Again, you posted alot of different interpretations, commentaries, etc. Rarely have I seen your own opinion on something. Other than, "all reconciled" -that sums you up. You have no opinions on anything else about the end times? The OT and New have plenty teachings on them.
Perhaps if someone else comments on the "end times" or starts a thread on the subject in this forum - called Controversial Christian Doctrine - i'll have something to opine.
OTOH if that's your thing, there are forums here dedicated to such topics. For example, check out the topics here, including "Eschatology - Endtimes and Prophecy Forum":
General Theology
And within that forum there are separate topics for Premil, Amil, Preterist, etc.
I pretty much have seen all the different theories about end times, etc when starting my own journey about 20 years ago when I left the Baptist church teachings. (70 AD......and so on...) I'm wasn't debating what I thought, I was asking for your "own" opinion.
Some universalists have more interest in the topic than i do:
Search results for 'preterism' - The Evangelical Universalist Forum
There are dozens of Bible topics people discuss. Not everyone is going to have an interest in all of them. The topic of this thread is "Who Goes To Hell?"
My main interests now are concerning (1) study of & sharing Good News & (2) walking & talking with Jesus.
It's revelant because the Luke scriptures tie into this scripture that you love to post so much,
COL 1:20 "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross"
It says earth and heaven. Hell is not mentioned because as Christ teaches in the Luke scriptures that there is a gulf that can't be passed. And that's why the rich man can see Abraham. Hell is on the other side of paradise, but both are in the same realm. If it's not relevant to that fact. What is the relevance of Christ teaching us about the gulf/chasm and the fact that it can't be passed, but yet the rich man can see Abraham? Since you blew this off, again, what is "your" opinon on this parable?
Julie, how does any of that help you avoid the fact the non human beings in the heavens are included here:
Col.1:16 For by Him ***ALL*** was created that are in HEAVEN and that are on EARTH, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All was created through Him and for Him.
20 and by Him to reconcile ***ALL*** to Himself, by Him, whether on EARTH or in HEAVEN, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
Those non human beings were created by God were they not (see v.16 above)?
Those same non human beings of v.16 are included in v.20, are they not?
Then how can you avoid the fact that Christ's death was for their reconciliation with God?
It says earth and heaven. Hell is not mentioned because as Christ teaches in the Luke scriptures that there is a gulf that can't be passed.
I'd guess it may not be mentioned because Paul never - ever - mentions any of the 4 "hells" (Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, the lake of fire) even once in - any - of Paul's 13 epistles comprising half of the books in the New Testament. And/or because Paul did not consider it useful or relevant or wise to add to the topic he was discussing.
And that's why the rich man can see Abraham. Hell is on the other side of paradise, but both are in the same realm. If it's not relevant to that fact. What is the relevance of Christ teaching us about the gulf/chasm and the fact that it can't be passed, but yet the rich man can see Abraham? Since you blew this off, again, what is "your" opinon on this parable?
Rather than posting my long post here, you can read it at this link:
Luke 16:19-31 the rich man in "hell" & Lazarus (Tanakh, Gospel) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum
Well, I suggest a deeper study into what these very verses mean. And hint, being born again means being born from above. Being born of water -the womb, and Spirit -Christ.
John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God
John 3:5 "Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven."
Of course read the entire chapter as to keep the context. But everyone is always posting John 3:16 and gloss over 13. It's says "even" the Son of Man. Meaning, no one can ascend up to heaven but he that came down from heaven. That's what it means to be born from "above".
"what it means to be born from above"...means what Julie?
You brought up Job, how about these verses to study and what it really means?
Job 38:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."
Job 38:5 "Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?"
Job 38:6 "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"
Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox."
And I'm mainly talking about the words "which I made with thee".
What do you think that's about? Behemoth?
Ever wondered why God hated Esau from the womb?
Sure, i've read quite a bit on the subject, such as:
Search results for 'esau' - The Evangelical Universalist Forum i hated
Of course God loved Esau (John 3:16).
Everyone has been God's enemy & done "things in opposition to his will":
"for all have sinned" (cf. Rom.3:23)
"Christ died for the ungodly" (cf. Rom.5:6). Clearly God loves the ungodly. That includes Esau.
"while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (cf. Rom.5:7). Clearly God loves sinners. Even Esau.
"when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Rom.5:10). Clearly God loves His enemies.
Likewise He told us to love our enemies (Mt.5:44). He Himself does the same:
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Mt.5:45)
Lk.6:35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
God hates sin. God loves the sinner.
God hates the flesh, the old man, the fallen nature which men love & identify with.
God loves the human being, the inner person created in His image & likeness.
God therefore wills to save all humanity (1 Tim.2:4-6). Such would not be true if He hated any one. Even Esau.
"Consider again, “I loved Jacob and I hated Esau” (Malachi 1:2-3). How is the thing called God’s “hatred” of Esau displayed in the actual story? Not at all as we might expect. There is of course no ground for assuming that Esau made a bad end and was a lost soul; the Old Testament, here as elsewhere, has nothing to say about such matters. And, from all we are told, Esau’s earthly life was, in every ordinary sense, a good deal more blessed than Jacob’s. It is Jacob who has all the disappointments, humiliations, terrors, and bereavements. But he has something which Esau has not. He is a patriarch. He hands on the Hebraic tradition, transmits the vocation and the blessing, becomes an ancestor of Our Lord. The “loving” of Jacob seems to mean the acceptance of Jacob for a high (and painful) vocation; the “hating” of Esau, his rejection. He is “turned down,” fails to “make the grade,” is found useless for the purpose. So, in the last resort, we must turn down or disqualify our nearest and dearest when they come between us and our obedience to God. Heaven knows, it will seem to them sufficiently like hatred. We must not act on the pity we feel; we must be blind to tears and deaf to pleadings." C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves (1960; Harcourt Brace: 1991) 129.
Mere C.S. Lewis: Jacob loved, Esau "hated"
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Rom.9:13)
It seems "Jacob i loved"...could also have been hated of God, too:
Prov.6:
16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Romans 9:13 and at Malachi 1:3 God hated Esau....
"Cp. Genesis 29:33; Genesis 29:30, for proof that this word, in contrast with love, need not imply positive hatred, but the absence of love, or even less love. One verse there tells us that Jacob “hated” Leah, the other that he “loved Rachel more.” "
The meaning of "hate" here:
Luke_14:26
If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple.
is shown to mean not love them more than Jesus here:
Matthew 10:37
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me;
"Regarding God's hate to Esau, Vincent's Word Studies has this to say:
The expression (hatred) is intentionally strong as an expression of moral antipathy. Compare Mat 6:24; Luk 14:26. No idea of malice is implied of course."
Rom 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
"There you have it, according to them. God does not just hate the sin, but the sinner as well. Case closed, we should all go home right? Wait a minute. Let's take a close look at that. Let's find out whether this verse really is about God hating a sinner:
Rom 9:10-13
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,
that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her (Rebecca), The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
This is not even a scripture about God hating a sinner. According to the Bible, God had made a decision about Esau, and Jacob without them "having done any good or evil." "
"The quick answer is that Paul is quoting one of the prophets talking about how God is going to make Israel instead of Edom the prime nation in the world, even though both nations have been horribly sinful and both nations are going to be destroyed to death. Edom is restored later as prophesied elsewhere, but Israel will be restored first and in authority (and not due to Israel’s own righteousness but due to God’s gracious choice.)
"The Jacob/Esau story in Genesis behind this (Edom being the nation descended from Esau), involves Isaac blessing Esau in Jacob even though Jacob will be the inheritor; and Esau and Jacob eventually reconciling with each other in one of the most beautiful and famous stories of the Bible. So Esau isn’t hopelessly punished, no moreso than Jacob/Israel is (who acted like a satan to Esau in order to get the inheritance blessing from Isaac).
In a nutshell, universalism has...?
How about this,
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I know thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jeremiah 4:23 "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light."
Jeremiah 4:24 "I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly."
Ever wonder why there's no true north on a compass?
No, but i expect a google search would tell me.
Jeremiah 4:26 "I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."
And why not even go back to Genesis 1, verse 2
Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
Even the word 'was" should be translated to "became" without form.
Which should relate us to this scripture,
Isaiah 45:18 "for thus saith the Lord That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the Lord; and there is none else."
II Peter 3:5; "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"
II Peter 3:6; "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished:"
Better yet, read the entire word. Once you do so, you will form own opinions and not have to use so many other commentaries.
I've read the Bible a lot, but also find commentaries/teachers in the body of Christ helpful & of course prayer & enlightenment indispensable.
And yes, all of these and the entire bible is relevant to why Satan and the fallen angels will not be saved.
Really? How is that?
It needs to be read like any other book and taken as a whole, so one can get the full understanding.
Yes, I am young to some, 52 years old. But at least I have read the entire bible (always still studying) and can form my own opinions. And yes, I do use the Strong's. It's not a commentary.
The concordance is not a commentary. But the definitions of words are merely men's opinions or simply telling you how the awful translation called KJV translated things. Or you may find other Strongs linked to other poor versions of the Bible.
Could most modern translations be in error?