Tentmaker Forum

Hi everybody, I'm back. I've been at L Ray Smith's forum/camp/"cult" (heh heh) for a while. (He's very, very sick. Please pray for him.) Anyway, I think Ray has many things right, but his article on aionios and the related words left something to be desired. I just want to get to the bottom of this. Does aionios, mean itself "eternal" or "endless"? What about the phrase "ages of the ages" used in Revelation? I just want to know.

Thanks.

Quote from: Lupac on January 05, 2010, 06:56:50 PM
Hi everybody, I'm back. I've been at L Ray Smith's forum/camp/"cult" (heh heh) for a while. (He's very, very sick. Please pray for him.) Anyway, I think Ray has many things right, but his article on aionios and the related words left something to be desired. I just want to get to the bottom of this. Does aionios, mean itself "eternal" or "endless"? What about the phrase "ages of the ages" used in Revelation? I just want to know.

Thanks.

One problem is the assertion that Aion "only" means an age,  this is incorrect,  Ray also sites a grammar rule that is not an actual grammar rule.

He cites that the adjective of a word cannot take on a greater meaning than the word it is associated with.   There are two problems, even if it is one day proven that this is an actual grammar rule then we still are left with the multiple meanings of Aion of which aionios with a definition of everlasting would not carry a greater meaning in the first place.

Secondly,  Superior is an adjective of Super contradicting the assertion of such a rule.


That said,  when people begin to understand the abstract nature of the definitions of aion and aionios possibly intended by the culture of ancient greek language then that definition poses no problem whatsoever to Jesus saving all mankind as declared in 1 Timothy 2:4 and in fact increases our understanding of the physical and spiritual at the same time.

Not sure if that is helpful, but it is what I see.

Quote from: Lupac on January 05, 2010, 06:56:50 PM
Hi everybody, I'm back. I've been at L Ray Smith's forum/camp/"cult" (heh heh) for a while. (He's very, very sick. Please pray for him.) Anyway, I think Ray has many things right, but his article on aionios and the related words left something to be desired. I just want to get to the bottom of this. Does aionios, mean itself "eternal" or "endless"? What about the phrase "ages of the ages" used in Revelation? I just want to know.

Thanks.

Excellent little booklet here that may help...


http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html

Hanson takes the word usage used in the Greek classics too.


Enjoy
Paul

 :cloud9: I've heard some of you mention L.Ray Smith before. Anybody got a link so I can see what you're all talking about? Thanks......

Quote from: Cardinal on January 05, 2010, 09:15:42 PM
:cloud9: I've heard some of you mention L.Ray Smith before. Anybody got a link so I can see what you're all talking about? Thanks......

:icon_flower:
Im familiar With Rays Writings.. this maybe the link...

http://bible-truths.com/aeonion.htm

:icon_flower:

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 05, 2010, 07:11:50 PM

Quote from: Lupac on January 05, 2010, 06:56:50 PM
Hi everybody, I'm back. I've been at L Ray Smith's forum/camp/"cult" (heh heh) for a while. (He's very, very sick. Please pray for him.) Anyway, I think Ray has many things right, but his article on aionios and the related words left something to be desired. I just want to get to the bottom of this. Does aionios, mean itself "eternal" or "endless"? What about the phrase "ages of the ages" used in Revelation? I just want to know.

Thanks.

One problem is the assertion that Aion "only" means an age,  this is incorrect,  Ray also sites a grammar rule that is not an actual grammar rule.

He cites that the adjective of a word cannot take on a greater meaning than the word it is associated with.   There are two problems, even if it is one day proven that this is an actual grammar rule then we still are left with the multiple meanings of Aion of which aionios with a definition of everlasting would not carry a greater meaning in the first place.

Secondly,  Superior is an adjective of Super contradicting the assertion of such a rule.


That said,  when people begin to understand the abstract nature of the definitions of aion and aionios possibly intended by the culture of ancient greek language then that definition poses no problem whatsoever to Jesus saving all mankind as declared in 1 Timothy 2:4 and in fact increases our understanding of the physical and spiritual at the same time.

Not sure if that is helpful, but it is what I see.

Okay, from what I understand, the argument is this. Ether aionios always means eternal, or aionios always mean pertaining to the ages. How exactly was the word(s) used in Greece/Surrounding Area circa. 50AD or so? I've been told that aion = eon and aionios = eonion. But even those words have very odd definitions. According to a few dictionaries, eon can mean, "an indefinitely long period of time", "two ages", and "1 Billion Years (Astronomy)".

Some people's argument seem to be that Plato used aionios to mean "eternity", did he? Did it really mean "a time with no end"? I believe God will save all men, but I'm also very afraid he won't. (Most/some will go to "hell" and/or be annihilated.) Thanks. (What about the phrase "to the ages of the ages"?)

The Lord defines Himself as I AM, and that tells us that there is no time in the Spirit of God.
Why concern yourself with something that does not exist?


"Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we all burn"

So that we may become Like Him:
Seems like "eating the apple" was actually the wise choice!

Quote from: Cardinal on January 05, 2010, 09:15:42 PM
:cloud9: I've heard some of you mention L.Ray Smith before. Anybody got a link so I can see what you're all talking about? Thanks......

The main site is here

http://bible-truths.com/

I loved his earlier works much better, as he kinda got... let's just say different, after he became more popular! Still Ray has a very curious mind when it comes to scripture... I like peeking in to it when I read his works!   :thumbsup:

You gotta love his desire to understand! Just watch his new "Does God learn" video on his web site... Such sweet freedom to seek understanding!  :wink2:


Paul:

 :cloud9: Thanks........and I love curious minds when it comes to scripture  :thumbsup:

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 05, 2010, 07:11:50 PMOne problem is the assertion that Aion "only" means an age,  this is incorrect,

I disagree.  Can you show an example in the bible where aion tranlated as age would not make sense?  I'm referring to aion not to aionios.

QuoteRay also sites a grammar rule that is not an actual grammar rule.

I agree, but it seems to be at least almost always true for nouns turning into adjectives by adding a common suffix.  I have yet to see a good counter-example.

QuoteHe cites that the adjective of a word cannot take on a greater meaning than the word it is associated with.   There are two problems, even if it is one day proven that this is an actual grammar rule then we still are left with the multiple meanings of Aion of which aionios with a definition of everlasting would not carry a greater meaning in the first place.

Secondly,  Superior is an adjective of Super contradicting the assertion of such a rule.

I don't think "super" and "superior" is a good counter-example.  According to Merriam Webseter "super" means "of high grade or quality" and the suffix "-ior" means "pertaining to" and "superior" means "situated higher up, of higher rank, quality, or importance".  I don't see that "superior" is taking on greater meaning than "super".  The pitcher with a super fastball has a fastball that is superior to the average pitcher.  Compare that with the leap from "age" to "everlasting".

The tricky part is that language doesn't always follow it's own grammar rules.
A few decades ago cool and hot had different meanings. Today they often mean the same.
I can't think of a equalivalent in English but in Dutch a century most certainly can mean forever with suffix.
We got a suffix "heid"
Hardheid -> how hard something is.
Many similar examples but then they grey area starts.
We got 2 words for beauty (actually more..)
One is a outdated word rarely used for beauty.
But the same word is very often used for something that is clean.
When the suffix is added it suddenly means beautiful.
Clean=clean
Clean-heid = beauty (of people)

Now to aion.
Not a perfect match but:
We got a suffix "ig"
Yellow-ig -> Yelowish
Water-ig -> Waterish
Mud-ig -> Muddy
Century-ig -> forever

We got a short list of grammar rules with and huge exception list. Perhaps Centry-ig once followed the main grammar rules.
But the use became forever and so it got added to the exception list....

So it's very dangerous to apply modern English grammer from a western society to a 2000 year old eastern society.
Until not so long ago not even experienced Greek scholars didn't fully understand Koine Greek. Later they learned it's grammar rules were quite different from the classical Greek.
Both Greek. Both around the same time. And still so different...

So, in the end, does it matter what aion and aionios mean in regards to UR? Can anyone explain how it doesn't?

Quote from: Lupac on January 06, 2010, 05:06:58 PM
So, in the end, does it matter what aion and aionios mean in regards to UR? Can anyone explain how it doesn't?

In regaurds to UR, no.

The perspective is that we know that God has placed thing to our understanding in limited time frames,  "Ages" "perpetual things"  (perpetual is not inherantly eternal either, a plant can bloom perpetually during its limited life span). 

So punishment (mathew 25:46) can be perpetual in that light.

However, from our perspective in the abstract we may not know how long things will last, we do not know if the new heaven and new earth is forever, we cannot say that it is or isn't,  things seem like they will take forever, things seem like they last forever.

That elevator took forever.....  No one seems to object and argue with someone who says that , why not?

So from those perspectives we can gain more understanding and the argument that divides is gone, if people will allow it to vanish.   

What about the phrase "ages of the ages" used in Revelation? To me, it seems to mean "Some ages of all the ages." or something like that. For fun, I decided to see how "eternal" and "forever" would be written in Japanese. Japanese itself is a very isolated language, but it has lots of influences from Chinese and English.

They have a single kanji meaning "eternal", but it can also mean "lengthy" or "long". It's "永", but they don't write it by itself. No, the first entry I get with my dictionary when I search for "eternal" is "fushi" or "不死" it means "eternal life". The kanji literally mean "non-death". Amazingly, the next entry is "kou" or "劫", it's a Buddhist term meaning roughly the same as "eon" or "age". Funny, isn't it? "Nagano, or "永の" means "eternal", but not in and of itself. It means "eternal-" meaning a word has to come after it to signify an eternal-something.

So I try looking for the word "forever". The first word is "chiyo" or "千世". It means "thousand years", "very long period", or "forever". All the other words for "forever" are just a kanji meaning "very long period", but repeated, so it's written twice. I don't know what all this means, but it's interesting.

Quote from: bobf on January 06, 2010, 08:43:47 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 05, 2010, 07:11:50 PMOne problem is the assertion that Aion "only" means an age,  this is incorrect,

I disagree.  Can you show an example in the bible where aion tranlated as age would not make sense?  I'm referring to aion not to aionios.

The answer to your question is  "No I cannot", however  that does not mean that it cannot be used another way.   

My argument is not against the definition age , I am saying that the argument that it can only be applied in that manner is incorrect because AION does not carry only one definition for it's USE.

Quote
I don't think "super" and "superior" is a good counter-example.  According to Merriam Webseter "super" means "of high grade or quality" and the suffix "-ior" means "pertaining to" and "superior" means "situated higher up, of higher rank, quality, or importance".

I don't see that "superior" is taking on greater meaning than "super"

. 


Hmm, what you wrote seems to contradict your own point.   If something is of "high grade" (super) but then something is "Higher grade" (superior) then it carries a greater meaning.

QuoteThe pitcher with a super fastball has a fastball that is superior to the average pitcher. 

"Dude, I have a super fast ball, but you have a superior fast ball to mine."   Now, tell me how you do not have a fast ball that is greater?

Quote

Compare that with the leap from "age" to "everlasting".

I'm not making the leap,  if you look at the definitions for aion and aionios you will find that "age" is not the only use of the word, so like I said,  even if it is proven that Ray's grammar rule is correct,  that doesn't prevent aionios from carrying the meaning of everlasting.

QuoteI disagree.  Can you show an example in the bible where aion tranlated as age would not make sense?  I'm referring to aion not to aionios.

And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of time.
--Mat 28:20


"Time"

[also translated as "the world"]


G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.




Hebrews 13:5
Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.


"I will never"

G3364
οὐ μή
ou mē
oo may
That is, G3756 and G3361; a double negative strengthening the denial; not at all: - any more, at all, by any (no) means, neither, never, no (at all), in no case (wise), nor ever, not (at all, in any wise). Compare G3378.

Quote from: Lupac on January 06, 2010, 06:10:50 PM
What about the phrase "ages of the ages" used in Revelation?

I think that it is a phrase as you may have indicated that peers into our perspective of the unknown.  The bible doesn;t tell us everything we'd like to know.

For instance,  the new heaven and new earth,   what determines that it is forever other than conjecture?    This heaven and earth realm we are in now passes away,  what in scripture says the new one doesn't.  

We do not know, but obviously from our perspective this one here has been around a long time, and may be around for longer, do we really know even now, totally and completely how long or when this one truly began, or when it will truly end?

Ephesians 3:21
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.


"world without end"
["aiōn aiōn"]

G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.


G104
ἀεί
aei
ah-eye'
From an obsolete primary noun (apparently meaning continued duration); "ever"; by qualification regularly; by implication earnestly: - always, ever.

Quote from: Molly on January 06, 2010, 06:27:54 PM


Ephesians 3:21
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.


"world without end"
["aiōn aiōn"]

G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.


G104
ἀεί
aei
ah-eye'
From an obsolete primary noun (apparently meaning continued duration); "ever"; by qualification regularly; by implication earnestly: - always, ever.

There are translational differences.

The CLV

Eph 3:21 to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus intofor all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!


The greek text  does not contain any words that translate to "without end" in that specific verse.

QuoteThere are translational differences.

The CLV

Eph 3:21 to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus intofor all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!


The greek text  does not contain any words that translate to "without end" in that specific verse.

"World without end" is one of the definitions E-sword gives for
"aiōn" but the word appears in the Greek text twice here
["aiōn aiōn"] presumably for emphasis.

Do you really think the Lord Jesus is ever going away?  

Eph 3:21  Unto him846 be glory1391 in1722 the3588 church1577 by1722 Christ5547 Jesus2424 throughout1519 all3956 ages,1074 world without end.165, 165 Amen.281


"ages"

G1074
γενεά
genea
ghen-eh-ah'
From (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication an age (the period or the persons): - age, generation, nation, time.

Quote from: Molly on January 06, 2010, 06:42:44 PM

QuoteThere are translational differences.

The CLV

Eph 3:21 to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus intofor all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!


The greek text  does not contain any words that translate to "without end" in that specific verse.

"World without end" is one of the definitions E-sword gives for
"aiōn" but the word appears in the Greek text twice here
["aiōn aiōn"] presumably for emphasis.

Do you really think the Lord Jesus is ever going away?  What doesn't appear is the word, "generations."


Eph 3:21  Unto him846 be glory1391 in1722 the3588 church1577 by1722 Christ5547 Jesus2424 throughout1519 all3956 ages,1074 world without end.165, 165 Amen.281

I stand corrected about one of the uses of aion, but  where is it specific to the new heaven and new earth being forever?


Did I say or even imply that Jesus is going away,  what point is it exactly that your wanting to make?

QuoteI stand corrected about one of the uses of aion, but  where is it specific to the new heaven and new earth being forever?


Did I say or even imply that Jesus is going away,  what point is it exactly that your wanting to make?

I changed my post somewhat, go take a look.  You are too fast for me.

"World without end' means no ending--that is forever and ever--["aiōn aiōn"].


This is an example where "aiōn" means forever.

It applies both to Jesus [who is never going away] and by extension to the ekklesia--until the end of time--which will never happen because he will never leave us or forsake us--and the end of time will only happen after forever.


World without end.  Amen.


aiōn aiōn amēn

^KJVEphesians 3:21  Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

1074 genea, genea {ghen-eh-ah'}
Meaning:  1) fathered, birth, nativity 2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family 2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy 2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race 3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time 4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space

world without end
World=aion
end=aion
without is added by KJV

The above gave me from teh start a feeling it's not about the fact that Jesus is 'without an end'

Christian Bible.
may He be gloified by the group of Called Ones and by the Anoited One Yesu for all the eras of the Last Age of the ages! Amen.

Age -> Singular

Quote from: Molly on January 06, 2010, 06:57:21 PM

This is an example where "aiōn" means forever.

Ok, I see your point now that you have explained.    And yes, I agree that the use of the word implies more than just a limited period of time.

Quote from: WhiteWings on January 06, 2010, 07:10:45 PM
^KJVEphesians 3:21  Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

1074 genea, genea {ghen-eh-ah'}
Meaning:  1) fathered, birth, nativity 2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family 2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy 2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race 3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time 4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space

world without end
World=aion
end=aion
without is added by KJV

The above gave me from teh start a feeling it's not about the fact that Jesus is 'without an end'

Christian Bible.
may He be gloified by the group of Called Ones and by the Anoited One Yesu for all the eras of the Last Age of the ages! Amen.

Age -> Singular

If we look at the passage it is about praising Jesus and I think the implication is that as long as we are able to praise him, lets praise him.  I think it's a stretch to say that passage must be defined as a temporary frame of time, but it is using our knowledge of the temporary to paint the picture of a perspective that is beyond what it able to be imagined.

QuoteChristian Bible.
may He be gloified by the group of Called Ones and by the Anoited One Yesu for all the eras of the Last Age of the ages! Amen.

Age -> Singular

So this is implying that we are in the Last age which is the Messianic age [another translation of aion] which will continue forever because he will NEVER leave us or forsake us.

It's a deep scripture.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 06, 2010, 07:30:40 PM

Quote from: WhiteWings on January 06, 2010, 07:10:45 PM
^KJVEphesians 3:21  Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

1074 genea, genea {ghen-eh-ah'}
Meaning:  1) fathered, birth, nativity 2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family 2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy 2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race 3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time 4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space

world without end
World=aion
end=aion
without is added by KJV

The above gave me from the start a feeling it's not about the fact that Jesus is 'without an end'

Christian Bible.
may He be gloified by the group of Called Ones and by the Anoited One Yesu for all the eras of the Last Age of the ages! Amen.

Age -> Singular

If we look at the passage it is about praising Jesus and I think the implication is that as long as we are able to praise him, lets praise him.  I think it's a stretch to say that passage must be defined as a temporary frame of time, but it is using our knowledge of the temporary to paint the picture of a perspective that is beyond what it able to be imagined.

Did the Last Age start after Jesus died? If so...
When combining the two versions and Strong's I  understand it as:

All people that are part of the church founded by Jesus should worship Him.
I'm unsure who "Him" is. Father or Son. I slightly edge to Father.

14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

20Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

21Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

--Eph 3


"by Christ Jesus" meaning as the mediator throughout all time--forever--



21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

--John 17




38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

--Rom 8



aiōn aiōn amēn

Official Dutch Catholic translation:

"aiōn aiōn amēn" = "centuries of the centuries"

But a very important word should be added. Often used from but anyway...

"until the century of centuries"

The words we use for until is exclusive count.

1 until 300 means that 300 is excluded.
That stricly speaking means that after until always comes something.

So until the end means that the end is not included.

Just using a Dutch grammar rule with an English word because explaining the same in Dutch wouldn't be understood by most on this forum.

Quote from: Molly on January 06, 2010, 07:53:08 PM"by Christ Jesus" meaning as the mediator throughout all time--forever--

Really?
Once we are all-in-all there is nothing to mediate anymore.
Likely sounds disrespectful but Jesus is a just a tool in God's mater plan.

Quote from: WhiteWings on January 06, 2010, 07:45:31 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 06, 2010, 07:30:40 PM

Quote from: WhiteWings on January 06, 2010, 07:10:45 PM
^KJVEphesians 3:21  Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

1074 genea, genea {ghen-eh-ah'}
Meaning:  1) fathered, birth, nativity 2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family 2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy 2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race 3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time 4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space

world without end
World=aion
end=aion
without is added by KJV

The above gave me from the start a feeling it's not about the fact that Jesus is 'without an end'

Christian Bible.
may He be gloified by the group of Called Ones and by the Anoited One Yesu for all the eras of the Last Age of the ages! Amen.

Age -> Singular

If we look at the passage it is about praising Jesus and I think the implication is that as long as we are able to praise him, lets praise him.  I think it's a stretch to say that passage must be defined as a temporary frame of time, but it is using our knowledge of the temporary to paint the picture of a perspective that is beyond what it able to be imagined.

Did the Last Age start after Jesus died? If so...
When combining the two versions and Strong's I  understand it as:

All people that are part of the church founded by Jesus should worship Him.
I'm unsure who "Him" is. Father or Son. I slightly edge to Father.

I am not sure about the last age, I do however recognize my religious thinking.   In churches it is all about praising Jesus, and am not making a statement saying we should not,  but the passage is indeed about Glorifying the Father specifically,  even though being raised under the influence that there is no difference between God and Jesus which actually is not true.

I suppose in general there is no harm, after all, jesus did say he did not see the harm in being seen as equal to the father.  But I know that personally I must be careful to not over look specific things in scirpture just because of that.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 06, 2010, 06:16:25 PMThe answer to your question is  "No I cannot", however  that does not mean that it cannot be used another way.  

My argument is not against the definition age , I am saying that the argument that it can only be applied in that manner is incorrect because AION does not carry only one definition for it's USE.

I guess it does not prove that it cannot be used another way, but I see no reason to believe that aion is used in any way other than "age" since I can find no examples where "age" fails to make perfect sense as a translation of aion.

QuoteHmm, what you wrote seems to contradict your own point.   If something is of "high grade" (super) but then something is "Higher grade" (superior) then it carries a greater meaning.

Not exactly.  Something that is of "high grade" already implies that it is higher than some norm.

If you look at the etymology of "superior" it comes from "super" Latin which means "over and above" so it already contains the idea of "higher".

Merriam Webster:
Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin, comparative of superus upper, from super over, above

If we say "B is greater than A but C is greater than B" that doesn't make the second "greater" more powerful than the first "greater".  But that's kind of what your doing with super and superior.  You are saying B is super (greater than the norm) but C is superior to B.

Quote"Dude, I have a super fast ball, but you have a superior fast ball to mine."   Now, tell me how you do not have a fast ball that is greater?

And I could say "Dude, I have a superior fastball, but compared to mine you have a super fastball."  In this case super wins out over superior.

Joe's fast ball is superior to Jim's
Sue has a super fastball.

Between Joe and Sue we don't know whose is faster.

Joe has a superior fastball.
Sue has a super fastball.

Again we don't know whose is faster.

QuoteCompare that with the leap from "age" to "everlasting".

I'm not making the leap,  if you look at the definitions for aion and aionios you will find that "age" is not the only use of the word, so like I said,  even if it is proven that Ray's grammar rule is correct,  that doesn't prevent aionios from carrying the meaning of everlasting.

I wasn't saying you were making that leap.  I was pointing out that the jump from "age" to "everlasting" is greater than the jump (if there is one) from "super" to "superior".  

I agree with your main point that there is no such grammar rule.  Words come to mean whatever they come to mean based on usage and trends and the whims of people who use the words.  If enough people agree to use a word in some way, then eventually that becomes an accepted meaning, and the dictionaries add that definition.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 06, 2010, 08:51:19 PM

Quote from: WhiteWings on January 06, 2010, 07:45:31 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 06, 2010, 07:30:40 PM

Quote from: WhiteWings on January 06, 2010, 07:10:45 PM
^KJVEphesians 3:21  Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

1074 genea, genea {ghen-eh-ah'}
Meaning:  1) fathered, birth, nativity 2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family 2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy 2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race 3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time 4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space

world without end
World=aion
end=aion
without is added by KJV

The above gave me from the start a feeling it's not about the fact that Jesus is 'without an end'

Christian Bible.
may He be gloified by the group of Called Ones and by the Anoited One Yesu for all the eras of the Last Age of the ages! Amen.

Age -> Singular

If we look at the passage it is about praising Jesus and I think the implication is that as long as we are able to praise him, lets praise him.  I think it's a stretch to say that passage must be defined as a temporary frame of time, but it is using our knowledge of the temporary to paint the picture of a perspective that is beyond what it able to be imagined.

Did the Last Age start after Jesus died? If so...
When combining the two versions and Strong's I  understand it as:

All people that are part of the church founded by Jesus should worship Him.
I'm unsure who "Him" is. Father or Son. I slightly edge to Father.

I am not sure about the last age, I do however recognize my religious thinking.   In churches it is all about praising Jesus, and am not making a statement saying we should not,  but the passage is indeed about Glorifying the Father specifically,  even though being raised under the influence that there is no difference between God and Jesus which actually is not true.

I suppose in general there is no harm, after all, jesus did say he did not see the harm in being seen as equal to the father.  But I know that personally I must be careful to not over look specific things in scirpture just because of that.

I think for this thread it isn't important who is the greatest. Or equal. Lets just agree both are enormously huge.

Paul if you can switch of your religious thinking and just read the one verse with the mind you read a newspaper with. Does it then in your opinion say this is the last age?
Personally I would say yes. I have concidered that perhaps after this age the 1000 year Kingdom of Jesus comes; but my guess is that church in that period is still existing. And much  stronger than ever.
Another way of reasoning is: What if there are a number of ages after this one? Then it means we should abandon church in those future ages. Personally I can only imagine such a command when all-in-all has become a fact.
:2c:

Quote from: WhiteWings on January 06, 2010, 09:44:33 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 06, 2010, 08:51:19 PM

Quote from: WhiteWings on January 06, 2010, 07:45:31 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 06, 2010, 07:30:40 PM

Quote from: WhiteWings on January 06, 2010, 07:10:45 PM
^KJVEphesians 3:21  Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

1074 genea, genea {ghen-eh-ah'}
Meaning:  1) fathered, birth, nativity 2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family 2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy 2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race 3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time 4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space

world without end
World=aion
end=aion
without is added by KJV

The above gave me from the start a feeling it's not about the fact that Jesus is 'without an end'

Christian Bible.
may He be gloified by the group of Called Ones and by the Anoited One Yesu for all the eras of the Last Age of the ages! Amen.

Age -> Singular

If we look at the passage it is about praising Jesus and I think the implication is that as long as we are able to praise him, lets praise him.  I think it's a stretch to say that passage must be defined as a temporary frame of time, but it is using our knowledge of the temporary to paint the picture of a perspective that is beyond what it able to be imagined.

Did the Last Age start after Jesus died? If so...
When combining the two versions and Strong's I  understand it as:

All people that are part of the church founded by Jesus should worship Him.
I'm unsure who "Him" is. Father or Son. I slightly edge to Father.

I am not sure about the last age, I do however recognize my religious thinking.   In churches it is all about praising Jesus, and am not making a statement saying we should not,  but the passage is indeed about Glorifying the Father specifically,  even though being raised under the influence that there is no difference between God and Jesus which actually is not true.

I suppose in general there is no harm, after all, jesus did say he did not see the harm in being seen as equal to the father.  But I know that personally I must be careful to not over look specific things in scirpture just because of that.

I think for this thread it isn't important who is the greatest. Or equal. Lets just agree both are enormously huge.

Paul if you can switch of your religious thinking and just read the one verse with the mind you read a newspaper with. Does it then in your opinion say this is the last age?
Personally I would say yes. I have concidered that perhaps after this age the 1000 year Kingdom of Jesus comes; but my guess is that church in that period is still existing. And much  stronger than ever.
Another way of reasoning is: What if there are a number of ages after this one? Then it means we should abandon church in those future ages. Personally I can only imagine such a command when all-in-all has become a fact.
:2c:

Well, I honestly do not see that verse or the passage referring to a last anything.

QuoteOfficial Dutch Catholic translation:

"aiōn aiōn amēn" = "centuries of the centuries"

But a very important word should be added. Often used from but anyway...

"until the century of centuries"

When you do the 'glory be' in the Catholic rosary do you say 'world without end'?  Catholics here do.

QuoteSo until the end means that the end is not included.

I don't see the word, 'until' here, but if the end never comes, then that's forever.



Acts 10:36
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

QuoteReally?
Once we are all-in-all there is nothing to mediate anymore.
Likely sounds disrespectful but Jesus is a just a tool in God's mater plan.

This doesn't say that Jesus is going anywhere with respect to his role as mediator--


1 Corinthians 15:28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


Jesus is the high priest on the order of Melchizedek which priesthood is based on an eternal life.  Isn't he praying here for that final state of God being all in all with respect to the ekklesia?

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;

--John 17

Quote from: Molly on January 06, 2010, 10:54:20 PM

QuoteOfficial Dutch Catholic translation:
"aiōn aiōn amēn" = "centuries of the centuries"

But a very important word should be added. Often used from but anyway...

"until the century of centuries"

When you do the 'glory be' in the Catholic rosary do you say 'world without end'?  Catholics here do.

I'm not denying that. I'm just writing what I know. What I don't know is for example the Dutch version is right or wrong. Or that they don't use stickt grammar rules and really mean eternally. I'm just giving a little info.

Quote

QuoteSo until the end means that the end is not included.

I don't see the word, 'until' here, but if the end never comes, then that's forever.

But in Dutch the 'until' is included. And that word has a very strikt meaning. But often used wrong. So.... :dontknow:

But it's just an example. It doesn't matter. The point is that one can't just use 2009 English grammar rules on 1st century AD Greek.

Quote

QuoteReally?
Once we are all-in-all there is nothing to mediate anymore.
Likely sounds disrespectful but Jesus is a just a tool in God's mater plan.

This doesn't say that Jesus is going anywhere with respect to his role as mediator--

For me it does. Just a matter of interpretation I guess. Why is Jesus a mediator? Will the reasons for Him to be a mediator be forver there? If not then there is nothing left to mediate.

QuoteJesus is the high priest on the order of Melchizedek which priesthood is based on an eternal life.  Isn't he praying here for that final state of God being all in all with respect to the ekklesia?

And isn't that praying part of His mediator role?
If all in all is reached then Jesus can still pray. But not for mediating?
I see it similar to a hostage situation there is a mediator between the police and the terrorists. Once the issue is solved the mediators job is done. He doesn't follow the terrorists forever and continue mediating.

Quote from: wwWhy is Jesus a mediator? Will the reasons for Him to be a mediator be forver there? If not then there is nothing left to mediate.

well, I think here it is an attempt to explain something that is now becoming, for me, at least, quite mystical.  In other words, any explanation I could give, would not really do it justice.

But, consider, you cannot have the Father without the Son.  Also, the Son of God is becoming a corporate body, or, in other words, a hologram.

19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.


If we are filled with all the fulness of God, then what is that?  That is the Son.

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.


For want of a better way to put it, the Son doesn't go away, he just increases, but the whole [the Father] will always be greater than the sum of its parts.


..then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


--1 Cor 15

 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

--Rom 8



"brethren"

G80
ἀδελφός
adelphos
ad-el-fos'
From G1 (as a connective particle) and δελφύς delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like [H1]): - brother.



7And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

8I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

--Rev 3


"Philadelphia"

G5361
φιλάδελφος
philadelphos
fil-ad'-el-fos
From G5384 and G80; fond of brethren, that is, fraternal: - love as brethren.


From:


G5384
φίλος
philos
fee'-los
Properly dear, that is, a friend; actively fond, that is, friendly (still as a noun, an associate, neighbor, etc.): - friend.


and


G80
ἀδελφός
adelphos
ad-el-fos'
From G1 (as a connective particle) and δελφύς delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like [H1]): - brother.

I came across this per chance, it has some good points though it is from an annihilationist point of view:

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/special1.htm

Quote from: bobf on January 06, 2010, 09:02:37 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 06, 2010, 06:16:25 PMThe answer to your question is  "No I cannot", however  that does not mean that it cannot be used another way.  

My argument is not against the definition age , I am saying that the argument that it can only be applied in that manner is incorrect because AION does not carry only one definition for it's USE.

I guess it does not prove that it cannot be used another way, but I see no reason to believe that aion is used in any way other than "age" since I can find no examples where "age" fails to make perfect sense as a translation of aion.

QuoteHmm, what you wrote seems to contradict your own point.   If something is of "high grade" (super) but then something is "Higher grade" (superior) then it carries a greater meaning.

Not exactly.  Something that is of "high grade" already implies that it is higher than some norm.

If you look at the etymology of "superior" it comes from "super" Latin which means "over and above" so it already contains the idea of "higher".

Merriam Webster:
Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin, comparative of superus upper, from super over, above

If we say "B is greater than A but C is greater than B" that doesn't make the second "greater" more powerful than the first "greater".  But that's kind of what your doing with super and superior.  You are saying B is super (greater than the norm) but C is superior to B.

Quote"Dude, I have a super fast ball, but you have a superior fast ball to mine."   Now, tell me how you do not have a fast ball that is greater?

And I could say "Dude, I have a superior fastball, but compared to mine you have a super fastball."  In this case super wins out over superior.

Joe's fast ball is superior to Jim's
Sue has a super fastball.

Between Joe and Sue we don't know whose is faster.

Joe has a superior fastball.
Sue has a super fastball.

Again we don't know whose is faster.

QuoteCompare that with the leap from "age" to "everlasting".

I'm not making the leap,  if you look at the definitions for aion and aionios you will find that "age" is not the only use of the word, so like I said,  even if it is proven that Ray's grammar rule is correct,  that doesn't prevent aionios from carrying the meaning of everlasting.

I wasn't saying you were making that leap.  I was pointing out that the jump from "age" to "everlasting" is greater than the jump (if there is one) from "super" to "superior".  

I agree with your main point that there is no such grammar rule.  Words come to mean whatever they come to mean based on usage and trends and the whims of people who use the words.  If enough people agree to use a word in some way, then eventually that becomes an accepted meaning, and the dictionaries add that definition.

Nice post!  :thumbsup:

I never understood the super vs superior argument either. :mblush: Not that that means a whole lot. :grin:

I can't say that I know what "rule" Ray is referring to when he says that an adjective cannot take on a greater meaning than the noun from which it is derived, but the way that I look at it is that there is still some sort of relationship between the definition of the adjective and the definition of the noun from which it is derived.

For example, we know that something that happens "hourly" happens once per hour because we know what the noun from which it is derived (hour) means.

Something being "perpetual" (hourly, yearly, eonian) doesn't necessitate there being an "endless" nature to it.

And even when it comes to "aionios" the scriptures speak of "aionios TIMES", which does seem (to me) to 'limit' both "aion" and "aionios" to that which is relative to TIME (or "the ages").

Quote from: Molly on January 06, 2010, 06:27:54 PM


Ephesians 3:21
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.


"world without end"
["aiōn aiōn"]

G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.


G104
ἀεί
aei
ah-eye'
From an obsolete primary noun (apparently meaning continued duration); "ever"; by qualification regularly; by implication earnestly: - always, ever.

Hi Molly, are you saying that "ἀεί" appears in that verse? If so, can you tell me where? If not, can you tell me the importance of it (in connection with this verse)?

There are several other passages in the NT that refer to things that will not come to an "end" and none of them use "aion" (in any form).

Do you think that there is a reason that it is used in some places and not others or a reason why the words used in those instance (words which have a clear meaning of "endlessness" or "dissolution") are not used here and in the many other place where "aion" is used? 

Just curious.

Quote from: ChristHi Molly, are you saying that "ἀεί" appears in that verse? If so, can you tell me where? If not, can you tell me the importance of it (in connection with this verse)?

I don't understand that question.  Does what appear?  I can't read that word.

QuoteThere are several other passages in the NT that refer to things that will not come to an "end" and none of them use "aion" (in any form).

I don't really know unless I look at them.  Let's take a look.

But, the impression I get here is that either this age [Messianic] or the ages [if there are more after this one] will never end.  It's kind of shocking to me, actually, and maybe it's not right, but that's what it is looking like to me right now.  I'm even starting to wonder if two different people living in the same time period could actually be literally living in different ages.  It's kind of shaking up my notion of time.

QuoteDo you think that there is a reason that it is used in some places and not others or a reason why the words used in those instance (words which have a clear meaning of "endlessness" or "dissolution") are not used here and in the many other place where "aion" is used?  

I'm thinking to emphasize he is the Lord of ages.


Isaiah 45:17 (King James Version)

17But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.


"everlasting" salvation

H5769
עלם    עולם
‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm
o-lawm', o-lawm'
From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.


"world without end"

‛ad ‛ôlâm  ‛ad

[implying a duration of perpetuity]



Jude 1:25 (King James Version)

25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

"ever"

also translated 'forevermore"

eis pas aiōn

Which I could literally translate 'into all ages.'





So the question is---is there ever a point when the ages [literally time] ends? I'm thinking not.

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 01:23:10 AMNice post!  :thumbsup:  I never understood the super vs superior argument either. :mblush: Not that that means a whole lot. :grin:

Thanks.... I thought about it some more after that post.... I don't really see any diff between
super : superior
fast : faster
holy : holier
etc.

QuoteI can't say that I know what "rule" Ray is referring to when he says that an adjective cannot take on a greater meaning than the noun from which it is derived, but the way that I look at it is that there is still some sort of relationship between the definition of the adjective and the definition of the noun from which it is derived. For example, we know that something that happens "hourly" happens once per hour because we know what the noun from which it is derived (hour) means.  Something being "perpetual" (hourly, yearly, eonian) doesn't necessitate there being an "endless" nature to it.

Yeah, that's normally how it works.  Each suffix transforms the noun in some way.  (-less = without, -ly = frequency, -er more of whatever the noun is)  The problem with claiming it's an absolute rule is that accepted usage by people eventually determines the meaning and people don't always follow the rules!

Quote[And even when it comes to "aionios" the scriptures speak of "aionios TIMES", which does seem (to me) to 'limit' both "aion" and "aionios" to that which is relative [/i] to TIME (or "the ages")

For me the best way to rebut aionion meaning "everlasting" in scripture is not by some logical argument.  The best way is simply to provide scriptural examples where it does not mean everlasting.  I particularly like the OT LXX examples where sin-consequences are called aionion and yet the context shows them to be temporary.

I have a theory, that any given aionion always has some aion in view.  The aion that is appropriate for punishment of sin simply is not the same aion as the aion of life in Christ.

Quote from: Lupac on January 05, 2010, 06:56:50 PM
Hi everybody, I'm back. I've been at L Ray Smith's forum/camp/"cult" (heh heh) for a while. (He's very, very sick. Please pray for him.) Anyway, I think Ray has many things right, but his article on aionios and the related words left something to be desired. I just want to get to the bottom of this. Does aionios, mean itself "eternal" or "endless"? What about the phrase "ages of the ages" used in Revelation? I just want to know.

Thanks.

Any term in ANY LANGUAGE which is not COMPREHENDED by the user, is INVALID.

No man can comprehend that which has NO BEGINNING... (regardless of their empty claims to do so)... for if they could, then they would readily explain how something was just "ALWAYS THERE" by defining it into words (for that is what DEFINITION, is)...

To date -- NO one has come forth to explain this...  :dontknow:

Therefore, for a FINITE entity to attach "ETERNITY" (which is not undertood by them) to AION ..or.. AIONIOS or any other word such as OWLAM in the OT, is simply  INVALID... 

Irregardless of the FALSE claims of the user... who cannot explain that which has NO BEGINNING, which is (from a FINITE viewpoint) an UNEXPLAINABLE attibute of GOD and ETERNITY.

And an INVALID act for one FINITE entity to "attach" such, to another FINITE entity.

willieH --  :grin:

The problem here is not AIONIOS being greater than AION, it is in the usage of it as ETERNITY, or FOR EVER, and the attempt to DISASSOCIATE it with TIME that is the problem...

TIME has a BEGINNING, ...ETERNITY does not... end of story.

No matter how short in stature the parent is than the child when both are in adulthood... does not mean the child is no longer of the SAME BREED as the parent.

AIONIOS, because it is derived from a term associated with the CREATED entity of TIME, must therefore in some capacity, remain of the "TIME" genre...

ETERNITY preceeded TIME and was the IN PLACE platform, from which TIME came into BEING...  :dontknow:

The created entity cannot define that which created it... the CLAY cannot and never will summarize or conclude, the POTTER...

TIME will NEVER MEASURE ...ETERNITY...

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 03:11:56 AM

I have a theory, that any given aionion always has some aion in view.  The aion that is appropriate for punishment of sin simply is not the same aion as the aion of life in Christ.

This is interesting. Can you give me some details with regard to how you see this?

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 02:49:48 AM

Quote from: ChristHi Molly, are you saying that "ἀεί" appears in that verse? If so, can you tell me where? If not, can you tell me the importance of it (in connection with this verse)?

I don't understand that question.  Does what appear?  I can't read that word.

Sorry, I copied it from your post that I quoted [G104]. I'll highlight it in red.

Quote from: MollyG104
ἀεί
aei
ah-eye'
From an obsolete primary noun (apparently meaning continued duration); "ever"; by qualification regularly; by implication earnestly: - always, ever.

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 02:49:48 AM

Quote from: ChristThere are several other passages in the NT that refer to things that will not come to an "end" and none of them use "aion" (in any form).

I don't really know unless I look at them.  Let's take a look.

Ok, I was thinking of:

Luke 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.


This verse uses "αἰῶνας" (aiōnas) in relation to the reign of Christ but "οὐκ τέλος" (ouk telos) in relation to the endlessness of His kingdom


aiōnas = a space of time, an age

ouk = not, no
telos = an end, a toll



I Cor 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

This verse uses "οὐδέποτε πίπτει" (oudepote piptei)

oudepote = never
piptei = to fail

it also uses

καταργηθήσονται (katargēthēsontai) and καταργηθήσεται (katargēthēsetai) = to render inoperative, abolish

And

παύσονται (   pausontai) = to make to cease, hinder



Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

This verse uses "ἐκλείψουσιν" (ekleipsousin) = to leave out, leave off, by impl. to cease

Quote from: MollyBut, the impression I get here is that either this age [Messianic] or the ages [if there are more after this one] will never end.  It's kind of shocking to me, actually, and maybe it's not right, but that's what it is looking like to me right now.  I'm even starting to wonder if two different people living in the same time period could actually be literally living in different ages.  It's kind of shaking up my notion of time.

So you don't see the "ages" connected to "time"?

Quote from: Molly

Quote from: ChrisDo you think that there is a reason that it is used in some places and not others or a reason why the words used in those instance (words which have a clear meaning of "endlessness" or "dissolution") are not used here and in the many other place where "aion" is used?  

I'm thinking to emphasize he is the Lord of ages.


Isaiah 45:17 (King James Version)

17But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.


"everlasting" salvation

H5769
עלם    עולם
‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm
o-lawm', o-lawm'
From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.


"world without end"

‛ad ‛ôlâm  ‛ad

[implying a duration of perpetuity]



Jude 1:25 (King James Version)

25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

"ever"

also translated 'forevermore"

eis pas aiōn

Which I could literally translate 'into all ages.'





So the question is---is there ever a point when the ages [literally time] ends? I'm thinking not.

That answers the question above, but can you tell me why you think the ages do not come to an end (why they are not connected with "time" rather than "eternity")?

Going back to the verse in Luke, Christ reigns "forever" (aiōnas = a space of time, an age) and His kingdom has "no end" (ouk telos = no end)

How does Christ reigning "forever" (aiōnas) reconcile with 1 Cor 15:25?

1 Cor 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

If "aiōnas" actually does mean "forever"?

According to 1 Cor 15:25, Christ reigns only "until" the last enemy is subdued. Then Christ and all that has been given unto Him from the Father are subject to the Father such that God will be "all in all".

So how do you reconcile those two views, if you see no contradiction when taking "aiōnas" to mean "forever"?

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 03:11:56 AM
Thanks.... I thought about it some more after that post.... I don't really see any diff between
super : superior
fast : faster
holy : holier
etc.

It is because with your list your not actually using them in any context.   

If there is no difference in Super and Superior based on how they are used, then I really would like you to explain the following.

"I have a Super fast ball, but yours is Superior to mine"   Yes, you can use those two words many different ways, I certainly am not making that point at all.

That does not change the intended meaning in how I use them here.   So if there is no difference, then my sentence above would convey that our fast balls are essentially the same,  but there is no way to explain how that is true based upon how I used the words.

Quote

For me the best way to rebut aionion meaning "everlasting" in scripture is not by some logical argument. 

I don't have to refute it either way, I see how that term in the abstract can be a help in understanding scripture.   I do not argue that "age" doesn't make sense throughout scripture,  but to say there is no use for that term in scripture no matter how logical your argument sounds is not true.

Quote from: ChristSorry, I copied it from your post that I quoted [G104]. I'll highlight it in red.

No that word aei is not in the text.  It is referred to in the definition for aion as the root, "From the same as G104".   I just put it in there to show that 'aion can mean 'always,' or 'forever.' We can see it in the root.  It can also mean an age [of indeterminate length].  It depends on the context I think.

QuoteLuke 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.


This verse uses "αἰῶνας" (aiōnas) in relation to the reign of Christ but "οὐκ τέλος" (ouk telos) in relation to the endlessness of His kingdom


aiōnas = a space of time, an age

ouk = not, no
telos = an end, a toll

I think those two statements are reinforcing each other.

And he shall reign over the house of Jacob..

"forever"

eis  aiōn

Two words make up that word forever, --into the ages, or into eternity.


..and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

"end"

G5056
τέλος
telos
tel'-os
From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare G5411.



Those two statements are saying the same thing in terms of time--And the same thing as this which has even more emphasis--


Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

"for ever and ever"

eis aiōn aiōn

Into the ages of ages--into eternity.

Quote from: ChristHow does Christ reigning "forever" (aiōnas) reconcile with 1 Cor 15:25?

1 Cor 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

If "aiōnas" actually does mean "forever"?

According to 1 Cor 15:25, Christ reigns only "until" the last enemy is subdued. Then Christ and all that has been given unto Him from the Father are subject to the Father such that God will be "all in all".

So how do you reconcile those two views, if you see no contradiction when taking "aiōnas" to mean "forever"?

We know his kingdom is going to never end.  That means he is reigning forever.

"reign"

G936
βασιλεύω
basileuō
bas-il-yoo'-o
From G935; to rule (literally or figuratively): - king, reign.


G935
βασιλεύς
basileus
bas-il-yooce'
Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively): - king.



G939
βάσις
basis
bas'-ece
From βαίνω bainō (to walk); a pace ("base"), that is, (by implication) the foot: - foot.


Psalm 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.



He is the King of kings.  Does he ever lose that title?  He is reigning forever and ever.  This IS the state of God being all in all.

All things are under his feet--into eternity.  

He hands the kingdom over to the Father but I and the Father are one,  The Spirit of God has totally permeated the entire kingdom at this point.  Who would not obey the Spirit of God?

"subdue"

G5293
ὑποτάσσω
hupotassō
hoop-ot-as'-so
From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 06:32:32 AM

No that word aei is not in the text.  It is referred to in the definition for aion as the root, "From the same as G104".

They are both derived from the same word (an obsolete primary noun, apparently, though it doesn't say what word that is or what 'its' meaning is). How does that demonstrate that "aion" can mean always or forever (in and of itself)?

Quote from: Molly

Quote from: Chris

Quote from: MollyI just put it in there to show that 'aion can mean 'always,' or 'forever.' We can see it in the root.  It can also mean an age [of indeterminate length].  It depends on the context I think.

Luke 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.


This verse uses "αἰῶνας" (aiōnas) in relation to the reign of Christ but "οὐκ τέλος" (ouk telos) in relation to the endlessness of His kingdom


aiōnas = a space of time, an age

ouk = not, no
telos = an end, a toll

I think those two statements are reinforcing each other.

And he shall reign over the house of Jacob..

"forever"

eis  aiōn

Two words make up that word forever, --into the ages, or into eternity.


..and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

"end"

G5056
τέλος
telos
tel'-os
From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare G5411.



Those two statements are saying the same thing in terms of time--And the same thing as this which has even more emphasis--


Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

"for ever and ever"

eis aiōn aiōn

Into the ages of ages--into eternity.

(1) what makes you believe that there are "ages" in eternity?

(2) how do you reconcile the above with 1 Cor 15:25?


1Co 15:24-28 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

 

Quotethen shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Yes, in other words, we are not looking at two Gods here.

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 06:59:14 AM

Quote from: ChristHow does Christ reigning "forever" (aiōnas) reconcile with 1 Cor 15:25?

1 Cor 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

If "aiōnas" actually does mean "forever"?

According to 1 Cor 15:25, Christ reigns only "until" the last enemy is subdued. Then Christ and all that has been given unto Him from the Father are subject to the Father such that God will be "all in all".

So how do you reconcile those two views, if you see no contradiction when taking "aiōnas" to mean "forever"?

We know his kingdom is going to never end.  That means he is reigning forever.

"reign"

G936
βασιλεύω
basileuō
bas-il-yoo'-o
From G935; to rule (literally or figuratively): - king, reign.


G935
βασιλεύς
basileus
bas-il-yooce'
Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively): - king.



G939
βάσις
basis
bas'-ece
From βαίνω bainō (to walk); a pace ("base"), that is, (by implication) the foot: - foot.


Psalm 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.



He is the King of kings.  Does he ever lose that title?  He is reigning forever and ever.  This IS the state of God being all in all.

All things are under his feet--into eternity.  

He hands the kingdom over to the Father but I and the Father are one,  The Spirit of God has totally permeated the entire kingdom at this point.  Who would not obey the Spirit of God?

"subdue"

G5293
ὑποτάσσω
hupotassō
hoop-ot-as'-so
From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

We were posting at the same time, apparently. Sorry; I didn't realize that you were going to address this in a separate post.

His kingdom has no end, as He turns the kingdom over to the Father.

According to this passage (as I read it) the reign of Christ over the kingdom "ends" when the last enemy (death) is subdued, at which point in time all things (including Christ, to whom all things were given - for a time/purpose) are then turned over to and subject to the Father.

That is not how you read this verse? Not how you understand "until"?

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 07:04:31 AM

Quotethen shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Yes, in other words, we are not looking at two Gods here.

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

There is still a distinction between the Father and the Son, is there not? Is Jesus Christ the Father?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 06:29:49 AMIf there is no difference in Super and Superior based on how they are used, then I really would like you to explain the following.

There is a difference depending on how they are used.  But in isolation neither "super" nor "superior" is stronger than the other.  Depending on the context, either one can be stronger.  In contrast "everlasting" in isolation or in context is almost always stronger than "age".  So I don't think adding the suffix -ior to "super" is an example that refutes the supposed grammar rule like aion to aionion does (if aion means "age" and aionion means "everlasting").

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 07:14:32 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 06:29:49 AMIf there is no difference in Super and Superior based on how they are used, then I really would like you to explain the following.

There is a difference depending on how they are used.  But in isolation neither "super" nor "superior" is stronger than the other.  Depending on the context, either one can be stronger.  In contrast "everlasting" in isolation or in context is almost always stronger than "age".  So I don't think adding the suffix -ior to "super" is an example that refutes the supposed grammar rule like aion to aionion does (if aion means "age" and aionion means "everlasting").

Aion does not only mean age by definition isolated from usage.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 06:29:49 AMI don't have to refute it either way, I see how that term in the abstract can be a help in understanding scripture.

So what do you say to someone claiming ET is true based on aionion punishment equaling everlasting punshment.

QuoteI do not argue that "age" doesn't make sense throughout scripture,  but to say there is no use for that term in scripture no matter how logical your argument sounds is not true.

No use for which term?  everlasting?  If that's what you mean, I don't make that argument.  In my post to Chris, I said that one theory I have is that when aionion is used, it has a particular aion in view.  The aion of bearning the consequences of sin is not the same aion as the aion of life in Christ.

That leaves room for one instance of aionion to be everlasting while the other is limited.

Quote(1) what makes you believe that there are "ages" in eternity?

That seems to be what the text is saying.  Of his reign there is no end--into the ages of ages--into eternity.

One meaning of this word is eternal [time]--



G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

QuoteThere is still a distinction between the Father and the Son, is there not? Is Jesus Christ the Father?  

I don't think I'm allowed to talk about that.  But you can see I believe in a trinity that's pretty classical.

QuoteAccording to this passage (as I read it) the reign of Christ over the kingdom "ends" when the last enemy (death) is subdued, at which point in time all things (including Christ, to whom all things were given - for a time/purpose) are then turned over to and subject to the Father.

Yes that would have to be.  I believe the Son is [becoming] a corporate body, that Jesus is the firstborn of many brothers.  And the kingdom is the kingdom of God.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

--John 1



But who is the King who reigns forever and ever?  Who is the King of glory?



Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 07:18:37 AMAion does not only mean age by definition isolated from usage.

Why not?  I've never seen an instance in scripture where "age" is not an excellent translation of aion.  If "age" always works for aion in scripture, why is that not a good definition of the word?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 07:18:37 AM

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 07:14:32 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 06:29:49 AMIf there is no difference in Super and Superior based on how they are used, then I really would like you to explain the following.

There is a difference depending on how they are used.  But in isolation neither "super" nor "superior" is stronger than the other.  Depending on the context, either one can be stronger.  In contrast "everlasting" in isolation or in context is almost always stronger than "age".  So I don't think adding the suffix -ior to "super" is an example that refutes the supposed grammar rule like aion to aionion does (if aion means "age" and aionion means "everlasting").

Aion does not only mean age by definition isolated from usage.

What other definition is there?

The only "proper" definition that I have ever seen is "an age", even though "an unbroken age" or "perpetuity of time" (Thayers) is equated to "eternity".

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 07:26:35 AM
So what do you say to someone claiming ET is true based on aionion punishment equaling everlasting punshment.

In the abstract our correction, or even if we say it is punishment,  will seem like forever.   We go through trials on earth and while in those trials we perceive they may never end.   It actually helped me care about people finding freedom now.  Just because All are saved does not mean that we can figure it's no biggie just because what we may hope to avoid isn't actually "forever".

So they may not believe me, but I have kept the argument within a scriptural boundary in my opinion anyway and haven't taken the argument to the level of having to dispute theologians, translations and actual definitions of the words themselves.

Quote
No use for which term?  everlasting?  If that's what you mean, I don't make that argument.  In my post to Chris, I said that one theory I have is that when aionion is used, it has a particular aion in view.  The aion of bearning the consequences of sin is not the same aion as the aion of life in Christ.

That leaves room for one instance of aionion to be everlasting while the other is limited.

Which in turn leaves open the possibility of "everlasting"

No problem, I didn't happen to read that post. 

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 07:28:23 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 07:18:37 AMAion does not only mean age by definition isolated from usage.

Why not?  I've never seen an instance in scripture where "age" is not an excellent translation of aion. 

Why not is because it simply is a fact that it is not the only definition of the word.


G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

QuoteIf "age" always works for aion in scripture, why is that not a good definition of the word?

I never said it was not a good definition of the word.

I never argued that you cannot use it that way.

I said, it is not the only way to see meaning in scripture.  Those are the facts.

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 07:29:21 AM

What other definition is there?

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

That eon's root AEI does not mean endlessness is indicated by...
limited past:  Mark 15²
limited present:  2 Corinthians 4¹¹
llimited future:  2 Peter 1¹²

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 07:00:11 AM
(2) how do you reconcile the above with 1 Cor 15:25?


1 Cor 15:24-28 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Playing a little devils advocate here.  One of Ray Smith's admonitions is that a statement of fact should not be read as a statement of limitation.  e.g. God living into the ages does not mean God stops living at the end of the ages.  Likewise, Christ reigning till He puts all enemies under His feet does not necessarily mean that He quits reigning thereafter.  And if till" must imply that Christ ceases to reign once death is destroyed then David's grave must have disappeared the day after Pentecost.

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto  this day.

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 07:26:54 AM
That seems to be what the text is saying.  Of his reign there is no end--into the ages of ages--into eternity.

It doesn't say that of His reign there is not end; it says that there is no end to His kingdom.

QuoteOne meaning of this word is eternal [time]--

Why do you add "time"?

QuoteG165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

"properly an age". That is "the definition" of the word.

The rest of that (by extension) and the way the word is "translated" (in the KJV) that follows the "-" are not part of "the definition".

QuoteI don't think I'm allowed to talk about that.  But you can see I believe in a trinity that's pretty classical.

I'm not sure what you "can't talk about"?

I consider myself Trinitarian (though I might argue over how some people define 'the doctrine'), but I don't know anyone who believe that God is "one" (except maybe Modalists??) that believes that Jesus Christ is the Father. So if the Son turns the kingdom over to the Father, he is not turning it over to himself, is he? 

QuoteYes that would have to be.

If you agree (it seems you are saying you do?) then why do you claim that Christ reigns "forever"? 

QuoteI believe the Son is [becoming] a corporate body, that Jesus is the firstborn of many brothers.  And the kingdom is the kingdom of God.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

--John 1



But who is the King who reigns forever and ever?  Who is the King of glory?

Jesus is the King of kings, Lord of lords, etc. Why do you say that he reigns "forever and ever" and yet still agree that He reigns "until" the last enemy is subdued and the kingdom is turned over to the Father?

Why do you see "into the age of the ages" (connected to TIME) as "forever" (connecting it to ETERNITY)?

Quote
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Amen!!

And if Christ is not "the Father" (the first person of the Trinity) then how ~IS~ He the "everlasting" Father?

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 07:48:33 AM

Playing a little devils advocate here.  One of Ray Smith's admonitions is that a statement of fact should not be read as a statement of limitation.  e.g. God living into the ages does not mean God stops living at the end of the ages. 

I agree!   :thumbsup:

QuoteLikewise, Christ reigning till He puts all enemies under His feet does not necessarily mean that He quits reigning thereafter. 

But that is not where the passage ends; it ends with Christ turning the kingdom over to the Father wherein all things (including Christ) become subject to the Father.

QuoteAnd if till" must imply that Christ ceases to reign once death is destroyed then David's grave must have disappeared the day after Pentecost.

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto  this day.

Maybe it did. (just kidding  :grin:)

Ray also uses that passage to prove that David is still "asleep" when that is not what is being said.  :winkgrin:

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 07:45:39 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 07:29:21 AM

What other definition is there?

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 07:57:55 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 07:45:39 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 07:29:21 AM

What other definition is there?

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

I see your point hi-lighted and I saw your post to Molly and I understand what your saying about the way the KJV version uses it.

But why do we ignore perpetuity?   I'm interested in knowing where I may be wrong here, what sources do you have to read concerning that specific part of the definition being invalid?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 07:42:50 AMWhy not is because it simply is a fact that it is not the only definition of the word.

I disagree and citing Strongs does not convince me.  For example, I don't believe "forever" is a good definition of aion.  I know of no scripture where the word aion does the work of imparting foreverness to the meaning.

Just because a word plus it's surrounding context conveys a certain meaning does not make that meaning a good definition of any of the words used.  For example, I can says "the bird soared to it's home".  That does not make "nest" a good definition of "home".  Nor does it make "flew" a good definition of "soared".  Or in English, I can say "God rules throughout the ages" but that does not mean "forever" is a good defintion of "ages".

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 08:03:44 AM
I see your point hi-lighted and I saw your post to Molly and I understand what your saying about the way the KJV version uses it.

But why do we ignore perpetuity?  

I am not ignore perpetuity. I have no problem with aion pertaining to that which is perpetual; perpetual does not mean endless. And certainly "aion" can be rendered in the plural.

QuoteI'm interested in knowing where I may be wrong here, what sources do you have to read concerning that specific part of the definition being invalid?

Mostly I just go by the (proper) definition that is given by Strong's and Thayer's (and other concordances that I have checked) that all say the proper definition is "an age".

But (more importantly) I take into account the way that it is used/defines in the scriptures themselves. I see no instance in scripture in which aion takes on a meaning of "forever"; nowhere that it is connected to "eternity" rather that that which has been created within "the ages" (time).

If you have an example of such, please do post it; but I have not yet come across even one use in which I feel that a connection to eternity (rather than time) is indicated.

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 07:56:38 AMBut that is not where the passage ends; it ends with Christ turning the kingdom over to the Father wherein all things (including Christ) become subject to the Father.

Yes, that adds weight to what you're saying.

QuoteRay also uses that passage to prove that David is still "asleep" when that is not what is being said.  :winkgrin:

I happen to agree with Ray on that one, though admittedly it says "dead and buried" not "asleep and buried".

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 08:20:58 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 07:56:38 AMBut that is not where the passage ends; it ends with Christ turning the kingdom over to the Father wherein all things (including Christ) become subject to the Father.

Yes, that adds weight to what you're saying.

QuoteRay also uses that passage to prove that David is still "asleep" when that is not what is being said.  :winkgrin:

I happen to agree with Ray on that one, though admittedly it says "dead and buried" not "asleep and buried".

Would you like to discuss that on another thread?

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 08:23:36 AMWould you like to discuss that on another thread?

Sure...  if you want to make some points I'll address how I see it.

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 08:34:48 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 08:23:36 AMWould you like to discuss that on another thread?

Sure...  if you want to make some points I'll address how I see it.

I'm not sure what time it is where you are. It's 12:36am where I am. Do you want to do this tonight or look at it tomorrow?

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 08:36:47 AMI'm not sure what time it is where you are. It's 12:36am where I am. Do you want to do this tonight or look at it tomorrow?

Same here.   Let's do it tommorow.... maybe a little here and there.

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 08:41:05 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 08:36:47 AMI'm not sure what time it is where you are. It's 12:36am where I am. Do you want to do this tonight or look at it tomorrow?

Same here.   Let's do it tommorow.... maybe a little here and there.

Cool. I'll try to put a post together tomorrow and then you can add to it as you get the chance, and vice versa.  :thumbsup:

Have a good night!!!

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 08:42:38 AMCool. I'll try to put a post together tomorrow and then you can add to it as you get the chance, and vice versa.  :thumbsup:

Have a good night!!!

Soungs good.   Good night... God bless.

the phrase eis ton aióna kai eti/epekaina - "into the eon and further" is found several times in the Septuagint (Micha 4:5; Psalms of Solomon 9:11)

Daniel 12:3 in the version of Theodotion seems to contain the phrase eis tous aiónas kai eti - "into the eons and further" though I found no Greek version available online

The Latin bible has:

Qui autem docti fuerint, fulgebunt quasi splendor firmamenti: et qui ad iustitiam erudiunt multos, quasi stellae in perpetuas aeternitates

in perpetual eternities!

so both expressions, eis ton aióna [into the eon] and eis tous aiónas [into the eons] cannot mean "endlessness" by themselve

Quote from: ChrisI am not ignore perpetuity. I have no problem with aion pertaining to that which is perpetual; perpetual does not mean endless. And certainly "aion" can be rendered in the plural.

Perpetual could mean endless.  It's one possible meaning of the word.  In fact, it's the first meaning.




perpetual -

1 continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.
2. lasting an indefinitely long time: perpetual snow.  
3. continuing or continued without intermission or interruption; ceaseless: a perpetual stream of visitors all day.  
4. blooming almost continuously throughout the season or the year.

–noun 5. a hybrid rose that is perpetual.
6. a perennial plant.



Synonyms:
1. permanent, enduring. See eternal. 3. continuous, incessant, constant, unending, uninterrupted.


Antonyms:
1. temporary. 3. discontinuous

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 08:10:56 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 07:42:50 AMWhy not is because it simply is a fact that it is not the only definition of the word.

I disagree and citing Strongs does not convince me.  For example, I don't believe "forever" is a good definition of aion.  I know of no scripture where the word aion does the work of imparting foreverness to the meaning.

Just because a word plus it's surrounding context conveys a certain meaning does not make that meaning a good definition of any of the words used.  For example, I can says "the bird soared to it's home".  That does not make "nest" a good definition of "home".  Nor does it make "flew" a good definition of "soared".  Or in English, I can say "God rules throughout the ages" but that does not mean "forever" is a good defintion of "ages".

If the God of ages is eternal and if ages always can exist then perpetuity carries a different implication of simply "an age".

I'm not interested in debating whether or not you will be convinced, I am not in this to point out anything personal,  I cite what I believe are the known facts and introduce what is possible.   

13And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

--Rev 5



"for ever and ever"


eis aiōn aiōn


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dXF2o6fU_k

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 08:15:54 AM
I am not ignore perpetuity. I have no problem with aion pertaining to that which is perpetual; perpetual does not mean endless. And certainly "aion" can be rendered in the plural.

Yes perpetual can mean endless,  but it can also mean that something lasts the full length of a span of time.  

Quote
Mostly I just go by the (proper) definition that is given by Strong's and Thayer's (and other concordances that I have checked) that all say the proper definition is "an age".

But (more importantly) I take into account the way that it is used/defines in the scriptures themselves. I see no instance in scripture in which aion takes on a meaning of "forever"; nowhere that it is connected to "eternity" rather that that which has been created within "the ages" (time).

If you have an example of such, please do post it; but I have not yet come across even one use in which I feel that a connection to eternity (rather than time) is indicated.

Well, thought I would ask.  


Ephesians 2:7

Revelation 5:13

Are a couple where the implication is not necessarily limited.

Ephesians 2:7
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

"ages to come"

aiōn eperchomai



Ephesians 3:21
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen



aiōn aiōn amēn

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 08:10:56 AM
 That does not make "nest" a good definition of "home".

But because of the definitions of the words it is easy to make the connection to Home and Nest through how the words are used that will give GOOD meaning.

Perpetuity  is a valid definition of AION, and it carries a meaning that does not prevent AIONIOS from being used in relationship to perpetuity.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 04:55:58 PM

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 08:10:56 AM
 That does not make "nest" a good definition of "home".

But because of the definitions of the words it is easy to make the connection to Home and Nest through how the words are used....

I agree

Quote...that will give GOOD meaning.

If I understand you, you are saying that "home" can take on the meaning of "nest".  If so I agree.

QuotePerpetuity  is a valid definition of AION, and it carries a meaning that does not prevent AIONIOS from being used in relationship to perpetuity.

To be honest, I don't use or hear the word "perpetuity" enough to have a good grasp of its nuances.  Is it more like "continuous" or "everlasting"?

At any rate, the word "age" in English is also compatable with being a period of time that lasts forever.  For example I can say "the final age after the resurrection will be an everlasting age".  Whether that is a theoolgically true statement or not, it makes sense in English.  So the word "age" is compatible with lasting forever.   So my guess is that the word "age" is compatible with being a "perpetuity".  And yet "forever" and "perpetuity" are not valid definitions of "age".

So I agree with you that aion might take on those other meanings in the right context, but I don't agree that those other meanings are definitions of aion.

Why I am splitting hairs about definition vs ability to take on meaning?  Because
1. People see "forever", "eternity", "perpetuity" in the definition of aion
2. Then they see the phrase "aionion punishment"
And they conclude it's a forever punishment, when in reality the word aion does not impart that meaning on it's own.

To me it is like having "nest" under the defintion of "home" just because some homes are nests.

Fair enough Bob, but if the word Dead in scripture is reasonable in the right context to say someone is asleep, then perhaps at least you can understand the perspective I have on this.   I am not asking or demanding that you agree in any case.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 05:28:02 PM


Fair enough Bob, but if the word Dead in scripture is reasonable in the right context to say someone is asleep, then perhaps at least you can understand the perspective I have on this.   I am not asking or demanding that you agree in any case.

I added some explanation to my prev post.  I'll copy it here.

Why I am splitting hairs about definition vs ability to take on meaning?  Because
1. People see "forever", "eternity", "perpetuity" in the definition of aion
2. Then they see the phrase "aionion punishment"
And they conclude it's a forever punishment, when in reality the word aion does not impart that meaning on it's own.

To me it is like having "nest" under the defintion of "home" just because some homes are nests.

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 05:32:05 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 05:28:02 PM


Fair enough Bob, but if the word Dead in scripture is reasonable in the right context to say someone is asleep, then perhaps at least you can understand the perspective I have on this.   I am not asking or demanding that you agree in any case.

I added some explanation to my prev post.  I'll copy it here.

Why I am splitting hairs about definition vs ability to take on meaning?  Because
1. People see "forever", "eternity", "perpetuity" in the definition of aion
2. Then they see the phrase "aionion punishment"
And they conclude it's a forever punishment, when in reality the word aion does not impart that meaning on it's own.

To me it is like having "nest" under the defintion of "home" just because some homes are nests.

I understand Bob,  but I am not seeing how perpetuity is an invalid definition.   I see what Chris was saying about the usages in the KJV, but that does not take away perpetuity even if we removed those.

I might object to a conclusion someone makes, but that dislike is not a valid reason to claim a definition of a word is wrong.

Hebrews 1:6
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.




11And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

12Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

--Rev 7



"for ever and ever"

eis aiōn aiōn


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sxD07zjpqg

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 06:36:31 PMI understand Bob,  but I am not seeing how perpetuity is an invalid definition.

Again, I'm not sure of exactly what "perpetuity" implies.  Is it closer to "something that goes on continually" or closer to "something that goes on forever"?  Something that is continually can go on forever but doesn't have to.

The phrase "to the ages of the ages" seems to imply something going on and on indefinitely and possibly forever but not necessarily forever.  If "pepretuity" has a similar meaning, then I can agree that "perpetuity" might be a valid definition for the whole phrase "to the ages of the ages" (in Greek or even in English) but it is still not a valid definition of "age" because "age" on it's own doesn't do the work of imparting that meaning.  On the other hand if the real meaning of "to the ages of the ages" is more along the lines of "to the culmination of the ages" then I would say that "perpetuity" is not capturing the intended meaning.

To me a word or phrase only has definition X if that word normally or often imparts meaning X in a variety of contexts.  e.g. "Death" is not a definition of "sleep" even though "sleep" can refer to "death" in the bible in certain contexts.  "without beginning or end" is a valid definition for "eternal" because "eternal" in almost all contexts imparts that meaning.

QuoteI might object to a conclusion someone makes, but that dislike is not a valid reason to claim a definition of a word is wrong.

But to me it is precisely because the definition is wrong that they make the erroneous conclusion.

English is not my mothertongue but I understand "perpetuity" not as "endlessness" I came actually to the conclusion that "in perpetuity" might be a good translation of eis ton aióna, I think "in perpetuity" can be understood, but need not as meaning endless, it is somehow ambiguous just as aión or its Latin equivalents.

QuoteAnd yet "forever" and "perpetuity" are not valid definitions of "age".

well, I would say an age can also be a perpetuity, a century is a perpetuity of 100 years.

"A slave shall serve his master into the age" (Exodus 21:6 LXX) does make no sense to me, but "A slave shall serve his master in perpetuity" makes good sense to me and says nothing how long this will be at all, for it is a very ambiguous expression, at least to me, as English is not my mothertongue.

We had these discussions so often, I can't understand why we always discuss this particular topic, even if Jesus had said the wicked will be punished for a decade, that wouldn't automatically mean they would be saved after the decade, a defense for universalism should not be stressed whether an aeon is always finite or not, and as only God is eternal without beginning and end, we could say, that eternal punishment is nothing but divine punishment and that it says nothing about the lenght of this punishment at all.

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 02:14:25 PM

Quote from: ChrisI am not ignore perpetuity. I have no problem with aion pertaining to that which is perpetual; perpetual does not mean endless. And certainly "aion" can be rendered in the plural.

Perpetual could mean endless.  It's one possible meaning of the word.  In fact, it's the first meaning.




perpetual -

1 continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.
2. lasting an indefinitely long time: perpetual snow.  
3. continuing or continued without intermission or interruption; ceaseless: a perpetual stream of visitors all day.  
4. blooming almost continuously throughout the season or the year.

–noun 5. a hybrid rose that is perpetual.
6. a perennial plant.



Synonyms:
1. permanent, enduring. See eternal. 3. continuous, incessant, constant, unending, uninterrupted.


Antonyms:
1. temporary. 3. discontinuous

I didn't say that something that is perpetual "can't" last forever, Molly.

But the word, in and of itself, does not DEMAND that meaning.

If that which is being referenced as being "perpetual" is connected to that which "comes to an end", then it CANNOT mean "without end".

So if (for example) the reign of Christ is "perpetual", but is (also) said to be UNTIL a particular "time" or "event" takes place, then it CANNOT be "forever".

Likewise, if something is said to be "perpetual" within the realm "of the ages" then it (too) CANNOT be "without end" as it WILL END when the ages come to an END.

Do you disagree?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 03:45:58 PM
Yes perpetual can mean endless,  but it can also mean that something lasts the full length of a span of time.

:thumbsup:

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 03:45:58 PM
Well, thought I would ask.  


Ephesians 2:7

Revelation 5:13

Are a couple where the implication is not necessarily limited.

Eph 2:7  That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

What ages are being spoken of and what make you think that they do not come to an end?

Rev 5:13  And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

When do you see this taking place in relation to the reign of Christ and in relation to Christ turning the kingdom over to the Father?

I don't see either one of these passages addressing "eternity". In fact, I see them both relative to us in this life. How do you see them?

Quote from: sven on January 09, 2010, 08:10:34 PM

We had these discussions so often, I can't understand why we always discuss this particular topic, even if Jesus had said the wicked will be punished for a decade, that wouldn't automatically mean they would be saved after the decade, a defense for universalism should not be stressed whether an aeon is always finite or not, and as only God is eternal without beginning and end, we could say, that eternal punishment is nothing but divine punishment and that it says nothing about the lenght of this punishment at all.

:thumbsup: Amen!!

Just as ETERNAL life comes "from God" so does EVERLASTING punishment come "from God" who ~IS~ ETERNAL!!

That which is "eternal" (aionios) is that which is connected to that which is SPIRITUAL (NOT SEEN)

2Co 4:18  While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

The only reason that I feel that it is "appropriate" to limit even that which is "aionios" to TIME is because of scriptures themselves seem to connect even this unseen, spiritual realm to time (rather than eternity):


2Ti 1:9  Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

"προ χρονων αιωνιων" or "pro chronos aionios" (before times aionios)

Tit 1:2  In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

"προ χρονων αιωνιων" or "pro chronos aionios" (before times aionios)

In both cases, above, it is the adjective and not the noun that is being used. It is used in the plural in both cases and clearly connects to "time" (chronos) and purposed that were set and promised that were made "before" the eons (ages, including that which is visible and that which is invisible) were established.

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 07:50:36 PM

But to me it is precisely because the definition is wrong that they make the erroneous conclusion.

And I understand, that is why I have asked for more information about why perpetuity is not a valid definition.

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 08:25:55 PM

Eph 2:7  That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

What ages are being spoken of and what make you think that they do not come to an end?

I do not know what ages those may be, scripture does not really say, people may interpret something to try to say, but inherantly there is no implication otherwise.

It does lend itself to the writers not being able to perceive a ending to something which then it is a fitting description to the closest in reality we as human can get to the concept of eternity in the first place.

Such as  "May this last for as long as it can ever last."    I do not put an ending on it because contextually there is no reason for one.

Quote
Rev 5:13  And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

When do you see this taking place in relation to the reign of Christ and in relation to Christ turning the kingdom over to the Father?

I don't see either one of these passages addressing "eternity". In fact, I see them both relative to us in this life. How do you see them?

"Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne"

I do not see statements like this to imply an ending.   If I am saying something to you in true love and I say "Blessing upon you" have I implied a time in which they should cease?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 09:00:43 PMAnd I understand, that is why I have asked for more information about why perpetuity is not a valid definition.

I'll assume that "perpetuity" means "eternity" since that is the primary definition given in Merriam Webster and the only definition given that works in scripture.

One reason that "eternity" is not a valid definition for aion is that no where in scripture does the word aion impart the meaning "eternity".  At most a whole phrase ("to the ages of the ages") imparts that meaning.  And it is debatable as to whether the whole phrase does that.

A second reason is that "age" works everywhere aion works and "age" certainly does not mean "eternity".

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 09:17:17 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 08:25:55 PM

Eph 2:7  That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

What ages are being spoken of and what make you think that they do not come to an end?

I do not know what ages those may be, scripture does not really say, people may interpret something to try to say, but inherantly there is no implication otherwise.

It does lend itself to the writers not being able to perceive a ending to something which then it is a fitting description to the closest in reality we as human can get to the concept of eternity in the first place.

Such as  "May this last for as long as it can ever last."    I do not put an ending on it because contextually there is no reason for one.

Well, certainly, they saw that whatever 'age' they were presently in was going to come to an end and be followed by other 'ages' (plural, so not just one long age), right? And don't the scriptures also talk about "the end of the ages" and aren't the "ages" connected to "time", having been "created"?

So regardless of what those ages might be or how long they might last where are they ever connected to eternity, to that which exists outside of "time" and that which was "created"? 

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood

Quote from: Chris
Rev 5:13  And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

When do you see this taking place in relation to the reign of Christ and in relation to Christ turning the kingdom over to the Father?

I don't see either one of these passages addressing "eternity". In fact, I see them both relative to us in this life. How do you see them?

"Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne"

I do not see statements like this to imply an ending.   If I am saying something to you in true love and I say "Blessing upon you" have I implied a time in which they should cease?

This is spoken of Christ, right? Will Christ be sitting upon the throne "forever"? Or does Christ turn His kingdom over to the Father?

Quote from: ChrisI didn't say that something that is perpetual "can't" last forever, Molly.

But the word, in and of itself, does not DEMAND that meaning.

No it doesn't demand that meaning, It is the first meaning given but it doesn't demand it.  I agree.  Context, along with other scripture, is important.

QuoteLikewise, if something is said to be "perpetual" within the realm "of the ages" then it (too) CANNOT be "without end" as it WILL END when the ages come to an END.

Do you disagree?

I'm not convinced that the ages come to an end.  Do you think they do?  What happens to Jesus when they come to an end?  What happens to me?  Where does it say the ages come to an end?

You talk about the Son handing the kingdom to the Father as though that is the end of the reign of Jesus but  these verses in Revelation tell us he will reign for ever and ever--and I take that in that context to be eternity.  He shall reign for ever and ever.

Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

--Rev 5

Is that ever going to end?  unto him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever...


Where is the Lamb?

Revelation 7:17
For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: ...


He is in "the midst of the throne"--in the holy of Holies [the midst of the temple]--He is the very heart of God...



...for his mercy endureth for ever.

--1 Chron 16:34

Quote from: bobf on January 09, 2010, 09:31:08 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 09:00:43 PMAnd I understand, that is why I have asked for more information about why perpetuity is not a valid definition.

I'll assume that "perpetuity" means "eternity" since that is the primary definition given in Merriam Webster and the only definition given that works in scripture.

One reason that "eternity" is not a valid definition for aion is that no where in scripture does the word aion impart the meaning "eternity".  At most a whole phrase ("to the ages of the ages") imparts that meaning.  And it is debatable as to whether the whole phrase does that.

A second reason is that "age" works everywhere aion works and "age" certainly does not mean "eternity".

Age does work everywhere aion is used  no argument there, it is actually one of the things that got me out of the mindset that aionios only means everlasting.

But in terms of the extension of the word to perpetuity, that word does not only have one definition either and I think that is where some difficulty lies in these discussions.   I have no reason to limit my argument to one definition of any word, because as far as I know, there is more than one meaning.   


But,  despite opinions and case building,  scholars and theologians continue to translate with definitions that the lay people decide is wrong. 

Maybe that doesn't mean anything.

As I was researching the word Olam I found a website (and I can find the link if needed) and sent a contact e-mail over the translation of that word to everlasting.    The person responded and said that they didn't really like how the "abstract" ancient Greek terms everlasting or forever and ever were applied to the old testament.

This really got me thinking about the Ancient Greek text.   Prior to that I was in a lot of back and forth discussion that never went anywhere as each of us leveraged for the correct definition of the words.

I understand your concern over what people will come to conclude.  But since I have seen the word Aion in the absolute (age / ages) and the abstract (as long as required / seemingly forever / perception)  then I have actually gotten somewhere in discussion with people and they either had to call me a name, or consider what I have said.   

In that respect, aionios in the abstract actually does not take on a greater meaning than aion in the abstract. 

All I can say is this has opened more doors than it has closed  not much else I can offer on the subject.

Thanks for the discussion, appreciate it.

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 10:18:37 PM

No it doesn't demand that meaning, It is the first meaning given but it doesn't demand it.  I agree.  Context, along with other scripture, is important.

:thumbsup: Agreed!

Quote from: Molly

I'm not convinced that the ages come to an end.  Do you think they do?

I answered some of these questions already, I think in my post to Paul, but yes I do believe that the ages come to an end and I believe that they do because the scriptures speak about "the end of the ages". They also speak about the promised made "pro chronos aionios" (before times eonian).

Quote

What happens to Jesus when they come to an end?

He is subject to the Father, just as we all are.

Quote

What happens to me?

You continue to live in the kingdom of God, why would that change just because the kingdom is turned over to the Father?

Quote

Where does it say the ages come to an end?

I've already posted some of the verses. Are you saying that you don't know of any passage of scripture that speaks about the end of the ages? Of the promises that were made "before the world began"? Indicating that the world (ages) has both a beginning and an end?

QuoteYou talk about the Son handing the kingdom to the Father as though that is the end of the reign of Jesus but these verses in Revelation tell us he will reign for ever and ever--and I take that in that context to be eternity.  He shall reign for ever and ever.

Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

--Rev 5



Is that ever going to end?  unto him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever...


Where is the Lamb?

Revelation 7:17
For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: ...


He is in "the midst of the throne"--in the holy of Holies [the midst of the temple]--He is the very heart of God...



...for his mercy endureth for ever.

--1 Chron 16:34

You keep claiming that Christ reigns "forever" and have yet to explain how you reconcile that with the passage in 1 Cor that says that he reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed, at which point He turns the kingdom over to the Father.

My view can be supported with ALL of the passages in question, how is yours?

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 09:56:11 PM
Well, certainly, they saw that whatever 'age' they were presently in was going to come to an end and be followed by other 'ages' (plural, so not just one long age), right? And don't the scriptures also talk about "the end of the ages" and aren't the "ages" connected to "time", having been "created"?

Honestly, I have been looking,  what scripture talks about the end of ages in the plural I can't seem to find it?

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 11:08:06 PM

I've already posted some of the verses. Are you saying that you don't know of any passage of scripture that speaks about the end of the ages? Of the promises that were made "before the world began"? Indicating that the world (ages) has both a beginning and an end?

Scripture also talks about a new heaven and a new earth, so if the biblical references to end of the ages is about this earth, then the end of ages concerning this earth contextually does not inherently mean the end of ALL ages in the absolute sense.

Quote from: ChrisYou keep claiming that Christ reigns "forever" and have yet to explain how you reconcile that with the passage in 1 Cor that says that he reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed, at which point He turns the kingdom over to the Father.

My view can be supported with ALL of the passages in question, how is yours?

I've tried. :dontknow:



Exodus 15:18
The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.

Psalm 146:10
The LORD shall reign for ever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye the LORD.




16And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

--Rev19



Psalm 24:8
Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.

Psalm 24:10
Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah.



10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

---phil 2



Philippians 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.  <-----1Cor 15

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 11:56:01 PM

Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.  <-----1Cor 15

From the CLV

Re 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred~ in *heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of *this world became~ our *Lord's and His *Christ's, and He shall be reigning intofor the eons of the eons! Amen!"



This passage still uses eons to imply a perpetually endless nature of things.  This is about God reigning.   Christ reign of this kingdom does end, but that is not "the end".

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:09:24 AM

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 11:56:01 PM

Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.  <-----1Cor 15

From the CLV

Re 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred~ in *heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of *this world became~ our *Lord's and His *Christ's, and He shall be reigning intofor the eons of the eons! Amen!"



This passage still uses eons to imply a perpetually endless nature of things.  This is about God reigning.   Christ reign of this kingdom does end, but that is not "the end".

About God reigning, yes.  But who is 'our Lord' in this passage?  And who is his Christ in this passage?

And when does this happen?  Who is this talking about in the scripture below:  ?

Revelation 22:5
And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.<----Last chapter of the last book of the Bible.

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 11:56:01 PM

I've tried. :dontknow:


Exodus 15:18
The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.

Psalm 146:10
The LORD shall reign for ever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye the LORD.

And knowing that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and the kingdom is turned over to the Father, doesn't make you at least CONSIDER that "forever and ever" is actually "to the age of the ages" and NOT "forever and ever"?  :dontknow:

Quote

16And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

--Rev19

And how does what I have said change the fact that Christ is KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS?  :dontknow:

Quote
Psalm 24:8
Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.

Psalm 24:10
Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah.



10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

---phil 2



Philippians 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

How does even one thing that I have said change ANY of that?  :dontknow:

QuoteRevelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.  <-----1Cor 15

Now can you DEMONSTRATE how "forever and ever" in Rev 11:15 (or any of the other passage that can also be translated "to the age of the ages" or "to the ages of the ages") RECONCILES WITH the fact that Paul said that "Christ must reign UNTIL...."

if Paul understood that Christ would reign "forever and ever"?

If THE SON (to whom all things were made subject) turns the kingdom (and all things given unto him) back over to THE FATHER (who subjected them to Christ in the first place) then why claim that Christ reigns "forever"?

Does the KING who turns His kingdom over to someone GREATER still reign over His kingdom?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 11:15:19 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 09:56:11 PM
Well, certainly, they saw that whatever 'age' they were presently in was going to come to an end and be followed by other 'ages' (plural, so not just one long age), right? And don't the scriptures also talk about "the end of the ages" and aren't the "ages" connected to "time", having been "created"?

Honestly, I have been looking,  what scripture talks about the end of ages in the plural I can't seem to find it?

I thought I already posted some examples. I'll go back and look and if not I will.  :mblush:

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 11:18:38 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 11:08:06 PM

I've already posted some of the verses. Are you saying that you don't know of any passage of scripture that speaks about the end of the ages? Of the promises that were made "before the world began"? Indicating that the world (ages) has both a beginning and an end?

Scripture also talks about a new heaven and a new earth, so if the biblical references to end of the ages is about this earth, then the end of ages concerning this earth contextually does not inherently mean the end of ALL ages in the absolute sense.

I don't believe that the new heaven and the new earth have anything at all to do with this physical world that we live in now -  or any other.

I believe "the heavens" and "the earth" are PEOPLE

And the "new heavens" and the "new earth" (in which there is "no more sea") already exist...

.... even "the third heaven"  (in which not even "the earth" is mentioned).  :winkgrin:

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:22:21 AM

And knowing that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and the kingdom is turned over to the Father, doesn't make you at least CONSIDER that "forever and ever" is actually "to the age of the ages" and NOT "forever and ever"?  :dontknow:

The problem here what I have been talking about.   Indeed, even if Molly disagrees,  we can see that Christs reign over this kingdom ends,  however the same words are used in another verse to show that God also reigns into the eons of eons.   There is no use of a word that implies a limited duration in that context.

Quote from: ChrisIf THE SON (to whom all things were made subject) turns the kingdom (and all things given unto him) back over to THE FATHER (who subjected them to Christ in the first place) then why you assume that Christ reigns "forever"?

Does the KING who turns His kingdom over to someone GREATER still reign over His kingdom?

It all depends on who you think Jesus is, who you think the Lord is, who you think the Son is, who you think the Father is, and who you think 'his Christ' is.

God has many different names in the Old Testament to describe how he relates to us, but Y'shua is above every name.



20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

--Eph 1




Philippians 2:9
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Quote from: Molly on January 10, 2010, 12:17:30 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:09:24 AM

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 11:56:01 PM

Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.  <-----1Cor 15

From the CLV

Re 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred~ in *heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of *this world became~ our *Lord's and His *Christ's, and He shall be reigning intofor the eons of the eons! Amen!"



This passage still uses eons to imply a perpetually endless nature of things.  This is about God reigning.   Christ reign of this kingdom does end, but that is not "the end".

About God reigning, yes.  But who is 'our Lord' in this passage?  And who is his Christ in this passage?

And when does this happen?  Who is this talking about in the scripture below:  ?

Revelation 22:5
And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.<----Last chapter of the last book of the Bible.

Rev 22:1  And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Rev 22:2  In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Rev 22:3  And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Rev 22:4  And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

Rev 22:5  And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.


Do you believe that because the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ comes "at the end" of the Bible that that makes it "the end" of the story?

Obviously, Christ is still sitting on the throne with the Father, in this passage, so does this take place before or after Christ turns the kingdom over to the Father?

Can it be that what Paul says to the Corinthians goes even further than the book of Revelation?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:33:55 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:22:21 AM

And knowing that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and the kingdom is turned over to the Father, doesn't make you at least CONSIDER that "forever and ever" is actually "to the age of the ages" and NOT "forever and ever"?  :dontknow:

The problem here what I have been talking about.   Indeed, even if Molly disagrees,  we can see that Christs reign over this kingdom ends,  however the same words are used in another verse to show that God also reigns into the eons of eons.   There is no use of a word that implies a limited duration in that context.

Can you give the verse, please?

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:42:44 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:33:55 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:22:21 AM

And knowing that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and the kingdom is turned over to the Father, doesn't make you at least CONSIDER that "forever and ever" is actually "to the age of the ages" and NOT "forever and ever"?  :dontknow:

The problem here what I have been talking about.   Indeed, even if Molly disagrees,  we can see that Christs reign over this kingdom ends,  however the same words are used in another verse to show that God also reigns into the eons of eons.   There is no use of a word that implies a limited duration in that context.

Can you give the verse, please?

Re 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred~ in *heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of *this world became~ our *Lord's and His *Christ's, and He shall be reigning intofor the eons of the eons! Amen!"

Quote from: ChrisObviously, Christ is still sitting on the throne with the Father, in this passage, so does this take place before or after Christ turns the kingdom over to the Father?

I would say after, myself, because of how I see God and Jesus.  But I will agree that the last page of the book doesn't necessarily have to be the end--although that would be highly unusual and a bit of a trick 'ending.'

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:29:56 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 11:18:38 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 11:08:06 PM

I've already posted some of the verses. Are you saying that you don't know of any passage of scripture that speaks about the end of the ages? Of the promises that were made "before the world began"? Indicating that the world (ages) has both a beginning and an end?

Scripture also talks about a new heaven and a new earth, so if the biblical references to end of the ages is about this earth, then the end of ages concerning this earth contextually does not inherently mean the end of ALL ages in the absolute sense.

I don't believe that the new heaven and the new earth have anything at all to do with this physical world that we live in now -  or any other.

I believe "the heavens" and "the earth" are PEOPLE

And the "new heavens" and the "new earth" (in which there is "no more sea") already exist...

.... even "the third heaven"  (in which not even "the earth" is mentioned).  :winkgrin:

I certainly see where you are coming from, but even if they are spiritual, even if they already exist the reference is to "more".   Even if time is created, God being eternal can still create time at any time and there is absolutely nothing to suggest there is ever an ending in the absolute sense to God and creating realms and time.   The bible depicts a certain realm and in the span of what we might be able to comprehend about eternity I am not seeing that there is any implication that God doing stuff ever ends.

Quote from: Molly on January 10, 2010, 12:34:06 AM

Quote from: ChrisIf THE SON (to whom all things were made subject) turns the kingdom (and all things given unto him) back over to THE FATHER (who subjected them to Christ in the first place) then why you assume that Christ reigns "forever"?

Does the KING who turns His kingdom over to someone GREATER still reign over His kingdom?

It all depends on who you think Jesus is, who you think the Lord is, who you think the Son is, who you think the Father is, and who you think 'his Christ' is.

God has many different names in the Old Testament to describe how he relates to us, but Y'shua is above every name.



20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

--Eph 1




Philippians 2:9
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Once again, I have to ask, how is any of that impacted by what I have said?

Clearly, all things were subject to Christ (with the exception of the Father, who subjected all things to Him); all things were put into His hands, but not "forever", as all of those same things are put back into the hands of the Father, making ALL things (including Christ) subject TO THE FATHER, that God may be "all in all".

Does that somehow mean that now the name of Christ is not "above all names"? That suddenly Christ is not "King of kings and Lord of Lords"? That Christ is longer Christ? The Anointed? The Elect of God? The redeemer of mankind? The mediator between man and God? And THE ONE through whom RECONCILIATION was made?  

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:42:44 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:33:55 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:22:21 AM

And knowing that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and the kingdom is turned over to the Father, doesn't make you at least CONSIDER that "forever and ever" is actually "to the age of the ages" and NOT "forever and ever"?  :dontknow:

The problem here what I have been talking about.   Indeed, even if Molly disagrees,  we can see that Christs reign over this kingdom ends,  however the same words are used in another verse to show that God also reigns into the eons of eons.   There is no use of a word that implies a limited duration in that context.

Can you give the verse, please?

Re 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred~ in *heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of *this world became~ our *Lord's and His *Christ's, and He shall be reigning intofor the eons of the eons! Amen!"

So you see the "he" as referring to the Father?

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:52:23 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:42:44 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:33:55 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:22:21 AM

And knowing that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and the kingdom is turned over to the Father, doesn't make you at least CONSIDER that "forever and ever" is actually "to the age of the ages" and NOT "forever and ever"?  :dontknow:

The problem here what I have been talking about.   Indeed, even if Molly disagrees,  we can see that Christs reign over this kingdom ends,  however the same words are used in another verse to show that God also reigns into the eons of eons.   There is no use of a word that implies a limited duration in that context.

Can you give the verse, please?

Re 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred~ in *heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of *this world became~ our *Lord's and His *Christ's, and He shall be reigning intofor the eons of the eons! Amen!"

So you see the "he" as referring to the Father?

Yes.

Quote from: Molly on January 10, 2010, 12:48:17 AM

Quote from: ChrisObviously, Christ is still sitting on the throne with the Father, in this passage, so does this take place before or after Christ turns the kingdom over to the Father?

I would say after, myself, because of how I see God and Jesus.  But I will agree that the last page of the book doesn't necessarily have to be the end--although that would be highly unusual and a bit of a trick 'ending.'

Why?

Seems to me that that particular book was placed "at the end" of the Bible because of the nature of the book, it being very different to any of the other books of the NT. Where else would it "fit"?

The revelation of Jesus Christ took place 2000 years ago. How do we (the readers) "keep the sayings of the book" if they do not even apply to us because they only apply to those who are alive when Christ returns?

As I understand the book, those things are already taking place.... is, was and will be.... according to spiritual truths.

If that were not so then why would it say:

Rev 14:13  And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:49:00 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:29:56 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 11:18:38 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 11:08:06 PM

I've already posted some of the verses. Are you saying that you don't know of any passage of scripture that speaks about the end of the ages? Of the promises that were made "before the world began"? Indicating that the world (ages) has both a beginning and an end?

Scripture also talks about a new heaven and a new earth, so if the biblical references to end of the ages is about this earth, then the end of ages concerning this earth contextually does not inherently mean the end of ALL ages in the absolute sense.

I don't believe that the new heaven and the new earth have anything at all to do with this physical world that we live in now -  or any other.

I believe "the heavens" and "the earth" are PEOPLE

And the "new heavens" and the "new earth" (in which there is "no more sea") already exist...

.... even "the third heaven"  (in which not even "the earth" is mentioned).  :winkgrin:

I certainly see where you are coming from, but even if they are spiritual, even if they already exist the reference is to "more".   Even if time is created, God being eternal can still create time at any time and there is absolutely nothing to suggest there is ever an ending in the absolute sense to God and creating realms and time.   The bible depicts a certain realm and in the span of what we might be able to comprehend about eternity I am not seeing that there is any implication that God doing stuff ever ends.

I have no idea what happens "in eternity". We are not told; I don't think that we are even given the slightest clue - apart from being with the Lord.

But the scriptures are written for "us", right? To those who are here in "this" world, that we might understand the gospel as it applies to us and the times (ages, if you will) that we live in? No?

What God has in store for us beyond this world, I do not know. So how can I apply what is written for us "now" in "this" world to that which is beyond it? Why would we be expected to?

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:02:48 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:49:00 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:29:56 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 09, 2010, 11:18:38 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 11:08:06 PM

I've already posted some of the verses. Are you saying that you don't know of any passage of scripture that speaks about the end of the ages? Of the promises that were made "before the world began"? Indicating that the world (ages) has both a beginning and an end?

Scripture also talks about a new heaven and a new earth, so if the biblical references to end of the ages is about this earth, then the end of ages concerning this earth contextually does not inherently mean the end of ALL ages in the absolute sense.

I don't believe that the new heaven and the new earth have anything at all to do with this physical world that we live in now -  or any other.

I believe "the heavens" and "the earth" are PEOPLE

And the "new heavens" and the "new earth" (in which there is "no more sea") already exist...

.... even "the third heaven"  (in which not even "the earth" is mentioned).  :winkgrin:

I certainly see where you are coming from, but even if they are spiritual, even if they already exist the reference is to "more".   Even if time is created, God being eternal can still create time at any time and there is absolutely nothing to suggest there is ever an ending in the absolute sense to God and creating realms and time.   The bible depicts a certain realm and in the span of what we might be able to comprehend about eternity I am not seeing that there is any implication that God doing stuff ever ends.

I have no idea what happens "in eternity". We are not told; I don't think that we are even given the slightest clue - apart from being with the Lord.

But the scriptures are written for "us", right? To those who are here in "this" world, that we might understand the gospel as it applies to us and the times (ages, if you will) that we live in? No?

What God has in store for us beyond this world, I do not know. So how can I apply what is written for us "now" in "this" world to that which is beyond it? Why would we be expected to?

All I am conveying is what I am seeing concerning the subject of this thread, I haven't expected you to do anything.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:55:37 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:52:23 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:42:44 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:33:55 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:22:21 AM

And knowing that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and the kingdom is turned over to the Father, doesn't make you at least CONSIDER that "forever and ever" is actually "to the age of the ages" and NOT "forever and ever"?  :dontknow:

The problem here what I have been talking about.   Indeed, even if Molly disagrees,  we can see that Christs reign over this kingdom ends,  however the same words are used in another verse to show that God also reigns into the eons of eons.   There is no use of a word that implies a limited duration in that context.

Can you give the verse, please?

Re 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred~ in *heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of *this world became~ our *Lord's and His *Christ's, and He shall be reigning intofor the eons of the eons! Amen!"

So you see the "he" as referring to the Father?

Yes.

Why, when both are mentioned?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:03:54 AM

All I am conveying is what I am seeing concerning the subject of this thread, I haven't expected you to do anything.

I said "we". I was just a general question.  :gwink:

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:04:01 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:55:37 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:52:23 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:42:44 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:33:55 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:22:21 AM

And knowing that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and the kingdom is turned over to the Father, doesn't make you at least CONSIDER that "forever and ever" is actually "to the age of the ages" and NOT "forever and ever"?  :dontknow:

The problem here what I have been talking about.   Indeed, even if Molly disagrees,  we can see that Christs reign over this kingdom ends,  however the same words are used in another verse to show that God also reigns into the eons of eons.   There is no use of a word that implies a limited duration in that context.

Can you give the verse, please?

Re 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred~ in *heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of *this world became~ our *Lord's and His *Christ's, and He shall be reigning intofor the eons of the eons! Amen!"

So you see the "he" as referring to the Father?

Yes.

Why, when both are mentioned?

I see in scripture that Christs reign does end, I have no difficulty with that.

Even if both are mentioned does this mean Gods reign ends, to me that is impossible.   So if Christs reign ends it cannot be referring to Christ.

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:06:29 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:03:54 AM

All I am conveying is what I am seeing concerning the subject of this thread, I haven't expected you to do anything.

I said "we". I was just a general question.  :gwink:

No problem, I am just trying to stay on the topic, I do not see a problem with scripture peeking into places I am not at yet.   :bigGrin:

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:07:59 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:04:01 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:55:37 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:52:23 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:42:44 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:33:55 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:22:21 AM

And knowing that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and the kingdom is turned over to the Father, doesn't make you at least CONSIDER that "forever and ever" is actually "to the age of the ages" and NOT "forever and ever"?  :dontknow:

The problem here what I have been talking about.   Indeed, even if Molly disagrees,  we can see that Christs reign over this kingdom ends,  however the same words are used in another verse to show that God also reigns into the eons of eons.   There is no use of a word that implies a limited duration in that context.

Can you give the verse, please?

Re 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred~ in *heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of *this world became~ our *Lord's and His *Christ's, and He shall be reigning intofor the eons of the eons! Amen!"

So you see the "he" as referring to the Father?

Yes.

Why, when both are mentioned?

I see in scripture that Christs reign does end, I have no difficulty with that.

Even if both are mentioned does this mean Gods reign ends, to me that is impossible.   So if Christs reign ends in it cannot be referring to Christ.

As I pointed out to Molly, as I see it they are both seated on the throne at that time, so it does not appear to me that Christ has (yet) turned the kingdom over to the Father; therefore it is still Christ who is reigning over the kingdom, though His reign will not be "forever" (which you seems to agree with?)

willieH: Hi Molly... :hithere:

Not inclined to catch up with all the replies on this thread (quite busy!)... but a word or two...

I think you have raised a good point...

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 10:18:37 PM
You talk about the Son handing the kingdom to the Father as though that is the end of the reign of Jesus but  these verses in Revelation tell us he will reign for ever and ever--and I take that in that context to be eternity.  He shall reign for ever and ever.

Is there ever or could there ever have been a place where the WORD did not reign?  

All that is seen in JESUS "handing over the kingdom" to the Father, is the WORD PERFECTLY returning to its ORIGIN... which is the HEART of GOD... that the HEART of YHVH be shown and REVEALED to be ALL in ALL...

Quote from: Molly on January 09, 2010, 10:18:37 PMBlessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

--Rev 5

Is that ever going to end?  unto him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever...

This discussion is very good, but also [IMO] is missing an important portion...

I think you have posed a very valid notion here, Molly... But the question (IMO) should also contain this idea...

Did BLESSING and GLORY, HONOR ever have a STARTING POINT?  Concerning TIME, YES it did for TIME had a starting point!  ...but concerning these elements (Blessing, Glory & Honor), NO!  ALL these 3 have ALWAYS BEEN... which "ALWAYS" makes them ALL, "EVER" ...lasting.

If YHVH is EVERLASTING and His WORD is EVERLASTING (without a point of generation -- which It IS), can it be said that in the opposite direction of the flow of TIME (which is NOT "toward an end"), was there ever a point in which these attributes were NOT existent?  And if so, WHY NOT?  :dontknow:

Also, to note that "BLESSING, HONOR & GLORY", had a point of generation, confines them, and presents the idea of a CHANGE in the circumstances of YHVH God, for it contends that there was a point in which HE WAS NOT -- blessed, and glorified and honored!

What makes the MOST REASONABLE sense in a "NO CHANGE scenario" is that ALL things in the realm in which YHVH ALWAYS IS -- just ALWAYS ARE!

Because WE as finite human beings CONFINED to the movement of LINEAR TIME, who's motion is CONTINUALLY FORWARD, and which displays BEGINNINS and ENDINGS to all things within IT...  Does not mean that, that -- to which we have NO ACCESS -- that the word ETERNAL in its FULLEST and COMPLETE sense, ...IS a realm that YHVH and HIS WORD exist, ...and in that EXISTENCE (unlike TIME), has NO BEGINNING... had no point of generation, and is NOT in motion (by heading) toward an END either...

If something (time) has a point of beginning and shall end... how can it be used to measure that which has neither property?   :mshock:

EXAMPLE: --- In direct comparision --- A small "planet" (earth) in the midst of an unending Universe has its confining parameters which display its manufacture (beginning), its length, breadth and height, its durability as well as confined and finite occupants, ALL heading to an END...

Each of those FINITES in turn, which step OUTSIDE of the "planet" by stepping OUTSIDE of its TIME CONFINEMENTS, are each thereby subjected to DEATH to an INFINITE degree...

However... the UNIVERSE which is surrounding the "planet" (which is SIMULTANEOUSLY surrounding the "planet" at its every border), is BEYOND that "planet" -- and is without ANY of these confining elements, stretching forever in every DIRECTION continually, and is NOT in motion in any particular direction... and furthermore is not threatened by the TIME impositions of DEATH, END or even BEGINNING!

Where does the said Universe BEGIN?  Where does it END?  In which direction in TIME or MOTION is it headed, if any?

A small boat in the middle of the ocean gives the same picture.   :happygrin:

The WORD of YHVH is something that is REVEALED... That which is "REVEALED" was and IS there to begin with... so the WORD in the DIVINELY "creating" sense, ...is not bringing forth something that previously was NOT there, ...it is UNVEILING something that has ALWAYS BEEN there...

IOW... the CREATION as we observe is a matter of the WORDS of the HEART of YHVH, which were UNEXPRESSED... the CREATION did not have a "BEGINNING" as we might tend to percieve... it had a REVEALING... it IS emergent of the WORD which has ALWAYS BEEN, and therefore has the same ETERNAL and UNCHANGING properties as the WORD, being a REVELATION of IT.

The Lord says that NATURE gives its "TESTIMONY" of Him... NATURE is not just confined to the Earth... NATURE is ALL that is observable from the earth as well... for the LIGHTS in the Sky were created FOR earth to light it, warm it, give LIFE unto it... and also IN THIS, ..."TESTIFY" of Him.

As I see it, they TESTIFY that He is without the CONFINEMENTS that are seen of Earth, time, and existence as observed by, and confine men...

In this thread it has been mentioned that SCRIPTURE notes  a "new" Heaven and a "new" earth, however...  this mention is found in SYMBOLIC TEXT [Revelation of JESUS CHRIST -- which is the REVEALING of JESUS CHRIST... it is NOT literal... Something REVEALED was THERE to begin with... When a PAINTING is revealed in an art show, it does not come into being upon the veil being removed, it was indeed THERE at the art show... albeit veiled...

This "Heaven" in Revelation cannot be "new" in the sense of BEGINNING (as if  some "do over"), because it is a place in which RIGHTEOUSNESS dwells... which said "Heaven" is without BEGINNING...

GOD's RIGHTEOUSNESS has NO BEGINNING, ...He has ALWAYS been, IS and ALWAYS WILL BE RIGHTEOUS... and wherever HE DWELLS, RIGHTEOUSNESS is also there...

The "HEAVEN" spoken of in this SYMBOLISM is not some "RE-CREATED Universe", ...it is the RE-CREATED HEARTS [enlarged by the knowledge] of those who entered TIME...  For it is IN the HEARTS of men, which IS the throne of YHVH God and the "where" He dwells... and is about to be REVEALED as ETERNAL by that MANIFEST REVEALING of His "said SONS" -- Rom 8:19-23

The "new" part is that those who entered into the KNOWLEDGE of G & E, have re-entered [returned to] the place -- ETERNITY -- from which they emerged... with KNOWLEDGE they did NOT have prior to their emergent existence in TIME...

Same SONS... just with NEW [Heavenly] information... which GLORIFIES, HONORS and BLESSES the ONE which has REVEALED that information TO THEM... they being EXACTLY as He is, which is WITH the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL...

The KNOWLEDGE in both aspects (G & E) given COMPLETELY to each SON, to its PERFECTLY REVEALED totality, as KNOWN by GOD in His HEART.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:09:58 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:06:29 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:03:54 AM

All I am conveying is what I am seeing concerning the subject of this thread, I haven't expected you to do anything.

I said "we". I was just a general question.  :gwink:

No problem, I am just trying to stay on the topic, I do not see a problem with scripture peeking into places I am not at yet.   :bigGrin:

I don't know that I would have a problem with it, I just don't think that it does.  :grin:

I don't even limit the "ages" to some sort of linear time-line.

Spiritually speaking, as we mature in Christ we go through various "ages"... be start out as "babes" (yet carnal)... then we grow into "toddlers".... then "young men/woman" (our youth, which is vanity  :laughing7:) all of which falls under the category of A CHILD..... until Christ is formed within us and we receive the adoption of SONS.

It is in being "delivered of the child" (as was Paul) that we (Eve/the woman/the church) are "saved".

A child IS BORN.... a son IS GIVEN.

The child differs nothing from a servant, thou he is lord of all.  :thumbsup:

But that might be a bit off-topic too (though I see it a related to concept of the "ages" and "the age of the ages" and "ages of the ages"... when applying these things spiritually).

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:11:30 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:07:59 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:04:01 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:55:37 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:52:23 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:42:44 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 12:33:55 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 12:22:21 AM

And knowing that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and the kingdom is turned over to the Father, doesn't make you at least CONSIDER that "forever and ever" is actually "to the age of the ages" and NOT "forever and ever"?  :dontknow:

The problem here what I have been talking about.   Indeed, even if Molly disagrees,  we can see that Christs reign over this kingdom ends,  however the same words are used in another verse to show that God also reigns into the eons of eons.   There is no use of a word that implies a limited duration in that context.

Can you give the verse, please?

Re 11:15 And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred~ in *heaven, saying,  "The kingdom of *this world became~ our *Lord's and His *Christ's, and He shall be reigning intofor the eons of the eons! Amen!"

So you see the "he" as referring to the Father?

Yes.

Why, when both are mentioned?

I see in scripture that Christs reign does end, I have no difficulty with that.

Even if both are mentioned does this mean Gods reign ends, to me that is impossible.   So if Christs reign ends in it cannot be referring to Christ.

As I pointed out to Molly, as I see it they are both seated on the throne at that time, so it does not appear to me that Christ has (yet) turned the kingdom over to the Father; therefore it is still Christ who is reigning over the kingdom, though His reign will not be "forever" (which you seems to agree with?)

Just going by the word structure of any translation and the word for word greek text,  I see the main reference being about God.

The word for word text says

Lord  "of us"  "and of"  "The Christ"   referring to who is not only our Lord but Christs Lord.

God is Christs Lord since he is subject to him.   Some people disagree that there is any difference between God and Jesus, but I can only go by what I see in scripture at the time.

Rev 11:15  And2532 the3588 seventh1442 angel32 sounded;4537 and2532 there were1096 great3173 voices5456 in1722 heaven,3772 saying,3004 The3588 kingdoms932 of this world2889 are become1096 the kingdoms of our2257 Lord,2962 and2532 of his848 Christ;5547 and2532 he shall reign936 forever and ever.1519, 165, 165

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:22:04 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:09:58 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:06:29 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:03:54 AM

All I am conveying is what I am seeing concerning the subject of this thread, I haven't expected you to do anything.

I said "we". I was just a general question.  :gwink:

No problem, I am just trying to stay on the topic, I do not see a problem with scripture peeking into places I am not at yet.   :bigGrin:

I don't know that I would have a problem with it, I just don't think that it does.  :grin:

I don't even limit the "ages" to some sort of linear time-line.

Spiritually speaking, as we mature in Christ we go through various "ages"... be start out as "babes" (yet carnal)... then we grow into "toddlers".... then "young men/woman" (our youth, which is vanity  :laughing7:) all of which falls under the category of A CHILD..... until Christ is formed within us and we receive the adoption of SONS.

It is in being "delivered of the child" (as was Paul) that we (Eve/the woman/the church) are "saved".

A child IS BORN.... a son IS GIVEN.

The child differs nothing from a servant, thou he is lord of all.  :thumbsup:

But that might be a bit off-topic too (though I see it a related to concept of the "ages" and "the age of the ages" and "ages of the ages"... when applying these things spiritually).

You raise a good point.   Perhaps if the bible is only and specifically meant for us to only see what is needed for the time that this realm will exist then it could have a limiting factor after all.

The bible does not explain every last exhausting detail and no amount of interpretation is going to do that of course.   I do think the bible makes reference to a structure of ongoing events through that verse and it is my opinion of it by how I read the words.

From my standpoint,  God has always existed and I am cool with the understanding that there is nothing that actually explains it.   It just IS.

So I am thinking and only speculating that when our time comes to reign there may be ages that some other realm perceives and that we have knowledge of but are not "bound" to.

Just thinking out loud.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:22:29 AM



Just going by the word structure of any translation and the word for word greek text,  I see the main reference being about God.

The word for word text says

Lord  "of us"  "and of"  "The Christ"   referring to who is not only our Lord but Christs Lord.

God is Christs Lord since he is subject to him.   Some people disagree that there is any difference between God and Jesus, but I can only go by what I see in scripture at the time.

Ok, I see what you mean. I'll have to take another look at it and the entire passage.

As I see it there absolutely is a distinction between God (the Father) and Christ (the Son).

It was not "the son" who was "made flesh" it was the Word (who WAS GOD) that was "made flesh" that resulted in "the Son" (the Word "made flesh").

And He Who "came out from the Father" RETURNED "to the Father".  :thumbsup:

Quote from: willieHIs there ever or could there ever have been a place where the WORD did not reign?  

All that is seen in JESUS "handing over the kingdom" to the Father, is the WORD PERFECTLY returning to its ORIGIN... which is the HEART of GOD... that the HEART of YHVH be shown and REVEALED to be ALL in ALL...

Beautiful!

The whole post was beautiful!  Thank you!

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:40:52 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:22:29 AM



Just going by the word structure of any translation and the word for word greek text,  I see the main reference being about God.

The word for word text says

Lord  "of us"  "and of"  "The Christ"   referring to who is not only our Lord but Christs Lord.

God is Christs Lord since he is subject to him.   Some people disagree that there is any difference between God and Jesus, but I can only go by what I see in scripture at the time.

Ok, I see what you mean. I'll have to take another look at it and the entire passage.

As I see it there absolutely is a distinction between God (the Father) and Christ (the Son).

It was not "the son" who was "made flesh" it was the Word (who WAS GOD) that was "made flesh" that resulted in "the Son" (the Word "made flesh").

And He Who "came out from the Father" RETURNED "to the Father".  :thumbsup:

Yes and I am trying to approach this knowing that I sure suspect I do not have the ultimate grasp over the  "Jesus saying it is not wrong to think of him as equal to the father"  and at the same time this Jesus that is equal to the father is also subject to the father.    But I'm also not going to accept that there is absolutely no difference and that Jesus is his own father and is subject to himself.   Yikes    :beerburp:

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:32:37 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:22:04 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:09:58 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:06:29 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:03:54 AM

All I am conveying is what I am seeing concerning the subject of this thread, I haven't expected you to do anything.

I said "we". I was just a general question.  :gwink:

No problem, I am just trying to stay on the topic, I do not see a problem with scripture peeking into places I am not at yet.   :bigGrin:

I don't know that I would have a problem with it, I just don't think that it does.  :grin:

I don't even limit the "ages" to some sort of linear time-line.

Spiritually speaking, as we mature in Christ we go through various "ages"... be start out as "babes" (yet carnal)... then we grow into "toddlers".... then "young men/woman" (our youth, which is vanity  :laughing7:) all of which falls under the category of A CHILD..... until Christ is formed within us and we receive the adoption of SONS.

It is in being "delivered of the child" (as was Paul) that we (Eve/the woman/the church) are "saved".

A child IS BORN.... a son IS GIVEN.

The child differs nothing from a servant, thou he is lord of all.  :thumbsup:

But that might be a bit off-topic too (though I see it a related to concept of the "ages" and "the age of the ages" and "ages of the ages"... when applying these things spiritually).

You raise a good point.   Perhaps if the bible is only and specifically meant for us to only see what is needed for the time that this realm will exist then it could have a limiting factor after all.

The bible does not explain every last exhausting detail and no amount of interpretation is going to do that of course.   I do think the bible makes reference to a structure of ongoing events through that verse and it is my opinion of it by how I read the words.

From my standpoint,  God has always existed and I am cool with the understanding that there is nothing that actually explains it.   It just IS.

So I am thinking and only speculating that when our time comes to reign there may be ages that some other realm perceives and that we have knowledge of but are not "bound" to.

Just thinking out loud.

Yeah, I used to do like most and read Revelation as if it described an actual city with many mansions and street paved with gold, etc, that will be our "home" one day.

But the more I have studied, the more that I have come to realize that in order to understand what was "signified" to John you have to understand the "symbols" and what they reveal. Not an easy task to be sure. But the same patterns are repeated over and over again throughout the book of Revelation (just as they are throughout scripture); it's just a matter of being able to pick up on them. Then begins the task of trying to understand them.  :mshock:

Well, I have a few things to do and my eyes are starting to burn from being at the computer all day... so I'm going to take a little break. And I will take another look at that passage before I come back.  :thumbsup:

The Son is subject to the Father but--

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


--John 1

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:53:11 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:32:37 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:22:04 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:09:58 AM

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 01:06:29 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 10, 2010, 01:03:54 AM

All I am conveying is what I am seeing concerning the subject of this thread, I haven't expected you to do anything.

I said "we". I was just a general question.  :gwink:

No problem, I am just trying to stay on the topic, I do not see a problem with scripture peeking into places I am not at yet.   :bigGrin:

I don't know that I would have a problem with it, I just don't think that it does.  :grin:

I don't even limit the "ages" to some sort of linear time-line.

Spiritually speaking, as we mature in Christ we go through various "ages"... be start out as "babes" (yet carnal)... then we grow into "toddlers".... then "young men/woman" (our youth, which is vanity  :laughing7:) all of which falls under the category of A CHILD..... until Christ is formed within us and we receive the adoption of SONS.

It is in being "delivered of the child" (as was Paul) that we (Eve/the woman/the church) are "saved".

A child IS BORN.... a son IS GIVEN.

The child differs nothing from a servant, thou he is lord of all.  :thumbsup:

But that might be a bit off-topic too (though I see it a related to concept of the "ages" and "the age of the ages" and "ages of the ages"... when applying these things spiritually).

You raise a good point.   Perhaps if the bible is only and specifically meant for us to only see what is needed for the time that this realm will exist then it could have a limiting factor after all.

The bible does not explain every last exhausting detail and no amount of interpretation is going to do that of course.   I do think the bible makes reference to a structure of ongoing events through that verse and it is my opinion of it by how I read the words.

From my standpoint,  God has always existed and I am cool with the understanding that there is nothing that actually explains it.   It just IS.

So I am thinking and only speculating that when our time comes to reign there may be ages that some other realm perceives and that we have knowledge of but are not "bound" to.

Just thinking out loud.

Yeah, I used to do like most and read Revelation as if it described an actual city with many mansions and street paved with gold, etc, that will be our "home" one day.

But the more I have studied, the more that I have come to realize that in order to understand what was "signified" to John you have to understand the "symbols" and what they reveal. Not an easy task to be sure. But the same patterns are repeated over and over again throughout the book of Revelation (just as they are throughout scripture); it's just a matter of being able to pick up on them. Then begins the task of trying to understand them.  :mshock:

Well, I have a few things to do and my eyes are starting to burn from being at the computer all day... so I'm going to take a little break. And I will take another look at that passage before I come back.  :thumbsup:

No problem, I understand and this has been a great discussion so far.

Quote from: Molly on January 10, 2010, 01:54:25 AM
The Son is subject to the Father but--

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


--John 1

Hi Molly,

Are you saying that (in the beginning) "the Word" (which was with God and was God) = "the Son"? That "the Son was made flesh"?

Rather than "the Word/God was made flesh" = "the Son"?

Do you see the difference between the two statements? 

Ok, going back to look at Rev 11:15:

Rev 11:15  And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

When I read just this verse all I can say is that it is just isn't clear at all who the "he" who is who is to "reign forever and ever". My tendency is to still to lean toward Christ, though.

The chapter begins talking about the two witnesses (the second woe). Then it goes into the third, when the seventh angel sounds and "the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."

Then it talks about the 24 elders that sit before God, worshiping Him saying: ".... O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come..."

Then we go into the next chapter which talks about "the woman" who is "travailing in birth" who "brings forth a man child" who is "to rule all nations" and who is "caught up to God and to His throne"... etc, etc...

Could be taken either way, I suppose, and since they are ONE, it's not as if we can really separate them. As Christ reigns, so does the Father, as the Father is IN HIM and He IN THE FATHER.

So I am not quite sure that it matters all that much is the whole scheme of things, if it is true that Christ reigns UNTIL the last enemy is destroyed and then turns the kingdom over to the Father putting all things that were put under Christ back into the hands of the Father, who put them there.

It's sort of like how I look at "eternal life" (eonian life), which it that LIFE which we have "in Christ" NOW, that pertains to those who are "in this world" but "not of this world".

That life does not "end" just because the "eons" do or just because or life (which could also be called 'an eon') ends; as those who believe "shall never die". Not only have we been given "eternal life" we have "put on" IMMORTALITY.

So to say that Christ shall reign for "to the age of the ages" and that reign will come to an end at whatever point all things are turned over to the Father wouldn't mean that the Father, though He reigns SUPREME and ETERNALLY, also reigns "to the age of the ages" IN CHRIST?

Not really sure. Gonna have to think/pray on it some more. :msealed:   

"For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the one
body, being many, are one body, thus also is the Christ." (1 Co 12:12, CLT)  Christ is, "many are one body," and Jesus is the head of that body.  It is a many-membered Christ.

"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Ep 5:30, CLT)  Is my body me?  If I put my hand on your shoulder did I touch you?  "Are you not aware that your bodies are members of Christ? (1 Co 6:15, CLT)  "Now he who joins the Lord is one spirit." (1 Co 6:17, CLT)  Our bodies are part of Christ and we are one spirit with Him.

What do you think, "...become participants of the divine nature" means?

"...having been regenerated, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible..." (1 Pet 1:23, CLT)  What is incorruptible is immortal.  Death has no dominion over incorruptible life.

"...that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me.  And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One,  I in them and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in one, and that the world may know that Thou dost commission Me and dost love them according as Thou dost love Me." (Jn 17:21-23, CLT)  One in God.  One with Him as Jesus and the Father are one!

So, what's the consensus? I started this topic only trying to prove that the "aionion fire" that Jesus spoke of, and the "torment for the ages of the ages" does not mean, "forever, un-ending, eternal, never stopping torture, forever and ever and etc...". I want to prove that won't happen. (I believe that God will save all men, I just want to get this stupid eternity off my chest.)

Quote from: Molly on January 10, 2010, 01:54:25 AM
The Son is subject to the Father but--

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


--John 1

HI Molly, I was thinking about this last night as I lay in bed and this verse kept coming to mind.

1Co 11:3  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Once all things have been been subdued unto Christ and the body of Christ has "grown in the head" that which is "the fullness of Christ" (ONE BODY) still has "a head" (GOD).

The result is still ONE BODY, Christ in the Father, the Father in Christ and we in Him; but it is THE FATHER who is THE ONE TRUE GOD and to whom the kingdom belongs.

Make sense?

Quote from: Lupac on January 10, 2010, 09:03:47 PM
So, what's the consensus? I started this topic only trying to prove that the "aionion fire" that Jesus spoke of, and the "torment for the ages of the ages" does not mean, "forever, un-ending, eternal, never stopping torture, forever and ever and etc...". I want to prove that won't happen. (I believe that God will save all men, I just want to get this stupid eternity off my chest.)

Hi Lupac,

Not sure about a "consensus". While we all agree that "everlasting punishment" is not "endless" punishment we do not all come to that understanding in exactly the same way. Though we all agree (I think) that even if aionios "can" mean "eternal" it is not the "only" meaning of the word and therefore cannot be used as "proof" that such punishments never comes to an end.

Quote from: Chris on January 10, 2010, 09:04:38 PM

Quote from: Molly on January 10, 2010, 01:54:25 AM
The Son is subject to the Father but--

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


--John 1

HI Molly, I was thinking about this last night as I lay in bed and this verse kept coming to mind.

1Co 11:3  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Once all things have been been subdued unto Christ and the body of Christ has "grown in the head" that which is "the fullness of Christ" (ONE BODY) still has "a head" (GOD).

The result is still ONE BODY, Christ in the Father, the Father in Christ and we in Him; but it is THE FATHER who is THE ONE TRUE GOD and to whom the kingdom belongs.

Make sense?

Yes. There is only one God.  God is One.


John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.




18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


--John 1

Quote from: Lupac on January 10, 2010, 09:03:47 PM
So, what's the consensus? I started this topic only trying to prove that the "aionion fire" that Jesus spoke of, and the "torment for the ages of the ages" does not mean, "forever, un-ending, eternal, never stopping torture, forever and ever and etc...". I want to prove that won't happen. (I believe that God will save all men, I just want to get this stupid eternity off my chest.)

The way I'm seeing it these days is it's not men that are tormented forever and ever but those spirits that have rebelled against God and taken men captive.

The war that is raging is a spiritual war.



27And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

28When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

29(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

30And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

31And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.

32And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.

33Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

34When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.

35Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.

--Luke 8



10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

--Rev 20

Quote from: Lupac on January 10, 2010, 09:03:47 PM
So, what's the consensus? I started this topic only trying to prove that the "aionion fire" that Jesus spoke of, and the "torment for the ages of the ages" does not mean, "forever, un-ending, eternal, never stopping torture, forever and ever and etc...". I want to prove that won't happen. (I believe that God will save all men, I just want to get this stupid eternity off my chest.)

In a nut shell the word(s) carries an absolute and abstract meaning.   

The absolute is a limited duration and the abstract is the imperceptible or how it seems.

For instance.

In the abstract ----  You come up to a stoplight you are unfamiliar with and while waiting you might think  "This stoplight is taking forever."   meaning, it seemed like a long time and you really could not determine how long it would take to change (what if it was broken and stuck on red?)

In the absolute ---- The stoplight did change, or was repaired to operate properly again.


I do not know if there is actually a consensus or if this will help you at all, but it is how I see it and teach it.

Quote from: Molly on January 11, 2010, 12:52:54 AM

Quote from: Lupac on January 10, 2010, 09:03:47 PM
So, what's the consensus? I started this topic only trying to prove that the "aionion fire" that Jesus spoke of, and the "torment for the ages of the ages" does not mean, "forever, un-ending, eternal, never stopping torture, forever and ever and etc...". I want to prove that won't happen. (I believe that God will save all men, I just want to get this stupid eternity off my chest.)

The way I'm seeing it these days is it's not men that are tormented forever and ever but those spirits that have rebelled against God and taken men captive.

The war that is raging is a spiritual war.

[/i]
--Rev 20

Sorry Molly, but I deeply disagree with you there. I believe Satan, if there indeed really is "a" Satan, is doing exactly what God made him to do, and will be reconciled to God in the end.

There is also no "war" between God and Satan. Satan is just doing what God intended for him to do from the start.

I'd suggest you read L. Ray Smith's papers on the Lake of Fire:

http://bible-truths.com/ (http://bible-truths.com/)

They're very helpful.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 11, 2010, 01:46:08 AM

Quote from: Lupac on January 10, 2010, 09:03:47 PM
So, what's the consensus? I started this topic only trying to prove that the "aionion fire" that Jesus spoke of, and the "torment for the ages of the ages" does not mean, "forever, un-ending, eternal, never stopping torture, forever and ever and etc...". I want to prove that won't happen. (I believe that God will save all men, I just want to get this stupid eternity off my chest.)

In a nut shell the word(s) carries an absolute and abstract meaning.  

The absolute is a limited duration and the abstract is the imperceptible or how it seems.

For instance.

In the abstract ----  You come up to a stoplight you are unfamiliar with and while waiting you might think  "This stoplight is taking forever."   meaning, it seemed like a long time and you really could not determine how long it would take to change (what if it was broken and stuck on red?)

In the absolute ---- The stoplight did change, or was repaired to operate properly again.


I do not know if there is actually a consensus or if this will help you at all, but it is how I see it and teach it.

That makes sense. I just wanted to make sure that aionios/ages of ages didn't mean (It doesn't, does it?): "Indisputably endless, never ceasing, enjoy hell ... Yeah. (That seems to be that attitude of a lot of Christians.)

EDIT: Sorry Jabcat.

QuoteI'd suggest you read L. Ray Smith's papers on the Lake of Fire:

http://bible-truths.com/

They're very helpful.

Ok.  Will do.  Thanks.

Cool. They're very, very long. But they're the best I've ever read at proving UR, and using scripture to back it up.

Quote from: Lupac on January 11, 2010, 02:42:44 AM


(It doesn't, does it?)

No it doesn't.