Why is scripture so fuzzy about heaven and hell?

[Ceallaigh]

I guess all these verses are also "symbolic"]
“aionios” occurs 107x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated world only 40 times in the N.T.[37%]
“aionios” is correctly translated eternal 42 times in the N.T.[39%]
“aionios” is correctly translated everlasting 25 times in the N.T.[23%]
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times, 26% of the total, Jesus never used “aionios” to refer something common, ordinary or mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
= = = = = = = = = =
Juxtapose means, the act or an instance of placing two or more things side by side often to compare or contrast.
In twenty four [24] of the following verses αἰώνιος/aionios is defined/described as eternal, everlasting, eternity etc, by paralleling or juxtaposition with other adjectives or descriptive phrases.
= = = = = = = = = =
…..Some people claim that “aionios” never means eternity/eternal/everlasting because it sometimes refer to something which is not eternal, e.g. “world,””age.” etc.
However, “aionios” is never defined/described, by adjectives or descriptive phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, in the New Testament, as in the following 10 verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. He never used “aionios” to refer to anything common, ordinary or mundane that was not or could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten [10] verses Jesus defines/describes “aionios” as “eternal/for ever/everlasting.”

[1] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei][Vb] over the house of Jacob for ever; [εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας/lit. unto the eternity [aionas [PlMas] and of his kingdom [basileias][Nn] there shall be no end.[telos]​

In this verse the reign/basileusei, which is the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here definitely means eternity.

[2] John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever. [εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα/aiona[lit. unto eternity]​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “live forever” with “death.” If “live aiona” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aiona” by definition here means “eternity.”

[3] John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] life, and they shall never
[εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα/ eis ton aiona][lit. unto eternity] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aiona” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[4]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
[5] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life.​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” twice! Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

[6]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, [Amen, Amen]I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[7]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[8]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never [ου μη/ou mé] thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.​

In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.

[9]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.​

In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[10]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.

Another spammed template you say nobody reads.

 

[Der Alte]

That's that spammed template you say nobody reads again.

That is the usual lame copout UR-ites throw out when they can't post a cogent response.

 

[Ceallaigh]

That is the usual lame copout UR-ites throw out when they can't post a cogent response.

Everyone knows they shouldn't reply to spam.

 

[Der Alte]

Oh ouchy

Since you and your fellow UR-ites don't know it, you ain't the only people reading these forums. There are frequently lurkers, not posting but reading perhaps thinking about joining or leaving a group that believes in UR. If all they read are the usual out-of-context UR proof texts and posts they need to hear the truth. So as long as I have a keyboard, I will post. What might prove useful is if some UR-ite would go through one of my thoroughly researched posts and conclusively show that it is incorrect. And FYI quoting UR Scholar "X" does NOT prove anything. What must be shown is historical, grammatical, lexical etc. evidence that I am in error. The gauntlet has been thrown down.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Since you and your fellow UR-ites don't know it, you ain't the only people reading these forums. There are frequently lurkers, not posting but reading perhaps thinking about joining or leaving a group that believes in UR. If all they read are the usual out-of-context UR proof texts and posts they need to hear the truth. So as long as I have a keyboard, I will post. What might prove useful is if some UR-ite would go through one of my thoroughly researched posts and conclusively show that it is incorrect. And FYI quoting UR Scholar "X" does NOT prove anything. What must be shown is historical, grammatical, lexical etc. evidence that I am in error. The gauntlet has been thrown down.

Just quit spamming please. Thanks.

 

[Fervent]

There's that strawman again.

Oh? How have I misrepresented the universalist position? Do they not teach that somehow those who hate God will somehow stop hating Him after He's punished them for some indeterminate period of time? As if all they need is a proper education.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Oh? How have I misrepresented the universalist position? Do they not teach that somehow those who hate God will somehow stop hating Him after He's punished them for some indeterminate period of time? As if all they need is a proper education.

No that's a strawman setup to be knocked down. It's an argument that says all-powerful perfect God could not create a functional method to remove the sin in people that separates them from Him, by way of coming up with dysfunctional scenarios to make it seem impossible.

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:25-26

The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” Mark 10:26-27

Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” Luke 18:26-27

 

[Fervent]

No that's a strawman setup to be knocked down. It's an argument that says all-powerful perfect God could not create a functional method to remove the sin in people that separates them from Him, by way of coming up with dysfunctional scenarios to make it seem impossible.

Sin? Sin has been dealt with at the cross, what remains is unbelief. The issue is not that people ignorantly break God's law, but that they despise Him in their hearts. Their wills are set against God.

universalism works with false premises, both as to what it assumes God's intent is and what now separates men from God.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Sin? Sin has been dealt with at the cross, what remains is unbelief. The issue is not that people ignorantly break God's law, but that they despise Him in their hearts. Their wills are set against God.

Which is a result of sin.

universalism works with false premises, both as to what it assumes God's intent is and what now separates men from God.

It seems more like a mater of false premises and assumptions on the part of the debunkers. I can't remember anyone ever presenting an accurate representation of universalism to debunk. I end up defending it, even though I don't totally believe in it, because so much said against it is inaccurate and misleading.

 

[Fervent]

Which is a result of sin.

While unbelief and sin are related, unbelief comes from the heart not as a result of sin.

It seems more like a mater of false premises and assumptions on the part of the debunkers. I can't remember anyone ever presenting an accurate representation of universalism to debunk. I end up defending it, even though I don't totally believe in it, because so much said against it is inaccurate.

Considering your retreat is to assume that God is going to save evryone, and when the proposed method comes under consideration the protest is "well, nothing is impossible for God" there isn't much possibility for real criticism. You've abandoned reasonable discourse and instead have shored yourself up in simple assertion.

 

[com7fy8]

Presumably God would have foreseen that the vagueness in the Bible about heaven and hell would lead to different interpretations and the arguments we see today about Infernalism, Annihalism and Universalism.

Well, it is clear the Bible says there will be wrath for ones who refuse Jesus. And Satan has his place waiting. So, of course ones can be in denial about this, and can spin words cleverly . . . and wishfully.

Is it a deliberate ploy intended to make us reflect on these things as honestly as we can?

Honesty is a gift of God. A dishonest person by character can not be made to reflect honestly.

Or was it because that Jesus didn't want us to think too much about heaven and hell but instead to focus on living a Godly life while on earth?

Well we can consider Romans 8:29 with Colossians, and see where our attention really needs to be, possibly.

Would it have been impossible for Him to have been clearer because our natural fear of the unknown, of "that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Shakespeare), would have led us to interpret His words to conjure up the infernalist vision of something like ECT whatever He had said? The purpose of such a vision would be to justify and authenticate our fears to ourselves.

Well, Jesus could be straightforward, and not let people with misunderstandings keep Hin from telling it like it is.

A universalist might argue that sinners would ignore Him if they knew there would be no hell and all would go to Heaven.

But what needs to matter is I am mainly interested in pleasing and obeying God . . . not only caring about getting myself to Heaven.

This is quite a gloomy topic but the the Good News is that God comes to find us in our misunderstanding and fear and brings us home. This is the universalist vision.

There needs to be a place for evil. This is just practical. It is good that evil will go away from God's people.

 

[Ceallaigh]

While unbelief and sin are related, unbelief comes from the heart not as a result of sin.

So what is it a result of then?

Considering your retreat is to assume that God is going to save evryone and when the proposed method comes under consideration the protest is "well, nothing is impossible for God" there isn't much possibility for real criticism. You've abandoned reasonable discourse and instead have shored yourself up in simple assertion.

The argument that it's not possible doesn't hold because of the fact that nothing is impossible for God. Therefore another approach that's feasible needs to be taken.

 

[Fervent]

So what is it a result of then?

Evil hearts

The argument that it's not possible doesn't hold because of the fact that nothing is impossible for God. Therefore another approach that's feasible needs to be taken.

Simply because God is capable of anything does not mean anything is logically possible. For instance, we can eliminate the possibility of square circles. In the same way, the absurdity of a place of punishment(whether it is claimed to be corrective or not) engendering affection towards the one inflicting the punishment is patently absurd. It is not up for critics of universalism to propose a reasonable method and defeat it, and resorting to cries of nothing being impossible for God is an abandonment of the principles of reason. The method most commonly proposed by universalists to try to explain the existtence of passages speaking of a place where teeth gnash, an outer darkness where the worm never dies, is somehow meant to convey a coorrective punishment where the unwilling are somehow made willing simply does not make sense and your escape is completely unreasonable.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Evil hearts

What is the cause of evil hearts?

Simply because God is capable of anything does not mean anything is logically possible. For instance, we can eliminate the possibility of square circles. In the same way, the absurdity of a place of punishment(whether it is claimed to be corrective or not) engendering affection towards the one inflicting the punishment is patently absurd. It is not up for critics of universalism to propose a reasonable method and defeat it, and resorting to cries of nothing being impossible for God is an abandonment of the principles of reason. The method most commonly proposed by universalists to try to explain the existtence of passages speaking of a place where teeth gnash, an outer darkness where the worm never dies, is somehow meant to convey a coorrective punishment where the unwilling are somehow made willing simply does not make sense and your escape is completely unreasonable.

Universalists believe teeth gnashing outer darkness where the worm never dies etc is Jesus pronouncing judgment upon Israel, which manifested within a generation of those things being said. What Josephus wrote about what happened to Israel matches up with it. Flames, destruction, carnage, being cast out, anguish etc.

The type of punishment universalists describe is having to see your sin though God's eyes. I myself was actually punished that way and I felt emotionally and physically ill over it for quite a while. At lest up to a year. And I was purged of a lot of sin. Sins that were pleasurable to me and sins I was indifferent to, suddenly filled me with horror and regret and I now want nothing to do with them. I became painfully aware of every little wrongdoing throughout my entire life. This broke the barrier I had built between myself and my Lord. I don't resent Him for subjecting me to that or "spoiling my fun". I'm quite thankful He straightened me out. And now I can say "I love you Holy Father" to Him all the time, instead of trying to hide from Him. So as anecdotal as that is, that's one reason why I don't have a problem with the universalist concept of punishment. Because I experienced it.

 

[Hmm]

The type of punishment universalists describe is having to see your sin though God's eyes. I myself was actually punished that way and I felt emotionally and physically ill over it for quite a while. At lest up to a year. And I was purged of a lot of sin. Sins that were pleasurable to me and sins I was indifferent to, suddenly filled me with horror and regret and I now want nothing to do with them. I became painfully aware of every little wrongdoing throughout my entire life. This broke the barrier I had built between myself and my Lord. I don't resent Him for subjecting me to that or "spoiling my fun". I'm quite thankful He straightened me out. And now I can say "I love you Holy Father" to Him all the time, instead of trying to hide from Him. So as anecdotal as that is, that's one reason why I don't have a problem with the universalist concept of punishment. Because I experienced it.

It's good to read about a personal experience of the corrective punishment (kolasis) that universalists speak of. Great testimony, thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, it is clear the Bible says there will be wrath for ones who refuse Jesus. And Satan has his place waiting. So, of course ones can be in denial about this, and can spin words cleverly . . . and wishfully.
Honesty is a gift of God.

Amen to that.

Rev 14 is pretty explicit -- and need not be declared too ambiguous to know what it says.

Rev 14:
9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” 12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

 

[Der Alte]

Just quit spamming please. Thanks.

Glad to! When all UR-ites stop ignoring my posts and address all the scripture I have posted with credible, verifiable, grammatical, lexical, historical, etc. evidence that anything I have posted is incorrect in some way, I will gladly stop. All the UR arguments are just as repetitive as mine, the same arguments and out-of-context proof texts are repeated endlessly. I have been here 3 decades+ and I can't recall when I saw anything new.
Why not combine your efforts and hit me with something I can't refute.
And anything any scholar says which is not supported by scripture, lexicons, grammars etc. is just so much graffiti on a passing boxcar.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Glad to! When all UR-ites stop ignoring my posts and address all the scripture I have posted with credible, verifiable, grammatical, lexical, historical, etc. evidence that anything I have posted is incorrect in some way, I will gladly stop. All the UR arguments are just as repetitive as mine, the same arguments and out-of-context proof texts are repeated endlessly. I have been here 3 decades+ and I can't recall when I saw anything new.
Why not combine your efforts and hit me with something I can't refute.
And anything any scholar says which is not supported by scripture, lexicons, grammars etc. is just so much graffiti on a passing boxcar.

It's your fault that your posts are ignored or that people have you on ignore.

 

[Der Alte]

It's your fault that your posts are ignored or that people have you on ignore.

My wife thinks I lost my mind, she couldn't understand why I laughed out loud. Do you actually think I care if anyone ignores me?
My posts are intended for the casual observer as much as they are for the person(s) I am responding to.

 

[Ceallaigh]

My wife thinks I lost my mind, she couldn't understand why I laughed out loud. Do you actually think I care if anyone ignores me?
My posts are intended for the casual observer as much as they are for the person(s) I am responding to.

You sure do a lot of complaining over something you don't care about.