• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Universalism...why not?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by surrender1, Jun 1, 2017.

  1. God doesn't want all men to be saved.

    4 vote(s)
    8.2%
  2. God can't do what he wants to do.

    2 vote(s)
    4.1%
  3. Neither, God will continue to work on unrepentant souls because his love & patience are unending.

    40 vote(s)
    81.6%
  4. Don't know...never thought about this before.

    3 vote(s)
    6.1%
  1. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,193
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private

    That statement proves you don't comprehend what is required to prove something false. After you've taken a number of university courses on the subject you might realize this. You throw the word "proof" around so loosely.

    That statement is simply false. Also, who in their right mind denies that the Bible uses hyperbole? I can't recall anyone ever saying that.

    If you had ever studied logic at the university level you'ld know it is illogical and contradicts itself.

    Why would God want to rely on hyperbole for a subject so important as man's final destiny? Why would God leave people guessing on this subject whether or not He was speaking hyperbolically or not? Why not speak plainly as is His general rule throughout the Scriptures? Of course that is what He would do regarding final destiny. So that in itself disproves your hyperbolic theory re olam, aion & aionios.

    If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach
    "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". If Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words ad, olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.


    Where do they say anything supporting your hyperbolic theory re olam, aion, & aionios? It is commonly acknowledged that Scripture sometimes uses hyperbole. So what? What is your point?


    How does that statement apply to the subject at hand? You think orthodox groups are not often guilty of the same charge?

    Who said they are irrelevant? OTOH blindly believing them without any reason or any critical thinking like they are some kind of infallible leader or pontiff is contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures which say "Prove all things" etc.

    2 Tim.2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

    Not irrelevant. They indicate a different opinion than your TWOT. One that many would consider far superior to whoever wrote those few uncritical paragraphs on the subject of AD (Strongs 5703) in TWOT. Such a brief uncritical comment on the topic as provided by TWOT would never satisfy higher education standards that the writer knew what he was talking about, or being objective, or considering other viewpoints, if he was even aware of any, e.g. the LXX translators. A truly scholarly work on the subject would be far more detailed. The TWOT tiny piece would get a great big F, as in fail, in any academic institution worth anything.
     
  2. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,498
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    I have proved conclusively several times from BAGD, BDB, TWOT, Spiros Zodhiates that aionios/aion means eternal/eternity and that "ad" and "olam" also mean eternity/eternal.
    I have posted the quotes and links more than once and this is the first time you have acknowledged that hyperbole is used in the Bible. Now that you have acknowledged that, show me definitive evidence that olam, ad, aionios, aion are never used hyperbolically?

    You made the accusation that something was self contradictory the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

    Wrong again. Usual unsupported Uni. argument. Jesus used hyperbole many times. Was Peter actually a stone or satan when Jesus called him that? There were actual stones and a literal satan but Peter was not literally either one. Was Herod literally a fox when Jesus called him that? There were actual foxes but Herod was not one. Were James and John literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that? There was actual thunder but it was not the father of James and John. Did someone literally have a beam in his eye? Did someone actually swallow a camel? Did God use hyperbole? Are the descendants of Abraham as numerous as the grains of sand or the stars in the sky?

    The answer is "obvious" to someone who is only interested in proving UR. As I have shown from these passages.

    2 Corinthians 4:17-18
    (17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
    (18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.[ /indent]
    In vs. 17 Paul contrasts "for a moment" with "aionios." "Ages" is not the opposite of "momentary,"'eternal" is. In vs. 18 Paul contrasts "temporal" things with "aionios." "Ages" is not the opposite of "temporal,""eternal" is. Origen quotes this passages thirteen (13) times.
    2 Corinthians 5:1
    (1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
    In this vs. Paul contrasts an earthly house which "is destroyed" with an eternal house in heaven. "Ages" is not the opposite of "is destroyed" "not destroyed" i.e. eternal is.
    1 Timothy 1:17
    (17) Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.[/quote]
    In this vs. "aionios" is in apposition with "immortal." "Ages" is not the same as immortal. "Eternal" is.
    Romans 2:7
    (7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
    In this vs. "aionios" is in apposition with "immortality." "Ages' is not the same as "immortality," "eternal" is.
    Not sometimes, many times. According to Tents-я-us there are about 200 different figures of speech in the Bible. Tents-я-us
    doesn't because to do so would contradict their UR beliefs. But see above about hyperbole in the OT.

    That is the type of argument I might expect on a primary school playground. "Well they did it too!"

    Have you "proved all things" that you copy/paste from Tents-я-us? Or do you believe everything they say, without question, simply because it supports your biases, assumptions/presuppositions? I certainly have not seen you show that you have "proved all things."
    But you do not do that, most of what you post is copy/pasted from Tents-я-us.


    This is absurd to the infinite. Someone who does not read Hebrew, knows nothing about Hebrew grammar criticizing a major Hebrew reference work used by virtually all theological seminaries only because it disproves UR. Here is a review of TWOT.

    More than 1400 articles written by 43 Old Testament scholars, plus some 400 sub-entries giving definitions only
    This extensive, scholarly work includes discussions of every Hebrew word of theological significance in the Old Testament, plus brief definitions of all other words found in Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. Keyed to Strong's Concordance, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) has been a longtime favorite of serious students of the Bible -pastors and laypeople alike. There are more than 1,400 articles written by 43 Old Testament scholars, plus some 400 sub-entries giving definitions only. The articles focus on theological meanings and importance and do not include lengthy, technical, linguistic discussions. Virtually exhaustive bibliographies of published material relating to the words discussed are also included, in addition to a special section of Aramaic words used in the Old Testament.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  3. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,193
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private


    Irrelevant since nothing there concerns final destiny as per my point:

    Why would God want to rely on hyperbole for a subject so important as man's final destiny? Why would God leave people guessing on this subject whether or not He was speaking hyperbolically or not? Why not speak plainly as is His general rule throughout the Scriptures? Of course that is what He would do regarding final destiny. So that in itself disproves your hyperbolic theory re olam, aion & aionios.




    None of these passages proves that aionios always means eternal in every context. Context determines meaning. In fact i cited a dozen non universalist lexicons and sources, including several you have posted yourself, that said the word is used of (or means) limited duration, age long & similarly. So your argument is with them. So your passages are irrelevant to what i stated:

    If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach
    "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". If Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words ad, olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.


    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that TWOT is opposed by Bible translations, the LXX, other lexicons, early Church Father universalists and the early church accepted Greek OT. As i have demonstrated & can show other examples of.

    Neither does it take being a Hebrew scholar to see what was lacking in the TWOT article re AD[1703], which i already detailed & the points given were not addressed.


    That sounds more like an advertisement for book sales than a critical review. It is like the Pope giving a thumbs up for Roman Catholicism. Show me some real reviews, that include negative criticisms of TWOT. From people who don't consider sources like TWOT or their pastor a substitute infallible Pontiff.

    How many scholars worked on the piece on AD[5703]? One? Two? What was the motivation to write what was written? Greed, fame, position, money? Of course someone who knows Hebrew can write what he knows are the wrong things for ulterior motives. How would you know? Should you therefore blindly trust them just because they are allegedly scholars?

    Does being a Hebrew scholar necessarily mean he has the right understanding of a word in a certain context? What if his best guess is wrong because he lacks understanding of Bible doctrine, or historical context, or the Holy Spirit's teaching? What if other scholars disagree with him?

    Who would you have followed in Jesus' day? Jesus, or the scholars of the day, i.e. the Scribes, Sad-You-Sees and Pharisees?

    1 Jn.2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

    1 Cor.2:13 And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

    1 Cor.2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

    Acts 4:43 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

    1 Thess.5:21 but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.

    2 Tim.2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

    Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind And makes flesh his strength, And whose heart turns away from the LORD.…Jer 17:5
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
  4. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,498
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Did or did not God say multiple times that Abraham's descendants would be as numerous as the sands of the sea and the stars of the heavens? Look around are Abraham's descendants as numerous as the sands of the sea and the stars of the heavens? Or is that hyperbole?
    .....When God used hyperbole it was to emphasize the point He was trying to teach the Israelites because they were a people who used hyperbole extensively. And OBTW I got that last bit of information from tents-я-us their two articles on hyperbole.
    They most certainly do. Like it or not, argue until the cows come home but eighteen (18) of the verses I posted prove beyond any doubt that "ad" and "olam" have the inherent meaning "eternal,""everlasting" etc. If "ad"and "olam" did not inherently mean "eternal,""everlasting" etc. they could not be used in apposition with "immortal,""never die,""shall not be abolished" etc.

    .....Can you show me anywhere "ad"and/or "olam"are ever used in apposition with any words which means a finite period of time? Only that will prove that the words inherently mean a finite period of time. Otherwise "ad" and "olam" are used hyperbolically. Just like we westerners use "forever" hyperbolically e.g. "I had to wait at the Dr's office forever." The word still means "forever"' although I used it hyperbolically for a period of an hour or so.
    Meaningless bloviation. If you are going to talk about Philo quote his work directly. Second hand quotes are meaningless. "This guy said this, that guy said that and some other guy said something else.".


    Versions are irrelevant! Anybody can write something up and call it a Bible translation. The JWs have their own "version," NWT. Mormons have their own "version," JST. And guess what their "versions" support their false religions. What other lexicons? You have not quoted any! What ECF Universalists? The only one I see mentioned is Origen and I have shown that his writings are contradictory.
    Irrelevant. You have made no rational, cogent argument.

    Like you consider tents-я-us and "Hope Beyond Hell" substitute infallible pontiffs? If you think TWOT is faulty then the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence such as critical reviews, etc. Until you do that anything you say about TWOT or any source I quote is meaningless graffiti.

    How many scholars worked on the book "Hope Beyond Hell" you have quoted and linked to multiple times? How many scholars worked on the book by Aleria Ramelli you have quoted multiple times? How many scholars are contributors at tents-я-us which you have quoted and linked to multiple times? You continue to demand from me what you have not and evidently are incapable of providing yourself.

    The rest of your post is just more of the same kind of specious, vacuous argumentation.
     
  5. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,193
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private

    Irrelevant since nothing there concerns final destiny as per my point:

    Why would God want to rely on hyperbole for a subject so important as man's final destiny? Why would God leave people guessing on this subject whether or not He was speaking hyperbolically or not? Why not speak plainly as is His general rule throughout the Scriptures? Of course that is what He would do regarding final destiny. So that in itself disproves your hyperbolic theory re olam, aion & aionios.

    If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". If Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words ad, olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.




    If i say "in the coming age Christians will have immortality" does that prove the word "age" means eternal in this context? Does it prove the word "age" means eternal in every context in everything ever written and spoken? No & no. The coming age could refer to the millennial kingdom of Christ. Yet isn't that exactly the type of reasoning you're using re your verses? Just because the words aionios and immortality occur in the same sentence does not prove they both speak of endlessness. Why would the author repeat the same idea twice in one sentence? That would be redundant. Arguably the use of them together like that could just as easily be offered as evidence that they are not of the same duration. What you need is what you don't have, Scripture that says aionios always means endless or no end or AIDIOS(eternal) or APEIRON (unlimited).


    I expect that i can. But for now i'll give you something else. Jesus Himself spoke of aionios life in the aion to come (Lk.18:30; Mk.10:30). Arguably this limits aionios life to one finite eon, since Scripture speaks of multiple aions/eons/ages to come (Eph.2:7, Rev.11:15, etc). So the verse you quoted, Rom.2:7, that uses aionios & immortality in the same sentence, does not prove aionios means eternal there, let alone that it means eternal in every context that ever existed.


    There's no point referencing Philo, since you'ld call that "meaningless blovation" as well. Deal with the Scriptures i've already given you first.



    Then you should stop quoting JPS which you think is such a great version. It seems to be your favorite. BTW, in a post to you the other day i quoted JPS to show how JPS opposed the TWOT lexicon.

    Snip, as you put it, "Meaningless bloviation".

     
  6. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,498
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Everything I post is in reference to the topic of this thread. Since you have no expertise in Greek you are not qualified to judge or critique any arguments on Greek.<period> This is like someone with no medical training arguing with a brain surgeon because he read something contradictory on some random website.
    Not only do you assume yourself to be qualified to pass judgment on TWOT, Zodhiates, BGAD etc. now you assume that you can speak for God what He would or would not have said. Again my question did or did not God say several times that Abraham's descendants would be as numerous as the sands of the sea and the stars of the heavens? No excuses, no equivocation, just answer the question yes or no. We can look around the world and see, Abraham's descendants are not literally as numerous as the sands of the seas and the stars of the heavens. Did God lie or was that hyperbole? Don't give me a lot of bloviation. Lie or hyperbole?
    This entire argument can be answered with two vss.
    "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Matthew 13:13"
    "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:" Matthew 13:34
    Repeating the same quote from tents-я-us does not make it any more valid than the first time. With no, zero, none qualifications in koine Greek you presume to know which words a NT writer should/should not have used. There goes that amateur trying to correct a brain surgeon again.
    .....What is needed for this argument is a study by someone with some letters after their name, e.g. ThD, PhD, who has researched and taught Greek for a decade or three, then the argument might be valid.

    Irrelevant! We are not discussing Americans speaking English and American idioms. What would a first century Jew or Christian have understood? You got one guy "Origen" who URs claim was a universalist but I have shown that his writings are not consistent. What did the majority understand? Have you ever actually read any of the ECF. The ECF are online at more than one website and searchable. Everything I have posted re: the ECF I have personally researched in the ECF writings. I have two searchable electronic copies of the ECF.
    Yes it does prove that "Olam" and "Ad" had the inherent meaning of eternal, eternity, everlasting etc. Do you know what "inherent" means? Why don't you use the same method I did and show where anyone in either testament uses "Olam, Ad, Aion, Aionios" in apposition with any word which means a finite period of time. The answer is no you can't, all you have done so far is copy/paste from tents-я-us.
    What you think something "could refer to" is irrelevant.
    I have been using a word which you evidently do not know or understand “apposition.” You really should look that word up and learn what it means. Here is an example of apposition.
    Philippians 3;20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
    The words “Savior”and ”Lord” are in apposition with and both refer to Jesus Christ. And here from a Greek grammar, a book which I bought a few years ago just for occasions like this. .
    III. Nominative in Simple Apposition
    The nominative case (as well as the other cases) can be an appositive to another substantive in the same case. The usage is quite common. There are four features of simple apposition to be noted (the first two are structural clues; the last two features are semantic): An appositional construction inz’olz’es (1) two adjacent substantives (2)in the same case (40) (3) which refer to the same person or thing, (4) and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause.
    The first substantive can belong to any category (e.g., subject, Predicate nom., etc.) and the second is merely a clarification, description, or identification of who or what is mentioned.(41) Thus, the appositive “piggy-backs” on the first nominative’s use, as it were. For this reason simple apposition is not an independent syntactical category.
    The appositive functions very much like a PN in a convertible proposition that is, it refers to the same thing as the first noun.(42) The difference, however, is that a PN makes an assertion about the S (an equative verb is either stated or implied); with appositives there is assumption, not assertion (no verb is in mind). In the sentence “Paul is an apostle,” apostle is a PN; in the sentence, “Paul the apostle is in prison,” apostle is in apposition to Paul.
    (40)The nom. occasionally is in apposition to an oblique case, but the semantics are the same. See discussion below.
    (41) An appositive, strictly speaking, is substantival, not adjectival. Thus, adjectives or Participles in second attributive position are not generally appositives, but usually hate an adjectival force.
    (42) The significance of this will be seen in our discussion of the gen. case, for the gen can also involve a syntactical category, vi.t., the gen of apposition. The semantics involved in such a category are quite different from those involved in simple apposition.
    With proper names typically the first noun is anarthrous and the appositional noun is articular.
    Matt 3:1 παραγινεται ιωαννης ο βαπτιστης κηρυσσων

    John the Baptist came Preaching
    Mark 15:4 0 εν αις ην και μαρια η μαγδαληνη

    among them also were Mary the Magdalene...
    Luke 1:24 συνελαβεν ελισαβετ η γυνη αυτου

    Elizabeth his wife conceived
    Rev 1:5 ο μαρτυς ο πιστος ο πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων

    the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead
    Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zonderva, Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Daniel Wallace, pp.48-49
    And here from a Hebrew grammar.
    §131. Apposition.
    131
    a 1. Apposition in the stricter sense is the collocation of two substantives in the same case in order to define more exactly (or to complete) the one by the other, and, as a rule (see, however, below, under g), the former by the latter. Apposition in Hebrew (as in the other Semitic languages[1]) is by no means confined to those cases in which it is used in English or in the classical languages. It is not infrequently found when either the subordination of one substantive to the other or some more circumstantial kind of epexegetical addition would be expected.
    Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/131. Apposition - Wikisource, the free online library
    Amateur arguing with a brain surgeon again.
    Wrong, again! I quoted several verses, not just one.
    You quoted something Philo supposedly said but you have never actually read Philo. You don’t actually know what he said or didn’t say about anything. As usual you c/p from your pet website as if it is a pontiff which must be obeyed.
    But for the fact it was translated by several native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars not an individual Christian “scholar” with Christian biases, assumptions and presuppositions, such as many of the "versions" you cherry pick.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2017
  7. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,193
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private


    What you need is something to disprove what i posted, but have thus far failed to even attempt, probably because you can't, since the argument is foolproof. It is based upon what the best scholars have to say, both universalist & others. And almost the exact argument has been made by many very learned men.




    Yet many scholars disagree with you or do not say anything in support of such a theory, both universalists and others. The rest of your post was full of your own personal opinions, you not being a scholar of any kind, so why not come back when you have something better to offer, or at least up to your own standards. Until then this remains foolproof:

    Why would God want to rely on hyperbole for a subject so important as man's final destiny? Why would God leave people guessing on this subject whether or not He was speaking hyperbolically or not? Why not speak plainly as is His general rule throughout the Scriptures? Of course that is what He would do regarding final destiny. So that in itself disproves your hyperbolic theory re olam, aion & aionios.

    If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". If Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words ad, olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.

    ---------------------------

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

    1 Jn.2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

    "...it doesn't say what most evangelizers of hopelessness want it to say in that regard either."

    "It is false, he maintained, to translate that phrase as "everlasting punishment," introducing into the New Testament the concept found in the Islamic Quran that God is going to torture the wicked forever."

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





     
  8. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,498
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    The same old repetition "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" Nothing you have posted proves anything. If it is not your unsupported opinion, then it is the unsupported opinion of the unis at tents-я-us.
    . Speculating what God would or would not do is not evidence it is opinion. Another scholarly lexicon for you to ignore.

    67.95 eis to dienekes eis ton aiona or eis tous aionas or the more elaborate expressions eis emeras aionos; eis emeran aios; eis pantastous aionas; eis tov aiona tou aionos/ton aionon; eis tous aionas ton aionon; eis to panteles” unlimited duration of time, with particular focus upon the future — 'always, forever, forever and ever, eternally.’
    eis aiona to dienekes: menei iereus eis to dienekes to ‘he remains a priest forever’ He 7.3.
    eis to aiona (and related forms): eis aiona teteretai ‘has been reserved forever’ Jd 13; 0 Xristos menei eis ton aiona ‘the Messiah will remain forever’ Jn 12.34; o estin doxa kai to kratos eis tous aionas ton aionon 'to him be long the glory and the power forever and ever I Pc 4.11; auto e doxa…eis pasas tas geneas aionos ton aionon’ ‘to him be the glory …. for all ages forever and ever’ Eph 3.21. See also Lk 1:33; 2 Pe 3.18; Jd 25; He 1.8. The more elaborate expressions employing aion are somewhat more emphatic in meaning and are to be found especially in the solemn style of doxologies.
    eis to panteles aozein eis to panteles ‘he is able to save forever’ He 7.25. For another interpretation of panteles in He 7.25, see 78.47.
    67.96 aiodios, on, aionios, on: pertaining to an unlimited duration of time - ‘eternal.’
    aiodios: e te aidios autou dunamis kai theiotes 'his eternal power and divine nature' Ro 1.20. aionos blethenai eis to pur to aionion‘ be thrown into the eternal fire’ Mt 18.8; tou aioniou theou ‘of the eternal God' Ro 16.26.
    The most frequent use of aionios in the NT is with Zoe 'life,' for example, ‘so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life' Jn 3.15. In combination with there is evidently nor only a temporal element, but also a qualitative distinction. In such contexts, aionios evidently carries certain implications associated with aionios in relationship to divine and supernatural attributes. If one translates 'eternal life' as simply 'never dying,' there may be serious misunderstandings, since persons may assume that 'never dying' refers only to physical existence rather than to ‘spiritual death.’ Accordingly, some translators have rendered 'eternal life’ as ‘unending real life,’ so as to introduce a qualitative distinction.
    Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on the Semantic Domains., UBS, New York, Louw and Nida, 1989
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2017
  9. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,498
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Is that a fact?
    Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
    Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
    1 Timothy 1:17
    (17) Now unto the King eternal, (1) immortal,(2) invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever (1) and ever (1). Amen.
    (1) αἰών/aion (2) ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos
    In this verse aion is in apposition, see def. below with “immortal.” If “aion” means “age(s)” a finite period, God cannot be for “a finite period” and “immortal” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
    Romans 2:7
    (7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,(2) eternal (1) life:
    “Aion” is in apposition with “immortality.” If “aiion” means a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
    2 Corinthians 4:17-18
    (17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal (1) weight of glory;
    (18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;(3) but the things which are not seen are eternal.(1)
    (3) πρόσκαιρος/proskairos
    Here “aion” is contrasted with “for a moment” vs. 4 and “temporal” vs. 5. “Aion” cannot mean “age(s)” a finite period. “Age(s)” is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is.
    2 Corinthians 5:1
    (1)For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal (1) in the heavens.
    Here “aion house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” An “aion” house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” “Aion” means “eternal.”
    Hebrews 7:24
    (24) But this man, because he continueth ever,(1) hath an unchangeable (4) priesthood.
    (4) ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos
    Here “unchangeable” is in apposition with “aion.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Melchizadek cannot be “for a finite period” and “unchangeable” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
    1 Peter 1:23
    (23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, (2) by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.(1)
    Here “incorruptible” is in apposition with “aion.” The seed of God cannot be “incorruptible” and only for “age(s)” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
    The definition of “apposition” from a Greek grammar.

    III. Nominative in Simple Apposition
    The nominative case (as well as the other cases) can be an appositive to another substantive in the same case. The usage is quite common. There are four features of simple apposition to be noted (the first two are structural clues; the last two features are semantic): An appositional construction inz’olz’es (1) two adjacent substantives (2)in the same case (40) (3) which refer to the same person or thing, (4) and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause.
    The first substantive can belong to any category (e.g., subject, Predicate nom., etc.) and the second is merely a clarification, description, or identification of who or what is mentioned.(41) Thus, the appositive “piggy-backs” on the first nominative’s use, as it were. For this reason simple apposition is not an independent syntactical category.
    The appositive functions very much like a PN in a convertible proposition that is, it refers to the same thing as the first noun.(42) The difference, however, is that a PN makes an assertion about the S (an equative verb is either stated or implied); with appositives there is assumption, not assertion (no verb is in mind). In the sentence “Paul is an apostle,” apostle is a PN; in the sentence, “Paul the apostle is in prison,” apostle is in apposition to Paul.
    (40)The nom. occasionally is in apposition to an oblique case, but the semantics are the same. See discussion below.
    (41) An appositive, strictly speaking, is substantival, not adjectival. Thus, adjectives or Participles in second attributive position are not generally appositives, but usually hate an adjectival force.
    (42) The significance of this will be seen in our discussion of the gen. case, for the gen can also involve a syntactical category, vi.t., the gen of apposition. The semantics involved in such a category are quite different from those involved in simple apposition.
    With proper names typically the first noun is anarthrous and the appositional noun is articular.
    Matt 3:1 παραγινεται ιωαννης ο βαπτιστης κηρυσσων

    John the Baptist came Preaching
    Mark 15:4 0 εν αις ην και μαρια η μαγδαληνη

    among them also were Mary the Magdalene...
    Luke 1:24 συνελαβεν ελισαβετ η γυνη αυτου

    Elizabeth his wife conceived
    Rev 1:5 ο μαρτυς ο πιστος ο πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων

    the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead
    Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Daniel Wallace, pp.48-49
     
  10. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,193
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Speaking of lexicons:

    "Behind them lies a tradition dating back to the sixteenth century, whose characteristics are not well known. Besides giving a history of this tradition, A History of New Testament Lexicography demonstrates its less satisfactory features, notably its dependence on predecessors, the influence of translations, and its methodological shortcomings. John A. L. Lee not only criticizes the existing tradition..."

    "The Author: John A. L. Lee recently retired from the University of Sydney, Australia, where he taught Classical and Koine Greek for thirty years in the Classics Department. His main publication was A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (1983), a standard work on the language of the Septuagint. He is now affiliated with Macquarie University, where he continues to work with G. H. R. Horsley on A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels, a book to update and replace Moulton and Milligan’s classic Vocabulary of the Greek Testament."

    "...Part 1 is a fascinating historical tour, replete with photographs of ancient lexicons Lee unearthed. Lee managed to process a massive amount of information--the contents of dozens of lexicons in various languages--by wisely selective reading. He describes the character of these works in order to build a convincing narrative about them. The themes of that narrative, I'd say, are two: 1) the gloss method of definition is deficient, and 2) every lexicon necessarily builds off of others: beware!"

    "...Lee does a very good job detailing the history of the lexica. He outlines both the things that the lexicographers have done well and also the shortcomings."

    "...Once they understand the Latin-German-English evolution behind our English lexicons, perhaps that knowledge will encourage translators of Greek to do word studies and not blindly follow fallible lexicons..."

    Amazon.com: A History of New Testament Lexicography (Studies in Biblical Greek) (9780820434803): John A. L. Lee: Books
     
  11. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,193
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Yes, it is. As i said:

    If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity.

    Your comment above does not put that into question.

    If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". If Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words ad, olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.

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

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +10,909
    Anabaptist
    Since this is in a thread about a heresy,
    the answer may not at all "seem obvious".
     
  13. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,193
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    This is from the Calvinist Matt Slick who knows Greek and disagrees with you:

    "The Greek word that is translated into eternal is [​IMG]"aionion." It comes from the Greek root "aion" meaning "age." This fact combined with the various uses of Greek words derived from the root "aion," are what the universalists use to attempt to show that "aionion" does not always mean "eternal" but can refer to a finite period of time.

    "The truth is, they are right. It can be translated into a temporal sense as it is in Rom. 16:25: "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages (aionios1) past." But the reason it is translated that way is because of context, and that is extremely important. Context determines meaning, as you will see later.

    "With the claim that "aionion" can be translated into something temporal and that its root means "age," the universalist then says that any reference to "eternal fire," "eternal torment," or "eternal punishment" is not really eternal. Instead of "eternal torment," it is "aionion torment." Instead of "eternal punishment," it is "aionion punishment." That way, to the universalist, there is no eternal hell, no eternal punishment, and no eternal damnation. Everyone will be saved."

    Amen.
     
  14. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,498
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Do you have a point? Merely quoting something different, is irrelevant without any scholarship to support why "A" is wrong and "B" is correct. "Once they understand the Latin-German-English evolution behind our English lexicons, perhaps that knowledge will encourage translators of Greek to do word studies and not blindly follow fallible lexicons" or blindly accept everything as true that a retired Australian professor who marches to a different drummer, says. See how that works?
    ETA: Reading through your post again something leaped out at me. The first sentence in the 3rd paragraph. "Lee managed to process a massive amount of information--the contents of dozens of lexicons in various languages--by wisely selective reading." By "selective" reading anyone, can make any writing, say almost anything they want it to. Notice, below, how selectively quoting Matt Slick's article made it appear to say the opposite of what he intended? This apparently is the standard practice among URs.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  15. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,498
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Same ol' repetitious copy/paste from tents-я-us which does not prove anything except that you place infinite trust in everything at that website and you know how to copy/paste. But you have not shown any independent research and study.
     
  16. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,498
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Unfortunately while you were busy copy/pasting, the quote was somehow deceptively truncated which concealed the full meaning of Matt's article. Here Matt refers to the "lexical root fallacy" which assumes/insists that a word always only has the meaning of the root word. Which is like saying "understand" means to stand under something.
    "This approach by the Universalists can be confusing to someone who doesn't understand Greek, and that is part of the reason that Universalism has followers. It is true that the root "aion" means age. But just because a root means age does not mean that every word derived from that root means a limited duration of time. For example, consider this verse that is speaking about God:
    "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen," (1 Tim. 6:16)
    The context is obviously dealing with God's eternal nature. The word in Greek for "immortality" is "athanatos." The Greek word for death is "thanatos." The "a" in front of the word is the negator -- without, non, etc. It means that God is deathless; hence, immortal. This is an eternal quality of God. Likewise, the verse states that God has eternal dominion. The word for "eternal" is "αἰώνιος/aionios" which is derived from the Greek root "αἰών/aion" which means age. But, God is not immortal for only an "age," nor is His dominion temporal. The word "eternal" is absolutely the best way to translate the Greek "αἰώνιον"/"aionion" because God is immortal and eternal. Therefore, it would be wrong to translate the verse by stating that God has "αἰώνιον"/"aionion" dominion. Rather, He has eternal dominion."

    A look at the word "aionion" | carm


     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  17. SBC

    SBC Well-Known Member

    +575
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Is this Universalism? That Universalists believe God DOES "work on a mans soul" "to force and to make the mans soul do what God wants"?

    Why? Can you FORCE an other to Love you? And if you could, how is that genuine Love?


    Thing is; God DOES do what He wants. He wanted to and DOES; give a natural born living man the whole extent of his earthly living existence to have freewill for the man to choose to love God, believe in God, become reconciled unto God; OR NOT.

    Of course God desires that every man will love Him and reconcile unto Him ~ But God doesn't Force the man and make up the mans own choices for the man.

    No, that is not the case. In fact what IS the case IS; God is very patient. A mans choice to reconcile unto God is during a mans WHOLE life time as he is living upon the earth; or NOT. The mans choice.

    No, that is not the case. In fact what IS the case IS: The Word of God teaches a an UNFAITHFUL man HOW TO become reconciled unto God. It is the mans choice to remain ignorant or seek and find out How to become reconciled unto God.

    The HOW TO; has nothing to do with a mans minds thoughts, a mans souls thoughts and is specifically the thoughts of the mans HEART. Everything that SHALL affect a mans body, soul, spirit is solely dependent upon what the UNFAITHFUL Man Himself believes in his heart, chooses to do with those thoughts, ie stand with God or stand against God.

    That is mans FREEWILL.

    You are advocating ~ Gods Way and requirements are not acceptable to you.
    You are advocating ~ IF God loved all men, He would FORCE all men to Love Him, so that He could accept them.

    That is nonsense.

    God Himself has decided that men themselves shall have freewill to make their OWN choices.

    God Himself has decided the benefits, outcome, consequences for what men freely choose.

    You are advocating ~ that's not fair, that's not just.

    Seriously? Who exactly SHOULD be responsible for, rewarded for, benefited for, punished for, accepted for, rejected for.....Their OWN CHOICES?

    Should you be rewarded, By God, for rejecting God? Why?

    Should God CHANGE His Word, to accommodate and remedy your complaints against How He designed His own creations? Why?

    All men are born in sin. They do have a time frame of living upon this earth. And within that time frame, IT IS their own freewill and choices that will determine what becomes of their souls.

    How exactly do you think DEAD bodies can submit unto the Lord, to save their souls?

    Please enlighten us to the Universalists Way of belief. Because so far what you have presented is simply a Complaint against Gods design.
    To which I find arrogant for the created to dictate to the Creator.

    Neither. Your argument is without grounds or standing.

    God DID what He wanted. He created. He provides. He gives MAN freewill to become reconciled to Him. He gives MAN freewill to NOT become reconciled to Him.
    He did NOT WANT to make the choice FOR His creations.
    He DESIRES all living men upon the earth to freely choose to become reconciled to Him. And He accepts their decision to NOT choose Him. God accepts the mans choice.

    You seem to be advocating against Gods design, that you want God to make a mans choice for Him, but you can clear that up, if I have misunderstood you.

    God Bless.
    SBC
     
  18. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,193
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    If what i posted were a copy paste from someone else's remarks on a website, the words i posted would have been in quotes.

    And when i do quote others the quotes are seldom from the Tentmaker website. [As is evident by the urls i give showing where the quotes come from, if an online source is available.] Is that what your reference to "tents-R-us" refers to, the Tentmaker website?
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  19. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,193
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private

    How many lexicons can you quote that support this theory? Or speak of the hyperbolic use of AD, OLAM, AION & AIONIOS? Or their "inherent" solitary meaning being "eternal"? I can quote quite a few that make no mention whatsoever of such a theory & say things in opposition to it. I already quoted Matt Slick who said context determines meaning & said nothing of aionios "inherent" meaning. He admitted the word in context can mean finite duration.

    http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  20. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +3,498
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    All this while you ignore the big pink elephant in the room the fact that the way you selectively quoted Matt Slick making it appear that he meant something he definitely did not mean. On top of that I have no knowledge what if any his qualifications in Greek are. The fact that he operates a Christian website does not mean he has any more qualifications than the guy who picks up my trash on Tuesdays.
    .....I have proved from several quotes from the NT that aionios has the inherent meaning eternal, everlasting etc. where aionios is equated with immortal, unchangeable, incorruptible etc. The word could not be equated with those words if it always meant a finite age or ages. And I cannot find where aionios is ever equated with a finite period. Usage does not always dictate meaning. For example the word "cool" does not cease to mean "low temperature" because some people use it to mean "socially acceptable."
     
Loading...