Deity of Jesus for salvation?

[Guest]

Paidion: I agree, that topic does belong in a different topic. But I guess the discussion about the diety of Jesus could continue?? Maybe not.

Agape,

loaves

[Guest]

But how could an eternal payment be made by a mere created being? Adam's sin had eternal consequences, didn't it? It beats me. It also seems pretty shady.

And what about the 144,000 claptrap? I understand that they believe that the "quota" for those going to heaven has already been reached. What about us peons still on earth?

Sorry i know this is off topic but just to answer this. JWs believe that Adam's sin which did have eternal consequences was cancelled out by Christ's ransom sacrifice and now we must work our way to heaven. That's why you see JWs going door to door cause they are working their way to heaven.
Re the 144K , yes the quota was filled but some will fall away and spots open up and they wanna jump in. The rest of the JWs will live on earth in their belief system.

[Guest]

STEVE7150: Amazing! I wonder how they formulated that stuff.

Agape,

loaves

[Guest]

I guess I don't get your point here. This word is used almost every time the word "eternal" is used, is it not? Do you know of a better word for "eternal" or "everlasting" in the greek that the authors should have used instead?

My point is that the word "aionion" does not mean "eternal". I am not saying that the authors of the New Testament should have used a different word. Who am I, to suggest such a thing? I am saying that the translators of the New Testament in English should have used a different English word. At least one translator never translated "aionion" as "eternal". If you do a search of the Rotherham translation of the New Testament for the word "eternal", you will find it in only one place, in Romans 1:20 where Paul refers to His "eternal power and deity." In that case, Paul used the word "aidios", the true word for "eternal."

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

Well said. I didn't mean to suggest that I thought you were correcting the apostles. I apologize if I gave that impression.

Let me re-phrase the question.

Most verses in the NT that have the word "eternal" or "everlasting", including the verses that promise the believer eternal life (John 3:16, 1 John 2:25, 5:11-12, etc.), use this exact same word (at least according to my concordance - Strong 166).

If there is a better greek word for "eternal" or "everlasting" available to the NT writers, then I see one of two possibilities:

1. Jesus and the apostles never intended us to hope for eternal life, only "agey" life (whatever that means).
2. They felt at liberty to use the word in this way to convey the idea of eternity (defined as never ending from this point forward)

Now, maybe there's a possibility I haven't considered.

But my question to you is, if #1 is correct, what in the NT would give the believer the hope of everlasting life?

If #2 is correct, why should we understand the word "eternal" in 2 Cor 5:1 differently than we do in the verses that speak of the eternal hope of the believer? What's the distinction?

Now, my actual point was based on the words "in the heavenlies", not "eternal". I'm taking that to mean that this "builiding in the heavenlies" is something more permanent than this present physical tent. Which if "in the heavenlies", I'm taking that to mean something other than my physical resurrected body.

If I'm wrong, I want to know what I'm missing. If I'm going to abandon one of my favorite passages promising a continual consciousness with the Lord upon my death (as I currently see it), then I would like to have a more compelling reason to do so. So far, I'm not convinced.

Lord bless brother.

[Guest]

The topic on atonement has been relocated here:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?p=4956

[Guest]

Christopher, here is the way that Rotherham (1902) translated the verses you cited:

John 3:16 For God, so loved, the world, that, his Only Begotten Son, he gave,––that, whosoever believeth on him, might not perish, but have life age–abiding.

1 John 2:25 And, this, is the promise, which he hath promised unto us,––The age–abiding life.

1 John 5:11,12 And, this, is the witness:––that, life age–abiding, hath God given unto us, and, this life, is, in his Son: He that hath the Son, hath, the life,––he that hath not the Son of God, hath not, the life.

It is difficult to get a good English word for "aiōnios". Some have suggested "age-lasting" Possibly "going- from- age- to- age" would also be correct. But like many words, its meaning seemed to develop. A later meaning seems to be "permanent." That's good enough for me. If God promises me permanent life, I'm satisfied, even though "permanent" doesn't necessarily mean "forever." I don't think God has guaranteed that it will never end. After all, won't we continue to have free wills in heaven? Will it not be possible for us to rebel? Highly unlikely, but possible. Some say that one of the highest angels, Lucifer, rebelled and became Satan (That idea is not too popular on this forum).

It's easy to demonstrate that many Greek expressions translated as "for ever and ever" are mistranslated.

How long is Jesus going to reign in His kingdom?

Revelation 11:15 Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever (RSV)."

But it is not true that Jesus will reign for ever and ever in His kingdom. He will reign only until He has put all his enemies under His feet. Then He will hand the kingdom over to His Father.

I Corinthians 15:24,25 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

The expression which was translated as "for ever and ever" in Rev 11:15 literally means "into the ages of the ages" and probably should be translated as "for ages and ages." It seems that it will be a long time before Jesus has put all of his enemies under His feet. Some of them will continue to rebel maybe for millions of years before they willingly bow the knee.

Now, my actual point was based on the words "in the heavenlies", not "eternal". I'm taking that to mean that this "builiding in the heavenlies" is something more permanent than this present physical tent.

Well, the resurrection body is more permanent.

Which if "in the heavenlies", I'm taking that to mean something other than my physical resurrected body. [/quote]

Why?

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

I’ll start with the last question:

Why?

I guess it comes from my eschatology paradigm and how I imagine things will be in the resurrection. There is a certain sequence of last events that lead me to this supposition. A rapid sequence “on the last day” as I understand it (“twinkling of an eye”):

1. Dead are raised (John 5:28 and several times in John 6, 11, and 12)
2. Those in Christ (both living and formerly dead) are “caught up” (aka raptured ) somewhere with Christ. (1 Thes. 4, 1 Cor 15)
3. Heaven and earth destroyed, or at least purged with fire (2 Thes 1:7-8, 2 Pet 3:10, Rev 20:9) and all who are wicked with it.
4. Christ returns physically, to new earth (Rev 21) with His resurrected/transformed saints (Acts 1:11, 2 Thes 1:7-8 ).
5. Not sure where judgment occurs in all that, but I’m assuming it’s the part of the same event.

I could be wrong about my assumptions here, and I’m not entirely sure of the sequence. Scripture seems too vague on this subject for me tell for sure, but this is how I currently envision that whole scenario. This is where I get the idea that we’ll be on earth in the resurrection and not in heaven. Besides that, I have a hard time imagining heaven as a physical place that houses physical bodies. It seems to me to be a spiritual reality of some sort that has no spatial qualities at all, if I understand it correctly. It’s always been a bit of a mystery to me where exactly Jesus went (in His physical body) when He ascended to heaven. He must have the ability to become “flesh and bone” at will or something, I don’t know.


Back to the 2 Cor 5 passage:

It’s hard for me to tell for sure because of the symbolism used here. But I see Paul making a contrast here between what is temporary and flimsy, our tent (if “tent” is to be understood as our physical body), and something more permanent and durable (if “building” is to be understood as our immortal soul in Christ instead of the church, it’s not clear to me).

I also see Paul making a direct contrast between being absent from the Lord because we are present in the body (vs. 6), and the opposite contrast in (vs. 8 ). Which would lead me to believe that he is saying that if we are present in one state (body), we are absent from the Lord in some sense. Conversely, if we are absent from the body, we are present with the Lord in the same sense we were absent from Him. It’s hard for me to grasp what that sense is, but I assume is some kind of spiritual awareness of being in His presence.

Also, if eternal life is in Christ (1 John 5:11-12), and I am in that life, I don’t see any reason to expect an interruption from that “life” when I die.

If I’m wrong about this, I haven’t yet heard a convincing argument as to why I am. I’d be fascinated to hear one. Many a time have I changed my view by hearing a convincing alternative. But for the moment, this passage encourages me to expect a continual and conscious presence with Jesus after I die.


On the other topics we were discussing:

You wrote:

It is difficult to get a good English word for "aiōnios". Some have suggested "age-lasting" Possibly "going- from- age- to- age" would also be correct. But like many words, its meaning seemed to develop. A later meaning seems to be "permanent." That's good enough for me. If God promises me permanent life, I'm satisfied, even though "permanent" doesn't necessarily mean "forever."

I don’t know that I would agree with you here. It sounds like splitting hairs to me. Kind of like saying there’s a difference between “forever” and “forever and ever”. If we want to say that the word literally means “age-lasting” or “long time”, I don’t have a problem with that. Eternity is a very “long time”.

I don't think God has guaranteed that it will never end.

I would say He did guarantee exactly that if we take this verse at face value:

John 11:26
26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"
NKJV

After all, won't we continue to have free wills in heaven? Will it not be possible for us to rebel? Highly unlikely, but possible.

I’ve often wondered this myself. But I’m going to have to default to the belief that there will be no more rebellion against God because there will be no more death (Rev 21:4), which is the wages of sin. Maybe, the only ones left will be those who don’t have it in them to rebel against God. Maybe that’s what the tests of this life, the race that we are running, is purposed to prove.


Rev 2:10
Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.
NKJV

[Guest]

Christopher,

I am very impressed with the thoughtfulness of your answer, and I agree with your reasoning.

I am really quite impressed with the irenic spirit in which virtually all controversial issues are discussed by all participants here. I think it is a credit to the maturity of the contributors.

[Guest]

Thanks Steve. That means a great deal to me, especially coming from you.

I have to say that I also appreciate Paidion and many others on this forum, especially when I'm forced to think through what I believe. It's a tremendous help for me in gaining understanding of God's word.

Lord bless.