A bogus way to try and salvage OSAS

[mman]

mman is a "brother" a saved individual? Are they a child of God?

It depends on the context. If the author is addressing christians, then yes.

However, that was Jewish term that can mean "fellow Jew", or decendent of Abraham.

After the book of Acts, it usually means Christian.

 

[Eric B]

I Cor 15:1-2 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.

Mental gymnastics or it means what it says. If words have meaning, and I believe they do, then here's what this passage means:

Paul preached it, they received it, they were standing in it, they were being saved by it IF they hold it fast, otherwise, they had believed in vain.

"receive" is paralambano, meaning "associate with onesself", or "assume". That could be the false "belief" of the Jews in John 8, where they appear to "accept" it, but it was still a false belief. "Stand" is "histemi", which has a bunch of possible "lit. or fig." meanings, including "to cause or make a stand", "to establish a thing, cause it to stand", "to place", "to set"; "to uphold the authority of" and also does not specify any "real faith". It basically means profess! Those Jews would have stood on/for the belief that Christ was Messiah, and he was going to rise up and put down those Romans and make us kings once and for all. But that was a wrong belief, and when Jesus smashed it in favor of the truth of His real mission, then everything went out the window, and they gnashed their teeth at Him, and eventually had Him killed.

(See post 200 of this thread for the discussion on being re-baptized).

I hadn't even realized that was supposed to be the answer! All you did was cite the passage, that Simon was not required to be rebaptized. That does not answer the question of why a person who falls out of Christ, does not have to be baptized back into Christ, if our doctrine of both falling out of Christ, with baptism being what puts us into Christ, were true.

I did not give an intrepetation, only a quotation. Therefore, if anyone came up with a "different" meaning, then they need to examine their beliefs with what scripture teaches. We will never have unity in what we believe until we accept the simple word of God for what it says.

When Jesus said:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"

Did He really mean:

Whoever believes and is saved will be baptized, but whoever does not believe will be condemned???

Yeah, you pretend to just lay the passage out there and let it speak for itself, but when someone does not read it the same way you do, then you accuse them of "interpreting" it. But right away, you HAVE interpreted it, when you read it to say things like "whoever does not believe and is not baptized will not be saved", and "who ever believes but is not baptized will not be saved". That's far worse than what you accuse of of making it say.

Until we become like third graders and accept the clear meaning of the passages, rather than with all the "wisdom" and "understanding" that we have...then we will never be united.

And your slick interpretations and rationalizations certainly require "wisdom" and understanding" well beyond that of a third grader. Oh, so you want everyone else to become children, with you as the wise interpreter, is that it?

I am completely convinced that there is only one faith (Eph 4:5) and "The" way (not "a" way) is narrow (Matt 3:3, Matt 7:13, Act 9:2). I DO think it matters what one believes, that is why I am so passionate. These statements alone will turn some people off.

Watch out, because some preach Christ out of "envy and strife and..contention" (Phil.1:15,16). You know, just to put others down and claim "I'm the only true Christian", and manipulate the teaching about the "narrow way", to mean only their group. With all the groups doing that, that actually is apart of the broad way!

 

[J. Jump]

If the author is addressing christians, then yes.

With all due respect you are contradicting yourself again. On the one hand you say a person is saved or a "Christian," but the doctrine that you espouse says that salvation is a process and that no one is saved until they die so they are really just unsaved people being worked on and can not be brothers.

 

[Darron Steele]

That is one of the inherent problems with written communication. You cannot determine the "tone" in which something is written. I can assure you that all my posts are written in love. Yes, I try to provoke thought, get people's attention, challenge what they believe. I want to motivate people to try and prove me wrong. Why? So they will study and have a better understanding God's word....

Mman: often, such undertones `turn me off' to what you are saying. Many people think that by being bombastic, treating people like they are stupid, or accusing them of things, that it will make them `think harder.'

It rarely works as the attacker hopes. The person attacked, and concerned persons watching, are simply `turned off.'

However, the statement is true. It is so simple a third grader can understand it. To misunderstand it, you have to be motivated. If you accept it for what it says, then there is only one obvious meaning.

The passage in question is an extract from Galatians 3:24-7.

The extract is 3:26-7 "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (KJV). What if the King James Version at this verse is imperfect? What if one of the Greek words translated was not translated as well as it could have been?

I have to admit: I am "motivated" to not read into the extract what you did. What is my motivation: interpret Galatians 3:24-7 correctly.

You see, at Amos 4:6, God told people He was angry with that He had given them "cleanness of teeth" (KJV). Does that mean that having clean teeth is a bad thing, and we need to stop practicing dental hygiene? No.

At that time, "cleanness of teeth" meant a lack of food to soil the teeth with, meaning hunger. My point follows.

In Galatians, Paul confronts a situation where Gentile Christians were paying too much attention to Jews telling them they needed to become Jews and follow the Judaic Law in order to secure salvation. 1 Corinthians 10:2 describes the Exodus Israelites as “batizados em Moisés” (DA ERC) =“baptized in Moses.” They took the Judaic Law delivered by Moses for authority about God. Greek "eis" here and at Galatians 3:27 has for one meaning “in.” To correct the Galatians’ common misunderstandings, at Galatians 3:24 Paul calls the Judaic Law “child-conductor| vnto Christ” (NASB margin|BishB), then in 3:25 “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a |child-conductor” (NASB| margin), 3:26b “ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus” (ASV), then 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized |em=in| Christ have put on Christ” (KJV|DA ERA/ERC and translated|KJV).

In Roman society, a youth who had become an adult put aside childhood clothes for new clothes to recognize the change (Life Application Bible, page 2121). Galatians 3:24-7 teaches `growing up.’ In this passage, `growing up’ meant replacing the Judaic Law with biblical faith in Christ for salvation, and that by identifying oneself with Christ via baptism in His name, one “puts on Christ” in the sense of “putting on” the clothes of an adult.

I am "motivated." I want to understand the passage right. The initial audience of this letter were the ancient New Testament-era, Greek-speaking, Roman subjects Galatians. What was communicated to them is the intended meaning of the text, and I am "motivated" by a desire to understand it right.

Here is the statment in question, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - Mark 16:16

I did not give an intrepetation, only a quotation. Therefore, if anyone came up with a "different" meaning, then they need to examine their beliefs with what scripture teaches. We will never have unity in what we believe until we accept the simple word of God for what it says.

When Jesus said:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"

Actually, you did give an interpretation. Your interpretation was that it took baptism to secure salvation. However, the second part of the verse discusses the requirements of condemnation, the counter-end of which is salvation.

John 3:16-8 says "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into the world to |condemn| the world; but that the world should be saved through him. |Whoever| believeth on him is not |condemned|: he that believeth not hath been |condemned| already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God” (ASV with |TNIV|).

Granting that what is after Mark 16:8 is actually authentic, which is debated because of ancient and medieval evidence, I refer to the passage above. It says in the popular King James Version at 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned" (KJV).

Until we become like third graders and accept the clear meaning of the passages, rather than with all the "wisdom" and "understanding" that we have, try and twist the meaning of plain passages to fit some preconceived notion, then we will never be united.

All Christians are united whether they accept that or not. Our unity is not dependent upon how much mortals agree with each other; our unity is not human-centered.

Per Colossians 1:18, the church is the body of Christ. Acts 5:14 examples how “believers were added to the Lord” (ESV) as now. God adds to the church per Acts 2:47b “the Lord added to them day by day those |who were being saved” (ASV|NASB). God adds all people who believe on Christ to one church, whether we want to accept each other or not.

As a side note from this, in Scripture, water baptism is attributed solely to mortals. Therefore, if baptism puts people into Christ, then we would be taking on a role Scripture attributes solely to God. Passage extracts commonly misunderstood should be understood simply in the ways they are meant within the passages they are part of.

I am completely convinced that there is only one faith (Eph 4:5) and "The" way (not "a" way) is narrow (Matt 3:3, Matt 7:13, Act 9:2). I DO think it matters what one believes, that is why I am so passionate. These statements alone will turn some people off. However, for anyone who is seeking the truth, I assure you, they will find it.

I believe it matters what one believes as well. The "one faith" is not a set of group religious tenets. The "one faith" is Christ-directed.

Because of that, Christ's values of charitableness and kindness should pervade every aspect of our lives, including our choice of words with people we disagree.

However, I will try to chose my words more carefully next time.

Thank you.

 

[Darron Steele]

[ Accidental double post. ]

 

[OHM]

Actually, you did give an interpretation. Your interpretation was that it took baptism to secure salvation. However, the second part of the verse discusses the requirements of condemnation, the counter-end of which is salvation.

Let me first say that I don't believe baptism is required for eternal salvation. However, I would have to disagree with your assessment of this verse.

This is the same type of faith that James is talking about. The reason the person that doesn't believe is condemned is because faith is the first step and if you don't even take the first step then you are going to be condemned. However James says that faith alone will not save. That is what the first part of this verse is talking about.

What we must realize though is James is speaking to eternally saved individuals, so the faith and works that he is speaking of is not speaking to eternal salvation, because these people already have that. He 1:21 he tells us what he's talking about and that is the salvation of the soul.

The salvation of the spirit (eternal salvation) is by grace through faith apart from works. The salvation of the soul is faith that works as James describes and what the gospels are talking about.

 

[mman]

With all due respect you are contradicting yourself again. On the one hand you say a person is saved or a "Christian," but the doctrine that you espouse says that salvation is a process and that no one is saved until they die so they are really just unsaved people being worked on and can not be brothers.

Again, you do not understand my position.

The bible talks about salvation in more than one sense or tense.

1) It talks about past salvation (becoming in a saved position)
2) Current Salvation (Holding fast)
3) Future salvation to the faithful

In the interest of time, I will give just one example of each:

1) Past Salvation:

Paul told Titus, God ”saved us, through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:4-5). The verb here is a past tense form. It refers back to the salvation received when one submitted to the “washing” (baptism – cf. Acts 22:16) of “regeneration,” (the new birth – John 3:3-5). At the point of our baptism, all our past sins were pardoned forever.

2) Current Salvation

Paul wrote: “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-2). The Greek verb rendered “are being saved” is a present tense form. Salvation is a continuous process as we faithfully live the Christian life.

3) Future Salvation

Paul said: “our salvation is nearer than when we first believed” (Rom 13:11). This is obviously a future event. Later he tells Timothy, “The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will save me unto his heavenly kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:18). Peter speaks of Christians saying, “receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls” (1 Peter 1:9).

That is why people have trouble. Some always assume salvation is a past event, then when it is spoken of as a current or future event, they must rationalize or twist the scripture to fit their beliefs, instead of letting scripture mold their beliefs.

 

[mman]

Actually, you did give an interpretation. Your interpretation was that it took baptism to secure salvation. However, the second part of the verse discusses the requirements of condemnation, the counter-end of which is salvation.

John 3:16-8 says "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into the world to |condemn| the world; but that the world should be saved through him. |Whoever| believeth on him is not |condemned|: he that believeth not hath been |condemned| already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God” (ASV with |TNIV|).

What interpretation did I give Mark 16:16? I quoted the verse. I said it means what it says? If that's what you mean, then that is quotation, not interpretation. You interpreted it when you read it. You came to the conclusion that it took baptism to secure salvation after reading the passage. I only quoted it. Then you try to explain why it doesn't really mean what it says.

Keep reading in John 3. Still on the same subject:

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Here belief is equated to obedience. We must continue to obey (believe).

If you are talking about a mental assent, then the rulers in John 12:42 are good to go even though they violate Matt 10:32.

Let me ask you a question, Do you think John 3:16 somehow negates Mark 16:16 or is in contradiction to it? Let me assure you, they are in perfect harmony with each other.

Jesus instructions in Matt 28 and Mark 16 are carried out in Acts 2, for the first time. When those people asked what to do, what answer would you have given? Does your answer match what Peter said? Mine does.

 

[J. Jump]

mman I am fully aware of Scripture talking about salvation in a past, present and future tense. The problem is you can't have someone in a completely saved state and at the same time still have that person needing salvation. Those are not harmonious if they are speaking to the same aspect of the person.

Some always assume salvation is a past event,

Eternal salvation is ALWAYS a past event (Eph. 2:8-9). There are other passages that address people as bretheren or saints and this indicates that they are "saved" meaning that the action was completed in the past and they are currently in that state.

Again with all due repsect the mistakes come when folks like you and others that don't even think baptism is a part of eternal salvation think that ALL Scriptures that say faith, believe, saved, be saved, will be saved, salvation, etc. ALWAYS are talking about eternal salvation.

That is simply not the case. I agree with have to let Scripture mold us not the other way around, but that is simply not the case with a great majority in Christendom because they try to combine messages that were never intended to be combined.

 

[mman]

The salvation of the spirit (eternal salvation) is by grace through faith apart from works. The salvation of the soul is faith that works as James describes and what the gospels are talking about.

Would someone please explain the difference in what the mean when they talk about the salvation of the spirit and salvation of the soul.

Can the spirit be saved and the soul lost? Can the spirit be lost and the soul saved?

There is a fine line between the soul and the spirit, but the word of God is sharp enough to make that distinction.

I Pet 1:9 says, "obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls."

To me, this passage seems like faith is what leads to the salvation of your souls, not works?

 

[J. Jump]

Can the spirit be saved and the soul lost?

Yes.

Can the spirit be lost and the soul saved?

No. The salvation process of the soul can not even begin until someone's spirit is saved.

I Pet 1:9 says, "obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls."

Faith here is being used in the same way that James speaks of faith. It is a faith that produces fruit meet for repentance.

If you would like to study the matter out in greater Scriptural detail I would be more than happy to point you to some resources. Just give me a PM.

 

[mman]

Eternal salvation is ALWAYS a past event (Eph. 2:8-9). There are other passages that address people as bretheren or saints and this indicates that they are "saved" meaning that the action was completed in the past and they are currently in that state.

Always? Are you sure?

Rom 2:5-8 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

According to this passage, when does God give eternal life?

Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.

The end is when eternal life is given, not the beginning.

Gal 6:8 For the one who sows (current) to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption (future), but the one who sows (current) to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life (future).

What you do now will determine if you reap eternal life. You don't reap at the same time you sow. You sow now and reap later.

I Tim 6:12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

What a strange statement to make if it was already a done deal, and if it were impossible to let go of.

Titus 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

One doesn't hope for that which he already has.

Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

If eternal salvation is given when one first believes, then obedience has nothing to do with it, yet this verse seems to indicate the importance of obedience.

I Jn 2:25 And this is the promise that he made to us— eternal life.

The Christian has the hope and promise of eternal life, if we hold fast, if we endure, if we are faithful to the point of death.

Jude 21 sums it up nicely, "keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life."

Rom 13:11 For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.

 

[mman]

Yes

Please provide a brief description of what you mean, the soul can be lost but the spirit is saved.

Where does the person spend eternity?

What scriptural evidence do you have?

What is the consequence of losing your soul?

 

[J. Jump]

Please provide a brief description of what you mean, the soul can be lost but the spirit is saved.

Again if you really want to look into the matter it would be much more thorough and easy for me to point you to some study material. That way you could work through it. Of course you are always more than welcome to email me or PM as questions come up. But I think this would be the easiest, fastest and best way to proceed to have your questions answered.

The material is free.

EDIT: Let me quickly address your post prior to your last one. The whole key and the overriding theme is "eternal" life in the verses that you gave. Eternal has not always meant without beginning and without end. It's a poor translation by today's standards, because that is what eternal has come to mean today. Back when the KJV was translated it simply meant a long period of time, but it had a beginning and an end.

The Greek words prove this out. The Greek word is aionios which is an adjective form of the noun aion. Aion is an age. It is an amount of time that has a beginning and an end. Therefore aionios which is derived from that noun can not go beyond the noun. Meaning aionios can't mean without beginning and without end when aion doesn't even mean that.

Aionios is better understood in today's langauge as age-lasting. The "life" that is being discussed is age-lasting life. The coming age is the Messianic Kingdom and therefore this is talking about whether a person has life in this age or does not.

 

[mman]

"receive" is paralambano, meaning "associate with onesself", or "assume". That could be the false "belief" of the Jews in John 8, where they appear to "accept" it, but it was still a false belief. "Stand" is "histemi", which has a bunch of possible "lit. or fig." meanings, including "to cause or make a stand", "to establish a thing, cause it to stand", "to place", "to set"; "to uphold the authority of" and also does not specify any "real faith". It basically means profess! Those Jews would have stood on/for the belief that Christ was Messiah, and he was going to rise up and put down those Romans and make us kings once and for all. But that was a wrong belief, and when Jesus smashed it in favor of the truth of His real mission, then everything went out the window, and they gnashed their teeth at Him, and eventually had Him killed.

Paul preached, they received, they were standing in it, and they would be saved by it IF they held on to it, otherwise they had believed in vain.

I hadn't even realized that was supposed to be the answer! All you did was cite the passage, that Simon was not required to be rebaptized. That does not answer the question of why a person who falls out of Christ, does not have to be baptized back into Christ, if our doctrine of both falling out of Christ, with baptism being what puts us into Christ, were true.

Here we have an example of someone who believed and was baptized then described as gall of bitterness, bond of iniquity and would perish, and did not want the bad things that Peter told would happen to him. He was told to repent and pray. That is the example I follow.

Yeah, you pretend to just lay the passage out there and let it speak for itself, but when someone does not read it the same way you do, then you accuse them of "interpreting" it. But right away, you HAVE interpreted it, when you read it to say things like "whoever does not believe and is not baptized will not be saved", and "who ever believes but is not baptized will not be saved". That's far worse than what you accuse of of making it say.

I simply quoted the verse.

And your slick interpretations and rationalizations certainly require "wisdom" and understanding" well beyond that of a third grader. Oh, so you want everyone else to become children, with you as the wise interpreter, is that it?

No, that's not my approach. My approach toward scripture is like that of a third grader. What is the obvious meaning of the passage. Then that is the most likely meaning. Let the clear passage always shed light on the obscure ones. Everything is in harmony, and lies in parallel paths. One scripture never contradicts another. If you have one piece out of place, then tear up your puzzle and put the pieces back together, until every thing fits. We can know the truth. You give me too much credit. I'm not much smarter than most third graders.

Watch out, because some preach Christ out of "envy and strife and..contention" (Phil.1:15,16). You know, just to put others down and claim "I'm the only true Christian", and manipulate the teaching about the "narrow way", to mean only their group. With all the groups doing that, that actually is apart of the broad way!

I am with you on that one. Regardless, there is a narrow way, whether you think I'm on it or not. Many think they are on the narrow way and are not (Matt 7:21-23). Sincere folks, no doubt.

We can know the truth. It is not beyond our grasp. If we all believed the truth, then we would all be of the same mind and same judgment, all speaking the same thing.

 

[mman]

Again if you really want to look into the matter it would be much more thorough and easy for me to point you to some study material. That way you could work through it. Of course you are always more than welcome to email me or PM as questions come up. But I think this would be the easiest, fastest and best way to proceed to have your questions answered.

The material is free.

EDIT: Let me quickly address your post prior to your last one. The whole key and the overriding theme is "eternal" life in the verses that you gave. Eternal has not always meant without beginning and without end. It's a poor translation by today's standards, because that is what eternal has come to mean today. Back when the KJV was translated it simply meant a long period of time, but it had a beginning and an end.

The Greek words prove this out. The Greek word is aionios which is an adjective form of the noun aion. Aion is an age. It is an amount of time that has a beginning and an end. Therefore aionios which is derived from that noun can not go beyond the noun. Meaning aionios can't mean without beginning and without end when aion doesn't even mean that.

Aionios is better understood in today's langauge as age-lasting. The "life" that is being discussed is age-lasting life. The coming age is the Messianic Kingdom and therefore this is talking about whether a person has life in this age or does not.

I will compare various translations and see if the scholars agree that the word is "eternal" in the various places. If the translations agree, then I think it is safe to assume that is a proper translation. If they don't agree, then I will investigate further.

Ok, I see one point where we diverge.

I think the scriptures teach that the kindom is already here and you think it is in the future.

I am assuming that you believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ upon the earth, is that correct?

 

[J. Jump]

I will compare various translations and see if the scholars agree that the word is "eternal" in the various places. If the translations agree, then I think it is safe to assume that is a proper translation. If they don't agree, then I will investigate further.

The problem is not in the use of the word "eternal." The problem is in the definition that has been used in the past and what eternal has come to mean in the future.

Very few translations translate it as anything other than eternal. The research that you need to do is how past authors used the Greek word aion and aionios and what those meant in the original writings and then look up how eternal has been used.

That's where the rub is. There is nothing inheritantly wrong with using the word eternal.

And yes I believe Scripture is clear that there is a coming kingdom and that it will last 1,000 years.

 

[mman]

EDIT: Let me quickly address your post prior to your last one. The whole key and the overriding theme is "eternal" life in the verses that you gave. Eternal has not always meant without beginning and without end. It's a poor translation by today's standards, because that is what eternal has come to mean today. Back when the KJV was translated it simply meant a long period of time, but it had a beginning and an end.

The Greek words prove this out. The Greek word is aionios which is an adjective form of the noun aion. Aion is an age. It is an amount of time that has a beginning and an end. Therefore aionios which is derived from that noun can not go beyond the noun. Meaning aionios can't mean without beginning and without end when aion doesn't even mean that.

Aionios is better understood in today's langauge as age-lasting. The "life" that is being discussed is age-lasting life. The coming age is the Messianic Kingdom and therefore this is talking about whether a person has life in this age or does not.

Here is a quick summary of what I have so far:

Rom 2:7 - "Eternal life" - NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, ASV

Rom 6:22 - "Everlasting life" - KJV, NKJV
"Eternal life" - NIV, NASB, ESV, ASV

Gal 6:8 - "Eternal life" - NIV, NASB, ESV, ASV
"Life everlasting" - KJV
"Everlasting life" - NKJV

I Tim 6:12 - "Life eternal" - ASV
"Eternal life" - NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV

Titus 3:7 - "Eternal life" - NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, ASV

I Jn 2:25 - "Eternal life" - NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, ASV

Jude 21 - "Eternal life" - NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, ASV

The Greek scholars through the ages are in full agreement. They have consistently translated the above passages as "Eternal life" or its equivalent. Based on that, I am confident that the term "Eternal life" is translated correctly. Each of the passages are relating to this being a future event for the Christian, not a past event.

The next question in my mind is why would someone be motivated to seek an alternate meaning? The obvious answer is that it somehow doesn't fit with their understanding of other passages.

Unless you can produce some substantial textual biblical evidence to the contrary, I am forced to conclude that "Eternal Life" means just that, eternal life, life eternal, or life everlasting and not merely "age-lasting" life.

I will continue to study and think about this subject.

 

[mman]

And yes I believe Scripture is clear that there is a coming kingdom and that it will last 1,000 years.

I guess we'll leave that for another day and another thread.

That poor old horse has been beat to death, many times (as well as almost every topic on this board)

 

[J. Jump]

The Greek scholars through the ages are in full agreement. They have consistently translated the above passages as "Eternal life" or its equivalent. Based on that, I am confident that the term "Eternal life" is translated correctly.

Please read my other response to you. The face that "eternal life" is the translation is not the issue. The issue is what did "eternal life" mean to the folks that translated it that way. Research will show that it didn't mean without beginning and without end as "eternal" is used today and it will show that it didn't even mean without end as "everlasting" is used today.

The rub is not the word itself, but the meaning of the word used.

That's why I said that in today's language it would be better translated as age-lasting. That's not because eternal is a bad translation, but that eternal doesn't mean today what it did back in 1611.