"in heaven and on the earth and under the earth"

[steve7150]

Could it be that Jesus was the King of the Jews in the same way He is Saviour of the world? That He has the status even though many are unwilling to accept the fact? Makes very good sense to me. He is Saviour and King regardless of what the world may think.









Yes Homer that's exactly the point. He is King of the Jews and Savior of the World regardless of what the world thinks. God has declared it and therefore it is set in stone because God declares things that are not yet as though they are.
Free will is a myth as is Calvinism , it simply a matter of God declaring it as he knows the end from the beginning and at some point every knee will bow voluntarily , as i understand it.

[Paidion]

Not "explain away", Homer, but "translate correctly".

Oh, Steve 7150, does God have free will? Did I hear a "yes"? Aren't we created in His image?

If we look at the passage in context where God declared that He knows the end from the beginning, we will not infer that this means the end from the beginning of all events, but rather He declared that He knows the end from the beginning of His plans. He knows what He intends to do!

...I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man who executes my counsel, from a far country. indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. (Isaiah 46: 9-11)

[jeremiah]

good morning homer,

That the word once meant correction by pruning is irrelevant. Our word "let" once meant "prevent", and that was not long ago (King James version, 2 Thess. 2:7).

why is that irrelevant? in english, "let" could have been used both ways, as in to prevent or to allow. even now it can still legitimately be used both ways if the communicators have a common point of reference. just as "cleave" remains today.

to place so much stock in lexicons sometimes has the emperor wearing no clothes. as much as we might wish things to be cut and dry, the brute fact is still, all translation is interpretation. so whatever some lexicons may say about "aionios" just demonstrates what those scholars believe about the word. but even among them that make their living studying ancient languages, there is controversy over word usage. but still, they are often appealed to as an authority though any consensus on a word like "aionios" is nebulous at best.

i think there is room for discussion on something like this. and saying there is nothing in the scripture about people being corrected in hell, is circular. we can't presuppose and use as a reason, the end we're arguing for.

grace and peace...

[Paidion]

And it is a fact that the Greek word kolasis meant punishment at the time the NT was written, as almost any lexicon you consult will inform you.

Homer, please identify even one lexicon which states that "kolasis meant punishment at the time the NT was written." I possess several Greek lexicons, and none of them affirm this. Indeed ALL of the ones I have, include "correction" as a meaning.

The New Testament was written in Hellenistic Greek or "Koine" (common) Greek, the Greek which was commonly spoken in the Greek cities such as Corinth.
The period in which this Greek was spoken and written was from 300 B.C. to 300 A.D.

Now Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. and died in 322 B.C. In 353 B.C., he was 30 years old. This was just 53 years before the Hellenistic period is supposed to have begun.Changes in the Greek tongue were not very rapid. Greek speaking people in our day, about 2000 years after the NT was written can read the Greek NT and understand it readily (though the pronunciation of the letters, especially the vowels, has drastically changed. So my guess is that the Greek used by Aristotle was not much different from that of the Hellenistic period.

Aristotle considered "kolasis" to be disiplinary, while "timoria" was used in the sense of requital. He said that "kolasis" ,being disciplinary, has reference to the sufferer, and "timoria" being penal, has reference to the satisfaction of him who inflicts. However, Thayer said that in late Greek this distinction is not always maintained.
One of the implications of Thayer's statement seems to be that the distinction is usually maintained. Also Hellenistic Greek is temporally prior to late Greek.

[steve7150]

Oh, Steve 7150, does God have free will? Did I hear a "yes"? Aren't we created in His image?











Yes but now the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers, after Satan is disposed of then we have free will IMO.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Homer, please identify even one lexicon which states that "kolasis meant punishment at the time the NT was written." I possess several Greek lexicons, and none of them affirm this.

Well, you just need a "good" one!

From the "Dictionary of New Testament Theology" ed. Colin Brown, vol.3, p. 98:

"Both the noun and the vb. were fixed terms in Gk. sacral jurisprudence. In inscriptions are references to the diety punishing violations of the cultic laws."

"Both Josephus (e.g. Ant. 1, 60) and Philo speak of kolasis as divine retribution."

"The idea of eternal punishment kolasis aionios is found in Test.Reub. 5:5."

(Testament of Reuben)

[BrotherAlan]

Greetings,
Lots of interesting stuff here….While I’d like to respond to all that has been said in the last number of posts, for now I would like to just throw out one other verse from Scripture, pertinent to this discussion, for consideration.

In the Gospel, Christ says that it would have been better for Judas had he not been born. Now, it would seem that if Judas did not go to an everlasting punishment, but would eventually get to heaven, then this statement by Christ would not be true. For, if Judas would eventually get to heaven, then it would be better for him to have been born (for, no matter how much shame or pain one experiences, if one eventually gets to heaven, then it is “all worth it”…..the everlasting joy of heaven “trumps” any amount of temporary pain, suffering, or shame). So, that’s just one other thought to consider on all this.

I do also think that Homer brings up a good point in pointing out the obvious parallelism in Christ’s story about the Sheep and the Goats (the Last Judgment) in Matthew 25. Christ says that the goats will go to everlasting punishment, while the sheep go to everlasting life. He is certainly drawing a parallel between the destiny of the goats, and that of the sheep. So, if one is to hold that Christ meant only a temporary punishment for the goats (when His word for “everlasting” is translated as “aiwnion” by Matthew), then it would seem that one would also need to hold that Christ meant only a temporary joy for the sheep (especially since Matthew, again, uses the same word, aiwnion,, in describing the length of “time” that the sheep will experience life). The other position is, of course, to say that Christ meant “everlasting” for both the punishment of the goats, and the joyful life of the sheep.

In Christ, the Savior,
Brother Alan

[Paidion]

Rejoice, BrotherAlan! And I appreciate the fact that you continue to investigate the possibility of the reconciliation of all to God.

In the Gospel, Christ says that it would have been better for Judas had he not been born. Now, it would seem that if Judas did not go to an everlasting punishment, but would eventually get to heaven, then this statement by Christ would not be true.

I have encountered this argument several times in the past. But actually, the passage doesn't say that. I know that many translations put it that way, but they are interpreting it rather than translating it.

Let's examine the Greek words from Matthew 26:24. I offer an interlinear as follows:

καλον ην— αυτω— ει ουκ εγεννηθη———–— ο ανθρωπος εκεινος
good it was for him if not— had been begotten the person—that


My translation of the entire verse:

Indeed, the son of humanity goes his way, even as it has been written about him, but woe to that man through whom the son of man is being handed over. It was good for him if that person was not begotten.

Another translation also renders it correctly:

The son of man, indeed, goeth his way, according as it is written concerning him,—but alas! for that man, through whom the son of man, is being delivered up: well, had it been for him, if that man had not been born! (1902 Rotherham Bible)

I will attempt to paraphase it:

The human Jesus goes his way to the cross as has been prophesied. But woe for Judas who is planning hand him over to the authorities to be crucified. From a human point of view, it would have been good for Jesus if that man Judas had never even been conceived.

At first glance this may appear to be improbable, but as you can see it fits the Greek construction. The more common translation doesn't seem to fit it .

As for the sheep and goats argument, I expect to address this in my next post.

[Homer]

At first glance this may appear to be improbable

Improbable? God's plan of redemption thwarted and Jesus escapes the cross, if only Judas had not been born! You have topped yourself with this one.

[Paidion]

You have topped yourself with this one.

Oh, so I've really gone over the deep end with this one, have I, Homer? (or is it the top end?) In any case, just for the sake of your information and education, I hereby affirm that I didn't invent this. I think this explanation was first given by Adolph E. Knoch (1874-1965), translator of the Concordant Version of the Bible. You can check it out in the following link:
Good for Him if that man had not been born

By the way, I checked out "The Testament of Reuben" to which you referred, and found nothing in the context to suggest that "kolasis aionios" means "eternal punishment" rather than "lasting correction."

Hi BrotherAlan,
I am well familiar with the argument from the parallelism of Matthew 25:46. It goes back as far as Augustine (354-430). For it was in Augustine's era that the concept of "eternal conscious punishment" was introduced into the church.It was necessary for him to use this argument because of the fact that many in the church understood the word "aionios" as meaning something other than "everlasting".

...and these [those who did not minister to the needy] will go away into aionios punishment, but the righteous into aionios life.

Here is the argument:

Premises:
1. Surely, because of the parallel construction, "aionios" has the same meaning concerning the punishment of the wicked as it does for the life of the righteous.
My response: I AGREE!

2. If "aionios" means "everlasting" when describing the life of the righteous, then it means "everlasting" when describing the punishment of the wicked.
My response: I AGREE!

3. If "aionios" means "temporary" or "lasting for an age" when describing the punishment of the wicked, then it means "temporary" or "lasting for an age" when describing the life of the righteous.
My response: I AGREE!

Conclusion:
Either the the punishment of the wicked is everlasting and the life of the righteous is everlasting OR the punishment of the wicked is temporary and the life of the righteous is temporary.

My response: I DISAGREE!
The premises do not lead to the conclusion. The conclusion assumes that "aionios" means either "everlasting" or "temporary". Actually the meaning of "aionios" implies no temporality of any kind, either temporary or everlasting. However, the word can be used to describe that which is EITHER temporary or everlasting. The word is used in the Bible to describe God, who clearly is everlasting. The word was used in koine Greek (the Greek spoken from 300 B.C. to 300 A.D.) to refer to anything which is enduring. The word was used by Diodorus Siculus to describe the stone used to build a wall. The word seems to have been used as meaning “lasting” or “durable”.
Josephus in “The Wars of the Jews” book 6, states that Jonathan was condemned to “aionios” imprisonment. Yet that prison sentence lasted only three years.

The word "aionios" means "lasting" or "durable" without any temporal connotation.

So the correct translation of Matthew 25:46 is:

...and these will go away into lasting punishment, but the righteous into lasting life."[/i]

Both the punishment of "goats" is LASTING, and the life of the "sheep" is LASTING. The fact that the former is temporary and the latter everlasting has no bearing whatever on the meaning of "aionios".

If Matthew had wanted to state that both the punishment of the "goats" and the life of the "sheep" were everlasting, he would have used the Greek word for "everlasting", namely "aidios".