Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
There are loads and loads of theologians over time that have concluded there is no such thing as "eternal punishing."
Champions of Conditional Immortality in History
Pietro Pomponatius of Mantua, a noted Italian professor and leader among the Averrorists, who denied the immortality of the soul, issued a book in opposition to the papal bull titled, Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul, 1516. This book was widely read, especially in Italian universities.
Dr. Martin Luther posted his Theses on October 31, 1517 in Wittenberg. In his 1520 published Defence of 41 of his propositions, Luther cited the pope's immortality declaration, as among "those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals." - The 27th proposition read:
"However, I permit the Pope establish articles of faith for himself and for his own faithful - such are:
a) That the bread and wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament;
b) that the essence of God neither generates nor is generated;
c) that the soul is the substantial form of the human body;
d) that he (the pope) is emperor of the world and king of heaven, and earthly god;
e) that the soul is immortal;
and all these endless monstrosities in the Roman dunghill of decretals - in order that such as his faith is, such may be his gospel, such also his faithful, and such his church, and that the lips may have suitable lettuce and the lid may be worthy of the dish."
Archbishop Francis Blackburne states:
"Luther espoused the doctrine of the sleep of the soul, upon a Scripture foundation, and then he made use of it as a confutation of purgatory, and saint worship, and continued in that belief to the last moment of his life."
Sir George G. Stokes M.P., (1819-1903) was professor of mathematics at Cambridge and president of the Royal Society. George Stokes He wrote:
"It was natural that, after the forfeiture of immortality through transgression, man should seek to satisfy his craving for immortality by imagining that he had something immortal in his nature. It is, then, to revelation that we must look, if we are to find out something about man's condition in the intermediate state."
"Man's whole being was forfeited by the Fall, and the future life is not his birthright, but depends on a supernatural dispensation of grace. To look to man's bodily frame for indications of immortality, to look even to his lofty mental powers - lofty, indeed, but sadly misused - is to seek the living among the dead. Man must look not into himself, but out of himself for assurance of immortality."
Dr. Martin J. Heinecken (1902-1998) was professor of systematic theology at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Speaking of man as a unit, he stated:
"In the Biblical account of creation we are told that God formed man of the dust and of the earth, and that he then breathed into his nostrils and man became a living soul. This is usually interpreted to mean that God made a soul, which is the real person, and that he then gave this soul a temporary home in a body, made of the dust of the earth. But this is a false dualism. ... Man must be considered a unity."
"We are dealing with a unified being, a person, and not with something that is called a soul and which dwells in a house called the body, as though the body were just a tool for the soul to employ, but not really a part of the person." Ibid., p. 38.
Coming then to the issue of immortality of the soul Professor Heinecken then says:
Professor Martin Heinecken
"It is held by some people that there is within every man an unchanging and indestructible core, immortal in its own right. It is unaffected by time; it had no beginning, neither can it have an end. It has always been and always will be. It came into this world of changing things from the realm of eternity and will return to it."
"The Christian view is by no means to be identified with the above belief in the immortality of the soul. The Christian belief is in the immortality of the God-relationship, and in the resurrection. The Christian dualism is not that of a soul and body, eternal mind and passing things, but the dualism of Creator and creature. Man is a person, a unified being, a center of responsibility, standing over against his Creator and Judge. He has no life or immortality within himself. He came into being through God's creative power. He spends as many years on this earth as in God's providence are allotted to him. He faces death as the wages of sin." Ibid., p. 133,134.
"Men have speculated like this:
At death the soul is separated from the body.
It appears then before God in a preliminary judgment which is mentioned nowhere in scripture and enters into a preliminary state either of blessedness or condemnation.
Then, when the last trumpet sounds,
the body is resurrected and rejoined with the soul, and complete once more,
the reunited body and soul appear for the final, public judgment scene,
from there to enter into final bliss or final condemnation.
It is no wonder that, with this view, men must have little use for a resurrection, and have finally dropped the notion altogether and have been satisfied with the redemption of only the soul." Ibid., p. 135.
"to die then means to pass to the resurrection and the judgment at the end of time. even if someone should say that all men sleep until the final trumpet sounds, what is the passage of time for those who are asleep? The transition from the moment of death to the resurrection would still be instantaneous for them. It would be no different from going to bed at night and being waked in the morning." Ibid., p. 136.
Champions of Conditional Immortality in History
Pietro Pomponatius of Mantua, a noted Italian professor and leader among the Averrorists, who denied the immortality of the soul, issued a book in opposition to the papal bull titled, Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul, 1516. This book was widely read, especially in Italian universities.
Dr. Martin Luther posted his Theses on October 31, 1517 in Wittenberg. In his 1520 published Defence of 41 of his propositions, Luther cited the pope's immortality declaration, as among "those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals." - The 27th proposition read:
"However, I permit the Pope establish articles of faith for himself and for his own faithful - such are:
a) That the bread and wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament;
b) that the essence of God neither generates nor is generated;
c) that the soul is the substantial form of the human body;
d) that he (the pope) is emperor of the world and king of heaven, and earthly god;
e) that the soul is immortal;
and all these endless monstrosities in the Roman dunghill of decretals - in order that such as his faith is, such may be his gospel, such also his faithful, and such his church, and that the lips may have suitable lettuce and the lid may be worthy of the dish."
Archbishop Francis Blackburne states:
"Luther espoused the doctrine of the sleep of the soul, upon a Scripture foundation, and then he made use of it as a confutation of purgatory, and saint worship, and continued in that belief to the last moment of his life."
Sir George G. Stokes M.P., (1819-1903) was professor of mathematics at Cambridge and president of the Royal Society. George Stokes He wrote:
"It was natural that, after the forfeiture of immortality through transgression, man should seek to satisfy his craving for immortality by imagining that he had something immortal in his nature. It is, then, to revelation that we must look, if we are to find out something about man's condition in the intermediate state."
"Man's whole being was forfeited by the Fall, and the future life is not his birthright, but depends on a supernatural dispensation of grace. To look to man's bodily frame for indications of immortality, to look even to his lofty mental powers - lofty, indeed, but sadly misused - is to seek the living among the dead. Man must look not into himself, but out of himself for assurance of immortality."
Dr. Martin J. Heinecken (1902-1998) was professor of systematic theology at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Speaking of man as a unit, he stated:
"In the Biblical account of creation we are told that God formed man of the dust and of the earth, and that he then breathed into his nostrils and man became a living soul. This is usually interpreted to mean that God made a soul, which is the real person, and that he then gave this soul a temporary home in a body, made of the dust of the earth. But this is a false dualism. ... Man must be considered a unity."
"We are dealing with a unified being, a person, and not with something that is called a soul and which dwells in a house called the body, as though the body were just a tool for the soul to employ, but not really a part of the person." Ibid., p. 38.
Coming then to the issue of immortality of the soul Professor Heinecken then says:
Professor Martin Heinecken
"It is held by some people that there is within every man an unchanging and indestructible core, immortal in its own right. It is unaffected by time; it had no beginning, neither can it have an end. It has always been and always will be. It came into this world of changing things from the realm of eternity and will return to it."
"The Christian view is by no means to be identified with the above belief in the immortality of the soul. The Christian belief is in the immortality of the God-relationship, and in the resurrection. The Christian dualism is not that of a soul and body, eternal mind and passing things, but the dualism of Creator and creature. Man is a person, a unified being, a center of responsibility, standing over against his Creator and Judge. He has no life or immortality within himself. He came into being through God's creative power. He spends as many years on this earth as in God's providence are allotted to him. He faces death as the wages of sin." Ibid., p. 133,134.
"Men have speculated like this:
At death the soul is separated from the body.
It appears then before God in a preliminary judgment which is mentioned nowhere in scripture and enters into a preliminary state either of blessedness or condemnation.
Then, when the last trumpet sounds,
the body is resurrected and rejoined with the soul, and complete once more,
the reunited body and soul appear for the final, public judgment scene,
from there to enter into final bliss or final condemnation.
It is no wonder that, with this view, men must have little use for a resurrection, and have finally dropped the notion altogether and have been satisfied with the redemption of only the soul." Ibid., p. 135.
"to die then means to pass to the resurrection and the judgment at the end of time. even if someone should say that all men sleep until the final trumpet sounds, what is the passage of time for those who are asleep? The transition from the moment of death to the resurrection would still be instantaneous for them. It would be no different from going to bed at night and being waked in the morning." Ibid., p. 136.
dadof10
Member
Bubba said:
Not according to Strong's and Vine's, both of which are as reputable as Robert Young, if not more so, due to the fact that both have been updated in the 20th century. The YLT is the ONLY translation that defines the word "aionios" as "age-during". Shouldn't that say something? That the MAJORITY of scholars translate it "never-ending"?
And as I have written before, there is a Greek word for "for a season". It's "proskairos" and it's contrasted with aionios in 2 Cor. 4:18 "because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient [proskairos], but the things that are unseen are eternal [aionios]. Why didn't Matthew use proskairos in reference to "punishment" and aidios in reference to the "life" if that's what he meant?
In fact, why is aidios only used twice in the NT and NEVER in reference to "eternal life"? The answer is in Vine's commentary on the word.
<2,,126,aidios>
denotes "everlasting" (from aei, "ever"), Rom. 1:20, RV, "everlasting," for AV, "eternal;" Jude 1:6, AV and RV "everlasting." Aionios, should always be translated "eternal" and aidios, "everlasting." "While aionios ... negatives the end either of a space of time or of unmeasured time, and is used chiefly where something future is spoken of, aidios excludes interruption and lays stress upon permanence and unchangeableness" (Cremer).
Aionios is used in reference to "space and time", which is what Matthew is getting at when describing both punishment and life.
Again, same word, same meaning. If the punishment is temporary, then so is the life, and vice-versa.
dadof10
Member
RND said:
Do any of them answer ANY of the questions I asked in my last post? Can any of them find the word "punishing" in the NT?
Here is the question again: "Could you please give your sources for where the word "zoe" is translated as "lifetime in plenty of verses", thanks."
Do you really think you could get me off topic by posting a bunch of irrelevant anti-Catholic polemics??? LOL. Nice try.
Dadof10,
Proskairos as you have quoted is in regards to a temporary period of time or season; aionios is for an age (i.e., the church age, and etc). This article, actually a debate, is on the long side, but if you actually read it, your questions about why not use Dr Strong’s or Vines in my interpretation will be answered. My hope is that you truly want to know the truth, even if it goes against church tradition.
http://bible-truths.com/aeonion.htm
Bubba
ps "And even Dr. Strong concedes that the definition of aion is AGE. Therefore the adjective aionios pertains to that which is of an age or ages." Are you tempted to read article?
Proskairos as you have quoted is in regards to a temporary period of time or season; aionios is for an age (i.e., the church age, and etc). This article, actually a debate, is on the long side, but if you actually read it, your questions about why not use Dr Strong’s or Vines in my interpretation will be answered. My hope is that you truly want to know the truth, even if it goes against church tradition.
http://bible-truths.com/aeonion.htm
Bubba
ps "And even Dr. Strong concedes that the definition of aion is AGE. Therefore the adjective aionios pertains to that which is of an age or ages." Are you tempted to read article?
B
brakelite2
Guest
Now therefore, be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord God of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth. Isaiah 28:22dadof10 said:
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!...therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah 5:21,24.
The Lord knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be forever...but the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs:they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
turnorburn
Member
Lets examine Gods attributes for we were created in His image it stands to reason whatever happens to us be it eternal life or eternal destruction its still eternal..
turnorburn
http://www.allaboutgod.com/attributes-of-god.htm
dadof10
Member
Bubba said:
Is the "why didn't he use the word X instead of Y" argument still valid? When you used it it was, when I use it, I get ignored and instead get "here, read this guy, if you DARE". Typical of someone who has no answers.
If there is a word, as you say, "that would translate "eternal" (aidios)", why didn't Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke...use it instead of the word aionios in front of "life"? Why is it only used TWICE in the NT and only in reference to "power" (Rom.1:20) and "chains" (Jude 1:6), and NEVER in reference to "eternal life"? Why do the NT writers ALWAYS USE AIONIOS TO DESCRIBE ETERNAL LIFE?
There are many problems with Mr. Smith's e-mail dissertation, the most glaring being his handling of 2Cor. 4:18 and his statement that (I think) both of us disagree with, "The concept of "eternity" is foreign to the Holy Scriptures." I won't go over any of them here, I'm not talking to him I'm talking to you.
A bit severe Dadof 10, I have many answers, but I do not want to “reinvent the wheelâ€Â. I used the word ‘Proskairosâ€Â, because the word does mean temporary or for a season, yet anionos does not, it means for an indeterminate age, like the next age where believers will be with the Lord (age- during life) and unbelievers in remedial punishment (kolasin can mean correction, thus an age-during punishment).
Because there is more than just one age ahead for mankind, as I told Francisdesales, your idea of “Purgatory†seems to be an example of three distinct ages, this age, the age of purgatory and the age when they are with the rest of redeemed mankind.
If you had read the whole article you would know that he substantiates his claim that ‘eternity†is foreign to the Scriptures except when the noun allows it, like when describing God. He also pointed out that the whole concept of “eternity†was foreign to the early Greeks as well.
Grace, Bubba
dadof10
Member
Bubba said:
If your concept of the word "anionos" is not temporary, what is it? I thought this was what we were arguing about? I think it means never-ending, you think it means having an end.
In 2Cor. 4:18 Paul says "because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. (2Corinthians (RSV) 4) He is contrasting the temporary (things that are seen) with the eternal (the things that are unseen), he's not contrasting a temporary state (Proskairos) to another temporary state (aionios).
Purgatory is not an "age" it's a state of being or a process. It's happening NOW not in some future age.
I hesitate to comment on Mr. Smith's e-email correspondence, he can't defend himself (unless you are him :P ). I'll let the quote I read suffice:
"Comment: The concept of "eternity" is foreign to the Holy Scriptures. There is virtually nothing that is outside of the time periods known as aions. There are just a couple of hints regarding life beyond the ages of time. Luke speaks of things pertaining to the Kingdom, not coming to an end. And Paul tells us that in resurrection we will have "incorruption" and "immortality" signifying "deathlessness," but neither word has to do with time itself. Paul also speaks of a time in which God will be "ALL in all." That is the extent to which the Scriptures even hint of eternity or anything beyond the ages of time."
You mean the "Greeks" about whom he said this?
Walter :This meaning is based on the most frequent usages of the word by the people to whom the ancient koine Greek language was native. Plato, Phocylides, Philo, Clement, Diodorus Siculus, Arrianus, Josephus, Maximus Tyrius, Ignatius, Homer are among those who used this meaning of the word "aionios".
Mr. Smith: You couldn’t get me to read all of these pagan authors at the end of the barrel of a 57 Magnum.
S
St Francis
Guest
This thread is pretty amazing to me. Why can't people accept the fact that when you die in a wrong relationship with God, your eternal seperation from God is just that: Eternal. I mean, the Bible is pretty clear on that.
In respect to Matthew 25:46, the word “Proskairos†was not used because Matthew may of felt it goes beyond a seasonal or temporary time frame, because the “age†he wrote about was for the extent of the period of “age-during punishment and age-during lifeâ€Â, which “aidios†if used would imply being in either state forever, which also he chose not to use. In 2 Corinthians 4:18, is speaking of one’s lifetime which can be relatively short, thus “Proskairos†was used, yet when speaking to the age that is unseen which has been prior to one’s life on earth and after he chooses to use aionios.
How can you say that Purgatory is not an “age� Prior to going to a place of Purgatory, was it now? While in Purgatory, is she or he in heaven now? That would be nonsensical statements.
He instead chose to not “reinvent the wheel†and quote what someone else wrote on the subject:
“THE GREEK CLASSICS
It is a vital question How was the word used in the Greek literature with which the Seventy were familiar, that is, theGreek Classics?
Some years since Rev. Ezra S. Goodwin(13) patiently and candidly traced this word through the Classics, finding the noun frequently in nearly all the writers, but not meeting the adjective until Plato, its inventor, used it. He states, as the result of his protracted and exhaustive examination from the beginning down to Plato, "We have the whole evidence of seven Greek writers, extending through about six centuries, down to the age of Plato, who make use of Ai�n, in common with other words; and no one of themEVER employs it in the sense of eternity."
When the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek by the Seventy, the word ai�n had been in common use for many centuries. It is preposterous to say that the Seventy would render the Hebrew olam by the Greek ai�n and give to the latter (1) a different meaning from that of the former, or (2) a different meaning from ai�n in the current Greek literature. It is self-evident, then, that Ai�n in the Old Testament means exactly what Olam means, and also what Ai�n means in the Greek classics. Indefinite duration is the sense of olam, and it is equally clear that ai�n has a similar signification.
In the Iliad and Odyssey Ai�n occurs thirteen times, as a noun, besides its occurrence as a participle in the sense of hearing, perceiving, understanding. Homer never uses it as signifying eternal duration. Priam to Hector says,(14) "Thyself shall be deprived of pleasant ai�nos" (life.) Andromache over dead Hector,(15) "Husband thou hast perished from ai�nos" (life or time.)
Sophocles nine times. "Endeavor to remain the same in mind as long as you live." Askei toiaute noun di ai�nos menein.(21) He also employs makraion five times, as long-enduring. The word long increases the force of ai�n, which would be impossible if it had the idea of eternity.
AIONIOS
Ai�nios is found in none of the ancient classics above quoted. Finding it in Plato, Mr. Goodwin thinks that Plato coined it, and it had not come into general use, for even Socrates, the teacher of Plato, does not use it. Aidios is the classic word for endless duration.
Plato uses ai�n eight times, ai�nios five, diai�nios once, and makrai�n twice. Of course if he regarded ai�n as meaning eternity he would not prefix the word meaning long, to add duration to it.
In all the above authors extending more than six hundred years, the word is never found. Of course it must mean the same as the noun that is its source. It having clearly appeared that the noun is uniformly used to denote limited duration, and never to signify eternity, it is equally apparent that the adjective must mean the same. The noun sweetness gives its flavor to its adjective, sweet. The adjective long means precisely the same as the noun length. When sweet stands for acidity, and long represents brevity, ai�nios can properly mean eternal, derived from ai�n, which represents limited duration. To say that Plato, the inventor of the word, has used the adjective to mean eternal, when neither he nor any of his predecessors ever used the noun to denote eternity, would be to charge one of the wisest of men with etymological stupidity. Has he been guilty of such folly? How does he use the word?
PLATO'S USAGE
1. He employs the noun as his predecessors did. I give an illustration*- "Leading a life (ai�na) involved in troubles."
2. The Adjective.(30) Referring to certain souls in Hades, he describes them as in ai�nion intoxication. But that he does not use the word in the sense of endless is evident from the Ph�don, where he says, "It is a very ancient opinion that souls quitting this world, repair to the infernal regions, and return after that, to live in this world." After the ai�nion intoxication is over, they return to earth, which demonstrates that the world was not used by him as meaning endless. Again,(31) he speaks of that which is indestructible, (anolethron) and not ai�nion. He places the two words in contrast, whereas, had he intended to use ai�nion as meaning endless, he would have said indestructible and ai�nion.
Once more,(32) Plato quotes four instances of ai�n, and three of ai�nios, and one ofdiai�nios in a single passage, in contrast with aidios (eternal.) The gods he calls eternal, (aidios) but the soul and the corporeal nature, he says, are ai�nios, belonging to time, and "all these," he says, "are part of time." And he calls Time [Kronos] an ai�nios image of Ai�nos. Exactly what so obscure an author may mean here is not apparent, but one thing is perfectly lear, he cannot mean eternity and eternal by ai�nios and ai�nion, for nothing is wider from the fact than that fluctuating, changing Time, beginning and ending, and full of mutations, is an image of Eternity. It is in every possible particular its exact opposite.â€Â
Bubba
francisdesales
Member
St Francis said:
...and then the lived happily ever after...
some people like that line so much they claim it applies in the real world, as well.
Regards
dadof10
Member
Bubba said:
Why didn't Matthew use the word “aidios†as the adjective in front of the word "life" ONLY, and some other word that means NOT forever as the adjective before the word punishment in Matthew 25:46? That's the question. Why did he choose "not to use" the most accurate word (in your opinion)? Why didn't ANY NT writer use the word “aidios†for eternal life? Maybe because aionios IS the most accurate word and means ETERNAL in both cases.
Here is the reason, from Vine's:
"While aionios ... negatives the end either of a space of time or of unmeasured time, and is used chiefly where something future is spoken of, aidios excludes interruption and lays stress upon permanence and unchangeableness" (Cremer).
This is the only explanation that makes sense.
"Has been prior to ones life on earth"? Could you elaborate?
This is a complete mis-translation of 2 Cor. You need to simply read it without Mr. Smith's bias.
Purgatory is the fire of God's love. Those that die in a state of grace and are saved, are cleansed in Purgatory. If I died today, I wouldn't lie in the grave for 1000 years, I would (God willing) IMMEDIATELY go into Purgatory to get rid of the effects of sin. This is happening NOW (so to speak). It's not something that will happen at a future date. It is not an "age".
He instead chose to not “reinvent the wheel†and quote what someone else wrote on the subject:[/quote:39mmsxmk]
He, instead chose to NOT read them for himself. Not very scholarly, but, then again, he doesn't have to be. This entire page is just an e-mail correspondence to someone named Walter, who's sources or context we can't check. It's just a one sided opinion by someone who will not read the "Greeks", if only to check the words he's commenting on. Sheesh..,..Sorry, I don't put much stock in his "scholarship".
dadof10
Member
St Francis said:
CRYSTAL CLEAR!! They won't accept it because they are not interpreting Scripture in light of the teaching of the Church Christ founded. If they did what Paul did when there was disagreement on a doctrinal point (Acts 15), they wouldn't hold heretical views. This is just the error de-jour.
But, I think you already knew that. ;-)
In respect to 'aionios" (age), J.W. Hanson writes,"It having clearly appeared that the noun is uniformly used to denote limited duration, and never to signify eternity, it is equally apparent that the adjective must mean the same. The noun sweetness gives its flavor to its adjective, sweet. The adjective long means precisely the same as the noun length. When sweet stands for acidity, and long represents brevity, aiónios can properly mean eternal, derived from aión, which represents limited duration." Which poses an interesting question, why does Mr. Vine and Dr. Strong (I have both), deviate from the original noun with their adjectives in explaining their meaning? Especially in light of what J.W.. Hanson wrote?
The reason I believe Matthew did not use "aidios" for eternal life in Mt. 25:46, is because the "age" those who believe are in is not the final age. When you or I die we go to be with the Lord, but we await the end of that age (with the Lord, Rev. 6:10-11,1Cor. 15:44-46) for our glorified bodies, which then begins another age.
2 Corinthians 4:18, "we not looking to the things seen, but to the things not seen; for the things seen are temporary, but the things not seen are age-during." Young's Literal
The unseen world is in age(anionios) that has been and still will be after our physical life (Prokarios) on earth.
Then you would have left one age to go into another age (Purgatory). Which by the way, I believe that all people who do not know Jesus will go through the "fire of God's love" in the next age (aion).
Grace, Bubba
S
St Francis
Guest
Purgatory is not an "age", it is the fire that is God, and it is what happens when unclean things come into the presence of that fire.
Its kinda like putting an empty frying pan on the stove. Its just there. But, if you put an empty frying pan on the stove and there's a few droplets of water on the pan, the pan is still there, but the droplets fizzle away real quick.
In that scenario:
- you are the pan
- the stove is God
- the droplets are your sins or impurities
- the actual evaporation of the droplets is the purgation (Purgatory)
dadof10
Member
Bubba said:
So J.W. Hanson is the authority, or is it L. Ray Smith? Maybe ANYONE who agrees with you?
Mr. Hanson writes "It having clearly appeared that the noun is uniformly used to denote limited duration, and never to signify eternity, it is equally apparent that the adjective must mean the same.
So, when used in conjunction with the word "life", as in Matt. 25:46, it must "denote limited duration"? C'mon, Bubba. Quit reading 19th century universalist's and think for yourself.
I would like to concentrate on this one aspect of this verse. Why, when the word "aiónios" is before the word "life" it means "eternal"? What about the word "life" conjures up in the mind eternity? I'm sure I can find a few places in Scripture where the word life is used to denote a temporary state, so why does "eternal punishment" mean temporary punishment, but "eternal life" means "never-ending life"?
Dadof10,
Obviously you do not remember what I wrote or it really doesn’t matter what I wrote or quoted from in regards to the word “aion†meaning age for both groups in Mt. 45:46. I have been “thinking for myself†for several years now, and that is why I discuss the topics that I do. Over 30 years of traditional thought, and over the last few years, I now realized how duped I was in respect to God’s love.
Dadof10, I think the tone has changed in our dialog and it is time to call it quits. Take care and receive your own advice “think for yourself†and step “out of the box†of organized religion who believes God will torment the majority of the human race forever.
I wish you well on your pilgrimage in this eon (aion, age),
Bubba
Obviously you do not remember what I wrote or it really doesn’t matter what I wrote or quoted from in regards to the word “aion†meaning age for both groups in Mt. 45:46. I have been “thinking for myself†for several years now, and that is why I discuss the topics that I do. Over 30 years of traditional thought, and over the last few years, I now realized how duped I was in respect to God’s love.
Dadof10, I think the tone has changed in our dialog and it is time to call it quits. Take care and receive your own advice “think for yourself†and step “out of the box†of organized religion who believes God will torment the majority of the human race forever.
I wish you well on your pilgrimage in this eon (aion, age),
Bubba