Universalism...why not?

[Uber Genius]

Well.....as it's been repeated throughout this thread, "The 3rd Law of Theology: For every theologian there is an equal and opposite theologian." (I think the credit goes to GordonHooker for that line).

So there is nothing to learn from theology? Hmm is there anything to learn given that view on any subject?

Self-destructive to all knowledge! As every field, even math from time to time has dissenters.

There is a way to present your case as a minority inference (possibly the case) but as soon as we see references to hell predate your account by 800 years or more you have to explain that data. Not punt with some general statement suggesting the data was manufactured or others disagree.

But it does sound clever though and that is always worth a "Like" out here despite its self-refuting nature.

 

[ClementofA]

Why not think God's Judgement is what is producing a very different afterlife? Since we have a plethera of OT and NT data to that effect, and 2000 years of denominations around the globe thinking that God's judgement results in both holding people in a place of torment and then a more permanent judgement why add the inference that it is perspectival only? Eastern Orthodox?

Since the Scriptures teach universalism, early church creeds made no mention of the myth of everlasting punishment, & when universalism was finally rejected in the 500's A.D., a millenium of dark ages, Inquisitions, Crusades & burning of "heretics" & their writings followed, what should one believe?

"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."

"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.

I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.

It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.

Certainly, “there was a diversity of views in the early church on the scope of final salvation.” Tertullian, for instance, did not embrace apokatastasis. But my monograph is not on patristic eschatology or soteriology in general, but specifically on the doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others."

The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In
http://tsj.sagepub.com/content/76/4/827.extract

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory

 

[mkgal1]

So there is nothing to learn from theology? Hmm is there anything to learn given that view on any subject?

That's not what I wrote (nor what I wrote even implies).

 

[Uber Genius]

You may want to do some reading on the development of the theology of hell. It wasn't developed until about the 5th century

Here are some specific passages that predate Christ.

In the Apocrypha, we ind the author of Sirach noting, ‘It is easy for the Lord on the day of death to reward individuals according to their conduct’ (Sir. 11.26), and for Tobit, the (righteous) spirit is released to an eternal home (in a positive sense, 3.6). First Enoch 1–36 (second century BCE) is perhaps the earliest text within Judaism that provides an expression of the concept of explicit divisions within Sheol for the righteous and the wicked.43 The author asserts, ‘You, souls of the righteous . . . Be not sad that your souls have gone down into Sheol in sorrow’, for there is the promise of restoration (1 En. 102.4f.). This is further accentuated in the Wisdom of Solomon (irst century BCE), ‘The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God . . . they are at peace . . . their hope is full of immortality . . . they will govern nations and rule over peoples . . . the Lord will reign over them forever . . . they will stand with conidence [and] will receive a glorious crown’ (Wis. 3.1, 7; 5.1, 15). For the wicked, however, their spirits will wander about in torments (4 Ezra 7.80-99). For them, ‘there will be no resurrection to life!’ (2 Macc. 7.14). Elsewhere, Pseudo-Philo (irst century CE) even quotes God himself to conirm the same, ‘At the end of the lot of each one of you will be life eternal, for you and your seed, and I will take your souls and store them in peace until the time allotted the world be complete’ (LAB 22.13). So, all souls are held in Hades until the day of judgment, and the souls of the righteous are kept in what are called ‘chambers’, where they are guarded by angels, and where they rejoice that they have now escaped what is mortal. If 1 Enoch, cited above, notes that the soul of the righteous goes down into Sheol, other texts speak of the righteous soul rising upward to heaven. The doctrine of the Essenes afirms that when they are set free from the bonds of the lesh they then rejoice and mount upward (1QM 2.155). In the Apocalypse of Adam and Eve, the soul of Adam is taken up to heaven (13.3-6, 37ff.). The same is said of Abraham in the Testament of Abraham, and Job in the Testament of Job. Interestingly, these (and other) texts omit entirely the descent into Sheol, and note that the righteous soul ascends immediately into heavenly paradise (although whether such a purview is simply temporal compression, that is, omitting mention of the intermediate stage of a descent into Sheol, or actually rejecting it altogether, is difficult to ascertain)."

Now given that it only took a few minutes to find these references why would we expect Sweeney to call hell a myth and invented. Or can anyone suggest that there wasn't the idea of a conscious waiting place where the righteous were separated from the unrighteous while awaiting final judgement hundreds of years before Jesus was born?

So Sweeney's point would be that the torturous aspects that are referred to in Dante's Inferno are of late development and not part of NT Thought. But if that is the case why use them to support your point that the entire concept of hell didn't arise until the 5th century C.E.?

 

[ClementofA]

"Within Second Temple Judaism, Sheol is transformed into a place of differentiation: the souls of the righteous depart to a place of blessing, the wicked to a place of torment. For the New Testament writers, this concept remains, but the soul is now conjoined to the physical body, and in the later post-apostolic period there is accentuated terror for the wicked in vivid descriptions of the eternal fires of hell."

So while no one is denying that the view of hell developed through the middle ages and beyond, it clearly didn't originate in the 5th century C.E. as your "research," suggests.

Perhaps the reference to "denominations" was referring to Christian history, not all history from the beginning of time, as you seem to have assumed.

Of course the Sad-you-sees of Jesus' time didn't believe in any mythical hell or an afterlife of any kind, for anyone.

As for the Pharisees:

"Jesus warned His disciples to “watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees,” which was their false teaching (Matt. 16:6,12)."

The Pharisees taught everlasting punishment.

"Not giving heed to Jewish myths, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14). Jesus said re the Pharisees: "...in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mt.15:8-9)

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Tim.3:16)

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

 

[Uber Genius]

The 3rd Law of Theology: For every theologian there is an equal and opposite theologian."

This was your reply to my list of scholarship demonstrating your claim to be false.

So is it a non-sequitur?

Since it was a reply to my evidence I quite natural took it as countering my evidence. No other argument was offered.

If it was a counter then it is self-destructive to knowledge and you just haven't figured it out yet.

If it was a non-sequitur then well...Blue is my favorite color.

 

[Uber Genius]

Since the Scriptures teach universalism

LOL.

On what planet?

No creedal support for that statement in 1700 years.

Please defend that claim. By assuming the thing you are proving we end up in a circular argument, which is fallacious.

So this may be the root of your problem with Hell.

 

[ClementofA]

No creedal support for that statement in 1700 years.

Why would i care if the antichrist sword ruling harlot of Babylon didn't give creedal support to universalism through the dark ages of Inquisitions, Crusades & burning of opposers & their writings?

Do you actually consider that evidence against universalism?

In the more enlightened free times of history universalism has had more advocates.

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

"I'm reminded of the movie Ben Hur. When Ben Hur encountered Jesus at the cross, he comes away and says "I felt him take the sword out of my hand." "

 

[ClementofA]

Why call it "loving" or "patient" to force someone who hates God to be with God for eternity?

The comment you replied to made no mention of such. Instead it said:

"If my child became a wayward soul, as any loving parent I would do everything I could to woo him back to a healthy and restorative place. I would never give up on him. I would put no time limits on my love and patience towards him."

Will God force you to be with God for eternity? Or give you the free will to reject Him anytime in the next billion years or more?

If every free will choice has a 50% chance of going either way, would it be mathematically possible for anyone to reject God forever?

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

 

[mkgal1]

Now lets here from some scholars:

......oh, I will refrain from commenting on that.

Now did you want to chime in?

Nope, I don't wish to engage when the "rules of the game" are obviously more of a combat match than a discussion.

I arrived at my belief (AM arriving) based on seeing different responses to toxic behavior. The mainstream churches I've witnessed first-hand were appeased if the person simply showed up to church (usually in some leadership capacity), paid their tithe, and worded their prayers correctly (meanwhile their family was suffering).

OTOH..... I learned about programs like Pawsitive Change, Homeboy Industries, and Pups Behind Bars......all of which RESTORED people.

If transforming love looks that way before our eyes (lived out by humans!).......how much better when we are in God's glory/fire with death/sin not corrupting things? To me.....what's important is that we know a teaching by it's fruit (didn't Jesus and Paul instruct us in that way?).

 

[Hillsage]

This was your reply to my list of scholarship demonstrating your claim to be false.

So is it a non-sequitur?

I love it when fundamentalists speak in tongues.

I learned so many 'smart theologian' words upon first coming here. Words I'd never heard in my prior 30+ years prior, as a Christian. Amazing I ever figured out how to walk as a Spirit led believer in Christ.

No need for a response BTW.

 

[Der Alte]

Who claimed that?
Congratulations.

The posts which insist e.g. that the word "olam" as used by Jonah in Jon 2:1 cannot mean eternal because Jonah was rescued therefore it must mean the same thing in all or most other uses.
.....We will just ignore the fact that Jonah believed that he was at death's door, he would have been highly agitated, virtually in a panic. Would a person in that state be thinking coherently and logically?

JPS Jonah 2:1
(1) (2:2) Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly. * * *
Jonah 2:6
(6) (2:7) I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars closed upon me for ever; [עולם] yet hast Thou brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God.​

Examples in the OT where עולם/Olam clearly means eternal, unending, everlasting as translated by native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society.

JPS Exodus 3:15
(15) And God said moreover unto Moses: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name for ever, [עולם] and this is My memorial unto all generations.
JPS Exodus 15:18
(18) The LORD shall reign for ever [עולם] and ever.[עד]
JPS Isaiah 45:17
(17) O Israel, that art saved by the LORD with an everlasting [עולם] salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world [עולם] without end.[עד]
Micah 4:7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a mighty nation; and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from thenceforth even for ever. [ועד־עולם]​

As for your comment "Congratulations" do you seriously think that one 4 word out-of-context quote out of nine references which cover 9 typed pages disproves everything else on the nine pages? Does that same rationale apply to all your evidence, or does it only apply to sources which disprove all the Uni arguments here??

​

 

[Der Alte]

Perhaps the reference to "denominations" was referring to Christian history, not all history from the beginning of time, as you seem to have assumed.
Of course the Sad-you-sees of Jesus' time didn't believe in any mythical hell or an afterlife of any kind, for anyone.
As for the Pharisees:
"Jesus warned His disciples to “watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees,” which was their false teaching (Matt. 16:6,12)."
The Pharisees taught everlasting punishment.
"Not giving heed to Jewish myths, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14). Jesus said re the Pharisees: "...in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mt.15:8-9)
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Tim.3:16)

Three out-of-context proof texts which do not specifically address anything under discussion in any of the universalism threads. Please let me know if you find any verse which specifically addresses any scriptural/historical evidence I have posted? All of your proof texts can refer to the teaching of universalism just as much if not more than to "eternal punishment."

 

[Der Alte]

You may want to do some reading on the development of the theology of hell. It wasn't developed until about the 5th century (and not all denominations--or individuals-- bought into it)....

Several links to modern 20th-21st century books and not one single historical reference. Here is some of my reading. Long before the 5th century among the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus was a belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom.

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);​

Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT the alleged bias of Christian translators.

(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [ שׁאול /Sheol]] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link:Jewish Encyclopedia Online
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [follower of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link:Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

When Jesus taught about,

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

These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned the existing Jewish view of eternal hell. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

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

Jesus used the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He wanted to say eternal death in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it had nothing to do with punishment and was permanent. When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” they would not have understood it as death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Jesus knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, when Jesus taught about man’s eternal fate, such as eternal punishment, He would have corrected them. Jesus did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell must have been correct.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1922-56], 4:2:1030). Also a more recent author holds a similar view (Lloyd R. Bailey, "Gehenna: The Topography of Hell," Biblical Archeologist 49 [1986]: 189.
Source, Bibliotheca Sacra / July–September 1992
Scharen: Gehenna in the Synoptics Pt. 1​

Note there is no “archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, [that Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump] in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources” If Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump there should be broken pottery, tools, utensils, bones, etc. but there is no such evidence.

“Gehenna is presented as diametrically opposed to ‘life’: it is better to enter life than to go to Gehenna. . .It is common practice, both in scholarly and less technical works, to associate the description of Gehenna with the supposedly contemporary garbage dump in the valley of Hinnom. This association often leads scholars to emphasize the destructive aspects of the judgment here depicted: fire burns until the object is completely consumed. Two particular problems may be noted in connection with this approach. First, there is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery rubbish dump in this location (in any case, a thorough investigation would be appreciated). Secondly, the significant background to this passage more probably lies in Jesus’ allusion to Isaiah 66:24.”
(“The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The Reader Must Understand edited by K. Brower and M. W. Ellion, p. 223, emphasis mine)
G. R. Beasley-Murray in Jesus and the Kingdom of God:
“Ge-Hinnom (Aramaic Ge-hinnam, hence the Greek Geenna), ‘The Valley of Hinnom,’ lay south of Jerusalem, immediately outside its walls. The notion, still referred to by some commentators, that the city’s rubbish was burned in this valley, has no further basis than a statement by the Jewish scholar Kimchi (sic) made about A.D. 1200; it is not attested in any ancient source.” (p. 376n.92)
The Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna is a myth - Archaeology, Biblical History & Textual Criticism ​

 

[Der Alte]

Why would i care if the antichrist sword ruling harlot of Babylon didn't give creedal support to universalism through the dark ages of Inquisitions, Crusades & burning of opposers & their writings?...

Logical fallacy, ad hominem. Make a few insulting, disparaging comments about something/someone with no, zero, none evidence. Can you prove any of this diatribe?

 

[ClementofA]

​

The posts which insist e.g. that the word "olam" as used by Jonah in Jon 2:1 cannot mean eternal because Jonah was rescued therefore it must mean the same thing in all or most other uses.
.....We will just ignore the fact that Jonah believed that he was at death's door, he would have been highly agitated, virtually in a panic. Would a person in that state be thinking coherently and logically?

JPS Jonah 2:1
(1) (2:2) Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly. * * *
Jonah 2:6
(6) (2:7) I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars closed upon me for ever; [עולם] yet hast Thou brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God.​

​

Of significance to the thread topic is the uses of OLAM in Daniel 12:2-3:

The context supports the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), while v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".

2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life
and these to reproach for eonian repulsion." 3 The intelligent shall warn as the warning
of the atmosphere, and those justifying many are as the stars for the eon and further."
(Dan.12:2-3, CLOT)

The Hebrew word for eonian (v.2) & eon (v.3) above is OLAM which is used of limited durations in the OT. In verse 3 of Daniel 12 are the words "OLAM and further" showing an example of its finite duration in the very next words after Daniel 12:2. Thus, in context, the OLAM occurences in v.2 should both be understood as being of finite duration.

Compare v.3:

l·oulm u·od
for·eon and·futurity

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan12.pdf

OJB Hashem shall reign l’olam va’ed.
Yahweh shall rule to the eon and beyond (Exo 15:18)
Universal Version Bible The Torah By William Petr

Habbukah 3:6:

JPS Tanakh 1917
He standeth, and shaketh the earth, He beholdeth, and maketh the nations to tremble; And the everlasting[olam] mountains are dashed in pieces, The ancient[olam] hills do bow; His goings are as of old[olam].

Young's Literal Translation
He hath stood, and He measureth earth, He hath seen, and He shaketh off nations, And scatter themselves do mountains of antiquity, Bowed have the hills of old, The ways of old are His.

CLV
He stands and is measuring the earth; he sees and is letting loose the nations. And the mountain ranges of futurity are scattering; the eonian hills bow down; his goings are eonian.

Daniel 12:2:

Young's Literal Translation
'And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life
age-during, and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during. (Dan.12:2)

Rotherham
and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, [shall be] to age-
abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence; (Dan.12:2)

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

 

[ClementofA]

​

When Jesus taught about,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
​

The vast majority of learned sources agree the word aionios, & the noun, aion, can refer to a duration which is of a limited time period that has an end. The real issue here, then, is whether or not the word means a limited time period in the context of Matthew 25:31-46 in regards to punishment. That is something that should be a matter of serious study rather than assumptions based on what my pastor or bible study group assumes to be the case.

Considering the Greek word kolasis ("punishment", Mt.25:46, KJV) can refer to a corrective punishment, that should tell the reader of Matthew 25:46 what the possible duration of aionios ("everlasting", KJV) is & that it may refer to a finite punishment. Why? Because since it is corrective, it is with the purpose of bringing the person corrected to salvation. Oncce saved the person no longer has need of such a punishment & it ends. So it isn't "everlasting". [Or if it "everlasting", it is only everlasting in its positive effect]. Therefore this passage could just as easily support universalism as anything else.

From a review of a book by Ilaria Ramelli, namely The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp):

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology


"...in a passage in Origen in which he speaks of “life after aionios life” (160). As a native speaker of Greek he does not see a contradiction in such phrasing; that is because aionios life does not mean “unending, eternal life,” but rather “life of the next age.” Likewise the Bible uses the word kolasis to describe the punishment of the age to come. Aristotle distinguished kolasis from timoria, the latter referring to punishment inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” On the other hand, kolasis refers to correction, it “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer” (quoted at 32). Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament, since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology


"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases.5 However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers. For example, when aionios referred to the duration of Jonah’s entrapment in the fish, it was limited to three days. To a slave, aionios referred to his life span. To the Aaronic priesthood, it referred to the generation preceding the Melchizedek priesthood. To Solomon’s temple, it referred to 400 years. To God it encompasses and transcends time altogether."

"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated. It is similar to what “tall” is to height. The size of a tall building can be 300 feet, a tall man six feet, and a tall dog three feet. Black Beauty was a great horse, Abraham Lincoln a great man, and Yahweh the GREAT God. Though God is called “great,” the word “great” is neither eternal nor divine. The horse is still a horse. An adjective relates to the noun it modifies. In relation to God, “great” becomes GREAT only because of who and what God is. This silences the contention that aion must always mean forever because it modifies God. God is described as the God of Israel and the God of Abraham. This does not mean He is not the God of Gentiles, or the God of you and me. Though He is called the God of the “ages,” He nonetheless remains the God who transcends the ages."

"In addition, Augustine’s reasoning does not hold up in light of Ro. 16:25, 26 and Hab. 3:6. Here, in both cases, the same word is used twice—with God and with something temporal. “In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God” (Ro. 16:25, 26 CLT). An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God eternal, but God makes eonian eternal. “And the everlasting mountains were scattered.…His ways are everlasting” (Hab. 3:6). Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God’s ways however, are eternal, because He is eternal."
Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever?

Philo was contemporary with Christ & we have this translation of his words which use the same words Christ used at Mt.25:46:

"It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment [kolasis aiónios] from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of conduct." Philo: Appendix 2: Fragments

In the year 544 A.D. the emperor Justinian wrote a letter:

"It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does not merely say, "We believe in aionion kolasin," for that was just what Origen himself taught. Nor does he say "the word aionion has been misunderstood; it denotes endless duration," as he would have said, had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that abundant language from which to choose, he says: "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked." If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration.
Chapter 21 - Unsuccessful Attempts to Suppress Universalism

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous 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"? The answer seems obvious.

Early Church Father universalists who were Greek scholars & many others of the time did not see Mt.25:46 contradicting their belief:

"The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in the æonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "æonian life," to "the life of the coming æon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself (an Early Church Father universalist) declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?"
Another Aionios Thread - These Things Go On Forever


"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" "

Chapter Nine

As regards the fate of the Jewish people, early in the gospel of Saint Matthew Jesus' word does correct them re the false teachings of endless torments and annihilation, as follows:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.

"Isn't it ironic that the passage most often used to support everlasting punishment is in fact one strongly opposing it when accurately understood?" (Tom Talbott, author of "The Inescapable Love of God").

Thomas Talbott - Wikipedia
Thomas Talbott- The Inescapable Love of God - 2nd Edition

 

[Dartman]

Scripture is left up to interpretation (as you've demonstrated)....and HOW we interpret it says more about us than it does the Scripture itself.

Proper interpretation of Scripture removes the preconceived notions of the student from the equation.
The Scriptures command us to cling to the "Jesus" actually preached BY the apostles.... and the "trinity" NEVER .... EVER ... is preached by any teacher in the Bible. The book of Acts records many different sermons by Peter, Steven, Philip and Paul .. and not one single example of doctrines that define the "trinity" being explained to any of the audiences.

No.....I don't believe God is limited to being "up in heaven". God is spirit....and is everywhere.

Psalm 139--'I can never escape from your Spirit! I can never get away from your presence! If I go up to heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, You are there."

..... you realize the verse you quoted explains God's spirit .... It's something God possesses, and it can be aware of EVERYTHING, ANYWHERE.... but the Scriptures explain God VERY differently than the pagan notion of "a spirit". God made humans to look like Him. God walked in the garden of Eden, and on Mount Sinai in front of Moses , talked to Adam and Eve, talked to Israel, and they saw His shape, God is in heaven, will LEAVE heaven as explained in Rev 21, and will dwell on the earth with His son, Jesus of Nazareth, and ALL of His sons and daughters!

It's not apostolic teaching that Jesus isn't divine

Not one apostle, or Jesus himself, claims Jesus is divine. In fact, the word "divine" is only used three times in the KJV New Testament, and one time is about the Law (Heb 9:1), one is about God (2 Peter 1:3), and one is about the believer sharing God's "divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4).

By contrast, Jesus SPECIFICALLY calls his Father, "my God" (John 20:17, Rev 3:12)... and told the Samaritan woman that he, and the other Jews worshiped the true God, and the Samaritan's "worship ye know not what". (John 4)​

 

[Dartman]

If everyone repents, the shame can't be everlasting.

That's quite different from what you originally said:

"Your theory doesn't result in "shame" for anyone!!"

Of course that's different than my statement! I was answering YOUR question about why YOUR post was wrong!!
1) YOU think everyone is going to eventually repent!
2) I pointed out that doesn't work with Scripture, because there are only 2 results of resurrection, either life, or "everlasting shame and contempt". IF your theory is correct, then "everlasting shame and contempt" CANNOT be correct.
I choose to believe the Scriptures, and reject your theory!!

 

[Dartman]

I simply asked a question re Dan.12:2 in your theory of theology: How do those who do not exist have "everlasting shame"?

As i see it, your answer is confusing.

What do the Germans & Hitler have to do with Dan. 12:2?

I will try to clear up your confusion.
Hitler is dead. He is no longer ashamed.
The Germans are not dead. Hitler's actions still bring them shame.
The RESULT of Hitler's actions still produce shame, and contempt.
The RESULT of the wicked's actions is "everlasting shame and contempt".
Dan 12:2 does NOT claim the wicked are EXPERIENCING "shame", nor does it make any
sense they would feel contempt, given the MEANING of "contempt"! It is the SURVIVORS, the immortals that remember the wicked with "everlasting shame and contempt".
Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.