Could most modern translations be in error?

[ClementofA]

This was the only church father quoted in your patheos link:

It is quite in vain, then, that some–indeed very many–yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture—but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express literal truth.
— Augustine, Enchiridion, sec. 112.​

Great advice by Augustine!

Great mud slinging by Augustine. It seems you two have much in common.

 

[Uber Genius]

So we haven't even begun to disgust the inference that started us down this path.

If God is all-loving then he would want all to be saved.

And we have good scriptural support that this is the case.

But what of free will? Should we pretend that there is no evidence that God has created a world where his creation is free to reject him? This would be hard to prove indeed.

What of evil? Should we pretend that created beings don't rebel?

Do we extend our universal inference to Satan, demons, sons of God confined to Tartarus?

What of God's justice?

IN our eisegetical tour so far we haven't stumbled over the requirements of God's Justice. Hundreds of passages must be deleted or ignored in order to make the universalist inference the majority inference.

What would be more playable is an inference that argued rather than ignored the whole data of scripture. No more cherry-picking biblical data needed.

It is complex, no getting by that, but we are called to engage all the data. We can eschew exegetical fallacies. If we get new textual finds by the tens of thousands that show that what we have is not an accurate representative of early texts then so be it. Follow the data.

 

[dreadnought]

"I understand it is hard to grasp for many, but for 1000 years there was no Bible available at all for the common people who had to rely on a corrupt clergy, however even the worst translations contain the universalist verses and show that "for ever" is not always endless. It's only for a few years now where all people have access to all translations and even the source texts in their original languages."

Blindly relying on a bunch of biased versions cloned by the pro ECT advocates boys club is worth as much as a piece of toilet paper. If atheists shelled out to have printed 100 versions saying "God is dead" would you accept that because the 100 outnumber what other versions say?

Since the translators all believed in endless punishment, what else would you expect, except that they all would mis-translate certain "hell" passages the same way? Obviously.

Dozens of English translations don't agree with those cloned by the endless tortures boys club.

Likewise the early church father Greek scholar universalists would have rejected your cloned excuses for translations. Better to call them paraphrases, interpretations or theologically driven opinions of what the originally inspired ancient language texts say.

Even your cloned theologically driven interpretative "versions" support universalism, which makes them self-contradictory, e.g.:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

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 who agreed with the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" (of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning opposers to death with fire & their writings) 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)."

I would submit that if most translations are in error, they all are, but they are still probably good translations, for the most part.

 

[Uber Genius]

Great mud slinging by Augustine. It seems you two have much in common.

You started the OP with:

"I understand it is hard to grasp for many,"

"people who had to rely on a corrupt clergy,"

"Blindly relying on a bunch of biased versions cloned by the pro ECT advocates boys club is worth as much as a piece of toilet paper."

"Likewise the early church father Greek scholar universalists would have rejected your cloned excuses for translations."

Insult reader's intellect

Insult clergy with sweeping generalization

Insult readers and translators

Misrepresent early church father's who largely held to ECT!

And now you have the audacity to claim "mud-slinging?"

Wow.

Your word-study exegetical fallacy at least had the chance to convince the uneducated. Your hypocritical ad hominem campaign won't convince anyone.

Your claim to defend God's all-loving nature is laudable. And your inference is a live one. But let's not head to the gutter. Lets engage biblical data.

 

[ClementofA]

So we haven't even begun to disgust the inference that started us down this path.

If God is all-loving then he would want all to be saved.

And we have good scriptural support that this is the case.

But what of free will? Should we pretend that there is no evidence that God has created a world where his creation is free to reject him? This would be hard to prove indeed.

What of evil? Should we pretend that created beings don't rebel?

Do we extend our universal inference to Satan, demons, sons of God confined to Tartarus?

What of God's justice?

IN our eisegetical tour so far we haven't stumbled over the requirements of God's Justice. Hundreds of passages must be deleted or ignored in order to make the universalist inference the majority inference.

What would be more playable is an inference that argued rather than ignored the whole data of scripture. No more cherry-picking biblical data needed.

It is complex, no getting by that, but we are called to engage all the data. We can eschew exegetical fallacies. If we get new textual finds by the tens of thousands that show that what we have is not an accurate representative of early texts then so be it. Follow the data.

Irrelevant to the topic of the OP. Here's where your comments belong:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-torments-were-true-is-god-a-monster.8042349/

Or in your own created topic, etc.

So the vast majority of Christian scholarship, creeds and commentaries for the past 2000 years just got it wrong.

If majority opinion equals truth, should eternal tormentists change their view to annihilationism or universalism if either of the latter 2 views become the majority Christian view in the near future? If universalism were ever a majority view in the early church, would you have believed it because it was the majority view? If praying to Mary was ever the majority view, would you believe in that?

Re Universalism being believed at times by many, if not a majority, in the early church & hopeful universalism possibly being a majority Christian view today, see:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...niversalism-since-early-church-times.8042013/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfund...017/04/indeed-many-universalism-early-church/

Along come some 19th century hyper dispensationalists who personally translate the Bible and say "hey we got it right and all those committees got it wrong!"

There have been universalists in the church since before the apostle Paul.

And your sources which refer to church fathers for your view never cite the original works.

Wrong. You haven't read much, have you. See, for example Ramelli's tome.

Were all the false doctrines accepted by a majority of Christendom in the early church, the dark ages & the middle ages a "conspiracy" of men? Or the work (a conspiracy) of demons collaborating together under Satan? Or based on ignorance? Did a lack of sound thinking play a part? Or was it a combination of these factors?

Wouldn't Satan love to throw mud on the character of the true God by making many of those who profess His name (Jesus Christ) to portay Him as a monster who pointlessly tortures most of his created human race for all eternity? And He is helpless, impotent, to do anything about it, or He doesn't want to do anything about it, since His love quickly expired like a carton of milk?

 

[redleghunter]

Re Universalism being believed at times by many, if not a majority, in the early church

Unsubstantiated claim. The links you provide are authors who state this but don’t give the actual source quoted in context. Show me the homily or commentary or apologetic work of the various church fathers who were universalists. I want to see the source material.

For example you can use the New Advent site to find the Church father and work and point us all to the universalist teaching.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

For example, like I did showing John Chrysostom advocated Faith Alone.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/salvation-by-faith-alone.8031954/page-5#post-71883325

& hopeful universalism possibly being a majority Christian view today, see:

I don’t doubt this is happening and will continue to happen. Universalist beliefs line up nicely with post-modernism.

There have been universalists in the church since before the apostle Paul.

Excuse me if I ask for proof of this assertion.

Wrong. You haven't read much, have you. See, for example Ramelli's tome.

I’ve read a lot of the church fathers. As I stated above show me the actual source material.

 

[redleghunter]

The OT God is the same as the NT God, Who is the Savior of the world, not an eternal torturing monster.

Whoa be careful there. God has judged entire cities and nations which included women and children. So I would be careful there thinking you can arbitrate for God on if His Justice is Righteous.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<RL>That may be a good point. But we do have Hebrew and Greek scholars who graduate Seminary (as you do) who look to the scholarship and not drive by 'theology' blog sites. For example, we do have a member here at CF who has on many occasion put together an excellent exegesis of the very use of the words in contention.
This is the work of @Der Alter

In the following twenty three verses αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described, by association with other adjectives and adjectival phrases, as eternal, everlasting etc.:
1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 7:24, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, John 6:58, John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7, Luke 1:33, Revelation 14:11, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24, John 8:51, Ephesians 3:21, Romans 1:20, Romans 16:26.
…..In the NT “aion/aionios” are used to refer to things which are not eternal but are never defined/described, by other adjectives and adjectival phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, as in the following verses.
[1]Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[2]Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous.
[3]1 Timothy 1:17.
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [αἰών/aion] immortal, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [αἰών/aion] and ever [αἰώνιος/aionios]. Amen.
In this verse “aion” is paired with “immortal.” “Aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and be immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”
[4]2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;[πρόσκαιρος/proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this passage “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary” “eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[5]2 Corinthians 5:1
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] in the heavens.
In this verse Paul is actually taling about our bodies. “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” Does the UR crowd think God is going to replace our destroyed earthly house with an ages long house which will also be destroyed at the end of an age? The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[6]Hebrews 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever [αἰών/aion] he has an unchangeable [ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos] priesthood.
In this verse “aion” is paired with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”
[7]1 Peter 1:23
(23) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, [̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God. …
1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[αἰών/aion] " And this is the word that was preached to you.
In verse 23 “word of God” is paired with “imperishable.” In verse 25 the word of God “endures εις τον αιωνα unto eternity. ” Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity.”
[8]1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting[αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”
[9]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;[φθορά/fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”
[10]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this verse “aionios life” is contrasted with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[11]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Here “aionios” and “aion” are paired with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
[12]1 John 2:17
(17) The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [αἰών/aion]
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “pass away,” “lives aionios” cannot mean a finite period, A “finite period” is not opposite of “pass away.” Thus “lives aionios” by definition here means “lives eternally.”
[13]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [ολιγον/oligon] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “little while” Does Jesus give His followers a finite period of glory then they eventually die? Thus “aionios” here means “eternal.”
[14]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [ἀφθαρσία/apftharsia] he will give eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.
In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aionios life” here means “eternal life.”
[15]Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [βασιλευσει][Vb] over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom [βασιλειας][Nn] there shall be no end.[τελος/τελος]
In this verse the reign βασιλευσει/basileusei, which is the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom βασιλειας/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternal.
[16]Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[εις αιωνας αιωνων/eis aionas aionon] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paired with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”
[17]John 10:28
(28) And I give unto them eternal [αιωνιον] life; and they shall never [εις τον αιωνα] perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
In this verse “aionion” and “aiona” are paired with “[no man can] “pluck them out of my hand” If “aionion” and “aiona” are only a finite period then at some time they could be plucked out. “Aionion” and “aiona” by definition here mean eternal.
[18]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life.
In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” Believers could perish in a finite period, “aionion life” by definition here means eternal life.
[19]John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life.
In this verse “aionion” is paired with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, “aionion life” by definition here means eternal or everlasting life.
[20]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [αἰώνιος] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
In this verse “aionios” is paired with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from life unto death.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.
[21]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [αἰώνιος] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
In this verse “aionios life” is contrasted with death. “A finite period life” is not opposite death, “eternal life” is. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”
[22]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [του αιωνος/tou aionios] and ever! [των αιωνων/ton aionion] Amen.
In this verse “tou aionios ton aionion” is paired with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.
[23]John 8:51
(51) Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ου μη εις τον αιωνα/ou mé unto the aion] see death."
According to noted Greek scholar Marvin Vincent "The double negative “ou mé” signifies in nowise, by no means." Unless Jesus is saying they will die, i.e. see death, unto the age. By definition aion means eternity.<end>

end

I am Der Alter and I approve this post.

 

[redleghunter]

Great mud slinging by Augustine. It seems you two have much in common.

What’s interesting is the Patheos piece you linked, Augustine was the only church father quoted. Yet there were claims of other fathers agreeing with universalist views yet not one citation of their works.

 

[redleghunter]

If majority opinion equals truth, should eternal tormentists change their view to annihilationism or universalism if either of the latter 2 views become the majority Christian view in the near future? If universalism were ever a majority view in the early church, would you have believed it because it was the majority view? If praying to Mary was ever the majority view, would you believe in that?

It was your claim the majority early church view was universalism. Which you have not substantiated with source documents.

 

[ClementofA]

<RL>That may be a good point. But we do have Hebrew and Greek scholars who graduate Seminary (as you do) who look to the scholarship and not drive by 'theology' blog sites. For example, we do have a member here at CF who has on many occasion put together an excellent exegesis of the very use of the words in contention.
This is the work of @Der Alter

That chaff is irrelevant to the OP of this thread & was already refuted earlier in the same, as well as by others, many times before. Here again is the OP:

Good grief no! But that is what Universalist "scholars" do when they make bold statements that words don't mean what most scholars have translated them to mean. My point is why do we disregard virtually ALL of the modern Bible translations just because Universalists dont like what they say?

"I understand it is hard to grasp for many, but for 1000 years there was no Bible available at all for the common people who had to rely on a corrupt clergy, however even the worst translations contain the universalist verses and show that "for ever" is not always endless. It's only for a few years now where all people have access to all translations and even the source texts in their original languages."

Blindly relying on a bunch of biased versions cloned by the pro ECT advocates boys club is worth as much as a piece of toilet paper. If atheists shelled out to have printed 100 versions saying "God is dead" would you accept that because the 100 outnumber what other versions say?

Since the translators all believed in endless punishment, what else would you expect, except that they all would mis-translate certain "hell" passages the same way? Obviously.

Dozens of English translations don't agree with those cloned by the endless tortures boys club.

Likewise the early church father Greek scholar universalists would have rejected your cloned excuses for translations. Better to call them paraphrases, interpretations or theologically driven opinions of what the originally inspired ancient language texts say.

Even your cloned theologically driven interpretative "versions" support universalism, which makes them self-contradictory, e.g.:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

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 who agreed with the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" (of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning opposers to death with fire & their writings) 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)."

 

[ClementofA]

It was your claim the majority early church view was universalism. Which you have not substantiated with source documents.

Was it my "claim"? Substantiate that with a source document. Or retract your statement.

Why would it matter to you, in light of these questions you continually evade answering:

If majority opinion equals truth, should eternal tormentists change their view to annihilationism or universalism if either of the latter 2 views become the majority Christian view in the near future? If universalism were ever a majority view in the early church, would you have believed it because it was the majority view? If praying to Mary was ever the majority view, would you believe in that?

Does majority opinion equal truth regarding any opinion or doctrine?

Were all the false doctrines accepted by a majority of Christendom in the early church, the dark ages & the middle ages a "conspiracy" of men? Or the work (a conspiracy) of demons collaborating together under Satan? Or based on ignorance? Did a lack of sound thinking play a part? Or was it a combination of these factors?

Wouldn't Satan love to throw mud on the character of the true God by making many of those who profess His name (Jesus Christ) to portay Him as a monster who pointlessly tortures most of his created human race for all eternity? And He is helpless, impotent, to do anything about it, or He doesn't want to do anything about it, since His love quickly expired like a carton of milk?

 

[ClementofA]

What’s interesting is the Patheos piece you linked, Augustine was the only church father quoted. Yet there were claims of other fathers agreeing with universalist views yet not one citation of their works.

Anyone can easily find a list of quotes of universalist church fathers in support of universalism by doing an internet search. You did the same (in post # 19) re alleged non universalists. In that post you copy/pasted from a biased site English language opinions (so-called translations) of what some early church fathers allegedly said in the original languages. Several of your quotes are probably mistranslations re the same issue raised in the OP of this thread. For example your post's first quote from Barnabas i've addressed here, providing the Greek text of Barnabas:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...alism-since-early-church-times.8042013/page-4

 

[ClementofA]

I posted:

Re Universalism being believed at times by many, if not a majority, in the early church

Unsubstantiated claim. The links you provide are authors who state this but don’t give the actual source quoted in context.

That's what the links i provided are for:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...niversalism-since-early-church-times.8042013/

I posted:

& hopeful universalism possibly being a majority Christian view today, see:

I don’t doubt this is happening and will continue to happen. Universalist beliefs line up nicely with post-modernism.

As opposed to the endless hell majority view of Christendom of the dark ages (600 - 1600 AD & beyond) of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning of opposers & their writings, etc?

I’ve read a lot of the church fathers. As I stated above show me the actual source material.

Do an internet search re universalism. See Ramelli's tome. It's full of references re universalism in the early church & early church fathers. Read other books re early church universalists that give the references & then look them up. Several books on the subject are posted on this site: http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

 

[ClementofA]

Whoa be careful there. God has judged entire cities and nations which included women and children. So I would be careful there thinking you can arbitrate for God on if His Justice is Righteous.

Where are those children now? In Calvin's, Augustine's & Jonathan Edwards "hell" burning alive forever? You compare being "judged" to being burnt alive forever? The judgments of Love Omnipotent are always corrective, for the good of His created beings, not pointless, endless sadistic tortures.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-torments-were-true-is-god-a-monster.8042349/

 

[ClementofA]

Unsubstantiated claim.

Don't you not believe your own source from your post #19 in this thread:

"Yet Basil has to confess that most ordinary Christians have been beguiled by the Devil into believing, against the manifest evidence of Scripture, that there will be a time-limit....The influence of Origen is clearly visible here, but by the fifth century the stern doctrine that sinners will have no second chance after this life and that the fir which will devour them will never be extinguished was everywhere paramount." (Early Christian Doctrines; pp.483-484)."

He's saying Basil said - "most" - Christians believed there will be a "time-limit" to the postmortem punishment of the wicked.

The same author goes on to state:

"Western thought, which also succumbed to the influence of Origenism at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, exhibits subtler nuances than Eastern." (Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, p.484).

So both the Western & Eastern church yielded "to the influence of Origenism". One of the tenets of Origenism was Universalism.

He adds:

"In Augustine's day a wide variety of opinions were in vogue, some holding that the pains of hell would be temporary for all men without distinction, others that the intercession of the saints would secure their salvation..." (p.484).

and also:

Augustine believed re the pains of endless hell that those "of children dying unbaptized will be 'most mild of all'; but for all the chastisement will be eternal" (p.485).

and again

Augustine "is led by certain texts of Scripture (1 Cor. 3, 13-15; Matt. 12:32) to allow that certain sinners may attain pardon in the world to come" (p.485)

and further re Augustine's view:

"There are people who, although Christians at heart, have remained entangled in earthly loves, and it is natural that after this life they should undergo purification by 'purgatorial fire' " (p.485).

 

[Hillsage]

I just have one question for the non UR believers. Based upon all the ‘logical’ arguments you’ve all made, why aren’t you all Roman Catholics then, reading their translation and believing their doctrines? Every committee and doctrine of “the one true holy Catholic and apostolic church whose roots go back to Peter” surely couldn’t have been wrong for 1500 years could they? The quote above is one of the arguments that kept me bound for 21 years.

 

[Hillsage]

I would submit that if most translations are in error, they all are, but they are still probably good translations, for the most part.

I agree. Good enough to have enough truth to get truly saved. And I believe that’s true even for Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witness translation. There’s enough info in their bibles for a child to get saved...and for the greatest religious minds to argue until the return of Jesus, never coming to an experiential knowledge of the truth that is most important.

 

[Uber Genius]

Whoa be careful there. God has judged entire cities and nations which included women and children. So I would be careful there thinking you can arbitrate for God on if His Justice is Righteous.

I have tried to engage the OP on their false premise (that God can't be all-loving and there be a place of torment for the wicked). But Clement appears to be the artful dodger.

 

[Uber Genius]

We can trace what early ante-Nicene church fathers believed and especially ones that were from the first and early-second century were almost exclusively ECT. This data is helpful in informing us what Jesus' disciples were teaching the second generation of disciples (Clement ironically, Papias, Iraneous, Polycarp), we don't want to make the Catholic inference that tradition holds sway. In fact it could be the case that no church father had this right.

The data we argue is from scripture. We have a much greater collection of handwritten Biblical texts than ever before and we also have over 100,000 new Qumeran texts that help us gain context for first century figures of speech and themes.

No one's salvation depends on their view of hell. On ECT God passes over judgement and imparts holiness to all who accept him. On universalism, one cannot be separated eternally for any reason and all will want to be with God eternally even if they hate him in this life.

This is a minor theological difference that in the end changes only the marketing brochure. If universalism is true then "the problem of hell," is solved.

We still have the problem of evil and suffering but have cut the major objections to Christianity in half.

If the translators falsified their translation then all knowledge gained through revelation of the scriptures is suspect! That is why is see the approach of qouting passages whether they be Greek or Hebrew, Latin or Coptic, Syriac or english, if we say "I want the secondary, or tertiary meaning to be inserted in a text as a translator then what would keep me from doing the same about every text on every theological issue I didn't agree with?

Not just translators falsify! On this approach copyists and editors would also change texts. This is the ole cutting of one's nose to spite their face routine.

Also known as sawing off the limb your standing on.

It is as coherent an approach as married bachelors and round triangles.

Let us move on to exegetical arguments.