Universalist Understanding?

Shempster

ImJustMe
Supporter
Dec 28, 2014
1,560
786
✟258,881.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
<P3>Lol it looks like with all the learning you say you have it is you who lacks in expertise in Greek. The scriptures say the aion come to an end, you just keep refusing to believe those scriptures that say so just as you keep refusing to believe Jesus Christ is the saviour of all men just as the scriptures proclaim.
Funny how so many believe their doctrine over what scripture plainly says.<end>

Yes it is funny, rather sad, how so many believe in UR over what scripture plainly says and they can only see the few out-of-context proof texts which when all other scripture is ignored seems to support their false assumptions/presuppositions.
Matthew 16:26
(26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, [κόσμος/kosmos] and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

John 12:19
(19) The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world [κόσμος/kosmos] is gone after him.

John 14:17
(17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world [κόσμος/kosmos] cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

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.[κόσμος/kosmos]

1 John 5:19
(19) And we know that we are of God, and the whole world [κόσμος/kosmos] lieth in wickedness.

Luke 2:1
(1) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world [ οἰκουμένη/oikoumené] should be taxed

Can a person literally gain the "whole world?"
Did the "whole world" literally follow Jesus?
Can the entire world not receive the spirit of truth?
Can the "whole world" literally not receive Jesus?
Was the faith of the Roman Christians literally spoken of throughout the "whole world?"
Did Caesar literally tax the entire world?
Did the entire world lie in wickedness?
.....There is a word which describes how "world" is used in all these verses.
.....Now let us use false UR reasoning on these verses. "Whole world" cannot ever mean the entire planet earth because in these verses it does not, cannot refer to the entire planet earth. And like UR-ites we ignore any verses which contradict this presupposition.


I have a question....
First, let me say that I am not into disputes, arguing, debating, etc. I am a curious chap, though.
So I just noticed your info under your screen name. It says you are Baptist. Can I ask, how much influence from Augustine and John Calvin do your responses contain?
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
All this empty copy/pasted verbosity holding up Origen as the end all, be all authority on the word "aionios" but when he says something which blows the UR boat completely out of the water, with zero knowledge of Greek, you try to blow it off. There is no difference between "eternal life" and "life that is eternal." Your objection "If aionios meant eternal, to add "and never perishes" would be redundant" is absurd.

If it were absurd why do you even bother to respond to it. If aionion meant "eternal" and so does "never perishes", then the author is saying the life is "eternal and eternal", a useless redundancy.


.....First you have zero expertise to make the argument. Let's apply this ridiculous argument to the other adjectives Origen quotes "never perishes,""remains,"'not taken away," and "does not perish" If "never perishes" meant "never perishes" to add "remains" and "not taken away" would be redundant. If "remains" meant "remains" to add "never perishes" and "not taken away" would be redundant. Etc.

The author speaks of "the first life". What is that? According to the translation you posted it "remains" & "perishes", while according to this translation it is "lasting" and "perishable", so by the word "remains" is not meant, as you implied, something eternal:

"The words “shall never thirst again” mean that his life is eternal and never perishes as does the first (life) which the well provides, but rather is lasting. For the Grace and gift of our Savior cannot be taken away, and is not consumed or destroyed in the one who partakes of it. The first life is perishable." Heracleon - Commentary on the Gospel of John

Compare the translation you posted, to which i've added Heracleon's words in [61]:

"(6o) And he has explained the statement, But “he shall not thirst forever:” as follows with these very words: for the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it. (61)...the first life perishes..." ("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.82).


At first the author describes the life itself, not the life of the believer. He says the life is "eternal and never perishes". (BTW what is the Greek word there for "eternal"?). Then the author (not Origen) speaks of the "grace and gift" received by the believer which is "not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it." That is a separate subject from the duration of the life itself. The author states re the believer's "gift":

1. It is "not taken away"...So it can't be stolen by anyone & God won't remove it
2. It is "not consumed"...So fire can't burn it, it isn't used up like food that is consumed.
3. It "does not perish"...So it won't rot away like a dead body that perishes.

.....Paul e.g. was well known for similar cumulative expressions.
Vincent Word Studies 1 Corinthians 4:17
Rev., more and more exceedingly an eternal weight, etc. An expression after the form of Hebrew superlatives, in which the emphatic word is twice repeated. Lit., exceedingly unto excess. The use of such cumulative expressions is common with Paul. See, for example, Phi_1:23, lit., much more better; Rom_8:37, abundantly the conquerors; Eph_3:20, exceeding abundantly, etc. Note how the words are offset: for a moment, eternal; light, weight; affliction, glory.

Heracleon was not Paul, & i've read nothing suggesting he was a Jew. Also where does Paul ever speak of "aionion and never perishes" as meaning "eternal and eternal" as a kind of silly pointless redundancy? Nothing you've said denies the plain meaning of Origen's words:

(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life. (Book 13:19)

("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, 1993, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.81-82).

So Origen even makes so-called "eternal life" ("eonian life" in literal translations) finite when he speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life.

Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by pages 10-11 of: Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika

Likewise Origen believed the phrase "eons of the eons", which is equivalent to aionion in the Scriptures (compare Mt.25:41 to Rev.20:10), is finite:

"Origen, the greatest exegete of the early Church, was well aware of the polysemy of aión and its adjectival forms. In Hom. in Ex. 6.13 he writes: “Whenever Scripture says, ‘from aeon to aeon,’ the reference is to an interval of time, and it is clear that it will have an end. And if Scripture says, ‘in another aeon,’ what is indicated is clearly a longer time, and yet an end is still fixed. And when the ‘aeons of the aeons’ are mentioned, a certain limit is again posited, perhaps unknown to us, but surely established by God” (quoted in Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, p. 161)." Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope

Origen on Exodus 6:13: "And as often as "the ages of the ages" is mentioned some termination is indicated, although perhaps unknown to us, nevertheless established by God" (The Father of the Church: Origen Homilies On Genesis and Exodus, Translated by Ronald E. Heine, 1982, First Paperback Reprint 2002, p.298-299).

So Origen says "eons of the eons" has a limit & "will have an end". That is the same phrase used in Revelation of Christ's & the saints' reign, Satan's torments, smoke ascending, etc, to/into "the eons of the eons".

12 points re forever and ever (literally to/into "the ages of the ages") being finite:

For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
BDAG, Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich lexicon of NT Greek, does not define verses it defines words which word does this supposedly refer to so that one might read the entire entry in-context. Will address more points at another time.

Define verses? What does that even mean?

As for the word, i already gave you the page number.

75 UR verses + 100 proofs + 150 reasons etc:
Web Online Help
 
Upvote 0

Pneuma3

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,637
382
✟54,054.00
Faith
Christian
Why didn't you quote BDAG as you often do, or any scholars to support you? Do you only post BDAG when it supports your opinions? Do you believe "world" is less than all human beings in John 1:29; 3:17; 4:42, & other universalist passages? Here is what
BDAG says re "world" & some other words related to universalism passages:

Ya I noticed that also, seems BDAG is only the best authority when it suites his belief but when it does not he rejects it. Probably believed no one here had a copy of BDAG to counter him.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Paul: is universalist

[FYI: for the Gospels I’m using a chart from McLaren’s “The Last Word …”]

Matthew: eternal punishment seems clear; he has a lot more passages about judgement than the other Gospels. When you consider the OT context of his descriptions, they could indicate destruction rather than eternal conscious torment. (E.g. the worm that never dies was originally consuming dead bodies, not tormenting live enemies.)

Mark: Nor many explicit descriptions of judgement, and what’s there uses a variety of forms: never forgiven (blasphemy against Holy Spirit), destroyed in hell (but passage is obvious hyperbole), killed, punished more severely than others

Luke: more about judgement than Mark, but still nowhere close Matthew. Again, a variety of descriptions: brought down (rulers), God is kind to them, house falls, lose life, can kill you and send you to hell, beaten with more blows, thrown into prison, cut down (tree), banish with weeping and gnashing of teeth, miss banquet, miss party, sent to hades, killed

When you consider that many of these references are in parable about trees, rulers, etc, i.e. non-literal, I don’t think Mark and Luke teach anything beyond some kind of punishment in the afterlife.

With evidence like this, it’s not surprising that we have several views. People who think the Biblical authors all agree with each other, of course, have to coerce them all into saying the same thing. Personally I’m not prepared to go beyond saying that we will be held accountable. I hope that everyone or almost everyone (perhaps with the exception of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) will be saved, and I think there’s some basis for it in Paul, but I don't think we can say that it’s obviously true.

I do think that when you consider the OT context, the reasonable alternatives are universalism or destruction of some people. I don't see eternal conscious torment in the NT, and I don't see how anyone could worship a God who did that (except for self-protection, which might be a rational reaction).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Just realized that my summary of Mark 3:28, never forgiven, is badly misleading. What the passage actually says is that every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven except for the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Matthew's parallel is similar. Not surprisingly, interpreters differ over whether this says that every sin except that one can be forgiven or will always be forgiven. It says will, not can, but Greek isn't symbolic logic, so I think it's ambiguous.
 
Upvote 0

Pneuma3

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,637
382
✟54,054.00
Faith
Christian
Paul: is universalist

[FYI: for the Gospels I’m using a chart from McLaren’s “The Last Word …”]

Matthew: eternal punishment seems clear; he has a lot more passages about judgement than the other Gospels. When you consider the OT context of his descriptions, they could indicate destruction rather than eternal conscious torment. (E.g. the worm that never dies was originally consuming dead bodies, not tormenting live enemies.)

Mark: Nor many explicit descriptions of judgement, and what’s there uses a variety of forms: never forgiven (blasphemy against Holy Spirit), destroyed in hell (but passage is obvious hyperbole), killed, punished more severely than others

Luke: more about judgement than Mark, but still nowhere close Matthew. Again, a variety of descriptions: brought down (rulers), God is kind to them, house falls, lose life, can kill you and send you to hell, beaten with more blows, thrown into prison, cut down (tree), banish with weeping and gnashing of teeth, miss banquet, miss party, sent to hades, killed

When you consider that many of these references are in parable about trees, rulers, etc, i.e. non-literal, I don’t think Mark and Luke teach anything beyond some kind of punishment in the afterlife.

With evidence like this, it’s not surprising that we have several views. People who think the Biblical authors all agree with each other, of course, have to coerce them all into saying the same thing. Personally I’m not prepared to go beyond saying that we will be held accountable. I hope that everyone or almost everyone (perhaps with the exception of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) will be saved, and I think there’s some basis for it in Paul, but I don't think we can say that it’s obviously true.

I do think that when you consider the OT context, the reasonable alternatives are universalism or destruction of some people. I don't see eternal conscious torment in the NT, and I don't see how anyone could worship a God who did that (except for self-protection, which might be a rational reaction).

What I have noticed is many of the scriptures people use in reference to the afterlife actaully do not speak of the afterlife but about the here and now.

Example:the enter in at the strait gate scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

Lazarus Short

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2016
2,934
3,009
74
Independence, Missouri, USA
✟294,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What I have noticed is many of the scriptures people use in reference to the afterlife actaully do not speak of the afterlife but about the here and now.

Example:the enter in at the strait gate scriptures.

Many of the verses about destruction and the like, as well.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have a question....
First, let me say that I am not into disputes, arguing, debating, etc. I am a curious chap, though.
So I just noticed your info under your screen name. It says you are Baptist. Can I ask, how much influence from Augustine and John Calvin do your responses contain?
Unless something either one wrote happens to line up with what I believe I would say zero influence. I am not a Calvinist. I believe John 3:16. I have never read Augustine. I do remember one of my professors Dr Timothy George emphasizing his name is pronounced "aw gus tin" not "ow gus teen."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shempster
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Define verses? What does that even mean?
I was trying to find out if you know what you are talking about. You don't! Just the usual second hand copy/paste. All you quoted was part of a verse, not the word it referenced.
Clem said:
As for the word, i already gave you the page number.
That ain't the way it works amigo. You quote something you quote enough that the source can be verified. I'd like to see someone submit a paper, in college or grad school, and tell his professor "As for the word, i already gave you the page number."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private

That ain't the way it works amigo. You quote something you quote enough that the source can be verified. I'd like to see someone submit a paper, in college or grad school, and tell his professor "As for the word, i already gave you the page number."

Reference works are typically identified with title, author & page number, as i did. If you have the book i referred to & know Greek, why can't you find the word in question within a matter of seconds? Even an English only reader could find it in seconds using the quote i gave:

<P3>Lol it looks like with all the learning you say you have it is you who lacks in expertise in Greek. The scriptures say the aion come to an end, you just keep refusing to believe those scriptures that say so just as you keep refusing to believe Jesus Christ is the saviour of all men just as the scriptures proclaim.
Funny how so many believe their doctrine over what scripture plainly says.<end>
Yes it is funny, rather sad, how so many believe in UR over what scripture plainly says and they can only see the few out-of-context proof texts which when all other scripture is ignored seems to support their false assumptions/presuppositions.
Matthew 16:26
(26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, [κόσμος/kosmos] and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

John 12:19
(19) The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world [κόσμος/kosmos] is gone after him.

John 14:17
(17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world [κόσμος/kosmos] cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

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.[κόσμος/kosmos]

1 John 5:19
(19) And we know that we are of God, and the whole world [κόσμος/kosmos] lieth in wickedness.

Luke 2:1
(1) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world [ οἰκουμένη/oikoumené] should be taxed

Can a person literally gain the "whole world?"
Did the "whole world" literally follow Jesus?
Can the entire world not receive the spirit of truth?
Can the "whole world" literally not receive Jesus?
Was the faith of the Roman Christians literally spoken of throughout the "whole world?"
Did Caesar literally tax the entire world?
Did the entire world lie in wickedness?
.....There is a word which describes how "world" is used in all these verses.
.....Now let us use false UR reasoning on these verses. "Whole world" cannot ever mean the entire planet earth because in these verses it does not, cannot refer to the entire planet earth. And like UR-ites we ignore any verses which contradict this presupposition.

Why didn't you quote BDAG as you often do, or any scholars to support you? Do you only post BDAG when it supports your opinions? Do you believe "world" is less than all human beings in John 1:29; 3:17; 4:42, & other universalist passages? Here is what
BDAG says re "world" & some other words related to universalism passages:

BDAG says re Col.1:20:

"...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).

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.

This states the purpose of Love Omnipotent's - divine will - in sending His Son:

For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world would be saved through Him. (Jn.3:17)

The IVA ("that") is used in Jn.3:17 above. BDAG says “In many cases purpose and result cannot be clearly differentiated, and hence ἵνα is used for the result that follows according to the purpose of the subj. or of God. As in Semitic and Gr-Rom. thought, purpose and result are identical in declarations of the *divine will*…” ἵνα — с греческого на все языки

The IVA also occurs in Phil.2:9-11:

Phil.2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (NASB)

What is the "world" in Jn.1:29; 3:17, 4:42 according to BDAG? According to BDAG by "world" in such verses is meant "humanity in general". Jesus Himself would be the only exception:

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (Jn.1:29)
They said to the woman, "We now believe not only because of your words; we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man truly is the Savior of the world. (Jn.4:42)
For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world would be saved through Him. (Jn.3:17)

And BDAG again, re Rom.5:18, is quoted in this commentary:

"Paul declares, however, that the effects of Christ's obedience are far greater for mankind than the effect of Adam's fall. For the third (5:15) and fourth (5:17) times in this chapter he makes explicit use of the 'qal wahomer' ("from minor to major") form of argument that is commonly used in rabbinic literature, expressed by "much more"...cf. earlier use at 5:9,10...And as in the case of the typology previously used (5:14), here, too, the form of the argument is antithetical. The grace of God extended to humanity in the event of Christ's death has abounded "for the many" (5:15b), which corresponds to the "all" of 5:12,18. The free gift given by God in Christ more than matches the sin of Adam and its effects; it exceeds it..."

"Contrasts are also seen in the results of the work of each. Adam's trespass or disobedience has brought condemnation (κατάκριμα, 5:18); through his act many were made sinners (5:19). Christ's "act of righteousness" results in "justification of life" (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) for all (5:18). The term δικαίωσιν can be translated as "justification" (NIV, NRSV; but RSV has "acquittal") - the opposite of "condemnation". The word ζωῆς ("of life") is a genitive of result, providing the outcome of justification, so that the phrase may be rendered "justification resulting in life". 108

108. BDAG 250 (δικαίωσιν): "acquittal that brings life". The construction is variously called a "genitive of apposition", an "epexegetical genitive" or "genitive of purpose". Cf. BDF 92 (S166). The meaning is the same in each case: justification which brings life."

"The universality of grace in Christ is shown to surpass the universality of sin. Christ's "act of righteousness" is the opposite of Adam's "tresspass" and equivalent to Christ's
"obedience", which was fulfilled in his being obedient unto death (Phil 2:8). The results of Christ's righteous action and obedience are "justification resulting in life for all persons"...5:18...and "righteousness" for "many" (5:19). The term "many" in 5:19 is equivalent to "all persons", and that is so for four reasons: (1) the parallel in 5:18 speaks in its favor; (2) even as within 5:19 itself, "many were made sinners" applies to all mankind, so "many will be made righteous" applies to all; (3) the same parallelism appears in 5:15, at which "many" refers to "all"; and (4) the phrase "for many" is a Semitism which means "all", as in Deutero-Isaiah 52:14; 53:11-12; Mark...10:45; 14:24; Heb.12:15. The background for Paul's expression is set forth in Deutero-Isaiah, where it is said that "the righteous one"...the Lord's servant, shall make "many" to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their sins ...Isa.53:11..."

"It is significant, and even astounding, that justification is here said to be world-embracing. Nothing is said about faith as a prerequisite for justification to be effective, nor about faith's accepting it."

(Paul's Letter To The Romans: A Commentary, Arland J. Hultgren, Eerdmans, 2011, 804 pg, p.227, 229)

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

75 UR verses + 100 proofs + 150 reasons etc:
Web Online Help

213 Questions Without Answers:
Questions Without Answers
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I have three commentaries on Romans. All agree that the "many" who are justified is exactly parallel to the many who died in Adam, and that Christ reversed Adam's sin. Yet only one seems to accept the apparent implication, that Paul might be universalist. (One uses the term universalism, but it appears to be in some odd theological sense that doesn't mean all actual people are saved.) One says that Paul was only speaking of Christians, based on the concept that this whole section is just about the the conflict between Paul and Judaizing Christians and isn't intended to have broader theological implications.

As a poor computer scientist rather than a literary critic it's hard for me to make sense of this. It looks to me like two of the three are simply unwilling to draw the conclusion implied by their understanding of the text.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ClementofA
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If it were absurd why do you even bother to respond to it. If aionion meant "eternal" and so does "never perishes", then the author is saying the life is "eternal and eternal", a useless redundancy.
So that the unwary and unwitting are not deceived by your cherry picked out-of-context and flat out wrong citations of scripture and other sources.
Clem said:
The author speaks of "the first life". What is that? According to the translation you posted it "remains" & "perishes", while according to this translation it is "lasting" and "perishable", so by the word "remains" is not meant, as you implied, something eternal:
You are twisting the words of Origen. I learned to read English when FDR was president and I have studied and written at the university and graduate level. I do not need to be told what English words mean especially who cannot or will quote his own sources correctly. I also read 4 other languages beside English
Clem said:
"The words “shall never thirst again” mean that his life is eternal and never perishes as does the first (life) which the well provides, but rather is lasting. For the Grace and gift of our Savior cannot be taken away, and is not consumed or destroyed in the one who partakes of it. The first life is perishable."
Once again trying to instruct me in what English words really mean.

Clem said:
<Clem>Compare the translation you posted, to which i've added Heracleon's words in [61]:
"(6o) And he has explained the statement, But “he shall not thirst forever:” as follows with these very words: for the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it. (61)...the first life perishes..." ("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.82).
At first the author describes the life itself, not the life of the believer. He says the life is "eternal and never perishes". (BTW what is the Greek word there for "eternal"?). Then the author (not Origen) speaks of the "grace and gift" received by the believer which is "not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it." That is a separate subject from the duration of the life itself. The author states re the believer's "gift":<end>
Rubbish! Do you even have a clue what you are talking about? By referring to "the life itself, not the life of the believer" are you trying to say that the writer is talking about some kind of "life," floating around, all by itself, separate from anyone or anything? Unless there is a person who is not dead, there is no life.

"the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it."
If the word that Origen used "αἰώνιον " does not, cannot mean eternal how does adding "never perishes" to it make it mean "eternal?" If "aionion" can only mean age then this sentence must read "the life which comes from the well is age long and never perishes." Does that make any sense?
Clem said:
1. It is "not taken away"...So it can't be stolen by anyone & God won't remove it
Clem said:
2. It is "not consumed"...So fire can't burn it, it isn't used up like food that is consumed.
3. It "does not perish"...So it won't rot away like a dead body that perishes.
Once again I do not require instruction in what English words mean.

"the life which comes ... from the well is eternal and never perishes, ...the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish , when one partakes of it."
Despite all your verbal shenanigans this clearly says that the "aionion" life never perishes and remains.
.....Now what do the words "not taken away nor is it consumed nor does it perish" refer to? You appear to claim that they do not refer to eternal life but some vague "grace and gift" which has not been previously mentioned. But you evidently do not know what that means. What is the last verb which occurs before the words "grace and gift?" "Gives" in "the life He gives." Which is followed immediately by "For the grace and the gift of our Savior..." "For" must refer back to something, what does it refer to? It refers to "The life He gives." The grace is the giving and the gift is life. And that life "is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish."

Clem said:
Heracleon was not Paul, & i've read nothing suggesting he was a Jew. Also where does Paul ever speak of "aionion and never perishes" as meaning "eternal and eternal" as a kind of silly pointless redundancy? Nothing you've said denies the plain meaning of Origen's words:
I have found it to be very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. Go back and read what I actually said. I was explaining a characteristic of writing common at that time and using Paul as an example.
Clem said:
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life. (Book 13:19)
("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, 1993, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.81-82).
So Origen even makes so-called "eternal life" ("eonian life" in literal translations) finite when he speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life.
Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by pages 10-11 of:
Likewise Origen believed the phrase "eons of the eons", which is equivalent to aionion in the Scriptures (compare Mt.25:41 to Rev.20:10), is finite:
None of this refutes what Origen said in The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32" (60) which I quoted.
"Origen, the greatest exegete of the early Church,...
Complete rubbish! Nobody but the high priestess of UR, Ilaria Rammelli and her minions believe this. And nothing here changes anything Origen said in Commentary on the Gospel of John (60). What this does is make Origen unreliable as a source since he apparently contradicts himself on the meaning of aionion.
 
Upvote 0

Pneuma3

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,637
382
✟54,054.00
Faith
Christian
I do not need to be told what English words mean especially who cannot or will quote his own sources correctly. I also read 4 other languages beside English

Once again trying to instruct me in what English words really mean.

Once again I do not require instruction in what English words mean.

I learned to read English when FDR was president and I have studied and written at the university and graduate level.

This from the guy who does not know that crap is slang for nonsense. and you expect us to believe this?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FineLinen
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I posted:

The author speaks of "the first life". What is that? According to the translation you posted it "remains" & "perishes", while according to this translation it is "lasting" and "perishable", so by the word "remains" is not meant, as you implied, something eternal:

"The words “shall never thirst again” mean that his life is eternal and never perishes as does the first (life) which the well provides, but rather is lasting. For the Grace and gift of our Savior cannot be taken away, and is not consumed or destroyed in the one who partakes of it. The first life is perishable." Heracleon - Commentary on the Gospel of John

Compare the translation you posted, to which i've added Heracleon's words in [61]:

"(6o) And he has explained the statement, But “he shall not thirst forever:” as follows with these very words: for the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it. (61)...the first life perishes..." ("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.82).

At first the author describes the life itself, not the life of the believer. He says the life is "eternal and never perishes". (BTW what is the Greek word there for "eternal"?). Then the author (not Origen) speaks of the "grace and gift" received by the believer which is "not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it." That is a separate subject from the duration of the life itself. The author states re the believer's "gift":

1. It is "not taken away"...So it can't be stolen by anyone & God won't remove it
2. It is "not consumed"...So fire can't burn it, it isn't used up like food that is consumed.
3. It "does not perish"...So it won't rot away like a dead body that perishes.


You are twisting the words of Origen.

An empty, unsupported & false accusation.

Rubbish! Do you even have a clue what you are talking about? By referring to "the life itself, not the life of the believer" are you trying to say that the writer is talking about some kind of "life," floating around, all by itself, separate from anyone or anything? Unless there is a person who is not dead, there is no life.

My post made no mention of what you speak of. As you can see from the following quote of the words of Heracleon by Origen, "the life...comes from the well":

"the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it."
If the word that Origen used "αἰώνιον " does not, cannot mean eternal how does adding "never perishes" to it make it mean "eternal?" If "aionion" can only mean age then this sentence must read "the life which comes from the well is age long and never perishes." Does that make any sense?

I'll leave your speculations, questions & confusion to you to figure out.

"the life which comes ... from the well is eternal and never perishes, ...the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish , when one partakes of it."
Despite all your verbal shenanigans this clearly says that the "aionion" life never perishes and remains.

There's no mention of "aionion life" there, let alone that it never perishes. The quote does, however, speak of "life". If aionion meant "eternal" and so does "never perishes", then the author is saying the life is "eternal and eternal", a useless redundancy.

.....Now what do the words "not taken away nor is it consumed nor does it perish" refer to? You appear to claim that they do not refer to eternal life but some vague "grace and gift" which has not been previously mentioned. But you evidently do not know what that means. What is the last verb which occurs before the words "grace and gift?" "Gives" in "the life He gives." Which is followed immediately by "For the grace and the gift of our Savior..." "For" must refer back to something, what does it refer to? It refers to "The life He gives." The grace is the giving and the gift is life. And that life "is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish."

Is there a point to all that verbiage?

I posted:

Heracleon was not Paul, & i've read nothing suggesting he was a Jew. Also where does Paul ever speak of "aionion and never perishes" as meaning "eternal and eternal" as a kind of silly pointless redundancy? Nothing you've said denies the plain meaning of Origen's words:

(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life. (Book 13:19)

("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, 1993, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.81-82).

So Origen even makes so-called "eternal life" ("eonian life" in literal translations) finite when he speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life.

Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by pages 10-11 of: Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika

Likewise Origen believed the phrase "eons of the eons", which is equivalent to aionion in the Scriptures (compare Mt.25:41 to Rev.20:10), is finite:

"Origen, the greatest exegete of the early Church, was well aware of the polysemy of aión and its adjectival forms. In Hom. in Ex. 6.13 he writes: “Whenever Scripture says, ‘from aeon to aeon,’ the reference is to an interval of time, and it is clear that it will have an end. And if Scripture says, ‘in another aeon,’ what is indicated is clearly a longer time, and yet an end is still fixed. And when the ‘aeons of the aeons’ are mentioned, a certain limit is again posited, perhaps unknown to us, but surely established by God” (quoted in Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, p. 161)." Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope

Origen on Exodus 6:13: "And as often as "the ages of the ages" is mentioned some termination is indicated, although perhaps unknown to us, nevertheless established by God" (The Father of the Church: Origen Homilies On Genesis and Exodus, Translated by Ronald E. Heine, 1982, First Paperback Reprint 2002, p.298-299).

So Origen says "eons of the eons" has a limit & "will have an end". That is the same phrase used in Revelation of Christ's & the saints' reign, Satan's torments, smoke ascending, etc, to/into "the eons of the eons".

12 points re forever and ever (literally to/into "the ages of the ages") being finite:

For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

I have found it to be very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. Go back and read what I actually said. I was explaining a characteristic of writing common at that time and using Paul as an example.


I don't see the relevance of your comment. There is no "emphatic word is twice repeated. Lit., exceedingly unto excess" here in 13:60 of Origen's Commentary on John.


None of this refutes what Origen said in The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32" (60) which I quoted.


Origen's remarks re "after aionion life" and "beyond aionion life" in 13:19 are perfectly harmonious with those of Heracleon in 13:60. You've provided no proof otherwise.


And nothing here changes anything Origen said in Commentary on the Gospel of John (60). What this does is make Origen unreliable as a source since he apparently contradicts himself on the meaning of aionion.

If BDAG thought Origen unreliable as a source, why does BDAG cite Origen regarding both aion and aionion? Evidently BDAG thinks you are wrong & that Origen is reliable as a source. According to you BDAG is wrong. Who should i believe, Der Alter or BDAG?

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

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...If BDAG thought Origen unreliable as a source, why does BDAG cite Origen regarding both aion and aionion? Evidently BDAG thinks you are wrong & that Origen is reliable as a source. According to you BDAG is wrong. Who should i believe, Der Alter or BDAG? ...
Copy/pasting some vague reference to Origen and BDAG is meaningless unless you can quote exactly how BDAG cites Origen. Here is what I believe you cannot show me how BDAG cites Origen and/or how it relates to this topic. To what purpose is your reposting the same post I already addressed? Do you think multiple repetitions of misquotes and misrepresentations somehow makes your copy/pastes correct?
I addressed all your arguments it is not my problem if you cannot understand my post.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This from the guy who does not know that crap is slang for nonsense. and you expect us to believe this?
You seem to be the one who does not know what you are talking about. CF staff did not think cr*p is slang for nonsense. Neither did Merriam-Webster which I quoted. Your objections are once again meaningless.
 
Upvote 0

Pneuma3

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,637
382
✟54,054.00
Faith
Christian
You seem to be the one who does not know what you are talking about. CF staff did not think cr*p is slang for nonsense. Neither did Merriam-Webster which I quoted. Your objections are once again meaningless.

LOL here is your quote


For someone who puts himself out there as the wise old owl of the bunch you really have a hard time with English words.

and now you look twice as bad because not only do you keep saying crap is not slang for nonsense, you post a dictionary meaning showing that it is slang for nonsense, showing you either did not read the whole dictionary meaning, so missed it or you are to proud to admit you made a mistake which everyone is now witness to.

As to the CF they, probably like you, were unaware of the usage of crap being slang for nonsense.

They are probably now aware and I have not been censored since for using it that way, probably because they now know you were in the wrong for complaining that I called what you wrote crap which was the same thing you said of when you called what I wrote was nonsense.

Your stubbornness on this issue is not doing you any favors DA, like I said at the beginning when this all took place and I pointed out to they meant the same thing you should have just said sorry I was unaware of that, but like the song says sorry seem to be the hardest word to say.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Copy/pasting some vague reference to Origen and BDAG is meaningless unless you can quote exactly how BDAG cites Origen.


Nah, it's clear BDAG opposes you & implies you are wrong:

And nothing here changes anything Origen said in Commentary on the Gospel of John (60). What this does is make Origen unreliable as a source since he apparently contradicts himself on the meaning of aionion.

If BDAG thought Origen unreliable as a source, why does BDAG cite Origen regarding both aion and aionion? Evidently BDAG thinks you are wrong & that Origen is reliable as a source. According to you BDAG is wrong. Who should i believe, Der Alter or BDAG?

Here is what I believe you cannot show me how BDAG cites Origen and/or how it relates to this topic.

Irrelevant to my point.

To what purpose is your reposting the same post I already addressed?

Wrong. It wasn't the same post.

Do you think multiple repetitions of misquotes and misrepresentations somehow makes your copy/pastes correct?

Erroneous false allegations.

I addressed all your arguments it is not my problem if you cannot understand my post.

Your argument was refuted.
 
Upvote 0