What Does Aionios Mean? (part 2, It is wrong to define aionios based on aion)

[LoveofTruth]

The word "saved" is not in the best MSS & translations:

New American Standard Bible
The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.

No only the saved are going into the city read on a few verses on

And the best manuscripts were used for the KJV and it’s there

“ Revelation 21 - 27. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.”

 

[ClementofA]

No only the saved are going into the city read on a few verses on

You missed my point. I don't dispute that.

All will be saved.

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

 

[LoveofTruth]

You missed my point. I don't dispute that.

All will be saved.

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

after the great white throne judgement there is no other judgement. So the ones who are cast into the lake of fire will not have any more judgement that is final. Where does it saved they will have any more judgement for a second chance to be saved?

also where does it say that God's mercy will be upon those in the lake of fire. We read of his wrath abiding on those who believe not, not his Mercy when in judgement. And verses like his tender mercies are over all His works, is not speaking f those who are under His wrath in hell and the lake of fire.

The man in the fire wanted even a drop of water to cool his thirst and was in torments in the flame.

Jesus also asked some how they shall escape the donation of hell? He didn't say " don't worry you will one day escape the damnation of hell? No he asked how they would escape. If jesus does not see a way for them to escape unless they repent and believe, then they will not escape. How shall any escape if they reject so great a salvation.

 

[ClementofA]

Where does it saved they will have any more judgement for a second chance to be saved?

Even better than that. They WILL be saved (Rom.5:18-19).

also where does it say that God's mercy will be upon those in the lake of fire. We read of his wrath abiding on those who believe not, not his Mercy when in judgement.

Evidently wrath does not rule out salvation:

Because I have sinned against him,
I will bear the LORD’s wrath,
until he pleads my case
and upholds my cause.
He will bring me out into the light;
I will see his righteousness.
(Micah 7:9)

Jesus also asked some how they shall escape the donation of hell?

Yet He never spoke of a torture chamber where anyone is tormented for eternity. Instead He said, love your enemies.

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

 

[LoveofTruth]

Even better than that. They WILL be saved (Rom.5:18-19).

You misunderstood my point it reads, The Great white throne judgement is the finality of things either they are in the book of life or they are not. It says nothing about them being written later in the book of life or of them getting out of the lake of fire or of being judged another time for entrance into the book of life, so as usual, universalism is clearly proven false, consider,

"11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." ( Revelation 20:11-15 KJV)

Evidently wrath does not rule out salvation:

Because I have sinned against him,
I will bear the LORD’s wrath,
until he pleads my case
and upholds my cause.
He will bring me out into the light;
I will see his righteousness.
(Micah 7:9)

Out of context and related to Israel ad those who God judges and if they repent and turn again to the Lord they will brought into the light.

Yet He never spoke of a torture chamber where anyone is tormented for eternity. Instead He said, love your enemies.

Jesus simply said a question to them, How they can escape the donation of hell. He called it damnation , where the fire never is quenched and the worm dies not, and their is wailing and gnashing of teeth etc.

It is His question, "How shall ye escape the damnation of hell" that is the issue. He didn't give them any answer to that. if they denied him and rejected him they would have no hope. This is Jesus saying

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

and so as usual universalism is false and proven wrong. The universalist imply that Jesus is saying the opposite of what he said, they would have him say something like,

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, ye shall escape the damnation of hell one day?"

 

[ClementofA]

It says nothing about them being written later in the book of life or of them getting out of the lake of fire

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."

Paul makes a parallel between "the many" who were condemned & sinners and those who will be justified & constituted just.

“In Romans 5, the justification is co-extensive with the condemnation. Since all share in one, all share in the other. If only a certain portion of the human race had partaken of the sin of Adam, only a certain portion would partake of the justification of Christ. But St. Paul affirms all to have been involved in one, and all to be included in the other.”

Therefore there is salvation after death. And corrective punishment.

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

Jesus shall see of the travail of His soul & be satisfied. Not satisfied a little bit, but the vast majority fried alive forever.

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isa.53:11).

For how "many" (not few) did He "bear their iniquities"? All.

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

 

[LoveofTruth]

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."

Paul makes a parallel between "the many" who were condemned & sinners and those who will be justified & constituted just.

“In Romans 5, the justification is co-extensive with the condemnation. Since all share in one, all share in the other. If only a certain portion of the human race had partaken of the sin of Adam, only a certain portion would partake of the justification of Christ. But St. Paul affirms all to have been involved in one, and all to be included in the other.”

I already addressed Romans 5

"the verse says

"18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."(Romans 5:18 KJV)

You don't understand this verse it speaks of two specifics things and touches on the great mystery.

You can read the expression " by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." I understand two ways this is to be understood and both can be true.

1. "By the righteousness of one", refers to the righteousness of Jesus Christ by his work on the cross purchased the free gift for all. But only those who believe in God's righteousness which is revealed in Jesus Christ and His His work on the cross and resurrection can be "in Christ". And so as in Adam "all die", even so "In Christ" shall "all" be made alive. So only those who here, understand and by faith believe in this sense can be "in Christ" or have the "justification of life". This can refer to believers particularly, not those who willfully sin and do not believe in Jesus Christ. All the unbelievers have to look for when they die is a "fearful looking for of Judgement and fiery indignation" which "shall" devour the adversaries (Heb 10).

2. But this verse can also apply to "infants" who come into the world as well, for Christy died for them also. This "free gift" came upon them unto justification of life as well. Another verse can apply to both groups which is "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."(1 Timothy 4:10)

It is only through the righteousness of one (Jesus Christ) in time and his death for sin burial and resurrection showing forth the righteousness of God), the "free gift" came upon all men unto justification of life. I speak of this free gift coming upon infants here but "all infants" is the point.

This "free gift" I understand to be the "seed that is sown" in the hearts of all men, it is called the "word of God", the "True Light that eightieth every man that cometh into the world" John 1:9. This is "the truth" that men hold in unrighteousness, (Romans 1:18), it is "that which may be known of God manifest in them" (Romans 1:19KJV). It is the "work of the law through Christ truth and Light working in their hearts" ( Romans 2:14,15) given to men to shine in their hearts. This "free gift" of God's seed, Christ., Was purchased for all men through Christ work on the cross in time. This came upon all men, even infants who are born into the world.

When a child enters into the world, Christ died for them as well. They all have""True Light that eightieth every man that cometh into the world" John 1:9". "They are all saved I believe through the righteousness of Christ for their sin and God's grace until they hate the light, then are they condemned as John 3 speaks of.
When they "hate the light" as all will do (John 3, Romans 7:9). This is when "sin revives" (or their sin nature is provoked by the law), they will die (spiritually) and need to be born again (Romans 7:9, John 3:3) . This is when they "understand" the word and the commandment comes to their understanding. Then they are accountable for their sin. sSome call this the age of accountability.
But even after they grow and understand the word and
commandment, Christ still gave all men that "free gift" for justification", for those who hear his word after they die spiritually ( Romans 7) still need to be born again. This "seed" is still "the life" and Jesus speaks of this "word sown in all hearts" and the way each heart responds to it. Paul calls this a "treasure in earthen vessels" where God shines his light in our hearts in the face of Jesus Christ 2 Cor 4.

So, I see this verse applies similarly to all who who came into the world from Adam and were condemned by his sin as it applies to all who are in Christ and saved by His grace. Yet not all will be saved, for every infant will go wand some day the will have sin revive and die spiritually and need to be born again, which not all will do, many shall go to hell and the lake of fire.

But when it applies to an infants they still has a "sin nature", but they are not aware of sin yet or it is somehow dormant until "sin revives" and they die. This will happen with all people at some point. But for infants in ignorance God winks at. To him that knoweth to do good and does it not, to him it is sin. The infant doesn't know or do good or evil yet. So where no law is there is no transgression, and sin is transgression of the [known} law. But, sin is not imputed where there is no law.

But this verse also applies to this who have had sin revived already and died spiritually (Romans 7:9) because this "free gift" is still given for their life if they are born again. The light will reprove all sin and draw them to God and reveal what may be known of God in them. This free gift is also Christ in them, or as we can understand His seed sown, the word of God that can quicken them and save them. When I speak of Christ still being in all men even after they have sin revive and die. I don't mean Christ is in them as in the new birth, for that is a great attainment in faith. But He is in them as Light that eightieth them and reproves all sin and whom they can "feel after " and find. He is not far from every one of us ( Acts 17:27). Christ is in them as the seed sown, the word of God that discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. James calls this "word" the "engrafted word" that is able to save the soul. Peter says we are born again by the word of God. Jesus says when men receive the word they can have life and joy and enter the kingdom inwardly. This is the great mystery that hath been hid (but was there, hidden in the OT) which is "Christ in you the hope of glory".

But the great mystery and Infant salvation is a long talk and many scriptures need to be shown. However as touching on this verse in Romans 5 and others that say that Christ is the saviour of all men, special of them that believe, what I shared here , I believe addresses the issue and gives some understanding of the salvation of all, in context of infants who come into the world and those who after they have died spiritually and come to believe in Jesus Christ and His death for sin and resurrection, how they can have the justification of life also. Then this verse does not preach universalism as some try to make it and can be answered in context of both groups, "infants" and only those who come to believe in Jesus".

 

[ClementofA]

It is common for adjectives to be formed from nouns. Not all adjectives are formed this way, but some are. There is, of course, always some type of relationship between the meaning of the noun and the meaning of the adjective which comes from the noun.

Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns. I suggest the evidence (as per see 6 points below) weighs in favor of typical use re aion & aionios in the NT context & its Author's usage of the words therein.

If that is the case, then for aionios to be defined exclusively as eternal or permanent in the Scriptures, wouldn't the noun aion also have to mean eternal or permanent? But when you apply that to the uses of aion in the NT it makes many passages into nonsense. For a few examples:

I am with you all the days, until the end of the permanent(aion/eon) Mt.28:20
The harvest is the end of the permanent(aion/eon) Mt.13:39
so will it be at the end of the permanent(aion/eon) Mt.13:40

OTOH the translation eon for aion (& eonian for aionios) removes the nonsense.

... A word’s meaning is not determined by its origin, but rather by its usage.

I'd suggest the New Testament evidence, as follows, shows that the New Testament usage of the noun aion (age/eon) corresponds to its associated adjective, aionios (eonian), very closely, just as the English noun, eon, corresponds to its adjective, eonian, meaning of, or pertaining to, or related to, or constituting, an eon or eons.

1. In the following NT verses aionios (Mt.25:41) corresponds exactly to aion (Rev.20:10), both verses speaking of the aionios destiny of Satan, one verse using the word aionios, the other verse using the related noun, aion (in the plural).

2. Another example is the aionion correction/chastening of the wicked (Mt.25:46) is spoken of in terms of an aion in Jude 1:13. These terms, aion and aionion are, then, exactly parallel.

3. Likewise Mark 3:29 equates the loss of pardon for an eon with the penalty of an eonian sin.

4. Other instances of the inspired correspondence between the noun aion & its adjective aionios are Mk.10:30; Lk.18:30... " and in the coming eon, life eonian" (Mk. 10:30, CLV)

“In the Gospels there are instances where the substantive aion and the adjective aionios are juxtaposed or associated in a single image or utterance (most directly in Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30). This obvious parallel in the Greek is invisible in almost every English tanslation” (p.540, The New Testament: A Translation, by EO scholar David Bentley Hart, 2017).

BTW, comparable to Lk.18:30 above, ECF John Chrysostom limits aionios to a specific age of finite duration: “For that his[Satan’s] kingdom is of this age,[αἰώνιος] i.e., will cease with the present age[αιώνι] …” (Homily 4 on Ephesians, Chapter II. Verses 1-3). CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Ephesians (Chrysostom)

5. There are many passages showing that aionios life is equivalent to life for an aion. See Lk.20:35; Jn.6:51, 58; 8:51-52; 11:26 for aion & compare that to others referring to aionion life (Jn.3:15-16, 36, etc). In each of Jn.4:14 & 10:28 both words occur in parallel in a single verse in regards to the blessing of eschatological life.

6. Likewise "before the eons" [aion plural] (1 Cor.2:7) is equivalent to "before times aionios" (2 Tim.1:9; Titus 1:2).

BTW, for a few examples, amongst many, of universalist POV on aionios:

The Greek Words Aiõn and Aiõnios

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html

Olethron Aionion (eternal destruction)

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/index.html

https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/booksonwebsite/©CPC+Eonian+Everlasting+or+Age-lasting.pdf

 

[ClementofA]

I think it(aidios) was a superior word to use relative to the ambiguous aion & aionios, if God was a believer in endless punishment. Moreover, as opposed to aion and aionios (which are often used of finite duration), God had a number of other words & expressions available that would also have better served to express endless punishment, if Love Omnipotent were a believer of such. But He never uses such of eschatological punishment. So the reasonable conclusion is that Love Omnipotent rejected using such words and expressions of a final destiny of endless punishment because He knew better & He rejected the notion that anyone will endure endless punishment. Those words & expresssions are:

1. no end (Lk.1:33)...this expression is used of God's kingdom having "no end". It is never used of anyone's torments or punishment. We never read of anyone receiving torments that will have "no end". This unambiguous phrase, "no end", would have been a superior choice to the ambiguous words aion & aionion, if Love Omnipotent had a belief in endless torments or annihilation. But He rejected its use in expressing such a fate.

2. endless (1 Tim.1:4)...Again if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments, why didn't He use this word to express it, instead of the ambiguous aion & aionion, which often refer to finite durations in ancient Greek usage?

3. never (Mt.7:23, etc)...this word appears to occur 16 times in the NT & it seems that it never means anything except "never". It is used of "love never fails" (1 Cor.13:8). It also occurs in Mt.7:23 where Jesus says "I never knew you; depart you from Me, those working lawlessness." Which is such an incredibly lame remark, if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments. If He believed that such an unspeakably horrific final destiny awaits the wicked, including those He was referring to in Mt.7:23, why didn't He make it clear by telling them that they would "never" be saved and/or He would "never" know them? Would that not have been clear & unambiguous, unlike the words He spoke, & unlike the ambiguous aion & aionios, which often refer to finite duration in ancient Koine Greek? OTOH consider re the use of the word "never":

"Philo saith, “The punishment of the wicked person is, ζην αποθανοντα αει, to live for ever dying, and to be for ever in pains, and griefs, and calamities that never cease..." Mark 9 Benson Commentary

Yet Scripture - never - uses such language. Moreover, it speaks of death being abolished, not being "for ever".

4. eternal (Rom.1:16; Jude 1:6)...this word, AIDIOS, is used of God's "eternal" power & "eternal" chains that bind until the day of judgement. It is never used of anyone's final destiny. We never read of anyone being tormented for eternal ages. We never read of anyone suffering eternal (AIDIOS) punishment. If Jude believed in endless punishment, he had the perfect opportunity at Jude 1:6 by simply adding that the angels would suffer the judgement of eternal (AIDIOS) punishment or torments. Instead of warning his readers of such a horrificly monstrous fate, as he should have been morally obligated to do if it were a real possibility, instead he conveys the relatively utterly lame & insignificant info that these angelic beings will be kept in chains until judgement day. OTOH, consider:

"Instead of saying with Philo and Josephus, thanaton athanaton, deathless or immortal death; eirgmon aidion, eternal imprisonment; aidion timorion, eternal torment; and thanaton ateleuteton, interminable death, he [Jesus] used aionion kolasin..." Chapter 3 - Origin of Endless Punishment

"Nyssa defined the vision of God promised there as "life without end, eternal incorruption, undying beatitude [ten ateleuteton zoen, ten aidion aphtharsian , ten athanaton makarioteta]." ("Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in ..." By Jaroslav Pelikan, p.165 @): Christianity and Classical Culture

5. unfading (1 Pet.1:4; 5:4)...Peter uses this word of an endless inheritance reserved in heaven & a crown of glory. It is never used of the endless pain, punishment or torments that anyone will receive. Can it be denied that this would have been a superior word (over aion & aionios) to use to express such a horrific destiny if Love Omnipotent actually had such in store for anyone? Wouldn't He want to express warnings about it in the clearest ways possible?

6. found no place for repentance (Heb.12:17)...is used in Heb.12:17 of the loss of a finite earthly blessing..."he found no place of repentance, although having earnestly sought it with tears". Never is it used regarding those in Gehenna, Hades, the lake of fire, or eschatological punishment. Never do we read of those cast into any "hell" that they will not (or never) find a place of repentance, even though they earnestly seek it with tears. God was quite capable of expressing such in His Holy Scriptures. But rather than give such a warning, as Love Omnipotent should have if such an unbelievably horrific future awaited anyone, instead we are told of the relatively lame loss of a finite earthly blessing. Such a waste of words if endless punishment were really true.

7. In Mt.18:6 is the lame warning of a punishment which is compared to mere drowning, which is nothing compared to being kept alive for the sole purpose of being tortured for all the "endless" ages of eternity that have "no end" & "never" cease. Jesus says it is "better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea". OTOH, if He had been a believer in endless punishment, He could have expressed that by saying it is better for them to have never lived, never been conceived, or that their parents had never known (had sex with) one another. Compare this anti-biblical Jewish view that the Lord Jesus Christ, Love Omnipotent, rejected:

"To every individual is apportioned two shares, one in hell and one in paradise. At death, however, the righteous man's portion in hell is exchanged, so that he has two in heaven, while the reverse is true in the case of sinners (Ḥag. 15a). Hence it would have been better for the latter not to have lived at all (Yeb. 63b)." GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

I am looking at adding to this list from about 2 dozen other possibilities.

Does aionios always mean eternal in ancient Koine Greek? (paradise, Gospel, hell) - Christianity -  - City-Data Forum

 

[Der Alte]

begin

I think it(aidios) was a superior word to use relative to the ambiguous aion & aionios, if God was a believer in endless punishment....
4. eternal (Rom.1:16; Jude 1:6)...this word, AIDIOS, is used of God's "eternal" power & "eternal" chains that bind until the day of judgement. It is never used of anyone's final destiny. We never read of anyone being tormented for eternal ages. We never read of anyone suffering eternal (AIDIOS) punishment. If Jude believed in endless punishment, he had the perfect opportunity at Jude 1:6 by simply adding that the angels would suffer the judgement of eternal (AIDIOS) punishment or torments. Instead of warning his readers of such a horrificly monstrous fate, as he should have been morally obligated to do if it were a real possibility, instead he conveys the relatively utterly lame & insignificant info that these angelic beings will be kept in chains until judgement day. OTOH, consider:..

end

"if God was a believer in endless punishment....If Jude believed in endless punishment,..." logical fallacy. Argument from silence also trying to second guess God and Jude what they would have said under certain circumstances.

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be interchangeable since he used them as synonyms.

 

[ClementofA]

"if God was a believer in endless punishment....If Jude believed in endless punishment,..." logical fallacy. Argument from silence also trying to second guess God and Jude what they would have said under certain circumstances.

"In sum, the argument from silence, like all historical arguments, is always conjectural. But it is not, as some claim, a fallacy. It is the correct default inference from silence. That inference can be strengthened by relevant evidence of a positive kind, or by the continued silence of further evidence." Seeing History | Arguments from Silence

"Howell and Prevenier state that arguments from silence face the difficulty that a historian can not just assume that an author would have recorded the fact in question; for if the fact did not seem important enough to an author it would have been excluded."Argumentum ex silentio | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online

Clearly the above statement re "arguments from silence" does not apply to my argument. For it is clear that if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments He would have thought it "important enough" to include many times as a warning in the 27 books of the inspired NT Scriptures. That He did not do so proves that He rejected such a view. And the proof that He didn't include it is that the words (& expressions) which would have expressed it unambiguously were not used of eschatological punishment.

In this case it is a powerful argument: the superior words to express endlessness - IOW not the aion & aionion that Love Omnipotent usually employs - are never used by Him of eschatological punishment.

Further re "arguments from silence": "David Heinge states that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events." There are "Convincing applications" of the "arguments from silence":Argumentum ex silentio | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online
Argumentum ex silentio | World Library - eBooks | Read eBooks online

Furthermore, my argument has provided "evidence of absence":

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist." Null Points: Absence of evidence and evidence of absence.

In this case the absence of the teaching of endless punishment in the New Testament.

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be interchangeable since he used them as synonyms.

Scholars generally agree that - aion & aionios - sometimes (or often) refer to finite durations. So your conclusions is nothing but the logical fallacy of "begging the question":

"The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle." Begging the Question : Department of Philosophy : Texas State University

This is your argument:

1. The AIDIOS God means eternal God
2. Paul speaks of the AIONION God.
3. Conclusion 1: therefore the two words are synonyms.
4. Conclusion 2: AIONION means eternal.

Even one with only high school or a first year college logic course under his belt would easily see how that argument fails to prove its case. The first conclusion doesn't logically follow from the first two premises. And you've provided nothing in support of why it should. So your argument is based on nothing. No evidence. It's like someone saying the tooth fairy exists & providing no evidence that it does.

Your argument is just like this argument:

1. The AIDIOS God means eternal God
2. Paul speaks of the (put any word here, call it XYZ) God.
3. Conclusion 1: therefore the two words are synonyms.

What makes them synonymous? You didn't say. You provided nothing as evidence that they are synonymous. Are two words automatically synonymous whenever they refer to God? No. Is "day" synonymous with "eternal" when Scripture says "day of God"? If someone said God was the "God of this age" (compare 2 Cor.4:4, god of this age) does that prove that "age" is synonymous with "eternal"? No.


I posted:

Evidently pure assumption based on no evidence. You only proved one side of the equation equals eternal, aidios, not aionios. Scholars agree aionios is used of finite duration.

Furthermore, just because a word is applied to God doesn't make it "eternal".

According to you the Greek word aion (eon) means "eternal". In 2 Cor.4:4 we read of the "god of this eon". But this eon will end, so it can't be "eternal".

Satan is the "god of this eon" (2 Cor.4:4). The "god" Satan's existence will be "eternal" just like God's existence. But just because the Satan-god is eternal, that doesn't make
"eon" eternal when Scripture says he is the "god of this eon".

Likewise, neither does it make "eonian" eternal when it is applied to God in Rom.16:26.

Therefore your logic has holes in it & your argument fails.

Der Alter replied with:

Irrelevant smokescreen. Does not address my post in any way.

Is this supposed to make sense? How does this address my post?

Your argument provided no evidence in support of it. So i can only imagine what you think supports it, since you refuse to say. Therefore if you think it is supported by the premise that any word applied to God must mean eternal, you are wrong. As I said above.

Furthermore, with the example of 2 Cor.4:4, i showed how an - aionion god - can refer to a finite duration of the word aionion. Compare Rom.16:26, our verse under consideration, that speaks of the "aionion God". BTW in both cases the God referred to is "eternal".

I previously posted:

A number of Greek scholars understand Rom.16:25 to refer to a finite duration, even among those biased to endless punishment. Just look at a few dozen Greek lexicons, dictionaries & translations to see for yourself. Do you think you know more than them? Even verse 26 doesn't require aionios mean eternal. As my post documented, A. Deisman discovered a tablet from the time of the ECF Origen that said God is eonian and more than eonian (epiaionion). Moreover, if aionios in v.25 is finite, then contextually one should consider that its use in v.26 of the context is likewise finite.

God was the eonian God over past eons that have already ended. Rom.16:25 refers to eons past that have ended. So in the same sentence continuing into v.26, the reference to eonian God can be to those past eons. That's a contextual case for the viewpoint that eonian in v.26 is also finite.

Der Alter only replied to the first of those two paragraphs with:

More of the same meaningless argumentation, without any support.

John Gill Rom 16:26 according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith; that is, it is by the express order and command of that God who is from everlasting to everlasting, that the mystery of the Gospel is made manifest by the preaching of the apostles being witnessed to by the law and prophets in all its doctrines; faith on Christ,..., Act_13:46; here is a clear proof that Christ is God, and that he is the everlasting God.

A literal more honest translation states:

25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, 26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience

"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?"www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter9.htm

 

[Der Alte]

begin

"....
A literal more honest translation states:
25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, 26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience.

end

A meaningless claim that something is literal and more honest. What has been demonstrated here over and over "literal" merely means it supports UR assumptions/presuppositions.

begin

"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?"

end

One more time, one [1] anonymous tablet from the 3rd century does NOT prove eonian primarily meant a finite period. A library of ancient tablets or scrolls would be more definitive. In BDAG there are at least 35 ancient sources cited under "aionios." But we are supposed to take one anonymous tablet over all those sources?
.....A 1000 years from now if someone were to read a book written by a hippy they might think that "square" only meant a person who is not very socially acceptable, that a "chick" only referred to a young lady, "cool" had nothing to do with temperature and "heavy" had nothing to do with weight.

 

[ClementofA]

A meaningless claim that something is literal and more honest. What has been demonstrated here over and over "literal" merely means it supports UR assumptions/presuppositions.

Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context.

What biased scholars who agreed with the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" (of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning opposers to death with fire & their writings) have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."

Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three

"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?"
One more time, one [1] anonymous tablet from the 3rd century does NOT prove eonian primarily meant a finite period.

Strawman argument fallacy. My post made no such claim.

A library of ancient tablets or scrolls would be more definitive. In BDAG there are at least 35 ancient sources cited under "aionios." But we are supposed to take one anonymous tablet over all those sources?

(1)No one suggested such a thing.
(2) You've provided no proof from BDAG in opposition to the source i gave.
(3) Most of BDAG's references you've never verified, so you have blind faith in BDAG.
(4) Why doesn't BDAG list the following dozens of "ancient soucres cited under aionios"? Did the author purposely omit them to weigh the evidence according to his biases? To sell books?

Two Questions

.....A 1000 years from now if someone were to read a book written by a hippy they might think that "square" only meant a person who is not very socially acceptable, that a "chick" only referred to a young lady, "cool" had nothing to do with temperature and "heavy" had nothing to do with weight.

Considering that the following is the only ancient reference that has been provided in this discussion of the phrase "aionion God", & aionion therein is finite, the score stands at 1-0 until you can provide something to add to your nil total so far:

"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?"

 

[Der Alte]

...
What biased scholars who agreed with the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" (of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning opposers to death with fire & their writings) have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful. ...

Meaningless accusatory rhetoric Repeating all this nonsense over and over does not make it true. OTOH many of the so-called sources you quote from such as Larry Beauchamin have zero stated expertise in Biblical languages or Bible history.

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

Take your own advice.

"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. ...

This comment invalidates the rest of the copy/paste. Do you even know why?

(1)No one suggested such a thing.
(2) You've provided no proof from BDAG in opposition to the source i gave.
(3) Most of BDAG's references you've never verified, so you have blind faith in BDAG.

(4) Why doesn't BDAG list the following dozens of "ancient soucres cited under aionios"? Did the author purposely omit them to weigh the evidence according to his biases? To sell books?

I have faith in an accredited a languags resource which has been validated by many scholars. You have BDAG you could look up the cited references for yourself. Why have you deliberately refused to consult a source that you have in your possession and make all these false claims and accusations? What is your ulterior motive?

begin

Considering that the following is the only ancient reference that has been provided in this discussion of the phrase "aionion God", & aionion therein is finite, the score stands at 1-0 until you can provide something to add to your nil total so far:
"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?"

end

Have you ever actually seen this so-called lead tablet or a photo of it? How do you know it says what Deissman claims?
My evidence. I have highlighted the sources the authors cited in blue. Since you have indicated you don't know what I am talking about.

αἰώνιος (ία ③ pert. to a period of unending duration, without end (Diod S 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 δόξα αἰ. everlasting fame; in Diod S 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their αἰ. οἴκησις; Arrian, Peripl. 1, 4 ἐς μνήμην αἰ.; Jos., Bell. 4, 461 αἰ. χάρις=a benefaction for all future time; OGI 383, 10 [I b.c.] εἰς χρόνον αἰ.; EOwen, οἶκος αἰ.: JTS 38, ’37, 248–50; EStommel, Domus Aeterna: RAC IV 109–28) of the next life σκηναὶ αἰ. Lk 16:9 (cp. En 39:5). οἰκία, contrasted w. the οἰκία ἐπίγειος, of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1. διαθήκη (Gen 9:16; 17:7; Lev 24:8; 2 Km 23:5 al.; PsSol 10:4 al.) Hb 13:20. εὐαγγέλιον Rv 14:6; κράτος in a doxolog. formula (=εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) 1 Ti 6:16. παράκλησις 2 Th 2:16. λύτρωσις Hb 9:12. κληρονομία (Esth 4:17m) vs. 15; AcPl Ha 8, 21. αἰ. ἀπέχειν τινά (opp. πρὸς ὥραν) keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cp. Job 40:28). Very often of God’s judgment (Diod S 4, 63, 4 διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐν ᾅδου διατελεῖν τιμωρίας αἰωνίου τυγχάνοντα; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40; Da 12:2; Ps 76:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 13:15) κόλασις αἰ. (TestReub 5:5) Mt 25:46; 2 Cl 6:7; κρίμα αἰ. Hb 6:2 (cp. κρίσις αἰ. En 104:5). θάνατος B 20:1. ὄλεθρον (4 Macc 10:15) 2 Th 1:9. πῦρ (4 Macc 12:12; GrBar 4:16.—SibOr 8, 401 φῶς αἰ.) Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jd 7; Dg 10:7 (cp. 1QS 2:8). ἁμάρτημα Mk 3:29 (v.l. κρίσεως, κολάσεω, and ἁμαρτίας). On the other hand, of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰ.; Diod S 8, 15, 3 life μετὰ τὸν θάνατον lasts εἰς ἅπαντα αἰῶνα; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3;PsSol PsSol 3:12; OdeSol 11:16c; JosAs 8:11 cod. A [p. 50, 2 Bat.]; Philo, Fuga 78; Jos., Bell. 1, 650; SibOr 2, 336) in the Reign of God: ζωὴ αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3) Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30; J 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2f; Ac 13:46, 48; Ro 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f; Gal 6:8; 1 Ti 1:16; 6:12; Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1J 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jd 21; D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also βασιλεία αἰ. 2 Pt 1:11 (ApcPt Rainer 9; cp. Da 4:3; 7:27; Philo, Somn. 2, 285; Mel., P. 68, 493; OGI 569, 24 ὑπὲρ τῆς αἰωνίου καὶ ἀφθάρτου βασιλείας ὑμῶν; Dssm. B 279f, BS 363). Of the glory in the next life δόξα αἰ. 2 Ti 2:10; 1 Pt 5:10 (cp. Wsd 10:14; Jos., Ant. 15, 376.—SibOr 8, 410 φῶς αἰῶνιον). αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης 2 Cor 4:17; σωτηρία αἰ. (Is 45:17; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9; short ending of Mk. Of unseen glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια 2 Cor 4:18.—χαρά IPhld ins; δοξάζεσθαι αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186–201; JvanderWatt, NovT 31, ’89, 217–28 (J).—DELG s.v. αἰών. M-M. TW. Sv
[1] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 33–34). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

 

[ClementofA]

Meaningless accusatory rhetoric Repeating all this nonsense over and over does not make it true.

Repeatedly calling a person's argument names - "nonsense", "meaningless", etc - like calling a person names, does not address the argument, make it untrue or any less effective. It merely evades the issue & suggests to readers that you may not be able to address it, so lower yourself to ad hominem like remarks against it. It also may come across as rude, a rant & lacking in objectivity.

OTOH many of the so-called sources you quote from such as Larry Beauchamin have zero stated expertise in Biblical languages or Bible history.

That's easy to say, but where is your list of these alleged "sources"?

As for "Larry Beauchamin", i don't know who that is & don't recall ever posting anything quoting such an author. Perhaps you meant Gerry Beauchemin who wrote the following:

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/

Like you, he has no "expertise in Biblical languages or Bible history", but that doesn't keep either of you from posting or compiling quotes of those who do. So pot-kettle as far as your remark on that is concerned.

As Tom Talbott said:

"Clearly, advanced learning is no guarantor of spiritual insight, which explains, perhaps, [why] you can find first-rate Greek, Hebrew, and historical scholars on both sides of so many theological issues..." https://reforminghell.com/2016/09/0...stination-williamson-at-moore-college-part-1/


bob wilson said:

"Formal education is over rated, and the reality is that the highly educated disagree on most everything, and that I rejected most of my scholastic career’s emphasis."

https://forum.evangelicaluniversali...s-resurrection-make-people-righteous/6381/902

and

"Please forgive my egotism, but despite having Fuller’s Masters and Doctorate in Biblical theology, I increasingly sense that I seem unable to grasp what your view actually is, and that its’ obscurity and unfamiliar way of handling texts may frustrate desires to promote it."

https://forum.evangelicaluniversali...s-resurrection-make-people-righteous/6381/842

and

"Don’t be intimidated because someone has had more formal background in these languages. Folk like that can disagree about most anything. My sincere sense is that I have learned far more since seminary through my own independent study and ability to read a diversity of views without having someone telling me what the ‘right’ view is, and then testing to see if I can regurgitate it back."

https://forum.evangelicaluniversali...s-resurrection-make-people-righteous/6381/928

 

[ClementofA]

This comment invalidates the rest of the copy/paste. Do you even know why?

Do you want me to guess how your often illogically thinking brain got it wrong again?

I have faith in an accredited a languags resource which has been validated by many scholars.

Congrats on your - blind - faith in a guy named Danker. Others prefer to put their - both eyes closed - faith in one of the Pontiffs or Old Slewfoot.

You have BDAG you could look up the cited references for yourself. Why have you deliberately refused to consult a source that you have in your possession and make all these false claims and accusations? What is your ulterior motive?

I've already posted many remarks in opposition to many of the BDAG cites conclusions. I have done this with facts, info from scholars, ECF, logic & Scripture, etc. I have also quoted scholars who remark upon the weaknesses, errors & inadequacies of lexicons in general, including BDAG.

Why doesn't BDAG list the following dozens of "ancient sources cited under aionios"? Did the author purposely omit them to weigh the evidence according to his biases? To sell books?

Does aionios always mean eternal in ancient Koine Greek? (paradise, Gospel, hell) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum

Considering that the following is the only ancient reference that has been provided in this discussion of the phrase "aionion God", & aionion therein is finite, the score stands at 1-0 until you can provide something to add to your nil total so far:
"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?"
Have you ever actually seen this so-called lead tablet or a photo of it? How do you know it says what Deissman claims?

Ask yourself the same regarding the following you posted from BDAG.

My evidence. I have highlighted the sources the authors cited in blue. Since you have indicated you don't know what I am talking about.

αἰώνιος (ία ③ pert. to a period of unending duration, without end (Diod S 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 δόξα αἰ. everlasting fame; in Diod S 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their αἰ. οἴκησις; Arrian, Peripl. 1, 4 ἐς μνήμην αἰ.; Jos., Bell. 4, 461 αἰ. χάρις=a benefaction for all future time; OGI 383, 10 [I b.c.] εἰς χρόνον αἰ.; EOwen, οἶκος αἰ.: JTS 38, ’37, 248–50; EStommel, Domus Aeterna: RAC IV 109–28) of the next life σκηναὶ αἰ. Lk 16:9 (cp. En 39:5). οἰκία, contrasted w. the οἰκία ἐπίγειος, of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1. διαθήκη (Gen 9:16; 17:7; Lev 24:8; 2 Km 23:5 al.; PsSol 10:4 al.) Hb 13:20. εὐαγγέλιον Rv 14:6; κράτος in a doxolog. formula (=εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) 1 Ti 6:16. παράκλησις 2 Th 2:16. λύτρωσις Hb 9:12. κληρονομία (Esth 4:17m) vs. 15; AcPl Ha 8, 21. αἰ. ἀπέχειν τινά (opp. πρὸς ὥραν) keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cp. Job 40:28). Very often of God’s judgment (Diod S 4, 63, 4 διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐν ᾅδου διατελεῖν τιμωρίας αἰωνίου τυγχάνοντα; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40; Da 12:2; Ps 76:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 13:15) κόλασις αἰ. (TestReub 5:5) Mt 25:46; 2 Cl 6:7; κρίμα αἰ. Hb 6:2 (cp. κρίσις αἰ. En 104:5). θάνατος B 20:1. ὄλεθρον (4 Macc 10:15) 2 Th 1:9. πῦρ (4 Macc 12:12; GrBar 4:16.—SibOr 8, 401 φῶς αἰ.) Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jd 7; Dg 10:7 (cp. 1QS 2:8). ἁμάρτημα Mk 3:29 (v.l. κρίσεως, κολάσεω, and ἁμαρτίας). On the other hand, of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰ.; Diod S 8, 15, 3 life μετὰ τὸν θάνατον lasts εἰς ἅπαντα αἰῶνα; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3;PsSol PsSol 3:12; OdeSol 11:16c; JosAs 8:11 cod. A [p. 50, 2 Bat.]; Philo, Fuga 78; Jos., Bell. 1, 650; SibOr 2, 336) in the Reign of God: ζωὴ αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3) Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30; J 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2f; Ac 13:46, 48; Ro 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f; Gal 6:8; 1 Ti 1:16; 6:12; Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1J 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jd 21; D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also βασιλεία αἰ. 2 Pt 1:11 (ApcPt Rainer 9; cp. Da 4:3; 7:27; Philo, Somn. 2, 285; Mel., P. 68, 493; OGI 569, 24 ὑπὲρ τῆς αἰωνίου καὶ ἀφθάρτου βασιλείας ὑμῶν; Dssm. B 279f, BS 363). Of the glory in the next life δόξα αἰ. 2 Ti 2:10; 1 Pt 5:10 (cp. Wsd 10:14; Jos., Ant. 15, 376.—SibOr 8, 410 φῶς αἰῶνιον). αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης 2 Cor 4:17; σωτηρία αἰ. (Is 45:17; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9; short ending of Mk. Of unseen glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια 2 Cor 4:18.—χαρά IPhld ins; δοξάζεσθαι αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186–201; JvanderWatt, NovT 31, ’89, 217–28 (J).—DELG s.v. αἰών. M-M. TW. Sv
[1] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 33–34). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

You & Danker have provided - no evidence - that any of those references should be interpreted to mean "pert. to a period of unending duration, without end". Anyone can post a bunch of references & make all kinds of claims about what they mean. Proving it from context is something else completely. And, BTW, lexicons & scholars are often in disagreement with each other re aionios. Even those that are biased to endless hell are in much disharmony amongst themselves on various points re aionios.

Furthermore, the dishonesty of Danker can be seen in his only cite of Origen above under aionios saying "in the Reign of God: ζωὴ αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3)", while ignoring all Origen's references to aionios that are finite, as i've documented here:

Does aionios always mean eternal in ancient Koine Greek? (paradise, Gospel, hell) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum

BDAG's entry above re aionios has many cites from Diodorus Siculus, Philo & Josephus. There again Danker omits examples where such authors use aionios of finite duration. For example, see the reference to Philo at the above url.

Moreover you have your rare theory that aion & aionios always mean eternal unless used in hyperbole. Generally scholars, including BDAG, oppose your opinion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Unless Yahweh the Creator grants it from heaven, no man understands anything. This is always true, and so obvious everywhere, and necessary to expose the preponderance (large number) of false teachings and false gospels and false prophets and false teachers.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

Repeatedly calling a person's argument names - "nonsense", "meaningless", etc - like calling a person names, does not address the argument, make it untrue or any less effective. It merely evades the issue & suggests to readers that you may not be able to address it, so lower yourself to ad hominem like remarks against it. It also may come across as rude, a rant & lacking in objectivity.

end

You failed to note that I was referring to repetitious copy/pastes which I have previously refuted. Was that deliberate? Get some new material, instead of posting the same copy/pastes over and over.

begin

That's easy to say, but where is your list of these alleged "sources"?
As for "Larry Beauchamin", i don't know who that is & don't recall ever posting anything quoting such an author. Perhaps you meant Gerry Beauchemin who wrote the following:

end

You know who I was talking about. The difference is I am talking to you stating my opinion. Unlike you and Beauchamin nobody is quoting me as an authority on anything. If Beauchamin quotes an accredited scholar, quote the scholar and leave Beauchamin out of it. OBTW have you verified every "scholar" Beauchamin quoted as you demanded of me? Or do you just accept everything he says on blind faith as you accused me of with BDAG?

begin

Like you, he has no "expertise in Biblical languages or Bible history", but that doesn't keep either of you from posting or compiling quotes of those who do. So pot-kettle as far as your remark on that is concerned.

end

Wrong! I am expressing my considered opinion in a discussion nobody is quoting me as an authority. Unless I am talking directly to Beauchamin or any other amateur you quote, I am not interested in their second hand opinion

As Tom Talbott said:

Who? Irrelevant bloviation.

bob wilson said:

Who? Irrelevant bloviation. Unidentified quotes ignored and omitted.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<ClemA>Do you want me to guess how your often illogically thinking brain got it wrong again?
Congrats on your - blind - faith in a guy named Danker. Others prefer to put their - both eyes closed - faith in one of the Pontiffs or Old Slewfoot.
I've already posted many remarks in opposition to many of the BDAG cites conclusions. I have done this with facts, info from scholars, ECF, logic & Scripture, etc. I have also quoted scholars who remark upon the weaknesses, errors & inadequacies of lexicons in general, including BDAG.
Why doesn't BDAG list the following dozens of "ancient sources cited under aionios"? Did the author purposely omit them to weigh the evidence according to his biases? To sell books?
Ask yourself the same regarding the following you posted from BDAG.
You & Danker have provided - no evidence - that any of those references should be interpreted to mean "pert. to a period of unending duration, without end". Anyone can post a bunch of references & make all kinds of claims about what they mean. Proving it from context is something else completely. And, BTW, lexicons & scholars are often in disagreement with each other re aionios. Even those that are biased to endless hell are in much disharmony amongst themselves on various points re aionios.
Furthermore, the dishonesty of Danker can be seen in his only cite of Origen above under aionios saying "in the Reign of God: ζωὴ αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3)", while ignoring all Origen's references to aionios that are finite, as i've documented here:
BDAG's entry above re aionios has many cites from Diodorus Siculus, Philo & Josephus. There again Danker omits examples where such authors use aionios of finite duration. For example, see the reference to Philo at the above url.
Moreover you have your rare theory that aion & aionios always mean eternal unless used in hyperbole. Generally scholars, including BDAG, oppose your opinion.<end>

end

This discussion is over. You, with zero formal education or expertise in Koine Greek, who probably could not parse a Greek verb if your life depended on it, have set yourself up as an expert, on one hand quoting anonymous online amateurs on the other hand criticizing and rejecting out-of-hand Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich [BDAG] one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available. BDAG has been peer reviewed by many Greek scholars for more than one hundred years. Do not expect any further responses I'm not wasting any more of my time.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As Jesus says, Yahweh Jesus' Father is Pleased to hide Salvation from the scholars. It is His Good Pleasure to Do . Thus, unless someone has some other criteria or hope or way to get Yahweh to grant understanding of Salvation , it is not granted nor known nor understood.