Universal reconciliation

[Der Alte]

TOUCHE
And you can never quote a source that's going to be good enough. That's why I quit posting or reading his stuff anymore. It's all cut/past Jewish Encyclopedia belief at the time of Jesus....HELLO...The Jewish belief at the time of Jesus was corrupt as can be. That's who had all the doctrinal issues with JEsus to begin with. Pharisees and Sadduccees are never mentioned in the OT. Why? Because those heretics never existed until the 400 silent years where the hearts of ruling men were polluted with a religious spirit.

If you have stopped reading and replying to my "stuff", why are you replying to me here? Can't resist a chance to take a few pot shots? As with previous responses in this thread, assertions with no evidence.

I note that nobody has attempted to address my [post=67145776]post #24[/post] this thread where I show that Jesus' teaching on eternal punishment supported the 1st century Jewish view of hell.

ACT 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect(haresis/heretic) of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

And, for those who think Universalism was a MINORITY belief of the early church, here's a question for thought? Was it a majority belief that just didn't happen to be in the theological School of Rome, the place which birthed the church which killed all who ever disagreed with her.

Do you actually think that Rome or any other entity could literally "kill[] ALL who ever disagreed with her?" I like these "I'm right but all the evidence was destroyed" arguments. The English word "heresy" is derived from the Greek word αἵρεσις, but it did not have the same meaning as the English word.

G139 αἵρεσις hairesis
Thayer Definition:
1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
2) choosing, choice
3) that which is chosen
4) a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)
4a) of the Sadducees
4b) of the Pharisees
4c) of the Christians
5) dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G138
Citing in TDNT: 1:180, 27​

"According to Edward Beecher, a Congregationalist theologian, there were six theology schools in Christendom during its early years - four were Universalist ( Alexandria , Cesarea, Antioch , and Edessa ). One advocated annihilation ( Ephesus ) and one advocated Eternal Hell (the Latin Church of North Africa). Most of the Universalists throughout Christendom followed the teachings of Origen. Later, Theodore of Mopsuestia had a different theological basis for Universal Salvation, and his view continued in the break-away Church of the East (Nestorian) where his Universalist ideas still exist in its liturgy today.

Source? In which of Beecher's writings did he supposedly say this and what was his source?

Another source stating the same;
"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."
"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96

"Other theological schools are mentioned" where? "Carthage or Rome" That certainly is definitive, which is it? What is the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge source for these claims or are we supposed to blindly accept them as you do while rejecting such historical sources as the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud which document Jewish beliefs and practices?

I have Allin's book, it is good.

How do you know it is factual? Or is it "good" in your opinion simply because it supports your assumptions/presuppositions.

 

[Hillsage]

Please note that Origen's version of UR is not a precedent I'd expect most of us would want to follow. It's part of a whole mythology involving preexistent souls.

I knew about Origen's soul issue. And that is part of the problem with going back and thinking we are going to 'figure out' what the truth is. Scripture plainly says it is 'the Holy Spirit who will lead and guide us into the truth' that really matters IMO. So I don't worship Origen's every word, though he had much to offer on the whole issue we're discussing IMO. Those early guys were working more on theology than we want to admit IMO. I personally just don't think he understood or separated spirit/soul/body well enough. But, along those same lines, I do believe that our 'spirit' pre existed. I think there is still a little/lot to be worked out in all differing theological positions. One doesn't have to look far to see the same old things being hashed, that have been hashed forever, it seems. I believe we're all guilty of too much talk and too little walk...in the things Jesus will really be interested in...on 'that' day.

 

[brixken7]

"And you can never quote a source that's going to be good enough. That's why I quit posting or reading his stuff anymore. It's all cut/past Jewish Encyclopedia belief at the time of Jesus....HELLO...The Jewish belief at the time of Jesus was corrupt as can be. That's who had all the doctrinal issues with JEsus to begin with. Pharisees and Sadduccees are never mentioned in the OT. Why? Because those heretics never existed until the 400 silent years where the hearts of ruling men were polluted with a religious spirit.

"ACT 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect(haresis/heretic) of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

For what it's worth, I read somewhere that the Pharisees believed both in a resurrection and in eternal torment for the 'wicked'. -- brixken7

 

[hedrick]

Pharisees and Sadduccees are never mentioned in the OT. Why? Because those heretics never existed until the 400 silent years where the hearts of ruling men were polluted with a religious spirit.

ACT 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect(haresis/heretic) of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Wait a sec. Pharisees are not heretical within Judaism. They arose in response to attempts of pagan rulers to change Judaism. I am personally not very positive to the Maccabees. They look to me like the equivalent of the Taliban. But what caused them was not pollution with a religious spirit. Rather it was a response (unnecessariy extreme, in my view) to a challenge to Judaism.

Act 15:5 is describing Christians who taught that circumcision was necessary to be Christian. The heresy was not Phariseeism as a Jewish movement, but this teaching within Christianity.

 

[Hillsage]

Wait a sec. Pharisees are not heretical within Judaism.

I think that Karaite Jews would disagree. And they would do so for the same reason that Jesus was always in an adversarial relationship with their form of Juaism. That being, bad doctrine nurturing bad attitude.

. They arose in response to attempts of pagan rulers to change Judaism. I am personally not very positive to the Maccabees. They look to me like the equivalent of the Taliban.

I don't think Jesus had an issue with their motivation for beginning, only in what they had morphed into.

Act 15:5 is describing Christians who taught that circumcision was necessary to be Christian. The heresy was not Phariseeism as a Jewish movement, but this teaching within Christianity.

I quoted Acts15 because it supports my definition of heresy/heretic. That definition being; a sect. And that's how the Greek word is consistently translated in scripture until translators seem to want to brand some group as in league with the devil. And those making such judgment, do so based upon a religious spirited, and hard lined indoctrination....IMO. What is your definition? 'False doctrine' or 'minority viewpoint'... Or 'other'?

 

[brixken7]

Wait a sec. Pharisees are not heretical within Judaism. They arose in response to attempts of pagan rulers to change Judaism. I am personally not very positive to the Maccabees. They look to me like the equivalent of the Taliban. But what caused them was not pollution with a religious spirit. Rather it was a response (unnecessariy extreme, in my view) to a challenge to Judaism. Act 15:5 is describing Christians who taught that circumcision was necessary to be Christian. The heresy was not Phariseeism as a Jewish movement, but this teaching within Christianity.

.......................

The veracity of universalism can be best demonstrated, not in the history of the Christian church (important as that is), but in the Scriptures themselves. And if we look at what is reputed to be the oldest writing of the Bible, the book of Job, we have therein a really excellent proof of God's divine plan for all of mankind -- and it's NOT the traditional, orthodox stuff we get from modern 'Christianity'. The subject of Job 33:23-30 basically concerns 3 things:

A SAVIOR (verses 23-24)
("to show a man his uprightness")

REPENTANCE and conversion (verses 27-28)
(which is a deliverance from death)

A RESURRECTION from "the pit" (verses 25 and 30)
(which is a deliverance from death)

"Truly, God does all this two or three times with people." GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)



This is God's formula for mankind, "Twice and Thrice" (Hebrew). God rescues His saints "twice," once with their conversion, and once again with their resurrection at Christ's coming.


But the vast majority of mankind God rescues from death "thrice," once in a resurrection to the Great White Throne judgment, once again with their conversion, and once more in a resurrection from their "second death," the "Lake of Fire."



Three times!

 

[Hillsage]

For what it's worth, I read somewhere that the Pharisees believed both in a resurrection and in eternal torment for the 'wicked'. -- brixken7

Whereas the Sadducees didn't even believe in a resurrection at all...so much for all the Jews believing in some ETERNAL HELL like the Jewish Encyclopedia would lead one to believe. And Paul used this Pharisee/Sadducee divisiveness for his defense when he was brought before the Council.

ACT 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. :7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. (sounds like the church today) :8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

 

[OldShepherd]

N.T.

 

[Hillsage]

N.T.

If the old shepherd one follows, doesn't speak the language one understands, it matters not that the sheep hear his voice.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm reading a book a book whose purpose is to give "three views of hell", traditional, anihilation, and universal reconciliation. My question is, " do you think universal reconciliation is heresy?

I tend to reserve the word heresy for Open Theists, but universal reconciliation is definitely wrong. It is impossible to square it with (for example) Matt 25.46 or Rev 20.15.

 

[brixken7]

I tend to reserve the word heresy for Open Theists, but universal reconciliation is definitely wrong. It is impossible to square it with (for example) Matt 25.46 or Rev 20.15.

...............................

Now I see it it just the opposite way: I cannot 'square' the usual rendering of (for example) Matthew 25:46 with God's clearly stated purpose to save "all men" as well as the many plain scriptures throughout the Bible that He will do it! In other words, I have more faith in God's sovereignty, than I do in man's ability to produce a perfect translation of the Bible.

And as for Revelation 20:15 that speaks of the Lake of Fire -- the "second death" (verse 14) -- its effects have to be very temporary since Christ "abolishes death" (II Timothy 1:10; Greek). Thus it will be "abolished" (I Corinthians 15:26) and "be no more" (Revelation 21:4). Take note the Bible does not say in this verse of Revelation that there will be no more "dying". No, it says "no more death"! There is a HUGE difference here! "No more death" can mean nothing less than that all of God's creation, in the future, will be ALIVE.

Thus the Lake of Fire will be but a memory, if that.

 

[Der Alte]

...............................

Now I see it it just the opposite way: I cannot 'square' the usual rendering of (for example) Matthew 25:46 with God's clearly stated purpose to save "all men" as well as the many plain scriptures throughout the Bible that He will do it! In other words, I have more faith in God's sovereignty, than I do in man's ability to produce a perfect translation of the Bible.

And as for Revelation 20:15 that speaks of the Lake of Fire -- the "second death" (verse 14) -- its effects have to be very temporary since Christ "abolishes death" (II Timothy 1:10; Greek). Thus it will be "abolished" (I Corinthians 15:26) and "be no more" (Revelation 21:4). Take note the Bible does not say in this verse of Revelation that there will be no more "dying". No, it says "no more death"! There is a HUGE difference here! "No more death" can mean nothing less than that all of God's creation, in the future, will be ALIVE.

Thus the Lake of Fire will be but a memory, if that.

How many semesters of Koine Greek did you say you had? Unfortunately Greek does not make the distinction you are trying to force onto "death." And there are not "many plain scriptures throughout the Bible" that God will save "all men."

 

[Der Alte]

Whereas the Sadducees didn't even believe in a resurrection at all...so much for all the Jews believing in some ETERNAL HELL like the Jewish Encyclopedia would lead one to believe. And Paul used this Pharisee/Sadducee divisiveness for his defense when he was brought before the Council.

ACT 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. :7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. (sounds like the church today) :8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
__________________

Had you bothered to read my [post=67145776]post #24[/post] this thread, you might have known that I addressed the fact that some Jews did not believe in the resurrection or hell.

My citation of the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud refutes the often repeated claim that the Jews never, ever believed in hell and that the concept of hell was forced into Christianity by early pagan converts. The historical evidence proves that a major belief of Jews at the time of Jesus was in a place of unending fiery torment that they called both Gehinnom and Sheol. Pooh poohing that evidence does not disprove it. The fact that the Sadduccees did not believe in the resurrection or in hell does not disprove those historical facts.

 

[brixken7]

"How many semesters of Koine Greek did you say you had?"
.................

There you go again, attacking the messenger.

"Unfortunately Greek does not make the distinction you are trying to force onto "death."
...................
Okay, so you're saying YOU'RE the expert and I'm not, right?


[/quote] "And there are not "many plain scriptures throughout the Bible" that God will save "all men."
..................
There are a great many such scriptures, but it would be a waste of my time to give them to YOU.

 

[Der Alte]

"Unfortunately Greek does not make the distinction you are trying to force onto "death."

There you go again, attacking the messenger.

When one makes an assertion about what the Greek text "really means" they should have some knowledge of Greek grammar. To inquire about that implied knowledge is not an attack!

...................
Okay, so you're saying YOU'RE the expert and I'm not, right?

No! But I do know enough to recognize when someone who appears to know virtually nothing about Greek grammar tries to tell us what the Greek "really means."

"And there are not "many plain scriptures throughout the Bible" that God will save "all men."

There are a great many such scriptures, but it would be a waste of my time to give them to YOU.

IOW "Neener, neener, neener I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh Huh!"

 

[brixken7]

"Unfortunately Greek does not make the distinction you are trying to force onto "death."
-- Der Alter
...................

In Romans 6:23 we read the "wages of sin is death."
The Greek word for "death" here is "thanatos."

In Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, the Lake of Fire is called "the second "thanatos."

In Revelation 21:4 we read "there shall be no more "thanatos."

In I Corinthians 15:26 we read that "death ("thanatos") will be destroyed" and "abolished" (Concordant version). This is because our savior Jesus Christ "abolishes" ("thanatos") "death" (II Timothy 1:10). Thus, "in Christ shall all be made alive" (I Corinthians 15:22).


...................

It's amazing that many professing Christians want to modify the great work that their savior is doing! One could understand Satan wanting to do such a thing -- but professing Christians?!

 

[Der Alte]

"Unfortunately Greek does not make the distinction you are trying to force onto "death."
-- Der Alte

In Romans 6:23 we read the "wages of sin is death."
The Greek word for "death" here is "thanatos."

In Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, the Lake of Fire is called "the second "thanatos."

The lake of fire [LOF] is called “the second death” twice in Rev. vss. 20:14 and 21:8. While this is true, Rev. never says that anyone is thrown into the LOF then they die. The terms the “lake of fire” and “ the second death” are interchangeable, “the lake of fire” is “the second death” and the “second death” is “he lake of fire,” thus we can see that it is not synonymous with death or destruction.

We also know that being thrown into the LOF is not synonymous with death from Rev 19:20, the beast and the false prophet, who is a person, are thrown into the LOF and 1000 years later in 20:10 the devil, is thrown into the LOF. Three living beings, are thrown into the LOF but they do not die, they are tormented day and night for ever and ever. There is not one verse in Revelation which says anyone or anything is thrown into the LOF then they/it dies.

Rev 20:14 says death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. Death is the point in time end of life, it has no physical presence and cannot be literally thrown anywhere but there is a scriptural answer which does not involve jumping through hoops mixing literal and figurative in one sentence, there is a death and hell which can be thrown into the LOF.

Rev 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.​

The angel of death and the demon of hell are thrown into the LOF and their power to kill ended.

In Revelation 21:4 we read "there shall be no more "thanatos."

And your point is? "Death" and "die/dying" are interchangeable.

Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Joh 12:33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Joh 18:32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

Act 25:11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.

Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.​

In I Corinthians 15:26 we read that "death ("thanatos") will be destroyed" and "abolished" (Concordant version). This is because our savior Jesus Christ "abolishes" ("thanatos") "death" (II Timothy 1:10). Thus, "in Christ shall all be made alive" (I Corinthians 15:22).

This is known as proof-texting a verse here and a verse there and anybody can "prove" almost anything they want to. 1 Cor 15:26, then jump to 2 Tim 1:10, then leap to 1 Cor 15:22.

Your proof text 2 Tim 1:10 does not support your argument. "our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death" If Jesus has already destroyed death, how is it that people have continued to die for 2000 years +/- since Jesus was resurrected?

It's amazing that many professing Christians want to modify the great work that their savior is doing! One could understand Satan wanting to do such a thing -- but professing Christians?!

If I were you I would be real careful about implying that someone is not a Christian. As I have shown you I use scripture in-context.

 

[brixken7]

We tend sometimes to make the Bible more complicated than what it is. Often, it's quite simple, yet so profound that the proud and 'educated' can't get it. "Dying" is a verb. "Death" is a noun. And it's "death" (a noun) that is going to be destroyed (I Corinthians 15:26) and will exist "no more" (Revelation 21:4)!

To those of us who have lost loved ones, these scriptures should be among our favorites!

 

[brixken7]

In the Bible the term "feet" is often used in a metaphorical way to mean "one's person"; i.e., it's used synonymously for the man himself. A classic example found in both the Old and New Testaments is found in Psalm 8:6 in reference to mankind:

"Thou made him to have dominion over the works of thy hands;
thou has put all things under his feet."

This same expression "under his feet" is also used in a prophecy concerning Christ and his enemies. It's a prophecy found in I Corinthians 15:25 and 27; Ephesians 1:22; and Hebrews 2:8, and its meaning is crystal clear. God has given "all power," meaning all authority in heaven and in earth, to Christ (Matthew 28:18). And eventually we will see "all" under his rule -- but we don't see this "yet" (Hebrews 2:8). Nevertheless, this is a very important prophecy that we as Christians can take comfort in. Unfortunately, however, it is nearly always confused with what is, arguably, a still greater prophecy, the Footstool Prophecy:

"The Lord" (God the Father) "said unto my Lord" (Christ), 'Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'"

(Psalm 110:1, KJV; see also Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Hebrews 1:13, 10:13, CV). The reader should note that God tells us no less than 6 times in the Bible that He will makes Christ's enemies Christ's "footstool." Now 6 is the number of man (Revelation 13:18), man having been created on the sixth day of the week. This would indicate that this prophecy concerns MAN, what God will do with mankind!

In addition to this, some Greek manuscripts also repeat this prophecy of Christ's "footstool" in Matthew 22:44 (see e.g., the KJV), making a total of 7 times in which this prophecy can be found in the Bible! And 7 is God's number of completeness and perfection, which means this prophecy points to the completion and the perfection of the work of God! How foolish, therefore, to ignore this oft-repeated prophecy! But God takes pleasure in hiding things (Proverbs 25:2), and He has caused this major prophecy to be written in a veiled language which, seemingly, no one has taken the trouble of deciphering. Obviously to understand its meaning, we will have to understand the meaning of a word that is completely unfamiliar to us in biblical terminology: the word "footstool."

In order to resolve the issue, I examined more than 10 different Bible dictionaries for their definition of the word "footstool." And while none of them gave a precise definition, a few of them noted that this term was often used in reference to God's temple--which is true. There are 4 times in the Old Testament in which this term is substituted for the word "temple." Here's an example:

"How hath the Lord...cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger!"

(Lamentations 2:1; see also in I Chronicles 28:2; Psalm 99:5, 132:7). So with this term "footstool" actually synonymous with God's temple, the most logical way to define "footstool" is to define the word "temple." And this is easy. The temple was a "dwelling place" (I Kings 8:13; II Chronicles 6:2; Matthew 23:21). This, then, is the meaning of "footstool." It's a "dwelling place"!

So what does God mean, then, when He repeatedly says that He will make Christ's enemies his "dwelling place"? How can Christ "dwell" within his enemies?!

There is only one possible answer. And anyone who is really familiar with the Bible has already guessed it: God is going to place Christ's spirit, which is the spirit of God (Romans 8:9), within Christ's enemies. Thus, Christ will be "in" them, even as he is now "in" God's saints (verse 10). In other words, Christ's enemies will then become the temple of God, even as God's saints are already His temple, His dwelling place upon this earth (II Corinthians 6:16)! (Note: This is why God calls this earth His "footstool" in Matthew 5:35.)

What we've uncovered here from the Scriptures is proof that all of Christ's enemies will become converted through the indwelling of God's holy spirit. Not a one of his past, present, or future enemies will be left unconverted! As a result, all of mankind will no longer be at odds with their Maker, and God shall have kept His promise to make Christ's enemies "at peace with him" (Proverbs 16:7, CV)!

 

[Der Alte]

We tend sometimes to make the Bible more complicated than what it is. Often, it's quite simple, yet so profound that the proud and 'educated' can't get it. "Dying" is a verb. "Death" is a noun. And it's "death" (a noun) that is going to be destroyed (I Corinthians 15:26) and will exist "no more" (Revelation 21:4)!

To those of us who have lost loved ones, these scriptures should be among our favorites!

I don't want to have to warn you about your insults again! You are the one complicating scripture! I asked you how many semesters of Greek you had. You are trying to impose English grammar onto Greek. You are mistaken θάνατος/Thanatos is not a noun it is an adjective. And I showed you how Thanatos/death and τελευτάω/Teleutao/die/dying are used interchangeably in the NT.

Here is your out-of-context proof text.

Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.​

If death is done away with in vs. 4 how is it that all these groups of sinners are thrown into the lake of Fire, the second death only four verses later?

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.​

Here is how one of the early church fathers interpreted Rev 21:4.

Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.] Resurrection of the Flesh Chapter 58

The angel echoes the same to John: “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;” from the same eyes indeed which had formerly wept, and which might weep again, if the loving-kindness of God did not dry up every fountain of tears. And again:“God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death,” and therefore no more corruption, it being chased away by incorruption, even as death is by immortality.​

But death and hell are not done away with.

Tertullian Apology Chapter 45

No doubt about it, we, who receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and who look forward to eternal punishment from Him for sin, — we alone make real effort to attain a blameless life, under the influence of our ampler knowledge, the impossibility of concealment, and the greatness of the threatened torment, not merely long-enduring but everlasting, fearing Him, whom he too should fear who the fearing judges, — even God, I mean, and not the proconsul.​