Why are so many Christians against annihilation in hell when scripture supports it?

[Pneuma3]

You have not corrected me on anything, amigo. I don't think I said aionios does not mean "without beginning and without end" You OTOH have insisted that is the only meaning and you have not provided anything which proves that true.
.....Take a look at the lexical fallacy, Root fallacy. Your argument that aionios can only mean without beginning and without end is patently false and you have not provided any credible evidence to the contrary. However I have provided 23 passages which prove beyond any doubt that aionios means eternal. I don't care how many times you repeat "aion and its adjective END."
.....Endlessly repeating that over and over does NOT prove me wrong. For example this verse.

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

In this verse the βασιλευσει, the verb form of the word, is aionas and the βασιλειας, the noun form of the same word "shall have no end." Therefore by definition αιωνας/aionas means eternal, i.e "shall have no end." No matter how many proof texts you quote, no matter what verbal gymnastics you try there is absolutely nothing you can say to disprove that.

This is just to funny, let me highlight the part. I have never said any such thing as that which I highlighted. As a matter of fact what I have stated and been stating is that aion and its adjective NEVER means without beginning and without end because scripture tell me they END.

You are the one who insist aion and its adjective can mean two different things ie age and eternal, picking and choosing when it mean one or the other, thus playing with words to make them fit you belief.

 

[Pneuma3]

You have not corrected me on anything, amigo. I don't think I said aionios does not mean "without beginning and without end" You OTOH have insisted that is the only meaning and you have not provided anything which proves that true.
.....Take a look at the lexical fallacy, Root fallacy. Your argument that aionios can only mean without beginning and without end is patently false and you have not provided any credible evidence to the contrary. However I have provided 23 passages which prove beyond any doubt that aionios means eternal. I don't care how many times you repeat "aion and its adjective END."
.....Endlessly repeating that over and over does NOT prove me wrong. For example this verse.

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

In this verse the βασιλευσει, the verb form of the word, is aionas and the βασιλειας, the noun form of the same word "shall have no end." Therefore by definition αιωνας/aionas means eternal, i.e "shall have no end." No matter how many proof texts you quote, no matter what verbal gymnastics you try there is absolutely nothing you can say to disprove that.

That scripture is NOT saying what you think it is saying

YLT has it

and he shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages; and of his reign there shall be no end.’

That scripture is NOT saying that Jesus reign will not come to an end, it is saying that Jesus will reign continually over the house of Jacob to the ages.

It is talking about the continual reign of Jesus until the consummation/completion of the ages.

And once the ages have come to a completion we read....

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.....does that sound to you like Jesus will reign eternally or Jesus will reign UNTIL.

and once all enemies are under His feet we read.....

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<P3>No no no I am not going to let you get away with that. You posted this scripture...

1 John 2:17
(17) And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God
abideth forever.​

And then asked this question.....
Where does John say that the unrighteous will also definitely abide forever?
To which I replied....
LOL that is YOUR belief that says the unrighteous will definitely abide forever, not mine. I believe all the unrighteous will be changed via the cross and become righteous. For when Gods judgments are in the earth the world will learn righteousness.
I am not the one who is stating the unrighteous will definitely abide forever, YOU ARE.<end>

end

Now I see the problem. I have found it helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. First you are addressing each verse out-of-context, then you said it is my "belief that says the unrighteous will definitely abide forever." I neither said nor implied any such thing.

However as a matter of fact my belief has history behind it and many reading, probably even yourself, at one time did not believe or do the will of God. Are you or they in eternal torment? NO, Why? because you now believe in Him and endeavor to do His will.Which backs up exactly what I had said if you have eyes to see it.

Irrelevant. Unless you can clearly explain what all that means.

So go ahead and show us all where in that scripture John is saying those who do not believe in God are eternally tormented? As a matter of fact show us anywhere in scripture that plainly says God will eternally torment anyone. After all I have given you 7 scriptures that plainly tell us Jesus Christ IS the saviour of the world.
The only way you can get eternal torment out of any scripture is by reading eternal torment into the scripture.

I will show you where in that scripture John is saying those who do not believe in God are eternally tormented just as soon as you show me where I said or even implied that.

 

[Der Alte]

Begin

<P3>That scripture is NOT saying what you think it is saying
YLT has it
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages; and of his reign there shall be no end.’
That scripture is NOT saying that Jesus reign will not come to an end, it is saying that Jesus will reign continually over the house of Jacob to the ages.<end>

end

Nonsense! You did not even read and you have not interacted with what I posted. As with most, if not all, UR-ites you cherry pick sources which say what you want to hear. All Young has done is spout his UR bias with no explanation why aionios should be "ages"
.....Had you bothered to actually read my post I proved with irrefutable logic that, in Luk 1:33, "aionas" means for ever. Here is my post again and try to address exactly what I said. YLT does not address and does not prove anything about what I posted.
.....If you can, find somewhere where Young, or any other scholar, directly addresses my conclusions about "basileusei,""basileias," and "telos."

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

In this verse the βασιλευσει, the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and the βασιλειας, the noun form of the same word "shall have no end." Therefore by definition αιωνας/aionas means eternal, i.e "shall have no end." No matter how many proof texts you quote, no matter what verbal gymnastics you try there is absolutely nothing you can say to disprove that.

It is talking about the continual reign of Jesus until the consummation/completion of the ages.
And once the ages have come to a completion we read....
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.....does that sound to you like Jesus will reign eternally or Jesus will reign UNTIL.
and once all enemies are under His feet we read.....
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

The verse I quoted was spoken to Mary by the angel of God. Anything you quote trying to rebut what I said must address that specific verse and must be from somebody with a higher rank than the angel.

 

[ClementofA]

Where does John say that the unrighteous will also definitely abide forever?

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

2 Cor.5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all is become new.

Chapter Five

Why Can't Aionas Ton Aionon Mean Eternity?


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.

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).

forever and ever: a poor translation:

Why Can't Aionas Ton Aionon Mean Eternity?

Bible Translations That Do Not Teach Eternal Torment

#4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon

AIN -- AINIOS

The Greek Words "aion" and "aionios," do these words mean "eternal" or "everlasting"?

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

 

[ClementofA]

As with most, if not all, UR-ites you cherry pick sources which say what you want to hear.

Allow me to rephrase that:

As with most, if not all, Endless Tormentists you cherry pick sources which say what you want to hear.

There, that's better. I fixed it for you.

"But there are those who find this an intolerable state of affairs, sometimes because of an earnest if misguided devotion to what they believe Scripture or tradition demands, sometimes because the idea of the eternal torment of the derelict appeals to some unpleasantly obvious emotional pathologies on their parts." https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/10/saint-origen


Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart comments in his extensive notes (Concluding Scientific Postscript) re aionios following his translation of the New Testament:

"...John Chrysostom, in his commentary on Ephesians, even used the word aionios of the kingdom of the devil specifically to indicate that it is temporary (for it will last only until the end of the present age, he explains). In the early centuries of the church, especially in the Greek and Syrian East, the lexical plasticity of the noun and the adjective was fully appreciated -and often exploited - by a number of Christian theologians and exegetes (especially such explicit universalists as the great Alexandrians Clement and Origen, the "pillar of orthodoxy" Gregory of Nyssa and his equally redoubtable sister Makrina, the great Syrian fathers Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Isaac of Ninevah, and so on, as well as many other more rhetorically reserved universalists, such as Gregory of Nazianzus)."

"Late in the fourth century, for instance, Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea, reported that the vast majority of his fellow Christians (at least, in the Greek-speaking East with which he was familiar) assumed that "hell" is not an eternal condition, and that the "aionios punishment" of the age to come would end when the soul had been purified of its sins and thus prepared for union with God. Well into the sixth century, the great Platonist philosopher Olympiodorus the Younger could state as rather obvious that the suffering of wicked souls in Tartarus is certainly not endless, atelevtos, but is merely aionios; and the squalidly brutal and witless Christian emperor Justinian, as part of his campaign to extinguish the universalism of the "Origenists", found it necessary to substitute the word atelevtetos for aionios when describing the punishments of hell, since the latter word was not decisive..."

"As late as the thirteenth century, the East Syrian bishop Solomon of Bostra, in his authoritative compilation of the teachings of the "holy fathers" of Syrian Christian tradition, simply stated as a matter of fact that in the New Testament le-alam (the Syriac rendering of aionios) does not mean eternal, and that of course hell is not endless. And the fourteenth-century East Syrian Patriarch Timotheus II thought it uncontroversial to assert that the aionios pains of hell will come to an end when the souls cleansed by them, through the prayers of the saints, enter paradise" (The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart, 2017, p.539-540).

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300186096

All Young has done is spout his UR bias with no explanation why aionios should be "ages"
..

Was Young a URist? You've presented no evidence of any UR bias in his translation. The fact of the matter is that his translation "ages" is the literal translation of the Greek word. You didn't know that?

Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context.

What biased scholars who agreed with the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" (of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning opposers to death with fire & their writings) have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."

https://www.concordant.org/expositions/the-eons/eon-indefinte-duration-part-three/

 

[Der Alte]

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/10/saint-origen
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300186096
https://www.concordant.org/expositions/the-eons/eon-indefinte-duration-part-three/

I do not respond to second hand copy/pastes. State responses to my posts in your own words. None of this specifically addresses or refutes my post where I cited Luke 1:33.

 

[ClementofA]

I do not respond to second hand copy/pastes.

Define "second hand". Does that include your copy pastes of Jewish Encyclopedia, etc, church fathers, lexicons, etc? Why should anyone read stuff like that that you quote when you're unwilling to read what others quote?

 

[Der Alte]

Define "second hand". Does that include your copy pastes of Jewish Encyclopedia, etc, church fathers, lexicons, etc? Why should anyone read stuff like that that you quote when you're unwilling to read what others quote?

I have defined "second hand" more than once before. Here from your previous post.

"Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question."​

These are the words of some third person, further quoting some 4th person(s), giving his opinion how to interpret Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible. These kind of copy/pastes are about as valid as quoting some anonymous person walking down the street
.....What you appear to not understand I do not quote the opinions/arguments of third parties. I quote standard reference works such as concordances, lexicons, grammars, encyclopedias and historical sources such as ECF and Talmud.
.....Earlier I posted the complete definition of "aionios" and highlighted more than 100 historical sources the authors consulted in determining the definition of "aionios." Versus Andy Anonymous saying essentially the reader should ignore the lexicons, and all their historical sources, and interpret the meaning for themselves. I wonder if I should do that with health and medical issues? I just saw my Dr. yesterday should I ignore what he said and decide for myself what my problems are and the proper treatment?

 

[ClementofA]

I have defined "second hand" more than once before. Here from your previous post.

"Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question."​

These are the words of some third person, further quoting some 4th person(s), giving his opinion how to interpret Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible. These kind of copy/pastes are about as valid as quoting some anonymous person walking down the street

That - you or someone else - cannot see the value in an argument in no way makes it valueless. It may speak more about that one's blindness than the argument they are deriding.

.....What you appear to not understand I do not quote the opinions/arguments of third parties.

Define "third parties". BTW you quoted a bunch of online commentaries from a website the other day, as you have done previously a number of times. What makes those any more valid than the commentators i posted. Or do you have a double standard?

I quote standard reference works such as concordances, lexicons, grammars, encyclopedias and historical sources such as ECF and Talmud.

So have i quoted sources such as that.

.....Earlier I posted the complete definition of "aionios" and highlighted more than 100 historical sources the authors consulted in determining the definition of "aionios." Versus Andy Anonymous saying essentially the reader should ignore the lexicons, and all their historical sources, and interpret the meaning for themselves. I wonder if I should do that with health and medical issues? I just saw my Dr. yesterday should I ignore what he said and decide for myself what my problems are and the proper treatment?

A doctor can be wrong. As i've found out by personal experiences. And so have many others. You might want to do your own research to verify what a doctor tells you. Blind faith in them can lead one to serious problems, just like your blind faith in BDAG. Is BDAG, one man's opinion, the infallible inspired Pope? When did God die & make BDAG the Pope to be trusted in blindly? Why ignore other scholars who oppose BDAG's opinions?

 

[Der Alte]

...Blind faith in them can lead one to serious problems, just like your blind faith in BDAG. Is BDAG, one man's opinion, the infallible inspired Pope? When did God die & make BDAG the Pope to be trusted in blindly? Why ignore other scholars who oppose BDAG's opinions?

You presume to lecture someone about blind faith while you keep linking to and quoting from the same websites, over and over, many of which have no stated or demonstrated expertise in Biblical languages. Unlike some folks I don't have blind faith in anything. I do have reasoned trust in BDAG a 100+ year old lexicon which has been reviewed by Greek scholars all over the world and is used in many colleges, universities and seminaries. Nothing you have quoted can come near to the scholarship in BDAG.

 

[Pneuma3]

<P3>No no no I am not going to let you get away with that. You posted this scripture...

1 John 2:17
(17) And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God
abideth forever.​

And then asked this question.....
Where does John say that the unrighteous will also definitely abide forever?
To which I replied....
LOL that is YOUR belief that says the unrighteous will definitely abide forever, not mine. I believe all the unrighteous will be changed via the cross and become righteous. For when Gods judgments are in the earth the world will learn righteousness.
I am not the one who is stating the unrighteous will definitely abide forever, YOU ARE.<end>
Now I see the problem. I have found it helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. First you are addressing each verse out-of-context, then you said it is my "belief that says the unrighteous will definitely abide forever." I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Irrelevant. Unless you can clearly explain what all that means.


I will show you where in that scripture John is saying those who do not believe in God are eternally tormented just as soon as you show me where I said or even implied that.

In other words you have no reason to believe John was referring to eternal torment. Just like I thought

 

[Pneuma3]

<P3>That scripture is NOT saying what you think it is saying
YLT has it
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages; and of his reign there shall be no end.’
That scripture is NOT saying that Jesus reign will not come to an end, it is saying that Jesus will reign continually over the house of Jacob to the ages.<end>
Nonsense! You did not even read and you have not interacted with what I posted. As with most, if not all, UR-ites you cherry pick sources which say what you want to hear. All Young has done is spout his UR bias with no explanation why aionios should be "ages"
.....Had you bothered to actually read my post I proved with irrefutable logic that, in Luk 1:33, "aionas" means for ever. Here is my post again and try to address exactly what I said. YLT does not address and does not prove anything about what I posted.
.....If you can, find somewhere where Young, or any other scholar, directly addresses my conclusions about "basileusei,""basileias," and "telos."

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

In this verse the βασιλευσει, the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and the βασιλειας, the noun form of the same word "shall have no end." Therefore by definition αιωνας/aionas means eternal, i.e "shall have no end." No matter how many proof texts you quote, no matter what verbal gymnastics you try there is absolutely nothing you can say to disprove that.

The verse I quoted was spoken to Mary by the angel of God. Anything you quote trying to rebut what I said must address that specific verse and must be from somebody with a higher rank than the angel.

Don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or not but I explained that and if you cannot see the explanation then not much more I can say about it.

 

[Pneuma3]

Now I see the problem. I have found it helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. First you are addressing each verse out-of-context, then you said it is my "belief that says the unrighteous will definitely abide forever." I neither said nor implied any such thing.

You obviously do not read the posts before trying to respond to them and it is why you said I believed aion and its adjective was always referring to without beginning and without end. How you can say you read the post and came to that conclusion is beyond me.

You do imply that the unrighteous will abide forever because that is what eternal torment is all about. If they do not abide forever how are they going to be tormented forever?

 

[ClementofA]

You presume to lecture someone about blind faith while you keep linking to and quoting from the same websites, over and over, many of which have no stated or demonstrated expertise in Biblical languages.

You quote commentators & yourself who have no "stated or demonstrated expertise in Biblical languages." You also post your amateur opinions which are opposed by the past 2000 years of scholarship & supported by no one but yourself. And which has been refuted here many times by multiple different posters. Yet whine about me posting links to websites which are full of scholarly quotes.

Unlike some folks I don't have blind faith in anything.

You do. By blind faith in BDAG is meant that you haven't checked the sources for yourself. You blindly accept whatever BDAG says. Except those times (see above) when you oppose BDAG. Which seems like a double standard. When BDAG supports your opinion, you quote it as if an infallible Pope. When it disagrees with your opinions, you purposely omit & ignore it. Make up your mind; is BDAG the infallible Pope, or not?

I do have reasoned trust in BDAG a 100+ year old lexicon which has been reviewed by Greek scholars all over the world and is used in many colleges, universities and seminaries. Nothing you have quoted can come near to the scholarship in BDAG.

Your blind trust in BDAG is based on your blind trust in scholars reviews which you've never read & probably couldn't understand if you did. No doubt you've never read a single critical review re the word aionion in BDAG. We know BDAG was selective & left out dozens of uses of the word that oppose BDAG's conclusions. You have trust in BDAG only when it suits you & mistrust & opposition to BDAG when it doesn't suit your doctrinal biases.

 

[Der Alte]

In other words you have no reason to believe John was referring to eternal torment. Just like I thought

When I quoted 1 Joh, I never said anything about ET. You jumped on that accusing me of saying something I did not say. Muddying the well.

 

[Der Alte]

You obviously do not read the posts before trying to respond to them and it is why you said I believed aion and its adjective was always referring to without beginning and without end. How you can say you read the post and came to that conclusion is beyond me.

Simple because every time I prove, with irrefutable logic I might add, that "aionios" means "eternal." you post some specious objection such as quoting from YLT. As if that one quote from YLT is some kind of magical mantra which refutes anything and everything I post.

You do imply that the unrighteous will abide forever because that is what eternal torment is all about. If they do not abide forever how are they going to be tormented forever?

Context, context, context. Read all the verses I posted "in context." None of the verses stand alone. John didn't forget what he said in chap. 1 when he wrote the rest of the epistle.

 

[Der Alte]

Don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or not but I explained that and if you cannot see the explanation then not much more I can say about it.

Quoting a sentence from YLT is not an explanation and did not specifically address or refute anything I posted. "Hey DA I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh! Because one guy who has been dead for 130 years said that 'aion' means 'age.'"

 

[Pneuma3]

When I quoted 1 Joh, I never said anything about ET. You jumped on that accusing me of saying something I did not say. Muddying the well.

We are discussing 2 different doctrines, the salvation of all and eternal torment so how did I muddy the waters? You just don't want to look at your own doctrine very hard.

 

[Pneuma3]

Simple because every time I prove, with irrefutable logic I might add, that "aionios" means "eternal." you post some specious objection such as quoting from YLT. As if that one quote from YLT is some kind of magical mantra which refutes anything and everything I post.

Context, context, context. Read all the verses I posted "in context." None of the verses stand alone. John didn't forget what he said in chap. 1 when he wrote the rest of the epistle.

You did not prove anything and I don't need YLT, scripture tells us the aion and its adjective END. Thus scripture refutes what you call irrefutable logic.
And I showed you that your understanding of that scripture was in error, but your selective reading must have missed it.

Context, context context, you keep harping on context yet when I asked you to read in context 1tim4 you refuse to do so and I know why.