Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

[Doug Melven]

No, the Websters definition i posted a link to gave 3 definitions of perpetual. Here it is again:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetual

This definition?
Definition of perpetual
1a : continuing forever : everlasting

• perpetual motion

b (1) : valid for all time

• a perpetual right

(2) : holding something (such as an office) for life or for an unlimited time
2: occurring continually : indefinitely long-continued

• perpetual problems

: blooming continuously throughout the season

I already told you:

The definition (perpetual) you posted from Strong's refutes your own definition of the word aionios as not finite but timeless. You refuted yourself by posting that definition.

Since the definition of the word "perpetual" (see Webster's above) is not limited to your definition of "not finite but timeless", but also includes what is of indefinite duration, hence can be finite & not timeless, which opposes your definition.

You were wrong when you told me before, stating it over and over on't change the fact that you were and are still wrong.
Now you finally say that aionios is timeless.
Timeless cannot be construed to be finite.
time·less
ˈtīmləs/
adjective

1. not affected by the passage of time or changes in fashion.
   "antiques add to the timeless atmosphere of the dining room"
   synonyms: lasting, enduring, classic, ageless, permanent, perennial, abiding, unfailing, unchanging, unvarying, never-changing, changeless, unfading, unending, undying, immortal, eternal, everlasting, immutable

You said this regarding how Origen uses the word aionios:

Exactly. Origen has commentary. Origen was not an author of Scripture.

Then why are you spending so much effort arguing against what i've posted re the early church father Greek scholars Origen & Chrysostom? If it's "irrelevant" as you say, that's all you needed to say. Though scholars, lexicographers & Bible translators disagree with you.

Scripture disagrees with you.

Is this supposed to be a serious question?

I am not sure how to take this.
Maybe it was clearly obvious to you that it was not Scripture, but you said it was.
Or you didn't realize it wasn't Scripture and you are astounded that I pointed that out.

So according to you the entire body of usage of how aionios was used & understood by the early church & other ancients is irrelevant & proves nothing unless the word appears in Scripture?

What is relevant is how is the Word used in Scripture.

 

[ClementofA]

This exposes the deception of UR. According to this "proskairos" is only for a few months and "eonion" is a long time. But we know that Jonah 2:6 LXX the three days Jonah spent in the fish is called an eon.

The "bars" are eonian in these LXX translations, not the duration of time Jonah was in the sea creature or the sea:

to the clefts of the mountains; I went down into the earth, whose bars are the everlasting barriers: yet, O Lord my God, let my ruined life be restored. (Brenton LXX)

I have gone down to a land, the bars of which are everlastingly fixed: let my soul now, corrupted as it is, ascend, Lord, my God. (CTT, LXX)

to the clefts of the mountains; I went down into the earth, whose bars are the everlasting barriers: yet, O Lord my God, let my ruined life be restored. (CAB, LXX)

http://studybible.info/Brenton/Jonah 2

Compare this LXX translation:

http://studybible.info/ABP_Strongs/Jonah 2

With this Greek text:

http://studybible.info/ABP_GRK/Jonah 2


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

 

[ClementofA]

duplicate post

 

[ClementofA]

What is relevant is how is the Word used in Scripture.

Then lexicons will be of limited use to you.

And what if a word is used only once in Scripture & it's meaning is unclear. Is how the word was used outside of Scripture still irrelevant? Will a word in Scripture have a completely different meaning than how it is used outside the Scriptures, or the same?

And what is Scripture? The Hebrew OT or the Greek OT?

Is it relevant how the word aionios is used in the Greek OT, or is that also irrelevant, even though the NT writers usually quoted from the LXX rather than the Hebrew?

Do you consider the Hebrew word olam to be equivalent to the Greek aion & aionios?

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

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/unique_proof_for_universalism.html

http://tentmaker.org/blog1/universalism/

http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/

 

[ClementofA]

...​

That post repeats points that have already been addressed in this thread. Or raises other points that make little, if any, sense. Let me know when you have something of substance to add to this topic. Or when you ever have a reply to any of this:

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

http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/

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

aionios life, 2 UR views, eon/ian ends, millennial eon, 1 Jn.1:2, Chrysoston, Origen, Dan 12 2-3:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...torture-in-fire.8041369/page-30#post-72154410

John 3:36, 3:16, 1 Jn.1:2, aionios life:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...error-re-matthew-25-46.8041938/#post-72178491

Rev.14:9-11 & 20:10 & forever & ever a deceptive translation:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...is-god-a-monster.8042349/page-8#post-72158527

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/have-you-been-decieved-by-your-bible-translation.8039822/

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/for-the-lord-will-not-cast-off-for-ever.8041512/

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/augustines-ignorance-error-re-matthew-25-46.8041938/

 

[Der Alte]

That post repeats points that have already been addressed in this thread. Or raises other points that make little, if any, sense. Let me know when you have something of substance to add to this topic. Or when you ever have a reply to any of this:
More examples re aion/ios (& olam) being finite:...

This post is the same repetitious copy/paste nonsense which does not address anything posted. Nothing original, nothing from you, just copy/paste. Here are two verses which invalidate all your out-of-context proof texts.

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.

 

[Doug Melven]

Do you consider the Hebrew word olam to be equivalent to the Greek aion & aionios?

In some cases olam means finite, in some cases infinite. It depends on the context.
But, it could also mean timeless, that is outside of any time measurements whatsoever.
Like in Jonah 2:6, it may have seemed like forever/timeless.
While Jonah was in the whale he had no idea of the passage of time, therefore it was timeless to him, but it did have an ending.
But when God says the sacrifices will be forever, they actually will be forever. For this short time from Jesus' sacrifice till Ezekiel's prophecy will be fulfilled, they are in abeyance. Ezekiel 43
Also there are times when olam refers to God, His Love, His mercies and His arms.
So olam cannot only mean finite.
Aion properly refers to an age, but aionios refers to that which is perpetual.

 

[ClementofA]

...

Already answered & refuted easily earlier in this thread.

And you have never been able to disprove this:

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

God bless.

 

[Doug Melven]

And you have never been able to disprove this:

What is there to refute?
It is all based on emotion and not being able to understand how God could do something.

 

[Der Alte]

Already answered & refuted easily earlier in this thread.
And you have never been able to disprove this:
...

You have never refuted anything I have posted. You may have convinced yourself that you have refuted something but someone saying essentially, "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" does not refute anything.
.....I have been at this forum for almost 2 decades. When I joined I soon learned that hardcore heterodox are almost impossible to reach. So my focus now is to help prevent uninformed people from being deceived by the false teachings being propagated in this forum.

https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/rejectuniversalism.htm

https://www.bible-knowledge.com/the-false-doctrine-of-universalism/

http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/universal.htm

https://carm.org/1-tim-24-2-pet-39-and-universalism

https://michaelbattle65.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/refuting-universalism-are-all-people-in-christ/

 

[ClementofA]

What is there to refute?
It is all based on emotion and not being able to understand how God could do something.

Did you miss all the Scripture references & analysis?

The same thing has been said of the endless tortures dogma, that it is of man's ungodly hateful emotions & created by men after their own fallen image & to exert power over others via fear & for filthy lucre's sake. See, for example:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html

 

[ClementofA]

You have never refuted anything I have posted.

For an example from this thread:

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.

Ilogical. Your conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Therefore it is invalid. For your conclusion to be true, both aionios and aidios must mean the same thing. Not only must (1) aidios unquestionably mean eternal & only eternal, but so must (2) aionios unquestionably mean eternal & only eternal. But your argument lacks (2). And since (2) is unprovable & wrong, your conclusion can never be proven.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...re-matthew-25-46.8041938/page-8#post-72246463

So, you were refuted. Just one of many examples.

 

[Doug Melven]

Ilogical. Your conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Therefore it is invalid. For your conclusion to be true, both aionios and aidios must mean the same thing. Not only must (1) aidios unquestionably mean eternal & only eternal, but so must (2) aionios unquestionably mean eternal & only eternal. But your argument lacks (2). And since (2) is unprovable & wrong, your conclusion can never be proven.

Actually, that statement is not logical.
Words do not have to mean the exact same thing to be able to be used interchangeably.
If they did have to mean the exact same thing, we would not have 2 words.
For instance, take the words "need" and "must". In some situations they can be used interchangeably. The meanings of these 2 words in some situations are the same. In some they are different.
aionios can mean neverending, timeless or eternal.
aiodios means neverending or eternal.
So they can be used interchangeably .

 

[Der Alte]

For an example from this thread:
Ilogical. Your conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Therefore it is invalid. For your conclusion to be true, both aionios and aidios must mean the same thing. Not only must (1) aidios unquestionably mean eternal & only eternal, but so must (2) aionios unquestionably mean eternal & only eternal. But your argument lacks (2). And since (2) is unprovable & wrong, your conclusion can never be proven.
So, you were refuted. Just one of many examples.

Very wrong amigo. Once again the "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" argument. I am not too interested in the unsupported opinions/arguments of a person, who very likely could not parse a Greek verb or locate* a Hebrew verb if their life depended on it and doesn't know an aorist from an aardvark.
.....In order to "refute" my argument will require quoting from a scholar, or 2 or 3, with some letters behind his/her name, e.g. PhD, ThD, and reference to a Greek grammar, or 2 or 3, and possibly some historical references. .See e.g. initial entry for aionios in LSJ. Also,

αἰώνιος (ία Pla., Tim. 38b; Jer 39:40; Ezk 37:26; OdeSol 11:22; TestAbr A; JosAs 8:11 cod. A; 2 Th 2:16; Hb 9:12; mss. Ac 13:48; 2 Pt 1:11; AcPl BMM recto 27=Ox 1602, 29; Just., A I, 8, 4 al.; B-D-F §59, 2; Mlt-H. 157), ον eternal (since Hyperid. 6, 27; Pla.; ins, pap, LXX, En, TestSol, TestAbr A, Test12Patr; JosAs 12:12; GrBar 4:16; ApcEsdr; ApcMos 29; Ps.-Phocyl. 112; Just.; Tat. 17, 1; Ath., Mel.; standard epithet for princely, esp. imperial, power: OGI index VIII; BGU 176, 12; 303, 2; 309, 4; Sb 7517, 5 [211/12 A.D.] κύριος αἰ.; al. in pap; Jos., Ant. 7, 352).
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 33). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

* On my Hebrew final the professor said "Copy each of the verbs in Jer 3:5, 8, 11, 12 and fully locate each of them. and that doesn't mean open your Hebrew OT and point."

https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/rejectuniversalism.htm

https://www.bible-knowledge.com/the-false-doctrine-of-universalism/

http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/universal.htm

https://carm.org/1-tim-24-2-pet-39-and-universalism

https://michaelbattle65.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/refuting-universalism-are-all-people-in-christ/

 

[ClementofA]

Very wrong amigo.

Just saying i'm wrong does not address the comment made in my post refuting your comment. The rest of your post did not address it either & was just a distraction (a smokescreen & therefore irrelevant) from the fact of your comment being shown to be logically unsound and refuted.

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

 

[ClementofA]

Actually, that statement is not logical.

Prove it.

Words do not have to mean the exact same thing to be able to be used interchangeably.

Who said anything about interchangeably?

So they can be used interchangeably .

The argument was they ARE synonymous, not "can be".

The argument was unsound logically & i refuted it. Therefore he has been refuted. Nothing you said changes that.

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

 

[ClementofA]

In some cases olam means finite, in some cases infinite. It depends on the context.
But, it could also mean timeless, that is outside of any time measurements whatsoever.
Like in Jonah 2:6, it may have seemed like forever/timeless.
While Jonah was in the whale he had no idea of the passage of time, therefore it was timeless to him, but it did have an ending.

Jonah knew he wasn't in the sea "forever". Something that is timeless does not have an "ending". How could 3 days seems timeless to anyone? Timeless means:

"not restricted to a particular time or date, having no beginning or end, not affected by time : ageless"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/timeless

But when God says the sacrifices will be forever, they actually will be forever.

The OT sacrifices won't be forever.

For this short time from Jesus' sacrifice till Ezekiel's prophecy will be fulfilled, they are in abeyance. Ezekiel 43
Also there are times when olam refers to God, His Love, His mercies and His arms.
So olam cannot only mean finite.

It can only mean finite if references to God are referring to God during finite OLAM periods, finite eons, & finite eonian periods. If all olam/eons end (1 Cor.10:11; Heb.9:26), then any references to eons (e.g. Rev.20:10, which corresponds to Mt.25:41) are finite.

Aion properly refers to an age, but aionios refers to that which is perpetual.

You've provided no Scriptural proof of this. And the word "perpetual" includes a meaning of finite duration, which you can apply to Mt.25:46.

Examples re aion/ios (& olam) being finite:

http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/

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

aionios life, 2 UR views, eon/ian ends, millennial eon, 1 Jn.1:2, Chrysoston, Origen, Dan 12 2-3:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...torture-in-fire.8041369/page-30#post-72154410

John 3:36, 3:16, 1 Jn.1:2, aionios life:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...error-re-matthew-25-46.8041938/#post-72178491

Rev.14:9-11 & 20:10 & forever & ever a deceptive translation:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...is-god-a-monster.8042349/page-8#post-72158527

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/have-you-been-decieved-by-your-bible-translation.8039822/

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/for-the-lord-will-not-cast-off-for-ever.8041512/

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/augustines-ignorance-error-re-matthew-25-46.8041938/

 

[ClementofA]

This definition?
Definition of perpetual
1a : continuing forever : everlasting

• perpetual motion

b (1) : valid for all time

• a perpetual right

(2) : holding something (such as an office) for life or for an unlimited time
2: occurring continually : indefinitely long-continued

• perpetual problems

: blooming continuously throughout the season

Yes. That refutes your comment that aionios is not finite but timeless. Since you defined the word as meaning "perpetual". You should make up your mind which of the two are true, since both cannot be. You also admitted aionios might be finite in Phile.1:15. So which is it? Can aionios be finite or not? If it means "perpetual" then it can be finite.

If it means "perpetual" why didn't the pro endless torments HellFire Club versions of the Bible translate it that way? Were they being misleading and deceptive? Or simply deceived into thinking "perpetual" isn't the meaning of aionios?

Now you finally say that aionios is timeless.

No, there are two positions on that, as i've posted to you before at:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...error-re-matthew-25-46.8041938/#post-72178491

as follows:

Context determines the meaning of a word. The same word can have more than one, or even many, meanings in different contexts.

So, to illustrate, if aionion means "eternal" in one context, it can mean a finite age or ages, epoch, era, millennium, lifetime, 3 days, long time, lasting, etc, in other passages.

In order to refute universalism you need to prove the word aionion means "eternal" when speaking of punishment. Arguing that it means "eternal" in regards to life proves nothing.

Universalists mostly agree that aionion sometimes means "eternal" & at others times it doesn't. Call that position A. And the following position B:

Some universalists, however, argue that in Scripture aionion never means eternal & that it always refers to an age, ages or a period of time that is finite. For more on that view see, for example, points 8 & 9 at posts 130 & 131 at:

What is the 2nd Death? (Annihilationsim vs. Eternal Torment)

Origen has commentary. Origen was not an author of Scripture.

Obviously. Who ever in the history of the universe said otherwise.

 

[Der Alte]

Just saying i'm wrong does not address the comment made in my post refuting your comment. The rest of your post did not address it either & was just a distraction (a smokescreen & therefore irrelevant) from the fact of your comment being shown to be logically unsound and refuted.

And you saying my post was illogical does not make it so. As I said, that is the jejune "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" fallacious argument. And, unlike you, I included two references to support my argument. Here from LSJ the secular classical Greek lexicon. I don't think they were part of any good ol' boys club.

G166
αἰώνιος, ον, also α, ον Pl. Ti. 37d, Heb_9:12 : —
1. lasting for an age (αἰών 11), perpetual, eternal (but dist. fr. ἀΐδιος, Plot. 3.7.3), μέθη Pl. R. 363d; ἀνώλεθρον.. ἀλλ' οὐκ αἰώνιον Id. Lg. 904a, cf. Epicur. Sent. 28; αἰ. κατὰ ψυχὴν ὄχλησις Id. Nat. 131 G.; κακά, δεινά, Phld. Herc. 1251.18, D. 1.13; αἰ. ἀμοιβαῖς βασανισθησόμενοι ib.19; τοῦ αἰ. θεοῦ Rom_16:26, Ti.Locr. 96c; οὐ χρονίη μοῦνον.. ἀλλ' αἰωνίη Aret. CA 1.5; αἰ. διαθήκη, νόμιμον, πρόσταγμα, LXX Gen_9:16, Ex. 27.21, To. 1.6; ζωή Mat_25:46, Porph. Abst. 4.20; κόλασις Matt. l.c., Olymp. in Grg. p.278J.; πρὸ χρόνων αἰ. 2Ti_1:9 : opp. πρόσκαιρος, 2Co_4:18.​

And FYI

syn·on·y·mous /səˈnänəməs/adjective
1. (of a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language:​

 

[ClementofA]

And you saying my post was illogical does not make it so.

I did more than say it. I provided a detailed argument refuting yours which you have not even addressed. It refuted you.

As i said:

Just saying i'm wrong does not address the comment made in my post refuting your comment. The rest of your post did not address it either & was just a distraction (a smokescreen & therefore irrelevant) from the fact of your comment being shown to be logically unsound and refuted.