And even if that isn’t the case, Paul’s desire, stated in utmost humility; that he would gladly experience the worst of the worst for the sake of his brethren - even those who are brethren in the flesh, does not automatically mean that he doesn’t believe in the salvation of All. He’s saying he’d experience the worst of the worst for their sake, in much the same way we’d gladly experience the worst of the worst for our people, and our families.
No, all the Jews are not damned. Paul wishes to be damned, would be damned, if the damned Jews would accept Jesus as Messiah. In other words, he would take their place to be eternally damned so they could live spiritually. If Paul believed in universal reconciliation why would he say this?
Lefein, you don’t make comments such as this and use the word “accursed” if you believe in universal reconciliation. That is my point. 
Because he’s a humble, loving heart, who desires those who are not in relationship with Christ, to be so, and would experience the worst of the worst in order to do so. He would himself be “Anathema”, excommunicated from Christ, for their sake.
The word Anathema means “excommunicated”, and I looked it up, the context doesn’t say anything about being excommunicated into the endless ever after. He says he could wish himself excommunicated from Christ for the sake of his brethren according to the flesh; who are Israelites of whom the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the promises; whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
There is nothing that says “eternally excommunicated” and there is nothing that says Paul is wanting it for anything less than the sake of his brethren, but that sake does not imply his want is due to their eternal damnation, only to their current state of rebellion.
Also, I’ll add, your whole point about “it doesn’t say kolasis!” is meaningless and irrelevant. Paul has nothing in need of being corrected of for the sake of his brethren. His brethren aren’t rebellious because he isn’t purified yet - they are rebellious because of Christ’s claims to be the Messiah. So any attempts to bring kolasis into the argument are ludicrous, he would face excommunication for their sake, but there isn’t any reason why he should state that he should want to experience purification for their sake. It doesn’t follow that him experiencing purification would have any effect on ending their rebellion; excommunication from Christ though, Paul would gladly experience, if the rebellion should end.
It shall end.
I could wish myself to be excommunicated from Christ for the sake of my beloved, and their relationship with him.
I believe in Universal Reconciliation.
Your point is refuted.
(PS: Long before you came around or long before I was aware of you, I had already told God such a similar thing as Paul wrote in that verse, and I believed in UR then too, just as I do now. Again, your point is refuted.)
Leave your Catholic definitions out of this. anathema does not mean excommunication from the church. It means what the Greek definition says it means in my OP. Nothing more Nothing less!
I said excommunication from Christ, anathema means “excommunication” and its implications. That’s what it means. That’s what the definition of Anathema is. Your OP definition is wrong (I’ll assume what you mean by “accursed” is “eternally damned with no hope what so ever”).
And, as for me being Catholic…whether I am or not, is irrelevant. Here’s a hint, The Pope doesn’t govern me.
So you are acknowledging now that {kolasis} is not necessarily the same as hopeless punishment? Because you went to a lot of trouble in another thread to instruct us on how {kolasis} was supposed to mean exactly the same thing between Matt 25 and 1 John 4–before arriving at the conclusion that at 1 John 4 it is not really punishment per se, not from God there, and not hopeless at all.
Meanwhile, do you understand the meaning of being anathematized (which is the word for accursed there)?–is it an intrinsically hopeless eternal death wish, or not?
If not, then there is no good reason for you to bring it up, since Paul doesn’t have to include the concept of punishment (hopeless or otherwise) in wishing that he could be anathema from Christ (if possible) for the sake of his non-Christian brethren if that would help save any. He could be punished in anathema from Christ or not, it’s beside the point.
If so, then you will have to claim by the same token that St. Peter put an intrinsically hopeless eternal death wish on himself when he anathematized himself at Mark 14:71. It’s the same term as a verb.
The Greek definition is “up-place”, which you didn’t include in your OP; and was originally used of a person who because of some calamity was offered up as a sacrifice to please the offended god. This isn’t how it is typically used in the NT, although that definition does fit Paul’s application here.
The usage in the NT broadly falls under being bound with a curse, sometimes for the sake of accomplishing something else, sometimes not. Peter anathematizes himself in order to get people to believe the truth about what he is saying: if he is lying, let him be bound with a curse. As we know from the story, he is in fact lying, so the curse would immediately apply. Peter probably does think at that time that such a curse is hopelessly final. But as we also know from the story, that isn’t true: he is already quickly repentant and Christ still loves him, restoring him to fellowship and blessing.
Some Jews in Acts 23 make a vow to kill Paul, and bind themselves with a curse as part of their pledge to do so, as a way of showing that they won’t back out on it or fail from want of effort. More to the point, we know the explicit terms of the curse, which are that they are bound not to eat or drink until they kill Paul. If they died of starvation or for some other reason, that would fulfill and end the curse; if they ate or drank before they died (since we know they failed to kill Paul), then they would be under a stronger curse from God. They probably did think such a larger curse would be hopeless, but we know from Peter’s example that such a curse isn’t necessarily hopeless thanks to God Himself.
Paul writes in Galatians 1:8-9 that those who bring another gospel, even he himself, should be anathematized. He doesn’t go into details about what he means or what this implies, but at least it would involve them being in trouble with God, as well as being put out of religious communion with the church. (This is the excommunication Lefein was talking about, Aaron. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with Roman or other Catholic congregations. Which for someone who tries to come here teaching us things, you ought to have been aware of.)
Paul writes in 1 Cor 12:3 that no one speaking by God’s spirit says that Jesus is anathema (and that only by the Holy Spirit, or by having a holy spirit, can anyone be able to say Jesus is Lord. A point heavily emphasized by universalists, by the way.) He doesn’t go into details about what it would mean to say Jesus is anathema, but broadly speaking it would at least mean saying that Jesus is bound by a curse.
(Based on the Greek meaning of the term, and on prior cultural usage, it could theoretically mean saying that no one speaking by God’s spirit is saying that Jesus offered Himself or was offered by someone up as a sacrificial victim to please the wrath of God!–a topic not unrelated to the immediately preceding and following context, since on one hand people often did that for purposes of trying to please voiceless idols, and on the other hand if Jesus is YHWH/Lord then there could not be such schism of intentions between the persons of the one YHWH that one person has to convince the other person to stop being angry about something. Obviously this would not be an issue for unitarians, or not an immediate issue–I would argue that such a schism of intentions ultimately doesn’t fit any unitarian conception of Christ either–but I think it’s an interpretation worth considering by trinitarians and maybe modalists. Be that as it may, I won’t insist on it here, since most other places in the NT where “anathema” is used, this linguistic and cultural context wouldn’t directly apply, so the term doesn’t have to have that meaning.)
Finally, at 1 Cor 16:21, Paul writes that if anyone is not fond of the Lord Jesus Christ, that person should be anathema. Again, he doesn’t go into details about what anathema means, but “being bound by a curse” would still apply.
These are all the uses of anathema (and its cognates) I can currently find. None of them are intrinsically hopeless by context, and one of them was definitely not hopeless by extremely clear story details disputed by no one. Several of the usages imply punishment of some kind, at very least involving the anathema itself being leveled as a curse for misbehavior, but neither is punishment (much less the details of the punishment) the main concept in view.
The overall comparative contexts indicate that the term does not refer to a hopeless condition, although people (Peter most notably and probably) might think it does. Someone who thinks being under anathema is not intrinsically hopeless, thanks to God, could use it without intending to mean it was hopeless, or could even still use it temporarily as a hopeless meaning for purposes of emphasizing something else by comparison. For example, I love my most beloved so much that even if it was possible for me to be hopelessly cursed beyond salvation by God, I would choose to be cursed that way if by doing so she would be saved. But while I could say that and mean it, that doesn’t necessarily require I think it is possible for me or anyone else (including my beloved) to be hopelessly cursed.
This is all completely aside from the question of actual translation there, which as I have argued elsewhere on the forum doesn’t have to involve Paul saying that he could even wish to be anathema from Christ for the sake of his brethren. The grammar might mean instead that Paul has continuing pain in his heart for his brethren because he himself once wished to be anathema from Christ (as they currently do)! The verb for wish there is {êuchomên}, which is a very unusual tense that can indicate a past event now done and over with. If that is the proper translation of the verb–and certainly no one can deny that Paul was once the most zealous of anti-Christian Jews–then he is absolutely and definitely not meaning something intrinsically hopeless by “anathema”.
But even if that is not the proper translation, the context and the other uses of the term in the NT do not necessarily have to involve being hopelessly bound with a curse; and trying to claim that the term necessarily does involve such a thing will logically require St. Peter to be hopelessly lost having called such a curse against himself.
ok, assuming it means “cursed”, didn’t Jesus become “a curse” for us?
cursed is he who hangs from a tree (Deut 21:23)
did Jesus have an infinite deathwish?
is Jesus still “in feiry hell” for our sakes?
i’m sorry, this is yet again another absolute failure in your attempt to strike a deathblow at UR. Paul was only demonstrating the Christlikeness of his character (would that i could be as selfless!!!) in his love for Israel his human family.
but then he follows up with the most damning statement against any form of eternal punishment for any Israelites in a few verses:
“for all Israel shall be saved.”
Aaron, I would really like to understand what you mean by this statement.
Sonia
I wondered about that one too Sonia.
I’m pretty sure he means a vow, not a vowel. 
Since it seems likely the original post will be modified soon, I thought I should archive it here for future reference.
Very good.
Yes, vow. Thanks, for the kolasis correction, Jason.
This is a very interesting look at the passage.
Paul is using hyperbole to make the point that he has a tremendous desire to see his loved ones, his kinsmen, come to know the Lord. Those of us who know the love of God and love others naturally desire for them to know the love of God also. Having faith in Jesus to save them someday only hightens our desire to see them saved now. The more we love our fellowman, the more we desire them to be freed from their bondage in darkness and be set free in the glorious light of God.
The reason Paul uses the word *anathema *(accursed) as opposed to *kolasis *(punishment) is because he is speaking of the current situation of his loved ones, the are estranged from Christ, cut off from the goodness of God. Paul desires their reconciliation. The reason he uses accursed instead of punishment is because it draws the contrast cut-off/reconciliation that he intends to convey. *Kolasis *would not have drawn the comparison that he intended. That’s why he uses *anathema *instead of kolasis.
Paul recognizes that his kinsmen are in bondage to evil, accursed, estranged from life in Christ; and he expresses his love for them noting that he’d gladly trade places with them if it would do them any good. It’s hyperbole, overstatement to make a point. It highlights his great love for his kinsmen who are still in bondage to evil. It’s an expression of love, love that we as believers should all have for the unreconciled, especially our unreconciled loved ones.
Never denied that “Kolasis” is not necessarily hopeless punishment. But in classical Greek the word “kolasis” was used interchangeably to mean hopeless punishment. The word “kolasis” means “torment” in both Matt 25 and 1 Jn 4. Also “timoria” punishment is used in Heb 10:29.
If Paul really believed in UR there is no reason for him to use “anathema” from Christ. Mark 14:?
The Greek word for “accursed” is “Anathema” from the same root verb anatithemai or anatithemi (394), to separate as anethema, a consecrated gift. A gift given by vow or in fulfillment of a promise, and devoted to destruction for God’s sake (Num 21:1-3; Duet 13:16-18) therefore, given up to the curse and destruction, accursed. (Gal 1:8-9; 1 Cor 12:3; 16:22). Spiros Zodhiates TH.D.
Devoted to destruction for God’s sake?
“If you lose your life [if your soul is destroyed] for my sake, you shall find it”
-Jesus
It seems to me that Paul’s use of *anathama *in this verse actually affirms him believing in UR. He’s saying that if it would do any good, if it would reconcile his brothers now, he’d suffer being cut off from Christ now. And he can say this because he trusts in God to ultimately reconcile everyone, to ultimately save him. Faith in Jesus to save all fills one with tremendous faith in Jesus to save one’s self no matter what. Faith to save is a much more powerful motivator than fear of not being saved. Faith and love go together just like fear and hate. Religions based on fear also promote hate.
But primarily this verse seems to me to be hyperbole, overstatement to make a point. Paul loves his kinsman tremendously and would gladly suffer anything if it would bring them into the glorious freedom of Christ. It’s not meant to be understood technically, but passionately.
This thread, having been started by Aaron Curry (aka “Revival” among other pseudonyms and nicknames on the board), is being locked down pursuant to review of Aaron’s banning from the board. Other threads started by Aaron (and possibly some threads with his majority participation) will also be locked down at the convenience of the ad/mods, in order to protect Aaron from receiving critiques while he is unable to defend himself.
(For what it’s worth, he isn’t being banned for behavior in this particular thread.)