• 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.

Featured Universalist Understanding?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Greg J., Oct 8, 2018.

  1. Shempster

    Shempster ImJustMe Supporter

    +770
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I have a question....
    First, let me say that I am not into disputes, arguing, debating, etc. I am a curious chap, though.
    So I just noticed your info under your screen name. It says you are Baptist. Can I ask, how much influence from Augustine and John Calvin do your responses contain?
     
  2. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private

    If it were absurd why do you even bother to respond to it. If aionion meant "eternal" and so does "never perishes", then the author is saying the life is "eternal and eternal", a useless redundancy.


    The author speaks of "the first life". What is that? According to the translation you posted it "remains" & "perishes", while according to this translation it is "lasting" and "perishable", so by the word "remains" is not meant, as you implied, something eternal:

    "The words “shall never thirst again” mean that his life is eternal and never perishes as does the first (life) which the well provides, but rather is lasting. For the Grace and gift of our Savior cannot be taken away, and is not consumed or destroyed in the one who partakes of it. The first life is perishable." Heracleon - Commentary on the Gospel of John

    Compare the translation you posted, to which i've added Heracleon's words in [61]:

    "(6o) And he has explained the statement, But “he shall not thirst forever:” as follows with these very words: for the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it. (61)...the first life perishes..." ("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.82).


    At first the author describes the life itself, not the life of the believer. He says the life is "eternal and never perishes". (BTW what is the Greek word there for "eternal"?). Then the author (not Origen) speaks of the "grace and gift" received by the believer which is "not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it." That is a separate subject from the duration of the life itself. The author states re the believer's "gift":

    1. It is "not taken away"...So it can't be stolen by anyone & God won't remove it
    2. It is "not consumed"...So fire can't burn it, it isn't used up like food that is consumed.
    3. It "does not perish"...So it won't rot away like a dead body that perishes.

    Heracleon was not Paul, & i've read nothing suggesting he was a Jew. Also where does Paul ever speak of "aionion and never perishes" as meaning "eternal and eternal" as a kind of silly pointless redundancy? Nothing you've said denies the plain meaning of Origen's words:

    (19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life. (Book 13:19)

    ("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, 1993, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.81-82).

    So Origen even makes so-called "eternal life" ("eonian life" in literal translations) finite when he speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life.

    Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by pages 10-11 of: Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika

    Likewise Origen believed the phrase "eons of the eons", which is equivalent to aionion in the Scriptures (compare Mt.25:41 to Rev.20:10), is finite:

    "Origen, the greatest exegete of the early Church, was well aware of the polysemy of aión and its adjectival forms. In Hom. in Ex. 6.13 he writes: “Whenever Scripture says, ‘from aeon to aeon,’ the reference is to an interval of time, and it is clear that it will have an end. And if Scripture says, ‘in another aeon,’ what is indicated is clearly a longer time, and yet an end is still fixed. And when the ‘aeons of the aeons’ are mentioned, a certain limit is again posited, perhaps unknown to us, but surely established by God” (quoted in Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, p. 161)." Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope

    Origen on Exodus 6:13: "And as often as "the ages of the ages" is mentioned some termination is indicated, although perhaps unknown to us, nevertheless established by God" (The Father of the Church: Origen Homilies On Genesis and Exodus, Translated by Ronald E. Heine, 1982, First Paperback Reprint 2002, p.298-299).

    So Origen says "eons of the eons" has a limit & "will have an end". That is the same phrase used in Revelation of Christ's & the saints' reign, Satan's torments, smoke ascending, etc, to/into "the eons of the eons".

    12 points re forever and ever (literally to/into "the ages of the ages") being finite:

    For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
     
  3. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Define verses? What does that even mean?

    As for the word, i already gave you the page number.

    75 UR verses + 100 proofs + 150 reasons etc:
    Web Online Help
     
  4. Pneuma3

    Pneuma3 Well-Known Member

    +379
    Christian
    Ya I noticed that also, seems BDAG is only the best authority when it suites his belief but when it does not he rejects it. Probably believed no one here had a copy of BDAG to counter him.
     
  5. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,611
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Paul: is universalist

    [FYI: for the Gospels I’m using a chart from McLaren’s “The Last Word …”]

    Matthew: eternal punishment seems clear; he has a lot more passages about judgement than the other Gospels. When you consider the OT context of his descriptions, they could indicate destruction rather than eternal conscious torment. (E.g. the worm that never dies was originally consuming dead bodies, not tormenting live enemies.)

    Mark: Nor many explicit descriptions of judgement, and what’s there uses a variety of forms: never forgiven (blasphemy against Holy Spirit), destroyed in hell (but passage is obvious hyperbole), killed, punished more severely than others

    Luke: more about judgement than Mark, but still nowhere close Matthew. Again, a variety of descriptions: brought down (rulers), God is kind to them, house falls, lose life, can kill you and send you to hell, beaten with more blows, thrown into prison, cut down (tree), banish with weeping and gnashing of teeth, miss banquet, miss party, sent to hades, killed

    When you consider that many of these references are in parable about trees, rulers, etc, i.e. non-literal, I don’t think Mark and Luke teach anything beyond some kind of punishment in the afterlife.

    With evidence like this, it’s not surprising that we have several views. People who think the Biblical authors all agree with each other, of course, have to coerce them all into saying the same thing. Personally I’m not prepared to go beyond saying that we will be held accountable. I hope that everyone or almost everyone (perhaps with the exception of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) will be saved, and I think there’s some basis for it in Paul, but I don't think we can say that it’s obviously true.

    I do think that when you consider the OT context, the reasonable alternatives are universalism or destruction of some people. I don't see eternal conscious torment in the NT, and I don't see how anyone could worship a God who did that (except for self-protection, which might be a rational reaction).
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  6. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,611
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Just realized that my summary of Mark 3:28, never forgiven, is badly misleading. What the passage actually says is that every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven except for the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Matthew's parallel is similar. Not surprisingly, interpreters differ over whether this says that every sin except that one can be forgiven or will always be forgiven. It says will, not can, but Greek isn't symbolic logic, so I think it's ambiguous.
     
  7. Pneuma3

    Pneuma3 Well-Known Member

    +379
    Christian
    What I have noticed is many of the scriptures people use in reference to the afterlife actaully do not speak of the afterlife but about the here and now.

    Example:the enter in at the strait gate scriptures.
     
  8. Lazarus Short

    Lazarus Short Well-Known Member

    +851
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Many of the verses about destruction and the like, as well.
     
  9. Der Alter

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

    +2,455
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Unless something either one wrote happens to line up with what I believe I would say zero influence. I am not a Calvinist. I believe John 3:16. I have never read Augustine. I do remember one of my professors Dr Timothy George emphasizing his name is pronounced "aw gus tin" not "ow gus teen."
     
  10. Der Alter

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

    +2,455
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    I was trying to find out if you know what you are talking about. You don't! Just the usual second hand copy/paste. All you quoted was part of a verse, not the word it referenced.
    That ain't the way it works amigo. You quote something you quote enough that the source can be verified. I'd like to see someone submit a paper, in college or grad school, and tell his professor "As for the word, i already gave you the page number."
     
  11. Pneuma3

    Pneuma3 Well-Known Member

    +379
    Christian
    :clap:
     
  12. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Reference works are typically identified with title, author & page number, as i did. If you have the book i referred to & know Greek, why can't you find the word in question within a matter of seconds? Even an English only reader could find it in seconds using the quote i gave:

    Why didn't you quote BDAG as you often do, or any scholars to support you? Do you only post BDAG when it supports your opinions? Do you believe "world" is less than all human beings in John 1:29; 3:17; 4:42, & other universalist passages? Here is what
    BDAG says re "world" & some other words related to universalism passages:

    BDAG says re Col.1:20:

    "...found only in Christian writers...reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20..." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd edition, 2000, p.112).

    Co.1:16 For by Him ***ALL*** was created that are in HEAVEN and that are on EARTH, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
    All was created through Him and for Him.
    20 and by Him to reconcile ***ALL*** to Himself, by Him, whether on EARTH or in HEAVEN, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

    This states the purpose of Love Omnipotent's - divine will - in sending His Son:

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

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

    The IVA also occurs in Phil.2:9-11:

    Phil.2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (NASB)

    What is the "world" in Jn.1:29; 3:17, 4:42 according to BDAG? According to BDAG by "world" in such verses is meant "humanity in general". Jesus Himself would be the only exception:

    The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (Jn.1:29)
    They said to the woman, "We now believe not only because of your words; we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man truly is the Savior of the world. (Jn.4:42)
    For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world would be saved through Him. (Jn.3:17)

    And BDAG again, re Rom.5:18, is quoted in this commentary:

    "Paul declares, however, that the effects of Christ's obedience are far greater for mankind than the effect of Adam's fall. For the third (5:15) and fourth (5:17) times in this chapter he makes explicit use of the 'qal wahomer' ("from minor to major") form of argument that is commonly used in rabbinic literature, expressed by "much more"...cf. earlier use at 5:9,10...And as in the case of the typology previously used (5:14), here, too, the form of the argument is antithetical. The grace of God extended to humanity in the event of Christ's death has abounded "for the many" (5:15b), which corresponds to the "all" of 5:12,18. The free gift given by God in Christ more than matches the sin of Adam and its effects; it exceeds it..."

    "Contrasts are also seen in the results of the work of each. Adam's trespass or disobedience has brought condemnation (κατάκριμα, 5:18); through his act many were made sinners (5:19). Christ's "act of righteousness" results in "justification of life" (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) for all (5:18). The term δικαίωσιν can be translated as "justification" (NIV, NRSV; but RSV has "acquittal") - the opposite of "condemnation". The word ζωῆς ("of life") is a genitive of result, providing the outcome of justification, so that the phrase may be rendered "justification resulting in life". 108

    108. BDAG 250 (δικαίωσιν): "acquittal that brings life". The construction is variously called a "genitive of apposition", an "epexegetical genitive" or "genitive of purpose". Cf. BDF 92 (S166). The meaning is the same in each case: justification which brings life."

    "The universality of grace in Christ is shown to surpass the universality of sin. Christ's "act of righteousness" is the opposite of Adam's "tresspass" and equivalent to Christ's
    "obedience", which was fulfilled in his being obedient unto death (Phil 2:8). The results of Christ's righteous action and obedience are "justification resulting in life for all persons"...5:18...and "righteousness" for "many" (5:19). The term "many" in 5:19 is equivalent to "all persons", and that is so for four reasons: (1) the parallel in 5:18 speaks in its favor; (2) even as within 5:19 itself, "many were made sinners" applies to all mankind, so "many will be made righteous" applies to all; (3) the same parallelism appears in 5:15, at which "many" refers to "all"; and (4) the phrase "for many" is a Semitism which means "all", as in Deutero-Isaiah 52:14; 53:11-12; Mark...10:45; 14:24; Heb.12:15. The background for Paul's expression is set forth in Deutero-Isaiah, where it is said that "the righteous one"...the Lord's servant, shall make "many" to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their sins ...Isa.53:11..."

    "It is significant, and even astounding, that justification is here said to be world-embracing. Nothing is said about faith as a prerequisite for justification to be effective, nor about faith's accepting it."

    (Paul's Letter To The Romans: A Commentary, Arland J. Hultgren, Eerdmans, 2011, 804 pg, p.227, 229)

    Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

    75 UR verses + 100 proofs + 150 reasons etc:
    Web Online Help

    213 Questions Without Answers:
    Questions Without Answers
     
  13. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,611
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I have three commentaries on Romans. All agree that the "many" who are justified is exactly parallel to the many who died in Adam, and that Christ reversed Adam's sin. Yet only one seems to accept the apparent implication, that Paul might be universalist. (One uses the term universalism, but it appears to be in some odd theological sense that doesn't mean all actual people are saved.) One says that Paul was only speaking of Christians, based on the concept that this whole section is just about the the conflict between Paul and Judaizing Christians and isn't intended to have broader theological implications.

    As a poor computer scientist rather than a literary critic it's hard for me to make sense of this. It looks to me like two of the three are simply unwilling to draw the conclusion implied by their understanding of the text.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  14. Der Alter

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

    +2,455
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    So that the unwary and unwitting are not deceived by your cherry picked out-of-context and flat out wrong citations of scripture and other sources.

    You are twisting the words of Origen. I learned to read English when FDR was president and I have studied and written at the university and graduate level. I do not need to be told what English words mean especially who cannot or will quote his own sources correctly. I also read 4 other languages beside English

    Once again trying to instruct me in what English words really mean.

    <Clem>Compare the translation you posted, to which i've added Heracleon's words in [61]:
    "(6o) And he has explained the statement, But “he shall not thirst forever:” as follows with these very words: for the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it. (61)...the first life perishes..." ("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.82).
    At first the author describes the life itself, not the life of the believer. He says the life is "eternal and never perishes". (BTW what is the Greek word there for "eternal"?). Then the author (not Origen) speaks of the "grace and gift" received by the believer which is "not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it." That is a separate subject from the duration of the life itself. The author states re the believer's "gift":<end>

    Rubbish! Do you even have a clue what you are talking about? By referring to "the life itself, not the life of the believer" are you trying to say that the writer is talking about some kind of "life," floating around, all by itself, separate from anyone or anything? Unless there is a person who is not dead, there is no life.

    "the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it."
    If the word that Origen used "αἰώνιον " does not, cannot mean eternal how does adding "never perishes" to it make it mean "eternal?" If "aionion" can only mean age then this sentence must read "the life which comes from the well is age long and never perishes." Does that make any sense?
    Once again I do not require instruction in what English words mean.

    "the life which comes ... from the well is eternal and never perishes, ...the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish , when one partakes of it."
    Despite all your verbal shenanigans this clearly says that the "aionion" life never perishes and remains.
    .....Now what do the words "not taken away nor is it consumed nor does it perish" refer to? You appear to claim that they do not refer to eternal life but some vague "grace and gift" which has not been previously mentioned. But you evidently do not know what that means. What is the last verb which occurs before the words "grace and gift?" "Gives" in "the life He gives." Which is followed immediately by "For the grace and the gift of our Savior..." "For" must refer back to something, what does it refer to? It refers to "The life He gives." The grace is the giving and the gift is life. And that life "is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish."

    I have found it to be very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. Go back and read what I actually said. I was explaining a characteristic of writing common at that time and using Paul as an example.
    None of this refutes what Origen said in The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32" (60) which I quoted.
    Complete rubbish! Nobody but the high priestess of UR, Ilaria Rammelli and her minions believe this. And nothing here changes anything Origen said in Commentary on the Gospel of John (60). What this does is make Origen unreliable as a source since he apparently contradicts himself on the meaning of aionion.
     
  15. Pneuma3

    Pneuma3 Well-Known Member

    +379
    Christian
    This from the guy who does not know that crap is slang for nonsense. and you expect us to believe this?
     
  16. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I posted:

    The author speaks of "the first life". What is that? According to the translation you posted it "remains" & "perishes", while according to this translation it is "lasting" and "perishable", so by the word "remains" is not meant, as you implied, something eternal:

    "The words “shall never thirst again” mean that his life is eternal and never perishes as does the first (life) which the well provides, but rather is lasting. For the Grace and gift of our Savior cannot be taken away, and is not consumed or destroyed in the one who partakes of it. The first life is perishable." Heracleon - Commentary on the Gospel of John

    Compare the translation you posted, to which i've added Heracleon's words in [61]:

    "(6o) And he has explained the statement, But “he shall not thirst forever:” as follows with these very words: for the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it. (61)...the first life perishes..." ("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.82).

    At first the author describes the life itself, not the life of the believer. He says the life is "eternal and never perishes". (BTW what is the Greek word there for "eternal"?). Then the author (not Origen) speaks of the "grace and gift" received by the believer which is "not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it." That is a separate subject from the duration of the life itself. The author states re the believer's "gift":

    1. It is "not taken away"...So it can't be stolen by anyone & God won't remove it
    2. It is "not consumed"...So fire can't burn it, it isn't used up like food that is consumed.
    3. It "does not perish"...So it won't rot away like a dead body that perishes.



    An empty, unsupported & false accusation.


    My post made no mention of what you speak of. As you can see from the following quote of the words of Heracleon by Origen, "the life...comes from the well":


    I'll leave your speculations, questions & confusion to you to figure out.


    There's no mention of "aionion life" there, let alone that it never perishes. The quote does, however, speak of "life". If aionion meant "eternal" and so does "never perishes", then the author is saying the life is "eternal and eternal", a useless redundancy.

    Is there a point to all that verbiage?

    I posted:

    Heracleon was not Paul, & i've read nothing suggesting he was a Jew. Also where does Paul ever speak of "aionion and never perishes" as meaning "eternal and eternal" as a kind of silly pointless redundancy? Nothing you've said denies the plain meaning of Origen's words:

    (19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life. (Book 13:19)

    ("The Fathers of the Church: Origen Commentary On the Gospel of John Books 13-32", Translated by Ronald E. Heine, 1993, First Paperback Reprint 2006, p.81-82).

    So Origen even makes so-called "eternal life" ("eonian life" in literal translations) finite when he speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life.

    Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by pages 10-11 of: Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika

    Likewise Origen believed the phrase "eons of the eons", which is equivalent to aionion in the Scriptures (compare Mt.25:41 to Rev.20:10), is finite:

    "Origen, the greatest exegete of the early Church, was well aware of the polysemy of aión and its adjectival forms. In Hom. in Ex. 6.13 he writes: “Whenever Scripture says, ‘from aeon to aeon,’ the reference is to an interval of time, and it is clear that it will have an end. And if Scripture says, ‘in another aeon,’ what is indicated is clearly a longer time, and yet an end is still fixed. And when the ‘aeons of the aeons’ are mentioned, a certain limit is again posited, perhaps unknown to us, but surely established by God” (quoted in Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, p. 161)." Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope

    Origen on Exodus 6:13: "And as often as "the ages of the ages" is mentioned some termination is indicated, although perhaps unknown to us, nevertheless established by God" (The Father of the Church: Origen Homilies On Genesis and Exodus, Translated by Ronald E. Heine, 1982, First Paperback Reprint 2002, p.298-299).

    So Origen says "eons of the eons" has a limit & "will have an end". That is the same phrase used in Revelation of Christ's & the saints' reign, Satan's torments, smoke ascending, etc, to/into "the eons of the eons".

    12 points re forever and ever (literally to/into "the ages of the ages") being finite:

    For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:



    I don't see the relevance of your comment. There is no "emphatic word is twice repeated. Lit., exceedingly unto excess" here in 13:60 of Origen's Commentary on John.




    Origen's remarks re "after aionion life" and "beyond aionion life" in 13:19 are perfectly harmonious with those of Heracleon in 13:60. You've provided no proof otherwise.


    If BDAG thought Origen unreliable as a source, why does BDAG cite Origen regarding both aion and aionion? Evidently BDAG thinks you are wrong & that Origen is reliable as a source. According to you BDAG is wrong. Who should i believe, Der Alter or BDAG?

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

    Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

    Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism
     
  17. Der Alter

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

    +2,455
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Copy/pasting some vague reference to Origen and BDAG is meaningless unless you can quote exactly how BDAG cites Origen. Here is what I believe you cannot show me how BDAG cites Origen and/or how it relates to this topic. To what purpose is your reposting the same post I already addressed? Do you think multiple repetitions of misquotes and misrepresentations somehow makes your copy/pastes correct?
    I addressed all your arguments it is not my problem if you cannot understand my post.
     
  18. Der Alter

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

    +2,455
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    You seem to be the one who does not know what you are talking about. CF staff did not think cr*p is slang for nonsense. Neither did Merriam-Webster which I quoted. Your objections are once again meaningless.
     
  19. Pneuma3

    Pneuma3 Well-Known Member

    +379
    Christian
    LOL here is your quote

    For someone who puts himself out there as the wise old owl of the bunch you really have a hard time with English words.

    and now you look twice as bad because not only do you keep saying crap is not slang for nonsense, you post a dictionary meaning showing that it is slang for nonsense, showing you either did not read the whole dictionary meaning, so missed it or you are to proud to admit you made a mistake which everyone is now witness to.

    As to the CF they, probably like you, were unaware of the usage of crap being slang for nonsense.

    They are probably now aware and I have not been censored since for using it that way, probably because they now know you were in the wrong for complaining that I called what you wrote crap which was the same thing you said of when you called what I wrote was nonsense.

    Your stubbornness on this issue is not doing you any favors DA, like I said at the beginning when this all took place and I pointed out to they meant the same thing you should have just said sorry I was unaware of that, but like the song says sorry seem to be the hardest word to say.
     
  20. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private


    Nah, it's clear BDAG opposes you & implies you are wrong:

    If BDAG thought Origen unreliable as a source, why does BDAG cite Origen regarding both aion and aionion? Evidently BDAG thinks you are wrong & that Origen is reliable as a source. According to you BDAG is wrong. Who should i believe, Der Alter or BDAG?

    Irrelevant to my point.

    Wrong. It wasn't the same post.

    Erroneous false allegations.

    Your argument was refuted.
     
Loading...