Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

[ClementofA]

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.

The reference is to angels so has no relevance to the topic of universalism.

Jude 6 says they are kept in "eternal"[AIDION] chains "UNTO"(EIS) or "for" or "into" or "until" the day of judgement.

"ἀϊδίοις. The chains are called “everlasting,” but they are only used for a temporary purpose, to keep them for the final judgment." (Expositor's Greek Testament)

So the passage says nothing about their final destiny.

This includes everyone in the universe, including the dead and demons:

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are on the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour,
and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

John speaks of "every creature" & to emphasize this again he repeats "and all that are in them":

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are on the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour,
and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

This worship (v.13) uses the same worshipful words as the redeemed of vs 9-10 use in v.12:

12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

All this being in the context of salvation - "the Lamb that was slain" (v.12 & 13).

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/universalism-bible-derose.html

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

 

[Doug Melven]

This includes everyone in the universe, including the dead and demons:

At the judgment you spoke of there will be people who called Him LORD when He wasn't there LORD.
They will depart into everlasting fire, but the righteous into eternal life.
Just because someone says " Blessing, and honour,
and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." doesn't mean they are saved.

 

[Der Alte]

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.

I don't have to quote a scholar. The discussion is so simple that anyone with an IQ above room temperature can comprehend it. When you quote the words "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life" out-of-context it is abundantly evident it is for the sole purpose of trying desperately to make it appear that Origen was speaking about an end to "aionios" life and something for believers "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life."
.....Here is the quote from Origen Commentary on John bk 13:19

(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. ​

Here is the Greek with English interlinear

Τάχα/perhaps δὲ/but καὶ/also πηδήσει[πηδάω]/leap μετὰ/with τὴν/the αἰώνιον/aionion ζωὴν/life εἰς/into τὸν/the ὑπὲρ/after τὴν/the αἰώνιον/aionion ζωὴν/life πατέρα/father·
Perhaps but also leap with the aionion life into the after the aionion life father.​

There is no personal pronoun αὐτός/autos,"it." The referent is understood from the context. "also leap" refers back who/whatever was leaping in the previous sentence. 18.

"(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.​

"Also leap" refers back to "the fountain...leaps" para. 18. After the fountain leaps perhaps it, the fountain, will also leap into the father. "The fountain" not "life," not "believers

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

What Origen is considered to be is irrelevant. The point is Origen's commentary on John 13.19 cannot be grammatically twisted to mean that there is an end to aionion life and something after/beyond aionion life for believers.

 

[ClementofA]

At the judgment you spoke of there will be people who called Him LORD when He wasn't there LORD.
They will depart into everlasting fire, but the righteous into eternal life.
Just because someone says " Blessing, and honour,
and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." doesn't mean they are saved.

Revelation 5:13 doesn't refer to a judgement. It speaks of everyone in the universe worshipping God & the Lamb. There is no hint of anyone not being saved. The implication is clear.

The "alternative explanation is the absurd assumption that the unrighteous dead are portrayed as making this saving confession before a lever is pulled and they are then sucked down to Hell."

Phil.2:9 As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee will bow —in heaven and on earth and under the earth— 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

"It is the ultimate absurdity to imagine that the unrighteous dead envisaged here and in Philippians 2:6-11 worship Jesus and acknowledge Him as their Lord only to have some angel pull a lever so that they can be sucked down again into the lake of fire."

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

 

[ClementofA]

I don't have to quote a scholar. The discussion is so simple that anyone with an IQ above room temperature can comprehend it. When you quote the words "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life" out-of-context it is abundantly evident it is for the sole purpose of trying desperately to make it appear that Origen was speaking about an end to "aionios" life and something for believers "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life."

That's the implication of the phrases "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life".

.....Here is the quote from Origen Commentary on John bk 13:19

(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. ​

Here is the Greek with English interlinear

Τάχα/perhaps δὲ/but καὶ/also πηδήσει[πηδάω]/leap μετὰ/with τὴν/the αἰώνιον/aionion ζωὴν/life εἰς/into τὸν/the ὑπὲρ/after τὴν/the αἰώνιον/aionion ζωὴν/life πατέρα/father·
Perhaps but also leap with the aionion life into the after the aionion life father.
​

Why does that "English interlinear" you have made up leave out the word "beyond" from the translation above it?

​

There is no personal pronoun αὐτός/autos,"it." The referent is understood from the context. "also leap" refers back who/whatever was leaping in the previous sentence. 18.

"(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.​

"Also leap" refers back to "the fountain...leaps" para. 18. After the fountain leaps perhaps it, the fountain, will also leap into the father. "The fountain" not "life," not "believers

The fountain/well of life is in the believers:

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."

What Origen is considered to be is irrelevant. The point is Origen's commentary on John 13.19 cannot be grammatically twisted to mean that there is an end to aionion life and something after/beyond aionion life for believers.

I disagree.

Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by:

Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika

Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from ...
By Ilaria L.E. Ramelli (pages 10- 11)

Where again Origen refers to what is after eternal life, as well as after "the ages", beyond "ages of the ages" [often mistranslated forever & ever] and all ages.

"For that his[Satan's] kingdom is of this age,[αἰώνιος] i.e., will cease with the present age[αιώνι] ..." (Homily 4 on Ephesians, Chapter II. Verses 1-3).

Aionios is of finite duration above, not eternal.

And yet more re Origen & aion/ios:

"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). And Comm. in Rom. 6.5: “In Scriptures, aión is sometimes found in the sense of something that knows no end; at times it designates something that has no end in the present world, but will have in the future one; sometimes it means a certain stretch of time; or again the duration of the life of a single person is called aión” (quoted in Ramelli, p. 163).

Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope

Origen speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond 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."

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

Church Father, Origen, re everlasting (aionios) punishment (Mt.25:46) being temporary:

"That threats of aionios punishment are helpful for those immature who abstain from evil out of fear and not for love is repeated, e.g. in CC 6,26: "it is not helpful to go up to what will come beyond that punishment, for the sake of those who restrain themselves only with much difficulty, out of fear of the aionios punishment"; Hom. in Jer. 20 (19), 4: for a married woman it is better to believe that a faithless woman will undergo aionios punishment and keep faithful, rather than knowing the truth and becoming disloyal;" (p.178-9).

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Celsus, Book VI (Origen)
CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Celsum, Book VI (Origen)

Furthermore, Origen sees "eternal fire" (Mt.25:41) as remedial, corrective & temporary:

"Chapter 10. On the Resurrection, and the Judgment, the Fire of Hell, and Punishments."

"1. But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church's teaching— viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners— let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be."

"...nevertheless in such a way, that even the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments. If, then, such be the qualities of that body which will arise from the dead, let us now see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire."

"...And when this dissolution and rending asunder of soul shall have been tested by the application of fire, a solidification undoubtedly into a firmer structure will take place, and a restoration be effected."

[De Principis Book 2]

CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book II (Origen)

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

 

[Der Alte]

That's the implication of the phrases "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life".

Only if one bows down and worships at the altar of high priestess Ramelli, dishonestly ignores the context and reads assumptions/presuppositions into the text. Once again I'm going to do the same thing with two verses. The Bible says "there is no God." Psalms 14:1 and Psalms 53:1.
.....[Now I'm going to pretend to be you.]Don't say anything about context. Context does not change the fact that both verses say "There is no God."

Why does that "English interlinear" you have made up leave out the word "beyond" from the translation above it?

Here is your quote from TLG. Please show me the Greek word for "beyond?"
Τάχα δὲ καὶ πηδήσει μετὰ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν εἰς τὸν ὑπὲρ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν πατέρα· Χριστὸς γὰρ ἡ ζωή· ὁ δὲ μείζων τοῦ Χριστοῦ,

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

Because you and high priestess Ramelli ignore the context. The fountain is said to leap, it has no life eternal or otherwise. For the fountain there is no before, during or after aionios life. Understood correctly what Origen said is "after the fountain leaps into aionios life perhaps it also leaps into the father."

The fountain/well of life is in the believers:

Irrelevant if Origen had meant believers leaping that is what he would have said. I have found 9 occurrences of the quote from John 4:14, page and line number already provided. Only in para. 18 do the words ὑπὲρ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν/after the aionion life occur.

Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by:

Irrelevant says nothing about "after aionios life!"

Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from ...
By Ilaria L.E. Ramelli (pages 10- 11)

Irrelevant says nothing about "after aionios life!"

Where again Origen refers to what is after eternal life, as well as after "the ages", beyond "ages of the ages" [often mistranslated forever & ever] and all ages.

Irrelevant says nothing about "after aionios life!"

Aionios is of finite duration above, not eternal.

I guess Paul was a liar in Romans 1:20 and Romans 16:26 when he used the words aidios and aionios synonymously

And yet more re Origen & aion/ios:
Church Father, Origen, re everlasting (aionios) punishment (Mt.25:46) being temporary:
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)
Furthermore, Origen sees "eternal fire" (Mt.25:41) as remedial, corrective & temporary:
More examples re aion/ios (& olam) being finite:

All irrelevant says nothing about "after aionios life!"

 

[Der Alte]

. . .
That's the implication of the phrases "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life".
Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by:
Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from ...
By Ilaria L.E. Ramelli (pages 10- 11)
Where again Origen refers to what is after eternal life, as well as after "the ages", beyond "ages of the ages" [often mistranslated forever & ever] and all ages.
"For that his[Satan's] kingdom is of this age,[αἰώνιος] i.e., will cease wit . . .h the present age[αιώνι] ..." (Homily 4 on Ephesians, Chapter II. Verses 1-3). . .

I have been doing more study in Origen Commentary on John bk 13. I found 10 times he quotes John 4:14. Other than para. 19 he never uses the phrases "after aionios life" or "beyond aionios life" Origen refers to the fountain/water that springs into eternal life 10 times and never states, implies or suggest that believers leap anywhere from or after eternal life.

[1](14) Therefore, he adds the statement, “But whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him, it will become in him a fountain of water springing up into eternal life.” And who will be able to thirst when he has a fountain in himself?
[2](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
[3](26) But we shall take note, furthermore, of whether it is possible that the difference between the benefit to those who would associate with and be with the truth itself, and the benefit we are thought to derive from the Scriptures, even if they be accurately understood, is revealed by the fact that the one who drinks from the fountain of Jacob thirsts again, but the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives possesses a fountain of water within himself which leaps into eternal life.
[4](35) The things, too, that have not entered the heart of man are greater than the fountain of Jacob. These things are made manifest from the fountain of water leaping into eternal life to those who no longer have the heart of man, but who are able to say, “But we have the mind of Christ,” “that we may know the things that are given to us by God, which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom, but in words learned of the Spirit.”40
[5](36) And consider if one can call human wisdom not false teachings, but the elementary aspects of the truth, and the things that apply to those who are still men. The things that are learned of the Spirit, on the other hand, are perhaps the fountain of water that leaps into eternal life.
[6](37) The Scriptures, therefore, are introductions, called the fountain of Jacob. Once they have now been accurately understood, one must go up from them to Jesus, that he may freely give us the fountain of water that leaps into eternal life.
[7](40) This is now the second time the Samaritan woman calls the Savior “Lord.” The first time is when she says, “Lord, you have nothing with which to draw and the well is deep,” when she also inquires whence he has the living water, and if he might be greater than Jacob, whom she supposes to be her father. And now she also calls him “Lord” when she asks for some of the water that becomes a spring of water leaping into eternal life in the one who drinks it.
[8](41) And indeed it is clear that the statement, “You would ask him and he would give you living water,” is true, because when she said, “Give me this water,” she received the living water, that she might no longer be at a loss when she thirsted, nor come to the fountain of Jacob to draw water. She could now, apart from Jacob’s water, contemplate the truth in a manner that is angelic and beyond man. For the angels have no need of Jacob’s fountain that they may drink. Each angel has in himself a fountain of water leaping into eternal life, which has come into existence and been revealed by the Word himself and by Wisdom herself.
[9](50) And because she already had, as it were, something of the water that leaps into eternal life since she had said, “Give me this water,”60 and he does not lie who had promised previously, ‘You would ask him and he would give you living water,” the woman answered, “I have no husband,” having condemned herself on the basis of her association with such a husband.
[10](175) We must, however, give attention to the anagogical sense. What is the water jar that the Samaritan woman leaves behind when she has accepted Jesus’ words in some way? Perhaps she lays aside the vessel of the water that was honored for its depth, that is, the teaching, because she disparages those opinions which she formerly held, and has received, in a better vessel than the water jar, some of the water that is now already in her as a beginning of that water which springs up into eternal life.​

 

[ClementofA]

Here is your quote from TLG. Please show me the Greek word for "beyond?"
Τάχα δὲ καὶ πηδήσει μετὰ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν εἰς τὸν ὑπὲρ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν πατέρα· Χριστὸς γὰρ ἡ ζωή· ὁ δὲ μείζων τοῦ Χριστοῦ,

ὑπὲρ

Strong's Greek: 5228. ὑπέρ (huper) -- over, beyond, fig. on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning

μετὰ

Strong's Greek: 3326. μετά (meta) -- with, among, after

 

[ClementofA]

Only if one bows down and worships at the altar of high priestess Ramelli, dishonestly ignores the context and reads assumptions/presuppositions into the text. Once again I'm going to do the same thing with two verses. The Bible says "there is no God." Psalms 14:1 and Psalms 53:1.
.....[Now I'm going to pretend to be you.]Don't say anything about context. Context does not change the fact that both verses say "There is no God."

That's a silly comparison. Nothing in the context of Origen denies the plain implication that aionios in "after aionios life" & "beyond aionios life" makes aionios finite.

Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by:

Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika

Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from ...
By Ilaria L.E. Ramelli (pages 10- 11)

Where again Origen refers to what is after eternal life, as well as after "the ages", beyond "ages of the ages" [often mistranslated forever & ever] and all ages.

"For that his[Satan's] kingdom is of this age,[αἰώνιος] i.e., will cease with the present age[αιώνι] ..." (Homily 4 on Ephesians, Chapter II. Verses 1-3).

Aionios is of finite duration above, not eternal.

And yet more re Origen & aion/ios:

"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). And Comm. in Rom. 6.5: “In Scriptures, aión is sometimes found in the sense of something that knows no end; at times it designates something that has no end in the present world, but will have in the future one; sometimes it means a certain stretch of time; or again the duration of the life of a single person is called aión” (quoted in Ramelli, p. 163).

Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope

Origen speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond 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."

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

Church Father, Origen, re everlasting (aionios) punishment (Mt.25:46) being temporary:

"That threats of aionios punishment are helpful for those immature who abstain from evil out of fear and not for love is repeated, e.g. in CC 6,26: "it is not helpful to go up to what will come beyond that punishment, for the sake of those who restrain themselves only with much difficulty, out of fear of the aionios punishment"; Hom. in Jer. 20 (19), 4: for a married woman it is better to believe that a faithless woman will undergo aionios punishment and keep faithful, rather than knowing the truth and becoming disloyal;" (p.178-9).

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Celsus, Book VI (Origen)
CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Celsum, Book VI (Origen)

Furthermore, Origen sees "eternal fire" (Mt.25:41) as remedial, corrective & temporary:

"Chapter 10. On the Resurrection, and the Judgment, the Fire of Hell, and Punishments."

"1. But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church's teaching— viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners— let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be."

"...nevertheless in such a way, that even the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments. If, then, such be the qualities of that body which will arise from the dead, let us now see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire."

"...And when this dissolution and rending asunder of soul shall have been tested by the application of fire, a solidification undoubtedly into a firmer structure will take place, and a restoration be effected."

[De Principis Book 2]

CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book II (Origen)

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]

Because you and high priestess Ramelli ignore the context. The fountain is said to leap, it has no life eternal or otherwise. For the fountain there is no before, during or after aionios life.

The fountain is the fountain of life in believers. So clearly it is related to life & life aionios & the believer.

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."

 

[Der Alte]

The fountain is the fountain of life in believers. So clearly it is related to life & life aionios & the believer.
...

As with the entire false UR doctrine assumption upon presupposition upon conjecture etc. It is never clearly stated even one time. If that is what Origen meant why didn't he clearly state it? When a 2nd-3rd century Christian, who has not intensely indoctrinated with UR teaching by someone like high priestess Ramelli, read or heard 18-19 do you seriously think they would be thinking "Oh yeah, The fountain is the fountain of life in believers. So clearly it is related to life & life aionios & the believer so we are all going to be leaping into the father after aionios life?" Because they all had high priestess Ramelli and Beauchamin's books explaining all this to them.
.....Once again Origen never says that there is anything for believers "after aionios life" or "beyond ainios life."

 

[ClementofA]

As with the entire false UR doctrine assumption upon presupposition upon conjecture etc. It is never clearly stated even one time. If that is what Origen meant why didn't he clearly state it? When a 2nd-3rd century Christian, who has not intensely indoctrinated with UR teaching by someone like high priestess Ramelli, read or heard 18-19 do you seriously think they would be thinking "Oh yeah, The fountain is the fountain of life in believers. So clearly it is related to life & life aionios & the believer so we are all going to be leaping into the father after aionios life?" Because they all had high priestess Ramelli and Beauchamin's books explaining all this to them.
.....Once again Origen never says that there is anything for believers "after aionios life" or "beyond ainios life."

My position makes way more sense than yours. Yours being that Origen was speaking about an "inanimate fountain" leaping "after eternal life" into "the Father who is beyond eternal life"? Did Origen forget to use the word "inanimate"? If he meant "inanimate" why didn't he say "inanimate"? Of course the idea that it was "inanimate" is silly.

Moreover, in either case, he still speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life". So what is your point? It doesn't negate the finiteness of aionios in those phrases.

 

[Doug Melven]

Moreover, in either case, he still speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life". So what is your point? It doesn't negate the finiteness of aionios in those phrases.

Only the Father is beyond aionios life.
It is pure speculation on Origen's part that anything will leap into the Father.
You can't make doctrine out of what someone is speculating.
And your phrase "after eternal life" is clearly not referring to eternal life being finite.
But it refers to after someone receives eternal life, then something else happens.
Aionios is not finite. It is timeless.
Of the 69 times aionios is used in the NT, only one time, Philippians 1:15 is there a chance that it could be something finite.

 

[ClementofA]

Only the Father is beyond aionios life.

What gives you that idea?

It is pure speculation on Origen's part that anything will leap into the Father.

Irrelevant. The point is the Greek scholar uses aionios of finite duration. And also "life aionios" of finite duration.

You can't make doctrine out of what someone is speculating.

Who said anything about "doctrine"? It's the meaning of the word aionios & "life aionios" that is the subject. Origen's use of the words is one small piece of evidence amongst the entire body of evidence on the subject, including the NT usage, the LXX usage, the church fathers usage, secular usage, etc.

And your phrase "after eternal life" is clearly not referring to eternal life being finite.
But it refers to after someone receives eternal life, then something else happens.

That's not what Origen says:

"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."

Aionios is not finite. It is timeless.

Tell that to early church father Chrysostom:

"For that his[Satan's] kingdom is of this age,[αἰώνιος] i.e., will cease with the present age[αιώνι] ..." (Homily 4 on Ephesians, Chapter II. Verses 1-3).

Aionios is of finite duration above, not eternal.

For other examples, see below.

Of the 69 times aionios is used in the NT, only one time, Philippians 1:15 is there a chance that it could be something finite.

Even pro HellFire Boys Club lexicons & Greek scholars disagree with you, to say nothing of all the universalist Greek scholars.

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

 

[Der Alte]

...
Irrelevant. The point is the Greek scholar uses aionios of finite duration. And also "life aionios" of finite duration.

We have a word in English which is derived from the Greek word ὑπερβολή[/size], hyperbole. Here are scriptural examples of a word being used hyperbolically.

Matthew 16:26
(26) What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? [Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25]
Acts 17:6
(6) And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
Acts 19:27
(27) So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
1Jn 5:19
(19) And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
Rev 12:9
(9) And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.​

Can a person literally, actually gain the whole world? Did Jason and others literally, actually turn the whole world upside down? Did the whole world literally, actually worship the godess Diana? Did the whole world literally, actually lie in wickedness? Did Satan literally, actually deceive the whole world?

Tell that to early church father Chrysostom:
"For that his[Satan's] kingdom is of this age,[αἰώνιος] i.e., will cease with the present age[αιώνι] ..." (Homily 4 on Ephesians, Chapter II. Verses 1-3)

Aionios is of finite duration above, not eternal.
For other examples, see below.

Your other examples and Chrysostom are all irrelevant. See first response above. I will take Paul's word over Chrysostom.

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.

 

[Der Alte]

My position makes way more sense than yours. Yours being that Origen was speaking about an "inanimate fountain" leaping "after eternal life" into "the Father who is beyond eternal life"? Did Origen forget to use the word "inanimate"? If he meant "inanimate" why didn't he say "inanimate"? Of course the idea that it was "inanimate" is silly.
Moreover, in either case, he still speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life". So what is your point? It doesn't negate the finiteness of aionios in those phrases.

Is your argument that when Origen. or any other writer. refers to something which is inanimate it is not really inanimate unless the writers says it is? In John 4:14, which Origen quoted 10 times in his John Commentary, what did Jesus say would leap or spring?

John 4:14 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. ​

Is a "well of water" animate or inanimate? In Origen's John commentary what did he say would leap or spring?

"(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."​

Is a fountain animate or inanimate? You don't like what the scripture or Origen actually says, because it makes more sense to change the words to mean something else.

 

[ClementofA]

Your other examples and Chrysostom are all irrelevant.

They're relevant to the comment i was responding to in Doug's post:

Aionios is not finite. It is timeless.

Tell that to early church father Chrysostom:

"For that his[Satan's] kingdom is of this age,[αἰώνιος] i.e., will cease with the present age[αιώνι] ..." (Homily 4 on Ephesians, Chapter II. Verses 1-3).

Aionios is of finite duration above, not eternal.

 

[ClementofA]

Is your argument that when Origen. or any other writer. refers to something which is inanimate it is not really inanimate unless the writers says it is? In John 4:14, which Origen quoted 10 times in his John Commentary, what did Jesus say would leap or spring?

John 4:14 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. ​

Is a "well of water" animate or inanimate? In Origen's John commentary what did he say would leap or spring?

"(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."​

Is a fountain animate or inanimate? You don't like what the scripture or Origen actually says, because it makes more sense to change the words to mean something else.

The fountain/well of life is in the believers:

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."

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."

My position makes way more sense than yours. Your opinion is that Origen was speaking about an "inanimate fountain" leaping "after eternal life" into "the Father who is beyond eternal life". Did Origen forget to use the word "inanimate"? If he meant "inanimate" why didn't he say "inanimate"? Of course the idea that it was "inanimate" is silly.

Moreover, in either case, he still speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life". So what is your point? It doesn't negate the finiteness of aionios in those phrases.

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]

...

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

None of this repetitious argumentation addresses or disproves that Paul used “aidios” and “aionios” interchangeably in Rom 1:20 and Rom 16:26.

Where did Paul say they are "interchangable"?

In Rom 1:20 Paul uses “aidios” to refer to the Godhead. “Aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending. In Rom 16:26 Paul uses “aionios” to refer to God therefore Paul considers the two words to be synonymous.

Many words are applied to God. That doesn't make them all synonymous with each other.

Context. Romans 1 is speaking about God's attributes. OTOH, Romans 16 refers to times long ago, eonian times past. Context, context, context.

according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, (Rom.16:25b, NASB)

but has now been brought fully to light, and by the command of the God of the Ages (Rom.16:26a, WEY)

Romans 16:25-26 uses aionios twice. Do you suppose one time it means eternal & the other time it doesn't. Or that it consistently relates to an eon or eons, duration which is often very long, eras, epochs, ages.

of a secret hushed in times eonian, 26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God (Rom.16:25b-26a, CLV)

"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" "

Chapter Nine

The Greek text is on p.275ff. The English translation follows it.

"I adjure thee by the great God, the eternal and more than eternal and almighty, who is exalted above the exalted Gods." (p.277)

"The tablet, as is shown not only by its place of origin (the Necropolis of Adrumetum belongs to the second and third centuries, A.D.; the part in which the tablet was found is fixed in the third), but also by the character of the lettering, is to be assigned to the third century,1 that is— to determine it by a date in the history of the Greek Bible — about the time of Origen." (p.279)

https://ia800300.us.archive.org/4/items/biblestudiescon00deisuoft/biblestudiescon00deisuoft.pdf

Even your beloved JPS translation does not render olam as eternal when applied to God's goings, but as "of old" in Hab.3:6:

"He standeth, and shaketh the earth, He beholdeth, and maketh the nations to tremble; And the everlasting mountains are dashed in pieces, The ancient[OLAM] hills do bow; His goings are as of old.[OLAM]" (Hab.3:6, JPS)

The LXX has aionios[166] for olam there in Hab.3:6.

 

[Der Alte]

The fountain/well of life is in the believers:...

Irrelevant! Origen quoted "a fountain of water within himself which leaps into eternal life" from John 4:14 ten (10) times and never once mentioned believers leaping anywhere. I know how URists interpret everything out-of-context trying to make it support UR but how did 2nd-3rd century Christians understand the words of Origen?
.....They didn't have a PC sitting in front of them with a list of proof texts and all the stuff you linked to in the above post. Since Origen never said that the fountain leaping represented believers supposedly leaping into the father they had to understand Origen based on the literal sense of the words written.