Geegee,

Thanks for your considerate response.

"I've read other material that said the same thing...that "christianity" became a persecuting religion"

Yea, terrible.

"Perhaps you will have to open my blind eyes?"

I will try.  Last night I think I may have realized where the break down occurred.  Yea, lying in bed thinking about my post to geegee instead of sleeping like a good boy.

"I try to obey a rule. A rule given by God. Something is to be established by two or three witnesses."

This is a good rule.   Much better than only one witness.  I will return to this, possibly.

"But that is not the reason i first became "christian". Jesus called them blessed who believe without seeing. Of course i am not implying that there should be no basis/foundation/reason in a belief."

Despite there being much to respond to in that paragraph (and not that it would be criticism) I am going to focus on 'methodology.'   Christ can very well (and I believe often has) come into a person's life outside of any real method of inquiry.  CS Lewis records in his spiritual autobiography ("Surprised by Joy") that in the final analysis, despite constant questioning, etc, etc, he went to the zoo on a day trip, and when he came back, he was a Christian.   It happened without any agonizing conversion or inquiry.  All of the inquiry had happened before.  At this point, it seems he just finally came to peace with the conclusions he already believed were valid.

I tell the story to indicate that there is not a uniform pattern, here.  I am not suggesting that we send all doubters to the zoo (where your ape resides?    )  For some people, God breaks down the doors to their heart, in other cases its the doors to their mind, but he aims, in the end, to possess both, and all.

Ok, but now here comes the touchpoint to my points here.   When we start talking about what is true and what is false, in any realm, if we want what we believe to be true to carry any weight for anyone else, there are certain constraints.  These constraints are not necessarily God given, except as they relate to our unique nature as humans, which we both agree God has given.

For example, if I believe that God has given me a message to you, geegee, and that message was:  "Geegee, sell all of your goods and donate the money to sntjohnny" you would absolutely obey if you really believed it was God giving you the command (I sure hope you consider it.  :)  ).  But how are you to KNOW that this message comes from God?  It is not altogether different then how you might verify any message.  You test credentials, for example.  

If I say I have a message from the President, you are only going to believe me if I can provide identification for myself that can set your mind at ease on the point.  Not only is it just a fact of reality that we have to truth-check as we go, but neither God nor the president is oblivious to the fact that in the final analysis, there needs to be a way to test truth claims.

See for example 1 Thessalonians 5:21

"Test everything.  Hold on to the good."

Also, I need to explain again that it is one thing to know personally that something is true, it is another thing for your belief to have any claim on me.  In order for this to happen, there needs to be an appeal to a source 'outside' both persons.  Don't get me wrong, if you have sufficient reasons to trust that person, that may very well be enough for certain individuals.  If my wife told me that God appeared to her, I would believe her, because I trust my wife.   On the other hand, if God told her to do something or tell me something that was bizarre, I would be skeptical to a certain degree, because I know that God cares about "two or three witnesses."

"My other "gnostic" approach is ... i mean my methodology is this...."scripture only"... "Gods word (what is contained in the bible) should be our final authority"."

This is one area of breakdown that I sensed.  I also have the Scriptures as the final authority in my life.   However, because of the significant emphasis I place on them in my life, I feel that it is especially important to make sure that I am reading them correctly.  It is neither gnostic to have the Scriptures as your authority, nor to have them as your only authority.  The gnostic approach comes in when one says, "Here is what the Scriptures say  but in order to accept my view on what they say, we'll need to use different standards of interpretation."

But why are those standards superior?  What are those standards, exactly?   Can they be applied consistently?

This post of mine is getting long.  :(

"you would love them because they believe in a God that will burn billions of humans for eternity Very Happy - couldn't resist)"

hehheh

"But my favourite "gnostic" methodology is to allo"w the word of God to interpret itself."

But this is not in itself gnostic.  This is a standard rule of interpretation.  And here is another area of breakdown, I think, in communication.  There is a reason why we consider therese documents to be the word of God in the first place.  And we come to that conclusion by coming to the question utilizing normal language tools.  We dont' enter into 'spirit mode' when we sit down to try to interpret the written word.

Do you remember my post on intereprting the Scriptures?  It survived the hack:

http://www.sntjohnny.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=172

See number 1.

So we AGREE on this point.  I even agree with what you are saying about looking to define 'aionion' by looking at its usage in the Scriptures.  But we may not be successful in that effort, either.  But the SAME METHOD of trying to define it is the same.  You look at all of the uses of the word, and come to a conclusion.  The secular approach is the same, it just has a broader search base.

This post is getting long, but we may very well be in a position to evaluate this particular example in a more constructive way soon.

"The scholars don't agree. Some say it means "eternal" and the other says "no, its a period of time - long or short" Am i showing gnostic methodology because i disagree with your non-bias source concerning the "ainion" question?"

No, only if you reject it because it is a 'human methodology.'   If we don't have human methodologies, I've got nothing.  :)

Since this post got long, I'll let you reply to my reply.  I feel like we are a LOT closer to being able to discuss this universalism business in a short time.