Hell is not permanent.

[katallasso]

Der,

These "definitions" are worthless and meaningless. This is just nonsense your gurus at hellmakers have made up. The definition of words is established by scholarship; reading, reviewing, comparing, and contrasting, documents written in the language to be translated. The meaning of words is determined by how they are used in multiple occurrences, and many contexts, NOT just one quote, from one ancient writer.

Do the grammar and quit doing the same copy and paste of the same mistranslated scripture over and over.

The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting.

Aionios...an adjective which describes a noun

Since aionios is the word in the NT that is translated "eternal"
it must be mistranslated, because it is the adjective of the noun aion which means "age" and the adjective cannot be of greater value than the noun from which it comes. It just doesn't work that way in kione greek
Aiodios...eternity

Now there is a word for everlasting, it is aiodios. Because aiodios occurs rarely in the New Testament does not prove that its place was taken by aionios. It just goes to show that less importance was attached to the bare idea of everlastingness than later theological thought has given it. It could be that the Father was more interested in His plan for the ages. Paul uses the word in Rom. 1:20, where he speaks of "the everlasting power and divinity of God." It is also used in Jude 6. The actual use of aiodios should tell us something. If there is actually a greek word for "everlasting" why wasn't it used? Worth thinking about.

 

[Der Alte]

Twenty eight (28) passages, in order as they occur in the Bible, Jesus speaking on eternal punishment of the wicked.

Matt 3:12; 5:13, 20, 29,-30; 7:13-14; 21-23; 8:12; 10:33, 39-42; 13:49-50; 18:3-4, 8-9, 21:43; 22:2-14; 23:13, 15; 25:11-12, 41, 46; Mark 9:43-48; 10:15; Lk 9:62; 12:45-46; 13:23-24; Luke 16:22-28; 18:17; John 3:3, 5, 18; 15:6.

[1] Matthew 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

[2] Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

[3] Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness[sup]1[/sup] shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in [size=+1]no case[/size] enter into the kingdom of heaven.​

For universalism to be true, Jesus must be a liar, or sometime in the future the words, “ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.,” must change to, “in all cases you shall enter the kingdom of heaven.”

When do these words change?

Can sinners, the wicked, the disobedient, etc., be more righteous, than the Pharisees, and enter the kingdom? See, Ps 14:2-3; Isa 53:6; Rom 3:10.

[sup]1[/sup] Psalm 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

[4] Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

[5]Matt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, [i.e. Kingdom of heaven, vs. 21] and few there be that find it.

[6] Matt 7: 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will [size=+1]say[/size][sup]2[/sup] to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

[sup]2[/sup] Note ,Jesus did NOT say they “have done many wonderful works,” but they only “say,” they have. Makes me think of some TV “evangelists,” getting rich “in the name of Jesus.”

Jesus said, ”Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Either Jesus is a liar or the teaching of universalism, is false, which claims “everyone” will enter the kingdom.

In the following, vs. 23, of this passage, Jesus said, “I never knew you.” Jesus did not say, “I will know you some day..” 10,000 eons times 10,000 eons from now God’s unchanging word, Jesus’ words, will still say “I never knew you.

23 And then will I profess unto them, I [size=+1]never[/size] knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

[7] Matthew 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[8] Matt 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.​

For universalism to be true, Jesus would have to be a liar here, or this verse, must change to say, “I will not deny you before my father.” When do the words change?

[9] Matt 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.​

At the end of the world, “All things that offend/the wicked shall be cast into a furnace of fire.[/b]” These are the words of Jesus, but Universalists cannot accept/believe in a God, or Jesus, who will punish or torment the wicked in fire.

Where does Jesus say they will come out of the fire? What is the duration of burning in the fire? See Matt 13:49,50; 18:3, 8; 22:14; 25:12; 25:41-46; Mark 9:43-48; 10:15; Luke 13:23-24; 16:26; 18:17; John 3:3, 5, and notes.

[10] Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[11] Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily [αμην/amen] I say unto you, Except ye be converted[sup]3[/sup], and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.​

[sup]3[/sup] Is there any scripture that documents anyone being “converted,” ever, at any time, after death?

Is there any scripture which states that the wicked, who are severed from the just, will be rescued from the fire and reunited with the just?

[12] Matthew 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting [αιωνιον/aiónion] fire.
18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.​

See comments on Mark 9:43-48, below.

[13] Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

[14] Matt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. * * *
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
* * *
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.​

Jesus said that few are chosen for the Kingdom of heaven. Universalism claims that everyone will enter the kingdom. Is Jesus a liar?

[15] Matt 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
[…]
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

[16] Matt 25:11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
12 But he answered and said, Verily [αμην/amen] I say unto you, I know you not.

[17] Matt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting [[size=+1]αιωνιον[/size]/aiónion] fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[…]
46 And these shall go away into everlasting [[size=+1]αιωνιον[/size]/aiónion] punishment: but the righteous into life eternal [[size=+1]αιωνιον[/size]/aiónion].​

In this passage Jesus calls the sinners, unrepentant, wicked, etc. “cursed.” If universalism is true, then at some point Jesus must lift the curse and call them blessed. When does that occur?

Or 10,000 eons times 10,000 eons from now, will God’s unchanging word, Jesus, still say, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, everlasting punishment?”

If the [size=+1]αιωνιον[/size]/aiónion punishment ends at some indeterminate time in the future, so too does the [SIZE=+1]αιωνιον[/SIZE]/aiónion life. The same word.

Does [size=+1]αιωνιον[/size]/aiónion punishment mean only indeterminate ages long, that will eventually end?

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: [[size=+1]εις αιωνας αιωνων[/size]/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.​

If the [size=+1]εις αιωνας αιωνων[/size] torment, of those who worship the beast and his image, and receive the mark of his name, ends at some, indeterminate, time in the future then the smoke is no longer theirs.

Does [size=+1]εις αιωνας αιωνων[/size] means some definite, finite, “eon of eons,” in the future, when the torment ends? No! 10,000 eons times 10,000 eons from now, God’s unchanging word will still say, “those who worship the beast, they have no rest day or night.,” “those who worship the image of the beast, they have no rest day or night.,” “those who receive the mark of the beast, they have no rest day or night.”

 

[Der Alte]

[18] Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.​

If the unrighteous, in “hades,” eventually leave, the worm would no longer be theirs or any concern to them. Why would Jesus warn his followers about worms, that do not die, three times, if it did not concern to them? Was Jesus concerned about the biology of worms, or the eternal souls of his followers?

If those in hell eventually leave, the unquenched fire did not concern them. Why did Jesus warn his followers about unquenched fire, three times, if it did not concern to them?

[19] Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.​

When a person dies rejecting, cursing, blaspheming, God and does not receive the Kingdom, Jesus said they shall not enter in. For universalism to be true either Jesus is a liar, or these words must change to, shall enter in.” When does that change occur?

There is no second chance to receive the Kingdom, after death. Heb 9:27 “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:”

[20] Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

[21] Luke 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.​

What is the portion of the unbelievers? αιωνιον/aiónion punishment, see Matt 13:49,50; 18:3, 8; 22:14; 25:12; 25:41-46; Mark 9:43-48; 10:15; Luke 13:23-24; 16:26; 18:17; John 3:3, 5, and notes.

Luke 13:23, below. Jesus said, “many shall not be able,” to enter the kingdom. Universalists claim that everyone will enter. Is Jesus a liar? Some time in the future will this verse change to say, “Everyone shall be able to enter?” When does that change occur?

[22] Luke 13: 23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

[23] Luke 13:27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. [of the kingdom of God.]

[24] Luke 16:22 [. . .] the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But [Jesus said] Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us[sup]4[/sup], that would come from thence.​

[sup]4[/sup] Note, those in “hades,” the place of torment, cannot leave. 10,000 eons times 10,000 eons from now God’s unchanging word will still say, “neither can they pass to us.”

Scoffers argue it is only a parable, if so, what is the point of the parable? In every legitimate parable, Jesus uses common, every day, events to illustrate or clarify, usually not clearly understood, spiritual truth. The only common, every day, events in this story are Lazarus begging and the rich man living high. Everything else occurs after the death of Lazarus and the rich man. What spiritual truth, for the living, is Jesus clarifying, or illustrating, by talking about things that happen after death, that his audience had never experienced?

In all the legitimate parables Jesus uses nonspecific persons, “a certain man,” “a certain king,” etc. In the thousands of years of history, someone said or did the things Jesus mentioned. Somebody, somewhere, lost sheep and coins, and found them, sowed seed, etc.

But Abraham is a specific, historical, person. If Abraham did not actually, in fact, speak to the rich man, in hades, and, literally, say the words, in blue, that Jesus quotes, Jesus is a liar.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 [Jesus said] Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
[…]
31 [Jesus said] And he [Abraham] said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

[25] Luke 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.​

When a person dies rejecting, cursing, blaspheming, God, and does not receive the Kingdom, Jesus said they shall not enter in. For universalism to be true, either Jesus is a liar, or these words must change to, shall enter in.” When do the words change?

[26] John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, [αμην αμην/amen amen] I say unto thee, Except a man be born again,[sup]5[/sup] he cannot see the kingdom of God.

[27] John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, [αμην αμην/amen amen] I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit][sup]5[/sup], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.​

[sup]5[/sup] Note, is there any scripture, anywhere, showing anyone, ever, being born again, born of water and the spirit, after death?

When does this verse change to “Even if a man is not born of water, and of the Spirit, he can still enter into the kingdom of God?”

[28] John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.​

When does Jesus say they are taken out of the fire? How long are they burned in the fire? See Matt 13:49,50; 18:3, 8; 22:14; 25:12; 25:41-46; Mark 9:43-48; 10:15; Luke 13:23-24; 16:26; 18:17; John 3:3, 5, and notes.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]But how else is a bride identified as a bride unless she has on the wedding attire of a "veil, gown, etc." ?[/SIZE]

How else is a chicken described but with wings? Yet Jesus said he would have gathered the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathers its chickens under its wings.

[SIZE=-1]Yes, Jesus was literal, and so were the people of Jerusalem. And no, Jesus didn't have wings like a chicken. And the children of Jerusalem were not literal chickens either. So it was figurative speech from start to finish, wasn't it?[/SIZE]

You evidently are so indoctrinated in your false teaching you don't even realize when you contradict yourself. If the real, literal, Jesus wanted to do something with/for/by the real, literal, people of Jerusalem then it was not figurative speech from start to finish, was it?

[SIZE=-1]And whether or not Jesus and the people of Jerusalem were literal is not even relevant to this lame comparison that you have tried to make here.[/SIZE]

Another knee jerk contradictory reply. Did you see the Greek word I highlighted in both passages? The real, literal, Jesus, wanted to gather the real, literal, people of Jerusalem, to himself, as figuratively a hen gathers her chicks. The real, literal, new Jerusalem, descends from the real, literal, heaven and it is made ready as figuratively a bride is adorned. The same Greek word for comparsion is used in both passages.

 

[katallasso]

Der,



Do the grammar and quit doing the same spew over and over.

The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting.

Aionios...an adjective which describes a noun

Since aionios is the word in the NT that is translated "eternal"
it must be mistranslated, because it is the adjective of the noun aion which means "age" and the adjective cannot be of greater value than the noun from which it comes. It just doesn't work that way in kione greek
Aiodios...eternity

Now there is a word for everlasting, it is aiodios. Because aiodios occurs rarely in the New Testament does not prove that its place was taken by aionios. It just goes to show that less importance was attached to the bare idea of everlastingness than later theological thought has given it. It could be that the Father was more interested in His plan for the ages. Paul uses the word in Rom. 1:20, where he speaks of "the everlasting power and divinity of God." It is also used in Jude 6. The actual use of aiodios should tell us something. If there is actually a greek word for "everlasting" why wasn't it used? Worth thinking about.

Der,

Continually copying and pasting what your proponents believe their flawed interpretation of the bible states says nothing to the grammatical errors. It's not the plurals I'm so much at issue with but the trying to use a word that has a connotation of time at it's root and trying to make eternity out of it.

 

[Havahope]

But how else is a bride identified as a bride unless she has on the wedding attire of a "veil, gown, etc." ?

How else is a chicken described but with wings? Yet Jesus said he would have gathered the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathers its chickens under its wings.
Another knee jerk contradictory reply. Did you see the Greek word I highlighted in both passages? The real, literal, Jesus, wanted to gather the real, literal, people of Jerusalem, to himself, as figuratively a hen gathers her chicks. The real, literal, new Jerusalem, descends from the real, literal, heaven and it is made ready as figuratively a bride is adorned. The same Greek word for comparsion is used in both passages.

One more time, Der.
Jesus did not claim that He was a hen with wings. And neither did He claim that the children of Jerusalem were little chickens. Whereas, Rev. 21:2 asserts that the city had all the identifying marks of being a bride; thus, in the personified sense, the New Jerusalem claims to be a bride. I don't know how a bride dressed in those ancient times, and unfortunately I do not have the resources available to find this out. But apparently it was a special attire that only a bride would wear.

You can not adorn something that is literal with figurative adornment any more than you can adorn the figurative with literal adornment. But if you think you can, then try this: Go out in public with no clothes on, holding a sign that reads, "I'm not really naked, I am figuratively dressed", and see how quickly you get arrested, and probably sent away to the looney bin. Or, next Christmas, try putting literal ornaments on a figurative Christmas tree, and see how much progress you make.

In other words, by using our reasoning ability which the Lord has so graciously given us, we can safely conclude that the city, and the adornment thereof, were both figurative or symbolic.

And just because the same Greek word is used in both passages does not prove anything one way or the other.

Oh, and one more thing before I sign off:
What do you mean by "a knee jerk" reply? I see that you use that phrase in almost every one of your posts and have always wondered what you mean by it.

 

[Children of Light]

oops

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Der,

Continually copying and pasting what your proponents believe their flawed interpretation of the bible states says nothing to the grammatical errors. It's not the plurals I'm so much at issue with but the trying to use a word that has a connotation of time at it's root and trying to make eternity out of it.[/SIZE]

Do you even realize how absurd and hypocritical this comment is? I have quoted early church fathers, Jewish, and secular, sources, none of which are “proponents,” of what I believe. Had you even bothered to read the LSJ you would see that some of the historical evidence is from the LXX, where Jewish scholars translated the O.T. into Greek they used [size=+1]αιον[/size]/aion,” and its cognates, to mean eternal, etc. You betcha, the Jews, 200 BC, were really proponents of what I believe.

OTOH, You have copy/pasted the same meaningless scribble from the same godless website, at least 5 times. Nothing in the quote has been demonstrated from any scholarly, or historical source. It is nothing but the assumptions and presumptions of the website owner. You might as well quote Jim Jones or David Koresh, they are just as authoritative as hell/makers. Your flawed interpretation of the Bible does not prove any grammatical errors.

Get over it already. You aren’t the only universalist posting in this thread. At least two people have made the fallacious, “If ‘[size=+1]αιον[/size]/aion,’ means eternity, how can eternity be plural?,” argument. The doubling of [size=+1]αιον[/size], in the N.T., is not a true plural, it is “Epizeuxis,” or “Repititio” for emphasis.

[SIZE=-1]One more time, Der.
Jesus did not claim that He was a hen with wings. And neither did He claim that the children of Jerusalem were little chickens. Whereas, Rev. 21:2 asserts that the city had all the identifying marks of being a bride; thus, in the personified sense, the New Jerusalem claims to be a bride. I don't know how a bride dressed in those ancient times, and unfortunately I do not have the resources available to find this out. But apparently it was a special attire that only a bride would wear[/SIZE].

Eisegesis, reading your own presuppositions and assumptions into the text, frantically, desperately, trying to make it fit your false teaching. Note, Matt 23:57 and Rev. 21:2, same grammatical construction.

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen (Nn.) gathereth (Vb.) her chickens (Nn.) under her wings, and ye would not!

Rev 21:2 I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride (Nn.) adorned (Vb.) for her husband. (Nn.)​

Please show me where this verse says, “Rev. 21:2 asserts that the city had all the identifying marks of being a bride; thus, in the personified sense, the New Jerusalem claims to be a bride.”

[SIZE=-1]You can not adorn something that is literal with figurative adornment any more than you can adorn the figurative with literal adornment. But if you think you can, then try this: Go out in public with no clothes on, holding a sign that reads, "I'm not really naked, I am figuratively dressed", and see how quickly you get arrested, and probably sent away to the looney bin. Or, next Christmas, try putting literal ornaments on a figurative Christmas tree, and see how much progress you make.[/SIZE]

Meaningless fallacious argument, the literal Jesus did not have figurative chicken wings. Rev 21:2 as written in the Greek, using the same comparative word, “as,” and the same grammatical construction, does not require figurative brides clothing.

[SIZE=-1]In other words, by using our reasoning ability which the Lord has so graciously given us, we can safely conclude that the city, and the adornment thereof, were both figurative or symbolic.[/SIZE]

When are you going to start using this reasoning ability? No, you have not concluded anything, you have deliberately twisted the scripture to make it fit your presuppositions.

Can we safely conclude that the city was figurative?

Jewish Encyclopedia - Eschatology

By : Kaufmann Kohler

The New Jerusalem.
The apocalyptic writers and many rabbis who took a less sober view of the Messianic future expected a new Jerusalem built of sapphire, gold, and precious stones, with gates, walls, and towers of wondrous size and splendor (Tobit xiii. 15, xiv. 4; Rev. xxi. 9-21; Sibyllines, iii. 657 et seq., v. 250 et seq., 420 et seq.; B. B. 75a; Pes. 50a; Pesih. xx. 143a; Pesih. R. 32; Midr. Teh. lxxxvii.; in accordance with Isa. liv. 11 et seq., lx. 10; Hag. ii. 7; Zech. ii. 8). The "new" or "upper Jerusalem" ([size=+1]מעלה [/size] [size=+1]של[/size] [size=+1]ירושלים[/size] ; Ta'an 5a; Hag. 12b; Test. Patr., Dan. 5; Rev. xxi. 2, 10; Gal. iv. 26; Heb. xii. 22) seen in visions by Adam, Abraham, and Moses (Syriac Apoc. Baruch, iv. 2-6) will in the days of the Messiah appear in all its splendor (II Esd. vii. 26, x. 50 et seq.; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxxii. 4); it will be reared upon the top of all the mountains of the earth piled one upon the other (Pesih. xxi. 144b, after Isa. ii. 2).

This expectation of course includes a "heavenly temple," "mikdash shel ma'alah" (Enoch, xc. 29 et seq.; comp. Hag. l.c.; Pes. 54, after Jer. xvii. 12). The more sober view is that the Messiah will replace the polluted temple with a pure and holy one (Enoch, liii. 6, xc. 28, xci. 13; Sibyllines, iii. 77b; Psalms of Solomon xvii. 30; comp. Lev. R. ix.: "Coming from the North, the Messiah will erect the temple in the South"). The sacred vessels of the Tabernacle of Moses' time, hidden ever since, are expected to reappear (II Macc. ii. 4-8; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, vi. 7-10; Tosef., Sotah, xiii. 1; apocryphical Masseket Kelim; Yoma 52b; Tan., Wayehi, ed. Buber, 3; comp. Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 4, § 1). There will be no sin any more, for "the Lord will shake the land of Israel and cleanse it from all impurity" (Pirke R. El. xxxiv. 21, after Job xxxviii. 13). The Messianic time will be without merit ["zekut"] and without guilt ["Hobah"] (Shab. 151b). Yet "only the select ones will be allowed to go up to the new Jerusalem" (B. B. 75b

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=460&letter=E#1235
​

[SIZE=-1]And just because the same Greek word is used in both passages does not prove anything one way or the other.[/SIZE]

You have got to be kidding! Another blatant hypocritical assertion, you have been clamoring that [size=+1]αιον[/size]/aion” always means a period of time, and must mean that in every occurrence in the N.T. Now when a word contradicts your false teaching you want to have it mean two different things. Reminds me of the Queen of Hearts.

[SIZE=-1]Oh, and one more thing before I sign off: What do you mean by "a knee jerk" reply? I see that you use that phrase in almost every one of your posts and have always wondered what you mean by it[/SIZE].

When you go to a Dr. and he/she taps on your Patellar nerve, with a rubber hammer, the knee will jerk without any conscious thought on your part. No matter how many different sources of evidence I quote, historical, Jewish, secular, scholarly, like a knee jerk, you post the same old meaningless scribble from the same godless website. “Aion always means a period of time.” “Aion always means a period of time.” “The sky is falling.” “The sky is falling.”

 

[Havahope]

Eisegesis, reading your own presuppositions and assumptions into the text, frantically, desperately, trying to make it fit your false teaching. Note, Matt 23:57 and Rev. 21:2, same grammatical construction.
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen (Nn.) gathereth (Vb.) her chickens (Nn.) under her wings, and ye would not!

Rev 21:2 I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride (Nn.) adorned (Vb.) for her husband. (Nn.)
Please show me where this verse says, "Rev. 21:2 asserts that the city had all the identifying marks of being a bride; thus, in the personified sense, the New Jerusalem claims to be a bride."
Meaningless fallacious argument, the literal Jesus did not have figurative chicken wings. Rev 21:2 as written in the Greek, using the same comparative word, "as," and the same grammatical construction, does not require figurative brides clothing.

(staff edit)

The New Jerusalem.

The apocalyptic writers and many rabbis who took a less sober view of the Messianic future expected a new Jerusalem built of sapphire, gold, and precious stones, with gates, walls, and towers of wondrous size and splendor [ And so because the biased, anti Christ composer(s) of the Jewish Encyclopedia (which seems to have become your holy scripture reference guide) say that John saw a literal city coming down from heaven; this makes it indisputable fact?] (Tobit xiii. 15, xiv. 4; Rev. xxi. 9-21; Sibyllines, iii. 657 et seq., v. 250 et seq., 420 et seq.; B. B. 75a; Pes. 50a; Pesih. xx. 143a; Pesih. R. 32; Midr. Teh. lxxxvii.; in accordance with Isa. liv. 11 et seq., lx. 10; Hag. ii. 7; Zech. ii. 8). [The Jewish Enclyclopedia writers seem to want to put the "Sibylline Oracles", which is a "miscellaneous collection of Jewish and Christian portents of future disasters", in the same category as our inspired New Testament scripture. This is the epitome of subtleness.]
The "new" or "upper Jerusalem" (מעלה שלירושלים ; Ta'an 5a; Hag. 12b; Test. Patr., Dan. 5; Rev. xxi. 2, 10; Gal. iv. 26; Heb. xii. 22) [Note here how the word "new" has been subtly decomposed and replaced with "upper"] seen in visions by Adam, Abraham, and Moses (Syriac Apoc. Baruch, iv. 2-6) will in the days of the Messiah appear in all its splendor (II Esd. vii. 26, x. 50 et seq.; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxxii. 4); it will be reared upon the top of all the mountains of the earth piled one upon the other (Pesih. xxi. 144b, after Isa. ii. 2).

This expectation of course includes a "heavenly temple," "mikdash shel ma'alah" (Enoch, xc. 29 et seq.; comp. Hag. l.c.; Pes. 54, after Jer. xvii. 12). The more sober view is that the Messiah will replace the polluted temple with a pure and holy one (Enoch, liii. 6, xc. 28, xci. 13; Sibyllines, iii. 77b; Psalms of Solomon xvii. 30; comp. Lev. R. ix.: "Coming from the North, the Messiah will erect the temple in the South"). The sacred vessels of the Tabernacle of Moses' time, hidden ever since, are expected to reappear (II Macc. ii. 4-8; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, vi. 7-10; Tosef., Sotah, xiii. 1; apocryphical Masseket Kelim; Yoma 52b; Tan., Wayehi, ed. Buber, 3; comp. Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 4, § 1). There will be no sin any more, for "the Lord will shake the land of Israel and cleanse it from all impurity" (Pirke R. El. xxxiv. 21, after Job xxxviii. 13). The Messianic time will be without merit ["zekut"] and without guilt ["Hobah"] (Shab. 151b). Yet "only the select ones will be allowed to go up to the new Jerusalem" (B. B. 75b [So let me get this straight now ... God is going to take all the mountains on the face of the earth, stack them one on top of another. Then He is going to send down a literal city which of course will have within it a heavenly, but yet literal, temple, and the "sacred vessels of the tabernacle of Moses which have been hidden ever since will reappear" within the temple . . . Yeah, right! ]

You have got to be kidding! Another blatant hypocritical assertion, you have been clamoring that αιον/aion" always means a period of time, and must mean that in every occurrence in the N.T. Now when a word contradicts your false teaching you want to have it mean two different things. Reminds me of the Queen of Hearts.

None of my posts have "clamored" "that αιον/aion" always means a period of time, and must mean that in every occurrence in the N.T".

But Yes, I do think that Katallasso, and the other posters who have so kindly and politely tried to show you your error, have pretty much defeated you in this argument. And that is of no great wonderment, for if one doesn't have any better reference material than that of the Jewish Encyclopedia and Alice In Wonderland, to copy and paste from, their argument would be a lost cause from the beginning.

When you go to a Dr. and he/she taps on your Patellar nerve, with a rubber hammer, the knee will jerk without any conscious thought on your part.

And now I know the rest of the story. Thanx.

 

[Der Alte]

Hell or the grave is never called "prison" in scripture.

"Prison" is never called Hell or the grave in scripture.

Jesus ministry was, under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, to, among other things "proclaim freedom for the prisoners"

Luk 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me,because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,​

There is no scripture that supports a two fold ministry one on earth, and another in "hades." Note, that Jesus lists proclaiming, "freedom for the prisoners" between two very, clear earthly ministries, preaching "good news to the poor" and "recovery of sight for the blind." The prisoners Jesus preached to were those who were in prisons of sin, slavery, etc.

If Jesus preached to souls in hades, what was the purpose? Where is it recorded that one single soul was saved from hades? Jesus said that nobody can ever leave "hades."

Luk 16:23 In hell, "hades" [the rich man] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

Luk 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'​

And, no this is not a parable. Jesus named a specific historical person. There are no qualifying statements, i.e. "like Abraham" or "in the manner of Abraham," etc. If Abraham did not actually speak the words that Jesus quotes him saying, then Jesus is a liar.

See my post on Jesus, the rich man, and Lazarus, on the previous page of this thread, Here!

And as has already been stated there is no scripture which shows the gates of hell being opened and those inside being given a second chance at repentance. In fact scripture states just the opposite.

Heb 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment​

,

 

[Der Alte]

Jewish Encyclopedia - Eschatology

By : Kaufmann Kohler

The New Jerusalem.
The apocalyptic writers and many rabbis who took a less sober view of the Messianic future expected a new Jerusalem built of sapphire, gold, and precious stones, with gates, walls, and towers of wondrous size and splendor (Tobit xiii. 15, xiv. 4; Rev. xxi. 9-21; Sibyllines, iii. 657 et seq., v. 250 et seq., 420 et seq.; B. B. 75a; Pes. 50a; Pesih. xx. 143a; Pesih. R. 32; Midr. Teh. lxxxvii.; in accordance with Isa. liv. 11 et seq., lx. 10; Hag. ii. 7; Zech. ii. 8). The "new" or "upper Jerusalem" ([size=+1]מעלה [/size] [size=+1]של[/size] [size=+1]ירושלים[/size] ; Ta'an 5a; Hag. 12b; Test. Patr., Dan. 5; Rev. xxi. 2, 10; Gal. iv. 26; Heb. xii. 22) seen in visions by Adam, Abraham, and Moses (Syriac Apoc. Baruch, iv. 2-6) will in the days of the Messiah appear in all its splendor (II Esd. vii. 26, x. 50 et seq.; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxxii. 4); it will be reared upon the top of all the mountains of the earth piled one upon the other (Pesih. xxi. 144b, after Isa. ii. 2).

This expectation of course includes a "heavenly temple," "mikdash shel ma'alah" (Enoch, xc. 29 et seq.; comp. Hag. l.c.; Pes. 54, after Jer. xvii. 12). The more sober view is that the Messiah will replace the polluted temple with a pure and holy one (Enoch, liii. 6, xc. 28, xci. 13; Sibyllines, iii. 77b; Psalms of Solomon xvii. 30; comp. Lev. R. ix.: "Coming from the North, the Messiah will erect the temple in the South"). The sacred vessels of the Tabernacle of Moses' time, hidden ever since, are expected to reappear (II Macc. ii. 4-8; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, vi. 7-10; Tosef., Sotah, xiii. 1; apocryphical Masseket Kelim; Yoma 52b; Tan., Wayehi, ed. Buber, 3; comp. Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 4, § 1). There will be no sin any more, for "the Lord will shake the land of Israel and cleanse it from all impurity" (Pirke R. El. xxxiv. 21, after Job xxxviii. 13). The Messianic time will be without merit ["zekut"] and without guilt ["Hobah"] (Shab. 151b). Yet "only the select ones will be allowed to go up to the new Jerusalem" (B. B. 75b)

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=460&letter=E#1235
​

[SIZE=-1]And so because the biased, anti Christ composer(s) of the Jewish Encyclopedia (which seems to have become your holy scripture reference guide) say that John saw a literal city coming down from heaven; this makes it indisputable fact?[/SIZE]

Watch your dirty mouth about my view of the Jewish Encyclopedia. Your rant about them being anti-Christ is irrelevant. What I have done is prove from Jewish, not Christian sources, that favor my view, what the ancient Jews, before the time of Christ, believed about the “New Jerusalem.” Jesus and John were ancient Jews and this would have been their tradition.

[SIZE=-1]The Jewish Enclyclopedia writers seem to want to put the "Sibylline Oracles", which is a "miscellaneous collection of Jewish and Christian portents of future disasters", in the same category as our inspired New Testament scripture. This is the epitome of subtleness.[/SIZE]

Another knee jerk reply which ignores the context of the article. The Sibylline oracles are only one of the sources cited. When Paul quoted Greek poets on three occasions in the N.T. was he putting them “in the same category as our inspired New Testament scripture?”

Paul quoted from pagans:

Acts 17:28: Aratus, Phaenomena 5, is paraphrased.
1 Corinthians 15:33: Paul quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218.
Titus 1:12: Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon is quoted.​

[SIZE=-1]Note here how the word "new" has been subtly decomposed and replaced with "upper"[/SIZE]

Knee jerk, knee jerk. The word new has not been de-anything. Remember, the Jews, before the time of Jesus, originated the term “New Jerusalem.” It is new and it comes down from heaven, so it is “new” or “upper,” as distinct from the old temple in Jerusalem. See Rev 3:12 and 21:2, the new, heavenly, upper, Jerusalem.

[SIZE=-1]So let me get this straight now ... God is going to take all the mountains on the face of the earth, stack them one on top of another. Then He is going to send down a literal city which of course will have within it a heavenly, but yet literal, temple, and the "sacred vessels of the tabernacle of Moses which have been hidden ever since will reappear" within the temple . . . Yeah, right![/SIZE]

Yeah right, another knee jerk, meaningless diatribe. Check the scripture cited at that point, Is 54:10, quoted below. And you will note that only one source presents that view. How about this “Yeah right.” Jesus said the very stones would cry out.

How does a city created in heaven, i.e. a heavenly city, preclude it from being literal?

God can create the world and restore the dead from the dust of the earth, but you don’t think he can restore the temple vessels from the time of Moses. Pretty weak god you have.

Isa 54:10 Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed,
yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,"

Rev 3:12 Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

Rev 21:2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.​

 

[katallasso]

I will say this again, for maybe the 3rd or 4th time. You're quotes from early church Jews mean nothing to me. They were getting it wrong at least from the time of Jeromes writings because he's the one that started all this when he tried to use inferior latin words for greek words.

Now back to the grammar.

Since aionios is the word in the NT that is translated "eternal"
it must be mistranslated, because it is the adjective of the noun aion which means "age" and the adjective cannot be of greater value than the noun from which it comes. It just doesn't work that way in kione greek.

Can't do it, the adjective can't be greater than the noun.


Also we go back to the perfectly good word they had for eternal which is used by the same writers. Why didn't they use it? Could it be because hell is NOT eternal?

This grammar thing really needs to be addressed for there to be any more argument.

 

[katallasso]

Been doing some searching, want to share it with you all.

[SIZE=-1]Page and Company's Business Man's Dictionary and Guide to English: Eon: A long space of time; cycle; forever; eternally; always; at all times.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]New World Dictionary: Eon: Period of immense duration; an age; endless; for eternity.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Eon (n.): An immeasurable or indefinite period of time; incessantly; synonym of constantly, continuously, always, perpetually, unceasingly, everlastingly, endlessly.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Standard Unabridged Dictionary: Eon: An age of the universe; an incalculable period, constituting one of the longest conceivable divisions of time; a cosmic or geological cycle; an eternity, or eternity. The present age, or eon, is time; the future age, or eon, is eternity.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Shedd Theological Dictionary (vol. II, p. 683): Eonian: pertaining to, or lasting for eons; everlasting; eternal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon: Aion: A period of existence; one's lifetime; life; an age; a generation; a long space of time; an age. A space of time clearly defined and marked out; an era, epoch, age, period or dispensation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Thesaurus Dictionary of the English Language: Eon: An age of the universe.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Earnest Weekly's Etymological Dictionary of Modern English: Aeon: Age.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Universal Dictionary: Aeon: A period of immense duration; an age.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Matt. 25:46): Everlasting punishment-life eternal. The two adjectives represent the same Greek word, aionios-it must be admitted (1) that the Greek word which is rendered "eternal" does not, in itself, involve endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the N.T. to periods of time that have had both a beginning and ending (Rom. 16:25), where the Greek is "from aeonian times;" our version giving "since the world began." (Comp. 2 Tim. 1:9; ***. 1:3) -strictly speaking, therefore, the word, as such, apart from its association with any qualifying substantive, implies a vast undefined duration, rather than one in the full sense of the word "infinite."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Triglot Dictionary of Representative Words in Hebrew, Greek and English [this dictionary lists the words in this order: English, Greek, Hebrew] (p. 122): Eternal (see age-lasting). (p. 6): English: age-lasting; Greek, aionios; Hebrew, le-olam.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Hasting's Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. I, p. 542, art. Christ and the Gospels): Eternity. There is no word either in the O.T. Hebrew or in the N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of eternity. (vol. III, p. 369): Eternal, everlasting-nonetheless "eternal" is misleading, inasmuch as it has come in the English to connote the idea of "endlessly existing," and thus to be practically a synonym for "everlasting." But this is not an adequate rendering of aionios which varies in meaning with the variations of the noun aion from which it comes. (p. 370): The chronois aioniois moreover, are not to be thought of as stretching backward everlastingly, as it is proved by the pro chronon aionion of 2 Tim. 1:9; ***. 1:2.[/SIZE]

From the Strong's for "eternal" in Romans 1:20, this word is actually rendered "eternal" and is used in a few NT scriptures.

Greek for 126

Pronunciation Guide aidios {ah-id'-ee-os}

TDNT ReferenceRoot Word TDNT - 1:168,25 from 104 Part of Speech adj Outline of Biblical Usage

1) eternal, everlasting
For Synonyms see entry 5801


Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 2 AV - eternal 1, everlasting 1; 2

Thayer's Lexicon (Help)

 

[katallasso]

As to grammar, I have found this thus far.

In Ephesians 2:7 Paul writes, en tois aiosin tois eperchomenois, "in the on-coming eons." KJV: "in the ages to come;" ASV: "in the ages to come." So there are past eons, a present one, and the coming eons, at least five in all. Included in these eons are all the eonian times that are mentioned in Scripture. The adjective aionios comes from the noun aion and is defined: "pertaining to or belonging to the eons." It is an axiom of grammar that an adjective derived from a noun cannot mean more than its parent word. It must retain the essential meaning pertaining to the noun. As it has been shown, the noun refers to limited time, which had a beginning and will have an end. The adjective, then, should not be translated by such words as "everlasting" or "eternal." The adjective cannot take on a greater meaning than the noun from which it is derived. For example, hourly, an adjective, pertains to an hour, not to a year.

Here are the credentials of the man who said this:
Louis Abbott was born in 1915. In 1928, he received Christ. One day, while pastoring a church, a man challenged Louis regarding his teaching about eternal torment. Louis accepted the challenge.
[SIZE=-1]For three years Louis searched the Scriptures, searched the Greek and Hebrew words behind the English words "Hell, "eternal punishment," "everlasting destruction," etc. At the end of those three years, he realized he had been taught error regarding the ultimate fate of mankind. Feeling he could not longer preach the doctrines of his denomination, Louis gave up the pastorate, but he never gave up studying.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Taking Greek courses from Moody, Loyola University, and other places, he finally came to the place where, in order to get further, he had to teach himself. At the present day, his personal library consisting of thousands of Bible references books, probably has more reference books on the New Testament Greek than many Bible Colleges and Seminaries.[/SIZE]

and another:

Dr. F.W. Farrar, author of The Life of Christ and The Life and Work of St. Paul, as well as books about Greek grammar and syntax, writes in The Eternal Hope (p. 198), "That the adjective is applied to some things which are "endless" does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant 'endless;' and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd." In his book, Mercy and Judgment, Dr. Farrar states (p. 378), "Since aion meant 'age,' aionios means, properly, 'belonging to an age,' or 'age-long,' and anyone who asserts that it must mean 'endless' defends a position which even Augustine practically abandoned twelve centuries ago. Even if aion always meant 'eternity,' which is not the case in classic or Hellenistic Greek-aionios could still mean only 'belonging to eternity' and not 'lasting through it.'"

and another:


Dr. Marvin Vincent, in his Word Studies of the New Testament (vol. IV, p. 59): "The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective in themselves carries the sense of "endless" or "everlasting." Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Out of the 150 instances in the LXX (Septuagint), four-fifths imply limited duration."

 

[timlamb]

Don't most theologians believe in ages, as in the age of the dispensation of Grace, that we are currently in? Paul refering to "the age of distruction" or "the age of punishment" would not supprise me. But refering to this terrible time as an "age" does not change the permenance of the condition of those involved.
Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, (His sheep), 'Come, you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."
Mathew 25:41 "then He will say to those on His left (the Goats), 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels".

All through the bible, the evil are separated from the good, the sheep from the goats, blessed from the cursed. I see nothing that says things will change after the time, or age, when these things are done at judgement.
If you say hell is not permanent, then you say "eternal life" is not permanent. This is not the message of the "whole" bible. We either leave this life with to be with God, or not be with God. Since God created all that is good, to be away from God is to be separated from good. Sounds like Hell to me.
timlamb

 

[katallasso]

Don't most theologians believe in ages, as in the age of the dispensation of Grace, that we are currently in? Paul refering to "the age of distruction" or "the age of punishment" would not supprise me. But refering to this terrible time as an "age" does not change the permenance of the condition of those involved.
Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, (His sheep), 'Come, you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."
Mathew 25:41 "then He will say to those on His left (the Goats), 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels".

All through the bible, the evil are separated from the good, the sheep from the goats, blessed from the cursed. I see nothing that says things will change after the time, or age, when these things are done at judgement.
If you say hell is not permanent, then you say "eternal life" is not permanent. This is not the message of the "whole" bible. We either leave this life with to be with God, or not be with God. Since God created all that is good, to be away from God is to be separated from good. Sounds like Hell to me.
timlamb

(Rotherham) Matthew 25:34 Then, will the king say to those on his right hand: Come ye, the blessed of my Father! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

(Rotherham) Matthew 25:41 Then, will he say unto those also, on his left hand: Depart ye from me, accursed ones! Into the age-abiding fire, which hath been prepared for the adversary and his messengers;

Just because hell is not permanent does not mean our lives in Him are not eternal. We are born again, we now have His Spirit within us which is eternal.

And yes the evil are separated until they are able to bow the knee.

[SIZE=+1]2 Cor 5:19 [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]How that, God, was in Christ, [SIZE=+1]reconciling[/SIZE], a world, unto himself, not reckoning, unto them, their offences,--and hath put, in us, the [SIZE=+1]reconciling[/SIZE] discourse.[/SIZE]

 

[timlamb]

(Rotherham) Matthew 25:34 Then, will the king say to those on his right hand: Come ye, the blessed of my Father! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

(Rotherham) Matthew 25:41 Then, will he say unto those also, on his left hand: Depart ye from me, accursed ones! Into the age-abiding fire, which hath been prepared for the adversary and his messengers;

Just because hell is not permanent does not mean our lives in Him are not eternal. We are born again, we now have His Spirit within us which is eternal.

And yes the evil are separated until they are able to bow the knee.

[SIZE=+1]2 Cor 5:19 [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]How that, God, was in Christ, [SIZE=+1]reconciling[/SIZE], a world, unto himself, not reckoning, unto them, their offences,--and hath put, in us, the [SIZE=+1]reconciling[/SIZE] discourse.[/SIZE]

Aren't the same words used for "eternal life", as in "eternal punishment"?
When the wheat is separated from the chaff, is the chaff then turned into wheat? I don't think that is the message of the bible.
2 corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"
This is the way to heaven!
In Christ, He gave us the reconciling discourse, Christ was God's word and deed of reconciliation.
When I put forth my hand in reconciliation and offer to renew a friendship to a friend who has turned his back on me, I run the risk of being spat on and rejected. Any who turn away Jesus, do just that to God. If salvation was being offered and completed beyond this life on earth, Jesus didn't have to die in this life. Jesus could have lived, taught, and ascended.
2 Corinthians 5:20,21 "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."
That sounds to me like it takes action on our part, and must be done in this life. Please, be reconciled to God!
timlamb

 

[Children of Light]

Hey anyone here can answer a question that I pose:

If you were to be able to feel the punishment of hell on a spiritual level for yourself and were then able to come back to Earth after that torment, how do you think you would react? Would your views still be the same or do you think you may change your views?
Just curious.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]
Been doing some searching, want to share it with you all.

Page and Company's Business Man's Dictionary and Guide to English: Eon: A long space of time; cycle; forever; eternally; always; at all times.
New World Dictionary: Eon: Period of immense duration; an age; endless; for eternity.Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Eon (n.): An immeasurable or indefinite period of time; incessantly; synonym of constantly, continuously, always, perpetually, unceasingly, everlastingly, endlessly.
Standard Unabridged Dictionary: Eon: An age of the universe; an incalculable period, constituting one of the longest conceivable divisions of time; a cosmic or geological cycle; an eternity, or eternity. The present age, or eon, is time; the future age, or eon, is eternity.[/SIZE]

English definitions are irrelevant although they contradict you, eon means eternal.

[SIZE=-1]Shedd Theological Dictionary (vol. II, p. 683): Eonian: pertaining to, or lasting for eons; everlasting; eternal.[/SIZE]

Your point is? Eonian means everlasting, eternal.

[SIZE=-1]Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon: Aion: A period of existence; one's lifetime; life; an age; a generation; a long space of time; an age. A space of time clearly defined and marked out; an era, epoch, age, period or dispensation.[/SIZE]

This blind cut and paste from hellmakers, I have proven at least three times to be a damnable lie straight from the pits of hell. Here is what The Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon actually says. If the blind lead the blind they both shall fall in the ditch.

Liddell-Scott-Jones A Greek Lexicon

[size=+1]αιων[/size] aion onos, ho, Ion. and Ep. also he, as in Pi.P.4.186, E.Ph.1484: apocop. acc. aio like Poseido, restored by Ahrens (from AB363) in A.Ch.350: (properly aiWon, cf. aevum, v. aiei):--period of existence (to telos to periechon ton tes hekastou zoes chronon . . aion hekastou kekletai Arist.Cael.279a25 ):

I. lifetime, life, psuche te kai aion Il.16.453 ; ek d' ai. pephatai Il.19.27 ; mede toi ai. phthineto Od.5.160 ; leipei tina Il.5.685 ; ap' aionos neos oleo (Zenod. neon) 24.725; teleutan ton aiôna Hdt.1.32 , etc.; aionos sterein tina A.Pr.862 ; aiona dioichnein Id.Eu.315 ; sundiatribein Cratin. 1 ; ai. Aiakidan, periphr. for the Aeacidae, S.Aj.645 s. v. l.; apepneusen aiona E.Fr.801 ; emon kat' aiona A.Th.219 .

2. age, generation, ai. es triton ib.744; ho mellon aion posterity, D.18.199, cf. Pl.Ax.370c.

3. one's life, destiny, lot, S.Tr.34, E.Andr.1215, Fr.30, etc.

II. long space of time, age, aion gignetai 'tis an age, Men.536.5; esp. with Preps., ap' aionos of old, Hes.Th.609, Ev.Luc.1.70; hoi apo tou ai. Rhomaioi D.C. 63.20 ; di' aionos perpetually, A.Ch.26, Eu.563; all one's life long, S. El.1024; di' aionos makrou, apaustou, A.Supp.582,574; ton di' ai. chronon for ever, Id.Ag.554; eis hapanta ton ai. Lycurg.106, Isoc.10.62; eis ton ai. LXX Ge.3.23, al., D.S.21.17, Ev.Jo.8.35, Ps.-Luc. Philopatr.17; eis aiona aionos LXX Ps.131(132).14 ; ex aionos kai heos aionos ib.Je.7.7; ep' ai. ib.Ex.15.18; heos aionos ib.1 Ki.1.22, al.:-- without a Prep., ton hapanta ai. Arist. Cael.279a22; ton aiona Lycurg. 62 , Epicur.Ep.1p.8U.; eternity, opp. chronos, Pl.Ti.37d, cf. Metrod. Fr.37, Ph.1.496,619, Plot.3.7.5, etc.; tous huper tou aionos phobous Epicur.Sent.20 .

2. space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age, ho aion houtos this present world, opp. ho mellon, Ev.Matt.13.22, cf. Ep.Rom.12.2; ho nun ai. 1 Ep.Tim.6.17, 2 Ep.Tim.4.10:--hence in pl., the ages, i.e. eternity, Phld.D.3 Fr.84; eis pantas tous ai. [color-red]LXX To.13.4[/color] ; eis tous ai.ib. Si.45.24, al., Ep.Rom.1.25, etc.; eis tous ai. ton aionon LXX 4 Ma.18.24 , Ep.Phil.4.20, etc.; apo ton ai., pro ton ai., Ep.Eph.3.9, 1Cor.2.7; ta tele ton ai. ib.10.11.
[…]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform

[size=+1]αιωνιος[/size] aionios , on, also a, on Pl. Ti.37d, Ep.Heb.9.12:--lasting for an age (aion 11 ), perpetual, eternal (but dist. fr. aidios, Plot.3.7.3), methe Pl.R. 363d ; anolethron . . all' ouk aionion Id.Lg.904a , cf. Epicur. Sent.28; ai. kata psuchen ochlesis Id.Nat.131 G.; kaka, deina, Phld.Herc. 1251.18, D.1.13; ai. amoibais basanisthesomenoi ib.19; tou ai. theou Ep.Rom. 16.26 , Ti.Locr.96c; ou chronie mounon . . all' aionie Aret.CA1.5 ; ai. diatheke, nomimon, prostagma, LXX Ge.9.16, Ex.27.21, To.1.6; zoe Ev.Matt.25.46 , Porph.Abst.4.20; kolasis Ev.Matt. l.c., Olymp. in Grg.p.278J.; pro chronon ai.2 Ep.Tim. 1.9 : opp. proskairos, 2 Ep.Cor. 4.18.

2. holding an office or title for life,perpetual, gumnasiarchos CPHerm.62 .

3. = Lat. saecularis, Phleg.Macr.4.

4. Adv. -ios eternally, nous akinetos ai. panta ôn Procl.Inst.172 , cf. Simp. in Epict.p.77D.; perpetually, misein Sch.E.Alc.338.

5. aionion, to, = aeizoon to mega, Ps.-Dsc.4.88.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform
​

I will omit the rest of the so-called quotes in your cut/paste, there is absolutely no doubt they are just as phony as the Liddell-Scott stuff, hellmakers manufactured. If you want to swallow every bit of poison some Jim Jones/David Koresh website spews out do so. But I have a brain and I don't believe everything just because it happens to aggree with me.

[SIZE=-1]From the Strong's for "eternal" in Romans 1:20, this word is actually rendered "eternal" and is used in a few NT scriptures.

Greek for 126 Pronunciation Guide aidios {ah-id'-ee-os}

TDNT ReferenceRoot Word TDNT - 1:168,25 from 104 Part of Speech adj Outline of Biblical Usage

1) eternal, everlasting
For Synonyms see entry 5801[/size] [SIZE=+1][Note, See Strong's 5801, below.][/SIZE]

[size=-1]Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 2 AV - eternal 1, everlasting 1; 2

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 2 AV - eternal 1, everlasting 1; 2[/SIZE]

I have already addressed this cut and paste the last time you posted it, in this thread, [Here!]

Even the source you quote here, shows aion, aionian, to be a SYNONYM for aidios. You do know what synonym means don't you?

Strong's G5801
Synonyms
See Definition for aidios [G126]
See Definition for aionios [G166]

126-covers the complete philosophical idea--without beginning
and without end? Also either without beginning or without
end? As respects to the past it is applied to what has
existed time out of mind
166-gives prominence to the immeasurableness of eternity.​

[SIZE=-1]Thayer's Lexicon (Help)

[/SIZE]
[Note, Thayer's says aionios is [SIZE=+1]↑[/SIZE] a synonym for aidios here.]

Same cut/paste, same reply. Thayer's shows aion, aionios to be a SYNONYM for aidios. Your argument is moot.

 

[Der Alte]

[...]
[SIZE=-1]and another:

Dr. Marvin Vincent, in his Word Studies of the New Testament (vol. IV, p. 59): "The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective in themselves carries the sense of "endless" or "everlasting." Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Out of the 150 instances in the LXX (Septuagint), four-fifths imply limited duration."[/SIZE]

And another, cut and paste from hellmakers and another lie from the pits of hell. How many lies from that cess pool does anyone have to be shown before they quit repeating their garbage?

Vincent Word Studies Mar 3:29 -
Guilty (́ενοχο&#962
From εν, in,́ εχω, to hold or have. Lit., is in the grasp of, or holden of. Compare 1Co_11:27; Jam_2:10.
Eternal damnation (αίωνίου αμαρτήματο&#962
An utterly false rendering. Rightly as Rev., of an eternal sin. So Wyc., everlasting trespass. The A. V. has gone wrong in following Tyndale, who, in turn, followed the erroneous text of Erasmus, κρίσεως, judgment, wrongly rendered damnation. See Mat_23:33, and compare Rev. there.

Joh 17:2 - Power (εξουσία&#957
Rev., rightly, authority. See on Joh_1:12.
All flesh
A Hebrew phrase, denoting the whole of humanity in its imperfection. See Gen_6:12; Psa_65:2; Isa_40:5, etc.
That He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him (ινα παν ο δεδωκας αυτω δωση αυτοις ζωην αιωνιο&#957
Literally, that all that Thou hast given Him, to them He should give eternal life. All (πα&#957, singular number, regards the body of Christian disciples collectively: to them, individually.

Rev 14:6 -
In the midst of heaven (εν μεσουρανήματ&#953
Rev., in mid-heaven. See on Rev_8:13.
The everlasting Gospel (εναγγέλιον αιώνιο&#957
No article. Hence Rev., an eternal Gospel. Milligan thinks this is to be understood in the same sense as prophesying (Rev_10:11). Αιώνιον includes more than mere duration in time. It is applied to that of which time is not a measure. As applied to the Gospel it marks its likeness to Him whose being is not bounded by time.​

Vincent's Word Studies can be accessed many places online. Here are two. Find your quote from hellmakers and prove me wrong.

http://www.godrules.net/library/vincent/vincent.htm

http://www.gotell.gracenet.org/word_studies.htm