The Restitution Of All Things A.K.A. Universalism

[FineLinen]

Dear Laz: The fundamentalist is so predictable. God cannot reconcile the all because>>>

Matthew 25:46 declares there is "eternal punishment" for the goats. So Matthew 25 is the foundation for any attempt to grasp anything further.

Take 2

This is such an easy exercise. Simple & straight forward.

1. Why are “virgins” in the context of Matt.25?

2. Why is this not a comparison between pure virgins and harlots or loose women?

3. Why are two clean animals (according to Old Covenant) in the parable i.e. sheep & goats?

4. Why not 1 clean animal and 1 unclean?

5. Why not a sheep (clean) and a pig (unclean)?

WHY?

 

[Saint Steven]

Answer: Naturally, the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did that.

I agree.
Isn't that a curious thing?
The forbidden fruit, a sin to eat, is the probable source of our human conscience, by which we are able to discern right and wrong. God's law, written on the human heart.

 

[Saint Steven]

The thing is, I don't ID the Lake of Fire as being Hell, unlike a lot of people. I noted in my reading that the Bible does not either.

Well, not like an encyclopedia, no. But the elements are certainly there.
If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

What is Hell then?
What are your definitions for Hades, Sheol and Tartarus?

 

[Saint Steven]

So it does, but if you read the entire thing, you will see that Eden is treated like any other country/nation that Tyre traded with. Easy - I didn't even need to crack my Bible for that one.

I think it is not either one or the other, but both.
Was the king of Tyre anointed as a guardian cherub on the holy mount of God?

Ezekiel 28:14
You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

 

[Saint Steven]

The fundamentalist is so predictable.

Right. I follow the Bible, while Universalists go their own way.
Esoteric or gnostic? Maybe Esognostic?

 

[FineLinen]

Take 3

This is such an easy exercise. Simple & straight forward.

1. Why are “virgins” in the context of Matt.25?

2. Why is this not a comparison between pure virgins and harlots or loose women?

3. Why are two clean animals (according to Old Covenant) in the parable i.e. sheep & goats?

4. Why not 1 clean animal and 1 unclean?

5. Why not a sheep (clean) and a pig (unclean)?

WHY?

 

[FineLinen]

There is one (1) passage of Canon for “everlasting punishment” (Matt.25). This one single verse is the cornerstone for the proponents of unending punishment.

According to the context of St. Matthew 25 and ONLY the context, please fill in the empty lines.

The foundation for “everlasting punishment” Matt. 25=

1._________________________________________?

2._________________________________________?

3._________________________________________?

4._________________________________________?

5._________________________________________?

 

[Saint Steven]

According to the context of St. Matthew 25 and ONLY the context, please fill in the empty lines.

Do you hope to win the debate by limiting your opponents sources?
Why should anyone answer loaded questions?

None of this changes the definition.
Do you consider "eternal life" to be "age-during"? (temporary)

G166
aiōnios
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

Matthew 25:46
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

[FineLinen]

Search= "everlasting punishment"

One entry found.

Matt. 25:46

Search= "eternal punishment"

No entries found.

"Search "eternal"

Three (3) entries found.

"Eternal" = Aidios

 

[FineLinen]

The adjective (aionios)is never found until the writings of Plato (427 BC - 347 BC) who only used the word five times, and while he did use this word in the context of eternity, he never used it by itself to mean such.

Why?

The word, in and of itself, does not mean eternal. Whenever he wanted to convey the idea of eternity, he always combined a stronger forced word with it such as aidios. Not once did he ever use aionios by itself to mean endless.

However

Both Plato and Aristotle did use the word by itself to mean temporary.

Dr. J. W. Hanson

Plato, referrring to certain souls in Hades, describes them as being in aionian intoxication.

He does not use the word in the sense of endless is evident from the Phaedon, where he says, "It is a very ancient opinion that souls quitting the world, repair to the infernal regions, and return after that, to live in this world."

"After the aionian intoxication is over, they return to earth, which demonstrates that the word was not used by him as meaning endless."

Aristotle uses the word in the same sense.

"All these things (the earth) seem to be done for her good, in order to maintain safety during her aionios duration, or life.

And still more to the purpose is this quotation concerning God's existence:

"Life and 'an aion continuous and eternal, zoe kai aion sunekes kai aidios." Here the word aidios, (eternal) is employed to qualify aion and impart to it what it had not of itself, the sense of eternal.

So we can see from classic Greek usage that the word aionios meant a temporal period of time and was not used to convey the idea of eternity.

"As the marsh-hen secretly builds on the watery sod, behold I will build me a nest on the greatness of God." -Sidney Lanier_

 

[Lazarus Short]

Right. I follow the Bible, while Universalists go their own way.
Esoteric or gnostic? Maybe Esognostic?

I'm sure you do follow the Bible...but which Bible? There are many versions, and not all promote the doctrine of Hell/Eternal Conscious Torment. Would you like a list of them? BTW, we Universalists follow the Bible as well, we just have a different takeaway. The ultimate proof for me was finding that God both can AND WANTS TO save all.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Dear Laz: The fundamentalist is so predictable. God cannot reconcile the all because>>>

Matthew 25:46 declares there is "eternal punishment" for the goats. So Matthew 25 is the foundation for any attempt to grasp anything further.

Take 2 =

Would I be too far off to say it is a stumbling block?

 

[Wrangler]

"Why not hell?" Simply because God never claims to have made it, unlike woman. Refer back to #1.

God is the Creator of all things. He did not claim to make eye brows.

"How do I come to the conclusion that hell is "even bad"? How can it be otherwise?

Appeal to Ignorance. Everything God made is good. You did not understand the point about prisons, huh?

 

[Wrangler]

Matthew 25:46 declares there is "eternal punishment" for the goats.

I read a brilliant commentary about this the other day. Like eternal redemption, and eternal salvation, eternal punishment has eternal consequences but is finite in duration as we are not eternally being redeemed. We are redeemed at one finite point, which has eternal consequences of salvation.

Likewise, we are punished at one finite point, which has eternal consequences of salvation.

 

[Lazarus Short]

God is the Creator of all things. He did not claim to make eye brows.



Appeal to Ignorance. Everything God made is good. You did not understand the point about prisons, huh?

The existence of eyebrows demonstrates that God made them as part of His design for us. As for Hell, I find no proof except by way of bad translation.

Everything God made is good, some of it only ultimately. I did not realize I was appealing to ignorance, but I noted as I read the Law God gave to Moses, that a prison system was not mentioned, only civil fines, eye for an eye, and death.

 

[Lazarus Short]

I read a brilliant commentary about this the other day. Like eternal redemption, and eternal salvation, eternal punishment has eternal consequences but is finite in duration as we are not eternally being redeemed. We are redeemed at one finite point, which has eternal consequences of salvation.

Likewise, we are punished at one finite point, which has eternal consequences of salvation.

I could interpret your statement above from an Universalist viewpoint. But tell me, if you are a Hell believer, if the Second Death is forever, how is Death ever defeated? If some are still dead and/or in Hell, how does God ever become All in all? I have yet to get back a satisfying answer.

 

[Wrangler]

I could interpret your statement above from an Universalist viewpoint. But tell me, if you are a Hell believer, if the Second Death is forever, how is Death ever defeated? If some are still dead and/or in Hell, how does God ever become All in all? I have yet to get back a satisfying answer.

Not sure what answer will satisfy you. Death is already defeated. "Second death" is a misnomer for the resurrected souls go into the Lake of Fire, right?

Hell is only a temporary holding place until Judgement Day.

 

[Wrangler]

I did not realize I was appealing to ignorance

You did Appeal to Ignorance with your "how could it not be" question. This is not an argument but the fallacy of wanting your premise accepted on the grounds that no satisfactory argument has been made to its opposite argument.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm sure you do follow the Bible...but which Bible? There are many versions, and not all promote the doctrine of Hell/Eternal Conscious Torment. Would you like a list of them? BTW, we Universalists follow the Bible as well, we just have a different takeaway. The ultimate proof for me was finding that God both can AND WANTS TO save all.

Yes, I know you follow the Bible.
My reply was in response to being called "The fundamentalist" by the topic originator.

Yes, I would like to see your list of Bible translations. Thanks.
And as I have said repeatedly, I hope you guys are right, I just haven't seen enough convincing evidence yet to dismiss the other views. (damnationism and annihilationism)

 

[Saint Steven]

God is the Creator of all things. He did not claim to make eye brows.

I missed this one earlier. That's pretty funny. -- lol