The reference in (2 Cor 5.1) is translated "eternal" in nearly every translation (Young excepted), eternal is a word relating to time, in that it expresses something that has no end point in time. Whether eternal expresses something which "transcends" time as we know it, am not sure we can say with any certainty. Clearly God transcends, He is outside of time. Am not as certain about anything else God has made stands "outside" time with Him. We could go around and around on this but even saying "time will be no more" does not even necessarily mean outside of time. So suggesting that because God both transcends time and is eternal, that therefore the word "eternal" means "outside of time" is not accurate. The equal phrase "never ending" expresses the same idea, time passing without end - not something outside of time.Believe my statement in that regards stands, especially in that the word even in use by Paul is a adjective, it is not being used as a proper noun label to mean heavenly body. Just as the writer in Matthew 5 is using an adjective. The fact that Paul here refers to a our future bodies in comparison to our present one does not alter the meaning or the usage of the word. The other verses cited can be equally treated.
"For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1Here aionios is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption.
An unproven assertion. Noticed the need to broaden the scope of the verse to attempt to make a point. (things of Heaven rather than just our bodies which is the topic of almost the entire chapter). Clearly the writer is refering to two different bodies and contrasting them, one being in heaven. I fail to see why we must see the use of the adjective in this verse as the writer labeling a larger category of all "indissoluble things of heaven". This is adding meaning to that Chapter that is not present in order to present an understanding of a word to justify a belief system already held.
"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." -2 Corinthians 4:18In this verse, aionios describes the eternal truths which human eyes and ears have not seen nor heard, for these truths belong to the unseen realm of God as opposed to the visible world of change..
While this all sounds good and well, it neither addresses what the writer is speaking of or the proper understanding of aionios. He is not talking about "truths" here. This is a lead in to the next Chapter (see notes above). Here in chapter 4 the writer speaks of many disagreeable things in this life (things which are seen) and is stating that our hope, the reason we do not despair is because our hope, what we are to "look to" is in things not seen. Yes Paul speaks of temporal and eternal, contrasting the two, but I must disagree that he is absolutely NOT contrasting sets of truths as you suggest. Again I do not see how we can take verses out of context, use them however we wish to justify a position and suggest that is the meaning being conveyed by a particular word. Context matters.
"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." - John 6:27Aionios here refers to that Heavenly life which does not fade nor falter; It is the very life of Christ in contradistinction to the perishable life that humanity has in Adam.
Well this is the Bread of Life discourse, the longest single quote of Jesus speaking in the Bible. Doubt we agree on any meaning here. While we agree heavenly life does not fade or falter as humanity has in Adam, we definitely disagree again with your making "everlasting" as part of generic "Heavenly" label and it being used as a noun here by John. The context is a contrast between working for what sustains this life (meat) and laboring for that which can sustain us for everlasting life. Yes it is the very Body of Christ in contrast with say roast lamb which will rot. And yes Heavenly life is by definition not perishable, it is everlasting. Saying everlasting (aionios) is code here for "Heavenly" is again unwarranted. Jesus is speaking of eternal fates and the next life so of course "everlasting life" refers to that which can be lived in Heaven. There is no mystery here needing to be resolved by saying the writer meant Heavenly life. Have you read any of these verses in context?
Originally Posted by waquinasI do not need to assume, this has been the accepted view of those verses for thousands of years.
Accepted by who? The majority? You proposed I made an assumption, was merely pointing out that it is an error for you to assume I had made an assumption. While some of us are open to and do benefit from writings from and those against dissenters in the history of Christianity, it is a gross error to think it was a matter of majority rule. Am saying people have been studying and teaching on these verses for thousands of years, and while opinions have varied on many things; these particular verses and Mr Cribbs explanation of it are not something I believe you will find except in the last few hundred years. So if you are asking me what is more likely or which is the safer bet; that all these prior scholars and teachers got this all wrong and now only a tiny group of people have discovered the true meaning ot Mt5:46; then yes I think we can say this is clearly a case where the majority opinion trumps.I can read and even not knowing the thousands of year old teachings on these verses, there is nothing in Matthew 5 that would even remotely suggest to me that the lesson being taught or the idea being presented there is that God is the source of Justice. While it is true God is certainly that source, there is no reason given by Cripps or yourself as to why we should believe that is the point of using the same adjective to describe the two choices of the Judge in this text. Even the causal reader can see the King and Judge in the story is obviously God, there is no reason to think that is ambiguous and that the writer would think we need help seeing that it is God's Justice being administered by the King. That it is God is clear from the context of the story. If it were not clear, then perhaps Cripps and yourself would have a point and perhaps a leg to stand on.Saying that the adjective should or even could be understood as part of a proper label (noun) ("God's punishment" or "God's reward") rather than an expression of something that never ends in time is a good example of taking a belief system and forcing a verse to read how one wishes.
"For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1Here aionios is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption.
An unproven assertion. Noticed the need to broaden the scope of the verse to attempt to make a point. (things of Heaven rather than just our bodies which is the topic of almost the entire chapter). Clearly the writer is refering to two different bodies and contrasting them, one being in heaven. I fail to see why we must see the use of the adjective in this verse as the writer labeling a larger category of all "indissoluble things of heaven". This is adding meaning to that Chapter that is not present in order to present an understanding of a word to justify a belief system already held.
"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." -2 Corinthians 4:18In this verse, aionios describes the eternal truths which human eyes and ears have not seen nor heard, for these truths belong to the unseen realm of God as opposed to the visible world of change..
While this all sounds good and well, it neither addresses what the writer is speaking of or the proper understanding of aionios. He is not talking about "truths" here. This is a lead in to the next Chapter (see notes above). Here in chapter 4 the writer speaks of many disagreeable things in this life (things which are seen) and is stating that our hope, the reason we do not despair is because our hope, what we are to "look to" is in things not seen. Yes Paul speaks of temporal and eternal, contrasting the two, but I must disagree that he is absolutely NOT contrasting sets of truths as you suggest. Again I do not see how we can take verses out of context, use them however we wish to justify a position and suggest that is the meaning being conveyed by a particular word. Context matters.
"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." - John 6:27Aionios here refers to that Heavenly life which does not fade nor falter; It is the very life of Christ in contradistinction to the perishable life that humanity has in Adam.
Well this is the Bread of Life discourse, the longest single quote of Jesus speaking in the Bible. Doubt we agree on any meaning here. While we agree heavenly life does not fade or falter as humanity has in Adam, we definitely disagree again with your making "everlasting" as part of generic "Heavenly" label and it being used as a noun here by John. The context is a contrast between working for what sustains this life (meat) and laboring for that which can sustain us for everlasting life. Yes it is the very Body of Christ in contrast with say roast lamb which will rot. And yes Heavenly life is by definition not perishable, it is everlasting. Saying everlasting (aionios) is code here for "Heavenly" is again unwarranted. Jesus is speaking of eternal fates and the next life so of course "everlasting life" refers to that which can be lived in Heaven. There is no mystery here needing to be resolved by saying the writer meant Heavenly life. Have you read any of these verses in context?
Originally Posted by waquinasI do not need to assume, this has been the accepted view of those verses for thousands of years.
Accepted by who? The majority? You proposed I made an assumption, was merely pointing out that it is an error for you to assume I had made an assumption. While some of us are open to and do benefit from writings from and those against dissenters in the history of Christianity, it is a gross error to think it was a matter of majority rule. Am saying people have been studying and teaching on these verses for thousands of years, and while opinions have varied on many things; these particular verses and Mr Cribbs explanation of it are not something I believe you will find except in the last few hundred years. So if you are asking me what is more likely or which is the safer bet; that all these prior scholars and teachers got this all wrong and now only a tiny group of people have discovered the true meaning ot Mt5:46; then yes I think we can say this is clearly a case where the majority opinion trumps.I can read and even not knowing the thousands of year old teachings on these verses, there is nothing in Matthew 5 that would even remotely suggest to me that the lesson being taught or the idea being presented there is that God is the source of Justice. While it is true God is certainly that source, there is no reason given by Cripps or yourself as to why we should believe that is the point of using the same adjective to describe the two choices of the Judge in this text. Even the causal reader can see the King and Judge in the story is obviously God, there is no reason to think that is ambiguous and that the writer would think we need help seeing that it is God's Justice being administered by the King. That it is God is clear from the context of the story. If it were not clear, then perhaps Cripps and yourself would have a point and perhaps a leg to stand on.Saying that the adjective should or even could be understood as part of a proper label (noun) ("God's punishment" or "God's reward") rather than an expression of something that never ends in time is a good example of taking a belief system and forcing a verse to read how one wishes.