The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What do you make of /u/koine_lingua's arguments? [Part 6 of]

[Admin edited to add a link [url=https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/what-do-you-make-of-u-koine-linguas-arguments-part-5/5388/1]to part 5 on the EU forum here. I don’t know yet where the poster found the original article, but he didn’t preserve its links; apparently on a Reddit somewhere.]

[Admin edit of the thread title to clarify this ends the article series.]

I apologize for basically spamming the subreddit here, that this wasn’t all ready to go in one long document that I could have just linked to (I’ll eventually do that)… but to be honest, a lot of this wasn’t even written/edited yet; so getting the ball rolling on the earlier parts would be motivation for me to finish in the first place. (I had been promising /u/DadIamStrong and a couple of others for months that I’d finish it.)

[Continued from Part 5 here]

As mentioned, it is in a footnote (p. 66 n. 74) to their revisionistic analysis of aiōnios in Hebrews 6:2 that Ramelli and Konstan also ascribe the same meaning to the aiōnios of σωτηρίας αἰωνίου in Hebrews 5.9. This verse reads

Ramelli and Konstan would consequently understand this as the source of “salvation of/in the world to come*.”

We would search in vain for New Testament parallels to this phrase itself, minus one unique text: the lesser-known Shorter Ending of the gospel of Mark:

The earliest evidence of this text is found in the 4th-5th century Latin Codex Bobiensis; yet this ultimately derives from a 2nd century manuscript, attesting to the (relative) antiquity of this text. Of greatest interest in the Greek manuscripts here is the line τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας, “the holy and imperishable proclamation of (the) eternal salvation.” Here, with αἰωνίου σωτηρίας (aiōniou sōtērias), we have the exact same words as in Hebrews 5.9, only in reverse order. The “holy . . . proclamation” obviously cannot be of the “salvation of/in the world to come,” but the possibility of eternal salvation in Christ. This is all the more secured by its appearance in conjunction with the word ἄφθαρτος, apthartos, “imperishable.”

Returning to a few pages earlier, though: on p. 61, τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας in Heb 9.15 is translated as “proclamation of the inheritance of the world to come”; yet this does great injustice to the context, where we have a classic Pauline anti-Judaic polemic against the “old covenant”—one that truly is “passing away”—contrasted with the “new” one, which is truly eternal (unlike the first one). (We also have “eternal redemption” in 9.12, contrasted with the idea that Christ’s sacrifice supersedes that of regular animal sacrifices, which are not effective “once for all,” but have to be performed over and over.)

It’s curious that they translate αἰώνιος as simply “future” here; though doubtlessly this is because their normal translation of this as “in the age/world to come” would show how intolerable this is: that, in effect, in the “time to come” his followers will receive “life in the time to come”—clearly redundant.

They suggest

Yet a simple look at the larger context here goes to conclusively refute this. The words immediately preceding the quoted verse are

This sets up the contrast of the water that Jesus “gives,” which—quite similar to the line of argumentation taken up in Hebrews 9, as discussed a couple of paragraphs ago—by contrast does not require repeated use, but will suffice for the person to “never be thirsty (again)”: which is how we should translate οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

Further, if “water” and “life” are parallel here (which they are), then just as the water is “eternal,” then the life is, too; consequently we can translation John 4.13-14 as NRSV does,

After this, on p. 63, they even go so far as to suggest that ζωὴ αἰώνιος in the Gospel of John “may in every case, we believe, be understood as referring to life in the future world.” They give, as another purported example of this here, John 3.15-16, ‘where believers in Christ will have ζωὴν αἰώνιον, “for he came not to judge this world κόσμον] but to save it”’. Yet the contrast of ζωὴν αἰώνιον in John 3.15 is simply to “perishing” (from ἀπόλλυμι); and the sort of state that does not result in death is most naturally/simply characterized (and translated) as “eternal life,” and not something like “eschatological life” (for which we have to go a step further in connecting this with imperishability). Suffice it to say, it cannot be true that in John, this “may in every case . . . be understood as referring to life in the future world.”

Ramelli/Konstan next translate 1 Timothy 6.12’s ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς as “seize life in the aiôn.” This is incredible, as they then note that this is parallel to 1 Tim 6.19’s (ἵνα) ἐπιλάβωνται τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς, with τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς translated as “the true life.” Yet the identical structure of the two clauses should suggest that just as we have “true life” in 6.19, we probably have the simple “eternal life” in v. 12 (not the much more complex “life in the aiôn”).

Next, they suggest that John 6.51 is to be understood as

They admit that this interpretation of ὑπὲρ as “beyond” and not “on behalf of” (or “for the sake of”) is “perhaps tendentious,” and I agree: especially in light of parallels in the other gospels: e.g. Mark 14.24, where the eucharistic blood is poured out ὑπὲρ πολλῶν (cf. Matthew 26.28, where it’s περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν).

Finally, they mention John 12.25—and cf. again my comments on this in conjunction with 4 Maccabees 15.3.

Several texts from Romans are then discussed, where “life αἰώνιος” is contrasted with “death.” Here, perhaps my comment

is again relevant (of course it could be argued that the “eternal” part is unnecessary here; but this applies just as much to Ramelli/Konstan, who merely alter it to “life in the eschatological age”).

Ramelli/Konstan continue that

Before discussing this, I’d like to just quote the NRSV of these verses:

It’s interesting that Paul here refers to αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης (NRSV’s “eternal weight of glory”), followed by καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν (NRSV “beyond all measure”)—as e.g. 1 Enoch 54.3 has the unrighteous being given ዘአልቦ መድሎት in the eschaton, which Knibb translates as iron chains of “of immeasurable weight.” (And cf. again the “eternal chains” of Jude 6.)

In any case, as the most usual meaning of πρόσκαιρος is “temporary,” then αἰώνιος is most easily taken as its opposite, “eternal,” and thus NRSV’s translation is on point. (Ramelli/Konstan note that the Vulgate translates them as temporalia and aeterna; but of course they must suggest that ‘the Latin obscures the sense of the Greek, “pertaining to the αἰών”’. πρόσκαιρος will be discussed further in a subsequent post.)

It’s to their credit—as I mentioned in my second post—that on the next page (66), Ramelli and Konstan acknowledge that “αἰών is never used absolutely, but always have a modifier: this αἰών, the current αἰών, and the like”; yet virtually right after this, 2 Thess 2.16 is translated as “encouragement for the world to come” (παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν), whereas the juxtaposition with ἐλπίδα ἀγαθὴν here (παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα ἀγαθὴν) suggests that “eternal encouragement/comfort/solace” is the more preferable translation.

On p. 67, Ramelli and Konstan write

Yet this is by no means an ‘an odd way of saying “do not have forgiveness for all eternity”’. As has been suggested several times, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is simply idiomatic for “never” ; and we can compare John 11.26’s πᾶς ὁ ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, “everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.” (Cf. also, in the Septuagint, LXX Deut 12.19, πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς τὸν Λευίτην πάντα τὸν χρόνον ὅσον ἐὰν ζῇς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; LXX Josh 1.5, οὐκ ἀντιστήσεται ἄνθρωπος κατενώπιον ὑμῶν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου.)

(Also, it’s surprising that, here, Ramelli/Konstan did not cite the parallel to Mark 3.29 in Matthew 12.32: “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”—though this, too, is simply an extended way of saying “never” as well; and is another example of the explicitly qualified “this age” and “the age to come.”)

Yet there were plentiful contemporary (and pre-Christian) traditions that Sodom and Gomorrah were in fact still burning: e.g. Wisdom 10.6-7 states that

Following this, there’s more discussion of Romans 1 and Jude 6, which can be found at the beginning of my post here, in conjunction with discussion of aidios.

Finally, Ramelli and Konstan comment (67-68) that

Of course, it’s big “if” in “if Aristotle’s distinction holds true for New Testament usage,” because there’s obviously a very wide gulf between the Attic Greek of the 4th century BCE and the Greek of the New Testament (to say nothing of Aristotle’s particular rhetorical purpose in that passage)—something that surely also applies to the purported distinction between aidios and aiōnios, I might add. (More on that later, perhaps.)

More importantly, though: if we really want to examine all of the uses of κόλασις – and here just limiting ourselves to the Septuagint – the verses where it’s used are Wisdom 11:13, Wisdom 16:2, Wisdom 16:24, Wisdom 19:4, 2 Maccabees 4:38, 3 Maccabees 1:3, 3 Maccabees 7:10, 4 Maccabees 8:9, Jeremiah 18:20, Ezekiel 14:3, Ezekiel 14:4, Ezekiel 14:7, Ezekiel 18:30, Ezekiel 43:11, Ezekiel 44:12 (and, in the New Testament, Matthew 25:46 and 1 John 4:18). Uses of the verb form κολάζω are found in 1 Maccabees 7:7, 2 Maccabees 6:14, 3 Maccabees 3:26, 3 Maccabees 7:3, 3 Maccabees 7:14, 4 Maccabees 2:12, 4 Maccabees 8:6, 4 Maccabees 18:5, (Old Greek) Daniel 6:12, Wisdom 3:4, Wisdom 11:5, Wisdom 11:8, Wisdom 11:16, Wisdom 12:14, Wisdom 12:15, Wisdom 12:27, Wisdom 14:10, Wisdom 16:1, Wisdom 16:9, Wisdom 18:11, Wisdom 18:22, 1 Esdras 8:24 (and 2 Peter 2:9 and Acts 4:21 in the NT).

I’d do it myself with enough prodding… though, just from a casual glance, there are a few other instances) where it’s unambiguously non-corrective: e.g. 2 Maccabees 4:38 (ἐκεῖ τὸν μιαιφόνον ἀπεκόσμησε, τοῦ Κυρίου τὴν ἀξία αὐτῷ κόλασιν ἀποδόντος); 4 Maccabees 8:9; and 1 Esdras 8:24 (tellingly, in the latter, τιμωρία is a type of κόλασις). Justin Martyr also says something highly relevant in his Apology (8):

It may be significant to note that these verses do not speak of what is “invisible” (aoratos, Strongs 517), but of what is not “seen” (blepo, Strongs 991). Something that is merely not seen (or, not observed) may not be something which is “invisible” in the sense that it cannot be seen.

As Tom L remarks, in the context of 2 Cor.4:17-5:1 “the things not seen at this time is the glory of the afterlife and the resurrection body”:

17 For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory, 18 at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary, yet what is not being observed is eonian. 1 For we are aware that, if our terrestrial tabernacle house should be demolished, we have a building of God, a house not made by hands, eonian, in the heavens. (CLV)

Tom L adds “the word invisible does not appear in the text and Paul is not claiming the resurrection body is invisible…He compares…things which we now see with the things of the afterlife which are not seen at this time…It is not that they are invisible just that they are not seen now…In particular he speak of the glories of the afterlife and the resurrection body God has in store for believers…These things are unseen because we don’t experience them at this time not because they are invisible…”.
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/religious-movements/general-religious-movement-topics/preterism/5014161-the-folly-of-full-preterism/page8

If aionios meant eternal in 2 Cor.4:17, such expressions as “immeasurable” & “beyond all measure” seem redundant and pointless.

KJV has “a far more exceeding”, ASV & ERV & YLT “more and more exceedingly”; DBY “in surpassing measure”; WEY “a preponderating, yes, a vastly preponderating”; RO “more and more excelling”; DG “an exceeding on an exceeding”.

Re 1 Enoch 54:3 this version translates it as “immense weight”:

http://www.yahwehswordarchives.org/book-of-enoch/hanoch_enoch_054.htm

In Webster’s dictionary the first definition of “temporary” does not list “eternal” as an antonym of “tempoary”, but instead “long-term, permanent”: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/temporary

A permanent driver’s licence is “long-term” & more lasting than a temporary driver’s licence, but neither are eternal.

“4340 próskairos – (an adjective, derived from 4314 /prós, “motion towards, with” and 2540 /kairós, “a season”) – properly, a limited time of opportunity; fleeting, temporary (“only lasts for a while”).” http://biblehub.com/greek/4340.htm

“Something need not be endless if it is contrasted with “seasons.” Today we have the four seasons. So if I were to suffer for two seasons with the promise that I would have glory in the eon to come, would that eon to come have to be eternal since it is contrasted with “two seasons”? No.”

“2Co 4:18 at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary(for a season), yet what is not being observed is eonian.”

“(YLT) we not looking to the things seen, but to the things not seen; for the things seen are temporary, but the things not seen are age-during.”

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2233743-daniel-o-mcclellan-old-testament-spiritual-9.html#ixzz4s9pbQSXZ

"It is often claimed that in 2 Corinthians 4:18, “eonian” (aiõnion) must mean “eternal” because it is set in contrast to the word “temporal,” meaning pertaining to time as opposed to eternity. The Greek word, however, translated “temporal” in the AV (proskaira) has no connection with the word for “time” (chronos); in English form, the Greek is literally TOWARD-SEASON, and means “temporary” or “for [only] a part of a season.”

"Contrastive terms need not be antithetical in meaning. Our Lord deemed it sufficient contrast to compare temporary (i.e., a part of a season) with a single season–less than a year (Matt.13:21). Yet here, in 2 Corinthians 4:18, while the contrast is far greater, it does not follow that it is therefore infinite. The contrast is between our afflictions, which last, so to say, but for a brief “partial season,” and our promised, long-enduring “eonian” glory…The eonian life and glory which is our special portion (cp 1 Tim.4:10b; 2 Tim.2:10,11), no more debars the endless life and glory in which we shall participate as well (cp Luke 1:33b; 1 Thess.4:17b; 1Cor.15:28), than youthful happiness precludes the happiness of maturity.” http://concordant.org/expositions/the-eons/eon-indefinte-duration-part-two/
http://concordant.org/expositions/human-destiny/universalism-refuted/reply-universalism-refuted-part-four/

“Now, in this passage, Paul is using proskairos and aiónios in contrast with each other. But notice that he is not contrasting time (which would be the word “chronos” in Greek) with timelessness. Instead, he is contrasting two different measures of temporal duration (i.e., two different measures of time). In Matthew 13:21, Christ employs proskairos to denote a relatively short measure of time. It is used in reference to those who hear the gospel and
endure in their faith for only “a short while” in contrast to those who, after hearing the word, keep it and go on to produce fruit. Christ is not contrasting a temporary period of time with an endless measure of time; rather, Christ is contrasting a relatively short measure of time which does not result in the production of “fruit” with a relatively longer period of time that does (similarly, in Hebrews 11:25, proskairos is translated “a short season” or “fleeting,” and denotes the relatively short-lived enjoyment that sin brings). But the opposite of proskairos isn’t endless duration, for proskairos doesn’t mean finite duration. Its meaning is clearly relative to whatever is in view. Again, when Christ uses the word in Matt 13:21, he isn’t contrasting a person who endures in his faith for a finite period of time with a person who endures in his faith for an infinite period of time; he’s contrasting a relatively short period of time with a relatively longer period of time (i.e., relative to a person’s mortal lifespan).”

“In the context of 2 Corinthians 4-5, proskairos conveys a relatively short measure of time (i.e., duration confined to a mortal lifetime, during which time one can see and experience one’s mortal self “wasting away”). Aiónios, on the other hand, while not meaning endless duration, denotes a much longer duration of time…”

In 2 Cor.4:17-18 these things which are but temporary (for a “season”) are compared with what is eonian, agian, lasting, for an age or ages, pertaining to an eon or eons, much longer periods of time than a mere season.

“Paul is not making a contrast between time and eternity, as the Authorized Version’s terms “temporal” (pertaining to time, from the Latin tempus) and “eternal” would suggest.”

Ramelli wrote of “a state of guilt”, not “guilty”.

There’s nothing about “never” dieing in Jn.11:26:

26 And everyone who is living and believing in Me, should by no means be dying for the eon. (CLV)
26 and every one who is living and believing in me shall not die—to the age; (YLT)
26 And, no one who liveth again and believeth on me, shall in anywise die, unto times age-abiding. (RO)
26 and all the living and believing into me, not not may die into the age. (DG)

Greek-English Interlinears at the urls below say:

26 …into the age
26…to the age
26…into the eon
26…to the age

https://studybible.info/ACVI/John%2011
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/11-26.htm

In light of Isaiah 65:20, references such as those found in John 11:26 may refer to not dying for the coming eschatological eon (e.g. the millennium), as opposed to those who die during that eon at the young age of 100:

Isa.65:20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

On that view Jesus’ remarks in John 11:26 were telling His hearers that those who believe in Him will be among those who do not die in that eon, and not those who are cursed & die.

The “age to come” need not be equated with “never” or endlessness. For many passages of the Scriptures speak of multiple future ages (e.g. Lk.1:33; 1 Tim.1:17; Rev.19:3; 20:10). In the same context Paul refers to the age to come (Eph.1:21) & multiple future ages (Eph.2:7). If the coming age is to be followed by another, then it is finite, & the reference to the coming age in Mt.12:32 tells us nothing about anyone’s final destiny.

Do you know what special pleading is?

It’s probably been asked before, but what would you accept as meaning genuinely “forever, permanently”? How could someone have communicated that concept in a way that you wouldn’t come back and say “oh well if you read such and such, they could just be referring to such and such”?

You sound like a fucking moron.

1 Like

“An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.”

“marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made”

“Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]”

Why don’t you give me - your - definition & point out where you think i have - sinned - in that regard? Then i can decide if i need to repent. And where you are guilty of the same offence.

I’d suggest that if Love Omnipotent was a sadistic monster god who intended to bring endless torments on many of the beings He brought into existence, then aion and aionios were a poor choice of words to convey that horror unambiguously. Surely if such an unbelievably horrific fate awaited all beings who happened to be in rebellion against Him when His love expired like a carton of milk & He decided to shut the doors into heaven forever, then He should have been morally obligated to make that extremely clear so that no one would be in doubt as to His meaning. Since such is not the case, Love Omnipotent isn’t a monstrous loser.

As preferable choices to aion & aionios in expressing “forever, permanently”, i’d suggest the following expressions:

1, no end (Lk.1:33)
2. eternal (Rom.1:16; Jude 1:6)
3. immortal (1 Tim.6:16; 1 Cor.15:53-54)
4. unfading (1 Pet.1:4; 5:4)
5. endless (1 Tim.1:4)
6. indestructible (Heb.7:16)

I am also considering some other possibilities.

En passant, here are the opinions of two other people, including the following forum member:

“And lastly; in the bible the notion of “unending” or “endlessness” can be expressed either by the use of particular negatives such as “not”, “no not”, “un” or “less”, or more directly by specific Greek words meaning such. There are a number of examples to draw from: Lk 1:33 “…and of His kingdom there will be no end.” – ouk estai telos [ουκ εσται τελος]; Heb 7:16 …according to the power of an endless life. – akatalutou [ακαταλου]; …nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies… 1Tim 1:4 – aperantois [απεραντοις]; and Rev 18:21-23 “…shall not be …anymore” – ou mē …eti [ου μη …ετι].”

“Not one of these specific words are ever used in the context of punishment beyond the grave, and certainly these could have been used IF such was the case; they were not for there is not.” http://pantelism.com/EternalAndTheQFactor.htm

“Endlessness in Greek”

“To express endlessness the Greek says, ouk estai telos, NOT WILL-BE FINISH (Luke 1:33). An endless life is akatalutos, UN_DOWN LOOSED, indissoluble (Heb. 7:17). Endless life is ours because we have aphtharsia, UN_CORRUPTION, incorruption(1 Cor. 15:42) and athanasia, UN_DEATH, deathlessness or immortality (1 Cor. 15:53). Endlessness is expressed by negatives (not, un-, in-, -less), and in no other way.”

People forget that the challenge isn’t to demonstrate that God actually is a “sadistic monster god” – though this is obviously a polemical description – but only that the early Christians believed this to be so. And this is demonstrably true in any number of respects. In fact, if you can imagine any number of modern Christians believing this to be true (as I’m sure you can), then surely you should have no trouble imagining someone from antiquity believing it, too.

Read the very next verse, in which this line is continued (μαρτυρεῖται γὰρ ὅτι…). Also see the use of ἀκατάλυτος in 4 Maccabees 10:11.

Hell, read the source verse(s) that Luke 1:33 draws on (Daniel 2:44 or 7:14).

To say God would be a sadistic monster is a caricature. The traditional view is that those in hell hate God because they are separated from Christ. That is to say their hearts are separated from God’s mercy. As a result it hardens. They don’t want God as He punishes and disciplines them. Because of the separation the influence of the Holy Spirit to cause them to be loving is gone. They are evil. They would be corrected by God’s loving discipline but because of harden hearts they reject and refuse it. If their hearts are separated from all mercy (Christ) forever they will hate God forever. They will not want Him. They ignore, refuse, and reject His love.

Those who disregard discipline despise themselves, but the one who heeds correction gains understanding ~~ Proverbs 15:32

Poverty and shame come to him who ignores discipline, but whoever heeds correction will be honored. ~~ Proverbs 13:18

A fool rejects his father’s discipline, but whoever heeds correction is prudent. ~~ Proverbs 15:5

Woe to her who is rebellious and defiled,
the oppressing city!

She listens to no voice;
she accepts no correction.

She does not trust in the Lord;
she does not draw near to her God.~~ Zephaniah 3

God corrects and disciplines them but they reject it with hardened hearts. The Bible says that God is love and that love protects. Justice is to protect and serve. God’s justice and protection run together. Not only would He be protecting His children in the new Heavens and Earth from evil but the torment is calibrated just right to protect those in the lake of fire from harming each other. Thus we have some morally sufficient and justifiable reasons for hell. Therefore it’s not unjust. The delight the saints have is in God’s protective justice not the suffering. Saints will take delight in that they are being comforted and protected under God’s wings from evil. The gates of the city are open to the nations in the new heavens and earth (all things). The kings of the earth bring the glory of the nations into it. The lake of fire isn’t part of the new heavens and earth. It’s outside all of that. The new city is in a localized region of the new Heavens and Earth. The new Heavens and Earth is a much larger area than the new city. The gates of the city remain open forever to the nations in the new heavens and earth. Not to those in the lake of fire.

The variety of beliefs re the final destiny of God created fallen beings (human & demon) in the early church & ECF is besides the point of my post. Instead the argument is based on the use of words the Lord chose to use to express eschatological punishment in the Scriptures. My conclusion is they do not support a conclusion of endless punishment, whether of annihilation or torments, but strongly oppose it. As i recently posted elsewhere:

I think it(aidios) was a superior word to use relative to the ambiguous aion & aionios, if God was a believer in endless punishment. Moreover, as opposed to aion and aionios (which are often used of finite duration), God had a number of other words & expressions available that would also have better served to express endless punishment, if Love Omnipotent were a believer of such. But He never uses such of eschatological punishment. So the reasonable conclusion is that Love Omnipotent rejected using such words and expressions of a final destiny of endless punishment because He knew better & He rejected the notion that anyone will endure endless punishment. Those words & expresssions are:

  1. no end (Lk.1:33)…this expression is used of God’s kingdom having “no end”. It is never used of anyone’s torments or punishment. We never read of anyone receiving torments that will have “no end”. This unambiguous phrase, “no end”, would have been a superior choice to the ambiguous words aion & aionion, if Love Omnipotent had a belief in endless torments or annihilation. But He rejected its use in expressing such a fate.

  2. endless (1 Tim.1:4)…Again if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments, why didn’t He use this word to express it, instead of the ambiguous aion & aionion, which often refer to finite durations in ancient Greek usage?

  3. never (Mt.7:23, etc)…this word appears to occur 16 times in the NT & it seems that it never means anything except “never”. It is used of “love never fails” (1 Cor.13:8). It also occurs in Mt.7:23 where Jesus says “I never knew you; depart you from Me, those working lawlessness.” Which is such an incredibly lame remark, if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments. If He believed that such an unspeakably horrific final destiny awaits the wicked, including those He was referring to in Mt.7:23, why didn’t He make it clear by telling them that they would “never” be saved and/or He would “never” know them? Would that not have been clear & unambiguous, unlike the words He spoke, & unlike the ambiguous aion & aionios, which often refer to finite duration in ancient Koine Greek? OTOH consider re the use of the word “never”:

“Philo saith, “The punishment of the wicked person is, ζην αποθανοντα αει, to live for ever dying, and to be for ever in pains, and griefs, and calamities that never cease…” http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/mark/9.htm

Yet Scripture - never - uses such language. Moreover, it speaks of death being abolished, not being “for ever”.

  1. eternal (Rom.1:16; Jude 1:6)…this word, AIDIOS, is used of God’s “eternal” power & “eternal” chains that bind until the day of judgement. It is never used of anyone’s final destiny. We never read of anyone being tormented for eternal ages. We never read of anyone suffering eternal (AIDIOS) punishment. If Jude believed in endless punishment, he had the perfect opportunity at Jude 1:6 by simply adding that the angels would suffer the judgement of eternal (AIDIOS) punishment or torments. Instead of warning his readers of such a horrificly monstrous fate, as he should have been morally obligated to do if it were a real possibility, instead he conveys the relatively utterly lame & insignificant info that these angelic beings will be kept in chains until judgement day. OTOH, consider:

“Instead of saying with Philo and Josephus, thanaton athanaton, deathless or immortal death; eirgmon aidion, eternal imprisonment; aidion timorion, eternal torment; and thanaton ateleuteton, interminable death, he [Jesus] used aionion kolasin…” http://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd3.html

"Nyssa defined the vision of God promised there as “life without end, eternal incorruption, undying beatitude [ten ateleuteton zoen, ten aidion aphtharsian , ten athanaton makarioteta].” (“Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in …” By Jaroslav Pelikan, p.165 @): https://books.google.ca/books?id=3VZawWHySpIC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=ateleuteton&source=bl&ots=SbniQQuYQW&sig=74beUneGAPvFggigYZomuEKJHkE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjvPzmv_LbAhWDIjQIHVu5DMMQ6AEIODAE#v=onepage&q=ateleuteton&f=false

  1. unfading (1 Pet.1:4; 5:4)…Peter uses this word of an endless inheritance reserved in heaven & a crown of glory. It is never used of the endless pain, punishment or torments that anyone will receive. Can it be denied that this would have been a superior word (over aion & aionios) to use to express such a horrific destiny if Love Omnipotent actually had such in store for anyone? Wouldn’t He want to express warnings about it in the clearest ways possible?

  2. found no place for repentance (Heb.12:17)…is used in Heb.12:17 of the loss of a finite earthly blessing…“he found no place of repentance, although having earnestly sought it with tears”. Never is it used regarding those in Gehenna, Hades, the lake of fire, or eschatological punishment. Never do we read of those cast into any “hell” that they will not (or never) find a place of repentance, even though they earnestly seek it with tears. God was quite capable of expressing such in His Holy Scriptures. But rather than give such a warning, as Love Omnipotent should have if such an unbelievably horrific future awaited anyone, instead we are told of the relatively lame loss of a finite earthly blessing. Such a waste of words if endless punishment were really true.

  3. In Mt.18:6 is the lame warning of a punishment which is compared to mere drowning, which is nothing compared to being kept alive for the sole purpose of being tortured for all the “endless” ages of eternity that have “no end” & “never” cease. Jesus says it is “better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”. OTOH, if He had been a believer in endless punishment, He could have expressed that by saying it is better for them to have never lived, never been conceived, or that their parents had never known (had sex with) one another. Compare this anti-biblical Jewish view that the Lord Jesus Christ, Love Omnipotent, rejected:

“To every individual is apportioned two shares, one in hell and one in paradise. At death, however, the righteous man’s portion in hell is exchanged, so that he has two in heaven, while the reverse is true in the case of sinners (Ḥag. 15a). Hence it would have been better for the latter not to have lived at all (Yeb. 63b).” http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6558-gehenna

I am considering which of two dozen other ancient Koine Greek words & expressions to add to the above list.

IMO Heb.7:16 does not prove aiona or “eis ton aiona” means “forever” in v.17. No more than Lk.20:36-37 saying those who attain to the eon(aion) to come & the resurrection out from among the dead can no longer die means that eon is forever. Others who enter that eon will die (Isa.65:20). Moreover, the ex-Pharisee, Paul, speaks of the eon to come & multiple eons to come in the same context (Eph.1:21; 2:7). Many other passages also refer to more than one future eon (Lk.1:33; Rev.11:15, etc). So Heb.7:17 may just be a reference to that next eon which is finite. And in which the reigning Messiah, like those of Lk.20:36-37, will be a Priest by the power of an endless life, as per Heb.7:16. Christ’s priestly service is not endless, as it will serve no purpose once He ceases to reign, gives up the kingdom to God, nullifies all dominion, power & authority & God becomes “all in all” (1 Cor.15:22-28). That the writer of Hebrews deduced from The One Who is a “priest into the eon in the order of Melchizedek” (Heb.7:17) will be such by the power of an endless life (Heb.7:16), it does not logically follow that such an eon is necessarily not finite.

As for 4 Maccabees 10:11, what is your point? Do you think this verse expresses a belief in endless torments? If so, then why didn’t Love Omnipotent use such an expression in the inspired Greek Scriptures (NT/27 books)?

11 but you, because of your impiety and bloodthirstiness, will undergo unceasing torments.”

And? I see nothing that must necessarily be translated (or interpreted) as “eternal” or “forever” here:

Dan.2:44 In their days, that is, of these kings, the Eloah of the heavens will set up a kingdom that for the eons shall not come to harm. His kingdom shall not be left to another people. It will pulverize and terminate all these kingdoms, and it shall be confirmed for the eons. (CLOT)

Dan.7:14 to Him is granted jurisdiction and esteem and a kingdom, and all the peoples and leagues and language-groups shall serve Him; His jurisdiction, as an eonian jurisdiction, will not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be confined. (CLOT)

https://studybible.info/CLV/Daniel

Moreover, Dan.12:3, TH, speaks of eons and further, making eons finite. Likewise i argue for the eons of Lk.1:33a also being finite in duration here:

Furthermore, here are a dozen points re eons (in the mistranslation forever and ever) being finite:

WIth regard to 4 Maccabees and other texts, you’re shifting the goalposts. At first you said (paraphrasing) “in order to express true endlessness in Greek, here are some of the terms you would use”; and you argue that they’re not applied to eschatological punishment. I then showed how the same expressions are indeed used to refer to eschatological punishment – including ones that are used in close conjunction with aionios itself., too (For example, read 4 Maccabees 10:11 in conjunction with 10:15, with its τὸν αἰώνιον τοῦ τυράννου ὄλεθρον.)

In response, you then claim that 4 Maccabees isn’t true Scripture. But that wasn’t the actual question or issue of debate. One of the biggest questions here isn’t what’s used in Scripture itself, but rather what was standard practice in Greek writing in general. (Because if we can demonstrate patterns that hold true for all other Greek writings, then there’s less reason to believe that the same sort of Greek phraseology, etc., from the Bible radically diverges from this.)

Trust me, I’ve heard this claim about the supposedly “true” words that denote endlessness in Greek, and how these aren’t applied to punishment. But it’s a manifestly false one. And I’ve demonstrated this in great detail in my revised post here. Search for the section that begins “In addition to the adjective aiōnios, other words were used in conjunction with or to denote the eternality of punishment.” Also the previous section, “αἰώνιος punishment in (non-Christian) Greek literature, etc.”

The context of that post was what “Love Omnipotent” (i.e. the Author of the Holy Scriptures) says, not ancient or Koine Greek in general. In the same post i gave a list of 6 words/phrases that were all referenced with Scripture texts from the New Testament.

My thesis is not that aion & aionion expressions are never used outside of the Sacred Scriptures to speak of endless punishment. Instead my argument is that they were:

[A] in the context of the New Testament never used to expresss endlesness in regards to eschatological punishment &
[B] an inferior choice if Love Omnipotent wished to express anti universalism unambiguously &
[C] that the Lord of all had a long list of other words (or expressions) that would have expressed endless punishment unambiguously &/or significantly less ambiguously than aion/ios &
[D] the Saviour of all never used such words (or expressions) of endless punishment &
[E] if He did believe in endless punishment He should & would have expressed it in no uncertain terms repeatedly, using the best language available to do so &
[F] since He did not, therefore He didn’t believe in or teach endless punishment.

From my perspective, of course, Scripture teaches universalism. So it already has departed from what most sources seem to say of most Jewish thought in & around that time regarding final destiny. In a similar vein the Lord Jesus Himself warned all to beware of the traditions and teachings of the Pharisees, who BTW were believers in endless punishment. The New Testament also warns us to beware of Jewish fables or myths.

Again that isn’t my position, but rather that the superior words to express endlessness - IOW not the aion & aionion that Love Omnipotent usually employs - are never used by Him of eschatological punishment.

Thank you for referring me to that post. It looks to be full of relevant material to the topic of extrabiblical ancient beliefs about final destiny & the words they used to express endless punishment. At first glance i’d suggest quite a bit of it will provide further support for my thesis. Evidently you’ve gone to a lot of work to provide this info in that post & many others you have online. I’ve made it a priority to study them all carefully. Including your debates vs one “ThirstySkeptic” re the meanings of aion/ios. Be well. Peace.

You’re so intellectually frightened of the idea that your precious little religion may not be all roses and sunshine that you’ll deny that anything denotes endlessness just because the same words are also used in reference to punishment. How pathetic.

Origen concludes with thanks for providing a post full of relevant material, and committing to the priority of studying koine lingua’s many online works, urging, be well and peace. The reply is “You’re so intellectually frightened… how pathetic.” This appears to reflect frustration more than engagement with the substance of Origen’s actual responses.

Relative to endless ages of eternity, several thousand years would be “very little”. While there were “contemporary (and pre-Christian) traditions that Sodom and Gomorrah were in fact still burning”, can we reasonably conclude that the fire would not be finite & continue to burn till Christ’s yet future return, then also burn through the millennium, then also survive the passing away of the old earth & the creation of the new earth, & continue therein with no end? BTW, the phrase aionion fire is the exact same expression used of eschatological punishment in Mt.18:8 & 25:41.

"But what if Jude believed the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah had not been extinguished? What if he believed that the fires still burned in his day? Indeed, what if it were common knowledge that the fires of destruction still burned… An examination of the historical record would seem to indicate that this is precisely the case:

" “And in one day these populous cities became the tomb of their inhabitants, and the vast edifices of stone and timber became thin dust and ashes. And when the flames had consumed everything that was visible and that existed on the face of the earth, they proceeded to burn even the earth itself, penetrating into its lowest recesses, and destroying all the vivifying powers which existed within it so as to produce a complete and everlasting barrenness, so that it should never again be able to bear fruit, or to put forth any verdure; and to this very day it is scorched up. For the fire of the lightning is what is most difficult to extinguish, and creeps on pervading everything, and smouldering. And a most evident proof of this is to be found in what is seen to this day: for the smoke which is still emitted, and the sulphur which men dig up there, are a proof of the calamity which befell that country” (Philo, On Abraham 27)."

" “The length of this lake is five hundred and eighty furlongs, where it is extended as far as Zoar in Arabia; and its breadth is a hundred and fifty. The country of Sodom borders upon it. It was of old a most happy land, both for the fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it be now all burnt up. It is related how, for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that Divine fire, and the traces [or shadows] of the five cities are still to be seen, as well as the ashes growing in their fruits; which fruits have a color as if they were fit to be eaten, but if you pluck them with your hands, they dissolve into smoke and ashes. And thus what is related of this land of Sodom hath these marks of credibility which our very sight affords us.” (Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, IV.8.4)."

" “The fire which burns beneath the ground and the stench render the inhabitants of the neighboring country sickly and very short lived” (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, II.48)."

" “Lake Sirbonis [most historians agree that Strabo has confused Lake Sirbonis with the Dead Sea] is large; in fact some state that it is one thousand stadia in circuit; however, it extends parallel to the coast to a length of slightly more than two hundred stadia, is deep to the very shore, and has water so very heavy that there is no use for divers, and any person who walks into it and proceeds no farther than up to his navel is immediately raised afloat. It is full of asphalt. The asphalt is blown to the surface at irregular intervals from the midst of the deep, and with it rise bubbles, as though the water were boiling; and the surface of the lake, being convex, presents the appearance of a hill. With the asphalt there arises also much soot, which, though smoky, is imperceptible to the eye; and it tarnishes copper and silver and anything that glistens, even gold” (Strabo, Geography, XVI.42)."

“There are historical reports as late as the 17th, 18th and even 19th Centuries that suggest that the region around the Dead Sea continued to reek of sulfur and contain pockets of “subterranean fire,” from which clouds of smoke would occasionally rise.”

“Conclusion”

“When Jude was writing his Epistle, he and his readers believed the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah were still burning.”

http://www.forananswer.org/Jude/Jude7.htm

John Gill’s commentary of 2 Pet.2:6 says:

“and so the author of the book of Wisdom 10:7 speaking of the five cities, on which fire fell, says,”

" "of whose wickedness, even to this day, the waste land that smoketh is a testimony; and plants bearing fruit, that never come to ripeness.’’ "

“Philo the Jew (b) says, that”

" "there are showed to this day in Syria monuments of this unspeakable destruction that happened; as ruins, ashes, sulphur, smoke, and a weak flame, breaking forth as of a fire burning:’’ "

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_peter/2-6.htm

John 4:13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who is drinking of this water will be thirsting again, 14 yet whoever may be drinking of the water which I shall be giving him, shall under no circumstances be thirsting for the eon, but the water which I shall be giving him will become in him a spring of water, welling up into life eonian. (CLNT)

John 4:14 but whoever may drink of the water that I will give him, may not thirst—to the age; and the water that I will give him shall become in him a well of water, springing up to life age-during. (YLT)

The Greek scholar & early church father, Origen, in his commentary on John re this same passage, implies that aionios life is finite:

(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.

(19) "And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. " (Origen’s Commentary on John 13:18-19).

https://books.google.ca/books?id=TuHTu3BJyywC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Commentary+on+the+Gospel+According+to+John,+Books+13-32,+By+Origen&source=bl&ots=mjQIkyPiK7&sig=tc8JJgY11vxqQgR7eND9b8J7DWc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbxv7i4v_bAhXuHjQIHQseBGgQ6AEIUjAI#v=onepage&q=Commentary%20on%20the%20Gospel%20According%20to%20John%2C%20Books%2013-32%2C%20By%20Origen&f=false

BDAG’s (W.F. Danker, reviser & editor) entry on aionios omits that & generally ignores Origen, except for one reference to support the BDAG bias. Likewise Danker omits many other references to aionios as finite duration in ancient Koine Greek. Such as, for many examples, the following:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2931562-does-aionios-always-mean-eternal-ancient.html

Elsewhere BDAG is perhaps a bit less biased against a universalist interpretation of Scripture. For example, re the word “destruction” that occurs at 2 Thess.1:9, Danker continues his bias re aionios with a reference to “eternal death”, but also states:

“…Hierocles 14, 451b has the thought that the soul of the sinner in Hades is purified by the tortures of hell, and is saved thereby…” (p702)

https://translate.academic.ru/ὄλεθρος/el/xx/

A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (BDAG) https://www.amazon.ca/Greek-English-Lexicon-Testament-Christian-Literature/dp/0226039331

Which opposes rendering aionios there as “eternal”, favoring it being finite.

1 Cor.5:4-5 also uses the word in the context of a positive purpose:

4 When you are gathered in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of the Lord Jesus, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Which compares to the following remark:

“In Ancient Greek mythology, Olethros was the personification of Havoc and probably one of the Makhai. Olethros translates roughly in ancient Greek to “destruction”, but often with a positive connotation, as in the destruction required for and preceding renewal.”

However being from uncited wiki sources, we won’t put much stock in that until such can be verified from other sources.

Returning to Danker’s quote of “eternal death” above re the BDAG entry on ὄλεθρος, I will note that Scripture never refers to “death” as being “eternal”. To the contrary, it speaks of death being abolished (1 Cor.15:26; 2 Tim.1:10; Rev.21:4).

F.W. Danker also remarked regarding ἀποκαταλλάσσω:

“…found only in Christian writers…reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20…” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd edition, 2000, p.112).

Further to this comment of the OP, which was also briefly addressed in my previous post:

Apparently your assumption is that (1) those who thirst again must be contrasted with (2) “never be thirsty (again)”, which leads you to your conclusion that (3) that " is how we should translate οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

However, the logic does not necessarily follow. For, (A) first of all, it is generally true that those who will thirst again for water/physical liquids will be thirsty every day for such. They will thirst again in just a little while, perhaps a few hours. OTOH those continually drinking the water Jesus gives will never be “thirsting for the eon” (CLV below). That is, they will not thirst for physical water for an entire eon, or age. Here the contrast may be interpreted as between those who thirst continually & those who never thirst for an entire finite eon. As opposed to the koine_lingua interpretation of a contrast between thirst again & never again.

Secondly (B), as an alternative interpretation, how could it be that someone could never thirst for physical liquids for an entire eon? In the Biblical context, only if they were immortal & therefore had no need of physical liquids to survive. But does having immortality in the coming eon prove that the eon lasts forever? Of course not. So the more honest & literal translation, “for the eon”, is perfectly logical:

John 4:13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who is drinking of this water will be thirsting again, 14 yet whoever may be drinking of the water which I shall be giving him, shall under no circumstances be thirsting for the eon, but the water which I shall be giving him will become in him a spring of water, welling up into life eonian. (CLV)

So the contrast could be interpreted as being between those who are continually thirsting in this world & those who don’t thirst for an entire eon (“for the eon”) - an eon which may be finite - because in that eon they will have immortality. Hence no need for physical water.

If those who will not be thirsting “for the eon” will never be thirsting again because, for instance, they have immortal life, or they cannot be lost, or lose the “life” God has given them, this does not logically require that the eon itself be endless or that the phrase “εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα” mean “forever”.

Thirdly (C.) this is similar to what was considered earlier in this thread in regards to Hebrews 7:16-17, as follows:

IMO Heb.7:16 does not prove aiona or “eis ton aiona” means “forever” in v.17. No more than Lk.20:36-37 saying those who attain to the eon(aion) to come & the resurrection out from among the dead can no longer die means that eon is forever. Others who enter that eon will die (Isa.65:20). Moreover, the ex-Pharisee, Paul, speaks of the eon to come & multiple eons to come in the same context (Eph.1:21; 2:7). Many other passages also refer to more than one future eon (Lk.1:33; Rev.11:15, etc). So Heb.7:17 may just be a reference to that next eon which is finite. And in which the reigning Messiah, like those of Lk.20:36-37, will be a Priest by the power of an endless life, as per Heb.7:16. Christ’s priestly service is not endless, as it will serve no purpose once He ceases to reign, gives up the kingdom to God, nullifies all dominion, power & authority & God becomes “all in all” (1 Cor.15:22-28). That the writer of Hebrews deduced from The One Who is a “priest into the eon in the order of Melchizedek” (Heb.7:17) that they will be such by the power of an endless life (Heb.7:16), it does not logically follow that such an eon is necessarily not finite.

BTW, for some examples of “eis ton aiona” being used of finite durations:

Timoria occurs in Hebrews 10:29 regarding Divinely sanctioned punishment & is, arguably, applicable to postmortem punishment:

10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Generally capital punishment under Moses’ law was by stoning. Stoning to death is not a very sore or long lasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the eternal hell believing Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed that wicked, rebellious, Christ rejectors would be punished with something so monstrous as being endlessly annihilated or tormented, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is an unfeeling terminator machine or sadist who abandons forever the beings He created in His own image & likeness so easily.

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for ALL MANKIND for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for ALL MANKIND for life’s justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, THE MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, THE MANY shall be constituted just."

According to the Scriptures, God is Love Omnipotent, not a mythical deception infinitely worse than Hitler, Bin Laden & Satan combined.

Αs for me, I would accept the real Greek word for “eternal”, namely “αιδιος” (aidios).
It is found in the following Scriptural sentence:

Romans 1:20 (ESV) For his invisible attributes, namely, his ETERNAL power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

The Universalist position does not depend on NT usage holding such a distinction, but only that in contexts where such words occur (e.g. Mt.25:46; 2 Pet.2:9), in reference to Divinely given eschatological &/or postmortem punishment, they are not indicative of vindictive retributive punishment, but rather of a corrective punishing or chastening for the good of the offender.

As to the “wide gulf” referred to, the following sources allege that the words under consideration were used of corrective punishment before, soon after & at the time of Christ.

According to this alleged quote of Trench κόλασις, as opposed to τιμωρία, has “more the notion of punishment as it has reference to the correction and bettering of the offender (see Philo, Leg, ad Cai. I; Josephus, Antt. ii. 6. 8); it is ‘castigatio,’ and naturally has for the most part a milder use than τιμωρία. Thus Plato (Protag. 323 e) joins κολάσεις and νουθετήσεις together: and the whole passage to the end of the chapter is eminently instructive as to the distinction between the words: οὐδεὶς κολάζει τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας ὅτι ἠδίκησεν, ὅστις μὴ ὥσπερ θηρίον ἀλογίστως τιμωρεῖται, … ἀλλὰ τοῦ μέλλοντος χάριν ἵνα μὴ αὖθις ἀδικήσῃ; the same change in the words which he employs, occurring again twice or thrice in the sentence; with all which may be compared what Clement of Alexandria has said, Strom. iv. 24; and again vii. 16, where he defines κολάσεις as μερικαὶ παιδεῖαι, and τιμωρία as κακοῦ ἀνταπόδοσις. And this is Aristotle’s distinction (Rhet. i. 10): διαφέρει δὲ τιμωρία καὶ κόλασις· ἡ μὲν γὰρ κόλασις τοῦ πάσχοντος ἕνεκά ἐστιν· ἡ δὲ τιμωρία, τοῦ ποιοῦντος, ἵνα ἀποπληρωθῇ: cf. Ethic. Nic. iv. 5: τιμωρία παύει τῆς ὀργῆς, ἠδονῆν ἀντὶ τῆς λύπης ἐμποιοῦσα. It is to these and similar definitions that Aulus Gellius refers when he says (Noct. Att. vi. 14): ‘Puniendis peccatis tres esse debere causas existimatum est. Una est quae νουθεσία, vel, κόλασις, vel παραίνεσις dicitur; cum poena adhibetur castigandi atque emendandi gratiâ; ut is qui fortuito deliquit, attentior fiat, correctiorque. Altera est quam ii, qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt, τιμωρίαν appellant. Ea causa animadvertendi est, cum dignitas auctoritasque ejus, in quem est peccatum, tuenda est, ne praetermissa animadversio contemtum ejus pariat, et honorem levet: idcircoque id ei vocabulum a conservatione honoris factum putant.’ There is a profound commentary on these words in Göschel’s Zerstreute Blätter, part 2, p. 343–360; compare too an instructive note in Wyttenbach’s Animadd. in Plutarch. vol. xii. p. 776.” https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=7

So in favor of κόλασις (or κολάζω) being corrective Trench lists quotes from Plato, Aristotle, Philo, Josephus, Aulus Gellius & Clement of Alexandria. To those we could add early church universalists such as Oregon, Gregory Nyssa & many others. Moulton & Milligan continue to add to that list as follows:

“The meaning “;cut short,”; which the presumable connexion with κόλος and κολούω would suggest, seems to be the original sense of the word. In the Paris Thesaurus we find quotations for the meaning “;prune”; (κόλασις τῶν δένδρων), and a number of late passages where the verb denotes “;correcting,”; “;cutting down”; a superfluity. Thus Galen ad Galatians 1:1-24 τὰ γὰρ ἐναντία τῶν ἐναντίων ἰάματά ἐστι, κολάζοντα μὲν τὸ ὑπερβάλλον. Of course this may be a derived sense, like that of castigo and of our “;correct,”; but in any case it is clearly a familiar sense during the NT period, and we cannot leave it out of consideration when we examine this very important word.” https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/2849.html

In addition to those, under the section on κολάζω in TDNT, J. Schneider notes regarding “inscr. given by Steinleitner from Phrygian and Lydian monuments of the imperial period” that in “these inscriptions the sins punished by deity are those against the deity itself, e.g. violations of the sacred cultic laws. The deity smites the offender with sickness and infirmity, or even punishes himself and his family with death. The sinner can win back the grace of the deity only by open confession of his guilt. In this way alone can he be liberated from sickness and misfortune.”

TDNT adds regarding Philo’s view of the “legislative power of God” that this “power divides into two branches, the one for the rewarding of the good and the other for the punishment of sinners. Philo’s view of God includes the insight that in God mercy is older than punishment (Deus Imm.,76) and that God would rather forgive than punish (Spec.Leg., II,196…). Punishment is for those who are not amenable to reason (Agric.,40). Thus punishment may seem to be the greatest evil, but it is to be regarded as the greatest blessing for fools, loc. cit. This is a Stoic view” (“Theological Dictionary of the New Testament”, TDNT, ed. G. Kittel, Vol.3, p.815).

The “New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis” (NIDNTTE, ed. Moises Silva, 2014, Vol. II, p.716-718) concurs with TDNT’s remarks above.

NIDTTE also refers to the 5 NT occurrences of the “derived vb. κολαφίζω” (kolaphizo, Strongs # 2852), “to strike (with the fist), fig. torment”. It is used twice of “the Jewish leaders who struck Jesus during his trial before the Sanhedrin (Matt 26:67 = Mark 14:65).” (NIDTTE, p.718).

“Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him,” (Mt.26:67; NASB).

There are no indications of an intent to correct Jesus via such actions by these evil human beings. Rather it seems vindictive or sadistic. Likewise with the occurrences of kolaphizo at 1 Pet.2:20 & 1 Cor.4:11, does the “buffeting” or "“to strike (with the fist), fig. torment” have no hint of correction.

In all 4 cases of kolaphizo mentioned so far, they all are at the hands of men & do not indicate a corrective or beneficial purpose to those receiving such “torments”. However, in the 5th occurrence of this word in the New Testament, that changes.

In 2 Cor.12:7 is the only one of the 5 that refer to a Divinely given kolaphizo (compare Mt.25:46). In this context the Lord gives Paul a thorn in the flesh to “torment” or “buffet” [κολαφίζῃ] him, not as a sadistic or vindictive retribution with no thought of benefit to Paul, but rather for Paul’s own good:

“7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.”

In Matthew 25:46, like 2 Cor.12:7, is another New Testament instance of Divinely given sufferings, usually translated “punishment” (κόλασιν) (v.46) of “fire” (v.41). Shall it not also be, as the Divinely given sufferings of 2 Cor.12:7, for the good of the recipients?

Clearly the words under consideration are not always used of correction. So in order to determine whether or not their usage in eschatological and/or postmortem passages like Matthew 25:46 & 2 Peter 2:9 is corrective, one must consider the contexts. In that light, therefore, it seems questionable what use there would be in an examination of all of the many ancient Greek occurrences of the words. Will they inform us of the view of the New Testament God of love in regard to how He interprets them in an eschatological context? Or do extrabiblical usages, such as you’ve cited above, often come under the classification of false gods, fables & myths which are to be rejected, as in:

“Not giving heed to Jewish myths, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” (Titus 1:14).

2 Timothy 4:4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Do we find out what the real - good - God thinks on a subject by studying what the - evil - false gods think about it? Or how - evil - revengeful, bitter men with sadistic motivations use the words in question? They will punish from their own - evil - motives, whereas the - good - God, Love Omnipotent, always does so from the motive of the betterment of His created beings.

In support of that there is much to be brought forth from the inspired Scriptures & nothing in opposition to it. There are examples where His wrath, destruction, wounding, punishment, anger and torments are intended for the good of those who receive such. And no examples to the contrary.

Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

Matthew 25:46: “And these shall be coming away into chastening(kolasin) eonian, yet the just into life eonian.” (CLV)…1 John 4:18: “for fear has chastening(kolasin).” (CLV)

The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. Luke 12:47-48a