The doctrine I don't want to believe-eternal fire

[Elin]

Butch, the meaning of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Lk 16:19-31, and
the use of aionios to describe things unending, such as God, the Holy Spirit, redemption, the resurrection body, etc. are self-evident and speak for themselves.

Each can decide for himself the truth of the matter.

How can each decide for themselves on the matter if they are not given accurate information?. . .I mean, being serious,
how do you deal with the contradiction created by the theologians?

Butch, the parable of Lk 16:19-31 and the use of aionios by the apostles to describe that which is unending, such as God's power, salvation, the future rule of Christ, etc.
have nothing to do with theologians.

 

[Jason0047]

Butch5,

You also denied that Jesus is the one True God in 1 John 5:20. You claim that the True God is the Father who was in the Son. This is a bold denial of the eternal Son of God as being the True God as clearly stated in Scripture. You also did not like the phrase that God is triune, either (Which is what the Trinity is all about).

 

[Elin]

As I said,
If you look at what the Pharisees believed you'd see what Paul believed. He says nothing about immediately being with Christ, that's an assumption.

They're not absurd at all if you understand them
from a Jewish perspective rather than a Greek perspective.

This does a lot to locate your error.

The problem is assumptions.

You assume that Jesus' teaching to Paul changed nothing he believed as a Jew.

No, I've not assumed anything. Nothing I've said is based on assumption. The passages you've quoted
could mean that Paul would be with Christ immediately, or there could be a span of time in between.

You've assumed that Jesus' teaching to Paul changed nothing he believed as a Jew and,
therefore, the self-evident meaning of Paul's words below are negated by his Jewish beliefs,
so that he thought his spirit would cease to exist if he "departed" as he desired.

"I desire to depart and be with Christ which is better by far, but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." (Php 1:23-24)

And that is in spite of Jesus' saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still living,
because "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,"
and God said (Ex 3:6), "I am (present tense, not "I was") the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and
the God of Jacob," (Lk 20:37-38), which he would not be if their spirits were not living.

 

[Elin]

In John chapter 8, Jesus Christ declares Himself to be the same " I AM " from Exodus chapter 3. Jesus Christ is not a mere mortal with a created soul. Jesus is the Word made flesh. Christ is the Eternal Son of God who is from everlasting (Micah 5:2) and who had no beginning (Hebrews 7:3) and who shared in a glory with the Father before the world (John 17:5).

I am also do not believe in the immediate annihialation of the wicked's spirit and soul when they die. They go to Hell for a temporary time and then they will be destroyed both body and soul in the Lake of Fire.

God's people only have eternal life. That was one of the major things Jesus was preaching. That they will never die. But nowhere in Scripture do we see the wicked ever having the promise of eternal life.

Eternal life is God/Holy Spirit life in one's spirit, union with God in Christ.

Eternal death is no God/Holy Spirit life in one's spirit, separation from God.

We are born in spiritual death (no God/Holy Spirit life in our spirit)
and are raised from that death in the new birth.

Those who are not born again remain in the spiritual death (no God/Holy Spirit life)
in which they were born.

Those in saving faith have the promise eternal life, union with God in Christ.
Those in unbelief have the promise of eternal death, separation from God.

 

[Elin]

Actually, Hades (fire) is a part of Sheol, as is Paradise (blessing of Abraham's bosom),
as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Lk 16:19-31.

It's not, You shouldn't get your afterlife doctrine from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man,

It's not from the parable, it's from Jewish belief, which is why the parable is based on it.

The fire of Gehenna (Geena) is unending when Jesus uses it to refer to hell (Mt 5:22, 29, 30, 18:9, 23:33; Lk 12:5), in his revelation that
its fire is eternal (Mk 9:43, 47; Mt 25:41),
which meaning is "without end," as seen in the Biblical usage of "eternal" to describe the following:

God (Ro 16:26),
God's power (1Tim 6:16),
God's glory (1Pe 5:10).
the Holy Spirit (Heb 9:14),
redemption (Heb 9:12),
salvation (Heb 5:9),
life in Christ (Jn 3:16),
the resurrection body (2Co 5:1),
the future rule of Christ (2Pe 1:11)
which is declared to be without end (Lk 1:33),
sin that never has forgiveness (Mk 3:29),
the judgment of God (Heb 6:2),
fire, one of the instruments of God's judgment (Mt 18:8, 25:41, Jude 7).

The fire of hell is unending (aionios).

Aionios doesn't mean eternal or everlasting. . .Aion means an age, not eternity.

It would be more helpful if you showed how aionios does not mean "unending" in the Scriptures where it is used above.

 

[Elin]

Actually, it is Paul who assumes it,
which is why he would rather die on the spot than continue living:

"I desire to depart and be with Christ which is better by far, but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." (Php 1:23-24)

You're grasping, Butch.

The Scriptures are clear that the human spirit is immortal.

1 Corinthians 15: 52-54

…52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.…

Elin my Bible must read different than your Bible as it says that this mortal must put on immortality and the it is written Death Is Swallowed Up in Victory. This does not happen until death is done away with in the very end. So until then we are mortal according to the texts above.

Have no fear, my Bible is the same as yours.

In 1Co 15, Paul is answering the question as to what kind of physical bodies we will have at the resurrection.

It is our mortal physical body that will put on immortality, being reunited with our immortal spirit.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, the parable of Lk 16:19-31 and the use of aionios by the apostles to describe that which is unending, such as God's power, salvation, the future rule of Christ, etc.
have nothing to do with theologians.

Theologians have decided that aionios means eternal. It wasn't the apostles.

 

[Butch5]

It's not from the parable, it's from Jewish belief, which is why the parable is based on it.

If you look at what the Pharisees and Saducees believed, I think you'll find otherwise.

It would be more helpful if you showed how aionios does not mean "unending" in the Scriptures where it is used above.

I don't think you're. getting my point. Taking a few verse where aionios may be used of something eternal doesn't mean the word means eternal. Let's look at another word and use the same reasoning. the Scriptures say that God is spirit. if God is spirit does that mean the definition of spirit is God? Is every spirit God? I think you would agree that the answer is no. It's the same with aionios. Just because God is eternal and aionios is used of God doesn't mean aionios means eternal. I've already explained why the word cannot rightly be defined as eternal.

Look at Romans 16:26, here is Young's literal translation.



YLT Romans 16:26 and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith --

Notice it says the age-during God. Here is the Greek text.



BGT Romans 16:26 φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος,

Both aioniou and theou are in the Genitive case, that is the possessive case. I believe a better translation would be the command of the God of the age.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

You also denied that Jesus is the one True God in 1 John 5:20. You claim that the True God is the Father who was in the Son. This is a bold denial of the eternal Son of God as being the True God as clearly stated in Scripture. You also did not like the phrase that God is triune, either (Which is what the Trinity is all about).

What I said is exactly what Paul said,


6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. {in: or, for} (1Co 8:6 KJV)

What I believe comes straight from the apostles words and is what the Trinity originally was in the Christian faith as stated in the Nicene Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That is what was taught in the very beginning and that is what I believe.

As I understand it you believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, correct? I'm not sure how three beings can be one being but that is what many believe. However, as I've pointed out that idea didn't enter the Christian faith until around the 400's or 500's AD. We can see it in the Anthanasian Creed. Here is a section of the creed,

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

Looking at history one can easily see that these ideas are a later addition to the faith and not that which was in the beginning. However, since you hold to the teachings of this creed I thought you night be interested in how it ends, here is the last line of the creed.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

 

[Butch5]

You don't believe the Trinity is eternal because you don't believe the Son of God is eternal who has no beginning. In other words, you believe that God later became a Trinity. He wasn't always that way. But this is false. God does not change. At a point in time within the past, you deny the Trinity's existence. So I am not wrong.

Your God is progressive, which is unbiblical.

The very passage you post to say the Son is everlasting speaks of His origin. Here is an accurate translation of the Greek text.

NET Micah 5:2 (5:1) As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,6 seemingly insignificant7 among the clans of Judah – from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins are in the distant past. (Mic 5:2 NET)

Speaking of Christ, Micah says, one whose origins are in the distant past. So, Scripture says of the Son, that He had an origin. Just like the Nicene creed I posted said that the Son was begotten of the Father, just like Psalm 2 says.

7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. {the decree: or, for a decree} 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. (Psa 2:1 KJV)

What I've stated is right there in the Scriptures. Can you show me where what you believe is in the Scriptures? Can you show me where the Scriptures say we believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

 

[Jason0047]

No. Jesus Christ was begotten physically. Christ (the second person of the Godhead) had always existed. He had no beginning. Anyways, I was not trying to debate with you. Please do take no offense, but the majority of your views on the basics of the Christian faith don't make sense, my friend. Hence, which is why I am not trying to reply to you. I was merely informing others here what you believe falsely and how I am not associated with you in the faith.

Anyways, may God's love shine upon you today.

 

[Elin]

Theologians have decided that aionios means eternal. It wasn't the apostles.

No, it is the Greek language. Look it up in a Greek dictionary used by Greeks.

 

[Elin]

"as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. . .I would prefer
to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." (2Co 5:6-8)

He states a preference here, that doesn't mean it's an instantaneous happening.
I could say I prefer to be away from my house and present in Hawaii,
that doesn't mean the instant I walk out of my house I'll be in Hawaii.

It does mean, according to you, that you would be saying good-bye to those you love who have not
come to faith, and thereby abandoning all your further opportunities to bring them to faith.

That's pretty selfish, I would say.

He says "to live is Christ and to die is gain." (Php 1:21)

This says nothing about the afterlife.

It does say that to die and go into oblivion would not mean additional eternal gain for Paul,
when "living is Christ" and he would be abandoning all his further opportunities to preach the gospel
and bring more unbelievers to Christ.

That's pretty selfish.
Not buyin' it.

He says "I desire to depart and be with Christ which is better by far, but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." (Php 1:23-24)

Again, this is his desire. And, as I said before, if the dead know nothing then
all he would know is being alive one minute and the next thing he would know
is standing before Christ in the resurrection so it would seem instantaneous even though it was not.

Don't think so.

It would mean to abandon, with no added eternal gain to himself, more time to preach the gospel and bring more unbelievers to Christ.

That's a selfish heart.
You don't know Paul's heart.

Paul's statements would be absurd if his spirit were not immortal and living with Christ after his death.

They're not absurd at all if you
understand them from a Jewish perspective rather than a Greek perspective.

You're confusing a Jewish or Greek perspective with the Christian perspective
taught to Paul by Jesus himself, where Jesus said that
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still living because "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,"
and God said (Ex 3:6)
"I am (present tense, not "I was") the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,"
(Lk 20:27-40) meaning that their spirits are still living.

Your responses are too unbelievable to choke down.

 

[Butch5]

It does mean, according to you, that you would be saying good-bye to those you love who have not
come to faith, and thereby abandoning all your further opportunities to bring them to faith.

That's pretty selfish, I would say.


It does say that to die and go into oblivion would not mean additional eternal gain for Paul,
when "living is Christ" and he would be abandoning all his further opportunities to preach the gospel
and bring more unbelievers to Christ.

That's pretty selfish.
Not buyin' it.


Don't think so.

It would mean to abandon, with no added eternal gain to himself, more time to preach the gospel and bring more unbelievers to Christ.

That's a selfish heart.
You don't know Paul's heart.

I don't see how any of this addresses the question of whether or not Paul would be immediately with Christ.

You're confusing a Jewish or Greek perspective with the Christian perspective
taught to Paul by Jesus himself, where Jesus said that
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still living because "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,"
and God said (Ex 3:6)
"I am (present tense, not "I was") the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,"
(Lk 20:27-40) meaning that their spirits are still living.

Your responses are too unbelievable to choke down.

What you didn't post is where Jesus said, 'as touching the resurrection'. His statement was in reference to the resurrection, not to the current state of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. (Mat 22:31-32 KJV)

If you look at the Greek text you'll see that "the living" is a class of people that is contrasted with "the dead" another class of people. It's not saying individual people are alive. Consider Jesus other statements.

22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. (Mat 8:22 KJV)

Would you suggest that these are dead people who maybe have come out of their graves to bury of dead people? Of course not. He is using the term "the dead" for a class of people.The Living are a class of people who will live in the resurrection, the dead are a class that will not. Luke records and additional phrase that is key to understanding this.

38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him (Luk 20:38 KJV)

Jesus shows that the statement is from God's perspective. Scripture says that God gives life to all. All He has to do is speak a word and one will live, so from God's perspective there really isn't any death unless He decides it is so.

 

[Butch5]

No, it is the Greek language. Look it up in a Greek dictionary used by Greeks.

I've looked it up. However, the Scriptures take priority over the dictionary and the Scriptures use aionios for finite periods of time.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I've looked it up. However, the Scriptures take priority over the dictionary and the Scriptures use aionios for finite periods of time.

yep.

and that is why God used the words twice. to prove it is multiple periods of time, through ALL THE AGES would be a literal translation.

 

[Butch5]

No. Jesus Christ was begotten physically. Christ (the second person of the Godhead) had always existed. He had no beginning. Anyways, I was not trying to debate with you. Please do take no offense, but the majority of your views on the basics of the Christian faith don't make sense, my friend. Hence, which is why I am not trying to reply to you. I was merely informing others here what you believe falsely and how I am not associated with you in the faith.

Anyways, may God's love shine upon you today.

What I believe falsely? What I believe is plainly stated in Scripture. Paul said, to us there is one God the Father. I believe that. What I believe is also the earliest teachings of the Christian faith, the Nicene creed which states just what Paul said.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

The earliest Christians believed in one God the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ, just like Paul said. They believed that Jesus was begotten before all words. Micah 5:2 says that of the Son that His origin is of ancient times. That is what the earliest Christians believed and what I believe.

The modern view that you hold which is from a later date as seen in the Anthansian Creed cannot be found in Scripture. There is no Scripture that says we believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I am not offended, however, I do believe that these posts are what is known as "Poisoning the Well." I don't see any need for you to distance yourself since I had not addressed you or your comments on the subject of the thread. I was holding discussions with others and not responding to you or your posts.

 

[Elin]

I don't see how any of this addresses the question of whether or not Paul would be immediately with Christ.

Butch, I concur with Jason (here) that your answers do not make sense,

making the Scriptural implications of your view absurd and, therefore, untrue

as I have amply demonstrated (here).

So I do not think it profitable to engage any further with you on this topic.

 

[Atwood]

OT: Digression on the "Begotten" Mistranslation

They believed that Jesus was begotten before all words. Micah 5:2 says that of the Son that His origin is of ancient times. That is what the earliest Christians believed and what I believe.

"What the earliest Christians believed" (primitivism) is not the best approach to doctrine. The correct approach is "What does the Word of God teach." As a matter of fact we can't prove "what the earliest Christians believed" apart from the NT. Who could get in a Dr. Who tardis & go back to I AD & take a survey in the early churches; then tally the results? Taking the selection of post-NT writings preserved by the papal system is no authority.

Begotten is a misnomer as it is often applied to the Lord Jesus. In John 3:16 "only begotten" is a mistranslation of

μονογενῆ, the accusative, singular masculine adjective, dictionary form μονογενής, composed of 2 primary morpheme mon- & gi(g)n as seen in the words μόνος = only & γεν = kind -- compare the biology word genus. Thus the term means one-of-kind or unique.

The Greek stem for beget in not γεν-, but γενv- (not gen, but genn-), 2 n's, not 1. So far as I know the one & only instance of "begotten" (2 n's) as applied to Christ is taken from Psalm 2, which appears to be a coronation formula as when a King designates his son the new king (compare David designating Solomon, while both were alive). "This day I have begotten you."

Thus, all the who-shot-cock-robin explanations of how Christ is "begotten of God" are misguided. The expression would be theologically interpreted as "eternally begotten," the Father-Son relationship being eternal. I agree that the Father-Son relationship is eternal, but μονογενής (monogenēs) does not mean begotten. And the expression "begotten" allows idiots to go off on a tangent about a sexual act involving the virgin Mary.

 

[Atwood]

POEM: Denial of Eternal Fire with Aiōnios, Is Erroneous

Denial of Eternal Fire with Aiōnios,
Is Erroneous

αἰώνιος= eternal

John says that the Shepherd gives his sheep eternal life, & they shall never perish. If aiōnios meant "for some temporary period," that would contradict the "never perish." Thus aionios means eternal, not some temporary period in such contexts. Trying to dismiss aionios as pertaining to some temporary age is a preposterous argument. For God Himself is described as aionios (eternal, not aged).

Consider the data from BDAG Lexicon, which gives many examples both from the Bible & from secular Greek sources. I insert some Greek translation in brackets for those who don't read Greek:

Data from BDAG Lexicon:

αἰώνιος, ον eternal
(since Hyperides [IV BC] 6, 27;
standard epithet for princely, esp. imperial, power:
OGI index VIII; BGU 176, 12; 303, 2; 309, 4; Sb 7517, 5 [211/12 AD] κύριος αἰ.;
al. in pap; Jos., Ant. 7, 352).

1. pert. to a long period of time, long ago
χρόνοις αἰ. long ages ago Ro 16:25;
πρὸ χρόνων αἰ. before time began 2 Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2
in these two last pass. the prep. bears the semantic content of priority.

2. pert. to a period of time without beginning or end, eternal of God
(Ps.-Pla., Tim. Locr. 96c
θεὸν τ. αἰώνιον;

IBM 894, 2 αἰ. κ. ἀθάνατος [undying] τοῦ παντὸς φύσις;
Gen 21:33; Is 26:4; 40:28

Ro 16:26;

of the Holy Spirit in Christ Hb 9:14.

θρόνος [throne] αἰ. 1 Cl 65:2 (cp. 1 Macc 2:57).

3. pert. to a period of unending duration, without end

(Diodorus Siculus
δόξα αἰ. everlasting fame;

in Diod. S. 1, 93, 1
the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their αἰ. [eternal] οἴκησις;

Arrian, Peripl. 1, 4 ἐς μνήμην αἰ.;

Jos., Bell. 4, 461 αἰ. χάρις = a benefaction for all future time;

OGI 383, 10 [I BC] εἰς χρόνον [to time] αἰ.;

[Reference to journal article:] EOwen, οἶκος αἰ.: JTS 38, ’37, 248–50 )

of the next life σκηναὶ αἰ. [eternal tabernacles] Lk 16:9
(cp. Enoch 39:5).

οἰκία, contrasted w. the οἰκία ἐπίγειος [earthly home], of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1.

διαθήκη [covenant]
(Gen 9:16; 17:7; Lev 24:8; 2 Km [= 2 Sam] 23:5 al.; PsSol 10:4 al.)
Hb 13:20.

εὐαγγέλιον [gospel] Rv 14:6;

κράτος [strength] in a doxolog[ical] formula (= εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) 1 Ti 6:16.

παράκλησις [comfort] 2 Th 2:16.

λύτρωσις [redemption / loosing] Hb 9:12.

κληρονομία [inheritance] (Esth 4:17m) vs. 15; AcPl Ha 8, 21.

αἰ. ἀπέχειν τινά [to have/keep someone] (opp. πρὸς ὥραν [for an hour])
keep someone forever Phlm 15
(cp. Job 40:28).

Very often of God’s judgment
(Diod. S. 4, 63, 4 διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐν ᾅδου [in Hades] διατελεῖν τιμωρίας αἰωνίου τυγχάνοντα;

Jer 23:40; Da 12:2; Ps 76:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 13:15)

κόλασις [punishment] αἰ. (TestReub 5:5)
Mt 25:46; 2 Cl 6:7;

κρίμα αἰ. Hb 6:2 (cp. κρίσις αἰ. En[och] 104:5).

θάνατος [death] B 20:1.

ὄλεθρον [destruction] (4 Macc 10:15) 2 Th 1:9.

πῦρ [fire]
(4 Macc 12:12; GrBar 4:16. —SibOr 8, 401 φῶς [light] αἰ.)
Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jd 7; Dg 10:7 (cp. 1QS 2:8).

ἁμάρτημα [sin] Mk 3:29 (v.l. [other readings] κρίσεως, κολάσεω, and ἁμαρτίας).

On the other hand, of eternal life
(Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰ.;
Diod. S. 8, 15, 3
life μετὰ τὸν θάνατον [after death] lasts εἰς ἅπαντα αἰῶνα;

Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3; PsSol 3, 12; OdeSol 11:16c;
JosAs 8:11 cod. A [p. 50, 2 Bat.];
Philo, Fuga 78; Jos., Bell. 1, 650; SibOr 2, 336)

in the Reign of God:
ζωὴ [life] αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3)
Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46;
Mk 10:17, 30;
Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30;
J 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2f;
Ac 13:46, 48;
Ro 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f;
Gal 6:8;
1 Ti 1:16; 6:12;
Tit 1:2; 3:7;
1J 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20;
Jd 21;
D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al.

Also βασιλεία [kingdom]
αἰ. 2 Pt 1:11
(cp. Da[niel] 4:3; 7:27; Philo, Somn. 2, 285; Mel., P. 68, 493;
OGI 569, 24 ὑπὲρ τῆς αἰωνίου καὶ ἀφθάρτου [incorruptible] βασιλείας ὑμῶν).

Of the glory in the next life δόξα αἰ.
2 Ti 2:10; 1 Pt 5:10
(cp. Wsd 10:14; Jos., Ant. 15, 376.
—SibOr 8, 410 φῶς αἰῶνιον [eternal light]).

αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης [weight of glory] 2 Cor 4:17;

σωτηρία αἰ. [eternal salvation] (Is 45:17; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19)
Hb 5:9; short ending of Mk.

Of unseen glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses
τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια [the things not seen (are) eternal 2 Cor 4:18.
—χαρά [joy] IPhld ins;
δοξάζεσθαι αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1.

It is preposterous to claim that all the things above (cited by BDAG) called aiōnios are merely temporary, lasting for an age. The word as used means eternal or everlasting.

BDAG has listed a large number of instances which bear study & comparison. Inductive study is an important principle, as is the Analogy of the Faith. We compare all the data & see how it fits together.