Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

[Der Alte]

duplicate

 

[ClementofA]

As with all your arguments it is false because you insist on quoting 1-2 verses out-of-context.

You haven't shown that anything in the context changes the facts of this translation:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

It says what it says. No context can change that.

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

 

[Der Alte]

You haven't shown that anything in the context changes the facts of this translation:
Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…
It says what it says. No context can change that.

Again this conclusion is the same as me saying "the Bible says there is not God." It says what is says no context will change that.

Psalms 14:1
(1) To the Director: A Davidic Psalm. Fools say to themselves, "There is no God." They are corrupt and commit evil deeds; not one of them practices what is good.
Psalms 53:1
(1) To the Director: Upon machalath. A Davidic instruction. Fools say to themselves "There is no God." They are corrupt and commit iniquity; not one of them practices what is good.​

Note this passage from Jeremiah. God said “I have caused to cleave” That word is הדבקתי/ha’dabaq’thi. It is in the perfect or completed sense. God’s will, expressly stated, for the whole house of Israel and Judah, was for all of Israel and all of Judah to cling to God as a belt clings to a man’s waist. It was done, finished, completed, in God’s sight, and, according to some arguments presented, nothing man can do will cause God’s will to not be done. But they, Israel and Judah, would not hear and obey, their will, vs. God’s will, So God destroyed them, vs. 14.
God stated very clearly what His will was, in terms that cannot be misunderstood. But, because the Israelites would not hear, and obey, God destroyed them, instead of them being unto God, “for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory, vs. 10.”

Jeremiah 13:10-14
10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave הדבקתי/ha’dabaq’thi] unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
· · ·
14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

Note, verse 14, God said He will NOT have pity, will NOT spare, and will NOT have mercy but destroy them.

H1692 דבק dabaq daw-bak'
A primitive root; properly to impinge, that is, cling or adhere; figuratively to catch by pursuit: - abide, fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard, after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.
​

​

​

 

[ClementofA]

Again this conclusion is the same as me saying "the Bible says there is not God." It says what is says no context will change that.

Psalms 14:1
(1) To the Director: A Davidic Psalm. Fools say to themselves, "There is no God." They are corrupt and commit evil deeds; not one of them practices what is good.
Psalms 53:1
(1) To the Director: Upon machalath. A Davidic instruction. Fools say to themselves "There is no God." They are corrupt and commit iniquity; not one of them practices what is good.
​

That's ridiculous. You refer to part of a verse of which it plainly says a fool is speaking. OTOH you haven't shown there is a fool speaking here:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

Your argument is like saying apples & dung are the same thing.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you believe the Bible teaches Annihilationism, Eternal Conscious Torment, or Universalism?
Why?

Yes I believe the body and soul are destroyed in the lake of fire, Annihilationism is as good a term as any.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt. 10:28)
​

I encountered it in an exchange on here and had honestly never considered it before. I went through the requisite proof texts and came to the conclusion that while the fires of perdition burn forever those tossed in expire. The children of perdition spend at least a thousand years in hell but eventually even hell is tossed into the lake of fire along with death. My premise is actually that God can undo anything he creates and that's the whole point of the lake of fire. Once I heard an expositor quip that the Devil is the eternal optimist, that he will spend eternity thinking, one day I will get out of here and when I do... I don't buy it, no one ever gets out of there because it ends them. There is no point to eternal suffering, I simply don't believe that's the case.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Der Alte]

That's ridiculous. You refer to part of a verse of which it plainly says a fool is speaking. OTOH you haven't shown there is a fool speaking here:
Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…
Your argument is like saying apples & dung are the same thing.

No more ridiculous than all your quoting out-of-context, whether it is a few words or a few verses, to quote only a few words or a few verses and ignore the context is dishonest and distorts the word of God.

 

[ClementofA]

No more ridiculous than all your quoting out-of-context, whether it is a few words or a few verses, to quote only a few words or a few verses and ignore the context is dishonest and distorts the word of God.

Quote the whole chapter or book if you like. It still doesn't change the facts of the following translation:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

It says what it says. No added context changes it.

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

 

[Der Alte]

Quote the whole chapter or book if you like. It still doesn't change the facts of the following translation:
Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…
It says what it says. No added context changes it.

Nothing like a little hypocrisy to start my day off. You criticized me when I deliberately quoted two verses out-of-context. You correctly observed that by quoting out-of-context I made the vss. appear to say something they did not say. In the same way, the verses you quoted out-of-context appear to say something they do not say. This is standard practice for Universalists and other heterodox beliefs. Not one single verse in the OT, when read in context, supports Universalism. I may not convince you but perhaps others will see how Universalists quote sources out-of-context trying to prove their false beliefs.

 

[ClementofA]

Nothing like a little hypocrisy to start my day off. You criticized me when I deliberately quoted two verses out-of-context. You correctly observed that by quoting out-of-context I made the vss. appear to say something they did not say. In the same way, the verses you quoted out-of-context appear to say something they do not say. This is standard practice for Universalists and other heterodox beliefs. Not one single verse in the OT, when read in context, supports Universalism. I may not convince you but perhaps others will see how Universalists quote sources out-of-context trying to prove their false beliefs.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in most of these remarks. Clearly, though, you haven't shown from the context that what i quoted from Lamentations 3 does not mean exactly what it appears to mean to any objective observer.

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

 

[Mark Corbett]

This thread has generated a lot of discussion about the meaning of the Greek word aionios.

I have started on new thread specifically on this topic. It sounds very technical, but I have tried to present the topic in a way that special training in Greek or linguistics is not necessary to understand it. Here is the thread:

What does Aionios Mean? Part 1

 

[ClementofA]

And you think an anonymous post from another forum 8 years ago is authoritative? I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I will let you have real cheap.

Evidently you didn't refute the logic of it, and the authority of that logic stands uncontested:

"Whatever its correct translation, “aionios” is clearly an adjective and must therefore function like an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective for its meaning to vary, sometimes greatly, depending upon which noun it qualifies. For more often than not, the noun helps to determine the precise force of the adjective. As an illustration, set aside the Greek word “aionios” for a moment and consider the English word “everlasting.” I think it safe to say that the basic meaning of this English word is indeed everlasting. So now consider how the precise force of “everlasting” varies depending upon which noun it qualifies. An everlasting struggle would no doubt be a struggle without end, an unending temporal process that never comes to a point of resolution and never gets completed. But an everlasting change, or an everlasting correction, or an everlasting transformation would hardly be an unending temporal process that never gets completed; instead, it would be a temporal process of limited duration, or perhaps simply an instantaneous event, that terminates in an irreversible state. So however popular it might be, the argument that “aionios” must have exactly the same force regardless of which noun it qualifies in Matthew 25:46 is clearly fallacious."

""Accordingly, even if we should translate “aionios” with the English word “everlasting,” a lot would still depend upon how we understand the relevant nouns in our text: the nouns “life” (zoe) and “punishment” (kolasis). Now the kind of life in question, being rightly related to God, is clearly an end in itself, even as the kind of punishment in question seems just as clearly to be a means to an end. For as one New Testament scholar, William Barclay, has pointed out, “kolasis” “was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better.” Barclay also claimed that “in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment”–which is probably a bit of a stretch, since the language of correction and the language of retribution often get mixed together in ordinary language. But in any event, if “kolasis” does signify punishment of a remedial or a corrective kind, as I think it does in Matthew 25:46, then we can reasonably think of such punishment as everlasting in the sense that its corrective effects literally endure forever. Or, to put it another way: An everlasting correction, whenever successfully completed, would be a temporal process of limited duration that terminates in the irreversible state of being rightly related to God. Certainly nothing in the context of Matthew 25 excludes such an interpretation."

"This would not be my preferred interpretation, however, because the English word “everlasting” does not accurately capture the special religious meaning that “aionios” typically has in the New Testament."

Talbott on Matthew 25:41, 46?

 

[mark kennedy]

Evidently you didn't refute the logic of it, and the authority of that logic stands uncontested:

"Whatever its correct translation, “aionios” is clearly an adjective and must therefore function like an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective for its meaning to vary, sometimes greatly, depending upon which noun it qualifies. For more often than not, the noun helps to determine the precise force of the adjective. As an illustration, set aside the Greek word “aionios” for a moment and consider the English word “everlasting.” I think it safe to say that the basic meaning of this English word is indeed everlasting. So now consider how the precise force of “everlasting” varies depending upon which noun it qualifies. An everlasting struggle would no doubt be a struggle without end, an unending temporal process that never comes to a point of resolution and never gets completed. But an everlasting change, or an everlasting correction, or an everlasting transformation would hardly be an unending temporal process that never gets completed; instead, it would be a temporal process of limited duration, or perhaps simply an instantaneous event, that terminates in an irreversible state. So however popular it might be, the argument that “aionios” must have exactly the same force regardless of which noun it qualifies in Matthew 25:46 is clearly fallacious."

""Accordingly, even if we should translate “aionios” with the English word “everlasting,” a lot would still depend upon how we understand the relevant nouns in our text: the nouns “life” (zoe) and “punishment” (kolasis). Now the kind of life in question, being rightly related to God, is clearly an end in itself, even as the kind of punishment in question seems just as clearly to be a means to an end. For as one New Testament scholar, William Barclay, has pointed out, “kolasis” “was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better.” Barclay also claimed that “in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment”–which is probably a bit of a stretch, since the language of correction and the language of retribution often get mixed together in ordinary language. But in any event, if “kolasis” does signify punishment of a remedial or a corrective kind, as I think it does in Matthew 25:46, then we can reasonably think of such punishment as everlasting in the sense that its corrective effects literally endure forever. Or, to put it another way: An everlasting correction, whenever successfully completed, would be a temporal process of limited duration that terminates in the irreversible state of being rightly related to God. Certainly nothing in the context of Matthew 25 excludes such an interpretation."

"This would not be my preferred interpretation, however, because the English word “everlasting” does not accurately capture the special religious meaning that “aionios” typically has in the New Testament."

Talbott on Matthew 25:41, 46?

Well that's an interesting insight I guess, same word we get eons from I suppose. Does it mean forever or ages, because in the Greek that is largely determined by the context. Annialation has some merit as an alternate reading but falls short as the preferred interpretation since consciousness has generally considered to be unquenchable, even in the fires of perdition. I am certainly not dogmatic one way or another, I entertain the concept of annialation from time to time for a couple or reasons. It makes sense in that it makes sense that there is nothing God creates he cannot undo. That everlasting suffering serves little purpose, unless the condition is inescapable due to the immortality of the soul. Opinions vary but I see no reason to be dogmatic one way or the other and the alternative reading seems reasonable enough, if not totally convincing.

 

[Der Alte]

Evidently you didn't refute the logic of it, and the authority of that logic stands uncontested:
"Whatever its correct translation, “aionios” is clearly an adjective and must therefore function like an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective for its meaning to vary, sometimes greatly, depending upon which noun it qualifies. For more often than not, the noun helps to determine the precise force of the adjective. As an illustration, set aside the Greek word “aionios” for a moment and consider the English word “everlasting.” I think it safe to say that the basic meaning of this English word is indeed everlasting. So now consider how the precise force of “everlasting” varies depending upon which noun it qualifies. An everlasting struggle would no doubt be a struggle without end, an unending temporal process that never comes to a point of resolution and never gets completed. But an everlasting change, or an everlasting correction, or an everlasting transformation would hardly be an unending temporal process that never gets completed; instead, it would be a temporal process of limited duration, or perhaps simply an instantaneous event, that terminates in an irreversible state. So however popular it might be, the argument that “aionios” must have exactly the same force regardless of which noun it qualifies in Matthew 25:46 is clearly fallacious."

""Accordingly, even if we should translate “aionios” with the English word “everlasting,” a lot would still depend upon how we understand the relevant nouns in our text: the nouns “life” (zoe) and “punishment” (kolasis). Now the kind of life in question, being rightly related to God, is clearly an end in itself, even as the kind of punishment in question seems just as clearly to be a means to an end. For as one New Testament scholar, William Barclay, has pointed out, “kolasis” “was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better.” Barclay also claimed that “in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment”–which is probably a bit of a stretch, since the language of correction and the language of retribution often get mixed together in ordinary language. But in any event, if “kolasis” does signify punishment of a remedial or a corrective kind, as I think it does in Matthew 25:46, then we can reasonably think of such punishment as everlasting in the sense that its corrective effects literally endure forever. Or, to put it another way: An everlasting correction, whenever successfully completed, would be a temporal process of limited duration that terminates in the irreversible state of being rightly related to God. Certainly nothing in the context of Matthew 25 excludes such an interpretation."
"This would not be my preferred interpretation, however, because the English word “everlasting” does not accurately capture the special religious meaning that “aionios” typically has in the New Testament."
Talbott on Matthew 25:41, 46?

Another quote from some anonymous dood on his blog. Evidently "logic" to you is anything written by anybody, anywhere which supports your UR assumptions/presuppositions. Two of the the most highly accredited lexicons Bauer, Gingrich, Arndt, Danker NT Greek and Liddel, Scott, Jones Classical Greek include the definitions eternity/eternal.

 

[ClementofA]

Another quote from some anonymous dood on his blog. Evidently "inescapable logic" to you is anything written by anybody, anywhere which supports your UR assumptions/presuppositions. Two of the the most highly accredited lexicons Bauer, Gingrich, Arndt, Danker NT Greek and Liddel, Scott, Jones Classical Greek include the definitions eternity/eternal.

Your response suggests you didn't even read his comments.

Tom Talbott is "anonymous"? No. And a simple google search would reveal who he is, including the author of a number of universalist articles & at least one book.

As to the assertion "Evidently "inescapable logic" to you is anything written by anybody, anywhere which supports your UR assumptions/presuppositions", which isn't even worth dignifying with a response, are you God that you know the hearts of truly "anonymous" internet posters? If not, then you could not know what they think privately in their hearts, such as what "inescapable logic" is. And, BTW, who are you quoting with the words ""inescapable logic"? Certainly not me.

 

[Der Alte]

begin quote

Your response suggests you didn't even read his comments, let alone understand or refute them.
Tom Talbott is "anonymous"? No. And a simple google search would reveal who he is, including the author of a number of universalist articles & at least one book.
As to the ridiculous assertion "Evidently "inescapable logic" to you is anything written by anybody, anywhere which supports your UR assumptions/presuppositions", which isn't even worth dignifying with a response, are you God that you know the hearts of truly "anonymous" internet posters? If not, then you could not know what they think privately in their hearts, such as what "inescapable logic" is. And, BTW, who are you quoting with the words ""inescapable logic"? Certainly not me.
Rather than engage the content of his remarks in the post, you evidently prefer ad hominems directed at the poster.

end

You evidently do not know what ad hominem is. I did not say anything derogatory about you. I said nothing which could be remotely understood as presuming to know anything about Talbot's heart or yours. Being the "author of a number of universalist articles & at least one book" does not make someone an authority on anything. I usually don't read quotes from anonymous people who do not state or demonstrate that they are knowledgeable about the subject.

 

[ClementofA]

You evidently do not know what ad hominem is. I did not say anything derogatory about you. I said nothing which could be remotely understood as presuming to know anything about Talbot's heart or yours.

I disagree & am happy to let readers decide for themselves.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the ..."

 

[Der Alte]

begin

I disagree & am happy to let readers decide for themselves.
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the ..."

end

Excellent. Now show me where I did any of this?

 

[Super Kal]

i can understand the confusion behind the word "aionios", while i personally define it as "age-during" as the YLT translation does, i am willing to still call it "eternal" as it is translated in Matthew 25:46...

however, the problem i have is how the doctrine of eternal conscious torment changes the word "punishment" to "punishing"... i pulled this from scripture4all.org for reference sake...

kolasin
G2851
noun Accusative Singular feminine

"kolasis" is not a verb. it is a noun of action. just like redemption, or judgment. someone mentioned Hebrews 9:12 earlier, and i think that is a very good example of how a noun of action works. on the grammar side, you have to apply that same standard to every other noun of action, and that would mean the term "kolasis" is talking about the end result of the action, not the duration of the action.

on the theological side, if one defines it as a duration and not an end result, you now have a theological contradiction, because in order for one to endure eternal "punishing", one must be able to live forever to experience eternal "punishing", and the only way for that to happen is either one of two ways:
1.) man naturally has immortality.
2.) Jesus gives immortality to all, regardless of if they came to Christ or not.

both of these ways are explicitly denied all-throughout scripture- 1 Timothy 6:13-16, John 3:36, 1 John 5:11-12, Titus 3:2, Romans 2:7, John 5:24, Ephesians 4:18, Matthew 10:28

if scriptures ever said outright that immortality is given to the wicked... that we dont need Jesus to receive eternal life, then i could see some possibility to the doctrine of eternal conscious torment...
but Jesus made it abundantly clear...
"I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through me" ~ John 14:6
if Jesus is the only one that can give eternal life, then there is no other way one can receive eternal life without first abiding in Christ.

if you dont, then there is no eternal life, no immortality, no "living forever" awaiting you in the age to come.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<Kal>i can understand the confusion behind the word "aionios", while i personally define it as "age-during" as the YLT translation does, i am willing to still call it "eternal" as it is translated in Matthew 25:46...
however, the problem i have is how the doctrine of eternal conscious torment changes the word "punishment" to "punishing"... i pulled this from scripture4all.org for reference sake...
kolasin
G2851
noun Accusative Singular feminine
"kolasis" is not a verb. it is a noun of action. just like redemption, or judgment. someone mentioned Hebrews 9:12 earlier, and i think that is a very good example of how a noun of action works. on the grammar side, you have to apply that same standard to every other noun of action, and that would mean the term "kolasis" is talking about the end result of the action, not the duration of the action.
on the theological side, if one defines it as a duration and not an end result, you now have a theological contradiction, because in order for one to endure eternal "punishing", one must be able to live forever to experience eternal "punishing", and the only way for that to happen is either one of two ways:
1.) man naturally has immortality.
2.) Jesus gives immortality to all, regardless of if they came to Christ or not.
both of these ways are explicitly denied all-throughout scripture- 1 Timothy 6:13-16, John 3:36, 1 John 5:11-12, Titus 3:2, Romans 2:7, John 5:24, Ephesians 4:18, Matthew 10:28
if scriptures ever said outright that immortality is given to the wicked... that we dont need Jesus to receive eternal life, then i could see some possibility to the doctrine of eternal conscious torment...
but Jesus made it abundantly clear...
"I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through me" ~ John 14:6
if Jesus is the only one that can give eternal life, then there is no other way one can receive eternal life without first abiding in Christ.
if you dont, then there is no eternal life, no immortality, no "living forever" awaiting you in the age to come.<end>

end

In the following twenty three verses αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described, by association with other words and phrases, as eternal, everlasting etc.:

1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 7:24, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, John 6:58, John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7, Luke 1:33, Revelation 14:11, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24, John 8:51, Ephesians 3:21, Romans 1:20, Romans 16:26.​

…..In the NT “aion/aionios” are used to refer to things which are not eternal but are never defined/described, by other adjectives and phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, as in the following verses.

[1]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:
[2]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 evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous.

[3]1 Timothy 1:17.
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [αἰών/aion] immortal, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [αἰών/aion] and ever [αἰώνιος/aionios]. Amen.​

In this verse “aion” is paired with “immortal.” “Aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and be immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[4]2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;[πρόσκαιρος/proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this passage “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary” “eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[5]2 Corinthians 5:1
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] in the heavens.​

In this verse “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” Does the UR crowd think God is going to replace our destroyed earthly house with an ages long house which will also be destroyed at the end of an age? The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[6]Hebrews 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever [αἰών/aion] he has an unchangeable [ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos] priesthood.​

In this verse “aion” is paired with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[7]1 Peter 1:23
(23) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God. …
1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[αἰών/aion] " And this is the word that was preached to you.​

In verse 23 “word of God” is paired with “imperishable.” In verse 25 the word of God “endures εις τον αιωνα unto eternity. ” Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity.”

[8]1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting[αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”

[9]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;[φθορά/fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”

[10]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios life” is contrasted with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[11]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

Here “aionios” and “aion” are paired with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[12]1 John 2:17
(17) The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [αἰών/aion]​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “pass away,” “lives aionios” cannot mean a finite period, A “finite period” is not opposite of “pass away.” Thus “lives aionios” by definition here means “lives eternally.”

[13]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [ολιγον/oligon] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “little while” Does Jesus give His followers a finite period of glory then they eventually die? Thus “aionios” here means “eternal.”

[14]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [ἀφθαρσία/apftharsia] he will give eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aionios life” here means “eternal life.”

[15]Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom there shall be no end.[τελος/τελος]​

In this verse “aionas” is paired with “shall be no end.” “aionas” cannot be paired with “shall be no end” if it means only “ages” a finite period. “Aionas” by definition here means eternal.

[16]Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[εις αιωνας αιωνων/eis aionas aionon] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.​

In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paired with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”

[17]John 10:28
(28) And I give unto them eternal [αιωνιον] life; and they shall never [εις τον αιωνα] perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.​

In this verse “aionion” and “aiona” are paired with “[no man can] “pluck them out of my hand” If “aionion” and “aiona” are only a finite period then at some time they could be plucked out. “Aionion” and “aiona” by definition here mean eternal.

[18]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life. ​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” Believers could perish in a finite period, “aionion life” by definition here means eternal life.

[19]John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life.​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, “aionion life” by definition here means eternal or everlasting life.

[20]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [αἰώνιος] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “shall not come into condemnation” and contrasted with “passed from life unto death.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[21]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [αἰώνιος] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​

In this verse “aionios life” is contrasted with death. “A finite period life” is not opposite death, “eternal life” is. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”

[22]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [του αιωνος/tou aionios] and ever! [των αιωνων/ton aionion] Amen.​

In this verse “tou aionios ton aionion” is paired with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.

[23]John 8:51
(51) Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ου μη εις τον αιωνα/ou mé unto the aion] see death."​

According to noted Greek scholar MarvinVincent "The double negative “ou mé” signifies in nowise, by no means." Unless Jesus is saying they will die, i.e. see death, unto the age. By definition aion means eternity.

 

[ClementofA]

In the following twenty three verses αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described, by association with other words and phrases, as eternal, everlasting etc.:

The usual out-of-context UR proof text which I have already addressed before and it does not address any of the 23 vss.
linked to in the post you quoted.

It addresses Rev.14:11.

As for your lists, you know very well that i've addressed them many times, e.g.:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...os-based-on-aion.8040292/page-2#post-72110302

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...torture-in-fire.8041369/page-25#post-72149978

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...k-a-universalism.8070242/page-8#post-72862899

OTOH here we see many examples where αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described as being of a finite duration:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2931562-does-aionios-always-mean-eternal-ancient.html

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

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

Jesus didn't use the best words & expressions to describe endlessness in regards to punishment, because He didn't believe in endless punishment:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-a-universalism.8070242/page-14#post-72882151