Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[sawdust]

It is not yourself you are misunderstanding, it is the gospel which you do not realize that you are misunderstanding.

You do not know that you are misunderstanding the NT gospel, that your understanding is contra-NT.

Is that according to the Gospel of Clare? (just joking)

Who knows? Maybe I just happen to know a lot more than you which is why you can't comprehend what I'm saying.

Is.28:9&10
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

The Lord will be our judge. I've said all I need to say on the matter.

Have a nice day.

 

[Der Alte]

It is not yourself you are misunderstanding, it is the gospel which you do not realize that you are misunderstanding.
1) The distinction between evil desires giving birth to sin has nothing to do with rejection of Christ and unforgiveness of sin.
2) The sea, death and Hades are all holding places for the dead until the final judgment.
They are all thrown into the Lake of Fire along with those whose names were not found written in the Book of Life (Revelation 20:13-15); i.e., the rejectors of Christ.
3) Salvation is (=) the forgiveness (remission) of sin, whereby God declares one in right standing with his justice; i.e., "not guilty."
Physical death (the wages of sin) refers to natural life, sin and time. . .while
Gehenna refers to eternity, spiritual life, and unbelief.
The lake of fire is the second death (Revelation 20:14); i.e., eternal spiritual death for unbelievers, those who rejected Christ.
Your separation/distinction between rejection of Christ and unforgiveness (thereby permitting forgiveness of Christ's rejectors)
is a contra-Biblical distinction without a Biblical difference.
In the NT, rejection of Christ is not separate from but the same as unforgiveness,
because the NT everywhere teaches that salvation (= forgiveness of sin) is only by faith in Christ.
In the NT, there is absolutely no salvation (= forgiveness of sin) apart from faith in Christ.
Therefore, the sin of unbelievers, by NT definition, cannot be forgiven.
You do not know that you are misunderstanding the NT gospel, that your understanding is contra-NT..

¢¢…..Below are quotes from three credible Jewish sources; the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. Which to date have not been, and I am convinced cannot be, refuted.
…..According to these three sources, among the יהודים/Yehudim/ιουδαιων/Youdaion/Jews in Israel, before and during the time of Jesus, there was a significant belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom, which are translated Hades and Gehenna, respectively, in both the 225 BC LXX and the NT.
…..There were different factions within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. These differing beliefs do not disprove anything in this post.

[1]1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the sons of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);[“Soon” in this paragraph would be about 700 BC +/-, DA]​

Note: This is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT any assumed/alleged bias of “modern” Christian translators. DA
This refutes the false narrative that when Jesus mentioned “Gehenna” He was supposedly referring to nonexistent continually burning fires in the valley of GeHinnom where trash and bodies were supposedly disposed of.

”(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai [30 BC-90 AD] wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell(B.M. 83b).
“But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab [Talmud]. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
“… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b).[Talmud] “When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; [Talmud] comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch [x. 6, xci. 9, etal] also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according toIsa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b)[Talmud].
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
Note, scripture references are highlighted in blue.
= = = = = = = = = =
[2]1972 Encyclopedia Judaica:
Gehinnom (Heb. גֵּי בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּי בְנֵי הִנֹּם, גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּיא הִנֹּם; Gr. Γέεννα; "Valley of Ben-Hinnom, Valley of [the Son (s) of] Hinnom," Gehenna), a valley south of Jerusalem on one of the borders between the territories of Judah and Benjamin, between the Valley of *Rephaim and *En-Rogel (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). It is identified with Wadi er-Rababi.
…..During the time of the Monarchy, Gehinnom, at a place called Topheth, was the site of a cult which involved the burning of children (II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; 32:35 et al.; ). Jeremiah repeatedly condemned this cult and predicted that on its account Topheth and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom would be called the Valley of the "Slaughter" (Jer. 19:5–6).
In Judaism the name Gehinnom is generally used as an appellation of the place of torment reserved for the wicked after death. The New Testament used the Greek form Gehenna in the same sense.
Link:
Gehinnom
http://www.jevzajcg.me/enciklopedia/Encyclopaedia Judaica, v. 07 (Fey-Gor).pdf
= = = = = = = = = =
[3]pre-Christianity Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [i.e. followers of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]:
"And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written[Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more.
Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link: Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

When Jesus taught e.g.,

• “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 [Γέεννα/gehenna] where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, 3 times 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 [A fate worse than death. DA]
• “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. …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 [A fate worse than death]
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12​

[A fate worse than death. DA]
…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell, c.f. Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and Talmud, supra.
In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.
…..A punishment 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. [A fate worse than death. DA] ​

…..“how much sorer punishment,””Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord,””It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” these deprecations certainly do not sound like everyone will be saved, no matter what.
…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He intended to say eternal death, in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.”
….The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, see Acts of the Apostles 23:8. They knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it was permanent and often it did not involve punishment.
When Jesus taught, e.g., “eternal punishment” the Sadducees would not have understood it as simply death, it very likely would have meant something worse to them.
…..Re: Matt 25:46 concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,

“Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4​

…..Jesus attended Temple and synagogues for about 25 years +/-. He undoubtedly knew what the Jews believed about the fate of the unrighteous. He opposed the Jewish leaders many times, If the Jewish teaching on hell was wrong, why wouldn’t Jesus tell them there was no hell, no eternal punishment etc? Why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed, e.g.

"The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" ([Judith xvi:17]Judith xvi. 17).
Link: Judith, CHAPTER 16​

 

[sawdust]

Sawdust, do you consider repentance unnecessary for forgiveness of sin?

Let me ask you something.

Did Christ die for sin before or after the world (or any part thereof) repented?

 

[Clare73]

If you want to receive forgiveness, absolutely. You can't know forgiveness unless you are in a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. It is why unbelievers will never know the forgiveness that is in Christ because they reject Him. It is the ultimate evil from which all sin is derived.

Okay. . so everyone's sin is forgiven, but only those who believe in Jesus Christ can know this forgiveness.
Those who reject him will never "know the forgiveness that is in Christ."

So everyone's sin is forgiven, but most leave it on the shelf.

Therefore, Christ's death did not save most of those for whom he died; i.e.,
he died in vain for most of them.

That is a colossal failure.

Sorry. . .but your God is too small.

The Sovereign God of the Bible does not fail to completely accomplish his work.
His arm has never been too short. (Numbers 11:23)

He died for all who believe (John 6:37), and he loses none for whom he died (John 6:39).


.

 

[Jipsah]

deleted

 

[Der Alte]

Let me ask you something.
Did Christ die for sin before or after the world (or any part thereof) repented?

1 John 4:19
(19) We love him, because he first loved us.
Romans 5:8
(8) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.​

 

[hedrick]

What is your source for "kolasis means pruning?"

TDNT does say
"The sense of punishing probably comes by way of trimming, i.e., cutting off what is superfluous. Punishment is designed to cut off what is bad or disorderly."

However the real usage it cites in the NT seems to be punitive.

 

[Fervent]

What is your source for "kolasis means pruning?"
"Kolasis" the Greek word correctly translated "punishment" Matt 25:46 occurs one other time in the NT. 1 John 4:18 where it is correctly translated "torment."

1 John 4:18
(18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​

The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible quoted. Who better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the EOB know the correct translation of the Greek NT?

EOB Matthew 25:46 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” ​

Note 1 Jn 4:18 the one who has kolasis is not made perfect i.e. NOT corrected.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment. But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love. ​

Link to EOB http://fortsmithorthodox.org/NEW TESTAMENT.pdf

​

It's a root fallacy, as the original meaning of the root word is "to lop."

 

[sawdust]

Okay. . so everyone's sin is forgiven, but only those who believe in Jesus Christ can know this forgiveness.
Those who reject him will never "know the forgiveness that is in Christ."

So everyone's sin is forgiven, but most leave it on the shelf.

Therefore, Christ's death did not save most of those for whom he died; i.e.,
he died in vain for most of them.

That is a colossal failure.

Sorry. . .but your God is too small.

The Sovereign God of the Bible does not fail to completely accomplish his work.
His arm has never been too short. (Numbers 11:23)

.

And yet you are the one who is saying God didn't take away a person's sin unless they apply the blood of the Lamb. Just as well God has us on His side hey! The Cross really would have been a waste of time then.

FYI I actually believe the majority of mankind will be saved.

 

[Clare73]

The Sovereign God of the Bible does not fail to completely accomplish his work.
His arm has never been too short. (Numbers 11:23)

He died for all who believe (John 6:37), and he loses none for whom he died (John 6:39).

And yet you are the one who is saying God didn't take away a person's sin unless they apply the blood of the Lamb.

Correct. . .and all for whom he died do apply the blood of the Lamb. (John 6:39)

Just as well God has us on His side hey! The Cross really would have been a waste of time then.

FYI I actually believe the majority of mankind will be saved.

Good for you. . .

"Few there are that find it. . ." (Matthew 7:14)

 

[sawdust]

Correct. . .and all for whom he died do apply the blood of the Lamb. (John 6:39)

Good for you. . .

"Few there are that find it. . ." (Matthew 7:14)

Strewth! I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

You are the one who thinks only a few will be saved and that Christ only died for that few and you tell me "my God is too small"?

<Walking away shaking my head>

 

[Clare73]

Strewth! I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

You are the one who thinks only a few will be saved and that Christ only died for that few and you tell me "my God is too small"?

<Walking away shaking my head>

A god that does not accomplish his purpose is too small.

God has a greater purpose than just the salvation of mankind, where saving some and not all serves that purpose. (Romans 9:22-23)

 

[Hmm]

God has a greater purpose than just the salvation of mankind, where saving some and not all serves that purpose. (Romans 9:23)

I agree that He probably has purpose that go beyond humans but the only way He can achieve His purpose of saving humankind is by saving humankind, not just some of them.

It's as if Neil Armstrong had said, "It's one small step for man, one giant leap for some of mankind". Mankind means all of mankind. And it's not a matter of argument: it's what the word means.

 

[Saint Steven]

Sawdust, do you consider repentance unnecessary for forgiveness of sin?

Wow. Wouldn't that mean that God is withholding forgiveness for some?
What happens if we do that? Is God held to a lower standard than we are?

 

[sawdust]

Wow. Wouldn't that mean that God is withholding forgiveness for some?
What happens if we do that? Is God held to a lower standard than we are?

Mark wasn't suggesting that. He was asking me to clarify my position. Some people can't seem to understand that if you fill a bucket with water, the water is in the bucket whether you drink from it or not. In the same way, the forgiveness of the Father for all mankind has been placed in Christ. If you want to know that forgiveness you will need to come to Christ. But even if you don't, that forgiveness remains in Christ. The Father hasn't changed His mind about the Son dying for all humanity just because there are some who refuse to appropriate the free gift.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Father hasn't changed His mind about the Son dying for all humanity just because there are some who refuse to appropriate the free gift.

I'm familiar with that train of thought. But it is only used to prop up Damnationism. I don't believe that salvation depends on us. Or that God is using it to get what he wants. (extortion) With the threat of ECT.

As if to say,
"Receive the free gift of salvation.
Or if you prefer, you will be incinerated."

 

[public hermit]

Exactly the issue with universalism, salvation is no longer found through the cross since men pay the price of their own sins.

That's exactly the issue with ECT and satisfaction/substitution (S/S) atonement theories: They overemphasize the cross to the neglect of the whole picture, i.e. the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Son of God/Son of Man.

S/S theories aren't interested in transformation, only transaction. God must be appeased by some transaction. They assume that God is adversely affected in some way or other; either God's honor is hurt (satisfaction), God's wrath must be satisfied (substitution), or God has to free humanity from a source that somehow is in competition with God (ransom-in the old "sold to the devil" theories). All of these present a weak, anthropomorphic image of God, a God who must make a transaction to save God's own creation. That's pitiful.

First, whatever theories we come up with we must assume 1. They are inadequate to describe, in all its fullness, what God is doing in Christ. We don't know God's side of things; we only know what God reveals. That revelation (Christ) is sufficient for what we need, but our theories about that revelation are just that: theories. 2. Therefore, we should take all atonement theories with a grain of salt, they are human constructs.

That said, I think a combination of theories works best:
1. Recapitulation Theory (Ireneaus): Christ became like us so that we could become like him. To recapitulation is to bring everything under one principle. All things are being reconciled to God through Christ. The mechanism for doing this is the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension. That is- the whole package, not just the cross.

The cross reveals the epitome of the destructive nature of evil, i.e., we sought to destroy our own Creator-deicide. The resurrection reveals evil's impotence in relation to the God of love and life.

2. Christus Victor: Christ takes the consequences of human sin and evil on himself, not to repay the Father or be punished, as if God needs anything or has a wrath that must be satisfied, but to transform death into life, despair into hope, sorrow into joy, corruption into everlastingess. I know the historical connection between CV and ancient ransom theories. Initially, we were being ransomed from the devil. Eventually, it shifted to us being ransomed from the powers of sin, death, and hell. That's fine as long as we acknowledge the dualistic notions the metaphor of "paying a ransom" can give rise to. We might be overpowered by sin, death, and hell; but these have absolutely no power over God. God is not paying anyone or anything. God is simply revealing the reality of the situation so that we can trust and go forward in faith. In other words, the cross reveals God's power and love (John 3:16). But the goal of all of it is union between God and humanity, which is achieved in his own person before one single nail is driven.

3. Moral influence (Abelard): The Holy Spirit uses the revelation of Christ (the whole thing, not just the cross) to transform our hearts and minds so that we become like Christ (Recapitulation). The power is not in our belief in theories but in the Spirit working in us. transforming us.

Abelard was right; Anselm's theory (and Calvin's by association since he basically copied Anselm) is too anthropomorphic. God is like a feudal warlord, which was Anselm's experience and superimposed on the cross. More than that, there is no shadow of turning with God. Divine love and the divine will are not connected to a switch that is turned on and off by the cross.

 

[Der Alte]

That's exactly the issue with ECT and satisfaction/substitution (S/S) atonement theories: They overemphasize the cross to the neglect of the whole picture, i.e. the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Son of God/Son of Man.
S/S theories aren't interested in transformation, only transaction. God must be appeased by some transaction. They assume that God is adversely affected in some way or other; either God's honor is hurt (satisfaction), God's wrath must be satisfied (substitution), or God has to free humanity from a source that somehow is in competition with God (ransom-in the old "sold to the devil" theories). All of these present a weak, anthropomorphic image of God, a God who must make a transaction to save God's own creation. That's pitiful.
First, whatever theories we come up with we must assume 1. They are inadequate to describe, in all its fullness, what God is doing in Christ. We don't know God's side of things; we only know what God reveals. That revelation (Christ) is sufficient for what we need, but our theories about that revelation are just that: theories. 2. Therefore, we should take all atonement theories with a grain of salt, they are human constructs.
That said, I think a combination of theories works best:
1. Recapitulation Theory (Ireneaus): Christ became like us so that we could become like him. To recapitulation is to bring everything under one principle. All things are being reconciled to God through Christ. The mechanism for doing this is the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension. That is- the whole package, not just the cross.
The cross reveals the epitome of the destructive nature of evil, i.e., we sought to destroy our own Creator-deicide. The resurrection reveals evil's impotence in relation to the God of love and life.
2. Christus Victor: Christ takes the consequences of human sin and evil on himself, not to repay the Father or be punished, as if God needs anything or has a wrath that must be satisfied, but to transform death into life, despair into hope, sorrow into joy, corruption into everlastingess. I know the historical connection between CV and ancient ransom theories. Initially, we were being ransomed from the devil. Eventually, it shifted to us being ransomed from the powers of sin, death, and hell. That's fine as long as we acknowledge the dualistic notions the metaphor of "paying a ransom" can give rise to. We might be overpowered by sin, death, and hell; but these have absolutely no power over God. God is not paying anyone or anything. God is simply revealing the reality of the situation so that we can trust and go forward in faith. In other words, the cross reveals God's power and love (John 3:16). But the goal of all of it is union between God and humanity, which is achieved in his own person before one single nail is driven.
3. Moral influence (Abelard): The Holy Spirit uses the revelation of Christ (the whole thing, not just the cross) to transform our hearts and minds so that we become like Christ (Recapitulation). The power is not in our belief in theories but in the Spirit working in us. transforming us.
Abelard was right; Anselm's theory (and Calvin's by association since he basically copied Anselm) is too anthropomorphic. God is like a feudal warlord, which was Anselm's experience and superimposed on the cross. More than that, there is no shadow of turning with God. Divine love and the divine will are not connected to a switch that is turned on and off by the cross.

A lot of interesting theories. In response I will post only these verses. Except for 1 John 4:18 all spoken by Jesus, Himself.
…..Some people claim that “aionios” never means eternity/eternal because it sometimes refer to something which is not eternal.
However, “aionios” is never defined/described, by adjectives or descriptive phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, in the New Testament, as in the following verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. He never used “aionios” to refer to anything common, ordinary or mundane that was not or could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten [10] verses Jesus defines/describes “aionios” as “eternal.”

[1] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei][Vb] over the house of Jacob for ever; [aionas] and of his kingdom [basileias][Nn] there shall be no end.[telos] ​

In this verse the reign/basileusei, which is the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternity.

[2] 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.[aionios]​

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

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

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “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.”

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

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

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

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “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.

[7]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[8]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never [ου μη/ou mé] thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.​

In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.

[9]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. ​

In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[10]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.
In the above 10 vss. Jesus defines/describes "aionios" as meaning, eternal. everlasting, unending.

Matthew 25:46
(46) And these shall go away into everlasting [aionios] punishment:[kolasis] but the righteous into life eternal.​

In this vs. Jesus said that those on His left shall go away into everlasting punishment and that is exactly what He meant.
The word translated "punishment," Matt 25:26, "kolasis" occurs only one other time in the N.T. 1 Jn 4:18

1 John 4:18
(18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. [kolasis]He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​

The one who has "kolasis" is not made perfect i.e. "is not corrected."

 

[Der Alte]

deleted

뭐가 잘못 되었 니

 

[Clare73]

I agree that He probably has purpose that go beyond humans but the only way He can achieve His purpose of saving humankind is by saving humankind, not just some of them.

I dunno'. . .

"Few there are that find it." (Matthew 7:14)

Romans 9:22-23 seems to indicate otherwise.

It's as if Neil Armstrong had said, "It's one small step for man, one giant leap for some of mankind". Mankind means all of mankind. And it's not a matter of argument: it's what the word means.