the finiteness of "eternal life" (aionon zoe) in John?

[ClementofA]

…..In these 9 verses, Jesus defines “aionios” as “eternal.”
Jesus used the word “aionios” 29 times, He never used “aionios” to refer to something mundane which cannot be eternal.
[1]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this verse Jesus contrasts “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.”

1) The Greek word there is not aionios, as you state, but aiona meaning age, eon.
2) So your conclusion is, therefore, wrong.
3) Jesus contrasts the bread eaten by those who died with the bread that will make those who eat it live EIS "the age". EIS: to, into.
4) In light of 1) above, "forever" is a misleading, erroneous, deceptive translation.
5) A more literal & less misleading translation is found in a number of more literal Bible versions, such as, for example:
Jn.6:58 This is the Bread which descends out of heaven. Not according as the fathers ate and died; he who is masticating this Bread shall be living for the eon (CLV)
6) Of course an "age", i.e. "eon", can be finite.
7) That doesn't mean believers live only for a finite period. (There is no "only" in the verse).
8) The verse doesn't address the question of how long they live or eternal destinies of anyone. Other Scriptures do that, such as when we are told we will be "immortal", cannot die anymore, will always be with the Lord, all will be saved eventually, each in their own order, etc.
9) You say: "If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” But you err, as life is opposite(antonym) to death: Thesaurus results for DEATH
10) Moreover those who are believers during church age history who obtain "life eonian" in the finite millennial age will also receive immortality, i.e. endless life.
11) So their life will be eternal, but not due to the word "aionion".

[2]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [ου μη/ou mé] [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
See note on ou mé at bottom. In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

1) In this verse once more the word aiona (eon, age) occurs and the translators left it out! They didn't even bother to translate it!
2) Your quoted version is misleading, unlike a number of more literal versions such as:
Jn.10:28 And I am giving them life eonian, and they should by no means be perishing for the eon, and no one shall be snatching them out of My hand." (CLV)
3)"Definition of eonian...variant spelling of aeonian"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eonia
"aeonian, from Greek aiṓnios "lasting an age, perpetual" (derivative of aiṓn eon) + 2-an; aeonic from eon + 1-ic"
Definition of AEONIAN
4) Concerning the alleged claim: "If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’”
a) Aion most certainly means an age, e.g.: Strong's Greek: 165. αἰών (aión) -- a space of time, an age
b) Obviously an "age" (eon) can be a finite period.
c) Just because no one shall be "snatching" a believer out of Jesus' hand does not necessarily mean that the believer has "eternal security" or that the believer cannot - jump - out of His hand, i.e. fall away, backslide, & reject Him thereafter.
d) In the larger context of the passage i suggest that Jesus is not addressing final eternal destinies at all, but contrasting destinies in the eon to come.
e) Scripture speaks of multiple eons to come, so arguably the eon to come is finite.
f) "And I am giving them life eonian". As long as they believe in Him till they die "in Christ" or until His return. If they believe only "for a while" (Lk.8:13) then all bets are off, including remaining in His "hand".
g) "they should by no means be perishing for the eon". If they have believed till their death or His return, then they won't perish for the millennial eon. Unlike some others who may (or do) die then (Isa.65:20).
h) They will also have immortality & be always with the Lord.
i) By virtue of having immortality they will have endless life, not because they obtained eonian life, life in the eon to come.
j) So the passage has an alternate interpretation without requiring eonian mean "eternal" as you claim it does there.
5. You state: "If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” " Why should they have to be the "opposite" of one another & not instead just separate pieces of info Jesus gives in the verse re blessings to be obtained by those who continue in faith?

[3]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life.
[4] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life.
In the above two verses Jesus pairs “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

1) No, there is at least one other explanation that refutes your claim. Namely that believers who are promised aionion(eonian) life - if aionion(eonian) life is in a finite period, such as the millennial eon - could not perish because they will have immortality when Christ returns at the beginning of the millennial eon. Assuming they keep on believing till Christ's return or they died "in Christ" - in which case they will obtain immortality when He returns (1 Cor.15:51-56) - and do not merely believe "for a while" (Lk.8:13).
2) So your argument is not only unsound logically but also unscriptural. Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures re immortality.
3) A better translation is not "believeth", but "is believing" since the requirement is a continual believing, not a temporary believing just "for a while" (Lk.8:13).
4) Your quoted version is misleading, unlike a number of more literal versions such as:
John3:15 that everyone believing on Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian." 16 For thus God loves the world, so that He gives His only-begotten Son, that everyone who is believing in Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian." (CLV)
5)"Definition of eonian...variant spelling of aeonian"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eonia
"aeonian, from Greek aiṓnios "lasting an age, perpetual" (derivative of aiṓn eon) + 2-an; aeonic from eon + 1-ic" Definition of AEONIAN
6) The next verse states the purpose of Love Omnipotent's - divine will - in sending His Son:

For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world would be saved through Him. (Jn.3:17)

The IVA ("that") is used in Jn.3:17 above. BDAG says “In many cases purpose and result cannot be clearly differentiated, and hence ἵνα is used for the result that follows according to the purpose of the subj. or of God. As in Semitic and Gr-Rom. thought, purpose and result are identical in declarations of the *divine will*…” Перевод ἵνα с греческого на все языки

The "result" of God sending His Son into the world will be to save it (Jn.3:17).

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

1) Much of what i've already pointed out above re other verses in John applies here as well.
2) So once again your argument re aionion fails.
3) Re the comment above "unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death." Of course that can happen when any of His followers believe only "for a while" (Lk.8:13) or makes shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim.1:19) or does not continue in faith (Col.1:21-23).
4) A more literal & less misleading translation is found in a number of more literal Bible versions, such as:
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I am saying to you that he who is hearing My word and believing Him Who sends Me, has life eonian and is not coming into judging, but has proceeded out of death into life. (CLV)
6) The "not coming into condemnation" in the verse is conditionally dependent on the "believing". If one eternally believes then one will eternally never come into condemnation.
7) Believing continually also results in eonian life, but that doesn't mean eonian life, life in the coming eon, or the eon itself, is eternal.
8) Although those who obtain life in the coming eon will have immortality, which is eternal life.
9) And as they will be always with the Lord (1 Thess.4:17) & God will be "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28), they will be blessed & never come into condemnation.
10) You state: "In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” " They are in the same verse, but it is continual belief until one has immortality - not aionios - that results in "shall not come into condemnation" & "passed from death unto life".
11. You say: "“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." That is not necessarily the case. The reason being that not coming into condemnation does not have to be dependent on aionion life meaning eternal life. Something that you appear to assume. Jesus doesn't condemn the person, not because they will attain to eonian life (life in the millenial eon), but because they believe in Him! So your argument fails.

continued in my next post...

 

[ClementofA]

[6]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [αἰώνιος/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 contrasts 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.

1) Again much of what i've pointed out above re other verses in John applies here as well.
2) So once again your argument re aionion fails.
3) A more literal & less misleading translation is found in a number of more literal Bible versions, such as, for example:
John 3:36 He who is believing in the Son has life eonian, yet he who is stubborn as to the Son shall not be seeing life, but the indignation of God is remaining on him." (CLV)
4) The fact is we all have been "stubborn", so if your reasoning were correct, then no one could ever be saved!
5) But the wrath or "indignation" is only on the "stubborn" unbeliever as long as he remains stubborn. Once we ceased being stubborn & believed, God's wrath was no longer on us.
6) Nothing in Jn.3:36 states that the stubborn cannot turn to God postmortem.
7) The verse speaks of one who "shall not see life". What "life"? The eonian life of the context that the believer will obtain? The life of God?
8) What's to say that this "eonian life" is not life in the next & finite eon, e.g. a 1000 year eon? Jesus says much the same in Mk.10:30 & Lk.18:30, that believers will receive "in the coming eon, life eonian".
9) Yet Scripture often speaks of multiple eons to come, so the coming eon must be finite. So why would the "life eonian" obtained in it (Mk.10:30) also not be finite?
10) You state: "If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life By definition aionios means eternal." What the premises are for his conclusion are not properly laid out, so who knows what he's thinking. Does anyone? Maybe he should try laying it out clearly something like this, so people can understand what he's trying to communicate:

"Premise 1. The world is an organized system.
Premise 2. Every organized system must have a creator.
Conclusion. The creator of the world is God."

[7]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.
In this verse Jesus contrasts aionios with “shall never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal.

1) Again much of what i've pointed out above re other verses in John applies here as well.
2) So once again your argument re aionion fails.
3) In this verse once more the word aiona (eon, age) occurs and once again (as in John 10:28 above) the translators misled people and left it out! They didn't even bother to translate it! As shown here: https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh4.pdf
4) A more literal & less misleading translation is found in a number of more literal Bible versions, such as, for example:
Jn.4:14 yet whoever may be drinking of the water which I shall be giving him, shall under no circumstances be thirsting for the eon, but the water which I shall be giving him will become in him a spring of water, welling up into life eonian. (CLV)
5) In the above translation "life eonian" is paired opposite to "for the eon".
6) If the eon in view is the coming eon, then the coming eon may be finite, for Scripture speaks in many passages of multiple future eons.
7) In light of 5) & 6) above, arguably the "life eonian" referred to in Jn.4:14 is finite.
8) Your conclusion here is dismissed as it is based on the misleading translation “shall never thirst.”
9) If anything, with the proper translation, "under no circumstances be thirsting for the eon", the opposite conclusion is more warranted.
10) No wonder the Early Church Father, Origen, in commenting on this verse spoke of "after eonian life":

"And after eternal(eonian) life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal(eonian) life." (Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13-32)

[8]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

1) Again much of what i've pointed out above re other verses in John applies here as well.
2) So once again your argument re aionion fails.
3) A more literal & less misleading translation is found in a number of more literal Bible versions, such as, for example:
Jn.6:27 Do not work for the food which is perishing, but for the food which is remaining for life eonian, which the Son of Mankind will be giving to you, for this One God, the Father, seals. (CLV)
4) You evidently think "etenal" is an opposite for "perish". However Websters' Dictionary lists "age" as a near antonym("opposite") for "perish", but it doesn't list "eternal" at all: Thesaurus results for PERISH
5) Jesus says "Do not work for...food", but Paul says to work, & if you don't work, you don't eat (2 Thess.3:10). So what, really, is Jesus saying there? Is He contradicting Paul or does His statement have a deeper meaning?
6) You say "In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes.” " But the verse doesn't even use the words "aionios meat". He made that up out of thin air.

[9]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [αμην αμην/amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ου μη εις τον αιωνα/ou mé eis ton aiōna] see death."

1. In this verse once more the word aiona (eon, age) occurs and once again (as in John 10:28 above) the translators misled people and left it out! They didn't even bother to translate it! As shown here: https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh8.pdf
2) A more literal & less misleading translation is found in a number of more literal Bible versions, such as, for example:
Jn.8:51 Verily, Verily, I am saying to you, If ever anyone should be keeping My word, he should under no circumstances be beholding death for the eon. (CLV)

…..According to noted Greek scholar Marvin Vincent,
● The double negative [ου μη/ou mé] signifies in nowise, by no means. Θεωρήσῃ[theōrésé], denoting steady, protracted vision, is purposely used, because the promise contemplates the entire course of the believer's life in Christ. It is not, shall not die forever, but shall live eternally.

That's exactly how the version of Jn.10:28 i posted above translated it, "by no means be perishing for the eon". But as you can see, it is limited by "for the eon". Which your translation completely failed to translate!

● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.[1]
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

If it's the "most decisive way of negating something in the future", why didn't God use it to say something like "unbelievers will never (ou me) be saved? You shot your own doctrine in the foot with that one.

If Jesus wished to express endless punishment, then He would have used expressions such as "endless", "no end" & "never be saved" as per:

How Scripture expresses endless duration (not aion/ios) (paradise, hell, punishment) - Christianity -  - City-Data Forum

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

ENDLESSNESS not applied to eschatological PUNISHMENT in Scripture:

could an 'eternal punishment' simply mean that once instituted it will not change?

Why didn't you list the page number for that BAGD entry?

● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.

Powerful negatives never used of the damnation of the lost.

I rest my case.

 

[timewerx]

Billions of years is still awfully long time. It's practically forever

 

[Radagast]

1) The Greek word there is not aionios, as you state, but aiona meaning age, eon.

aiōn, aiōna, aiōni, and aiōnos (all singular), plus aiōnas, aiōnōn, and aiōsin (all plural) are the noun form, meaning "eon" or "age," as you say.

However, with eis and the accusative (eis ton aiōna or eis tous aiōnas), the word forms a standard phrase that always means "forever," as in John 6:58, and in the Septuagint version of Genesis 3:22: "Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—".

 

[JSRG]

It appears you're responding to someone else's statements, but you don't offer any kind of link as to where these apparently quoted statements are from or any kind of explanation as to what the context of any of this is. If they are quoted statements from another topic, why not simply reply in that topic--or, if you must make a new topic, why not give us the aforementioned context by linking to that topic?

 

[prodromos]

ClementofA, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and it is pretty obvious that your knowledge of Greek is not of a particularly high standard.

 

[ClementofA]

aiōn, aiōna, aiōni, and aiōnos (all singular), plus aiōnas, aiōnōn, and aiōsin (all plural) are the noun form, meaning "eon" or "age," as you say.

However, with eis and the accusative (eis ton aiōna or eis tous aiōnas), the word forms a standard phrase that always means "forever," as in John 6:58, and in the Septuagint version of Genesis 3:22: "Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—".

What leads you to those conclusions? Following are two examples, contrary to your opinion, where "εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα" clearly does not mean "forever":

"That lᵉ ʻôlām, rendered as (εἰς) τὸν αἰῶνα, does not indicate an absolute eternity is clear from Mic 4:5: “we shall walk in the name of the Lord εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπέκεινα, “from generation to generation,” in Hebrew lᵉ ʻôlām wā ʻēd" (Terms For Eternity: Aionios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Texts, Ramelli & Konstan, 2013, Gorgias Press, p.44).

Because καὶ ἐπέκεινα translates as "and beyond", thereby limiting εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in Micah 4:5 to a finite duration.

5 because all the people will walk every one in his own way, let us therefore walk in the name of the Lord our God until that age and beyond it. (CTT LXX translation)
5 for all the peoples shall go, each man in the name of his elohim, yet we will go in the name of Yahweh our Elohim, for the eon and further. (CLV)
5 For, all the peoples, walk, every man in the name of his god,—we, therefore, will walk in the name of Yahweh our God, to times age-abiding and beyond. (RO)
5 For all the peoples do walk, Each in the name of its god—and we, We do walk in the name of Jehovah our God, To the age and for ever. (YLT)
5...into the eon and beyond (ABP LXX translation)

Study Bible - Online Greek Hebrew KJV Parallel Interlinear Tools

Also, as Ramelli went on to imply in the next sentence after that, the Early Church Father & Greek scholar, Origen, understood the phrase as a finite duration due to the words "and beyond" which follow it.

Likewise, Helena Keizer renders the relevant portion of Micah 4:5 as "for the aion and beyond". She adds that "Even more than in Exod. 15:18, the aion phrase in this text seems to suggest that aion by itself is of limited scope. Eis ton aiona kai epekeina may be interpreted as "for the aion and what follows it". She also notes that "The phrase καὶ ἐπέκεινα is consistently used in the LXX to translate Hebrew wahal ah, "and further", that is, further both in space and in time" ("Time, Life, Entirety...", p.165).

Life Time Entirety. A Study of AION in Greek Literature and Philosophy, the Septuagint and Philo

Exo 15:18 Yahweh, He shall reign for the eon and further. (CLV)
Exo.15:18 The Lord reigning into the eon(eis ton aiona), and unto eon, and still! (Apostolic Bible Polygot English):

https://studybible.info/ABP_Strongs/Exodus 15
https://studybible.info/ABP_GRK/Exodus 15

So, with your only stated reason for rendering the phrase "forever" in John 6:58 & Gen.3:22 debunked, is there any other reason you think it should or absolutely must be rendered such in those verses? A number of more literal versions, which i consider more honest and less deceptive, do not do so, such as, for example:

John 6:58 This is the Bread which descends out of heaven. Not according as the fathers ate and died; he who is masticating this Bread shall be living for the eon. (CLV)

Gen.3:22b...and should eat, and will live into the eon (Apostolic Bible Polygot English)

 

[ClementofA]

ClementofA, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and it is pretty obvious that your knowledge of Greek is not of a particularly high standard.

Can you elaborate on that?

 

[ClementofA]

Billions of years is still awfully long time. It's practically forever

Did my post say anything about "Billions of years"?

A billion years compared to eternity is like a single drop of water compared to trillions X trillions of universes full of nothing but water.

 

[ClementofA]

It appears you're responding to someone else's statements, but you don't offer any kind of link as to where these apparently quoted statements are from or any kind of explanation as to what the context of any of this is. If they are quoted statements from another topic, why not simply reply in that topic--or, if you must make a new topic, why not give us the aforementioned context by linking to that topic?

Didn't the title of the OP & the OP itself make any sense to you?

I posted two rather long posts. How much "context" is needed? An entire book?

 

[JSRG]

Didn't the title of the OP & the OP itself make any sense to you?

Are you responding to someone else? If so, who? Where did they post it? Was this from another topic? If it was, where?

That's the context I was referring to, as I said in my post. None of my questions were answered.

 

[Der Alte]

…
3) A more literal & less misleading translation is found in a number of more literal Bible versions, such as, for example:
John 3:36

Logical fallacy, appeal to authority and begging the question, i.e. assuming that another version is superior.

8) What's to say that this "eonian life" is not life in the next & finite eon, e.g. a 1000 year eon?

Logical fallacy “argument from silence.”

…3) In this verse once more the word aiona (eon, age) occurs and once again (as in John 10:28 above) the translators misled people and left it out! They didn't even bother to translate it! As shown …

Logical fallacy, argument from silence.

4) A more literal & less misleading translation is found in a number of more literal Bible versions, such as, for example:

Logical fallacy. Appeal to authority and begging the question. Presuming that your pet version is superior.

Jn.4:14 yet whoever may be drinking of the water which I shall be giving him, shall under no circumstances be thirsting for the eon, but the water which I shall be giving him will become in him a spring of water, welling up into life eonian. (CLV)

5) In the above translation "life eonian" is paired opposite to "for the eon".
6) If the eon in view is the coming eon, then the coming eon may be finite, for Scripture speaks in many passages of multiple future eons.
7) In light of 5) & 6) above, arguably the "life eonian" referred to in Jn.4:14 is finite.
8) Your conclusion here is dismissed as it is based on the misleading translation “shall never thirst.”
9) If anything, with the proper translation, "under no circumstances be thirsting for the eon", the opposite conclusion is more warranted.

Same errors logical fallacy, appeal to authority, begging the question.

10) No wonder the Early Church Father, Origen, in commenting on this verse spoke of "after eonian life":

"And after eternal(eonian) life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal(eonian) life." (Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13-32)

And repeating a previous gross error. Orgien NEVER said anything about “after eternal life” for believers. Continuing to repeat this patent error is extremely dishonest.
I think that’s enough the entire diatribe is filled with logical fallacies.

Origen Commentary On The Gospel Of John Book Thirteen[1]
(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life; but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.20[2] Pg. 23​

"the fountain ... leaps into eternal life. after eternal life, perhaps it [the fountain only] will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life." "Also leaps," refers back to "leaps into" in the previous sentence. There is absolutely nothing in this passage which can honestly be interpreted as some "after eternal life" for believers

Origen, (60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.[3] Pg. 80​

"Eternal life never perishes, remains, is not taken away, and not consumed, is how a contemporary of Origen whom he is quoting, Heraclyon defines "aionios life." and Origen never disagrees with this.

Origen, (291) But neither is it possible here to understand the statement “He who reaps receives a reward, and gathers fruit for eternal life” to have reference to the same things as the statement, “He who sows in the flesh, of the flesh shall reap corruption, and he who sows in the spirit, of the spirit will reap eternal life.”​

In the same writing Origen, whether he intended to or not, defines "eternal life as " as opposed to "corruption."

Origen, (292) For according to the Apostle’s words, it is the same person who sows and reaps, whether in the flesh or in the spirit, and on this basis reaps either corruption or eternal life. But according to the present words, it is one who sows and another who reaps.[4] Pg 128​

Again Origen, whether he intended to or not, defines "eternal life as " as opposed to "corruption." A person either reaps "corruption" or "eternal life"

Origen, (408) These words prove that death is capable of being tasted, “There are some of those standing here who will not taste death,” etc., and the following prove that it can be seen, “If anyone shall keep my word, he will not see death forever.”425​

EOB 8:51Amen, amen, I tell you; whoever keeps my word will never see death’

Orige, (409) Now he who utters words contrary to the words of eternal life tastes death; and not only does he taste it, but he is also filled with death as food.[5] Pg. 289
[1] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 67–69). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press​

Here once again Origen, whether he intended to or not defines ζωην αιωνιον/zoen aionion as opposed to death.

.

 

[Der Alte]

..."That lᵉ ʻôlām, rendered as (εἰς) τὸν αἰῶνα, does not indicate an absolute eternity is clear from Mic 4:5: “we shall walk in the name of the Lord εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπέκεινα, “from generation to generation,” in Hebrew lᵉ ʻôlām wā ʻēd" (Terms For Eternity: Aionios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Texts, Ramelli & Konstan, 2013, Gorgias Press, p.44)....

One or two examples of obvious hyperbole does not determine the meaning of a word. For example the Greek word "kosmos" means "world" but it is used a number of times to refer to something that is not, cannot be, the entire planet.

[1]Matthew 16:26
(26) What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? [Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25]​

Can a person literally inherit the "whole world?"

[2]1 John 5:19
(19) We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.​

Was "the whole world" literally under the control of the evil one?

[3]Revelation 12:9
(9) The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.​

Did Satan literally lead "the whole world" astray?

[4]Revelation 13:3
(3) One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.​

Did "the whole world" literally follow the beast?

[5]Genesis 41:57 And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere.​

Did "all the world" literally buy grain from Egypt?

[6]Acts 17:6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here,​

Did the disciples literally cause trouble "all over the world?"

[7]Acts 19:35 The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Fellow Ephesians, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven?​

Did "all the world" literally know that Ephesus was the guardian of the pagan deity Artemis?

[8]Acts 24:5 "We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.​

Was Paul literally stirring up riots "all over the world?"

[9]Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.​

Did Caesar literally tax "all the world?"
If we use UR reasoning we must conclude that "kosmos" never means the entire planet.

 

[ClementofA]

Are you responding to someone else? If so, who? Where did they post it? Was this from another topic? If it was, where?

That's the context I was referring to, as I said in my post. None of my questions were answered.

You asked re the OP "what the context of any of this is".

I replied:

"I posted two rather long posts. How much "context" is needed? An entire book?"

Did you answer that?

I also said to you:

"Didn't the title of the OP & the OP itself make any sense to you?"

Did you answer that?

Most people don't even read an OP half that long. (Did you read both my long posts?). And you're asking for - more - info? Why? Is there not enough yet for you to get the jist of it? And respond to any points you might be interested in discussing? Yet so far you haven't addressed any point concerning the OP.

 

[ClementofA]

And repeating a previous gross error. Orgien NEVER said anything about “after eternal life” for believers. Continuing to repeat this patent error is extremely dishonest.
I think that’s enough the entire diatribe is filled with logical fallacies.

Origen Commentary On The Gospel Of John Book Thirteen[1]
(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life; but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.20[2] Pg. 23​

"the fountain ... leaps into eternal life. after eternal life, perhaps it [the fountain only] will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life." "Also leaps," refers back to "leaps into" in the previous sentence. There is absolutely nothing in this passage which can honestly be interpreted as some "after eternal life" for believers

Origen, (60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.[3] Pg. 80​

"Eternal life never perishes, remains, is not taken away, and not consumed, is how a contemporary of Origen whom he is quoting, Heraclyon defines "aionios life." and Origen never disagrees with this.

​

How many semesters of Greek have you had which give you the requisite knowledge of what is/is not a reasonable translation of the Greek?

That's irrelevant regarding the topic which was this:

There are two main universalist interpretations of Mt.25:46:

(1) The aionion life & the aionion punishment refer to contrasting eonian destinies pertaining to a finite eonian period to come, e.g. the millennial eon. The verse has nothing to do, & says nothing about, final destiny. Regarding the endless life of the righteous in Christ, other passages address that topic, such as those that speak of immortality, incorruption & being unable to die.

(2) Another universalist option in interpretating Mt.25:46 is that aionion life refers to a perpetual life that lasts as long as God Almighty wills it to last, so it is endless. OTOH, aionion punishment refers to a perpetual punishment that also lasts as long as Love Omnipotent wills it to last, which is until it has served its useful purpose in bringing the offender to the salvation in their Savior, Who died & shed His blood for their sins. While life is an end in itself, punishment is a means to an end....

What was written specifically to disobedient Israel is for but NOT to believers today.

The truth is the truth, whether spoken to Israel or Trump's grandmother. If Love Omnipotent tells anyone He is not going to cast men off forever, then the endless casting off of men forever doctrine is false:

Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.

Supposedly reading the Greek for many years does not qualify anyone to translate the Greek.

What qualifies you to say who is qualified for anything? Are you all knowing & know everything about all translators? Such as if they are geniuses, or if they translate according to their theological biases, or according to filthy lucre, or if they are influenced by demons? Hart's translation of aionion alines with the view of Early Church Father universalists.

In the early church universalism was the orthodox (biblical) view & may have been the orthodox (majority) view for centuries (see urls below) prior to the dark ages. It may also be today, or be on the way to becoming, the majority Christian view (see urls below):

Early Church Writings Fathers:
Church Fathers & Universalism since Early Church times
Indeed Very Many: Universalism in the Early Church
Early church writings re final destiny (paradise, Gospel, incarnation, Jehovah) - Christianity -  - City-Data Forum
Articles on the history of Christian Universalism throughout the centuries
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchab.../©CPC+The+Ancient+History+of+Universalism.pdf
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.shtml
Lawrence R. Farley

If you think anything I quoted is "appeal to authority" then everything you quote is doubly so since you have repeatedly demonstrated you cannot support anything you say without quoting some anonymous UR writer.

That's obviously wrong when you say "you cannot support anything you say without quoting some anonymous UR writer."

It's true that i appeal to authority in response to your constant appeals to authority. That's what you do instead of dealing with the actual reasoned points i make. You continually appeal to authoities as if they're some kind of excathedra infallible popes. Such as what you call the "irrefutable" Jewish Encyclopedia, for one example.

Something occurred to me while I was returning from lunch today.
In the last 6 months you have posted something you claimed was said by Origen, You claim, eleven [11] times that "Origen spoke about 'life after eternal life?'" or "life beyond after life."

Can you find a quote by me saying that anywhere, or is your remark false. Are you confusing it with something i quoted?

I have corrected you repeatedly but you persist in posting this patently false claim. Therefore I must ask myself if someone repeatedly posts something patently false can we trust anything he says?

Such as your false remarks above?

You think you corrected me, but did you? See below.

Here is what Origen actually said.

Origen Commentary On The Gospel Of John Book Thirteen[1]
(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life; but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.20[2] Pg. 23
[1] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 67–69). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
Note Origen did NOT say "life after eternal life" or "life beyond eternal life"
In context, Origen said 'the fountain that appears ... leaps into eternal life. And after [leaping into] eternal life, perhaps it [the fountain only] will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life."
There is nothing in any of Origen's writings which says anything about "life after eternal life" for any believers. "Also leap" must refer back to "leap into eternal life" The only thing after eternal life is the father and perhaps the fountain.
If we can get this one irrefutable fact straight we might have some basis for continuing.

Here is what you continually fail to respond to:

Here is what Origen said.

Origen Commentary On The Gospel Of John Book Thirteen[1]
(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life; but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.20[2] Pg. 23
Note carefully this passages says absolutely nothing about "life after eternal life."
When read in context this says "the fountain leaps...into eternal life..." [John 4:14] In the next sentence "after eternal life perhaps it [the fountain] will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life" The only thing after eternal life is the Father, who is greater that Christ. and perhaps the fountain.
Later in the same writing we read this

Even there you admit to an "after eternal life" in Origen.

Do you suppose the water of the fountain of life within believers (which Jesus gives them) will depart from believers & leap into the Father who is "beyond life aionios"? That this fountain of living water within believers will dump them & leave them behind while the fountain of life goes on its merry way alone? It doesn't sound very "inanimate" when put it like that, does it? Rather than leaving the believer to travel all alone, Origen says the fountain of living waters within the believer are leaping & "CARRYING him to that higher life which is aionios" (13:16). Then in 13:19a the implication is that "after aionios life" perhaps the fountain of living waters will also leap into the Father who is "beyond aionios life". The first time the living waters leapt they did so within the believer & CARRIED the believer to aionios life. Do you assume it would be any different the second time? Then in 13:19b Origen identifies the life as Christ, referring back to what was just spoken by the word "For". And in 13:26 Origen states believers "possess" the fountain within themselves. For them to posssess it, they have to go with it when it goes "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life". Otherwise they would no longer possess it & be lost.

And what do the Scriptures in John's gospel (which Origen is commenting on & quoting) say about this fountain of LIVING (not inanimate) waters inside of all true believers in Jesus:

John 4:10
Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee LIVING water.

John 4:14
yet whoever may be drinking of the water which I shall be giving him, shall under no circumstances be thirsting for the EON, but the water which I shall be giving him will become in him a SPRING of water, WELLING up into LIFE EONian.

John 7:37
If anyone should be thirsting, let him COME TO ME and DRINK."

John 7:38-39
"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of LIVING water.'" But this He spoke of the SPIRIT, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the SPIRIT was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

(60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.[3] Pg. 80
Origen is quoting another writer who says of "eternal life" "never perishes,"'remains,""not taken away" and "is not consumed" And Origen never disagrees with this statement..

(1) Origen, in 3:19 speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life".

(2) Even the words of Heracleon do not speak of aionios life, but of life that is (a) aionios and (b) never perishes, etc.. IOW it pertains to (a) an aion(eon/age) or multiple eons & (b) never perishes. If (a) meant eternal, then (b) would be superfluous, therefore useless info. Therefore (a) is finite. Which supports what Origen already said in 3:19.

So if aionios meant eternal there, to add "and never perishes" would be redundant, hence pointless.

Origen speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life". Clearly the translation "eternal" is wrong & the word for it, AIONIOS, is of finite duration. Compare Mt.25:46 where the same word is deceptively translated by KJV & its HellFire Boys Club clones as "eternal" or "everlasting".


Could most modern translations be in error?

 

[JSRG]

You asked re the OP "what the context of any of this is".

I replied:

"I posted two rather long posts. How much "context" is needed? An entire book?"

Did you answer that?

I also said to you:

"Didn't the title of the OP & the OP itself make any sense to you?"

Did you answer that?

Most people don't even read an OP half that long. (Did you read both my long posts?). And you're asking for - more - info? Why? Is there not enough yet for you to get the jist of it? And respond to any points you might be interested in discussing? Yet so far you haven't addressed any point concerning the OP.

All I wanted to know was where the stuff you're quoting from and responding to was taken from. That's it.

 

[ClementofA]

One or two examples of obvious hyperbole does not determine the meaning of a word.

Merely stating they are "obvious hyperbole" does not make them so & you have provided no - zilch, nada, none - evidence or reason in support of your claim. Neither did you provide a single lexicon or scholar or commentary or amateur forum opinion in support of your claim. In fact all of your amateur "pet aion/ios-olam-ad hyperbole theories" that you claim as truths are likewise totally bereft of any scholarly support from you. Even though i have been asking you for years & you have been studying scripture for decades, you can't come up with any such support for your theories. Scholars don't agree with your views. Years ago you were going to contact some scholarly type you know re your theories. How did that go?

For example the Greek word "kosmos" means "world"

Not according to BDAG which you often quote here & speak of as if it is practically a papal authority. BDAG lists at least 7 other meanings for KOSMOS.

Secondly, it does not follow that because one word is used in scripture in hyperbole that another word is used in hyperbole. In referencing "kosmos" you're not providing any evidence re aion/ios, olam or ad that they are used in hyperbole. Apples & oranges.

Thirdly, shouldn't you be following your own rule: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”. The plain sense of the meaning & definition of aion in Mt.24:3 is that it means "eon" or "age". That's how lexicons and scholars understand it. That's how Bibles translate it. That is one of the meanings of the word. And they don't call hyperbole. It's called context determines meaning. The meaning of aion in Mt.24:3 is not eternal. Instead it regards a period of indefinite finite duration, e.g. an eon or age.

but it is used a number of times to refer to something that is not, cannot be, the entire planet.

[1]Matthew 16:26
(26) What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? [Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25]​

Can a person literally inherit the "whole world?"

[2]1 John 5:19
(19) We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.​

Was "the whole world" literally under the control of the evil one?

[3]Revelation 12:9
(9) The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.​

Did Satan literally lead "the whole world" astray?

[4]Revelation 13:3
(3) One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.​

Did "the whole world" literally follow the beast?

[5]Genesis 41:57 And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere.​

Did "all the world" literally buy grain from Egypt?

[6]Acts 17:6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here,​

Did the disciples literally cause trouble "all over the world?"

[7]Acts 19:35 The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Fellow Ephesians, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven?​

Did "all the world" literally know that Ephesus was the guardian of the pagan deity Artemis?

[8]Acts 24:5 "We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.​

Was Paul literally stirring up riots "all over the world?"

[9]Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.​

Did Caesar literally tax "all the world?"

Which proves nothing.

If we use UR reasoning we must conclude that "kosmos" never means the entire planet.

That's like saying: if we use Infernalist reasoning we should lock up those who disagree with us & inquisition style torture them as we imagine our leader will do for eternity.

If you are going to address my posts & comments it would be better if you addressed actual comments i've made rather than alleged stuff from others that has neither been quoted by you or shown to even exist or have any relevancy to my views.

 

[ClementofA]

All I wanted to know was where the stuff you're quoting from and responding to was taken from. That's it.

And again i ask, why? Because you're interested in reading a book on the subject? Or the equivalent of hundreds of emails? Or thousands of posts? Or you're an author looking to write an article in a publication?

 

[JSRG]

And again i ask, why? Because you're interested in reading a book on the subject? Or the equivalent of hundreds of emails? Or thousands of posts? Or you're an author looking to write an article in a publication?

Because it's useful to know, if someone is providing and responding to quotes, where those quotes are actually from.

If you don't want to share that information, I wish you had just said that in the first place.

 

[ClementofA]

Because it's useful to know, if someone is providing and responding to quotes, where those quotes are actually from.

That's questionable & I'm not sharing that info. If you have any interest in this topic at all, why not contribute something, even one sentence, to the extensive material already posted? It's been up for 2 weeks already.