Only a loving God would create hell!

[aiki]

That presents merely an alternate interpretation of the passage. Not a refutation of my position.

I disagree. Your position relies on eisegesis; mine does not. You are having to import into the passage meanings of words from completely unrelated passages in order to make your case. All I'm doing is letting the verse speak for itself. As far as I'm concerned, this makes my view superior to your own.

Again, Dan. 12:2-3 is evidence in favor of the view i have expressed

Daniel 12:2
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

The Hebrew word "olam" translated into English as "everlasting" in the above verse, according to Strong's means:

"...properly concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practical) eternity; frequent adverb (especially with prepositional prefix) always :- alway (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary."

The vast majority of English Bible translations of "olam" in Daniel 12:2, 3 render it "forever," "everlasting," or "eternal." The consensus among Bible translators, then, is not that "olam" refers to a limited duration of time but to an unending one. Citing Daniel 12:2, 3 doesn't appear to me, therefore, to help your view at all...

If aionios refers to, as you say, "an infinite series of ages", then those who enter "into" such a punishment may only experience it during the first of those ages.

Oh? Why is that? This seems to me to be sheer speculation on your part which is an utterly corrupt basis for establishing any doctrine.

For the term EIS, "into", speaks of entrance into a period of time, not necessarily for the entire duration of it.

And...another assumption, based on what isn't said this time. If there is no clear defining of duration it seems to me that an endless duration can be very reasonably assumed - certainly more so than what you're proposing. You're trying to make your case here, it seems to me, from an absence of information. Does that really, honestly seem like a good idea to you?

Your parallel comments assume that the duration in Mt.25:46 is for the entire period with both life & punishment/chastening, but the word EIS only indicates entrance "into" in either case, not duration throughout the entire aionios duration.

This is semantical hair-splitting that ultimately relies - as you've demonstrated just above - on what isn't said. What's more, I make no assumption whatever about the nature of the parallel in Matthew 25:46. The verse is perfectly clear that the parallel is between the duration of time of everlasting punishment and eternal life. Only someone with your sort of odd doctrinal viewpoint to establish would suggest otherwise. "Everlasting" and "eternal" couldn't be more parallel and couldn't communicate more plainly the unending duration of time.

This is an appeal to the authority of men [such as allegedly infallible pontiffs], not the real authority of Scripture.

I pointed out what the consensus among the majority of Bible translators is and how that consensus disagrees sharply with your views. They could be wrong. And so could you. I think the likelihood that all these language and Bible experts are mistaken, however, is much smaller, given their expertise, than the likelihood that you are mistaken. Much smaller. I think this is worth pointing out.

Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth?

Basically, yes. At least, the chance of being closer to the truth is greater for the one who is relying on the larger body of knowledge and expertise than the one who is not.

I can appeal to man as well.

Why would you engage in a tactic you've just condemned? Seems a bit hypocritical to me...

In the early church most Christians were at one time universalists.

Not from the research I've read on this matter.

Were the Church Fathers Universalists? – Credo Magazine

The most recent academic survey of the history of Universal Salvation is by Richard Bauckham. He outlines the history thus:

"The history of the doctrine of universal salvation (or apokatastasis) is a remarkable one. Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell. Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated (in its commonest form. this is the doctrine of 'conditional immortality').[3] Even fewer were the advocates of universal salvation, though these few included same major theologians of the early church. Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches.[2] It must have seemed as indispensable a part of universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation. Since 1800 this situation has entirely changed, and no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment.[2] Its advocates among theologians today must be fewer than ever before. The alternative interpretation of hell as annihilation seems to have prevailed even among many of the more conservative theologians.4 Among the less conservative, universal salvation, either as hope or as dogma, is now so widely accepted that many theologians assume it virtually without argument."[2]

I wrote:

Matthew 25:46 is not evident to the many Greek scholars and Bible translators who render "aionios" almost universally to communicate an unending duration of time. I suggest to you, then, that what ambiguity you see is mainly in your own mind, not in the words of Christ himself.

You replied:

This is another appeal, not to Scripture, but to man or majority is right, or some such thing.

I actually never made any hard conclusions about the correctness of the majority; I only observed that the majority differed from your view. It is only an appeal to authority/majority if I say something like, "All these scholars agree so they must be right." I didn't do that. Certainly, though, it's worth noting that your view stands in the smallest minority when it comes to Bible translations.

Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting".

Biased? Very amusing! Prove it. Prove their bias. Show from the scholarly work of the many scholars that contributed their expertise to the various translations that disagree with you that their rendering of Matthew 25:46 was just bias expressing itself. This should be very interesting...

What biased scholars after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

Simply saying so doesn't make it so.

I'm not sure you are grasping my point. My basis for what i say about aionios is based on a comparison with other words that would have been understood to teach what you claim had they been used by Jesus in Mt.25:46.

I'm not missing your point, you're deflecting mine. Simply saying, "Jesus could have used words with more limited and explicit meanings, so I'm right," does not actually make you right. Again, you're working from assumption. Given the parallel in the verse and that "aionios" can be legitimately rendered as "eternal" and "everlasting," we have good reason to accept the verse in the way the great majority of English Bibles present it to us.

If Christ wished to teach endless punishment unambiguously, He would have chosen words with less ambiguity.

Not necessarily. I refer you - again - to Jesus' parables.

For if Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words olam, aion and aionios?

They don't seem to be ambiguous to the vast majority of Bible translators.

 

[SBC]

1 Corinthians 15:22-28

ClementofA said: ↑
And His Scriptures have revealed that all will eventually be saved.

1 Cor 15
[22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
[23] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
[24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
[25] For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
[26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
[27] For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

ClementofA said: ↑
And His Scriptures have revealed that all will eventually be saved.

Hi ClementofA ~

I disagree with you.

According to the fullness of the text of 1Corinthians it is talking about people at Corinth who had recently been introduced to teachings of Jesus Christ and the receiving of the Holy Spirit, and seemingly their lack of the fullness of what the receiving of the Holy Spirit means.

Paul begins with a greeting to "specific" men, and exalting Christ.

Specific men:

1 Cor 1
[2] Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus,

From here forward, it is established WHO Paul is speaking to.
The rest of 1 Cor is to those men IN CHRIST, and Paul's correcting them, about what that means.

1 Cor 15
[22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

My disagreement with your view, is WHO "ALL" are.

Seems your view is ALL, no matter what.

Whereas my view is ALL, who are sanctified IN Christ.

I would hope you would read and pray about the fullness of 1 Cor of who are the specific characters being spoken to and why.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[ClementofA]

Daniel 12:2
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

The Hebrew word "olam" translated into English as "everlasting" in the above verse, according to Strong's means:

"...properly concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practical) eternity; frequent adverb (especially with prepositional prefix) always :- alway (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary."

Your quote of Strong's does not help your position. It puts into question the translation you posted. As do other lexicons.

The context supports the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), while v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".

2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life
and these to reproach for eonian repulsion." 3 The intelligent shall warn as the warning
of the atmosphere, and those justifying many are as the stars for the eon and further."
(Dan.12:2-3, CLV)

The Hebrew word for eonian (v.2) & eon (v.3) above is OLAM which is used of limited durations in the OT. In verse 3 of Daniel 12 are the words "OLAM and further" showing an example of its finite duration in the very next words after Daniel 12:2. Thus, in context, the OLAM occurences in v.2 should both be understood as being of finite duration.

The early church accepted the following Greek OT translation of the Hebrew OT of Dan. 12:3:

καὶ οἱ συνιέντες ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι[and further]

Notice the words at the end saying KAI ETI, meaning "and further" or "and still" or "and yet" & other synonyms.

eti: "still, yet...Definition: (a) of time: still, yet, even now, (b) of degree: even, further, more, in addition." Strong's Greek: 2089. ἔτι (eti) -- still, yet

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι means "into the ages and further" as a translation of the Hebrew L'OLAM WA ED[5703, AD]

So this early church Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures agrees with the above translation (& those below) using the words "and further" & similarly.

3 and·the·ones-being-intelligent they-shall- warn as·warning-of the·atmosphere
and·ones-leading-to-righteousness-of the·many-ones as·the·stars for·eon and·futurity (Daniel 12:3, Hebrew-English Interlinear)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan12.pdf

2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence; 3 and, they who make wise, shall shine like the shining of the expanse,—and, they who bring the many to righteousness, like the stars to times age-abiding and beyond. (Daniel 12:2-3, Rotherham)

2 And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches—to abhorrence age-during.
3 And those teaching do shine as the brightness of the expanse, and those justifying the multitude as stars to the age and for ever*. (Dan. 12:2-3, YLT)
* for "for ever" Young of YLT says substitute "age during" everywhere in Scripture: http://heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/bibles/ylt.pdf

The vast majority of English Bible translations of "olam" in Daniel 12:2, 3 render it "forever," "everlasting," or "eternal." The consensus among Bible translators, then, is not that "olam" refers to a limited duration of time but to an unending one. Citing Daniel 12:2, 3 doesn't appear to me, therefore, to help your view at all...

This is an appeal to man, not Scripture. Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth? Even if those producing them are almost all believers in endless punishment? I can appeal to man as well. In the early church most Christians were at one time universalists. If printing presses were available then, who do you suppose would have printed the most versions favorable to their viewpoint?

"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."

"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.

"I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.

"It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.

The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory

Oh? Why is that? This seems to me to be sheer speculation on your part which is an utterly corrupt basis for establishing any doctrine.

And...another assumption, based on what isn't said this time. If there is no clear defining of duration it seems to me that an endless duration can be very reasonably assumed - certainly more so than what you're proposing. You're trying to make your case here, it seems to me, from an absence of information. Does that really, honestly seem like a good idea to you?

It is not an absence of info, but based on the word EIS, as i said. EIS occurs in Matthew 25:46. Did you look it up in some lexicons. As i said:

If aionios refers to, as you say, "an infinite series of ages", then those who enter "into" such a punishment may only experience it during the first of those ages. For the term EIS, "into", speaks of entrance into a period of time, not necessarily lasting for the entire duration of it. Likewise with regards to passages such as Rev.20:10 that use the word EIS in reference to "ages of the ages".

That is a legitimate possible interpretation of Mt.25:46, based on what you said, just as yours is a legitimate possible interpretation.

I make no assumption whatever about the nature of the parallel in Matthew 25:46. The verse is perfectly clear that the parallel is between the duration of time of everlasting punishment and eternal life.

But you just expressed an assumption right there, i.e. that the verse should be interpreted to speak of what is "everlasting", rather than aionion, "eonian", age lasting, or pertaining to an age, (e.g. a Messianic age, such as the millennial age, for an example.). In Strongs under aion (#165), it says it means properly an age, & can refer to a Messianic age. Aion is the noun, aionios (#166) the corresponding adjective.

I pointed out what the consensus among the majority of Bible translators is and how that consensus disagrees sharply with your views. They could be wrong. And so could you. I think the likelihood that all these language and Bible experts are mistaken, however, is much smaller, given their expertise, than the likelihood that you are mistaken. Much smaller. I think this is worth pointing out.

I'd suggest that is tantamount to a Catholic blindly accepting whatever the Pope says. I'd also suggest you consider other experts besides those who already believe in endless torments translating Bibles according to their preconceived theological dogmatic biases. Just considering them is not even beginning to consider this topic objectively. Look into how the ancient Jews translated the LXX, the Greek OT accepted by the early church, how Early Church Father universalists understood aionios, how modern secular scholarship considers the issue, modern universalist scholars and universalist books by learned men & women on the topic, etc. This site full of books would be a start:

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth? You answered:

Basically, yes. At least, the chance of being closer to the truth is greater for the one who is relying on the larger body of knowledge and expertise than the one who is not.

If "Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth", as you say, then all any group would have to do is just that. With all their money the JW's or Mormons could be the ones you'ld be following as "the truth" by the end of the week.

Speaking of Bible versions, following are various translations of Matthew 25:46:

Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek Humbly Attempted by Nathaniel Scarlett Assisted by Men of Piety & Literature with notes, 1798:
"And These will go away into onian punishment: but the righteous into onian life."

The New Testament by Abner Kneeland, 1823:
"And these shall go away into aionian punishment*: but the righteous into aionian life."

The New Covenant by Dr. J.W. Hanson, 1884:
"And these shall go away into onian chastisement, and the just into onian life."

Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898:
"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."

The Holy Bible in Modern English, 1903
"And these He will dismiss into a long correction, but the well-doers to an enduring life."

The New Testament in Modern Speech, 1910:
"And these shall go away into the Punishment 1 of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life 1 of the Ages."
1. [Of the Ages] Greek "aeonian."

A Critical Paraphrase of the New Testament by Vincent T. Roth, 1960
"And these shall go away into age-continuing punishment, but the righteous into life age-continuing."

The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, 1976
"And these shall go away into age-abiding *correction, but the righteous into **age-abiding life."

The Twentieth Century New Testament, 1900
"And these last will go away into onian punishment, but the righteous ?into onian life."

The People's New Covenant, 1925
"And these will depart into age-continuing correction, but the righteous, into age-continuing life."

Emphatic Diaglott, 1942 edition
"And these shall go forth to the aionian 1 cutting-off; but the RIGHTEOUS to aionian Life."

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958
"And these shall go away into agelasting cutting-off and the just into agelasting life."

The New Testament, a Translation, 1938
"And these will go away into eonian correction, but the righteous into eonian life."

The New Testament, A New Translation, 1980
"Then they will begin to serve a new period of suffering; but God's faithful will enter upon their heavenly life."

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959
"And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life."

Why would you engage in a tactic you've just condemned? Seems a bit hypocritical to me...

Why did Paul become as if under law to those who were under law?

Not from the research I've read on this matter.

Were the Church Fathers Universalists? – Credo Magazine

The most recent academic survey of the history of Universal Salvation is by Richard Bauckham. He outlines the history thus:

"The history of the doctrine of universal salvation (or apokatastasis) is a remarkable one. Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell. Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated (in its commonest form. this is the doctrine of 'conditional immortality').[3] Even fewer were the advocates of universal salvation, though these few included same major theologians of the early church. Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches.[2] It must have seemed as indispensable a part of universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation. Since 1800 this situation has entirely changed, and no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment.[2] Its advocates among theologians today must be fewer than ever before. The alternative interpretation of hell as annihilation seems to have prevailed even among many of the more conservative theologians.4 Among the less conservative, universal salvation, either as hope or as dogma, is now so widely accepted that many theologians assume it virtually without argument."[2]

Your author, Richard Bauckham, states above, in your quote of him:

"Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches. It must have seemed as indispensable a part of universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation."

That's a lie. There were several early creeds prior to 500 A.D.. Not one of them mentioned "eternal punishment":

Apostles' Creed 120-250
Creed of Nicaea 325
Nicene Creed (Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed) 381
Chalcedonian Creed 451

So it took at least 5 centuries for "the church" to finally condemn universalism. And then, with endless punishment ruling by the might of the sword, there followed dark ages, Crusades, Inquisitions, burning opposers to death, and destroying their writings for over a millenium.

Your author also said:

"Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell."

In light of my previous comment re the dark ages, etc, i doubt that is something to boast about! Almost without exception any theologians for over 1000 years were not Protestants. Does that makes Catholicism or EO true? Endless hell must be true because "the church" killed off anyone who thought otherwise or silenced them with threats of imprisonment, tortures & such? Which goes a long way towards explaining why most Bible versions today follow the same tradition. The conquerors of history write the history books. That doesn't make them true or objective.

During the more enlightened first 500 years it was not the case that "almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell." BTW, your author didn't comment on the Ramelli quote:

"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."

www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html

Biased? Very amusing! Prove it. Prove their bias. Show from the scholarly work of the many scholars that contributed their expertise to the various translations that disagree with you that their rendering of Matthew 25:46 was just bias expressing itself. This should be very interesting...

I already did, as follows:

Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context. What biased scholars after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."

Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three

I'm not missing your point, you're deflecting mine. Simply saying, "Jesus could have used words with more limited and explicit meanings, so I'm right," does not actually make you right. Again, you're working from assumption.

I'd say i'm working from an extremely powerful argument. Especially when it's up against yours about whoever has the most Bible versions has the truth. If the universalist majority in the early church had the most Bible versions, then it would have been the truth according to you, eh? Who had the most versions during the dark ages when Catholicism ruled by the sword, Catholicism or Protestantism?

My basis for what i say about aionios is based on a comparison with other words that would have been understood to teach what you claim had they been used by Jesus in Mt.25:46. Since those words were not used, but one which often refers to finite duration, it is evident Christ did not teach endless punishment.

The ambiguity is in the word aionios which can refer to duration that is undefined but not endless, or duration that is endless. If Christ wished to teach endless punishment unambiguously, He would have chosen words with less ambiguity. Since He didn't use such words, He didn't teach such a doctrine. Perhaps that helps clarify the meaning of what was said before:

If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". For if Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Tim. 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.

Not necessarily. I refer you - again - to Jesus' parables.

This has no bearing on the word being discussed, aionios. Clearly Mt.25:46 is speaking of future destiny & Jesus' listeners would have known that. Furthermore the only Scriptural reference to aionios life (Mt.25:46) they could have known was from Dan.12:2-3 discussed above.

 

[Phantasman]

Your quote of Strong's does not help your position. It puts into question the translation you posted. As do other lexicons.

The context supports the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), while v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".

2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life
and these to reproach for eonian repulsion." 3 The intelligent shall warn as the warning
of the atmosphere, and those justifying many are as the stars for the eon and further."
(Dan.12:2-3, CLV)

The Hebrew word for eonian (v.2) & eon (v.3) above is OLAM which is used of limited durations in the OT. In verse 3 of Daniel 12 are the words "OLAM and further" showing an example of its finite duration in the very next words after Daniel 12:2. Thus, in context, the OLAM occurences in v.2 should both be understood as being of finite duration.

The early church accepted the following Greek OT translation of the Hebrew OT of Dan. 12:3:

καὶ οἱ συνιέντες ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι[and further]

Notice the words at the end saying KAI ETI, meaning "and further" or "and still" or "and yet" & other synonyms.

eti: "still, yet...Definition: (a) of time: still, yet, even now, (b) of degree: even, further, more, in addition." Strong's Greek: 2089. ἔτι (eti) -- still, yet

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι means "into the ages and further" as a translation of the Hebrew L'OLAM WA ED[5703, AD]

So this early church Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures agrees with the above translation (& those below) using the words "and further" & similarly.

3 and·the·ones-being-intelligent they-shall- warn as·warning-of the·atmosphere
and·ones-leading-to-righteousness-of the·many-ones as·the·stars for·eon and·futurity (Daniel 12:3, Hebrew-English Interlinear)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan12.pdf

2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence; 3 and, they who make wise, shall shine like the shining of the expanse,—and, they who bring the many to righteousness, like the stars to times age-abiding and beyond. (Daniel 12:2-3, Rotherham)

2 And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches—to abhorrence age-during.
3 And those teaching do shine as the brightness of the expanse, and those justifying the multitude as stars to the age and for ever*. (Dan. 12:2-3, YLT)
* for "for ever" Young of YLT says substitute "age during" everywhere in Scripture: http://heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/bibles/ylt.pdf




This is an appeal to man, not Scripture. Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth? Even if those producing them are almost all believers in endless punishment? I can appeal to man as well. In the early church most Christians were at one time universalists. If printing presses were available then, who do you suppose would have printed the most versions favorable to their viewpoint?

"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."

"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.

"I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.

"It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.

The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory




It is not an absence of info, but based on the word EIS, as i said. EIS occurs in Matthew 25:46. Did you look it up in some lexicons. As i said:

If aionios refers to, as you say, "an infinite series of ages", then those who enter "into" such a punishment may only experience it during the first of those ages. For the term EIS, "into", speaks of entrance into a period of time, not necessarily lasting for the entire duration of it. Likewise with regards to passages such as Rev.20:10 that use the word EIS in reference to "ages of the ages".

That is a legitimate possible interpretation of Mt.25:46, based on what you said, just as yours is a legitimate possible interpretation.




But you just expressed an assumption right there, i.e. that the verse should be interpreted to speak of what is "everlasting", rather than aionion, "eonian", age lasting, or pertaining to an age, (e.g. a Messianic age, such as the millennial age, for an example.). In Strongs under aion (#165), it says it means properly an age, & can refer to a Messianic age. Aion is the noun, aionios (#166) the corresponding adjective.




I'd suggest that is tantamount to a Catholic blindly accepting whatever the Pope says. I'd also suggest you consider other experts besides those who already believe in endless torments translating Bibles according to their preconceived theological dogmatic biases. Just considering them is not even beginning to consider this topic objectively. Look into how the ancient Jews translated the LXX, the Greek OT accepted by the early church, how Early Church Father universalists understood aionios, how modern secular scholarship considers the issue, modern universalist scholars and universalist books by learned men & women on the topic, etc. This site full of books would be a start:

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth? You answered:



If "Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth", as you say, then all any group would have to do is just that. With all their money the JW's or Mormons could be the ones you'ld be following as "the truth" by the end of the week.

Speaking of Bible versions, following are various translations of Matthew 25:46:

Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek Humbly Attempted by Nathaniel Scarlett Assisted by Men of Piety & Literature with notes, 1798:
"And These will go away into onian punishment: but the righteous into onian life."

The New Testament by Abner Kneeland, 1823:
"And these shall go away into aionian punishment*: but the righteous into aionian life."

The New Covenant by Dr. J.W. Hanson, 1884:
"And these shall go away into onian chastisement, and the just into onian life."

Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898:
"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."

The Holy Bible in Modern English, 1903
"And these He will dismiss into a long correction, but the well-doers to an enduring life."

The New Testament in Modern Speech, 1910:
"And these shall go away into the Punishment 1 of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life 1 of the Ages."
1. [Of the Ages] Greek "aeonian."

A Critical Paraphrase of the New Testament by Vincent T. Roth, 1960
"And these shall go away into age-continuing punishment, but the righteous into life age-continuing."

The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, 1976
"And these shall go away into age-abiding *correction, but the righteous into **age-abiding life."

The Twentieth Century New Testament, 1900
"And these last will go away into onian punishment, but the righteous ?into onian life."

The People's New Covenant, 1925
"And these will depart into age-continuing correction, but the righteous, into age-continuing life."

Emphatic Diaglott, 1942 edition
"And these shall go forth to the aionian 1 cutting-off; but the RIGHTEOUS to aionian Life."

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958
"And these shall go away into agelasting cutting-off and the just into agelasting life."

The New Testament, a Translation, 1938
"And these will go away into eonian correction, but the righteous into eonian life."

The New Testament, A New Translation, 1980
"Then they will begin to serve a new period of suffering; but God's faithful will enter upon their heavenly life."

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959
"And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life."




Why did Paul become as if under law to those who were under law?




Your author, Richard Bauckham, states above, in your quote of him:

"Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches. It must have seemed as indispensable a part of universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation."

That's a lie. There were several early creeds prior to 500 A.D.. Not one of them mentioned "eternal punishment":

Apostles' Creed 120-250
Creed of Nicaea 325
Nicene Creed (Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed) 381
Chalcedonian Creed 451

So it took at least 5 centuries for "the church" to finally condemn universalism. And then, with endless punishment ruling by the might of the sword, there followed dark ages, Crusades, Inquisitions, burning opposers to death, and destroying their writings for over a millenium.

Your author also said:

"Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell."

In light of my previous comment re the dark ages, etc, i doubt that is something to boast about! Almost without exception any theologians for over 1000 years were not Protestants. Does that makes Catholicism or EO true? Endless hell must be true because "the church" killed off anyone who thought otherwise or silenced them with threats of imprisonment, tortures & such? Which goes a long way towards explaining why most Bible versions today follow the same tradition. The conquerors of history write the history books. That doesn't make them true or objective.

During the more enlightened first 500 years it was not the case that "almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell." BTW, your author didn't comment on the Ramelli quote:

"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."

www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html




I already did, as follows:

Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context. What biased scholars after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."

Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three



I'd say i'm working from an extremely powerful argument. Especially when it's up against yours about whoever has the most Bible versions has the truth. If the universalist majority in the early church had the most Bible versions, then it would have been the truth according to you, eh? Who had the most versions during the dark ages when Catholicism ruled by the sword, Catholicism or Protestantism?

My basis for what i say about aionios is based on a comparison with other words that would have been understood to teach what you claim had they been used by Jesus in Mt.25:46. Since those words were not used, but one which often refers to finite duration, it is evident Christ did not teach endless punishment.

The ambiguity is in the word aionios which can refer to duration that is undefined but not endless, or duration that is endless. If Christ wished to teach endless punishment unambiguously, He would have chosen words with less ambiguity. Since He didn't use such words, He didn't teach such a doctrine. Perhaps that helps clarify the meaning of what was said before:

If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". For if Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Tim. 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.





This has no bearing on the word being discussed, aionios. Clearly Mt.25:46 is speaking of future destiny & Jesus' listeners would have known that. Furthermore the only Scriptural reference to aionios life (Mt.25:46) they could have known was from Dan.12:2-3 discussed above.

A long, but good, read.

Most based on todays Orthodox beliefs. The (Catholic) church used to include the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture.

C. Detlef G. Müller writes (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, p. 622):

Period of origin and circulation: we do not know the original text of the Apocalypse of Peter. The translation below makes it clear that the Greek and Ethiopic texts frequently diverge from one another. The Ethiopic version contains a series of linguistic obscurities which are evidently to be traced back to lacunae and defects in the transmission of the text. In this respect it deserves attention that Clement of Alexandria regards the Apocalypse of Peter as Holy Scriptures (cf. Euseb. HE VI 14.1), which is proof of an origin at least in the first half of the 2nd century. The terminus a quo can be more precisely determined through the time of origin of 4 Est. (about 100 A.D.), which was probably used in the Apocalypse of Peter (cf. 4 Est. with c. 3), and 2 Peter, the priority of which was demonstrated by F. Spitta. We thus come, with H. Weinel, to approximately the year 135 as the probable time of origin, if in interpreting the parable of the fig-tree in c. 2 we also relate the Jewish Antichrist who persecutes the Christians to Bar Cochba.

Müller writes (New Testament Apocrphya, vol. 2, p. 625): "The significance of the Apocalypse of Peter as an important witness of the Petrine literature is not to be underestimated. Peter is the decisive witness of the resurrection event. Hence he is also deemed worthy of further revelations, which he hands on (in revelation documents) with authority. Revelatio and traditio, receiving and handing on, the chain of transmitters, are the central ideas of this understanding of revelation (Berger). Peter's disciple Clement (2 Clem. 5) plays the decisive role here, as witnessed by the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse, which belongs in the framework of the Clement literature in which Peter hands on the secret revelation to Clement (on Peter as a recipient of revelation cf. Berger, 379ff.). As compared with the Canon, the eschatological functions of Peter are new (Berger, 325). In its description of heaven and hell the Apocalypse draws on the abundance of ideas from the East which has also left its deposit in the writings of late Jewish Apocalyptic and the mystery religions. The motif of the river of fire, which is one of the pregnant eschatological ideas among the Egyptian Christians, certainly goes back to ancient Egypt. In view of the abundance of traditions in Egypt and the prestige of the Petrine tradition there (veneration of Peter's disciple Mark), an origin in Egypt is probable. The Apocalypse of Peter brings together divergent traditions, for which it has not yet been possible to discover any uniform source."

The Apocalypse of Peter was accepted as Canon scripture and read in the Catholic Church on Easter. It is a book of torment and eternal burning and quite graphic.(worse than Revelations). But at the very end, there is redemption, as man is eventually saved and gains eternal life. But as you can see by the last note, someone believes Origen added the last lines.

Final lines:
And unto them, the godly, shall the almighty and immortal God grant another boon, when they shall ask it of him. He shall grant them to save men out of the fierce fire and the eternal gnashing of teeth: and this will he do, for he will gather them again out of the everlasting flame and remove them else whither, sending them for the sake of his people unto another life eternal and immortal, in the Elysian plain where are the long waves of the Acherusian lake exhaustless and deep bosomed;


Some artless iambic lines of uncertain date are appended here, which show what was thought of the doctrine:


' Plainly false: for the fire will never cease to torment the damned. I indeed could pray that it might be so, who am branded with the deepest scars of transgressions which stand in need of utmost mercy. But let Origen be ashamed of his lying words, who saith that there is a term set to the torments.'

My personal belief is that the books of John and Peter in regards to suffering are not Gospel and written as either a motivator for a particular emerging (Christian) theology or a book of comfort to those who were being persecuted under the Domitian reign.

4th century writings by Eusebius of Caesarea maintain that Jews and Christians were heavily persecuted toward the end of Domitian's reign.[121][122] The Book of Revelation is thought by some to have been written during this period

The non Canon Gospels or books considered "Gnostic" refrain from the use of torment, as they are considered spiritual knowledge rather than wrath through ignorance.

The carrot and the stick philosophy is usually effective on those who are weak minded, IMO.

 

[Noxot]

What people are you talking about that can't leave or enter?
Scriptural text?

God Bless,
SBC

I did not say that people can't enter or leave but others are saying that and so I want an answer.

however if you want an bible verse about such things:

Rev 22:14-15 (YLT)
`Happy are those doing His commands that the authority shall be theirs unto the tree of the life, and by the gates they may enter into the city; and without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the whoremongers, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a lie.

but if you want an advanced contemplation that no man can know but only those dwelling in heaven as to the process of salvation and all coming to the knowledge and love of God and who willfully are bending their knees....

Spoiler: some verses showing the spiritual journey from sin to salvation

Joel 2:1-21 (YLT)
Blow ye a trumpet in Zion, And shout ye in My holy hill, Tremble do all inhabitants of the earth, For coming is the day of Jehovah, for it is near! A day of darkness and thick darkness, A day of cloud and thick darkness, As darkness spread on the mountains, A people numerous and mighty, Like it there hath not been from of old, And after it there is not again--till the years of generation and generation. Before it consumed hath fire, And after it burn doth a flame, As the garden of Eden is the land before it, And after it a wilderness--a desolation! And also an escape there hath not been to it, As the appearance of horses is its appearance, And as horsemen, so they run. As the noise of chariots, on the tops of the mountains they skip, As the noise of a flame of fire devouring stubble, As a mighty people set in array for battle. From its face pained are peoples, All faces have gathered paleness. As mighty ones they run, As men of war they go up a wall, And each in his own ways they do go, And they embarrass not their paths. And each his brother they press not, Each in his way they go on, If by the missile they fall, they are not cut off. In the city they run to and fro, On the wall they run, Into houses they go up by the windows, They go in as a thief. At their face trembled hath the earth, Shaken have the heavens, Sun and moon have been black, And stars have gathered up their shining. And Jehovah hath given forth His voice before His force, For very great is His camp, For mighty is the doer of His word, For great is the day of Jehovah--very fearful, And who doth bear it? And also now--an affirmation of Jehovah, Turn ye back unto Me with all your heart, And with fasting, and with weeping, And with lamentation. And rend your heart, and not your garments, And turn back unto Jehovah your God, For gracious and merciful is He, Slow to anger, and abundant in kindness, And He hath repented concerning the evil. Who knoweth--He doth turn back, Yea--He hath repented, And He hath left behind Him a blessing, A present and libation of Jehovah your God? Blow ye a trumpet in Zion, Sanctify a fast--proclaim a restraint. Gather the people, sanctify an assembly, Assemble the aged, Gather infants and sucklings of the breasts, Go out let a bridegroom from his inner chamber, And a bride out of her closet. Between the porch and the altar weep let the priests, ministrants of Jehovah, And let them say: `Have pity, O Jehovah, on Thy people, And give not Thy inheritance to reproach, To the ruling over them of nations, Why do they say among peoples, Where is their God?' And let Jehovah be zealous for His land, And have pity on His people. Let Jehovah answer and say to His people, `Lo, I am sending to you the corn, And the new wine, and the oil, And ye have been satisfied with it, And I make you no more a reproach among nations, And the northern I put far off from you, And have driven him unto a land dry and desolate, With his face unto the eastern sea, And his rear unto the western sea, And come up hath his stink, And come up doth his stench, For he hath exerted himself to work. Do not fear, O land! joy and rejoice, For Jehovah hath exerted Himself to work.

Isa 42:13-43:21 (YLT)
Jehovah as a mighty one goeth forth. As a man of war He stirreth up zeal, He crieth, yea, He shrieketh, Against His enemies He showeth Himself mighty. I have kept silent from of old, I keep silent, I refrain myself, As a travailing woman I cry out, I desolate and swallow up together. I make waste mountains and hills, And all their herbs I dry up, And I have made rivers become isles, And ponds I dry up. And I have caused the blind to go, In a way they have not known, In paths they have not known I cause them to tread, I make a dark place before them become light, And unlevelled places become a plain, These are the things I have done to them, And I have not forsaken them. Removed backward--utterly ashamed, Are those trusting in a graven image, Those saying to a molten image, `Ye are our gods.' Ye deaf, hear; and ye blind, look to see. Who is blind but My servant? And deaf as My messenger I send? Who is blind as he who is at peace, Yea, blind, as the servant of Jehovah? Seeing many things, and thou observest not, Opening ears, and he heareth not. Jehovah hath delight for the sake of His righteousness, He magnifieth law, and maketh honourable. And this is a people seized and spoiled, Snared in holes--all of them, And in houses of restraint they were hidden, They have been for a prey, And there is no deliverer, A spoil, and none is saying, `Restore.' Who among you giveth ear to this? Attendeth, and heareth afterwards. Who hath given Jacob for a spoil, And Israel to the spoilers? Is it not Jehovah--He against whom we sinned? Yea, they have not been willing in His ways to walk, Nor have they hearkened to His law. And He poureth on him fury, His anger, and the strength of battle, And it setteth him on fire round about, And he hath not known, And it burneth against him, and he layeth it not to heart! And now, thus said Jehovah, Thy Creator, O Jacob, and thy Fashioner, O Israel, Be not afraid, for I have redeemed thee, I have called on thy name--thou art Mine. When thou passest into waters, I am with thee, And into floods, they do not overflow thee, When thou goest into fire, thou art not burnt, And a flame doth not burn against thee. For I--Jehovah thy God, The Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour, I have appointed Egypt thine atonement, Cush and Seba in thy stead. Since thou wast precious in Mine eyes, Thou wast honoured, and I have loved thee, And I appoint men in thy stead, And peoples instead of thy life. Be not afraid, for I am with thee, From the east I bring in thy seed, And from the west I gather thee. I am saying to the north, `Give up,' And to the south, `Restrain not.' Bring in My sons from afar, And My daughters from the end of the earth. Every one who is called by My name, Even for My honour I have created him, I have formed him, yea, I have made him. He brought out a blind people who have eyes, And deaf ones who have ears. All the nations have been gathered together, And the peoples are assembled, Who among them declareth this, And former things causeth us to hear? They give their witnesses, And they are declared righteous, And they hear and say, `Truth.' Ye are My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And My servant whom I have chosen, So that ye know and give credence to Me, And understand that I am He, Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none. I--I am Jehovah, And besides Me there is no saviour. I--I declared, and saved, and proclaimed, And there is no stranger with you, And ye are My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And I am God. Even from the day I am He, And there is no deliverer from My hand, I work, and who doth turn it back? Thus said Jehovah, your Redeemer, The Holy One of Israel: `For your sake I have sent to Babylon, And caused bars to descend--all of them, And the Chaldeans, whose song is in the ships. I am Jehovah, your Holy One, Creator of Israel, your King.' Thus said Jehovah, Who is giving in the sea a way, And in the strong waters a path. Who is bringing forth chariot and horse, A force, even a strong one: `Together they lie down--they rise not, They have been extinguished, As flax they have been quenched.' Remember not former things, And ancient things consider not. Lo, I am doing a new thing, now it springeth up, Do ye not know it? Yea, I put in a wilderness a way, In a desolate place--floods. Honour me doth the beast of the field, Dragons and daughters of an ostrich, For I have given in a wilderness waters, Floods in a desolate place, To give drink to My people--My chosen. This people I have formed for Myself, My praise they recount.

following the same line of spiritual logic after the resurrection of Jesus:

John 20:19 (YLT)
It being, therefore, evening, on that day, the first of the sabbaths, and the doors having been shut where the disciples were assembled, through fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith to them, `Peace to you;'

Rev 11:15 (YLT)
And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, `The kingdoms of the world did become those of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!'

 

[SBC]

I did not say that people can't enter or leave but others are saying that and so I want an answer.

Oh, ok, got it.

however if you want an bible verse about such things:

I have a view concerning the coming and going, however, Thanks for your input.

Rev 22:14-15 (YLT)

but if you want an advanced contemplation that no man can know but only those dwelling in heaven as to the process of salvation and all coming to the knowledge and love of God and who willfully are bending their knees....

Joel 2:1-21 (YLT)

Isa 42:13-43:21 (YLT)

following the same line of spiritual logic after the resurrection of Jesus:

John 20:19 (YLT)

Rev 11:15 (YLT)

God Bless,
SBC

 

[ClementofA]

1 Cor 15
[22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
[23] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
[24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
[25] For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
[26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
[27] For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.



Hi ClementofA ~

I disagree with you.

According to the fullness of the text of 1Corinthians it is talking about people at Corinth who had recently been introduced to teachings of Jesus Christ and the receiving of the Holy Spirit, and seemingly their lack of the fullness of what the receiving of the Holy Spirit means.

Paul begins with a greeting to "specific" men, and exalting Christ.

Specific men:

1 Cor 1
[2] Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus,

From here forward, it is established WHO Paul is speaking to.
The rest of 1 Cor is to those men IN CHRIST, and Paul's correcting them, about what that means.

1 Cor 15
[22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

My disagreement with your view, is WHO "ALL" are.

Seems your view is ALL, no matter what.

Whereas my view is ALL, who are sanctified IN Christ.

I would hope you would read and pray about the fullness of 1 Cor of who are the specific characters being spoken to and why.

God Bless,
SBC

I think this article makes some good points on the passage"

As in Adam all die

 

[SBC]

I think this article makes some good points on the passage"

As in Adam all die

Thanks for sharing -
Certainly I believe all die.
However I do not believe - all are given forgiveness or eternal life.

I do not believe Hell is the Place designed for forgiveness, soul restoration, spirit quickening and imparting of the Holy Spirit to those unfaithful to God.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I'm going to be closing this thread in a few minutes, but before I do, I just want to make one quick clarification:

Twice, ClementofA, pulled a Universalist equivalent of the Problem of Evil, pitting God's Love against His Omnipotence. I responded by saying that God's Love is more important than His Omnipotence, that He is more interested in having a Loving relationship with us, than forcing us to do what He wants. However, the way presented that was kind of sloppy, and may have appeared as though, I was denying God's Omnipotence, so I just want be clear here, I do not deny God's Omnipotence, I was just trying to emphasize that God's Love and even His Mercy -Yes! There is Mercy involved in this! In fact I'm currently expanding my devotion to the Divine Mercy, which touches upon this, I highly encourage everyone to check this out.- is what is important here.

I could go-on and address other things, like ClementofA's really immature comments on the inquisition. But I'm going to, instead to end with this simple statement:

In the end, you either love God, or you don't. Heaven, is simply the place one enters into Loving Union with God for all eternity, if one doesn't love God, one does not want to go to Heaven. In Love, there is no force or deception, God will not force someone to go to Heaven, nor deceive Him. A plurality of "ages" is nothing more than force and deception and thus not the characteristic of a Loving God. God will honour the decisions of His creatures, if one of God's creatures decides to God as His Father, and spend an eternity away from Him, God will honour that choice, period.

That's all, I'll be starting up a Sola Scriptura debate on October 2nd, I highly encourage everyone to come. Sola Scriptura was a key element at play during this debate, in fact, it was the only thing that made this debate a challenge, so I look forward to addressing this issue directly.

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Closed at OP request.


ADMIN HAT OFF