthy to attain that eternity (Lu. 20:35).

¨ Since the eternity began (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21).

¨ Conformed to this eternity (Ro. 12:2).

¨ Mystery kept secret since the eternity began but now made manifest (Ro. 16:25-26).

¨ Where is the disputer of this eternity (1Co. 1:20)?

¨ Wisdom of this eternity, nor of the rulers of this eternity…ordained before the eternities…which none of the rulers of this eternity…(1Co. 2:6-8)

¨ Wise in this eternity (1Co. 3:18).

¨ Upon whom the ends of the eternities have come.
(1Co. 10:11)

¨ God of this eternity has blinded (2Co. 4:4).

¨ Deliver us from this present evil eternity (Ga. 1:4).

¨ Not only in this eternity but also in that which is to come (Ep. 1:21).

¨ Walked according to the eternity of this world (Ep. 2:2).

¨ In the eternities to come (Ep. 2:7).

¨ From the beginnings of the eternities (Ep. 3:9).

¨ Hidden from eternities…but now…revealed (Col. 1:26).

¨ Loved this present eternity (2Ti. 4:10).

¨ Receive him for eternity (Ph.1:15). Does this mean forever or only until Onesimus dies?

¨ Powers of the eternity to come (He. 6:5).

¨ At the end of the eternities (He. 9:26).

¨ We understand the eternities have been prepared by a saying of God (He. 11:3).

How can we say…

¨ “Before eternity” or “eternity began”? Eternity has no beginning (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21; 1Co. 2:7; Ep. 3:9).

¨ “Present eternity,” “eternity to come,” and “end of eternity?” Eternity transcends time. Only God is eternal (Mt. 24:3; 28:20; 1Co. 10:11; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 6:5; 9:26).

¨ “This eternity,” “that eternity,” or “eternities”? There is only one eternity (Lu. 16:8; 20:34-35; Ro. 12:2; 1Co. 1:20; 2:6-8; 3:18; 10:11; 2Co. 4:4; Ga. 1:4; Ep. 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9; Col. 1:26; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 11:3).

¨ “Eternal secret” if the secret is revealed? (Ro. 16:25-26; Col. 1:26). It is no longer a “secret” at that point."

http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/

 

[ClementofA]

I can read the Bible in 5 languages.

As to your proficiency in Greek:

In order for the phrase to be correctly translated "to the king of the ages" the noun βασιλει/basilei must be in the genitive case, as it is in the 29 times it is translated
"king of" in the NT. And that is why the NIV and NET translate 1 Tim 1:17 "king eternal."

Here is a response to your statement from a guy who knows some Greek:

"This is simply false, as ANYONE who has even a smattering of Greek knows. It is simply false that βασιλει would need to be in the genitive case to be correctly translated as
"to the king of the ages." No, "των αιωνιον" must be in the genitive to mean "of the ages" and it is."

 

[gideon123]

Interpretations of Revelations are always difficult ... because much spiritual symbolism is used. Nevertheless, many theories exist and lots of people claim that they are right.

My personal thoughts ... which I do not claim are perfect. Probably both things are true. Possibly a real city might be burning. We dont know which one, but it is the home of the false religion that sweeps the Earth before Christ returns.

But i also believe the verses are symbolic. The false religion itself collapses, and the "burning" is the destruction of these false beliefs by God's holy fire.

But these are only personal views, and I do not claim any special authority. It is better to remain humble.

 

[ClementofA]

.....I am here almost every day and I don't recall seeing where you have addressed what I posted in my my previous post. If you have, point me to one post where you have.

Butch has addressed your list. You & he had several exchanges on the topic.

And, of course, i also have addressed it:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...os-based-on-aion.8040292/page-2#post-72110302

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...torture-in-fire.8041369/page-25#post-72149978

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...k-a-universalism.8070242/page-8#post-72862899

OTOH here we see many examples where αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described as being of a finite duration:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2931562-does-aionios-always-mean-eternal-ancient.html

http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/

12 points re forever and ever being a deceptive translation & being finite:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-not-cast-off-for-ever.8041512/#post-72126038

Jesus didn't use the best words & expressions to describe endlessness in regards to punishment, because He didn't believe in endless punishment:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-a-universalism.8070242/page-14#post-72882151

 

[Butch5]

<B5>Dude, you just cut and paste the same thing in every thread. I've addressed this in threads past. There is no debate with you because you don't accept any evidence. Everything that is presented you claim is not credible.<end>
Would you go to an anonymous website for legal or medical advice? I wouldn't. I can read the Bible in 5 languages. So why would I go to an anonymous website for advice about the Bible? It appears that you don't know the difference between peer reviewed sources such as lexicons, concordances, grammars etc. and anonymous sources which you linked to.

Once again you present a Red Herring. It's not an anonymous website. The author is right there on the sight. His email address is there and there is a forum where you could go and engage in conversation with him. Why not go, join the forum, and engage him. Then when he hands you your lunch you can come back and tell us about it.

It doesn't matter how many languages you can read the Bible in. If you always use the same lens you're always going to see the same thing. That's the whole reason for debate, so you can see things through a different lens.

Peer reviewed sources? That's pretty funny. Let's go to some guys who believe the same things we do and see if they agree with us. If they all believe in a doctrine that's not Biblical of course they're all going to agree. Critical thinking isn't based on how many people agree with you, it's evaluating an argument based on it's merits. Who makes the argument is irrelevant.

I am here almost every day and I don't recall seeing where you have addressed what I posted in my my previous post. If you have, point me to one post where you have.

Nonsense. We've discussed this enough times that I'm sure you know what I've said.

If aion/aionios mean eternity/eternal as I have proved from other scripture then it would be hyperbole to use them to refer to things which are not eternity/eternal.

You have it backwards. Look up the definition of hyperbole. It is an extravagant overstatement to make a point. It is the opposite of an understatement. Eternal is a greater length of time than a finite period. Therefore a finite period of time cannot be hyperbole for eternal. The hyperbole expresses something to greater extent not a lesser one and a finite period of time is a lesser period than eternal.

I don't do anonymous links and I certainly don't do audio or video links. If you can't say it in your own words I'm not wasting my time.

Well, the links weren't posted to you, they posted to the OP. It was you who decided to challenge what I posted. Now, that your argument has fallen apart you refuse to address the real issue which was the audios. You're just proving my point. I said there is no debate with you because you just dismiss evidence that you don't agree with. You used a Red Herring fallacy to claim the website is anonymous, thus making it irrelevant in your mind, thus justifying your rejection of the evidence. Anyone who disagrees with you and/or your sources is simply wrong end of story.

 

[Butch5]

Many people blindly believe such sources like they are a substitute infallible pontiff.

Early church father universalist Greek scholars disagree with such sources.



Scholars often disagree with each other. That certainly applies re aion & aionios.



"Consider the N. T. use of aion. Does “eternity” make any sense in the following passages? To make my point unmistakable, I have translated the Greek word aion with the English word “eternity.”

¨ What will be the sign…of the end of the eternity (Mt. 24:3)?

¨ I am with you…to the end of the eternity (Mt. 28:20).

¨ The sons of this eternity are more shrewd (Lu. 16:8).

¨ The sons of this eternity marry (Lu. 20:34).

¨ Worthy to attain that eternity (Lu. 20:35).

¨ Since the eternity began (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21).

¨ Conformed to this eternity (Ro. 12:2).

¨ Mystery kept secret since the eternity began but now made manifest (Ro. 16:25-26).

¨ Where is the disputer of this eternity (1Co. 1:20)?

¨ Wisdom of this eternity, nor of the rulers of this eternity…ordained before the eternities…which none of the rulers of this eternity…(1Co. 2:6-8)

¨ Wise in this eternity (1Co. 3:18).

¨ Upon whom the ends of the eternities have come.
(1Co. 10:11)

¨ God of this eternity has blinded (2Co. 4:4).

¨ Deliver us from this present evil eternity (Ga. 1:4).

¨ Not only in this eternity but also in that which is to come (Ep. 1:21).

¨ Walked according to the eternity of this world (Ep. 2:2).

¨ In the eternities to come (Ep. 2:7).

¨ From the beginnings of the eternities (Ep. 3:9).

¨ Hidden from eternities…but now…revealed (Col. 1:26).

¨ Loved this present eternity (2Ti. 4:10).

¨ Receive him for eternity (Ph.1:15). Does this mean forever or only until Onesimus dies?

¨ Powers of the eternity to come (He. 6:5).

¨ At the end of the eternities (He. 9:26).

¨ We understand the eternities have been prepared by a saying of God (He. 11:3).

How can we say…

¨ “Before eternity” or “eternity began”? Eternity has no beginning (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21; 1Co. 2:7; Ep. 3:9).

¨ “Present eternity,” “eternity to come,” and “end of eternity?” Eternity transcends time. Only God is eternal (Mt. 24:3; 28:20; 1Co. 10:11; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 6:5; 9:26).

¨ “This eternity,” “that eternity,” or “eternities”? There is only one eternity (Lu. 16:8; 20:34-35; Ro. 12:2; 1Co. 1:20; 2:6-8; 3:18; 10:11; 2Co. 4:4; Ga. 1:4; Ep. 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9; Col. 1:26; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 11:3).

¨ “Eternal secret” if the secret is revealed? (Ro. 16:25-26; Col. 1:26). It is no longer a “secret” at that point."

http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/

Yeah, too many people don't seem to realize that all of these people have pretty much the same beliefs. So of course they're all going to agree. However, just because they agree doesn't make them right. Anyone who traces the use of Olam and aion thorugh the Scriptures will find many passages where they are limited periods of time. Many think just because the words are used in conjunction with God and God is eternal that these words must mean eternal. That's not proper reasoning. Suppose Paul had said, You know, God is eternal, He's going to be around for awhile. Would we then argue that the word awhile means eternity? It doesn't. It means a short period of time. It's just being used figuratively in this sense.

 

[ClementofA]

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker is one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available.

Here is what BDAG says:

"...found only in Christian writers...reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20..." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd edition, 2000, p.112).

TDNT is one of the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available. It says re the remedy for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:

“It denotes the conscious and wicked rejection of the saving power and grace of God towards man. Only the man who sets himself against forgiveness is excluded from it. In such cases the only remedy is to deliver up to Satan that he may learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:20)” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, TDNT, ed. Kittel, Vol.1, p.624, by Beyer).

http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/

 

[Der Alte]

Once again you present a Red Herring. It's not an anonymous website. The author is right there on the sight. His email address is there and there is a forum where you could go and engage in conversation with him. Why not go, join the forum, and engage him. Then when he hands you your lunch you can come back and tell us about it.

Anonymous-(of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name.
So your link is not only anonymous, no demonstrated or stated qualifications in Greek.

It doesn't matter how many languages you can read the Bible in. If you always use the same lens you're always going to see the same thing. That's the whole reason for debate, so you can see things through a different lens.

Go look in the mirror amigo. That is exactly what I'm doing to you and your responses indicate my posts upset your little apple cart.

Peer reviewed sources? That's pretty funny. Let's go to some guys who believe the same things we do and see if they agree with us. If they all believe in a doctrine that's not Biblical of course they're all going to agree. Critical thinking isn't based on how many people agree with you, it's evaluating an argument based on it's merits. Who makes the argument is irrelevant.

What a joke. Talking about things you know nothing about. Anyone knowledgeable in the field can review and critique a book. It is not restricted to scholars that agree with the author. And the material at that website is simply one person's opinion with no review of any kind.

Nonsense. We've discussed this enough times that I'm sure you know what I've said.

I did a search of the entire forum I can't find anywhere you have discussed my list of 23 verses.

You have it backwards. Look up the definition of hyperbole. It is an extravagant overstatement to make a point. It is the opposite of an understatement. Eternal is a greater length of time than a finite period. Therefore a finite period of time cannot be hyperbole for eternal. The hyperbole expresses something to greater extent not a lesser one and a finite period of time is a lesser period than eternal.

No you have it backwards. Evidently you did not even read my explanation. Here it is again. If aion/aionios mean eternity/eternal as I have proved with 23 scripture and the definition from a major Greek lexicon, then other uses are hyperbole.

begin

<B5>Well, the links weren't posted to you, they posted to the OP. It was you who decided to challenge what I posted. Now, that your argument has fallen apart you refuse to address the real issue which was the audios. You're just proving my point. I said there is no debate with you because you just dismiss evidence that you don't agree with. You used a Red Herring fallacy to claim the website is anonymous, thus making it irrelevant in your mind, thus justifying your rejection of the evidence. Anyone who disagrees with you and/or your sources is simply wrong end of story.<end>

end

I cracked up reading this. Nothing about my argument has fallen apart. You talk about me dismissing evidence. Pot-kettle. That is exactly what you did with BDAG. And you did it again in this post Your entire post is nothing but "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!"

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<ClemA>Here is what BDAG says:
"...found only in Christian writers...reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20..." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd edition, 2000, p.112).
TDNT is one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available. It says re the remedy for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
“It denotes the conscious and wicked rejection of the saving power and grace of God towards man. Only the man who sets himself against forgiveness is excluded from it. In such cases the only remedy is to deliver up to Satan that he may learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:20)” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, TDNT, ed. Kittel, Vol.1, p.624, by Beyer)<end>

end

The usual out-of-context copy/paste from one of your pet websites. The BDAG quote is part of the commentary on ἀποκαταλλάσσω. Let us read your proof text in context.

Colossians 1:19-23
(19) For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
(20) and through him to reconcile [ἀποκαταλλάσσω] to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
(21) Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.
(22) But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—
(23) if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.​

It was Christ's purpose to reconcile all things. Some, not all, who had been enemies, were reconciled, vs. 22. But there is a condition "if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." IF they continue in the faith and DO NOT move from the hope.
.....The TDNT entry does not support your argument.

 

[Butch5]

Anonymous-(of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name.
So your link is not only anonymous, no demonstrated or stated qualifications in Greek.

Yes, people are identified by name. Thus it is not anonymous. There is also contact info there. That you ignore that shows your bias. You have no intention of actually engaging on the information. Instead you'd rather just take pot shots from a safe distance. As I said, go, join the forum, and converse. You will get eaten alive.

Go look in the mirror amigo. That is exactly what I'm doing to you and your responses indicate my posts upset your little apple cart.

On the contrary. I used to see things your way. However, it was looking through a different lens that I became aware of the errors of that line of reasoning.

What a joke. Talking about things you know nothing about. Anyone knowledgeable in the field can review and critique a book. It is not restricted to scholars that agree with the author. And the material at that website is simply one person's opinion with no review of any kind.

Um, you said peer reviewed not critiqued by anyone. It seems you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. If a scholar writes a book and it's peer reviewed it's reviewed by scholars, not some average Joe down the road. All one has to do is look at a few lexicons and see that most say the same thing. So, yes, it's going to a bunch of guys who already agree with you. of Course since they agree with you they must be right.

Regarding the website, you again appeal to fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's one person's opinion or 1000 person's opinions. The critical thinker knows that the argument is evaluated on it's merits, not the one making it.

I did a search of the entire forum I can't find anywhere you have discussed my list of 23 verses.

If that true you didn't look very hard. Jesus spoke of the end of the aion. Therefore it can't be eternal. Eternal, by definition doesn't end. Case closed.

No you have it backwards. Evidently you did not even read my explanation. Here it is again. If aion/aionios mean eternity/eternal as I have proved with 23 scripture and the definition from a major Greek lexicon, then other uses are hyperbole.

Oh, I read it, and my reply is the same. Hyperbole is a exaggeration of excess, not less. Therefore a finite period of time cannot be hyperbole for eternity as finite is less that eternity. It's really that simple. I understand that claiming hyperbole is the only of saving this idea, but it won't work.

I cracked up reading this. Nothing about my argument has fallen apart. You talk about me dismissing evidence. Pot-kettle. That is exactly what you did with BDAG. And you did it again in this post Your entire post is nothing but "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!"

Proving my point again, just dismissing more of what I said. Your argument has fallen apart. Your claim is that aionios means eternity when it clearly doesn't. You've simply drawn a wrong conclusion, that because aion is used in conjunction with God and God is eternal then aion must mean erternal. That, however, is a non sequitur, a logical fallacy. As I pointed out above and in several posts to you in other threads, Jesus spoke of the end of the aion. Eternity, by definition doesn't end. Therefore aion cannot mean eternity. The choice you're left with is you can believe Jesus or BDAG. I suspect I know which one you'll choose.

 

[ClementofA]

Oh, I read it, and my reply is the same. Hyperbole is a exaggeration of excess, not less. Therefore a finite period of time cannot be hyperbole for eternity as finite is less that eternity. It's really that simple. I understand that claiming hyperbole is the only of saving this idea, but it won't work.

"Greek hyperbolḗ overshooting, excess, n. derivative of hyperbállein to throw beyond, exceed" https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole

"1. an obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “She’s as big as a house." https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole

"A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton."

"a deliberate exaggeration used for effect: he embraced her a thousand times."
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole

"an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.” https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole

"In the 5th century B.C. there was a rabble-rousing Athenian, a politician named Hyperbolus, who often made exaggerated promises and claims that whipped people into a frenzy. But even though it sounds appropriate, Hyperbolus' name did not play a role in the development of the modern English word hyperbole. That noun does come to us from Greek (by way of Latin), but from the Greek verb hyperballein, meaning "to exceed," not from the name of the Athenian demagogue."

"...Latin, from Greek hyperbolē excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole

 

[ClementofA]

<ClemA>Here is what BDAG says:
"...found only in Christian writers...reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20..." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd edition, 2000, p.112).
TDNT is one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available. It says re the remedy for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
“It denotes the conscious and wicked rejection of the saving power and grace of God towards man. Only the man who sets himself against forgiveness is excluded from it. In such cases the only remedy is to deliver up to Satan that he may learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:20)” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, TDNT, ed. Kittel, Vol.1, p.624, by Beyer)<end>
The usual out-of-context copy/paste from one of your pet websites.

That's your slanderous allegation, which you continually repeat. OTOH, the truth is i typed it out by hand from my hardcover copies of BDAG & TDNT. So unless you can provide evidence of your slanderous allegation, you should issue a public apology.

The BDAG quote is part of the

commentary on ἀποκαταλλάσσω. Let us read your proof text in context.

Colossians 1:19-23
(19) For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
(20) and through him to reconcile [ἀποκαταλλάσσω] to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
(21) Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.
(22) But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—
(23) if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
​

It was Christ's purpose to reconcile all things. Some, not all, who had been enemies, were reconciled, vs. 22. But there is a condition "if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." IF they continue in the faith and DO NOT move from the hope.

Co.1:16 For by Him ***ALL*** was created that are in HEAVEN and that are on EARTH, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
All was created through Him and for Him.
20 and by Him to reconcile ***ALL*** to Himself, by Him, whether on EARTH or in HEAVEN, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

The context shows that verses 21-23 are a different topic from verses 16-20 in which the parallel of verses 16 & 20 occur. In v.21-23 the subject is not all creation as in v.16,20, but instead the Colossians, the saints. Paul says they will be presented "holy in His sight" (v.22) if they continue in the faith, clearly a reference to a specific time, the time when they meet the Lord, which for these saints would have been when they died, & for others when He returns. So v.22-23 refer to a time no later than the second coming & tell us nothing about reconciliation possibilities for "all" beyond that time. So verses 22-23 in no way limit the parallel of verses 16 & 20 from being a future universal reconciliation of created beings in the ages to come after the Lord's return, such as in the millennial age or in the ages of the new heavens & new earth. Nowhere does Paul say of those who don't continue in the faith that they are excluded from the "all" of verse 20. Therefore your specious argument fails.

It's quite astonishing that many insist that the parallel of aionios in Mt.25:46 means the word must be of the same meaning & duration in both instances, but they don't apply the same reasoning to other passages with parallels, such as Col.1:20 above and these:

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for ALL MANKIND for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for ALL MANKIND for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, THE MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, THE MANY shall be constituted just."

1 Cor.15:22 AS in Adam ALL die - so also - in Christ shall ALL be made alive.

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

“ἀποκαταλλάσσω is found in the NT only in Col. and Eph., where καταλλάσσω does not occur. Since it is never found prior to Paul, it is perhaps coined by him…In men [it] is preceded by alienation and enmity (Col.1:22)…Col.1:20 speaks of the gracious purpose which God had demonstrated…to reconcile the whole world to Himself; it does not speak of a reconciliation of the world already concluded. ἀποκαταλλάξαι cannot refer merely to the removal of a relationship of guilt by God, since it is plainly expounded as a conclusion of peace in Col.1:20 and Eph.2:15. Hence it is not something one-sided. It embraces the total life situation of man. It does not refer merely to his guilt before God. In Eph.2:16 reconciliation to God also brings reconciliation to Jews and Gentiles, and in Col.1:20 the reconciliation of men to God also carries with it that of supraterrestrial beings” (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Vol.1, p.258-259, Friedrich Buschel, ed. Gerhard Kittel, 1st printing 1964, 2006).

“…Jesus existed before all things, He created all things, He holds together all things, and He will reconcile all things. And what does it mean for God to “reconcile to himself all things”? It is clear that the word reconcile means more than squashing opposition. It means a full restoration of peace and harmony.”

“…The “all things” of verse 20 is as extensive as the “all things” of verse 16. So just as God created everything and everybody through Christ, so He will reconcile everything and everybody through Christ (not everything except most of humanity!). The universe will be completely restored to its original perfection and peace. No one will be at enmity with God or with one another. He will completely fulfill “the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure”—“to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ” (Ephesians 1:10). Going from the depths of mankind’s depravity to the total reconciliation of everyone to God and to each other will be more glorious than if we had never fallen in the first place. The restoration of every single relationship to perfect harmony through the work of reconciliation on the cross will be the most spectacular demonstration imaginable of the grace and justice and wisdom and power and love of God.”
http://blogs.christianpost.com/amba...e-heart-of-gods-grand-plan-for-creation-7138/

"Just as His glories in creation take us back to the very beginning, so the greater glories of reconciliation take us to the very consummation. The universal reconciliation cannot be fully accomplished till the close of the eonian times, when all sovereignty and authority and power and even death are rendered inoperative (1Cor.15:24-27)…(Concordant Commentary, AE Knoch, 1968, Col.1:20, p.303).

.....The TDNT entry does not support your argument.

I made no "argument" re the TDNT entry, but simply quoted it, saying:

TDNT is one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available. It says re the remedy for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:

“It denotes the conscious and wicked rejection of the saving power and grace of God towards man. Only the man who sets himself against forgiveness is excluded from it. In such cases the only remedy is to deliver up to Satan that he may learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:20)” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, TDNT, ed. Kittel, Vol.1, p.624, by Beyer)

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, people are identified by name. Thus it is not anonymous. There is also contact info there. That you ignore that shows your bias. You have no intention of actually engaging on the information. Instead you'd rather just take pot shots from a safe distance. As I said, go, join the forum, and converse. You will get eaten alive.

If the clown that operates that website wants me to eat his lunch he will have to come here. I have been here for about 2 decades and I'm not chasing all over the internet for the next clown who claims "The church has been wrong for 2000 years and I'm the only one with the true truth. Come over here and drink my koolaid."

On the contrary. I used to see things your way. However, it was looking through a different lens that I became aware of the errors of that line of reasoning.

Meaningless rambling.

Um, you said peer reviewed not critiqued by anyone. It seems you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. If a scholar writes a book and it's peer reviewed it's reviewed by scholars, not some average Joe down the road. All one has to do is look at a few lexicons and see that most say the same thing. So, yes, it's going to a bunch of guys who already agree with you. of Course since they agree with you they must be right.

I specified "scholar." "'Peer review'-evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field." It may or may not include critiques. The reviewers may or may not hold similar views to the author. And nobody, no how has reviewed anything at your pet website.

Regarding the website, you again appeal to fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's one person's opinion or 1000 person's opinions. The critical thinker knows that the argument is evaluated on it's merits, not the one making it.

Wrong as usual. Same old "I'm right and you'e wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" It most certainly does matter who is writing or speaking. Does the clown at that website have any qualifications at all in Hebrew, Greek, Bible history etc? You don't know you simply surfed the internet for something by anybody, any where, that props up your assumptions/presuppositions'

If that true you didn't look very hard. Jesus spoke of the end of the aion. Therefore it can't be eternal. Eternal, by definition doesn't end. Case closed.

Your claim was that you specifically addressed the 23 verses I quoted. You did not do that! Referring to one verse by Jesus does not address anything I posted. Since you have not done this you have not closed anything. Game, set, match!

Oh, I read it, and my reply is the same. Hyperbole is a exaggeration of excess, not less. Therefore a finite period of time cannot be hyperbole for eternity as finite is less that eternity. It's really that simple. I understand that claiming hyperbole is the only of saving this idea, but it won't work.

Either ignoring or twisting my words. Just more jejune "I'm right ans you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" Aion/aionios mean eternity/eternal<period> end of argument. I have PROVED it from a major lexicon and with 23 passages of scripture.

begin

<B5>Proving my point again, just dismissing more of what I said. Your argument has fallen apart. Your claim is that aionios means eternity when it clearly doesn't. You've simply drawn a wrong conclusion, that because aion is used in conjunction with God and God is eternal then aion must mean erternal. That, however, is a non sequitur, a logical fallacy. As I pointed out above and in several posts to you in other threads, Jesus spoke of the end of the aion. Eternity, by definition doesn't end. Therefore aion cannot mean eternity. The choice you're left with is you can believe Jesus or BDAG. I suspect I know which one you'll choose.<end>

end

You just shot yourself in the foot and blew your argument apart. Your claim

"You've simply drawn a wrong conclusion, that because aion is used in conjunction with God and God is eternal then aion must mean erternal [sic]. That, however, is a non sequitur, a logical fallacy." ​

Please explain how my conclusion is false. It most certainly is not "non sequitur."
That Jesus said "the end of the "aion" one time does not prove that "aion" cannot mean "eternity." That is a non-sequitur. Jesus often used figures of speech such as hyperbole. You have to prove that Jesus was not using "aion" hyperbolically. You cannot do that. Let us review two verses from my post again.
…..In the NT “aion/aionios” are used to refer to things which are not eternal but are never defined/described, by other words and phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, as in the following verses.

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc.
In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous.
The same writer, Paul, in the same letter uses both aidios and aionios to describe God. God cannot be eternal and finite at the same time. The only way you can refute this is prove that aidios never means eternal.
.....Or you could search the NT and find where aionios not only refers to something which cannot be eternal but is also described in the same passage by other adjectives or phrases as finite. Just as I did with Rom 1:10 and 16:26.
.....Here is another example where one word or phrase is used hyperbolically multiple times.

Matthew 16:26
(26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?[Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25]
Act_17:6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
Acts 19:27 There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty."
Romans 1:8
(8) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
1 John 5:19
(8) And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
Revelation 12:9
(9) And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.​

Can a person literally, actually gain the entire planet earth? Was the faith of the Roman church literally, actually spoken of throughout the entire planet earth? Did the entire planet earth literally, actually lie in wickedness? Was the goddess Artemis actually, literally worshipped throughout the world? Did the entire planet earth literally, actually wonder after the beast? Did Satan literally, actually deceive the entire planet earth. What is it called when someone uses exaggeration to emphasize a point? I think it is called hyperbole.