Heb 8:7-13

[Guest]

the pronunciation is here

[Guest]

Loaves wrote:

I still need the Melchizedek pronunciation.

I've always heard it pronounced:

MEL-KEZ-UH-DEK accent on KEZ.

I'm not sure anyone really knows.

[Guest]

I must apologize if I offended anyone with my last post. I didn't mean to label anyone here a skeptic; I was rather careless with my words and can see now that it might be understood that way.

It has been very frustrating to discuss passages in scripture such as Matt. 25:46 where a greek word is claimed to have two different meanings in the same sentence when Jesus never gave the slightest hint that this is so. It would seem to be beyond doubt that the eternal life and eternal punishment are coeval.

Again it should be obvious that the book of Revelation is not in chronological order but when this is pointed it is ignored with no attempt to prove otherwise.

I fail to see any indication that anyone has changed their ideas on anything in this discussion of universalism. I acknowledge I have my own bias as we all do. Its a great pleasure to be enlightened, to learn something that you misunderstood, however this whole discussion is like driving into a thick fog.

I do believe my bias is less than some here, for, as I said early on, I will be most happy to find I am wrong. What a joy to find that loved ones, indeed everyone, are not permanently lost! I find little in scripture that gives me hope.

[Guest]

I must apologize if I offended anyone with my last post. I didn't mean to label anyone here a skeptic; I was rather careless with my words and can see now that it might be understood that way.

Thanks, Homer, I think I understand.

It has been very frustrating to discuss passages in scripture such as Matt. 25:46 where a greek word is claimed to have two different meanings in the same sentence when Jesus never gave the slightest hint that this is so. It would seem to be beyond doubt that the eternal life and eternal punishment are coeval.

I must have missed the part about the word aionios meaning 2 different things in the same verse. My personal view is that it does mean the same thing. The question is "what is that one meaning?". Is Jesus trying to make the point that the punishment and the life are both never-ending? That is one possibility. Even if that is true, it does not mean that the punishment is never-ending torment. Punishment could be to not partake in the 'eternal life' Jesus describes in John 17:3 (ie: knowing God and His Son). The punishment might be to cease to exist (after all, the wages of sin is death).

The Bible indicates that the believer has (currently) eternal life (Jn. 5:24). Does this mean that he is guaranteed to live forever? What if he departs from the faith?

The Bible also says the non-believer does not have life, and is indeed condemned already (Jn 3:18, 1 Jn. 5:12). Does this mean that the unbeliever can never see life? If the believer HAS eternal life, does the non-believer HAVE eternal punishment (the oposite of eternal life)? If the unbeliever becomes a believer, isn't his condemnation changed to life? I think so!

I know, I know, you think I am a nut and I am playing word games. But it seems to me that the words of Jesus were very hard for the people to understand, because His words were "spiritual". Even today, with us having the Spirit to lead us into truth, Christians are still divided over what many scriptures mean (as you can see from this forum).

To throw another wrinkle into the mix here, there are some who would say that all of Mt 24-25, including the parable of the sheep and the goats, has to do with AD 70. (Now I know you are thinking I am a nut).
I am not ready to accept this, but it is interesting the similarity in the language of Mt. 16:27-28, with the beginning of the sheep and goats parable (Mt. 25:31).

Again it should be obvious that the book of Revelation is not in chronological order but when this is pointed it is ignored with no attempt to prove otherwise.

I must have missed this argument as well. Sorry. I am not advocating that Revelation is a chronological book.

I fail to see any indication that anyone has changed their ideas on anything in this discussion of universalism. I acknowledge I have my own bias as we all do. Its a great pleasure to be enlightened, to learn something that you misunderstood, however this whole discussion is like driving into a thick fog.

Personally, I am not a universalist (at least not yet).

I lean towards the view that there are some who will reject to the very last God's offer of mercy and suffer the consequences. I do not think this will be never ending torment, however. I could be wrong, though, but I don't think so.

I do believe my bias is less than some here, for, as I said early on, I will be most happy to find I am wrong. What a joy to find that loved ones, indeed everyone, are not permanently lost! I find little in scripture that gives me hope.

You may be right about being less biased. But I suppose we all feel that way, don't you?

Mike

[_Sean]

The reason I said it was clear to me that you were not open to alternate interpretations was you indicated when you brought up Luke 16 that it was already clearly about a particular subject:

Sean said: “Luke 16 is clearly about this subject:”

Thanks for clarifying. I understand your point now. When I made this statement it was in response to Steve's comment "The Rich Man and Lazarus is not about hell". While it may not be judged to be about "hell", it makes a self declaration that it is. Which is why I commented the way I did.

Anyway, thanks for sharing. Your post was much more enjoyable to read than the others, and conveyed information better.

I question any interpretation I have heard, so when I became a believer I questioned the origin of satan tradition as well as the tradtions about hell. It's a hard subject to tackle with so little information. So I don't worry about it too much. The fate of all mankind is in the hand of a perfect God and judge. I'll let Him worry about it. Makes me feel much better to think of it that way.

[_Sean]

It has been very frustrating to discuss passages in scripture such as Matt. 25:46 where a greek word is claimed to have two different meanings in the same sentence when Jesus never gave the slightest hint that this is so. It would seem to be beyond doubt that the eternal life and eternal punishment are coeval.

I must have missed the part about the word aionios meaning 2 different things in the same verse. My personal view is that it does mean the same thing. The question is "what is that one meaning?". Is Jesus trying to make the point that the punishment and the life are both never-ending? That is one possibility. Even if that is true, it does not mean that the punishment is never-ending torment. Punishment could be to not partake in the 'eternal life' Jesus describes in John 17:3 (ie: knowing God and His Son). The punishment might be to cease to exist (after all, the wages of sin is death).

The reason it is seems to mean eternal is because Jesus also made the statement:

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal (aiōnios) life; and they shall never (ou mē) perish,

This tells me that believers never perish, it's just my opinion but it seems that Jesus just defined what eternal (aiōnios) means in this specific context. So when I reason this way and then read Matt 25:46 it seems like aiōnios means never ending, when referring to this subject matter.

The Bible indicates that the believer has (currently) eternal life (Jn. 5:24). Does this mean that he is guaranteed to live forever? What if he departs from the faith?

Yes, it is a guarantee forever. The condition is stated in the text: the believer has eternal life. So as long as you are a believer, it's forever. So the condition can change.

The real question is, can someone have the opportunity to change this after they have been judged or after they die? The text doesn't speak to that issue directly. Jesus is emploring living people to believe before judgement comes. And it wasn't so they would escape physical hardship, as many Christians faced hardship worse than unbelievers during their lifetime.

[Guest]

must apologize if I offended anyone with my last post. I didn't mean to label anyone here a skeptic; I was rather careless with my words and can see now that it might be understood that way.

It has been very frustrating to discuss passages in scripture such as Matt. 25:46 where a greek word is claimed to have two different meanings in the same sentence when Jesus never gave the slightest hint that this is so. It would seem to be beyond doubt that the eternal life and eternal punishment are coeval.

Again it should be obvious that the book of Revelation is not in chronological order but when this is pointed it is ignored with no attempt to prove otherwise.



No offense taken Homer, personally i like everyone at this forum and i am not expecting to change your mind or anyone's mind. But you've heard the expression "iron sharpens iron" and i learn a lot by everyone's evidence and viewpoints. Plus people usually change their mind over bible theology over long periods of time because some of our beliefs are deeply personal.

Consider the fact that some expressions like "eternal fire" Matt 25.46 can mean something totally different such as it could be a metaphor for GOD and not eternal punishment.
Also most people think a word like "aionios" MUST mean the same thing all the time. But that's the beauty of the word , it does'nt have to and it's up to God what it means in a particular situation. Jesus said his words are "spirit and life" so that sounds to me like they are not meant in a literal way much of the time as we would like.
Also consider that Jesus was speaking to Pharisees who did'nt believe in an eternal hell and after his words they did'nt flinch or go crazy or object at all because they did'nt understand his words to mean eternal hell.

And yes Rev is not chronological but after Jesus returns in judgement i think then it is chronological because otherwise it would'nt make sense. It was a message of hope in the Second Coming and if the part after that was'nt chronological then what is the point?

[Guest]

Up until Abraham, God didn’t have a “people” or a “nation” he could call “his people” or “his nation.” Up until this time, God’s “high priest” was Melchizedek. After Melchizedek, God said he would make Israel His people, and certain men his “high priests,” (1 Samuel 2:2. Now, His high priest used to Melchizedek. Now it’s some men from Israel. Do you see a transition here?

The whole purpose of Hebrews 7 is to show the non transferance of the Melchizadek priesthood.
"Without father or mother or ancestral line, neither with beginning of days nor ending of life , but resembling the Son of God, he CONTINUES TO BE A PRIEST WITHOUT INTERRUPTION AND WITHOUT SUCESSOR." 7.3

Now this proves 2 things. First it's an eternal priesthood so it can't be transfered to or from Aaron. "Continues" means that it always has been around. Second it proves Mel is Christ because if it's non transferable and Christ is our "HIGH PREIST" then Superman must be Clark Kent and visa versa.

[Guest]

The word "aionios" has been translated by some as "eternal".
The word is actually the adjectival or adverbial form of the word "aion" which means "age". So how can the word mean "eternal"?

The Greek word for "eternal" is "aidios" and is used twice in the New Testament ----- in one case it is used in the phrase "His eternal power and deity".

The word "aionios" may mean "going from age to age" or in other cases "permanently".

A good example in which the word obviously doesn't mean "forever" is
the following from Philemon. Paul is writing to Philemon about his runaway slave Onesimus:

Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back permanently. Philemon 1:15

The word which I translated above as "permanently" is clearly not "eternally" or "forever". Yet most translations use "forever".

Perhaps they think it is used figuratively as we sometimes use the word "forever" today. But if that is the case, then perhaps it is used figuratively in the scriptures that are used concerning suffering in Gehenna.

I know of no one who believes that in Matt 25:46 "aionios" has a different meaning when describing "life" than it has when describing "correction".

I think that when our Lord speaks of the "goats" as undergoing
"aionios" correction, He means "correction going-from-age-to-age."
The same applies to the sheep who have "life going-from-age-to-age."
When something goes from age to age, it may continue forever, or it may not. In the case of the sheep, their life will continue forever, but in the case of the goats, their correction will some day end. Otherwise, how could it be correction?

In any case, the idea of "eternal" or "forever" IS NOT inherent in the meaning of "aionios".

[Guest]

Paidion,

You said:

The word "aionios" has been translated by some as "eternal".
The word is actually the adjectival or adverbial form of the word "aion" which means "age". So how can the word mean "eternal"?

Please consider the following:

AIONIOS

Strongs: #166 aionios, perpetual, eternal, for ever, everlasting.

Wigram: #166 aionios, (adjective), eternal, everlasting, without beginning or end, without beginning, without end.

Kittle: aionios. An adjective meaning eternal. Used of God, Romans 16:26.

Thayer: # 166 aionios, 1. without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be. 2. without beginning. 3. without end,
never to cease, everlasting.

NIV Theological Dictionary: aionios, without beginning or end, eternal, forever

A. T. Robertson, "Word Pictures": "The word aionios ....comes as near to the idea of eternal as the Greek can put it in one word."

AION

Strongs: 165 aion, age, course, eternal, forever

Wigram: 165 aion, age. (a) an indefinately long period, eternity (past or future)

Thayer: 165 aion, 1. age, a human lifetime. 2. an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity

Is your expertise in Greek of a higher state than those I have cited? I have no resource of more accepted authority than these. Perhaps you do. Could you inform us who they might be?