Didn't I say aion and aionion have only one meaning in the New Testament? Yes, I did.
Yes, you did, and it remains a mere assertion. The only reasoning you have used to support this assertion has been debunked since the first page of this thread (gorgeous).
I believe I may be dealing with someone who is not capable of logical reasoning. So I will post this for those of you who can use the brain God gave you. No slight to you Gabe.
Gabe, gorgeous does not pertain to that which is gorge. That is your illogical assertion. I wish I could come down to your level so you could understand the most basic grammar they begin to teach in 3rd grade. I will try to make this as simple as I can so you can understand it.
This is from the Miriam Webster dictionary:
Main Entry: gor·geous
Pronunciation: \gor-jes\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English gorgeouse, from Middle French gorgias elegant, perhaps from gorgias wimple, from gorge throat
Date: 15th century
: splendidly or showily brilliant or magnificent
synonyms see splendid
— gor·geous·ly adverb
— gor·geous·ness noun
(end of quote)
Now then, Gabe, Gorgeous does not pertain to gorge. Gorgeous may have 600 years ago derived itself from gorge (notice Miriam Webster says ***perhaps*** from gorgias wimple, from gorge throat. Perhaps, Gabe. Perhaps. That does not mean "definately." And even if its etymology is derived from gorge that has nothing whatsoever to do whith what that adjective pertains to today. Today, Gabe, gorgeous pertains to gorgeousness. A gorgeous girl is talking about a girl which pertains to one having gorgeousness. It does not pertain to her gorge nor to her throat nor to her gorgias wimple. Do you understand this?
The etymology of aeon according to Lennep:
"Says that it comes from Aó (to breathe) which suggests the idea of indefinite duration." (Etymologicum Linguæ Græcæ).
Now then, Gabe, no one in their right mind would say that aeon today or when the New Testament was written used aeon to mean "to breathe" and there therefore aionion meant pertaining to breathe. So your idea of gorgeous pertaining to gorge is ridiculous.
I believe you stated that
If you demonstrated that aionios from its inception carried the meaning of eternity why do I disagree with you.
Because you won't let the facts get in your way.
No, Gabe, that is the wrong answer. The answer is because you did not demonstrate that aionios from its inception carried the meaning of eternity.
Tony wrote: It is impossible for aionios to be greater than its noun form.
Gabe wrote:
1. The noun aion does refer to eternity at times (see John 6:27 where it is used to convey the idea of imperishability).
2. It is not impossible for an adjective to go beyond the meaning of its noun form. For instance, "hideous" derives from "hisda", meaning "fear". However, when someone calls something hideous, they don't have in mind "pertaining to fear" as the meaning.
Tony's reply:
Gabe, I realize you are incapable of understanding this. I don't say that to be mean. It is just that I have dealt with you over the years and I realize you are incapable of thinking properly. So I will answer the above two points for those who God has given the ability to properly think.
Your #1. above is not even close to logical. It is impossible for aion to refer to eternity. If it did the very word "aion" would not be used. The Greek word Aperantos "endless" would be used as in "endless genealogies" (1 Tim.1:4). To say that aion can be eternal is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction in terms. Also, in case you missed it, John 6:27 does not use the word aion but does use the adjectival form aionion.
Joh 6:27 Do not work for the food which is perishing, but for the food which is remaining for life
eonian, which the Son of Mankind will be giving to you, for this One God, the Father, seals."
There is the food that perishes and the food which is remaining for life eonian. It is impossible for eonian to mean "eternal" because it is an adjective and its noun form does not mean "eternal." If Jesus wanted us to know that the life He was talking about was eternal he would have used the word "aperantos." The food Jesus gives to His people will allow them to live for the duration of the next two eons. The eons are not eternal. The Bible says they all end. Now I have said that to you many many times. The Bible says the eons end. Yet you say that sometimes an eon can be eternal. You contradict the Bible. Now I know that means nothing to you but maybe it will mean something to those reading this.
Your #2 above likewise is complete nonsense.
You stated in #2 above this:
"2. It is not impossible for an adjective to go beyond the meaning of its noun form. For instance, "hideous" derives from "hisda", meaning "fear". However, when someone calls something hideous, they don't have in mind "pertaining to fear" as the meaning."
Tony's reply: Dear reading audience, do you see the error in Gabe's logic in #2? The nounal form of hideous is not "fear." The noun of hideous is according to the Mirriam Webster dictionary: "hideousness." The noun form of hideous is also not hisda nor fear. Hideous cannot be greater than that which pertains to hideousness.
Plato never used aionios as "eternal." Just because some nit wit mistranslated Plato's use of aion and aionios as eternal does not mean Plato used it to mean eternal.
No need to personally attack the vast majority of Classical Greek scholars, Tony boy. I've been trying to get you to actually analyze and discuss Timeaus 37d-e, but you keep evading the issue. Why is that? Is it because you don't have a leg to stand on?
Tony's reply: Yea the same majority of Greek "scholars" who translated "aionion kolasin" as "eternal torment"! LOL! What a bunch of idiotic losers. Gabe, you can't even understand the most basic grammar. Why do you think you would understand what I tell you about Timaeus, Gabe, not Timeaus. There is no Timeaus.
Tony, what did Plato mean by this:
"...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." Tony's reply:
News Flash for Gabe . . . we are not required to understand the philosophies which Paul tells us to beware. But just to amuse the reading audience I will tell them what it means because I know it will go right over your head.
Plato is saying it is wrong to attribute that which was and that which will be to the imperceptible essense (most likely he meant by "imperceptible essense" the essense of God. Because, according to Plato, God is neither was nor will be but "is." Only "is" is properly attributed to God. "Was" and "will be" according to Plato have reference only to time. Since God is immovable He just "is." Was and will be are motions and are spoken of as time. Since, according to Plato, God "is" He is not becoming older or younger by time. He is not subject to the moving things such as the aeons. The aeons are not "is" but are "was" and "will be" for they are not eternal but are constantly moving.
Gay homo's are happy about being homo...
How would you know? 
Well I don't know by personal experience if that is why you are asking.
The late and great Greek scholar and Universalist, William Barclay, understood aionios to be the word of eternity in the sense of timelessness. Wrote Barclay, in his New Testament Words:
"The essence of the word aionios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God. Aionios is the word which describes nothing less and nothing more than the life of God."
It is incorrect. Nouns do not modify the adjectives.
Gabe wrote: Barclay was not implying that nouns modify adjectives, you silly man.
Of course he was you silly child. When Barclay said "aionios is . . . "the word of deity" and "applied to God" he is meaning Romans 16:26 as in "the eonian God." So in fact he is telling us that "God" is modifying "eonian." And when he said that it describes "the life of God" he is telling us that the life of God modifies aionios to mean eternal.
