CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY

[Choir Loft]

More accusations of empty words by myself.

Without, I might add, a single shred of effort being expended to argue against the twin pillars of Biblical truth about hell....that there is none at all and that it is a pagan myth. The Bible says;

Man is mortal.

Only God is immortal.

The wicked do not suffer in eternal torment because their natural inclination is to die physically and spiritually. The Second Death is a judgment of oblivion - permanent and final. Only the just live eternally with Christ.

Argue the twin points of the Bible about the basic nature of God and man.
Prove the Bible assertion is wrong!
You cannot.

As a result, you have proven by silence and obfuscation and neglect and whatever other method you choose to redirect and confuse - that hell is a myth. Jewish tradition is what killed the Son of God. Christian tradition is what kills the truth today. Beware those who promulgate lies in the name of Christ Jesus and the gospel. Theirs is not the motivation of the kingdom of heaven, but traditions and imaginations of man.

I have provided sufficient proofs of the pagan myth of hell and pointed to historic and literary references. The issue isn't evidence, but suppression of it. Subversion of the truth always follows this line of resistance. Posts entered here in opposition to annihilationism have accomplished nothing to disprove the assertion that the natural condition of man is to die. Even the definition of the word death has been deliberately misconstrued. This is not evidence of a search for truth, but overt and mean denial of it.

It's easy to deny everything, to twist the meaning of words and to accuse someone of lies. It's quite another to prove the Bible wrong when it says man is mortal and only God is immortal.

On those subjects, the posts here are silent. Instead meaningless accusations and assertions are entered.

Those who deny Christ and the gospel have nothing but death as a destiny. Those who seek peace with God by humbly repenting of their sins shall be granted a promise that none other is given - eternal life in Christ Jesus.

THIS is the reason Jesus died on the cross - to open the gates of heaven and eternal life to those who repent. To put an end to death for those who accept His life. Most will not accept this and will go into the dark place of nothingness.

The time to repent is now.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[Der Alte]

Man is mortal.
Only God is immortal.

No matter how long or how loud you holler. There is no verse in the Bible which says man is "mortal." Here is the complete definition of the word translated "mortal" in the NIV and ISV from BDB one of, if not, the most highly accredited Hebrew lexicons.

NIV Genesis 6:3
(3) Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal;[בָּשָׂר/basar] their days will be a hundred and twenty years."
בָּשָׂר S1320 TWOT291a GK1414266 n.m. flesh (cf. Arabic بَشَرٌ (bašarun) skin, Syriac ܒܶܣܪܳܐ (besro), Assyrian bišru, blood-relation, Dl Assyrian Stud. i. 143, 170, Sab. בשר תורם flesh of bulls)—Gn 2:21 + 126 times; cstr. בְּשַׂר Gn 17:11 + 40 times; sf. בְּשָׂרִי etc. ψ 16:9 + 96 times; pl. בְּשָׂרִים Pr 14:30;— 1. of the body: a. of animals Gn 41:2–19; Ex 21:28; 22:30; Nu 12:12 (E) Nu 11:4–33 (JE) Gn 9:4 + (P 30 times) Dt 12:15 + (D 9 times) Ju 6:19–21; 1 S 2:13, 15; 1 K 17:6; 19:21; Jb 31:31; 41:15 ψ 50:13; Pr 23:20; Is 22:13; 44:16, 19; 65:4; 66:17; Je 7:21; 11:15; Ez 4:14 + 6 times Dn 10:3; Ho 8:13 Mi 3:3; Hg 2:12; Zc 11:9, 16. b. of men Gn 40:19 (E) 2:21; Ex 4:7 (J) Lv 12:3; 13:2 + 16 times 26:29 (P) Dt 28:53, 55; 32:42; Ju 8:7; 1 S 17:44; 2 K 4:34; 5:10, 14; 6:30; 9:36; Jb 2:5; 4:15; 6:12; 7:5; 10:11; 13:14; 19:20, 22; 21:6; 33:21, 25 ψ 27:2; 38:4, 8; 79:2; 102:6; 109:24; Pr 4:22; 5:11 Is 9:19; 17:4; 49:26; Je 19:9; La 3:4; Ez 32:5; 37:6, 8; 39:17, 18 Dn 1:15; Zc 14:12. The flesh of the body is contrasted with stone Ez 11:19; 36:26. 2. flesh for the body itself (especially in P): על בשׂר אדם לא ייסך upon the body of man it shall not be poured Ex 30:32 (P); מכנסי בד ילבשׁ על בשׂרו linen drawers shall he put on his body Lv 6:3; 16:4 (P); וישׂם שׂק על בשׂרו 1 K 21:27; ורחץ את בשׂרו and he shall bathe his body Lv 14:9; 15:13, 16; 16:24, 26, 28; 17:16; 22:6; Nu 19:7, 8 (P); שׂרט לנפשׁ לא תתנו בכשׂרכם ye shall not put any cutting for any one in your body Lv 19:28; cf. Lv 21:5 (P); והעבירו תער על כל בשׂרם and they shall pass a razor over all their body Nu 8:7 (P). Ec. uses בשׂר only in this sense 2:3; 4:5; 5:5; 11:10; 12:12; elsewhere this usage only in poetry; the body antith. to נפשׁ Jb 14:22; Is 10:18 ψ 63:2; לב ψ 16:9; 84:3; Pr 14:30 (only here emphatic pl. = entire body Bö 695, Leiblichkeit De); מִבְּשָׂרִי apart from my body, in disembodied state Jb 19:26; סמר מפחדך בשׂרי my body trembleth for fear of thee ψ 119:120. 3. male organ of generation (euphemism): בְּשַׂר עָרְלַתְכֶם Gn 17:11, 14, 23, 24, 25 (P); בשׂר ערוה Ex 28:42 (P), but בשׂר Gn 17:14; Lv 15:2–19 (P); Ez 16:26; 23:20; 44:7, 9. 4. flesh for kindred, blood-relations: עצם מעצמי ובשׂר מבשׂרי bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh Gn 2:23 (J); והיו לבשׂר אחד and they shall become one flesh Gn 2:24 (J); עצמי ובשׂרי Gn 29:14 (J); Ju 9:2; 2 S 5:1 = 1 Ch 11:1; 19:13, 14; בשׂר with sf. in same sense Gn 37:27 (J); Ne 5:5; Is 58:7, for which שְׁאֵר בשׂרו near of kin, man or woman Lv 18:6; 25:49 (both H; 25:49 || מִשְׁפָּחָה, cf. RS 149). 5. man over against God as frail or erring Gn 6:3 (J) ψ 56:5; 78:39; eyes of flesh Jb 10:4; arm of flesh 2 Ch 32:8; Je 17:5; horses are flesh not spirit Is 31:3. 6. the phrase כָּל־בָּשָׂר: a. all living beings Gn 6:17, 19; 7:21; 9:11, 15, 16, 17 Lv 17:14(); Nu 18:15 (P); Jb 34:15 ψ 136:25. b. animals Gn 7:15, 16; 8:17 (P). c. mankind Gn 6:12, 13; Nu 16:22; 27:16 (P); Dt 5:23 ψ 65:3; 145:21; Is 40:5, 6; 49:26; 66:16, 23, 24; Je 12:12; 25:31; 32:27; 45:5; Ez 21:4, 9, 10; Jo 3:1; Zc 2:17; cf. כל בשׂר אישׁ Jb 12:10.
Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 142). Oxford: Clarendon Press.​

 

[Tomb523]

You do realize that you are in a forum called "Controversial theology," right?

Just cause it's controversial, doesn't mean it requires a debate. I'll state my beliefs and in most cases I'll try to support them, but maybe I'll just state my belief. If one doesn't agree, feel free to post your beliefs, but it doesn't require debasing the post because it doesn't meet you standards of "proof".

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Just cause it's controversial, doesn't mean it requires a debate. I'll state my beliefs and in most cases I'll try to support them, but maybe I'll just state my belief. If one doesn't agree, feel free to post your beliefs, but it doesn't require debasing the post because it doesn't meet you standards of "proof".

Why do you feel compelled to state beliefs that you don't want to or can't defend and then tell people they can't disagree with you and cite reasons why? I am still failing to see how you believe that adds value to anyone, including yourself. What if you are wrong in a believe and you can't support it because you are wrong. Wouldn't it be better for you to be exposed to the truth than believe and try to teach others something wrong?

 

[Tomb523]

Why do you feel compelled to state beliefs that you don't want to or can't defend and then tell people they can't disagree with you and cite reasons why? I am still failing to see how you believe that adds value to anyone, including yourself. What if you are wrong in a believe and you can't support it because you are wrong. Wouldn't it be better for you to be exposed to the truth than believe and try to teach others something wrong?

As I said, I'm not here to debate nor will I debate weather I should debate or not. Don't worry, this place is becoming too much like the REDDIT boards I left. Have a blessed life.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<T53>Just cause it's controversial, doesn't mean it requires a debate. I'll state my beliefs and in most cases I'll try to support them, but maybe I'll just state my belief. If one doesn't agree, feel free to post your beliefs, but it doesn't require debasing the post because it doesn't meet you standards of "proof".<end>

end

I joined this forum about 2 decades ago. I soon learned that the hardcore believers in certain heterodox groups are almost impossible to reach. So I decided that I would do what I could to reach people on the fence thinking of joining or leaving such groups. People who might be persuaded by the proponents of those groups need to know the whole story not just the few things that proselyters choose to tell them. This includes revealing the sketchy, incomplete etc. evidence they choose to cite in support of their beliefs.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:​

 

[ClementofA]

No matter how long or how loud you holler. There is no verse in the Bible which says man is "mortal." Here is the complete definition of the word translated "mortal" in the NIV and ISV from BDAG one of, if not, most highly accredited Hebrew lexicons.

BDAG is not a "Hebrew lexicon". And BDB is not considered the "most highly accredited Hebrew lexicon".

NIV Genesis 6:3
(3) Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal;[בָּשָׂר/basar] their days will be a hundred and twenty years."
​

Many ancient translations do not say "contend with", but "abide in" or "dwell in":

"R.V. marg. rule in. Better, according to many ancient versions, abide in..."

"...Shall not dwell (LXX., οὐ μὴ καταμείνη; Vulgate, non permanebit; Syriac, Onkelos)."

Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages

"Genesis 6:3 compare perhaps continue, do something continually, in modern Egyptian Arabic (SoSK lxvii {1894}, 211 f.). (1) ᵐ5 ᵑ9 ᵑ6 Onk read ידיר or (Kue) ילון abide in, dwell, — My spirit will not abide in man for ever; this best suits the context, but ידור, as Aramaism, is dubious (2) Kn De Schr RVm render rule in, supported by Zechariah 3:7 only. (3) Thes Ew Di render be humbled in, sustained by Arabic usage, but not by Hebrew (4) strive with of AV RV (compare 6 above) is hardly justified."

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database.

Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages

JPS Tanakh 1917
And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.'

Douay-Rheims Bible
And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

Young's Literal Translation
And Jehovah saith, 'My Spirit doth not strive in man -- to the age; in their erring they are flesh:' and his days have been an hundred and twenty years.

Concordant Literal Version
And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Not abide shall My spirit in the human for the eon, in that moreover, he is flesh. And come shall his days to be a hundred and twenty years.

Rotherham Emphasized Bible
And Yahweh said—My spirit shall not rule in man to times age—abiding, for that, he also, is flesh,—Yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

NET Bible
So the LORD said, "My spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more years."

ISV
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not remain with human beings forever, because they are truly mortal, and their lifespan will be 120 years.

English Standard Version
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”

John Wycliffe's Translation
And God seide, My spirit schal not dwelle in man with outen ende, for he is fleisch; and the daies of hym schulen be an hundrid and twenti yeer.

Brenton English Septuagint Translation
And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Charles Thompson Translation (of the LXX)
then the Lord God said, "My breath must not continue in these men to this age, because they are flesh; their days however, shall be an hundred and twenty years

Complete Apostle's Bible (of the LXX)
And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men forever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

"R.V. marg. rule in. Better, according to many ancient versions, abide in..."

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Gen.12:3)


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

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

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

 

[Der Alte]

BDAG is not a "Hebrew lexicon". And BDB is not considered the "most highly accredited Hebrew lexicon".

A typo does not make anything I said incorrect. One should not make assertions about things they know nothing about without supporting evidence. Review from Amazon.

A trio of eminent Old Testament scholars--Francis Brown, R. Driver, and Charles Briggs--spent over twenty years researching, writing, and preparing "The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon." Since it first appeared in the early part of the twentieth century, BDB has been considered the finest and most comprehensive Hebrew lexicon available to the English-speaking student. Based upon the classic work of Wilhelm Gesenius, the "father of modern Hebrew lexicography," BDB gives not only dictionary definitions for each word, but relates each word to its Old Testament usage and categorizes its nuances of meaning. BDB's exhaustive coverage of Old Testament Hebrew words, as well as its unparalleled usage of cognate languages and the wealth of background sources consulted and quoted, render BDB and invaluable resource for all students of the Bible.​

Many ancient translations do not say "contend with", but "abide in" or "dwell in":

Irrelevant! My post said nothing about The words "contend with" or "abide in." I was addressing the word "basar" which does not mean mortal.

 

[ClementofA]

One should not make assertions about things they know nothing about without supporting evidence. Review from Amazon.

A trio of eminent Old Testament scholars--Francis Brown, R. Driver, and Charles Briggs--spent over twenty years researching, writing, and preparing "The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon." Since it first appeared in the early part of the twentieth century, BDB has been considered the finest and most comprehensive Hebrew lexicon available to the English-speaking student. Based upon the classic work of Wilhelm Gesenius, the "father of modern Hebrew lexicography," BDB gives not only dictionary definitions for each word, but relates each word to its Old Testament usage and categorizes its nuances of meaning. BDB's exhaustive coverage of Old Testament Hebrew words, as well as its unparalleled usage of cognate languages and the wealth of background sources consulted and quoted, render BDB and invaluable resource for all students of the Bible.

​

What makes you think this amazon review has any merit? Who wrote it? A biased advertiser for the lexicon?

​

Irrelevant! My post said nothing about The words "contend with" or "abide in." I was addressing the word "basar" which does not mean mortal.

Quite relevant to the biased translation you posted.

 

[Der Alte]

What makes you think this amazon review has any merit? Who wrote it? A biased advertiser for the lexicon?

The review by Amazon has more merit than your empty claims and accusations. Here is another review of BDB. The Amazon review was copied by about a dozen different websites. So DA 2- Clem 0

While the BDB is not the most up-to-date lexicon, and its methodology is somewhat dated, it remains one of the best day-to-day ready reference tools for students of the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, I find some of the criticisms of the BDB to be overstated. The fact that includes etymological data is not a limitation, even if it is generally, and correctly, acknowledged today that etymology is not necessarily a reliable indicator of a word’s meaning. There are two other well known multi-volume Hebrew lexica used by scholars today: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament by Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (HALOT for short) and The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew by David J. A. Clines. HALOT is by far the most complete source for etymological data, while DCH is an attempt at a lexicon project based on more up-to-date linguistic theory (though its total shunning of etymology makes it cripplingly incomplete as a lexicon).
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon​

Quite relevant to the biased translation you posted

Please explain how? Your biased unsupported opinion has zero merit. I repeat my statement supported by a dozen or so websites. BDB is one of, if not, the most highly accredited Hebrew lexicons available at this time.

 

[ClementofA]

The review by Amazon has more merit than your empty claims and accusations. Here is another review of BDB. The Amazon review was copied by about a dozen different websites. So DA 2- Clem 0

While the BDB is not the most up-to-date lexicon, and its methodology is somewhat dated, it remains one of the best day-to-day ready reference tools for students of the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, I find some of the criticisms of the BDB to be overstated. The fact that includes etymological data is not a limitation, even if it is generally, and correctly, acknowledged today that etymology is not necessarily a reliable indicator of a word’s meaning. There are two other well known multi-volume Hebrew lexica used by scholars today: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament by Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (HALOT for short) and The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew by David J. A. Clines. HALOT is by far the most complete source for etymological data, while DCH is an attempt at a lexicon project based on more up-to-date linguistic theory (though its total shunning of etymology makes it cripplingly incomplete as a lexicon).
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon​

Please explain how? Your biased unsupported opinion has zero merit. I repeat my statement supported by a dozen or so websites. BDB is one of, if not, the most highly accredited Hebrew lexicons available at this time.

One of the best does not equal the best.

 

[Der Alte]

One of the best does not equal the best.

I have found it very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond. I did not say that BDB is the best I said and always say "BDB is one of, if not, the most highly accredited Hebrew lexicons available now." And you have provided no, zero, none evidence from any of the many lexicons you claim disprove/counter BDB.

 

[ClementofA]

I have found it very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond. I did not say that BDB is the best I said and always say "BDB is one of, if not, the most highly accredited Hebrew lexicons available now."

Irrelevant. No one claimed you said otherwise. OTOH my claim is that it is not considered to be the best. So perhaps you should apply your comment about actually reading posts "before trying to respond" to yourself. Especially in light of the fact that you've admitted to just skimming my posts, as opposed to actually reading them.

And you have provided no, zero, none evidence from any of the many lexicons you claim disprove/counter BDB.

I never made such a claim.

 

[Jipsah]

No matter how long or how loud you holler. There is no verse in the Bible which says man is "mortal."

"For the wages of sin is death" \
Any questions?

 

[Jipsah]

I joined this forum about 2 decades ago. I soon learned that the hardcore believers in certain heterodox groups are almost impossible to reach.

Especially if the technique used to reach them is nothing more then hollering.

And even more especially if your hollering begins with "That's what that verse says, but what it really means is.." At that point, most people will rightly assume that what follows is what is commonly termed "a bill of goods".

 

[Der Alte]

Especially if the technique used to reach them is nothing more then hollering.
And even more especially if your hollering begins with "That's what that verse says, but what it really means is.." At that point, most people will rightly assume that what follows is what is commonly termed "a bill of goods".

안녕, 내 친구는 잠시 너를 보지 못했다.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's a disgrace that conditional immortality is considered controversial theology.
The traditional unbiblical teaching ought to be considered controversial.

Good luck explaining to God why you think He would torture his creatures for ever and ever without an end or outcome.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<H>It's a disgrace that conditional immortality is considered controversial theology.
The traditional unbiblical teaching ought to be considered controversial.
Good luck explaining to God why you think He would torture his creatures for ever and ever without an end or outcome.<end<

end

It is not about what those who believe in eternal punishment [Matthew 25:46] want God to do or not do. It is about what scripture states. I have heard/read virtually all the arguments for UR, what I have not heard or read is even one verse where either God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, says something to the effect "God/Jesus said 'I will ultimately save all mankind whether they have lived righteously in this world or not.'" It does not have to be in those exact words but essentially include the sense of what I said. Do you know of such a verse.
.....Here are some verse where Jesus very clearly stated some thing, but He never said that He was going to save all mankind, no matter what.

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12​

. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death, without mercy, is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

 

[ClementofA]

what I have not heard or read is even one verse where either God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, says something to the effect "God/Jesus said 'I will ultimately save all mankind whether they have lived righteously in this world or not.'"

What you've never read is a verse in the Bible that says anyone will "never be saved".

Do you agree with Vincent that aidios means everlasting?

I think it was a superior word to use relative to the ambiguous aion & aionios, if God was a believer in endless punishment. Moreover, as opposed to aion and aionios (which are often used of finite duration), God had a number of other words & expressions available that would also have better served to express endless punishment, if Love Omnipotent were a believer of such. But He never uses such of eschatological punishment. So the reasonable conclusion is that Love Omnipotent rejected using such words and expressions of a final destiny of endless punishment because He knew better & He rejected the notion that anyone will endure endless punishment. Those words & expresssions are:

1. no end (Lk.1:33)...this expression is used of God's kingdom having "no end". It is never used of anyone's torments or punishment. We never read of anyone receiving torments that will have "no end". This unambiguous phrase, "no end", would have been a superior choice to the ambiguous words aion & aionion, if Love Omnipotent had a belief in endless torments or annihilation. But He rejected its use in expressing such a fate.

2. endless (1 Tim.1:4)...Again if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments, why didn't He use this word to express it, instead of the ambiguous aion & aionion, which often refer to finite durations in ancient Greek usage?

3. never (Mt.7:23, etc)...this word appears to occur 16 times in the NT & it seems that it never means anything except "never". It is used of "love never fails" (1 Cor.13:8). It also occurs in Mt.7:23 where Jesus says "I never knew you; depart you from Me, those working lawlessness." Which is such an incredibly lame remark, if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments. If He believed that such an unspeakably horrific final destiny awaits the wicked, including those He was referring to in Mt.7:23, why didn't He make it clear by telling them that they would "never" be saved and/or He would "never" know them? Would that not have been clear & unambiguous, unlike the words He spoke, & unlike the ambiguous aion & aionios, which often refer to finite duration in ancient Koine Greek? OTOH consider re the use of the word "never":

"Philo saith, “The punishment of the wicked person is, ζην αποθανοντα αει, to live for ever dying, and to be for ever in pains, and griefs, and calamities that never cease..." Mark 9 Benson Commentary

Yet Scripture - never - uses such language. Moreover, it speaks of death being abolished, not being "for ever".

4. eternal (Rom.1:16; Jude 1:6)...this word, AIDIOS, is used of God's "eternal" power & "eternal" chains that bind until the day of judgement. It is never used of anyone's final destiny. We never read of anyone being tormented for eternal ages. We never read of anyone suffering eternal (AIDIOS) punishment. If Jude believed in endless punishment, he had the perfect opportunity at Jude 1:6 by simply adding that the angels would suffer the judgement of eternal (AIDIOS) punishment or torments. Instead of warning his readers of such a horrificly monstrous fate, as he should have been morally obligated to do if it were a real possibility, instead he conveys the relatively utterly lame & insignificant info that these angelic beings will be kept in chains until judgement day. OTOH, consider:

"Instead of saying with Philo and Josephus, thanaton athanaton, deathless or immortal death; eirgmon aidion, eternal imprisonment; aidion timorion, eternal torment; and thanaton ateleuteton, interminable death, he [Jesus] used aionion kolasin..." Chapter 3 - Origin of Endless Punishment

"Nyssa defined the vision of God promised there as "life without end, eternal incorruption, undying beatitude [ten ateleuteton zoen, ten aidion aphtharsian , ten athanaton makarioteta]." ("Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in ..." By Jaroslav Pelikan, p.165 @): Christianity and Classical Culture

5. unfading (1 Pet.1:4; 5:4)...Peter uses this word of an endless inheritance reserved in heaven & a crown of glory. It is never used of the endless pain, punishment or torments that anyone will receive. Can it be denied that this would have been a superior word (over aion & aionios) to use to express such a horrific destiny if Love Omnipotent actually had such in store for anyone? Wouldn't He want to express warnings about it in the clearest ways possible?

6. found no place for repentance (Heb.12:17)...is used in Heb.12:17 of the loss of a finite earthly blessing..."he found no place of repentance, although having earnestly sought it with tears". Never is it used regarding those in Gehenna, Hades, the lake of fire, or eschatological punishment. Never do we read of those cast into any "hell" that they will not (or never) find a place of repentance, even though they earnestly seek it with tears. God was quite capable of expressing such in His Holy Scriptures. But rather than give such a warning, as Love Omnipotent should have if such an unbelievably horrific future awaited anyone, instead we are told of the relatively lame loss of a finite earthly blessing. Such a waste of words if endless punishment were really true.

7. In Mt.18:6 is the lame warning of a punishment which is compared to mere drowning, which is nothing compared to being kept alive for the sole purpose of being tortured for all the "endless" ages of eternity that have "no end" & "never" cease. Jesus says it is "better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea". OTOH, if He had been a believer in endless punishment, He could have expressed that by saying it is better for them to have never lived, never been conceived, or that their parents had never known (had sex with) one another. Compare this anti-biblical Jewish view that the Lord Jesus Christ, Love Omnipotent, rejected:

"To every individual is apportioned two shares, one in hell and one in paradise. At death, however, the righteous man's portion in hell is exchanged, so that he has two in heaven, while the reverse is true in the case of sinners (Ḥag. 15a). Hence it would have been better for the latter not to have lived at all (Yeb. 63b)." GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[ClementofA]

.....Here are some verse where Jesus very clearly stated some thing, but He never said that He was going to save all mankind, no matter what.

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12​

. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

None of those verses, literally translated, are inharmonious with universalism. As has been demonstrated many times on these forums, e.g.:could an 'eternal punishment' simply mean that once instituted it will not change?

OTOH we have these Scriptures:

""The Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world." (1 John 4:14) T or F

Jesus is "the Christ, the Savior of the world." (John 4:42) T or F

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of our God our saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Tim. 2:3-6, KJV) T or F

Jesus "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." (1 John 2:2) T or F

Jesus "did not come to judge the world but to save the WORLD." (John 12:47) T or F

"Jesus, was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for EVERYONE." (Heb. 2:9) T or F

See link for the rest..

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism