Aionios: Let's clear the water

[sven]

i saw some posts concerning time and eternity just right now

do this verses contradict Platos concept of eternity or would they fit in?

Titus 1:2

επ ελπιδι ζωης αιωνιου ην επηγγειλατο ο αψευδης θεος προ χρονων αιωνιων

on hope of eternal life which the God who does not lie promised before eternal times

2 Timothy 1:9

του σωσαντος ημας και καλεσαντος κλησει αγια ου κατα τα εργα ημων αλλα κατ ιδιαν προθεσιν και χαριν την δοθεισαν ημιν εν χριστω ιησου προ χρονων αιωνιων

the One having saved us and having called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace given to us in Christ Jesus before eternal times

Romans 16:25,26

τω δε δυναμενω υμας στηριξαι κατα το ευαγγελιον μου και το κηρυγμα ιησου χριστου κατα αποκαλυψιν μυστηριου χρονοις αιωνιοις σεσιγημενου
φανερωθεντος δε νυν δια τε γραφων προφητικων κατ επιταγην του αιωνιου θεου εις υπακοην πιστεως εις παντα τα εθνη γνωρισθεντος

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the proclaiming of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery having been kept unvoiced during eternal times, but now has been made plain, and by prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known for obedience of faith to all the nations;


what do u think of Pilemon 15, the NIV translates:

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good - no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.

At least this translation didn't understand eternal here

Green's Literal:

For perhaps for this he was separated for an hour, that you might receive him eternally; no longer as a slave, but beyond a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, and how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

ταχα γαρ δια τουτο εχωρισθη προς ωραν ινα αιωνιον αυτον απεχης

to you think, in this context aionios is used in the sense of eternal or - at least about a time beyond death, or just refering to live time?

you find the textus receptus greek text here:

http://tr.ephesians3seven.com/

i will write more tomorrow to your last post

[gregoryfl]

Plato is the first one that we have record of that started using the adjective "aionios." He only used it a total of 5 times in his writings, and in looking at those instances we see that he never used it by itself to speak of eternity; he always used a stronger word with it, such as aidos.

Ron

[Paul Hazelwood]

There is no dual meaning for eonian.

Your entitled to your opinion, but the demand for that is based upon the grammar rules of the translated word.  There is no evidence that our grammar rules were the same for the original language. 

 At the same time our own concepts and inferences bias our language all the time.

Most people have probably implied something along the lines of   "That train took forever"  We know that it couldn't have literally taken forever,  but there we use our language to convey the concept all the time.   And in this case forever indeed does have a dual meaning because we USE the word different ways.


Someone can then post all their technical jargon to say that millions of poeple that talk that way are using the word incorrectly, but none of that changes anything, it is indeed how we use it.

[bobf]

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 23, 2009, 07:43:42 PM
Though it might seem redundant to us, both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek include examples where synonymous and/or closely related words are coupled together for emphasis. Such is the case with snonymous parallelisms.

Aren't you being contradictory now, calling them synonyms?  If "aionios punishment" means "eternal punishment" but NOT in the sense of unending punishment, rather only in the sense of punishment in/of/fitting the eternal God, then the two words are not synonyms nor was the statement redundant.

Ah, but I do believe that that aionios conveys the idea of timeless eternity which is neccessarily without beginning nor end.  I simply believe that aionios is applied as an epithet to things like life and punishment, thereby conveying the idea of divinity. Does that make sense?

I guess it depends.  When you say that aionios "conveys the idea of.... without beginning or end" do you mean in some cases or always?   Can aionios convey the idea of divinity without conveying the idea of endlessness (as in aionios punsihment)?

If so then I don't see this as being redundant or doubling up for empahsis:

"But writing in the very expressive Greek language, Justinian says, "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless eonian (ateleuteetos aiõnios) life for the just, and endless (ateleuteetos) punishment for the wicked."

The additional adjective would actually be necessary.

[Tony N]

There is no dual meaning for eonian.

Your entitled to your opinion, but the demand for that is based upon the grammar rules of the translated word.  There is no evidence that our grammar rules were the same for the original language.

 

No I'm not entitled to my opinion. I can only base what I say upon the facts the Scriptures present us with. For aion being an age or eon to have no beginning and no end would preclude that word from even being used for that purpose. There is no eon or olam in the entire Bible that can mean "eternal." Since that is the case it is impossible for its adjectival form to be translated "eternal."

Show me one word in the Bible, properly translated, in which that word can have two opposite meanings.

You see, Paul, it is not based upon my opinion but facts.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I've already done that  literally "age" and in abstract terms "seeming"  forever since the ending or beginning can be imperceptible.


Either perspective causes no problems of contradiction until the literal is confused with the abstract. 

[Tony N]

I've already done that  literally "age" and in abstract terms "seeming"  forever since the ending or beginning can be imperceptible.


Either perspective causes no problems of contradiction until the literal is confused with the abstract. 

Paul, God is not the author of confusion. The Bible says that all the eons end so there can be no unending eon.

If eon can mean forever then it is a contradiction in terms.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I've already done that  literally "age" and in abstract terms "seeming"  forever since the ending or beginning can be imperceptible.


Either perspective causes no problems of contradiction until the literal is confused with the abstract. 

Paul, God is not the author of confusion. The Bible says that all the eons end so there can be no unending eon.

If eon can mean forever then it is a contradiction in terms.

I am not confused, I explained it clearly.

[Tony N]

I've already done that  literally "age" and in abstract terms "seeming"  forever since the ending or beginning can be imperceptible.


Either perspective causes no problems of contradiction until the literal is confused with the abstract. 

Paul, God is not the author of confusion. The Bible says that all the eons end so there can be no unending eon.

If eon can mean forever then it is a contradiction in terms.

I am not confused, I explained it clearly.

Hi brother Paul,
Maybe I just didn't read you right? I have been known to do that. I am human and prone to err.

I am curious what Apoc would say about "the eons of the eons"? Does he believe there is more than one eternity to come? And if there are two eternities to come are we in the present wicked eternity? And if we are, and if there are eternities to come then how can eternity be without end? One has to end for another to take its place. So eternity is not really what we think of eternity.

I am curious if you could give a verse where a Hebrew would use olam/aion in which you know for sure they were using it in an abstract way of "seeming forever"? You might have something to share.

Anyway, bro., if "age" can be "eternal age" then "age" is not a proper word to use in connection with "eternal" because the very word "age" has the understanding of having a beginning and end.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Hi Tony

The problem we will have here is that you will assert that I am saying something about a word that I am not saying. I have never stated that aionios means an eternal age.  Those are not the words I used, those are the words you wrote trying to say that I am not correct about what I DID say.


The spiritual nature beyond the literal is to help us understand that things are not what they appear to our senses, hence the dual nature of what the words can mean.


To me, God is saying,  Yes there is an end to the ages,  but I am sorry, they will seem an eternity so keep running the race because there will be a point where you may want to give up as you cannot percieve the end or while running the race you may not perceive the beginning or the end as if time has vanished.


There are many times where I know I have awakened to Gods chastisement, I wasn't sure how I got to that point only that I never thought it would end.  It was through that experience that scripture opened up to a new level to me.   I am not expecting you to know what I perceive, I just explain it the best I can.

[Tony N]

Hi Paul,
Sorry if you misunderstood my previous post. I was just rambling on and not meaning to attribute to you what I was rambling on about. I can see now how you might think I was attributing what I was writing about to you now.

Anyway, I just thought you might have a verse which might show a person was thinking something was going on forever to them.

[peacemaker]

I am curious if you could give a verse where a Hebrew would use olam/aion in which you know for sure they were using it in an abstract way of "seeming forever"?

I descended to the roots of the mountains, the earth with its bars was around me forever [Hebrew olam / Greek aionios], but You have brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God. (Jonah 2:6)

And, the Law of Moses was to be an everlasting covenant (Leviticus 24:8).
 
Yet, we read in the New Covenant that the first was done away with, and abolished (2 Corinthians 3:11,13).

God made the first old (Hebrews 8:13).

Let us not forget that Israel's judgment lasts forever. At least until the Spirit is poured out … (Isaiah 32:13-15).

 

peacemaker

[Paul Hazelwood]

Hi Tony,

Jon 2:2 And he is saying, I call, because of my distress, to Yahweh, my Elohim, and He is answering me. From the belly of the unseen I implore; You hear my voice.

Jon 2:4 And I said, I am driven out from in front of Your eyes. Yea, I will continue to look to Your holy temple.

Jon 2:6 I go down to the fashioning points of the mountains; the earth, its bars are about me for the eon, yet You wilt bring up my life from ruin, Yahweh, my Elohim.



Do you think that while Jonah was in the predicament he was believing there would be an end or that he could even perceive it?

The problem as I have pointed out is that we can read this verse in the literal sense and we can apply the literal word EON or the literal word FOREVER and it doesn't tell us the idea completely.

We can see that the account tells us that that it was for limited duration.   But, is it possible to look at this also from the standpoint of "While it was happening?"


If he already knew for certain that it was only going to be for a while, then whats the problem?  There would be no real need for a desperate cry. 

While in verse 4 some can say, well, it didn't last forever so the translation is correct and I do not disagree with that in the literal sense.  But Olam is a conceptual word as well it does not only mean eon  and it does not only mean everlasting, it has a usage that means  the vanishing point; generally, time out
of mind (past or future)


Now, "while" Jonah was in the belly of the whale figuratively or literally, do you think he really thought it was temporary?

[Tony N]

peacemaker, the Hebrew people didn't use the English word "forever."

[Apocatastasis]

Tony,

What happened to Plato's Timeaus 37d?  Did you come to your senses and realize you weren't going to win that one?

Gabe, my post stands. Your post does not.

Well, there you have it then.

You accuse me of improperly parroting the same ideas for years yet you have used the  same ideas for years as well. Yet I don't use personal attacks on you (as if that proves anything). Gabe, please, dispense with the attacks on me. It only makes you look bad.

I didn't personally attack you, Tony.  Or were you offended by the "old dog" comment? 
Remember, Tony, I once argued for the position you are advocating, in much the same manner that you did. 

Gabe no aion is eternal. Every aion has both a beginning and an end.

This is a mere assertion, Tony, and re-asserting it over and over again neither strengthens it nor vindicates it.

Eonian, being the adjective of aion just tells us what pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for eonian to be greater than eon.

This is the root fallacy, as I have already demonstrated. 

Just as America is a noun and American is its adjective, it is impossible for anything American to be greater than America.
For instance, America is basically confined to the United States. Since Obama is the American president, his presidency is not greather than the boundaries of the United States. He is not president of Russia as well. His presidency pertains to America. (period).

Yes, so?  There are plenty of English adjectives whose meaning cannot be gotten from the noun from which they were derived. Like I said, "gorgeous" does not mean "pertaining to the throat."   Need some more examples of adjectives that are not semanticaly bound to their nounal roots? 

Besides all this, the ones who wrote and spoke that which we call the Bible had for their use the Greek word "Aperantos" which means "endless." They could have used this word with punishment and all the verses where eonian is used but did not and for good reason. Because those things which are eonian are those things which pertain to the eon or eons and not to endlessness.

Firstly, there are synonyms in Greek, Tony.  Secondly, Jesus said that aeonian life is that sort of life that never perishes (it lasts forever):

Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto aeonian life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Tony, I see that you are having trouble with contrasts, but perhaps you'll notice that aeonian food does not perish?

2Co 4:16 Wherefore we are not despondent, but even if our outward man is decaying, nevertheless that within us is being renewed day by day."

Notice the contrast is not between decaying and eternal but that which is decaying and that which is being renewed DAY BY DAY.

Yes, it is day by day.  This does not change that fact that this verse involves a contrast of opposites (outward/inward, decay/renew).  Address this.

2Co 4:17 For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory,

Notice the contrast is not between momentary and eternal but between momentary and eonian or that which is pertaining to the future eons which we look forward to.

How did you fail to notice the contrasts of opposites, Tony?  The opposites include: affliction/glory, light/exceeding weight, and momentary/aeonian.   The message Paul is sending is clear:  Our sufferings will not alst forever, but our glory will.

On a side note, what do you think Knoch was trying to get at with "transcendently transcendent"?

2Co 4:18 at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary, yet what is not being observed is eonian."

The word "temporary" is also "for a season" in Greek. So what is being observed is the momentary affliction and decay of our outward man which is for a season. What is not being observed, but which we take by faith is the assurance that in the future eons we will be glorified.
So the contrast really is between what is for a season and what is for the future eons.

The fact that this passage clearly involves the contrasts of opposite is sufficient to expose Tony's reading as  strained beyond recognition, to say the least.

Gabe, one last thing. For aionios, being an adjective, to be translated "eternal" its noun must also be eternity because it would have to be telling us of things which pertain to the eternity or eternities (plural). Where is aion ever used for eternity or eternities?

Root fallacy.  Learn what it is.

But, to answer your question, aion is used of eternity here:

Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Again, a contrast of opposites:  earthly manna/heavenly manna, and perishable life/immortal life.  You will notice that aion here conveys the notion of the imperishable life of God.

[Apocatastasis]

Plato is the first one that we have record of that started using the adjective "aionios." He only used it a total of 5 times in his writings, and in looking at those instances we see that he never used it by itself to speak of eternity; he always used a stronger word with it, such as aidos.

What do you mean when you say "by itself"?

[Apocatastasis]

I guess it depends.  When you say that aionios "conveys the idea of.... without beginning or end" do you mean in some cases or always? 

 In some cases (most cases in the NT).

 

Can aionios convey the idea of divinity without conveying the idea of endlessness (as in aionios punsihment)?

I think that aionios functions as an epithet for divinity by virtue of the fact that God alone is truly eternal.  ths, to describe smething as eternal was to describe it as divine.

[Apocatastasis]

 

do this verses contradict Platos concept of eternity or would they fit in?

Titus 1:2

επ ελπιδι ζωης αιωνιου ην επηγγειλατο ο αψευδης θεος προ χρονων αιωνιων

on hope of eternal life which the God who does not lie promised before eternal times

2 Timothy 1:9

του σωσαντος ημας και καλεσαντος κλησει αγια ου κατα τα εργα ημων αλλα κατ ιδιαν προθεσιν και χαριν την δοθεισαν ημιν εν χριστω ιησου προ χρονων αιωνιων

the One having saved us and having called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace given to us in Christ Jesus before eternal times

In these verses, aionios serves as an intensification device, reiterating the notion that God's gracious gift of divine life has always been ours (transcends time).  "Before time" (pro chronos) is an idiomatic expression of timeless eternity.

Romans 16:25,26

τω δε δυναμενω υμας στηριξαι κατα το ευαγγελιον μου και το κηρυγμα ιησου χριστου κατα αποκαλυψιν μυστηριου χρονοις αιωνιοις σεσιγημενου
φανερωθεντος δε νυν δια τε γραφων προφητικων κατ επιταγην του αιωνιου θεου εις υπακοην πιστεως εις παντα τα εθνη γνωρισθεντος

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the proclaiming of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery having been kept unvoiced during eternal times, but now has been made plain, and by prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known for obedience of faith to all the nations;

Here the more literal meaning of "pertaining to the ages" applies without any connotations of eternality.

what do u think of Pilemon 15, the NIV translates:

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good - no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.

At least this translation didn't understand eternal here

Green's Literal:

For perhaps for this he was separated for an hour, that you might receive him eternally; no longer as a slave, but beyond a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, and how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

ταχα γαρ δια τουτο εχωρισθη προς ωραν ινα αιωνιον αυτον απεχης

to you think, in this context aionios is used in the sense of eternal or - at least about a time beyond death, or just refering to live time?

Probably just referring to his lifetime, although a metaphorical application is possible.

[peacemaker]

You are right, Tony, but age-abiding "seems forever."

The problem we will have here is that you will assert that I am saying something about a word that I am not saying.

And this is understated for effect

peacemaker

[Apocatastasis]

Peacemaker,

Regarding your question on olam....

Did you give this article a looking at?

http://www.growthingod.org.uk/AeonRelm.htm

It's a good read.

[Tony N]

Tony,

What happened to Plato's Timeaus 37d?  Did you come to your senses and realize you weren't going to win that one?

I never lost my senses. The only thing that happened to Plato's Timeaus is God just has not yet given you the grace to see that Plato didn't use aion/aionios as eternal.

Gabe, my post stands. Your post does not.

Well, there you have it then.

You accuse me of improperly parroting the same ideas for years yet you have used the  same ideas for years as well. Yet I don't use personal attacks on you (as if that proves anything). Gabe, please, dispense with the attacks on me. It only makes you look bad.

I didn't personally attack you, Tony.  Or were you offended by the "old dog" comment? 
Remember, Tony, I once argued for the position you are advocating, in much the same manner that you did.

 

Just because you once held to my position and later changed does not mean you changed for the better. It could be that like Eve, you were deluded.

Gabe no aion is eternal. Every aion has both a beginning and an end.

This is a mere assertion, Tony, and re-asserting it over and over again neither strengthens it nor vindicates it.

Gabe, just show the viewing audience where aion in the bible is ever used to show eternity. It should be a simple thing to do. But I'll wager you can't because if you could you would have by now. The bible says all the eons end. So either you believe the Bible or you believe your "new found understanding."

Eonian, being the adjective of aion just tells us what pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for eonian to be greater than eon.

This is the root fallacy, as I have already demonstrated

. 

Actually, it is not. America is a noun. American is the adjectival form of America. The adjective American only tells us that which pertains to America. That is not using the root fallacy but the law of language. Likewise with aion and aionion. Same thing.

Just as America is a noun and American is its adjective, it is impossible for anything American to be greater than America.

For instance, America is basically confined to the United States. Since Obama is the American president, his presidency is not greather than the boundaries of the United States. He is not president of Russia as well. His presidency pertains to America. (period).

Yes, so?  There are plenty of English adjectives whose meaning cannot be gotten from the noun from which they were derived. Like I said, "gorgeous" does not mean "pertaining to the throat."   Need some more examples of adjectives that are not semanticaly bound to their nounal roots? 

Gorgeousness is the noun. Gorgeous is the adjectival form of Gorgeousness. Gorgeous is that which pertains to that which has gorgeousness. It is not greater than its nounal form.

Besides all this, the ones who wrote and spoke that which we call the Bible had for their use the Greek word "Aperantos" which means "endless." They could have used this word with punishment and all the verses where eonian is used but did not and for good reason. Because those things which are eonian are those things which pertain to the eon or eons and not to endlessness.

Firstly, there are synonyms in Greek, Tony.  Secondly, Jesus said that aeonian life is that sort of life that never perishes (it lasts forever):

Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto aeonian life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Tony, I see that you are having trouble with contrasts, but perhaps you'll notice that aeonian food does not perish?

Oh dear, Gabe, I think you need to rethink your position on that passage. Jesus never said that aeonian life is immortality or that that life lasts forever. That life He spoke of would allow His follower to live for the duration of the eon to come. The meat which endureth unto eonian life is the meat which endureth to the life pertaining to the eon.

Tony wrote: 2Co 4:16 Wherefore we are not despondent, but even if our outward man is decaying, nevertheless that within us is being renewed day by day."

Notice the contrast is not between decaying and eternal but that which is decaying and that which is being renewed DAY BY DAY.

Gabe replied: Yes, it is day by day.  This does not change that fact that this verse involves a contrast of opposites (outward/inward, decay/renew).  Address this.

I never said there was no contrasts involved. You are setting up a straw man argument.

Tony wrote: 2Co 4:17 For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory,

Notice the contrast is not between momentary and eternal but between momentary and eonian or that which is pertaining to the future eons which we look forward to.

How did you fail to notice the contrasts of opposites, Tony?  The opposites include: affliction/glory, light/exceeding weight, and momentary/aeonian.   The message Paul is sending is clear:  Our sufferings will not alst forever, but our glory will.

Hw did you fail to notice the contrasts of opposites, Gabe? Notice the contrast is not between momentary and eternal but between momentary and eonian or that which is pertaining to the future eons which we look forward to.

On a side note, what do you think Knoch was trying to get at with "transcendently transcendent"?

Because.

Tony wrote 2 Cor. 4:18 at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary, yet what is not being observed is eonian."

The word "temporary" is also "for a season" in Greek. So what is being observed is the momentary affliction and decay of our outward man which is for a season. What is not being observed, but which we take by faith is the assurance that in the future eons we will be glorified.
So the contrast really is between what is for a season and what is for the future eons.

Gabe's reply: The fact that this passage clearly involves the contrasts of opposite is sufficient to expose Tony's reading as  strained beyond recognition, to say the least.

Tony's reply: The fact that this passage clearly involves the contrast between something that lasts for a season and that which is for the remaining eons is sufficient to expose Gabe's reading as strained beyond recognition, to say the lease.

Gabe, one last thing. For aionios, being an adjective, to be translated "eternal" its noun must also be eternity because it would have to be telling us of things which pertain to the eternity or eternities (plural). Where is aion ever used for eternity or eternities?

Root fallacy.  Learn what it is.

Take your own medicine and learn what it is and is not.

But, to answer your question, aion is used of eternity here:

Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Tony's reply:
Well, sure, according to King James mistranslation you might have a leg to stand on. But the problem is that "for ever" is not in the Greek. It is "for the eon." They shall live for the eon, Gabe. No eon is "for ever." All the eons end.

Gabe wrote: Again, a contrast of opposites:  earthly manna/heavenly manna, and perishable life/immortal life.  You will notice that aion here conveys the notion of the imperishable life of God.

Tony's reply:
I have a passage that applied to you, Gabe:

Isa 5:20-21  Woe to those saying for evil, good, and for good, evil, placing darkness for light and light for darkness, placing bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"  (21)  Woe to those wise in their own eyes, and in front of their own face have understanding!"

You are one who says a word can have two completely opposite meanings. The Bible says all the aions end, Gabe, So any translation that puts "for ever" for "aion" is incorrect.
The one who eats of the bread shall live for the eon. That is what Jesus said, Gabe. He never said that that which is for the eon is imperishable life.

We believers put on immortality. We do not have immortality because we have eonian life. Our immortality allows us to live through the coming eons. Those eons will end. Our life will not.

[peacemaker]

Peacemaker,

Regarding your question on olam....

Did you give this article a looking at?

http://www.growthingod.org.uk/AeonRelm.htm

It's a good read.

No question posed, as my only intent was to put forth a verse which came to mind, regardless of the translation of forever, or age-abiding.

Although when something is hidden from our view, or beyond the horizon of the east – it is out of sight in the sense of the Hebrew word olam.

"Tomorrow or two-three days from now, is also an obscurity at best."

I will read over the site posted when time permits  and thank you for it, Apocatastasis!

peacemaker

[Apocatastasis]

I never lost my senses. The only thing that happened to Plato's Timeaus is God just has not yet given you the grace to see that Plato didn't use aion/aionios as eternal.

Why don't you answer the question I asked you?  What do you think Plato meant when he wrote that time is the moving image of the aeonian order? Don't be shy now.

Gorgeousness is the noun. Gorgeous is the adjectival form of Gorgeousness. Gorgeous is that which pertains to that which has gorgeousness. It is not greater than its nounal form.

  

The noun gorgeousness is derived from the adjective gorgeous.  The adjective gorgeous is derived from the noun gorge, meaning "throat".  As I demonstrated earlier, gorgeous is an example of an adjective that is not semantically bound to its nounal root.   Tony, why bother trying to snake your way out of this?

Oh dear, Gabe, I think you need to rethink your position on that passage. Jesus never said that aeonian life is immortality or that that life lasts forever. That life He spoke of would allow His follower to live for the duration of the eon to come. The meat which endureth unto eonian life is the meat which endureth to the life pertaining to the eon.

Oh dear, Tony, Jesus clearly contrasted between the sort of life that dies, and the sort of life that never dies. Once again, you are failing to see the contrasts of opposites.  Aeonian life is the immortal life of the Heavenly Father in contradistinction to the perishable life of this passing world. Tony, there is no reason to keep your eyes wide shut.  Universal Salvation is not at all at stake here.

I never said there was no contrasts involved. You are setting up a straw man argument.

You are not acknowledging the fact that each of these contrasts involves opposites. The opposite of earthly life is heavenly life.  The opposite of perishable life is immortal life. The opposite of temporary is permanent. 

Hw did you fail to notice the contrasts of opposites, Gabe? Notice the contrast is not between momentary and eternal but between momentary and eonian or that which is pertaining to the future eons which we look forward to.

Verse 18 makes it quite clear that the contrast is between that which is passing and that which lasts forever:

Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Tony's reply:
Well, sure, according to King James mistranslation you might have a leg to stand on. But the problem is that "for ever" is not in the Greek. It is "for the eon." They shall live for the eon, Gabe. No eon is "for ever." All the eons end.

The earthly bread is perishable and can sustain only mortal life.  The heavenly bread is imperishable and can sustain immortal life. It is clear: The contrast is between perishable life and imperishable life.   

Tony's reply:
I have a passage that applied to you, Gabe:

Isa 5:20-21  Woe to those saying for evil, good, and for good, evil, placing darkness for light and light for darkness, placing bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"  (21)  Woe to those wise in their own eyes, and in front of their own face have understanding!"

You are one who says a word can have two completely opposite meanings.

Actually, a word can take on opposing meanings.  Such words are known as contronyms, or antagonyms.

http://www.rinkworks.com/words/contronyms.shtml

The semantic evolution of aion/aionios is not so astounding, however

[Apocatastasis]

Let's get back to Plato's Timaeus for a bit.

Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiwnos), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiwnion) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiwnion) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time (xronon).

This quote is akin to a quote from Philo the 1st century Jewish Platonist:

"But in eternity (aiwni) nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only."
The idea is very familiar to anyone who has studied Ancient Greek philosophy.  Tony, care to try to explain this away?

Plato elucidates: 

[37e] For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidion/imperceptible) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (aiwna/eon) and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of expression.

Tell me, Tony, what is Plato basically saying? 

[gregoryfl]

Plato is the first one that we have record of that started using the adjective "aionios." He only used it a total of 5 times in his writings, and in looking at those instances we see that he never used it by itself to speak of eternity; he always used a stronger word with it, such as aidos.

What do you mean when you say "by itself"?

I made a mistake. It was Aristotle who only used aion, not aionios, in conjunction with a stronger word when he wanted to relate aion to eternity. Too many dang philosophers. 

For example, he wrote "Life, an aión continuous and eternal," speaking of the life that God possesses. He used aion in the sense of existing, but the word in his writings, in and of itself, did not carry the idea of eternity. For he wrote of mans aion as being of short duration, yet, as is seen here, he strenghthens the word aion when speaking of God by describing it as [aidos], or eternal.

Great discussion!

Ron