Justinian's letter

[Farlsborough]

I've just changed jobs and feel blessed by the fact that my new commute is between 40-60 minutes long - exactly time for one of Ray's talks! I listen to two a day at the moment!

I have a quick query regarding a detail I remember hearing a while ago in one of them: I'm sure he said you could actually read the letter in which Justinian (?) justifies adding " endless" to "eternal" (aionian). Is this correct? Can anyone point me in this direction?

[JD]

Don't know where Ray's comments can be found - but here's something from another article on the Net.



So, how did it get to this? How on earth did Christian theologians get it so wrong, when the scholarship is so easily proved? Well, perhaps the "traditions of men" are simply more persuasive, too tantalising to the carnal palette. After all, much of what is taught today in the pulpits concerning death, judgement and the afterlife, have less to do with scripture and everything to do with pagan superstitions from bygone ages.

But what is worse than this, is that those in positions of power, the rulers and priests of Christendom, have wantonly and knowingly perverted the meanings and words of the Bible cannon – all for the sake of political expediency, power and ultimately CONTROL! These persons and circumstances represent some of the most sinful and shameful events in the history of the Christian church. They include some of the most famous and celebrated theologians throughout Christian history, though you will NEVER hear it taught in any theological institute today. Justinian is a good place to start.

The Emperor Justinian was the greatest of the Eastem (Byzantine) Emperors. He reigned from 527 to 565 in Constantinople. In the year 534 he published in fifty volumes the world famous "Justinian Code" of Laws, which was a digest of the Greek and Roman constitutions, ordinances, and legal decisions, culled from two thousand manuscript volumes, forming the basis of most medieval and modem codes of law.

In the year 540, Justinian arranged for the calling together of the famous local council of four years later. He was determined that certain doctrines must be suppressed. In setting forth the position when writing to the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople, he discussed the doctrines with great ability. And here's the clincher! In particular, he wished to make it very plain that the life of the saints was to be 'everlasting,' and that the doom of the lost was to be likewise......is that the sound of tumbleweed passing by?

He did not in fact argue, that the word "eonian" meant everlasting. Nor did he claim that the word had hitherto been misunderstood. In setting forth the orthodox position of the Church of that time, he did not say, "We believe in eonian punishment," as this was exactly what Origen, three hundred years before, had maintained and believed. In fact, Origen, who exulted in the truth of the reconciliation of all, definitely used the word "eonian" with reference to fire and doom as meaning a limited time. But writing in the very expressive Greek language, Justinian stated that;

"The holy church of Christ teaches an unendable eonian (ateleutEtos aiOnios) life for the righteous, and unendable (ateleutEtos) punishment for the wicked."

Yet Justinian knew quite well that "eonian" by itself did not signify "endless," and therefore added a word, the meaning of which is quite unequivocal, a term NOT found in the Scriptures. This letter of Justinian, still in existence, ought to convince anyone who is in doubt, regarding the true scriptural meaning of the word "eonian."

It may be added that the Council, though expressly convened in order to stigmatize the teachings of Origen, one of which was that punishment was only temporary, condemned his views generally, but did not anathematize his teaching regarding the reconciliation of all. It was not until the year 696, at Constantinople, that a Council publicly condemned this doctrine of Origen for the first time, the glorious teaching being called "drunken ravings as to the future life of the dead." In the continuing Roman Church individualism of thought was not encouraged, the lies believed long enough, ultimately became truth.

As there was much speculation concerning the eons and the future, the position needs be stated categorically and dogmatically. Theology had lost the punctuation marks of the future time, and something must be put in their place. Moreover, it was humbling to the Latin Fathers not to be able to delineate the future with definite clarity.

If no one was able to chart the ocean of time, why not simply declare that it was boundless? Would not the Church wield far more power if it proclaimed in authoritative terms that eternal destiny was fixed here on earth? Was it not more flattering to man to think that the life he obtained upon believing was eternal life, while that which his faith had saved him from was an eternal doom?

Who could believe in a special life for the eons, when all the facts concerning these eons had become obscure and blurred? As the truth regarding the eons was completely lost, we ought to be very suspicious regarding the dogma which became "orthodox" and catholic in a steadily apostatizing Church.

It goes without saying, that when one perverts one portion of Scripture, it automatically perverts other portions. Since the translators changed "eonian" to "eternity," of necessity they now have to discard the teaching of reconciliation. For if all are reconciled, punishment cannot be eternal.

Theologians have disparagingly called those Scriptural teachings of reconciliation which Origen understood and believed, "drunken ravings!" (If you run out of Scripture, resort to name-calling). And yet, these "drunken ravings" of "reconciliation" are still in the scriptures.:

"and through Him [Christ] to RECONCILE ALL to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross) ... " (Col. 1:20).

Yet Christians today simply cannot, will not, yield to such damning historical evidence. Yet it is simply the way of carnal man, with its carnal doctrines. But the plot thickens...

[lilitalienboi16]

http://bible-truths.com/aeonion.htm

[Farlsborough]

Thanks folks. I'm still trying in vain to find a translation of this letter, details of where it is held in a museum or such similar information. It is widely referred to on the web but I don't like referring to something I can't prove exists!

[Joel]

Vatican City Library probably has that information.

Joel

[Kat]

Hi Farlsborough, check out this link.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp

mercy, peace and love
Kat