No, the problem is that you're deliberately inventing "eons of Christ's rule" in order to avoid the clear meaning of the phrase /eis ton aiona/ as it's used in all Greek, secular and sacred.
Willie, I've already given you examples from the Greek OT where "eis ton aiona" (and the plural form) are used of finite duration, contrary to your claim it always means "forever". And told you that i could provide more examples. So i gave you evidence for my position. Where is your evidence for your claim that i already refuted?
Scripture clearly reveals Christ's temporary rule for the eon and eons (1 Cor.15:26; Lk.1:33, etc). John's Revelation refers to His temporary 1000 year millennial age reign. BTW, Jewish literature (before, during and after Jesus) also speaks of a temporary Messianic reign, so it's not like Paul & John invented an idea that no one had ever thought of before.
"Compare moreover the apocalyptic book 2 Baruck (or Syriac Baruck, ascribed to a date of approximately 30 to 50 years after 70 AD; J.H. Charlesworth ABD I 620). 2 Baruck 40:3 states about the Annointed One (40:1) that his dominion will last forever until the world of corruption has ended and until the times which have been mentioned before have been fulfilled" (translation A.F.J. Klijn in Charlesworth I (1983) with note: "The rule of the Annointed One seems to be of a limited time."). Ferch (1977) 148-149: " "forever must be understood relatively, viz. until the age of corruption is ended" ("Life Time Entirety. A Study of AION in Greek Literature and Philosophy, the Septuagint and Philo", Heleen M. Keizer, 2010, p.134).
THE BOOK OF THE APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH THE
There is zero evidence for your elaborate age-system aside from the phrase itself, and your system would make no sense in any of the secular uses of the phrase.
What secular uses? Can you quote even a single one in accord with your theory?
I'm going to read one of your own prooftexts back at you.
to Him is granted jurisdiction and esteem and a kingdom, and all the peoples and leagues and language-groups shall serve Him; His jurisdiction, as an eonian jurisdiction, will not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be confined (
Daniel 7:14, CLV))
Just as with Luke 1:33, this states the extent of Christ's kingdom both positively and negatively. And the negative statements demolish your claims. Christ's personal rule over His kingdom begins at the ascension, and ends _never_, does not pass away from Him, and is not ever destroyed (the CLV is dependably bad as always, "confined" is a ridiculous gloss used merely because there's another word that also means "destroyed").
There's nothing in Dan.7:14, CLV, that states His rule never ends. It says "as an eonian jurisdiction, will not pass away" which is like saying His millennial eon reign, as an eonian reign, will not pass away. IOW it will endure for the entire 1000 years. Unlike earthly rulers reigns which don't last for an entire epochal eon, but only as long as they live, at the longest, so probably less than 50 years. The translation as "destroyed" doesn't effect anything i've said above or before, so is irrelevant.
- An "until" only means an end when the event is a natural terminus, such as death or other cessation. There is no such event here; Christ is described as having two parts of His reign, one as a king during battle and one as a victorious king.
- When He hands over the kingdom He does so by handing it over with Himself as the king, a sacrifice of self-submission to God. He does NOT do so by abdicating. As all of the other eschatological passages clearly show, both God and the Lamb are the occupants of the Throne after the defeat of death.
- The "abolition of all authority" is explicitly while Christ is still king. Christ is no more abolishing His own authority than Paul intends to say that God is subject to Christ when "all things" are subject to Christ. Exactly the same exclusion argument refutes your idea that Christ destroys His own authority, as Paul used to oppose the idea that God set Himself in subjection to Christ.
- "The subjection of all enemies" is not even an _argument_; that's what YOU claim is during Christ's kingdom, so you're merely contradicting your own claim.
- God being all in all happens because everything submits to Him, including Christ. This doesn't in the slightest imply that Christ is not a king.
IMO your interpretation goes contrary to the natural and literal reading of the passage as well as Revelation 5:13 and other considerations here:
As in Adam all die
And every creature which is in the heaven and upon the earth and under the earth, and those that are upon the sea, and all things in them, heard I saying, To him that sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb, blessing, and honour, and glory, and might, into the ages of ages.(Rev.5:13)
The abolishing of death (1 Cor.15:25-26) means an end to the death of those in the second death, which means their resurrection "in Christ" as per 1 Cor.15:22-28.
And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, 'The kingdoms of the world did become those of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign into the ages of the ages!' (Rev.11:15)
9 And a third angel followed them, calling in loud a voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives its mark on his forehead or hand, 10 he too will drink the wine of God’s anger, poured undiluted into the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented in fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up into the ages of ages, and they have no respite day and night who do homage to the beast and to its image, and if any one receive the mark of its name. (Rev.14:9-11)
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. (Rev.19:20)
and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- into the ages of the ages. (Rev.20:10)
3No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be within the city, and His servants will worship Him. 4 They will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. 5 And night shall not be any more, and no need of a lamp, and light of the sun; for the Lord God shall shine upon them, and they shall reign into the ages of ages. (Rev.22:3-5)
The verses above indicate Christ & the saints shall be reigning "into the ages of the ages", including the millenial age & the age when the lake of fire (= the 2nd death) is abolished. But 1 Cor.15:25 says Christ's reign is UNTIL He has put all enemies under His feet. Since He is still reigning at the time of Revelation 20-22, all enemies are not yet under His feet. So neither is God yet "All in all" (1 Cor.15:28) nor is death [e.g. 2nd death] abolished yet.
So death is not abolished (1 Cor.15:26), since that is associated with the end of Christ's reign (v.25) & will not happen till He quits reigning. Also those humans who died a second death in the lake of fire, which is the second death, are still dead, so death is not yet abolished (v.26). As long as the second death remains & is not abolished, death is not abolished as per v.26.
Neither is "all rule and authority and power" yet nullified (1 Cor.15:24) by Revelation 21-22. There are still kings in the earth (Rev.21:24). There is still the throne of the Lamb & the saints reigning (22:3,5). So neither is death abolished or God "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28).
God cannot be "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) while there are still those in the second death & those being tormented in the lake of fire (Rev.14:9-11; 19:20; 20:10).
In Revelation 22:2 we also have leaves that are for the healing of the nations. Who at this time would need healing?
Eventually God will be making all new (Rev.21:5) & will be "in all" (1 Cor.15:28).
And every creature which is in the heaven and upon the earth and under the earth, and those that are upon the sea, and all things in them, heard I saying, To him that sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb, blessing, and honour, and glory, and might, into the ages of ages.(Rev.5:13)
Your idea that love rules out a need for ruling is contrary to ALL Biblical eschatology, which always places rulership in all the saved at all times, and puts God in rulership over us. Love does not rule out ruling; rather, it makes the ruler the greatest servant. As is obviously the case here.
The weakness in your interpretation of eschatology is that it stops short of seeing what is the real final destiny & mistakes the process leading to it for the real thing.
God as "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) has nothing to do with authority, but God "in" every being who ever lived. "To say that "all in all" signifies "the manifestation of God's supremacy"...is very far indeed from the truth...When we say "Christ is my all," what do we mean? That He is our Lord? Yes, and our Saviour and Friend and our Lover, our Wisdom and our Righteousness, and our Holiness--He is everything to us!...And that is just what God wishes to be and what He will be!...Will He be this only in some? No! He will be All in all!...we have said that when the last enemy [death] is abolished, then the Son abdicates and God becomes All in all. If there were still enmity we might imagine God being over all, but with all enmity gone, it is easy to see how He can become All in all...The "kingdom" is given up to the Father, after all sovereignty and authority and power have been abrogated. What kind of a "supremacy" will God "fully manifest" which has no power, no authority, no sovereignty? Thank God, all these elements, which characterized government during the eons, will be utterly unnecessary when the Son of God is finished with His "mediatorial" work. Instead of God's supremacy being fully manifested at that time, it will be entirely absent, and God, as Father, will guide His family by the sweet constraint of love."
1 Cor.15:22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Do you just assume people will believe whatever slander you spout merely because you say it? I've given arguments and evidence, including secular Greek sources who have absolutely no interest in "Damnationism".
What evidence from secular Greek sources?
Because there's literally nothing in common between the two? You're just namecalling without even _trying_ to justify it.
The scribes & Damnationist Pharisees were scholars of their day, just like many appeal to the Damnationist versions and scholars of our day. Did Jesus disciples follow them? No.
Because the evidence I've been able to find indicates that the ECF universalists were applying "folk etymologies" and stretched analogies in order to make their arguments, rather than stating that the meaning of the text was natural and direct. (I would bow to some contrary evidence, since I do not read Greek natively.) Meanwhile, the scholars I've pointed out are actually explaining the results of extensive research.
What scholars were those? I'd suggest this:
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp).
"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.
"I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.
"It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.
"Certainly, “there was a diversity of views in the early church on the scope of final salvation.” Tertullian, for instance, did not embrace apokatastasis. But my monograph is not on patristic eschatology or soteriology in general, but specifically on the doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others."
The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)
Scholars directory, with list of publications:
Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory
OK, Latin I actually do read. And "the vast majority" is an absolutely ridiculous translation, completely transparently wrong. Look it up, or even just paste it into Google Translate. The phrase means "indeed, how many", and does not imply any kind of majority.
"plurimi...'most; or 'a majority'...":
Selections from Latin Classic Authors
edited by Francis Gardner [p.111]:
Selections from Latin Classic Authors
"..."the majority" (plurimi)...":
Diocles of Carystus. 2. Commentary
edited by Philip J. “van der” Eijk [p.271]:
Diocles of Carystus. 2. Commentary
"When Augustine described the Universalists as “indeed very many” (
immo quam plurimi), what he meant is that they were a “vast majority” (Ramelli,
Christian Doctrine, 11). That is what the Latin word
plurimi, from the adjective
plurimus, implies. "
Indeed Very Many: Universalism in the Early Church
Latin–English dictionary: Translation of the word "plurimus"
An Elementary Latin Dictionary
By Charlton Thomas Lewis [p.621]:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=VI...AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=plurimus majority&f=false
"St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379) in his
De Asceticis wrote:
"The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." "
No; it's because lexicographers depend on actual evidence of normal usage, not on sources who are attempting to make polemical arguments that depend on the words in question.
I wouldn't call references to Plato & Philo's philosophical ideas of aion/ios as normal usage while ignoring koine Greek scholars such as Origen referring to biblical usages of aion/ios. Or including some Early Church Fathers & leaving out universalists ECF. That reeks of lexical bias & cherry picking. For what purpose?
This is a topic I've studied closely, and I agree with Köstenberger (the author you're quoting) in every detail. But every single word he's saying points out and highlights the problems with your gloss-based Bible versions, which pick a SINGLE GLOSS for a word and use only that.
He was referring to the problems with lexicons copying Damnationist translations & each other. Like pat my back & i'll pat yours. It's a circular thing that feeds itself. The blind leading the blind. That's quite different than creating a consistent translation for the purpose of trying to eliminate translator bias that's so obvious in Damnationist versions.
Well, he's a Nazi, which means that everything he believes is false (sarcasm BTW). From a more lexicographical point of view, Kittel's error is assuming that a word's meaning is derived from systematic theology.
Obviously not, but your own comment illustrates my point re blind faith in something people haven't checked out for themselves.
"The words of the apostle Paul ever remain good advice, "let no one be boasting in men" (1 Cor.3:21)."
Myth: Biblical Reference works are wrong
Very often they are wrong. Most obviously when they disagree with each other, which is not occasionally.
This is true, and is why I cite LSJ and general-purpose English dictionaries in preference to Christian works. Vine's NT dictionary is jaw-droppingly bad, for example. Kittel's was the inspiration for Barr's coining of the phrase "illegitimate totality transfer fallacy" (to refer to how he defined words based on doctrine, rather than defining words based on how they're actually used in context).
Actually, I have provided no evidence, because I'm not interested in arguing this minor side point. Nonetheless your response is typical -- you will rule out all evidence, and you will tout the fact that you've accepted no evidence as proof that there is no evidence, and that in turn will be proof that you're already right (even though your argument should mean that nobody's right because there's no evidence!).
Actually i've challenged you to show some evidence. Only after i've seen it would i decide if it's to be ruled out or not. In Rev.19:3 smoke is to ascend "forever & ever" according to Damnationist translations. That "forever & ever" ends & is a lie is evident by the previous chapter where what is burned is "utterly consumed". Clearly the burning will not even be "for" finite "ages of the ages", either. So the idea that EIS always means "for" in relation to time is wrong. In this context it means "to" or "into".
LSJ is under no such constraint even ASSUMING your conspiracy theory. Yet they say the same thing, and offer secular evidence for their claims.
They're not part of the world that Satan is god of (2 Cor.4:4)? That's scripture, not a conspiracy theory. God is not the author of doctrines that make Him a sadist for eternity. What "evidence" do they provide to support any of your views we've been discussing? The eminent scholar & lexicographer, Lee, & the other sources i referenced & quoted already pointed out how unreliable & error prone lexicons are. Lexicons that are created not by Damnationists but by sinful pagans are not any less immune from the sordid history of lexicography.
/aionias/ is sometimes limited; /aion/ in the phrase /eis ton aiona/ is never limited.
Mt.25:46 doesn't use the phrase "eis ton aiona" that my comment was referring to.
There's truth in that, but also omission. What you omit is that /L'olam/ and /eis ton aiona/ are never used of finite time (except in poetry which contains other direct elements of hyperbole). You also omit that all of them ARE regularly used of infinite time.
I disagree with your unsupported opinions re L'olam & eis ton aiona. As for infinite time it is not an ommision but implied in the argument.
Because that means "without finish", implying incompleteness.
http://biblehub.com/greek/562.htm
If Christ wanted to teach endless punishment, He would have used this word meaning "endless" at Mt.25:46 instead of aionios. Therefore He didn't teach endless punishment.
Because you would come up with a complex eschatological workaround for that one also. I mean, that literally just happened.
How would that work if the words "no end" were applied to punishment at Mt.25:46?
If Christ wanted to teach endless punishment, He would have used the unambiguous words "no end" of punishment at Mt.25:46 instead of the ambiguous word aionios. Therefore He didn't teach endless punishment.
(However, I do agree that the punishing of the wicked has an end -- as explicitly stated, "their end is destruction.")
That annihilationist proof text was already refuted along with a number of other posts Mark Corbett (& other endless annihilation supporters) have never answered:
Post # 215...page 11...re Matt.25:46 which is considered a stronghold for the anti-universalism positions, but i've shown is more favorable to universalism
Post # 220...page 11...Phil.3:19 refuted as an alleged annihilation proof text
Post # 221...page 12...apollumi comments of Mark Corbett refuted
Post #225...page 12....a list of annihilation proof texts easily explained away
Post #225...page 12...addressed Jn.3:16 & Rom.6:23...Dan. 12:2-3 shown as supporting Biblical universalism
Additionally, i have addressed the following with no answers:
Post #294...page 15...Rev. 20:10 shown to be harmonious with universalism
Post #316...page 16...Universalism in 1 Cor.15:22-28 & the book of Revelation
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ious-torment-and-universalism.8019749/page-20
In this following thread i have also commented on Mt.10:28 & 2 Pet.2:6 in post #12.
Likewise regarding Gen.6:3 in posts 11 & 15.
And regarding free will in post 14.
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...tory-annihilationism-vs-universalism.8020138/
In the following thread i have also addressed Psa.37 in post 25 on page 2:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-eternal-torment.8019864/page-2#post-71586814
[/QUOTE]Or why not use the word aidios (eternal, Rom.1:20; Jude 6)?[/QUOTE]
Neither of those two uses mean endless -- they both mean immensely strong. Jude 6's "eternal chains" are actually temporary, because they're only holding the angels in order to keep them until the day of judgment, not forever.
http://biblehub.com/greek/126.htm
In Jude 6 the chains are said to be "eternal" (aidios). IMO it's the time they are held in the chains that is temporary, i.e. until the day of judgement, not the chains themselves. In Romans 1:20 it's God's power that is "eternal" (aidios).
Because that refers to space.
Philo applied it to a time, not space, word, aion in Exo.15:18. In Aristotle the same phrase Philo used, ton apeiron aiona, meant "all, endless, time" ("Life Time Entirety. A Study of AION in Greek Literature and Philosophy, the Septuagint and Philo", Heleen M. Keizer, 2010, p.212).
If Christ, a contemporary of Philo, wanted to teach endless punishment, He would have used the unambiguous word "apeiron" of punishment at Mt.25:46 instead of the ambiguous word aionios. Therefore He didn't teach endless punishment.
