Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

Doug Melven · Jan 17, 2018

Psalm 90:2 should be
Gen 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God.
Deut 33:27 The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are theeverlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.
Psalms 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Isaiah 26:4 Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:

ClementofA · Jan 17, 2018

Doug Melven said:
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.

In that case you should throw out anything in lexicons that show what words meant based on their usage by those who were not quoting "the scripture".

Doug Melven said:
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.

What makes you think English language translations & lexicons will make you arrive at "certain" truth? You already said above they "should always be suspect".

Doug Melven said:
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?

Why can't God be BOTH the God of ages & beyond ages?

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

ClementofA · Jan 17, 2018

Der Alter said:
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?

The fountain is what? The fountain of life. And it is in believers. So if the fountain of life leaps, what does that imply about believers in whom this fountain dwells?

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.

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.

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

Humble me Lord · Jan 17, 2018

My bologna has a first name, it's Oscar, my bologna has a second name, it's mayer, Oh I love to eat it every day, and if you ask me why I'll say, cause Oscar Mayer has a way with B O L O G N A.

Doug Melven · Jan 17, 2018

ClementofA said:
In that case you should throw out anything in lexicons that show what words meant based on their usage by those who were not quoting "the scripture".

Lexicons show word usage, they are not commentaries.
The sad part is you seem to understand the English language yet you completely misrepresent what I say.

ClementofA said:
What makes you think English language translations & lexicons will make you arrive at "certain" truth? You already said above they "should always be suspect".

These things are aids, we should always rely on the Spirit to guide us. Everything should be tested, no matter who says it.
When Paul preached to the Bereans, they checked all he told them. Acts 17:11

ClementofA said:
Why can't God be BOTH the God of ages & beyond ages?

You were saying that olam and aion/ios should always be translated as "indefinite duration".
I showed verses where olam and aion/ios are used to describe God.
Now you come up with some new thing instead of saying "sometimes olam and aion/ios can be translated differently".
The context must determine the meaning of a word when there are multiple possible meanings.

Der Alte · Jan 17, 2018

ClementofA said:
The fountain is what? The fountain of life. And it is in believers. So if the fountain of life leaps, what does that imply about believers in whom this fountain dwells?...

More absurd biased UR speculation, on conjecture, on supposition, on assumption, on hypothesis, on postulation. It never ends the contortions you go through trying to make the sources say what you want them to. Orgen's commentary on John is comprised of 32 books. If UR is true, surely Origen was intelligent enough to write something, somewhere in those books which does not have to be quoted out-of-context or manipulated in some way to clearly say what you keep desperately trying to make him say.

Der Alte · Jan 17, 2018

ClementofA said:
. . .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.

And you persist in deliberately misrepresenting what Origen said out-of-context trying to support UR.
I guess Paul was a member of that so-called HellFire Boys Club because he considered aiodios and aionios to be synonymous.

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

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

ClementofA · Jan 17, 2018

Der Alter said:
Orgen's commentary on John is comprised of 32 books. If UR is true, surely Origen was intelligent enough to write something, somewhere in those books which does not have to be quoted out-of-context or manipulated in some way to clearly say what you keep desperately trying to make him say.

The subject is not UR, but Origen's use of aionios in one passage where he speaks of "after aionios life" & "beyond aionios life". You haven't cited a single scholar who opposes the view of scholar Ramelli re that passage.

As for UR, BTW, the early church father Origen is commonly considered a supporter of the doctrine.

ClementofA · Jan 17, 2018

Doug Melven said:
These things are aids, we should always rely on the Spirit to guide us.

Any religion can say that. Or the 100's of Christian denominations. What makes you think the Spirit is giving you the truth when they disagree with you & say the Spirit gave it to them?

Doug Melven said:
You were saying that olam and aion/ios should always be translated as "indefinite duration".

Where?

Doug Melven said:
I showed verses where olam and aion/ios are used to describe God.
Now you come up with some new thing instead of saying "sometimes olam and aion/ios can be translated differently".

Where did i say that?

Doug Melven said:
The context must determine the meaning of a word when there are multiple possible meanings.

Yet my question remains unanswered:

Why can't God be BOTH the God of ages & beyond ages?

If you want to know what i think, you'll need to read more:

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

Doug Melven · Jan 17, 2018

Doug Melven said: ↑
You were saying that olam and aion/ios should always be translated as "indefinite duration".

ClementofA said:
Where?

ClementofA said:
"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)."

This is from post 95 of this thread. Bolding is mine for clarification.

ClementofA · Jan 17, 2018

Der Alter said:
Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc.

Yet Scripture never uses that word of the unending punishment of the lost. If Jesus taught unending punishment, surely He would have repeatedly used a word that, you say, "unquestionably" means unending. Therefore Jesus didn't teach such a dogma.

Instead, Jesus used a word, aionios, that scholars generally agree is ambiguous, that sometimes refers to duration that is endless & other times refers to duration that is finite & ends.

While Jesus used the ambiguous aionios, the Pharisees used what you say is the unambiguous aidios to describe the punishment of the lost. So in using aionios Jesus rejected the dogma of the Pharisees.

Jesus also warned His disciples re the teachings of the Pharisees.

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

ClementofA · Jan 17, 2018

Doug Melven said:
Doug Melven said: ↑
You were saying that olam and aion/ios should always be translated as "indefinite duration".

This is from post 95 of this thread. Bolding is mine for clarification.

Though not what i said, but a quote, that is correct. But you seem to be confusing interpretation with translation. To translate aionios in Mt.25:46 with the English word "eternal" is misleading & deceptive, as i already explained:

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)."

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

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

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

Doug Melven · Jan 17, 2018

ClementofA said:
Though not what i said, but a quote, that is correct. But you seem to be confusing interpretation with translation.

How am I confusing interpretation with translation?
You really need to learn to answer a post without all of the copying and pasting.
Everything from the 3rd line to the end of post 112 was copied and pasted from another post you made.
This does not make you look in the least bit intelligent and it becomes quite annoying.

Der Alte · Jan 17, 2018

ClementofA said:
Yet Scripture never uses that word of the unending punishment of the lost. If Jesus taught unending punishment, surely He would have repeatedly used a word that, you say, "unquestionably" means unending. Therefore Jesus didn't teach such a dogma.

Total nonsense. Logical fallacy! argument from silence. You do not know what Jesus "surely" would or would not have done. The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Why don't you address Romans 1:20 and Romans 16:26? Unless aionios does mean eternal Paul could not have used aiodios and aionios synonymously/. The rest of your argument is irrelevant

Instead, Jesus used a word, aionios, that scholars generally agree is ambiguous, that sometimes refers to duration that is endless & other times refers to duration that is finite & ends.

Irrelevant see above.

While Jesus used the ambiguous aionios, the Pharisees used what you say is the unambiguous aidios to describe the punishment of the lost. So in using aionios Jesus rejected the dogma of the Pharisees.

More nonsense! Another logical fallacy. Argument from silence. That Jesus used the word aionios does NOT mean he rejected any dogma. Since you acknowledged above that aionios "refers to duration that is endless."

Jesus also warned His disciples re the teachings of the Pharisees.

And that is why people should avoid UR doctrine like the plague.

Doug Melven · Jan 17, 2018

ClementofA said:
Yet Scripture never uses that word of the unending punishment of the lost. If Jesus taught unending punishment, surely He would have repeatedly used a word that, you say, "unquestionably" means unending. Therefore Jesus didn't teach such a dogma.

Matthew 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlastingfire.
Jesus was emphatic in preaching about the dangers of hellfire and its duration.

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
In this verse, the punishment is contrasted with eternal life. They are the same duration.

Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
Jesus is to quite emphatic here about never getting forgiveness, and the danger of doing that is eternal.
If He didn't mean the damnation would not be eternal, He would have said they will eventually be forgiven.
But, He said "never".
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Here He says there is a requirement to get eternal life, and if they meet the requirement they shall never perish.
That is very emphatic.

Jesus did preach about the dangers of hellfire and the length of it.

ClementofA · Jan 17, 2018

Doug Melven said:
How am I confusing interpretation with translation?

You are giving your interpretation of some verses with God in them. The issue is translation of ambiguous words. Specifically aionios in Mt.25:46 as per the OP.

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

ClementofA · Jan 17, 2018

Doug Melven said:
Jesus did preach about the dangers of hellfire and the length of it.

Who said otherwise. What do the deceptive translations in your post, which have all been addressed & refuted many times (see the OP), have to do with my comment re AIDIOS:

Yet Scripture never uses that word of the unending punishment of the lost. If Jesus taught unending punishment, surely He would have repeatedly used a word that, you say, "unquestionably" means unending. Therefore Jesus didn't teach such a dogma.

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

Bible Threatenings Explained

Doug Melven · Jan 18, 2018

ClementofA said:
Yet Scripture never uses that word of the unending punishment of the lost. If Jesus taught unending punishment, surely He would have repeatedly used a word that, you say, "unquestionably" means unending. Therefore Jesus didn't teach such a dogma.

Instead, Jesus used a word, aionios, that scholars generally agree is ambiguous, that sometimes refers to duration that is endless & other times refers to duration that is finite & ends.

While Jesus used the ambiguous aionios, the Pharisees used what you say is the unambiguous aidios to describe the punishment of the lost. So in using aionios Jesus rejected the dogma of the Pharisees.

Jesus also warned His disciples re the teachings of the Pharisees.

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

What about this verse?
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

ClementofA said:
Who said otherwise. What do the deceptive translations in your post, which have all been addressed & refuted many times (see the OP), have to do with my comment re AIDIOS:

Jesus said the punishment would be unending/eternal. Yet you keep saying that is not true.

ClementofA · Jan 18, 2018

Doug Melven said:
What about this verse?
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

What about it?

Doug Melven said:
Jesus said the punishment would be unending/eternal. Yet you keep saying that is not true.

If you had read the OP you'ld know why.

Bible Threatenings Explained

Doug Melven · Jan 18, 2018

ClementofA said:
What about it?

If you had read the OP you'ld know why.

When someone quotes you and they put what you said in the "Quote" boxes, don't you at least look at why they are quoting you?
Just to reiterate, you said "Yet Scripture never uses that word of the unending punishment of the lost." in response to Der Alter showing aidios and ainios were synonmous.
So I replied with what about Jude 6 and I put "Everlasting" in bold.
That is the Greek Word "aidios". Which you said never refers to what will happen to the lost.

I did read your OP and found it UnScriptural.

Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency