• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by ClementofA, Dec 25, 2017.

  1. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Why would Origen speak of such nonsense as an inanimate fountain leaping "after eternal life" into "the Father who is beyond eternal life"? In context Origen is speaking about "life":

    (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."

    Origen is referring to the passage in John 4 about a fountain (i.e. well) of life (v.14). After speaking of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life", Origen refers back to the same sentence with those phrases by 2 more references to "life" in section 19. The word "For" indicates he is referring back to what he just spoke about in the first half of section 19:

    (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.

    Irrelevant. If i say "the day after tomorrow perhaps i will go on a cruise ship holiday", is there any doubt that there is a "day after tomorrow" and that "tomorrow" is finite? No. What is in doubt, and the "perhaps" refers to, is what i will do "the day after tomorrow". So Origen spoke, without doubt, that there is in fact an "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life". There is no "perhaps" about those facts.

    And, again, after eternal life is a oxymoron. Unless eternal is finite in duration. Which it is.

    More examples re aion/ios (& olam) being finite:

    Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

    12 points re forever and ever being finite:
    For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

    aionios life, 2 UR views, eon/ian ends, millennial eon, 1 Jn.1:2, Chrysoston, Origen, Dan 12 2-3:
    how do people who believe in eternal torture in fire

    John 3:36, 3:16, 1 Jn.1:2, aionios life:
    Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

    Rev.14:9-11 & 20:10 & forever & ever a deceptive translation:
    If endless conscious torments were true, is God a monster?

    Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?

    For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

    Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46
     
  2. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,477
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    orig1.png
    The same ol' heterodox song and dance, "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh!" Repeat ad nauseum. If the many manuscripts cited by Cambridge University Press are defective you must prove it from scholarly sources not just say maybe it's defective. Cambridge is at least as prestigious if not more so than Stanford.
    .....You are the one who can't find anything in the sources I cited because you can't read Greek. I OTOH can read Greek and I found 9 occurrences of John 4:14 "πηγὴ ἅλλεται εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον ζωήν"/"pégé alletai eis ten aiônion zôen"/"a fountain springing into aionion life". I provided the page and line numbers.

    .....What you desperately need is for the phrase "Τάχα δὲ καἰ πηδήσει μετὰ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν εἰς τὸν ὑπὲρ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν πατέρα/""Taxa de kai peoesei meta ten aionion zoen eis ton uper ten aionion zoen patera"/"perhaps after aionion life it will also leap into the father." to be in my source. But it is not there and you can't prove me wrong because you cannot read Greek. I searched every page where the quote from Jn 4:14 occurs for "Τάχα δὲ καἰ πηδήσει μετὰ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν εἰς τὸν ὑπὲρ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν πατέρα


    TLG provides evidence but nothing says anything TLG cites trumps every other source. I have provided documented manuscript evidence just repeating TLG over and over does not disprove anything!
    Only if you can prove that there was more credible manuscript evidence which Cambridge had access to.
    You can't prove me wrong because you cannot read Greek. I searched every page where the quote from Jn 4:14 occurs for "Τάχα δὲ καἰ πηδήσει μετὰ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν εἰς τὸν ὑπὲρ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν πατέρα
    TLG provides evidence but nothing says anything TLG cites trumps every other source. I have provided documented manuscript evidence just repeating TLG over and over does not disprove anything!
    Only if you can prove that there was more credible manuscript evidence which Cambridge did not cite which can be proved to be earlier than the manuscripts Cambridge cited. You have not and cannot do that!
    Everything you just said is absolutely false! I most certainly did provide evidence which you have not disproved in any way. The writing under discussion is Origen Commentary on John book 13 NOT chapter.
    ....All your arguments to this point are empty nothing more than saying "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!". You have not disproved anything I posted. I linked to my source prove it wrong anything less is meaningless.
    orig1.png
    Origen Commentary on John pg 248




     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  3. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,477
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Jn 4:14 quoted in Origen's Commentary on John book 13.
    orig2.png pg 250

     
  4. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,477
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    orig3.png
    Jn 4:14 quoted in Origen's Commentary on John book 13. pg.251
     
  5. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,477
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Jn 4:14 quoted in Origen's Commentary on John book 13.
    orig4.png pg 252
     
  6. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    No, what is needed is evidence that the following translation of Origen is wrong or has a legitimate alternate translation without the words "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life". Thus far i've seen no evidence of that given either to me or to any of the English language readers here:

    "(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
    (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.
    (20) When the promise to the one who is blessed because he hungers and thirsts for righteousness is fulfilled, then he who drinks of the water that Jesus will give will have the fountain of water that leaps into eternal life arise within him."

    Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13-32
    By Origen [page 73]

    Commentary on the Gospel According to John

    Therefore the above translation of Origen, supported by the Greek text from TLG, remains unchallenged.

    Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2018
  7. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,477
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    The same jejune objections over and over. I have provided the evidence but you can't read Greek or refute the evidence so you just ignore it. Here from page 256-7 of the Origen Commentary on John book 13.
    (59) He is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power
    (6o) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever, [αἰώνα] as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal [αἰώνιος] and never perishes, [φθείρω] as, indeed, does the first Life which comes from the well the life he gives ,remains. [ἀναφέρω] For the grace [χάρις] and the gift [δωρεά] of our Savior is not taken away, [ἀναλίσκω] nor is it consumed, [ἀναφέρω] nor does it perish, [φθείρω] when one partakes of it. P. 81
    origen011518.png

    p.256

    The commentary of Origen on S. John's Gospel

    The Commentary of Origen on S. John's Gospel: The Text Revised with a Critical Introduction and ...


     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2018
  8. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    That doesn't address this:

    No, what is needed is evidence that the following translation of Origen is wrong or has a legitimate alternate translation without the words "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life". Thus far i've seen no evidence of that given either to me or to any of the English language readers here:

    "(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
    (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.
    (20) When the promise to the one who is blessed because he hungers and thirsts for righteousness is fulfilled, then he who drinks of the water that Jesus will give will have the fountain of water that leaps into eternal life arise within him."

    Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13-32
    By Origen [page 73]

    Commentary on the Gospel According to John

    Therefore the above translation of Origen, supported by the Greek text from TLG, remains unchallenged.

    Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2018
  9. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    You never provided any "evidence".

    As for Greek:

    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."
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2018
  10. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,477
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    People who probably don't know how to parse a Greek verb if their life depended on it should not make Greek grammar arguments. I posted and linked to Greek language evidence from a book published by the Cambridge University Press which thoroughly demolishes the UR misinterpretation of Origen's Commentary on John book 13.19 . All you can do is mention some anonymous guy who you claim knows Greek. I heard responses like this way back in grade school "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!"
    (59) He is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power
    (6o) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever, [αἰώνα] as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal [αἰώνιος] and never perishes, [φθείρω] as, indeed, does the first Life which comes from the well the life he gives ,remains. [ἀναλίσκω] For the grace [χάρις] and the gift [δωρεά] of our Savior is not taken away, [ἀναφέρω] nor is it consumed, [ἀναλίσκω] nor does it perish, [φθείρω] when one partakes of it. P. 81
    Origen said aionion life "remains,""is not taken away,""is not consumed,""does not perish."
    origen011518.png
    pg. 256
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2018
  11. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    What evidence? If there were any evidence why haven't you posted it here long ago and translated it into English? For all here to see and read. Assuming you are able to do so. And that English translation would have to disagree with this English translation that follows. But instead of doing that you've switched to a different passage in Origen. Why is that? No alleged "evidence"? You haven't even shown there is a varying Greek MSS of Origen's commentary on John, let alone for chapter 13 of the specific portion under discussion, namely:

    "(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
    (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.
    (20) When the promise to the one who is blessed because he hungers and thirsts for righteousness is fulfilled, then he who drinks of the water that Jesus will give will have the fountain of water that leaps into eternal life arise within him."

    There Origen speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life". Clearly the translation "eternal" is wrong & the word for it, AIONIOS, is of finite duration. Compare Mt.25:46, as per the OP of this thread, where the same word is deceptively translated by KJV & its HellFire Boys Club clones.

    Those are the words of Heracleon, not Origen. Origen is quoting Heracleon's opinion. Therefore Origen gives no opinion re aionion in (60) above, though in (19) he speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life".

    Moreover even the words of Heracleon do not speak of aionios life, but of life that is (1) aionios and (2) never perishes, etc. If aionios meant eternal, to add "and never perishes" would be superfluous, redundant & pointless.

    BTW your rendering of ἀναλίσκω as "remains" is incorrect. That Greek word means to "consume", etc:

    Strong's Greek: 355. ἀναλίσκω (analiskó) -- to expend, consume

    Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀνα_λίσκω
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2018
  12. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,477
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Same ol' repetitive irrelevant mumbo jumbo, repeating the same thing over and over and over and ignoring the evidence I presented,
    Origen did not say there was anything for believers "after eternal life" or "beyond eternal life." What Origen said when the 6 words are read in context is "After the fountain leaps into eternal life PERHAPS it also leap into the father." Origen said "the Father is beyond eternal life." Origen said nothing about anything for believers beyond eternal life."
    Still deliberately misrepresenting the words of Origen in para. 19. Apparently you consulted your "expert" "some guy who knows some Greek" and he gave you another biased, irrelevant opinion.
    .....While Origen is quoting Heracleon, he does not contradict Heracleon's statement. Note para. 59 Origen says Heracleon is not wrong then Origen quotes Heracleon speaking about eternal life, para. 60. And in para. 61 Origen says "He [Heracleon] would be correct. In para. 64 later Origen says he agrees with Heracleon and in para. 68 Origen says that Heracleon distorts the text about the woman at the well calling her husband

    (59) He is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power.
    (6o) And he has explained the statement, But he shall not thirst forever, as follows with these very words: For the life he give is eternal and never perishes as indeed does the life he give remains. For the grace and the gift of our Saviour is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish when one partakes of it,
    (61) He would be correct when he grants that the first life perishes if he meant that life which is according to the letter, when it seeks and discovers the life according to the Spirit by the removal of the veil. But, If he is accusing the ancient words of passing out of existence all together, it is clear that he does this because he does not perceive that those good words contain the shadow of future things.
    (64) We too would agree, then, if he were admitting that she had free choice and not hinting that her nature was more excellent.
    (68) But here he clearly distorts the text when he says that the Savior said to her call your husband and come here,” meaning her consort in the pleroma.

    When Origen disagrees with Heracleon he clearly says so but Origen did not contradict Heracleon in para. 60.

    More UR nonsense. Sorry amigo you accepted para. 19 without question evidently because it can be twisted to support UR. You don't get to arbitrarily dissect, pick and choose which parts of a historic text is correct or incorrect.
    ....Heracleon and Origen are merely emphasizing "eternal." Can you not see how ridiculous this argument is? If "aionios" does not mean "eternal," why would a native Greek speaker use it in a sentence with adjective phrases which do mean eternal i.e. “never perishes,””remains,”””not taken away,””not consumed,””does not perish.”

    Whatever I was in a hurry. Did your friend who knows some Greek tell you that?
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2018
  13. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,477
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Speak about nonsense! Why wouldn't Origen or Heracleon speak about a fountain leaping? A little earlier in this book Origen quotes John 4:14 and that is what he is discussing.
    John 4:14
    (14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
    Now let us read the context of para. 19.
    (17) He says that eternal life is the [goal], as it were, or the water that springs up, as indeed Solomon says, when he talks about the bridegroom in the Song of Songs, [Song of Solomon 2:8] Behold he has come leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills.
    (18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, [Song 2:8] so here
    the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life. [John 4:14]
    (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.
    (20) when the promise to the one who is blessed because he hungers and thirsts for righteousness is fulfilled, then he who drinks of the water that Jesus will give will have the fountain of water that leaps into eternal life arise within him.
    The "it" in para. 19 cannot be "life" because para. says "perhaps it will also leap into the Father." "It" is something which Heracleon/Origen spoke of leaping before. The only thing Heracleon/Origen spoke of leaping before is the fountain, para. 18 "the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life." The "fountain" leaped not "life" and Heracleon/Origen say "[after leaping into eternal life] perhaps it [the fountain] also leaps into the father." Heracleon/Origen also mention "the fountain of water that leaps into eternal life in para. 20." The fountain that leaps NOT life.


     
  14. Doug Melven

    Doug Melven Well-Known Member

    +2,536
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Even if Origen is saying there is something after eternal life, what makes him correct?
    He could be deceived as well.
    There are many people who can read English and still can't figure out what an English writer said.
    What makes Origen's interpretation true?
    If what he says goes against the clear teaching of the Bible, any Christian should feel free to toss whatever he said into the trash.
     
  15. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    What makes any other Greek scholar or lexicon or translation of the Bible correct?


    What makes the Bible translation you read in English true? You could be being decieved by it. See the OP of this thread.
    And my other threads below.

    See my comments above and:

    Your "qualified" men following the Douay & KJV traditions of men of "the church" of the Inquisitions, Crusades & dark ages have been caught in a deception (Jer.8:8-9):

    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 after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

    Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
    9 "The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD..."

    "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)."

    Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three

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

    More examples re aion/ios (& olam) being finite:

    Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

    12 points re forever and ever being finite:
    For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

    aionios life, 2 UR views, eon/ian ends, millennial eon, 1 Jn.1:2, Chrysoston, Origen, Dan 12 2-3:
    how do people who believe in eternal torture in fire

    John 3:36, 3:16, 1 Jn.1:2, aionios life:
    Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

    Rev.14:9-11 & 20:10 & forever & ever a deceptive translation:
    If endless conscious torments were true, is God a monster?

    Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?

    For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

    Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2018
  16. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    If "also" refers to something else leaping "after eternal life" into the Father who is "beyond eternal life", what is the other thing that may leap besides the "fountain"? Life, perhaps. Or the believer of the context? Who has the "fountain of water" inside him? And the "water of life":

    John 7:38-39
    "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of LIVING water.'" But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

    John 4:14
    but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to aionion LIFE."

    Revelation 22:1-2
    Then he showed me a river of the water of LIFE, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

    Why would Origen speak of such nonsense as an inanimate fountain leaping "after eternal life" into "the Father who is beyond eternal life"? In context Origen is speaking about "life":

    (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."


    Origen is referring to the passage in John 4 about a fountain (i.e. well) of life (v.14). After speaking of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life", Origen refers back to the same sentence with those phrases by 2 more references to "life" in section 19. The word "For" indicates he is referring back to what he just spoke about in the first half of section 19:

    (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.

    Irrelevant. If i say "the day after tomorrow perhaps i will go on a cruise ship holiday", is there any doubt that there is a "day after tomorrow" and that "tomorrow" is finite? No. What is in doubt, and the "perhaps" refers to, is what i will do "the day after tomorrow". So Origen spoke, without doubt, that there is in fact an "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life". There is no "perhaps" about those facts.

    And, again, after eternal life is a oxymoron. Unless eternal is finite in duration. Which it is.

    More examples re aion/ios (& olam) being finite:

    Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

    12 points re forever and ever being finite:
    For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

    aionios life, 2 UR views, eon/ian ends, millennial eon, 1 Jn.1:2, Chrysoston, Origen, Dan 12 2-3:
    how do people who believe in eternal torture in fire

    John 3:36, 3:16, 1 Jn.1:2, aionios life:
    Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

    Rev.14:9-11 & 20:10 & forever & ever a deceptive translation:
    If endless conscious torments were true, is God a monster?

    Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?

    For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

    Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
  17. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private


    What evidence? If there were any evidence why haven't you posted it here long ago and translated it into English? For all here to see and read. Assuming you are able to do so. And that English translation would have to disagree with this English translation that follows. But instead of doing that you've switched to a different passage in Origen. Why is that? No alleged "evidence"? You haven't even shown there is a varying Greek MSS of Origen's commentary on John, let alone for chapter 13 of the specific portion under discussion, namely:

    "(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
    (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.
    (20) When the promise to the one who is blessed because he hungers and thirsts for righteousness is fulfilled, then he who drinks of the water that Jesus will give will have the fountain of water that leaps into eternal life arise within him."

    There Origen speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life". Clearly the translation "eternal" is wrong & the word for it, AIONIOS, is of finite duration. Compare Mt.25:46 as per the OP of this thread, where the same word is deceptively translated by KJV & its HellFire Boys Club clones.





    He doesn't agree or disagree with that particular comment.

    Those are the words of Heracleon, not Origen. Origen is quoting Heracleon's opinion. Therefore Origen gives no opinion re aionion in (60) above, though in (19) he speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life".

    Moreover even the words of Heracleon do not speak of aionios life, but of life that is (1) aionios and (2) never perishes, etc. If aionios meant eternal, to add "and never perishes" would be superfluous, redundant & pointless.






    ...
     
  18. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,477
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Same repetitive obfuscation over and over and over.
    Same ol' specious objections from the "God's laws are meaningless everyone will be saved no matter what" crowd.
    Why would the ECF poster boy for UR include in his commentary on John false views, according to you, about aionios/aion without stating they are false, as he did in his commentary on para. 68 and other places.

    (68) But here he clearly distorts the text when he says that the Savior said to her call your husband and come here,” meaning her consort in the pleroma.
    Already addressed typical UR meaningless obfuscation. As I said you don't get to dissect and pick and choose when a translation is "wrong." You accepted without question para. 19, evidently because it can be twisted to appear to support UR. But when another para. proves UR false you claim it is translated wrong. Very hypocritical and biased.
    .....Once again why would Origen, a native Greek speaker, include "aionios" a word which, according to you, does not mean eternal in a sentence with five adjectives or adjective phrases which do mean eternal, i.e. “never perishes,””remains,””is not taken away,””is not consumed” and “does not perish?” Evidently Origen understood "aionios" and "aidios" to be synonymous as Paul did in Romans 1:20 and Romans 16:26. Why would a writer use all those adjectives? For emphasis. An example of similar emphasis Paul wrote Eph 3:20

    Ephesian 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
    .....If para. 60 is false, why would Origen include it in his commentary without stating it was false as he did in para. 68?
    .....How would a 2nd-3rd century Greek speaking Christian, who did not have several years of intense UR indoctrination understand Origen's para. 60?






     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
  19. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,477
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Can you not see how absurd this argument is? Three ridiculous speculations which clearly ignores the context of what Origen wrote. "if 'also' refers to something else,""what is the other thing that may leap" and "life perhaps."
    "(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
    (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.
    There is only one something said to leap i.e. the fountain, para. 18. A second something cannot perhaps also leap into the father unless there was a first something which already leaped into the father. Where does Origen say or imply that there was another thing which leaped into the father before para. 19?
     
  20. Doug Melven

    Doug Melven Well-Known Member

    +2,536
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Greek scholars and translations should always be suspect.
    Lexicons should show word usage, not commentary.
    The words "after eternal life" are not in the scripture. Therefore they are commentary and suspect.

    Nothing makes any translation true. Some are better than others. Some are not worth the paper they are printed on.

    I never said I relied on KJV and I am unfamiliar with Douay.
    I always check other translations to be certain along with lexicons.

    This is true, context must determine the meaning.
    This however is false.
    God is referred to as eternal. olam and aion
    Psalm 90:2, 1 Timothy 1:17, Hebrews 9:14

    Or are you prepared to say that God Himself is of only indefinite duration and He will cease to be?
     
Loading...