Universal Reconciliation is still unscriptural.

Rajni

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯
Supporter
Dec 26, 2007
8,552
3,930
Visit site
✟1,207,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
The ECF were native Greek speakers and lived 100s of year nearer the time the NT was being lived out and written. Maybe they had a much better knowledge of the Greek than people today who know virtually nothing about Greek. Some folks must rely on their teachers and pastors who often interject their own assumptions/presuppositions into the scripture.
Some just read the scripture as presented in their bibles, too.
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Some folks must rely on their teachers and pastors who often interject their own assumptions/presuppositions into the scripture.
That is unfortunate.

Personally....my faith has become far more hopeful...less stressed....and easier to accept the different beliefs of others since I've been listening and learning from my Greek Orthodox friends. Prior the the "Great Schism" ....there was only one church. It seems that's where power and division took over (in the West).....yet the East seems to have maintained their position/beliefs all along (from what I understand).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
(29) And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
So......it just comes down to behavior, then? Works?
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
"Could very well be forgiven" in some imagined second or third "aion" beyond the present one is hardly a scriptural certainty, and not stated in scripture anywhere. Please see how the early church understood these verses in my [link: post #33] above.

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.…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajni
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I am making all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

First....I want to preface this with the statement that I'm not willing to get into a debate over translations. I believe only the Spirit is capable of truly interpreting John's words properly here (and there's NO WAY to prove/disprove that.....only belief/faith).

It seems to me (at this point in time).....that since this passage does say, "I am making all things new".....wouldn't it make sense that would mean, in part, "no more sin" (or even a desire to sin--all within humanity's free will)?

There can't be (to my mind) no more pain, no more sorrow, no more death if there's still those that even WISH to lie....idolize other gods.....or harm others. I'm thinking the "second death" is the point in which ALL humanity has eventually come to fully love and trust Him (and then sin is truly dead).

He's already conquered death in one sense.. ....He's "making things new" with cooperation of humanity. IOW......in my opinion, for instance, those with the propensity to murder will eventually no longer have even those desires to murder (the old is new.....the "former things are passed away" v 4). Isaiah 43:18 says,
former things shall not be remembered
or come into mind.

Another way of saying that would be that the 2nd death is the death to ego....to selfish desires.....death to unrighteousness (in my opinion). The overall theme of judgement in the Bible seems to focus particularly upon one’s “works” as opposed to just the particular individual.​
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: ClementofA
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Total nonsense and you know it.


No, it's true that 1 Corinthians speaks of subjects besides the church in Corinth. It speaks of angels, demons, other churches, prostitutes, etc. But go ahead try to prove otherwise.

How did Paul's immediate audience understand 1 Cor 3:9-17? They did not have umpteen years of indoctrination in UR, they were not looking for proof text vss. to pull out-of-context to support UR. They would certainly have understood that vss. 9-12 was referring to them the Christians at Corinth, Paul uses the first person pronoun "
we" then the second person pronoun "you." Would they have understood that Paul then suddenly, with no indication, in vss. 13-15, Paul is now talking about all mankind? Then suddenly again in vss. 16-17 Paul is talking about them again, the Christians at Corinth.


I would think they would have read & studied Paul's letters carefully. If so then they would have realized the following:

Verse 11 says that "no one" can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid which is Jesus Christ. The words "no one" are not limited to the saints in Corinth, but refer to all mankind. This is the last reference identifying any group of people in the next several verses leading up to v.15. Thus, as i detailed in other posts, the most immediate prior context reference and the more immediate following context both support the view that v.15 refers to the unsaved being saved.

 
  • Like
Reactions: mkgal1
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Where is it written that Robert Young, a self taught Bible "scholar," is a pontiff who must be obeyed to the exclusion of all other scholars? This is known as cherry picking, find something, written by somebody, somewhere and tout that writing as the end all, be all authority.

I think references to pontiffs would apply more aptly to those of the dark ages of belief in Dante's Inferno, Crusades, Inquisitions, & burning any & all opposers at the stake.

As to your comment about "all other scholars", they are not all opposed to Young's translation &, no doubt, many would agree with him.

As to the translation you posted:

Your "qualified" men following the Douay & KJV traditions of men of "the church" of the Inquisitions, Crusades & dark ages have been caught in a deception (Jer.8:8-9):

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 after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
9 "The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD..."

"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)."

Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

"The Third Law of Theology: For every theologian there is an equal and opposite theologian."

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You are reading your proof text wrong. It does not say that all sins will be forgiven to all men.

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of mankind, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

Who is "mankind"? All people. The human race.

"all shall be forgiven" them(the human race)...i.e. all sins and blasphemies.

 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
Just another in a long line of selectively quoted out-of-context proof texts. The writer is not making a theological statement about God and all mankind only his own condition and he also states a condition for God's forgiveness.
  • Lamentations 3:24-25
  • (24) The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in
  • him.
  • (25) The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that
  • seeketh him.
  • Lamentations 3:31-33
  • (31) For the Lord will not cast off for ever:
  • (32) But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according
  • to the multitude of his mercies.
  • (33) For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.
  • Lamentations 3:39-42
  • (39) Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment
  • of his sins?
  • (40) Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the LORD.
  • (41) Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens.
  • (42) We have transgressed and have rebelled: thou hast not pardoned.
  • Lamentations 3:55-58
  • (55) I called upon thy name, O LORD, out of the low dungeon.
  • (56) Thou hast heard my voice: hide not thine ear at my breathing, at
  • my cry.
  • (57) Thou drewest near in the day that I called upon thee: thou saidst,
  • Fear not.
  • (58) O Lord, thou hast pleaded the causes of my soul; thou hast
  • redeemed my life.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"World" in that passage is "age" (aion). Evidently there's more than one age/world to come (see Ephesians 2:7's mention of the plural "coming ages" -- again, "aion", same word). So while it might not be forgiven in the world/age to come, it could very well be forgiven in the world/age coming after that.
I'd be more receptive of this grammatical argument if you could quote some accredited scholars.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of mankind, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
Who is "mankind"? All people. The human race.
"all shall be forgiven" them(the human race)...i.e. all sins and blasphemies.
No matter how you twist and wrest it the verse does not say all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of "all" mankind,.
.....Matthew 7:22-23
.....(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
.....(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think references to pontiffs would apply more aptly to those of the dark ages of belief in Dante's Inferno, Crusades, Inquisitions, & burning any & all opposers at the stake.
But for the fact that the belief in hell in the church predates all those by 100s of years and my evidence, e.g. Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaiaca, Talmud etc., has never been refuted or even adequately addressed.
As to your comment about "all other scholars", they are not all opposed to Young's translation &, no doubt, many would agree with him.
Is that like "everybody knows" or "everybody says?" Right about here is where you should be posting some credible, verifiable, historical evidence but alas you have none only the UR bible tents-я-us.
As to the translation you posted:
Your "qualified" men following the Douay & KJV traditions of men of "the church" of the Inquisitions, Crusades & dark ages have been caught in a deception (Jer.8:8-9):
Meaningless jejune deprecations which prove absolutely nothing
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 after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.
Please attribute this or tell me how many credit hours of Greek you have earned? Amateurs should refrain from arguing Greek grammar and translation with virtually no expertise in Greek. Such attempts only reflects their doctrinal assumptions/presuppositions . The usual meaningless copy/paste from tents-я-us deleted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, it's true that 1 Corinthians speaks of subjects besides the church in Corinth. It speaks of angels, demons, other churches, prostitutes, etc. But go ahead try to prove otherwise.
I agree but when Paul is addressing or speaking about "angels, demons, other churches, prostitutes, etc." he always clearly identifies his audience or subject. But go ahead and prove otherwise. There is no such change of subject identification in 1 Cor 3:9-17.
I would think they would have read & studied Paul's letters carefully. If so then they would have realized the following:
Assuming that all of Paul's letters to individual churches were immediately sent to all the other churches throughout the Mediterranean, Italy, Greece, Asia, Israel. etc. and forgetting the fact that the letters were not all written at the same time, some years apart. The 1st century Christians, unlike us, did not have PCs where they could immediately call up the entire NT, with several versions, which OBTW had not been compiled in the 1st century, and compare verses in different letters.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
First....I want to preface this with the statement that I'm not willing to get into a debate over translations. I believe only the Spirit is capable of truly interpreting John's words properly here (and there's NO WAY to prove/disprove that.....only belief/faith).
It seems to me (at this point in time).....that since this passage does say, "I am making all things new".....wouldn't it make sense that would mean, in part, "no more sin" (or even a desire to sin--all within humanity's free will)?
There can't be (to my mind) no more pain, no more sorrow, no more death if there's still those that even WISH to lie....idolize other gods.....or harm others. I'm thinking the "second death" is the point in which ALL humanity has eventually come to fully love and trust Him (and then sin is truly dead).
He's already conquered death in one sense.. ....He's "making things new" with cooperation of humanity. IOW......in my opinion, for instance, those with the propensity to murder will eventually no longer have even those desires to murder (the old is new.....the "former things are passed away" v 4). Isaiah 43:18 says,

former things shall not be remembered
or come into mind.
Another way of saying that would be that the 2nd death is the death to ego....to selfish desires.....death to unrighteousness (in my opinion). The overall theme of judgement in the Bible seems to focus particularly upon one’s “works” as opposed to just the particular individual.
Your summary might be correct if we ignore vs. 8.
In vs. 4 the voice from heaven says "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death."
Vs. 5-8 is a continuous narrative, vs. 5 the one on the throne speaks "Behold I make all things new" So "no more death" and "all things new."
But in vs. 8 there are several groups of people who will be thrown into the lake of fire, "which is the second death."
Revelation 21:4-8
(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
(5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
The conjunction "but" indicates that the groups mentioned in vs. 8 are not among those who overcome and inherit all things, v s. 7. How can there be a "second death" vs. 8, if there is no more death vs.4?
I have an answer which a lot of people are not going to like. Two vs. in Rev. say that the lake of fire [LoF] is the second death Revelation 20:14 and Revelation 21:4. But neither verse, nor any other verse, says that anyone or anything is thrown into the LoF then they die. The term "the lake of fire is the second death" is interchangeable with "the second death is the lake of fire." Being in the LoF is a form of death


 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Some just read the scripture as presented in their bibles, too.
Unfortunately I don't see a lot of that in UR-land. Which is why I cite so many credible, verifiable, sources e.g. lexicons, ECF etc. Because I see so many folks with virtually no expertise in the Biblical languages arguing with years and years of scholarly experience of internationally known Bible scholars.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rajni

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯
Supporter
Dec 26, 2007
8,552
3,930
Visit site
✟1,207,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
Unfortunately I don't see a lot of that in UR-land. Which is why I cite so many credible, verifiable, sources e.g. lexicons, ECF etc. Because I see so many folks with virtually no expertise in the Biblical languages arguing with years and years of scholarly experience of internationally known Bible scholars.
I'd be more receptive of this grammatical argument if you could quote some accredited scholars.
I should have known Jesus actually meant to say that unless we change and become like the Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars, we will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3 got it wrong, I guess. :rolleyes:

"Scholars? What scholars?" ~ the bible
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I should have known Jesus actually meant to say that unless we change and become like the Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars, we will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3 got it wrong, I guess. :rolleyes:
"Scholars? What scholars?" ~ the bible
Is that why Unis on this forum seek out and incessantly quote folks like Robert Young, E.W. Bullinger, Ilaria Ramelli, tentmakers anyone who supports UR? And OBTW they also quote church fathers like Clement, Origen etc. who, they claim, also support UR. But as we see they bad mouth me because I quote "the Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars " etc." Looks like they got this little hypocritical thing going. I started learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were stationed in Germany and I studied both Hebrew and Greek at the graduate level 2 decades after that. While I do not claim to be an "expert" I do know when people, who couldn't parse a Greek verb or locate a Hebrew verb if their life depended on it, try to snow me and tell me what the Hebrew and the Greek "really" means.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Just another in a long line of selectively quoted out-of-context proof texts. The writer is not making a theological statement about God and all mankind only his own condition and he also states a condition for God's forgiveness

In v.33 he's clearly talking about more than his own self or condition:


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.…
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
No matter how you twist and wrest it the verse does not say all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of "all" mankind,.
.....Matthew 7:22-23
.....(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
.....(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

It says the "sons of mankind".

As for Matthew 7:

Where does Matthew 7:22-23 say "Depart from me and i will never love you anymore, but hate you with perfect hatred that has no end, as you deserve, as you roast alive in endless fires, being tormented for all eternity? I hate you so much that i wont even end your existence to mercifully put you out of your misery, but give you eternal life so i can cause you sorrow and pain without end." ?

Actually His remarks seem pretty lame & light in comparison to what He could have said, if He wanted to.

"Depart from Me". Big deal! Compared to endless torments it's next to nothing.

Mt.7:21 does not deny that all will eventually do God's will and enter the kingdom.

Everyone starts out not doing God's will. Does that mean no one can enter the Kingdom of God and it will be empty forever?

The verse places no time limits on when one can do the will of God.

Matthew 7:23 refers to a "day", not final destiny when God will be "All in all" (1 Cor.15:22-28).

Matthew 7 says some will not get into heaven on judgement day. It doesn't say they will never get into heaven. In fact they eventually will, as the same author wrote a few chapters earlier:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Please attribute this or tell me how many credit hours of Greek you have earned?

This has no pertinence to the issue which is based on what scholars themselves say.

Considering that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, your reputable biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions. Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions i posted gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in the specific context. What your biased scholars 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)."

Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Upvote 0