Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

Do any of them give a reason for questioning the word?

It's their job, part of the quest for truth, you know.

 

[Fervent]

Can you be a little more specific?

I could, but considering I've already explained all of them except how you routinely beg the question I'll save my energy.

 

[Hmm]

I could, but considering I've already explained all of them except how you routinely beg the question I'll save my energy.

I missed have missed all those explanations. My loss

 

[Fervent]

It's their job.

That's not a reason, a reason would be an objective criteria that makes the most common translation suspect. I've already excluded two of the possible reasons in pointing out that it's not a hapax and not even something we can call rare.

 

[Hmm]

That's not a reason, a reason would be an objective criteria that makes the most common translation suspect. I've already excluded two of the possible reasons in pointing out that it's not a hapax and not even something we can call rare.

Scholars do not need a reason to question anything. It's what they do. It's how they discover the truth.

 

[Fervent]

Scholars do not need a reason to question anything. It's what they do.

That sort of skepticism ends in post modern meaninglessness. Nothing means anything because we can just question words that are firmly established. The text can say whatever we want it to.

 

[Hmm]

That sort of skepticism ends in post modern meaninglessness. Nothing means anything because we can just question words that are firmly established. The text can say whatever we want it to.

The pursuit of truth is skepticism? What should biblical scholars do then, other than resign en masse?

 

[Ceallaigh]

At this point you're just beating a dead horse. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that people don't like what Jesus is saying in Matthew 25:46 no one would entertain questions about "aionios." Just ask them if there is any linguistic reason for questioning the translation before even getting into the discussion. It's not as if it's a hapax or even a rare word so there's not really any reason too suspect that it was misunderstood by early translators. So why even legitimize their objections by arguing them? Just press them for a reason to even examine the issue.

In my opinion what should be questioned when it comes to this golden ECT verse, is the entire parable that proceeds it. Was Jesus being literal when he basically said giving someone a cup of water would result in eternal life in heaven? If not, then how can verse 46 be taken so literally?

 

[Ceallaigh]

How would you define Inclusivism? I'm not familiar with that one. At least not by that name.

What Billy Graham said below was described as inclusivism:

"I think there's the Body of Christ, which comes from all the Christian groups around the world. Or outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ".

 

[Saint Steven]

What Billy Graham said below was described as inclusivism:

"I think there's the Body of Christ, which comes from all the Christian groups around the world. Or outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ".

Thanks, that's helpful.

I think this is where UR takes it one step further to include even those that would be considered enemies of Christ. "Love your enemies..."

I think there will be many layers, or levels, to the age of restoration. And the Inclusivism that you mentioned will be part of it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Thanks, that's helpful.

I think this is where UR takes it one step further to include even those that would be considered enemies of Christ. "Love your enemies..."

I think there will be many layers, or levels, to the age of restoration. And the Inclusivism that you mentioned will be part of it.

I think of it as a significant step closer to UR. Other preachers and evangelists blew a gasket over Graham saying that.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think of it as a significant step closer to UR. Other preachers and evangelists blew a gasket over Graham saying that.

Yes, a giant step closer to UR. And he did step on some denominational and even doctrinal toes with his statement.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I'm reading yet another post by a young Christian who's terrified they're not really saved and going to hell. I seem to see a lot of those. Many are terrified they committed the unpardonable sin over some trivial thing they did or thought.

"I'm terrified, I seriously really am. I've prayed thousands of times. I can't find peace, I am feeling so scared."

 

[Der Alte]

At this point you're just beating a dead horse. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that people don't like what Jesus is saying in Matthew 25:46 no one would entertain questions about "aionios." Just ask them if there is any linguistic reason for questioning the translation before even getting into the discussion. It's not as if it's a hapax or even a rare word so there's not really any reason too suspect that it was misunderstood by early translators. So why even legitimize their objections by arguing them? Just press them for a reason to even examine the issue.

I've been active at this forum since G. H. W. Bush was prez. I realized early on that many/most of the hard core heterodox are almost impossible to convince. So my primary audience is the lurkers, fence sitters etc. thinking about joining or quitting one of the hetero groups. So long as the Hell No! crowd keep posting their, long since, refuted false narratives I'm going to be in their collective faces. I'm retired X3 so this is kinda my full time job.
Also a couple of decades ago I realized the same ol', same ol' out-of-context proof texts and narratives are endlessly repeated so I started saving my responses on a thumb drive.
I have had a few successes.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I've been active at this forum since G. H. W. Bush was prez. I realized early on that many/most of the hard core heterodox are almost impossible to convince. So my primary audience is the lurkers, fence sitters etc. thinking about joining or quitting one of the hetero groups. So long as the Hell No! crowd keep posting their, long since, refuted false narratives I'm going to be in their collective faces. I'm retired X3 so this is kinda my full time job.
Also a couple of decades ago I realized the same ol', same ol' out-of-context proof texts and narratives are endlessly repeated so I started saving my responses on a thumb drive.
I have had a few successes.

Robotic reruns.

 

[Der Alte]

***

Robotic reruns

As long as the Hell No! crowd posts the same ol,' same ol,' out of context proof texts and, long since debunked word for word, arguments. I will answer them with responses which have been updated and revised over 2+ decades as I find and obtain more recent sources. I particularly like finding out and out lies copy/pasted from their pet UR "scholars" such as a quote from the UR high priestess Ilaria Ramelli who claimed that Origen supposedly "spoke many times about after eternal life." I spent $60 to purchase Origen's "Commentary on the Gospel of John" just to check that claim.

 

[Ceallaigh]

As long as the Hell No! crowd posts the same ol,' same ol,' out of context proof texts and, long since debunked word for word, arguments. I will answer them with responses which have been updated and revised over 2+ decades as I find and obtain more recent sources. I particularly like finding out and out lies copy/pasted from their pet UR "scholars" such as a quote from the UR high priestess Ilaria Ramelli who claimed that Origen supposedly "spoke many times about after eternal life." I spent $60 to purchase Origen's "Commentary on the Gospel of John" just to check that claim.

So I've heard.

 

[Fervent]

The pursuit of truth is skepticism? What should biblical scholars do then, other than resign en masse?

The pursuit of truth certainly isn't skepticism, but asking questions just for the sake of asking them is. Lexical studies require some reason for being engaged in, some impetus besides a distaste for what is written if it stands. Motivated reasoners can use questions that aren't actually worth asking to make it seem as if there's reason to doubt, such as how JWs question rendering John 1:1 "God" even though the grammatical rule to render it that way is about as concrete a grammatical law as there is. If there isn't a reason to question the historical and majority translation then the questions only serve to create doubt where none is appropriate.

As for:

What should biblical scholars do

it would begin with actually studying the Bible rather than concocting ways to undermine it. Word studies are only valuable if there is a legitimate uncertainty around the word not simply something contrived based upon theology.

 

[Ceallaigh]

The pursuit of truth certainly isn't skepticism, but asking questions just for the sake of asking them is. Lexical studies require some reason for being engaged in, some impetus besides a distaste for what is written if it stands. Motivated reasoners can use questions that aren't actually worth asking to make it seem as if there's reason to doubt, such as how JWs question rendering John 1:1 "God" even though the grammatical rule to render it that way is about as concrete a grammatical law as there is. If there isn't a reason to question the historical and majority translation then the questions only serve to create doubt where none is appropriate.

What about a terrifying doctrine of literalness based on figurative things said in parables?

 

[Fervent]

What about a terrifying doctrine of literalness based on parables?

Considering Jesus primarily used parables to teach about spiritual realities I see no issue with taking them literally. In fact taking any part of the Bible as anything other than being meant literally is bound to end up in error.