Unless “unto” doesn’t mean “until”. Does the word for “unto” have some flexibility? The variables have to be considered.
It’s alway encouraging to find new people backing up our position, especially if they are highly qualified in the area! 
This doesn’t help me, for the opponents of their viewpoint are also “highly qualified”. I guess what matters is the quality of their arguments…
They would seem to be pretty well qualified to write on the topic.
Here’s a blurb on Ilaria Ramelli
event.uchicago.edu/maincampus/de … hicago.edu
Prof. Ramelli is an internationally recognized authority on ancient philosophy, patristics and the New Testament. She is the author of textual editions, with notes and commentary, on major ancient texts, both Christian and non-Christian, in Latin (Martianus Capella, Calcidius), Greek (the pre-Socratics, Epicurea, Musonius Rufus, Annaeus Cornutus, Diogenes Laertius, Acts of the Apostles), Syriac (the Chronicon of Arbela, the Acts of Mar Mari) and Coptic (Hermetica from Nag Hammadi), and is currently working on a commentary on the Correspondence between Seneca and Paul for the Novum Testamentum Patristicum series, and a translation of Hierocles the Stoic for Writings from the Greco-Roman World. Recent monographs have concentrated on ancient allegory (2 volumes of texts and analyses from the pre-Socratics through late antiquity) and Gregory of Nyssa, including her major edition, translation and commentary on Gregory’s de anima et resurrectione (2007, Bompiani, Il Pensiero occidentale) and on his doctrine of apokatastasis (forthcoming).
Here's some text from David Konstan's faculty page at Brown University:
[brown.edu/Departments/Classi ... 1106970156](http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/people/facultypage.php?id=1106970156)
David Konstan's research focuses on ancient Greek and Latin literature, especially comedy and the novel, and classical philosophy. In recent years, he has investigated the emotions and value concepts of classical Greece in Rome, and has written books on friendship, pity, the emotions, and forgiveness. He has also worked on ancient physics and atomic theory, and on literary theory.
Biography
David Konstan's B.A. was in mathematics; in in senior year of college, he began ancient Greek and Latin, and went on to obtain a doctorate in classics.
He has been at Brown since 1987; from 1992-2010 he was the John Rowe Workman Distinguished Professor of Classics and the Humanistic Tradition and Professor in Comparative Literature. Previous to coming to Brown, he taught for 20 years at Wesleyan University in Connecticut.
David Konstan has held visiting appointments in New Zealand, Scotland, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, and Egypt, among other places. He serves on the Editorial Boards of numerous journals around the world. He has been President of the American Philological Association, and is a fellow of the American Academy of Ars and Sciences. He has been awarded NEH, ACLS, and Guggenheim ellowships, among others.See my edited message. Thank you!
There will always be different opinions. But can anyone come up with an as highly qualified person who will disagree? So far I haven’t come up with anything.
So far, from what I’ve found, the most highly knowlegdeable people seem to agree that aionios does not mean eternal. When I found this source, and the other I posted recently (and I haven’t read that yet at all, so maybe that researcher doesn’t agree!), I was not looking for agreement, I was trying to find general research–preferably from an unbiased source–on the development of the concept of “eternity” and/or usages of aion/aionios among the non-Christian Greeks.
But the problem with trying to find an unbiased source is that anyone whose research leads them to believe that aionios doesn’t mean “eternal” is likely to quickly become “biased.”
And when it comes to bias, the only people I’ve found who insist on the meaning of aionios as “eternal” seem to be biased theologians! 
As I pointed out elsewhere, J.I. Packer (while not highly qualified in this area) 
is one non universalist theologian who does agree that “aionios” does not in itself mean “endless”, as expressed in one of the articles posted by Alex. He doesn’t derive the doctrine of eternal punishment from the definition of aionios, but from the fact that the punishment (as described in Matt 25) is “of the age to come” which he assumes is never-ending, and in comparison to the “aionios zoe” of the righteous which, we have reason to believe, will not end.
If you can find a source that disagrees, I hope you’ll post it for balance! I agree it’s always good to look at the other side of an issue.
Sonia
I’ll have to admit defeat here. I can’t find them. 
Someone help me out!!
Sonia
Those two people are highly qualified! I wonder,then, where they’ve come out in their conclusions about whether it’s God’s plan to save all? Perhaps I’m wrongly concluding that they are believers? Sure would be interesting to hear from these two. You think they’d be willing to talk to us? I’ve never seen a book cost so much! I wonder what the reason is for that?
It’s hard to understand how everyone isn’t already a believer 
Great idea! I’ll try to invite them over straight away…
Robin was also very excited about the above book went I told him yesterday, but said
Cool he posted it on his blog too: theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co … f-age.html 
I’ve changed this to a “Sticky” post as it seems quite important. Once someone has managed to read it, I think we should put it in the “Materials we recommend” section too, if it’s as good as I suspect it is. I’ve also asked Robin, who has way more “street cred” then me, to invite the authors to discuss their book here…
Sonia said: “But can anyone come up with an as highly qualified person who will disagree? So far I haven’t come up with anything.”
How’s about’s the BDAG gang?
Hi Sonia,
I’m really puzzled at your seeming implication that “highly qualified persons” don’t disagree. After all, do not the major lexicons present things in the ECT way? Anyhow, here’s another review of the book: worlds longest URL 
:
docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac … AEDRsz0mKw
I didn’t mean that there are no qualified persons that disagree–only that I have not yet found evidence of extensive research that disagrees–have the qualified people taken a deep enough look at the data? It seems like when people really take a lot of time to focus on this word, they agree that the word does not have the meaning of “endless”.
But the lexicons usually agree that the word doesn’t always mean endless, and that the adjective derives from a noun that does not always mean “eternity.” That means the decision about where it means “eternity” must be determined by context, and that’s appropriate–but how one understands the context is rooted in theological tradition, so that complicates things.
In any case, I don’t think the doctrine of UR rests on the definition of aionios. That was a particular barrier to me–which caused me to seek other explanations for the universalist texts–and that’s the reason I take interest in the word. I know for others it’s not that important–and ultimately, I agree with them. In my view, the fact that there are clear universalist texts should be a clue towards defining this abstract word/concept. The difficult to define word should not be allowed to redefine other clearly stated texts.
Thank you for the link to the review! I appreciate you finding that and will take a look.
Sonia
Thanks, Sonia, for the reply. The argument from aionios is the chief argument of the ECT proponents and is therefore so very important to be able to explain. I believe that a stance is only as strong as its’ ability to explain the data of the Bible.
Aligns with my research. I wish I had a book like this in 2004.
I don’t see how June 1.6 doesn’t sink his thesis. It’s not a defeater for UR, but it doesn’t look good for his thesis about aidios (that it always means “eternal”). Regardless of how you construe ‘until’ (“eis” + the accusative as showing finality or purpose or direction, whatever), it seems to me that these “chains” cannot be “eternal” in the sense he David claims because these chains are not divine, they’re created (or they represent a created/finite state of affairs) which by definition makes them corruptible and finite.
Tom
Just wanted to say, I appreciated that comment Tom, thanks! I find the more I look into these words, the more clearly I understand them.
The excerpt from Robin’s blog on the book accords with that sort of take on Jude 6…
“We turn now to the two uses of the more strictly philosophical term aïdios in the New Testament. The first (Rom 1:20) refers unproblematically to the power and divinity of God. In the second occurrence, however (Jude 6), aïdios is employed of eternal punishment—not that of human beings, however, but of evil angels, who are imprisoned in darkness “with eternal chains” (desmois aïdiois). But there is a qualification: “until the judgment of the great day.” The angels, then, will remain chained up until Judgment Day; we are not informed of what will become of them afterwards. Why aïdios of the chains, instead of aiônios, used in the next verse of the fire of which the punishments of the Sodomites is an example? Perhaps because they continue from the moment of the angels’ incarceration, at the beginning of the world, until the judgment that signals the entry into the new aiôn: thus, the term indicates the uninterrupted continuity throughout all time in this world—this could not apply to human beings, who do not live through the entire duration of the present universe; to them applies rather the sequence of aiônes or generations.”
I think that’s a pretty good stab at the language, no matter what your position on UR is.
Robin’s Blog: Why aïdios of the chains, instead of aiônios, used in the next verse of the fire of which the punishments of the Sodomites is an example? Perhaps because they continue from the moment of the angels’ incarceration, at the beginning of the world, until the judgment that signals the entry into the new aiôn: thus, the term indicates the uninterrupted continuity throughout all time in this world—this could not apply to human beings, who do not live through the entire duration of the present universe; to them applies rather the sequence of aiônes or generations."
Tom: I guess so. Not sure. It’s just that given his thesis, I suspect just what he suspected, that aionios would be the appropriate term here, not aidios. To explain it by saying aidios is used “to indicate the uninterrupted continutity throughout all time in this world” is just to give aidios the sort of meaning one gives to aionios. Doesn’t that undermine his thesis?
Weird,
Tom
Robin is quoting David Konstan. Maybe you could ask David about it on “Terms for Eternity: Aiônios & aïdios” talk part 2?