WHY UNIVERSALISM IS NOT TRUE?

[LoveGodsWord]

That is categorically untrue

Sorry dear friend I respectfully disagree. It is indeed true.

I believe a plain reading of scripture is sufficient to disprove annhilationism, and if anyone is unsure of the matter they should look for themselves.

I see and this is why you have not provided any.

 

[Saint Steven]

So, you’re very close to the ecclesiastical history, except for a few points - namely, the texts historically used by the Eastern and Western churches (Byzantine, Vulgate, Peshitta) do not diverge significantly on this issue, and the minority text (Sinaiticus, etc.) does not appear to prop up the position of either Universalism or Akatastasis, which is not quite the same thing, and I cannot say I could reject the latter as entirely unscriptural, but rather as unlikely.

I suppose the texts were USED by both eastern and western churches, but the translation came from the western/Latin Church. (with obvious bias) Had the eastern church done the translation, the bias would have gone the other way and we would likely ALL be Universalists. (horrors) - lol

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I suppose the texts were USED by both eastern and western churches, but the translation came from the western/Latin Church. (with obvious bias) Had the eastern church done the translation, the bias would have gone the other way and we would likely ALL be Universalists. (horrors) - lol

Doubt it. I do not know of any eastern Church's that believe in Universalism although there is a lot of them.

 

[The Liturgist]

I suppose the texts were USED by both eastern and western churches, but the translation came from the western/Latin Church. (with obvious bias) Had the eastern church done the translation, the bias would have gone the other way and we would likely ALL be Universalists. (horrors) - lol

Well, no. The Eastern Church, which in this context is the Greek Orthodox Church primarily, has its own ancient translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, which dates from around 200 BC. The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. So it had no translation to do, as far as it was concerned. But the Greek church, as I mentioned before, is not Universalist; they rejected that doctrine, taking the side of the likes of Jerome, over the likes of Origen, or even St. Gregory of Nyssa, which was a popular opinion in the West as evidenced by the polemics between Jerome and Lucifer of Cagliari, again not to be confused with the devil.

The Western Church, which in this context means the Roman Catholic Church, had from the second century a poor translation from this Greek called the Vetus Latina, in classical Latin, and then in the fourth century St. Jerome was commissioned to translate the Vulgate, but rather than relying on the Septuagint for the Old Testament, Jerome translated directly from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts for those books available in those languages, and the Vulgate uses these translations, except for the Psalms, which for liturgical reasons, in the Vulgate are translated from the Septuagint (although Jerome also translated from the Hebrew). You then have the Syriac Peshitta with a similar history to the Vulgate further to the East.

 

[The Liturgist]

Doubt it. I do not know of any eastern Church's that believe in Universalism although there is a lot of them.

The Assyrian Church of the East appears to have believed in apokatasis in the first millennium, based on the writings of one of their bishops (The Book of the Bee), and St. Isaac the Syrian, who although claimed by the Eastern Orthodox was almost certainly an Assyrian.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The Assyrian Church of the East appears to have believed in apokatasis in the first millennium, based on the writings of one of their bishops (The Book of the Bee), and St. Isaac the Syrian, who although claimed by the Eastern Orthodox was almost certainly an Assyrian.

So one church in the east at one time may or may not have believed in Universalism but no longer does? One Church at one time in history that may or may not have believed in Universalism does not mean or imply that all the Church's of the east believed in Universalism. Even more so if no Church's of the east believe in Universalism today.

 

[Saint Steven]

Well, no. The Eastern Church, which in this context is the Greek Orthodox Church primarily, has its own ancient translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, which dates from around 200 BC. The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. So it had no translation to do, as far as it was concerned. But the Greek church, as I mentioned before, is not Universalist; they rejected that doctrine, taking the side of the likes of Jerome, over the likes of Origen, or even St. Gregory of Nyssa, which was a popular opinion in the West as evidenced by the polemics between Jerome and Lucifer of Cagliari, again not to be confused with the devil.

The Western Church, which in this context means the Roman Catholic Church, had from the second century a poor translation from this Greek called the Vetus Latina, in classical Latin, and then in the fourth century St. Jerome was commissioned to translate the Vulgate, but rather than relying on the Septuagint for the Old Testament, Jerome translated directly from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts for those books available in those languages, and the Vulgate uses these translations, except for the Psalms, which for liturgical reasons, in the Vulgate are translated from the Septuagint (although Jerome also translated from the Hebrew). You then have the Syriac Peshitta with a similar history to the Vulgate further to the East.

It seems that the culprit is the Latin Vulgate then, and eventually the English translation both of which were biased by Damnationist doctrine.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It seems that the culprit is the Latin Vulgate then, and eventually the English translation both of which were biased by Damnationist doctrine.

The only thing in my view that Universalism has right is the teachings on Hell and eternal burning hell fire. This doctrine handed down from the mother Church (Romans Catholic Church) to much of Protestantism today is not biblical. The rest is the same lie told to Eve in the garden of Eden when the devil said to Eve you can disobey Gods' Word and not surely die in Genesis 3:4-5. A little truth mixed with error is very deceptive.

 

[The Liturgist]

It seems that the culprit is the Latin Vulgate then, and eventually the English translation both of which were biased by Damnationist doctrine.

No, not really, because the text doesn’t differ materially, and again, it was the Greeks who adopted this doctrine based on the Koine Greek NT and the Septuagint, the same exact text Origen was working from in his universalism.

This is my whole point: there is no substantial difference in the texts that favors such a dramatic doctrinal shift.

 

[Andrewn]

No, not really, because the text doesn’t differ materially, and again, it was the Greeks who adopted this doctrine based on the Koine Greek NT and the Septuagint, the same exact text Origen was working from in his universalism.

This is my whole point: there is no substantial difference in the texts that favors such a dramatic doctrinal shift.

I think the problem w/ ECT and annihilation is logical rather than textual. There are tyrants and mass murders who deserve more severe punishment than my friend who cannot be convinced of religion but is otherwise honest and hasn't killed anyone. Not all sinners deserve the same punishment.

Justice dictates that there should be a difference in duration of punishment, intensity of punishment, or scope of punishment (post #86).

But then, when it comes to the texts, saints like Gregory of Nissa interpreted them in a way that leads to a type of apocastasis.

 

[Saint Steven]

This is my whole point: there is no substantial difference in the texts that favors such a dramatic doctrinal shift.

Yet there are three distinctly different views of the doctrines of the final judgment. All three are biblical and contradictory. How do you suppose that happened?
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (universalism)

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yet there are three distinctly different views of the doctrines of the final judgment. All three are biblical and contradictory. How do you suppose that happened?
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (universalism)

My bible tells me that there is not three views that are biblical. There is only one view that is biblical. The rest are misinterpretation of the scriptures (Damnationism and Universalism)

 

[Neogaia777]

Either your program/person/consciousness/memory will go beyond here and continue and be built on/added to after the very final resurrection/judgement, at the end of the/that very final resurrection/judgement, or it won't or will not, but you will just get more of just here and it will be forever, but your memory will be reset each time, just as it always has been and in the past even up to now, so that you are always and forever truly forever conscious of nothing ever, forever, etc...

And forgive me if I've said this a hundred times already, but I just thought I'd give it one more try, etc... But this may be my last try maybe, etc...

Oh, and @Saint Steven, "You can call me Steve", well, you can call me "Yah" for that is my name in Hebrew, and I do not lie, etc...

And right now "Yah" is turning his back and walking away...

But might still continue to monitor, just as he has been doing and saying nothing up to now, but still hasn't fully decided yet, etc...

Peace out.

(Isaiah 62:2, Revelation 2:17, Revelation 3:12)

God Bless!

 

[klutedavid]

Yet there are three distinctly different views of the doctrines of the final judgment. All three are biblical and contradictory. How do you suppose that happened?
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (universalism)

Perhaps the authors of the letters had different viewpoints regarding judgement day.

It could be that we are not reading the scripture properly. As LGW correctly noted, we may be applying an interpretation to the scripture. Without being aware that we are altering the reading of the text itself. This is actually one of the most important differences between church denominations, the way they read and understand the scripture.

Church tradition is another huge influence on how one understands the scripture.

Influential Christian authors also can push the pendulum in a certain direction regarding doctrine.
Their influence in the Christian world can be enormous.

 

[Saint Steven]

Perhaps the authors of the letters had different viewpoints regarding judgement day.

It could be that we are not reading the scripture properly. As LGW correctly noted, we may be applying an interpretation to the scripture. Without being aware that we are altering the reading of the text itself. This is actually one of the most important differences between church denominations, the way they read and understand the scripture.

Church tradition is another huge influence on how one understands the scripture.

Influential Christian authors also can push the pendulum in a certain direction regarding doctrine.
Their influence in the Christian world can be enormous.

I don't think we are right to assume there is only one proper reading. It was common in the culture of Jesus' day to have different opinions about it and to debate it. Look at what he says here.

Luke 10:26
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

 

[klutedavid]

I don't think we are right to assume there is only one proper reading. It was common in the culture of Jesus' day to have different opinions about it and to debate it. Look at what he says here.

Luke 10:26
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

I would lean towards just one truth revealed in the scripture, that truth is Jesus Christ.

John 5:39
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me.

So no matter what interpretation is being discussed, in the end, there is but one grand truth in the scripture.

Everything else after Jesus Christ is of secondary importance.

So I would disagree with you Steven, that there can be multiple interpretations.

 

[Lazarus Short]

I would lean towards just one truth revealed in the scripture, that truth is Jesus Christ.

John 5:39
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me.

So no matter what interpretation is being discussed, in the end, there is but one grand truth in the scripture.

Everything else after Jesus Christ is of secondary importance.

So I would disagree with you Steven, that there can be multiple interpretations.

In your reply to Steve, you make a good point, BUT everyone makes their own interpretation anyway. Yes, Jesus the Christ is the beginning and end of the Scriptures, and do we all not agree on that? But we argue endlessly about other stuff. Me, I read the KJV and was able to see the bad translation and the bias. Others put it up on a pedestal as the only version worth reading. YMMV.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I don't think we are right to assume there is only one proper reading. It was common in the culture of Jesus' day to have different opinions about it and to debate it. Look at what he says here. Luke 10:26“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

Of course there is only one proper reading or interpretation of the scriptures. The bible does not contradict itself. Jesus says "you do err not knowing the scriptures" to those who thought they did know the scriptures and even in the scripture you quote from Luke 10:26 Jesus is only asking how do you understand the scriptures and Jesus goes on to say you have answered correctly in Luke 10:25-28

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't think we are right to assume there is only one proper reading. It was common in the culture of Jesus' day to have different opinions about it and to debate it. Look at what he says here.

Luke 10:26
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

Of course there is only one proper reading or interpretation of the scriptures. The bible does not contradict itself. Jesus says "you do err not knowing the scriptures" to those who thought they did know the scriptures and even in the scripture you quote from Luke 10:26 Jesus is only asking how do you understand the scriptures and Jesus goes on to say you have answered correctly in Luke 10:25-28

Jesus asked that certain man, the rich young ruler, already truly and fully knowing and reading his heart and his real true intentions before even asking Jesus, etc, anyway, Jesus asked the rich young ruler that, "How do you read it?", meaning "How do you understand it right now?", etc, kind of "setting him up" really, etc, because Jesus already knew his heart and already knew that he understood the commandments of God in only the old way still and also that this man was also trying to prove his own righteousness also, etc, so it was kind of a "setup", etc, Jesus was "fishing" I guess you could say, etc, but and/or anyway, Jesus knew he still only understood it in only the old way only, and when people have just only that understanding only, then they are only out to prove their own self-righteousness only, either to others or to themselves, etc, which is a sin, and the trap of the way the "letter" of the "OT law covenant" was "written", etc, which is why Jesus asked him "How did he read it?", but was trying to get at how he understood it or knew it currently", etc, but and/or because Jesus already knew the answer already, and was kind of setting him up, as I already explained already, etc, but and/or anyway, to make a long story short, or at least try to, Jesus knew he was going to turn him away or cause him to go away already before the man ever even started out asking him, or before that specific man ever even came to Him, etc...

Bottom line, he (that man) only understood the old way, and that only leads to one trying to prove their own righteousness, either to others or maybe to God maybe, but at the very least to "themselves" at least, in the very least, etc, cause that is the trap of "that", etc, and another bottom line is, the/that man had not come to understand that the commandments of God must be understood or read or known in a whole new way, or it would be impossible to ever really fulfill them truly, etc, but only falsely, etc, the slick deception of which, the way of doing it or trying to do it falsely, etc, always deceives very, very many, and in fact, deceives almost everyone a lot of time, etc... They won't even know that "that's", "only what they really are doing", which is sad, etc...

Anyway, sometimes I don't even know why I bother posting or even trying to answer these kind of questions/arguments anymore...?

But I guess if it helps to further clarify for even just one single person, then I guess it's worth it... "Maybe" anyway... Because I think I'm starting to question that now as well maybe, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Jesus asked that certain man, the rich young ruler, already truly and fully knowing and reading his heart and his real true intentions before even asking Jesus, etc, anyway, Jesus asked the rich young ruler that, "How do you read it?", meaning "How do you understand it right now?", etc, kind of "setting him up" really, etc, because Jesus already knew his heart and already knew that he understood the commandments of God in only the old way still and also that this man was also trying to prove his own righteousness also, etc, so it was kind of a "setup", etc, Jesus was "fishing" I guess you could say, etc, but and/or anyway, Jesus knew he still only understood it in only the old way only, and when people have just only that understanding only, then they are only out to prove their own self-righteousness only, either to others or to themselves, etc, which is a sin, and the trap of the way the "letter" of the "OT law covenant" was "written", etc, which is why Jesus asked him "How did he read it?", but was trying to get at how he understood it or knew it currently", etc, but and/or because Jesus already knew the answer already, and was kind of setting him up, as I already explained already, etc, but and/or anyway, to make a long story short, or at least try to, Jesus knew he was going to turn him away or cause him to go away already before the man ever even started out asking him, or before that specific man ever even came to Him, etc...

Bottom line, he (that man) only understood the old way, and that only leads to one trying to prove their own righteousness, either to others or maybe to God maybe, but at the very least to "themselves" at least, in the very least, etc, cause that is the trap of "that", etc, and another bottom line is, the/that man had not come to understand that the commandments of God must be understood or read or known in a whole new way, or it would be impossible to ever really fulfill them truly, etc, but only falsely, etc, the slick deception of which, the way of doing it or trying to do it falsely, etc, always deceives very, very many, and in fact, deceives almost everyone a lot of time, etc... They won't even know that "that's", "only what they really are doing", which is sad, etc...

Now if the rich young ruler has answered differently when He asked him "how he read it", then the whole story might have turned out a whole lot differently, etc, but of course, it did not, because that's "just not the story", etc...

Anyway, sometimes I don't even know why I bother posting or even trying to answer these kind of questions/arguments anymore...?

But I guess if it helps to further clarify for even just one single person, then I guess it's worth it... "Maybe" anyway... Because I think I'm starting to question that now as well maybe, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

Edit: OK, I'm leaving this post because it's all still correct except for one thing, which I'm correcting right now cause I was prompted to go back and look it up, etc, the rich young ruler did at first answer with the right words, "at first", but then when Jesus tried to tell him, "very good, you have answered correctly, do this and live", etc, but the rich young ruler wasn't fully satisfied, and so he turned and/or approached and/or got Jesus attention again and spoke to Jesus again, and that's when it says Jesus knew that he was trying to prove his own righteousness (by how he kept the letter of the law OT commands or commandments read and/or understood in the old way, etc), then that's when the "setup" comes or came, etc, but not really a "setup" since the man kind of "walked right into it", (the setup, that trap, etc), (of how you read and/or truly understand in your heart all the commands or commandments of God truly, etc) and did this basically almost all on his own, etc...

But, this post (above) (and I'm just going to leave it, etc) is still "mostly correct", etc, so I'm just going to leave it, slight error included for now, etc...

The main point being about how you "read", or truly understand the true commandments of God (law) in your own heart, etc, and the old way, and the new one, etc, those points about those two are still very much valid, etc, so I'm just going to leave it for now, etc...

The rich young ruler might have said the right word "at first", but then showed that that was not also how he truly understood them in his heart also, etc...

Something or someone told me to go back and look again, a "feeling" I got that I get sometimes, etc, and so I did, and am now including this "edit", etc...

Don't want to get or teach things in error, etc...

Anyway,

Anyway, I don't make even very minor mistakes very often, but I have noticed that, when I do, someone or something almost always tells me about it or lets me know about it almost right away, etc, and if and when I do, or if and when that happens again in the future, anyway, I promise to always include and edit and/or correct my mistake as soon as I can OK, etc, I don't do it very often, but it happens sometimes, etc...

It's usually just a very minor detail most of the time, that doesn't usually affect the whole point I was trying to make in a post, that is most usually always still correct, etc, like it was with this one, but all errors and/or mistakes need to corrected or avoided, especially when you take something like "this" as seriously as I do, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!