John 3

[Hope of Glory]

Thank you, by the way, for accusing me of lying.

In my parallel, I made it quite clear that both are anointed king, but they are not currently kings. When David was anointed king, he was not yet king of Israel. Yet he was king. Jesus has been anointed king. He is king. But, he is not yet acting as king.

Your implications imply that I have stated otherwise.

It's much like stating that Satan is god right now. Jesus is god of the age to come.

However, if I state that Jesus is not god now a few posts later, then you come along as say that I claim that Jesus is not god, and Satan is.

Well, both statements are true. It's not an either or. "God" is a title, not a name.

A person can be king, but not be king right now. I made that clear over several posts.

Thank you for accusing me of not believing in kingdom salvation, when you don't know what I believe because I have never interacted with you on this subject before.

Why would I be opposed to the Gospel of the Kingdom when that is what Jesus preached.

If I have directly accused of denying the gospel of the Kingdom, then I apologize. I did not mean it aimed directly at you, only at the majority on this thread who reject the gospel of the Kingdom and try to apply it to simply being born from above into the family.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I have posted page after page after page after page of Scripture on this subject.

A few have replied with Scripture.

Most have simply said, "Is not!", then demand the same Scriptures again, to which they exclaim "Is not!" then demand the same Scriptures again.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I didn't post it.

This is the same false claim that was made before. You have 7 posts in this thread alone where you included no scripture which makes up the majority of your posts in this thread.

Now again I insisted that from the begining of this thread that points should be backed up with scripture. And you and jump have failed to do that.

 

[Hope of Glory]

This is the same false claim that was made before. You have 7 posts in this thread alone where you included no scripture which makes up the majority of your posts in this thread.

Now again I insisted that from the begining of this thread that points should be backed up with scripture. And you and jump have failed to do that.

My quote:

I have posted page after page after page after page of Scripture on this subject.

I never claimed it was in this thread, only on this subject.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This has all been answered with page after page after page of Scriptures.

You don't like the answer.

You ask the same question again.

I've posted the OT & NT parallels between David and Jesus in relation to Saul/Satan, over and over. When I'm talking about David and Saul, at this point, I'm not going to post every single verse over and over and over.

For that matter, that's part of what the problem with "king". I've typed, "he hasn't assumed the throne" over and over, and I get in a hurry and type, "he's not yet king". Although in the context of which it's written, it's "he's king" and "he's not king".

 

[John of Japan]

Yeah just Google the word aionios. It's definitely a scholar vs scholar thing! By the way just to show you that despite knowing the truth it can still be misapplied, because if you do a Google search you will see that most of the people that understand aionios means age-lasting try to support one of two false teachings (universalism or annihilation). Sad but ture. So please understand that I do not support either of those positions.

Sorry, that won't cut it. I don't want Internet wannabe scholars and I certainly don't want universalist or annihilationist "scholars." I want genuine, conservative Greek scholars with advanced degrees. Can you name someone in that class who takes your position on aionios? Can you name a single lexicon that takes your position? (Lexicons are written by scholars, you know. So far it is 10 lexicons (if you throw in my two Japanese-Greek ones) to none. I'll be waiting. :type:

 

[John of Japan]

1. John, I commend your use of the language, but once again, I see an aversion to the language on the part of your dissenters.

2. They continue to ride their hobby horses without any respect for true scholarship.

3. When the use of the language goes against their position, it suddenly becomes another fallible view and the slighting follows: there are scholars on both sides.

4. I have been reading both sides now, and I notice the obvious stutter to the language. The aversion is unmistakable.

"Doin' my best with what I've got," as someone said. :saint:

 

[John of Japan]

I will have to see if I can find the Clement file on my computer. I know I have it on one of them, but not sure where. Until I look at it, I cannot comment on it with any reasonableness.

However, I can comment on the Polycarp one: 1 Corinthians 15:24: 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.

Jesus is always deity. He is not always king. He came as a prophet. Today he is our high priest. He has been anointed king. One day he will be king. Then, he will be giving up authority to his God and father.

I don't have Clarence Blake's lexicon. Do you have it handy enought to tell when it was written?

Try again. You missed the Polycarp quote.

Blake was 1885.

 

[Amy.G]

My quote:



I never claimed it was in this thread, only on this subject.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This has all been answered with page after page after page of Scriptures.

You don't like the answer.

You ask the same question again.

I've posted the OT & NT parallels between David and Jesus in relation to Saul/Satan, over and over. When I'm talking about David and Saul, at this point, I'm not going to post every single verse over and over and over.

For that matter, that's part of what the problem with "king". I've typed, "he hasn't assumed the throne" over and over, and I get in a hurry and type, "he's not yet king". Although in the context of which it's written, it's "he's king" and "he's not king".

Then copy and paste.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Sorry, that won't cut it. I don't want Internet wannabe scholars and I certainly don't want universalist or annihilationist "scholars." I want genuine, conservative Greek scholars with advanced degrees. Can you name someone in that class who takes your position on aionios? Can you name a single lexicon that takes your position? (Lexicons are written by scholars, you know. So far it is 10 lexicons (if you throw in my two Japanese-Greek ones) to none. I'll be waiting. :type:

The link I PM'd you with will give you several, BTW.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Try again. You missed the Polycarp quote.

Blake was 1885.

I apologize, but can you please repost the Polycarp quote if you have it handy? It may come back up, but my internet is down to a crawl, and has been going in and out, and I'm having trouble going back to the previous pages.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Sorry, that won't cut it. I don't want Internet wannabe scholars and I certainly don't want universalist or annihilationist "scholars."

FWIW, a universalist or annihilationist Greek scholar would still be valid on this one issue, since this issue is often the reason they take their stance. They see that "age-lasting" is limited in duration, but fail to take into account the idiomatic use of "from the ages unto the ages".

 

[J. Jump]

Sorry, that won't cut it. I don't want Internet wannabe scholars and I certainly don't want universalist or annihilationist "scholars." I want genuine, conservative Greek scholars with advanced degrees.

So you are the end all authority that gets to say which scholars are acceptable and which ones are not? Hmmmm . . . .

I didn't say they were internet wannabe scholars. I said there is research that is listed on the internet that you could go and read. Just because it is found on the internet does not automatically relegate it to the scholarly garbage heap.

With this attitued you are not going to accept anything outside of your own drawn circle.

So you are entitled to that attitude, but once again this is no reason why we need to go on. And I'm not sure why you want me to send you all this information with this type of attitude displayed.

The "scholar" could have multiple doctorates and you'll just say well he's not within "my" circle of "approved" scholars. No offense, but that's just silly.

 

[John of Japan]

FWIW, a universalist or annihilationist Greek scholar would still be valid on this one issue, since this issue is often the reason they take their stance. They see that "age-lasting" is limited in duration, but fail to take into account the idiomatic use of "from the ages unto the ages".

"The Martyrdom of Polycarp" 22:1.

 

[John of Japan]

So you are the end all authority that gets to say which scholars are acceptable and which ones are not? Hmmmm . . . .

I didn't say they were internet wannabe scholars. I said there is research that is listed on the internet that you could go and read. Just because it is found on the internet does not automatically relegate it to the scholarly garbage heap.

With this attitued you are not going to accept anything outside of your own drawn circle.

So you are entitled to that attitude, but once again this is no reason why we need to go on. And I'm not sure why you want me to send you all this information with this type of attitude displayed.

Now, J. Jump. You haven't given me a single scholar yet. You tell me just get on Google and search and I'll find them. If this is a debate, please quote your own scholars. I've given 10 lexicons that say "everlasting," when none omit that meaning. You've not given me a single scholar in this whole debate. So how can you say I have a bad attitude? How can I have any kind of attitude towards your scholars if you don't quote one?

Tell you what, I was very curious about the truth of the meaning of aionios, so being a Greek lover I have consulted many books in this discussion. Even today, though it is my preparation day for Sunday, I took my Septuagint to the church and took time to look up a couple of things. Is this a bad attitude?

Instead of criticising my attitude, please come up with some research of your own, or at a minimum interact with the very real research I've posted so far. In fact, I'm about to post what I learned from the LXX. Will you interact with it or simply criticize my bad attitude again?

The "scholar" could have multiple doctorates and you'll just say well he's not within "my" circle of "approved" scholars. No offense, but that's just silly.

You don't know me well enough to say this. What have I said so far that tells you I'm not open to genuine scholarship? I am entirely willing to consider the view of any evangelical and orthodox scholar. (There are "evangelicals" today who are no longer orthodox, even in the Evangelical Theological Society.) But you haven't given me anything to work with, just said, "Go look it up on the Internet."

 

[John of Japan]

To anyone who believes that "everlasting" or "eternal" are not valid meanings for the Greek word aionios, please consider the following. I found two passages in the Septuagint (LXX) which to me clearly mean "eternal."

(1) Is. 40:28 says, Theos aionios, "eternal God." Surely no orthodox Christian would believe that God is only an "age-during" God!!

(2) Is. 60:20 says in English, "For the Lord shall be thine everlasting Light," using aionios. Surely no orthodox Christian believes that God as the Light is only "age-during"!!

Comments? :type:

 

[Hope of Glory]

A cursory look shows me immediately that the REV, CLV, and YLT disagrees with your inerpretation. The Israeli AV, which I keep handy for the sole purpose to see which person of the Godhead it ascribes to different passages, ascribes both passages to Adonai. The CLV translates Isaiah 40:28 thusly: "Do you not know? Should you not hear? The Elohim eonian is Yahweh, Creator of the ends of the earth. He is not fainting, nor is He wearying. And there is no investigating of His understanding."

"God" is not a name, it's a title. The god of this current age is Satan. The god of the age to come is Jesus. What is the age that's being referred to?

Neither meaning is contradictory to the passage in and of itself.

 

[John of Japan]

So you are the end all authority that gets to say which scholars are acceptable and which ones are not? Hmmmm . . . .

I didn't say they were internet wannabe scholars. I said there is research that is listed on the internet that you could go and read. Just because it is found on the internet does not automatically relegate it to the scholarly garbage heap.

With this attitued you are not going to accept anything outside of your own drawn circle.

So you are entitled to that attitude, but once again this is no reason why we need to go on. And I'm not sure why you want me to send you all this information with this type of attitude displayed.

The "scholar" could have multiple doctorates and you'll just say well he's not within "my" circle of "approved" scholars. No offense, but that's just silly.

For the record, this is not simply my attitude. I actually got this attitude from grad school classes in an accredited grad school, where I was told that anything from the Internet was not suitable for sources in papers. (I understand that few grad schools or seminaries recognize Wikipedia as a suitable source, for example.) The exceptions would be those scholars who are published and recognized off the Internet--and they are still few and far between, though there are some. :type:

 

[John of Japan]

A cursory look shows me immediately that the REV, CLV, and YLT disagrees with your inerpretation. The Israeli AV, which I keep handy for the sole purpose to see which person of the Godhead it ascribes to different passages, ascribes both passages to Adonai. The CLV translates Isaiah 40:28 thusly: "Do you not know? Should you not hear? The Elohim eonian is Yahweh, Creator of the ends of the earth. He is not fainting, nor is He wearying. And there is no investigating of His understanding."

"God" is not a name, it's a title. The god of this current age is Satan. The god of the age to come is Jesus. What is the age that's being referred to?

Neither meaning is contradictory to the passage in and of itself.

But you see, none of those translations used the LXX for the original. I'm looking at the LXX and not the Hebrew. Check out the Greek phrase yourself.

What about Is. 60:20? Is God's Light limited to this age?

 

[J. Jump]

John,

HoG has put forth several translations that say aionios is age-lasting or leave it untranslated so as not to bias the reader. Are those not scholars? And you yourself said you weren't willing to interact with just "any" scholar, but the ones that met "your" criteria.

Some that has studied the languages are scholars despite what their theological views may be.

Now once again you can do a Google search on the word aionios and while it may not pull up papers from the "actual" scholar I have read through several of the sites that do in fact "quote" a number of "scholars" that do not agree with you.

Just give it a whirl and see what you come up with.

By the way I never said you had a "bad" attitude that I can remember. I did say it was silly and I still think it because you really haven't backed away from your statements that caused me to say that, but rather reaffirmed them.

I don't think everything on the internet can be trusted. That's why I'm saying stick aionios into a Google search and just read the "quotes" from the people.

Many of the links are hogwash because it's talking about universalism and annihilationism, which both are false. However, the research quoted on the word aionios is quite revealing.

And it just goes to show you that there are just as many scholars that disagree with you as the ones that you want to line up in your corner agreeing with you.

That's the point. Nothing more or nothing less.

 

[J. Jump]

To anyone who believes that "everlasting" or "eternal" are not valid meanings for the Greek word aionios, please consider the following.

Eternal is a fine translation of the word if one understands that the word when translated as eternal didn't have the same meaning as it does in 20th-21st century vernacular.

But because of the way the term is used and understood today I think it would be better for a translation to have age-lasting so that we could get a proper understanding of what's being discussed.

 

[DHK]

Eternal is a fine translation of the word if one understands that the word when translated as eternal didn't have the same meaning as it does in 20th-21st century vernacular.

But because of the way the term is used and understood today I think it would be better for a translation to have age-lasting so that we could get a proper understanding of what's being discussed.

I read at least half of this thread and then jumped to the last page. As per the OP, J.Jump, I believe the onus is on you to show that the passage, (John 3:1-11) is speaking of the millennial Kingdom. You need to give a proper exegetical and expositional commentary going verse by verse through that passage showing how each verse relates to the MK. Forget about just one word in John 3:36. Nevermind that dispute. Get back to the passage about the new birth, as the OP states. Go through it, and tell us how it relates to the MK from the Bible, and the context