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"?
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.
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.
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.