Hades Is A Real Place of Torment and Agony

BNR32FAN said:

I don’t see a reference to stoning in these verses.

Click to expand...

Der Alte said:

All four means of capital punishment in the OT are "death without mercy." vs something worse.

Click to expand...

Der Alter said:

There were different penalties for different crimes. There were four types of capital punishment stoning, burning, sword and hanging. But no matter how many times you post this smoke and mirrors Hebrews 10:28 is not about the various types of executions. It says "death without mercy" but there is a "sorer punishment." What is the "sorer punishment" than "death without mercy?"

Click to expand...

Without "mercy", or "compassion (pity), i.e. deep feeling about someone's difficulty or misfortune (TDNT, 1:159)." Strong's Greek: 3628. οἰκτιρμός (oiktirmos) -- compassion, pity

So those stoning her/him - even inclusive of a husband/wife, brother, mother, son, daughter, friend - were not to have "compassion" or "pity" (Dt.13:8) on the sinner, as per the Scriptures:

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve
other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the
earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye ***PITY*** him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal
him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because
he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." Deut.13:6–10

BTW, did you notice the - method - of death there?

Heb.10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Stoning to death is not a very sore or long lasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the eternal hell believing Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed that wicked, rebellious, Christ rejectors would be punished with something so monstrous as being endlessly annihilated or tormented, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death.

Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is an unfeeling terminator machine or sadist who abandons forever the beings He created in His own image & likeness so easily.

Der Alte said:

This ghastly UR dogma ignores the very words of Jesus.
Greek is now, and has always been, the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who, better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the Eastern Orthodox Bible [EOB], know the correct meaning of Greek words, e.g. “Gehenna,””aionios” and “kolasis?”
…..Note, in the EOB, footnote pg. 180

Hades is the realm of the dead. The upper part of hades was considered to be luminous and it was called “paradise” or "Abraham's bosom.” Hades is not to be confused with hell (Gehenna) which is the final place of state or place of the damned (“the lake of’ fire”).​

= = = = = = = = = =

The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96
Matthew 25:46 Then he will answer them saying ‘Amen. I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' “These [[ones on the left]] will go away into eternal punishment.[κολασιν αιονιον/kolasin aiōnion] but the righteous into eternal life.
= = = = = = = = = =
KJV Romans 16:26 [EOB 14:25]
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αιωνιου/aioniou] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In the EOB Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, uses αιωνιου/aioniou],” in Rom 16:26 synonymous with αιδιος/aidios in Rom 1:20, below.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world, his invisible things are clearly seen. They perceived through created things, even his everlasting [τε αιδιος/te aidios] power and divinity.
= = = = = = = =
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/or...tament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf​

The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96 can be D/L at the link above. If anyone has doubts about the EOB version I suggest they read the preface which summarizes the extensive Greek scholarship supporting this translation.

​

Click to expand...

Der Alter said:

Good. "Aionios" in Matthew 25:46 means eternal./everlasting.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Click to expand...

Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart comments in his extensive notes (Concluding Scientific Postscript) re aionios following his translation of the New Testament:

"...John Chrysostom, in his commentary on Ephesians, even used the word aionios of the kingdom of the devil specifically to indicate that it is temporary (for it will last only until the end of the present age, he explains). In the early centuries of the church, especially in the Greek and Syrian East, the lexical plasticity of the noun and the adjective was fully appreciated -and often exploited - by a number of Christian theologians and exegetes (especially such explicit universalists as the great Alexandrians Clement and Origen, the "pillar of orthodoxy" Gregory of Nyssa and his equally redoubtable sister Makrina, the great Syrian fathers Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Isaac of Ninevah, and so on, as well as many other more rhetorically reserved universalists, such as Gregory of Nazianzus)."

"Late in the fourth century, for instance, Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea, reported that the vast majority of his fellow Christians (at least, in the Greek-speaking East with which he was familiar) assumed that "hell" is not an eternal condition, and that the "aionios punishment" of the age to come would end when the soul had been purified of its sins and thus prepared for union with God. Well into the sixth century, the great Platonist philosopher Olympiodorus the Younger could state as rather obvious that the suffering of wicked souls in Tartarus is certainly not endless, atelevtos, but is merely aionios; and the squalidly brutal and witless Christian emperor Justinian, as part of his campaign to extinguish the universalism of the "Origenists", found it necessary to substitute the word atelevtetos for aionios when describing the punishments of hell, since the latter word was not decisive..."

"As late as the thirteenth century, the East Syrian bishop Solomon of Bostra, in his authoritative compilation of the teachings of the "holy fathers" of Syrian Christian tradition, simply stated as a matter of fact that in the New Testament le-alam (the Syriac rendering of aionios) does not mean eternal, and that of course hell is not endless. And the fourteenth-century East Syrian Patriarch Timotheus II thought it uncontroversial to assert that the aionios pains of hell will come to an end when the souls cleansed by them, through the prayers of the saints, enter paradise" (The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart, 2017, p.539-540).

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300186096

Hart adds:

"...how greatly formulations that seem to imply universal salvation outnumber those that appear to threaten an ultimate damnation for the wicked. Still, none of that surprised me; it merely roused me from my complacent assumption that, simply by virtue of having read the text in Greek for many years, I had a natural feel for its tone."

Christ's Rabble | Commonweal Magazine

Matthew 25:46
Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46
City-Data Forum - View Single Post - What does Matthew 25:46 mean?
What does Matthew 25:46 mean? (Gomorrah, Gospel, unpardonable, hell) - Christianity -  - City-Data Forum
Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?
Is aionion necessarily coequal in duration with aionion (in Mt.25:46)?
An argument for "eternal conscious torment"
Matthew 25:46 paralllel argument with Rom 5 19:
Universalist Understanding?

XYZ said:

It is repeating a line of argument that, so far, you have not even come close to successfully refuting.

Click to expand...

You claim Mt.25:46 as a proof text against universalism. I showed 2 separate reasonable universalist interpretations of the text. In order for your "proof text" interpretation to remain a "proof" you must refute both of my reasonable universalist interpretations & prove them false. Since you've failed to do so, your "proof text" fails as a "proof text". All you are left with, therefore, is a theory, while being unable to refute the 2 alternate reasonable interpretations that I posted, as follows:

There are two main universalist interpretations of Mt.25:46:

(1) The aionion life & the aionion punishment refer to contrasting eonian destinies pertaining to a finite eonian period to come, e.g. the millennial eon. The verse has nothing to do, & says nothing about, final destiny. Regarding the endless life of the righteous in Christ, other passages address that topic, such as those that speak of immortality, incorruption & being unable to die.

(2) Another universalist option in interpretating Mt.25:46 is that aionion life refers to a perpetual life that lasts as long as God Almighty wills it to last, so it is endless. OTOH, aionion punishment refers to a perpetual punishment that also lasts as long as Love Omnipotent wills it to last, which is until it has served its useful purpose in bringing the offender to the salvation in their Savior, Who died & shed His blood for their sins. While life is an end in itself, punishment is a means to an end.

Furthermore, since aionion is an adjective, it "must therefore function like an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective for its meaning to vary, sometimes greatly, depending upon which noun it qualifies." A tall chair is not the same height as a tall mountain. Likewise, the aionion punishment is not of the same duration as the aionion life.

That was a brief explanation of the main two different universalist interpretations of Mt.25:46. Following are more elaborate remarks in support of these two perspectives:

Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

Is aionion necessarily coequal in duration with aionion (in Mt.25:46)?

XYZ said:

It is not an assumption that Matthew 25:46 employs a parallel, but a plain fact.

Click to expand...

Interpretation 1 above accepts the parallel of "eonian destinies". So the parallel there is not denied. Likewise interpretation 2 above acknowledging parallel perpetual destinies. But that the word perpetual can vary according to its subject.

XYZ said:

Let us look at this verse again:

"And these shall go away into eternal (aiōnios) punishment: but the righteous into life eternal (aiōnios)" (Mt.25:26).

Since the structure of this verse is best described as being a "parallelism" then the Greek word aiōnios must carry with it the same meaning in both instances where it is used.

Click to expand...

Then, by the same reasoning, the "parallel" in Rom.5:19 proves Scriptural universalism to be true:

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for ALL MANKIND for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for ALL MANKIND for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, THE MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, THE MANY shall be constituted just."

1 Cor.15:22 AS in Adam ALL die SO ALSO in Christ shall ALL be made alive.

1 Cor.15:28 And when ALL shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put ALL under him, that God may be all in ALL.

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.

And your translation of Mt.25:46 contradicts this translation of Lamentations 3:

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.

While these translations (& others) of Mt.25:46 are in harmony with all the verses above i have posted:

The New Testament: A Translation, by Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart, 2017, Yale Press):
"And these shall go to the chastening of that Age, but the just to the life of that Age."

Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898:
"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."

Emphatic Diaglott, 1942 edition
"And these shall go forth to the aionian 1 cutting-off; but the RIGHTEOUS to aionian Life."

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959
"And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life."

Shrewd Manager said:

Those 4 fingers keep pointing right back atcha Major. You know, it's the right of every English man to stand up in a court of law and say 'J'accuse!'.




Plausible, I guess, but not earth-shattering imho. That's always been the Christian hope, the marriage of heaven and earth, the Kingdom of (from) Heaven realised on earth.

And that's why the Bride and the Spirit invite the outsiders to come in, through the ever-open pearly gates, for the water of life, for the healing of the nations in the great renovation of all things.

This 'upbeat' reading of the final visions of Revelation is inescapable, and I commend it to you sir.

Click to expand...

So then it appears that we are moving toward a mutual understanding of God's Word and for that I commend and bless YOU!

Shrewd Manager said:

And I hope you're prepared to consider the possibility that the entire revelation of Revelation is the revelation that God converts everyone. The promise, the method, the fulfillment. It's the narrative, scripture's saturated in miraculous deliverance and restoration. So have faith, don't fall into unbelief yourself Major.

This the super-baptism, the making of all things new (Rev 21:5), the consummation of the ages in the Eschaton where heaven merges with earth in a great apokatastasis, anakainosis and paliggenesis. Three big wog words for Kingdom Salvation.

Jesus = Yahushua = God's Salvation = the Omega Plan = Good News = Total victory of Christ = Praise God for He is THAT good.

Click to expand...

No sir I am not prepared to accept your thesis simply because that is not what The Scriptures in the Revelation tell us.

Now as for me falling into unbelief. You do not know me my brother at all. If I post here what I am and what I have been doing for 50 years it would be bragging so I will not do that. I will however assure you that me falling into unbelief is the ONE thing you can stop worrying about.

As far as YOUR equation above allow me to now give you God's equation from
John 14:6...….
"I am the way the truth and the life and NO ONE comes to the Father except by me" ====INDIVIDUAL Salvation.

If you personally are not aware, allow me to say to you that in Universalism, as well as most any doctrine, Satan can work various false teachings through its adherents. No doctrine is immune to being twisted to make it acceptable to those who will not accept the truth.

Universalism says that ALL will be save LATER. Correct??/ YES IT IS!!!!

But again what do the Scriptures actually say ??????

2 Corth. 6:2........
“At the acceptable time I listened to you, And on the day of salvation I helped you”; behold, now is “the acceptable time,” behold, now is “the day of salvation".

The Bible says that NOW---TODAY is the time to be saved not later.

Now from the web site of a well known Universalist Gregory McDonald comes this...…..
"But it has been pointed out that the logic of the arguments that I employ in chapter 1 of my book would entail a more radical conclusion - that God will redeem all fallen creatures, both human and angelic. Let's call this 'radical universalism".
The Evangelical Universalist: Universalism and the Salvation of Satan

He is saying and you are accepting it as true THAT IN THE END EVEN SATAN WILL BE SAVED.

But again, what does the Word of God actually say...…...Revelation 20:10-----
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

So my and YOUR choice is, who do I believe, Gregory McDonald and the Universalist theology, or the Word of God.

Butch5 said:

I Have read the parable and am quite familiar with it. I would submit that it's not about an afterlife but rather a judgement against the leadership of Israel. Consider the details of the parable. Below is something I've pasted from one of my other posts. Considering what you said above about context I think this makes a good point.

The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is also a judgment of the priesthood and their destruction. Who was Jesus talking to? The Pharisees. The Rich Man was a Jew. The priesthood was Jewish. The Rich Man had five brothers. Levi, the tribe of the priesthood, had five brothers. The Rich Man was dressed in purple and fine linen. The priesthood ruled over Israel as both king and priest and wore purple and fine linen. The Rich Man fared sumptuously. The priesthood fared sumptuously.

What about Lazarus? Lazarus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Eleazar which means, God help. God helped Jesus. Lazarus had come to the Rich Man. Jesus had come to the Jews. Lazarus was covered in sores. At the cross Jesus was covered in sores. The dogs licked Lazarus' sores. Lazarus was rejected by the Rich Man but accepted by the dogs. The Jews referred to the Gentiles as dogs. Jesus was rejected by the Jews but accepted by the Gentiles. Lazarus was carried away by angels. Jesus was carried away by angles. Lazarus was carried to his father Abraham. Jesus was carried to His father God. Lazarus was embraced by Abraham. Jesus was embraced by God. Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom. Is Abraham's bosom a place located down in the earth? There is nothing in Scripture to suggest any such thing. Abraham's bosom is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture though. Hagar was in Abraham's bosom, and she was alive, not dead.

And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. (Gen. 16:5 KJV)

Hagar was in an intimate relationship with Abram. From this we see that being in Abraham's bosom means to be in a close relationship with Abraham. Lazarus was in the bosom of his father. Jesus was in the bosom of His father.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (Jn. 1:18 KJV)

The Rich Man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers, that they would believe if one came from the dead. Abraham said no. He wouldn't send Lazarus back to the Jews. When Jesus resurrected He wouldn't show Himself to the Jews.

These are just the correlations in the details of the parable. I can go into much more depth if you'd like.
I think these details are too similar to be coincidence. I believe this, just like the parable of the vineyard, is a judgment against the leadership of Israel.

Click to expand...

Butch, you have failed to understand something very important. Luke 16 IS NOT A PARABEL.

Luke 16:19 to 31 is another scripture that shows very plainly that the souls or spirits of people are alive after someone dies physically. They can talk, think, remember, and feel pain as it says, but if we take this scripture literally then it destroys the doctrine of 'soul-sleep'. For this reason there are many who would like to explain this scripture away as a parable, because then it enables them to ignore the literal interpretation. This is wrong, and if Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a parable like this which contradicts it very plainly. This bible study gives plenty of scriptural proof that the scripture about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 is not a parable.

There rae probably 100 web sites that support that fact and at least that many Bible scholars as well I will for you list just one and invite you to search the others...…...
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS (Luke 16) IS NOT A PARABLE

There are several valid reasons which show that it is certainly not a parable:
(1) People are never named in parables.
Do the search for yourself and see if you can find ONE. However in Luke
THREE (3) are named.
(2) Every parable has an earthly setting, which the people hearing could
relate to, but never a heavenly or spiritual one.
In this scripture however, Hades1 (Gtr. hades) (v23), and 'Abraham's
bosom' (v22), are not earthly settings, showing that this is not a parable.
(3) Because the settings of parables are always earthly they never include
spiritual beings either, although God may be mentioned. The
interpretation of a parable may include spiritual beings though, because a
parable is a simile, which has a spiritual comparison to it. For example:
'the reapers' in the parable of the wheat and tares, are 'angels' in the
explanation, and 'the enemy' in the parable is 'the Devil' in the
comparison (Matthew 13:39). So if spiritual beings such as angels only
appear in a comparison, but never in a parable, then this scripture about
the rich man in hell cannot be a parable, because angels are also
mentioned (v22). The conclusion to be drawn is that Jesus was relating a
true story here, either one that happened in the past or it was prophetic;
the rich man and Lazarus were people who had or would actually live and
die.

(4) If Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a
parable like this which plainly contradicts it. Doctrine should be based on
plain statements of scripture, and parables are an earthly story similar to
the spiritual truth, and are meant to illustrate it. They are laid alongside
spiritual truths as a comparison. Parables should NEVER contradict
spiritual truth, and Jesus would never tell one that did.

WHY???? Because it would make Him a liar and in that case NO ONE CAN BE SAVED because He would not be the sinless Son of God!!!

THINK ABOUT IT my dear brother. THINK!

FineLinen said:

Such foolishness of any being tormenting anyone for any period of time is simply repulsive with a capital R !

To project such a ghastly dogma to the One who is LOVE in His essence will never be acceptable by those who truly know Him.

EVER !

Click to expand...

I completely agree with your comment of...….REPULSIVE.

It makes me sick to my stomach ever since I begin to debate Universalists.

However.....what I think has nothing to do with what God says.

Now we can banter back and forth with neither of us changing our positions but in the end it all comes down to just ONE thing.

YOU and your pals here simply do not believe the Word of God and have fallen in love with a dogma from the minds of men instead of the Word of God.

The errors of Universalism are readily apparent in their attempts to illustrate by using scripture that the Greek word's: 'aionion and aionios' which translated into English denote "everlasting, for ever, for evermore" are only used in a temporary sense (eon, eon of the eons, eonian, age-during, age's past, et al.).

The inaccurate teaching that the word "all" in scripture, is "everything, all with no exceptions" is easily defeated in light of scripture.

Carelessness and wanton disregard for scripture is a trademark for false doctrine. Scripture clearly removes any ambiguity and clearly defines groups of nations, groups of believer's versus unbeliever's, groups of the Jews versus the Gentiles, those receiving eternal life versus eternal damnation, etc. But by doing so, the Universalist by introducing these four blatant errors (among others) is caught in a hopeless paradox that cannot be explained in light of scripture.
The Reasons Why Universalism is False

Also, you seem to not be aware of the teaching of Universalism which says that even SATAN will be saved in the end.

Even when Revelation 20:10 clearly say in plain and understandable English:
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

Butch5 said:

Interesting, brethren equals church but apostles don't. What Did Jesus say to Peter? 'Upon this rock I will build my church.' What was the rock? It was Peter's confession, 'thou art the Christ'. The apostles made that confession. Since you say none of those Jews were in the church would you exclude them from your rapture?

You've still not shown anything that says the church will be raptured before the tribulation. Passages that indicate the church won't suffer don't mean the church will be take off the earth. Nowhere else in Biblical history did God take his people off of the earth when He brought Judgment. When He brought the flood, He didn't take Noah and his family off the earth. When He brought the plagues upon Egypt He didn't take His people off the earth. No one has ascended into Heaven except the one who came down from Heaven. God has never done it before and there's no reason to think He's going to change this time. Nothing you've presented says the church will be taken to off the earth prior to the Tribulation.

Click to expand...

NO SIR that is not the truth and I really think that you know that. It seems to me that you are being deceitful on purpose.

Now, do YOU think that is the proper way for a born again believer to act?????

Believers in Christ make up His church and in HIs Church were 12 Apostles.

But TODAY there are NO Apostles as one of the qualifications to be an Apostle was that they had to have witnessed the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ.

Acts 10:39-40.....
“We are witnesses of everything Jesus did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen”.

YES.....Peters confession was the fact upon which Jesus church was founded. YES.....Peter was the disciple, later an apostle who said that.
YES.....The 1st Church was made up of all Jews. Converted born again Jews.

I have in fact posted SEVERAL Scriptures that told you about the Rapture and how the church will not go through the Tribulation.

You can not say that I have not done so. YOU can reject those Scriptures if you choose to do so but you can not keep saying I have not posted them for you.

However.....again I post for you----

John speaking to the churches in Rev 3:10 said...….
"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."

1Thess 5:9......
" For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation."

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 ….
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our LORD Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."

1Thess 1:10 …..
" And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."

ClementofA said:

Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart comments in his extensive notes (Concluding Scientific Postscript) re aionios following his translation of the New Testament:

"...John Chrysostom, in his commentary on Ephesians, even used the word aionios of the kingdom of the devil specifically to indicate that it is temporary (for it will last only until the end of the present age, he explains). In the early centuries of the church, especially in the Greek and Syrian East, the lexical plasticity of the noun and the adjective was fully appreciated -and often exploited - by a number of Christian theologians and exegetes (especially such explicit universalists as the great Alexandrians Clement and Origen, the "pillar of orthodoxy" Gregory of Nyssa and his equally redoubtable sister Makrina, the great Syrian fathers Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Isaac of Ninevah, and so on, as well as many other more rhetorically reserved universalists, such as Gregory of Nazianzus)."

"Late in the fourth century, for instance, Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea, reported that the vast majority of his fellow Christians (at least, in the Greek-speaking East with which he was familiar) assumed that "hell" is not an eternal condition, and that the "aionios punishment" of the age to come would end when the soul had been purified of its sins and thus prepared for union with God. Well into the sixth century, the great Platonist philosopher Olympiodorus the Younger could state as rather obvious that the suffering of wicked souls in Tartarus is certainly not endless, atelevtos, but is merely aionios; and the squalidly brutal and witless Christian emperor Justinian, as part of his campaign to extinguish the universalism of the "Origenists", found it necessary to substitute the word atelevtetos for aionios when describing the punishments of hell, since the latter word was not decisive..."

"As late as the thirteenth century, the East Syrian bishop Solomon of Bostra, in his authoritative compilation of the teachings of the "holy fathers" of Syrian Christian tradition, simply stated as a matter of fact that in the New Testament le-alam (the Syriac rendering of aionios) does not mean eternal, and that of course hell is not endless. And the fourteenth-century East Syrian Patriarch Timotheus II thought it uncontroversial to assert that the aionios pains of hell will come to an end when the souls cleansed by them, through the prayers of the saints, enter paradise" (The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart, 2017, p.539-540).

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300186096

Hart adds:

"...how greatly formulations that seem to imply universal salvation outnumber those that appear to threaten an ultimate damnation for the wicked. Still, none of that surprised me; it merely roused me from my complacent assumption that, simply by virtue of having read the text in Greek for many years, I had a natural feel for its tone."

Christ's Rabble | Commonweal Magazine

Matthew 25:46
Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46
City-Data Forum - View Single Post - What does Matthew 25:46 mean?
What does Matthew 25:46 mean? (Gomorrah, Gospel, unpardonable, hell) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum
Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?
Is aionion necessarily coequal in duration with aionion (in Mt.25:46)?
An argument for "eternal conscious torment"
Matthew 25:46 paralllel argument with Rom 5 19:
Universalist Understanding?




You claim Mt.25:46 as a proof text against universalism. I showed 2 separate reasonable universalist interpretations of the text. In order for your "proof text" interpretation to remain a "proof" you must refute both of my reasonable universalist interpretations & prove them false. Since you've failed to do so, your "proof text" fails as a "proof text". All you are left with, therefore, is a theory, while being unable to refute the 2 alternate reasonable interpretations that I posted, as follows:

There are two main universalist interpretations of Mt.25:46:

(1) The aionion life & the aionion punishment refer to contrasting eonian destinies pertaining to a finite eonian period to come, e.g. the millennial eon. The verse has nothing to do, & says nothing about, final destiny. Regarding the endless life of the righteous in Christ, other passages address that topic, such as those that speak of immortality, incorruption & being unable to die.

(2) Another universalist option in interpretating Mt.25:46 is that aionion life refers to a perpetual life that lasts as long as God Almighty wills it to last, so it is endless. OTOH, aionion punishment refers to a perpetual punishment that also lasts as long as Love Omnipotent wills it to last, which is until it has served its useful purpose in bringing the offender to the salvation in their Savior, Who died & shed His blood for their sins. While life is an end in itself, punishment is a means to an end.

Furthermore, since aionion is an adjective, it "must therefore function like an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective for its meaning to vary, sometimes greatly, depending upon which noun it qualifies." A tall chair is not the same height as a tall mountain. Likewise, the aionion punishment is not of the same duration as the aionion life.

That was a brief explanation of the main two different universalist interpretations of Mt.25:46. Following are more elaborate remarks in support of these two perspectives:

Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

Is aionion necessarily coequal in duration with aionion (in Mt.25:46)?



Interpretation 1 above accepts the parallel of "eonian destinies". So the parallel there is not denied. Likewise interpretation 2 above acknowledging parallel perpetual destinies. But that the word perpetual can vary according to its subject.



Then, by the same reasoning, the "parallel" in Rom.5:19 proves Scriptural universalism to be true:

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for ALL MANKIND for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for ALL MANKIND for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, THE MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, THE MANY shall be constituted just."

1 Cor.15:22 AS in Adam ALL die SO ALSO in Christ shall ALL be made alive.

1 Cor.15:28 And when ALL shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put ALL under him, that God may be all in ALL.

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.

And your translation of Mt.25:46 contradicts this translation of Lamentations 3:

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.

While these translations (& others) of Mt.25:46 are in harmony with all the verses above i have posted:

The New Testament: A Translation, by Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart, 2017, Yale Press):
"And these shall go to the chastening of that Age, but the just to the life of that Age."

Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898:
"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."

Emphatic Diaglott, 1942 edition
"And these shall go forth to the aionian 1 cutting-off; but the RIGHTEOUS to aionian Life."

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959
"And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life."

Click to expand...

Gregory MacDonald, author of The Evangelical Universalist (Cascade Books, 2006 & SPCK, 2008), does the odd bit of blogging and interacts with anyone who is interested in a chatting about issues surrounding universalism.

Monday, May 19, 2008
Universalism and the Salvation of Satan

But it has been pointed out that the logic of the arguments that I employ in chapter 1 of my book would entail a more radical conclusion - that God will redeem all fallen creatures, both human and angelic. Let's call this 'radical universalism'.

That is what MAN says which YOU accept.

Revelation 20:10 is what GOD SAYS which you have rejected...….
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

There seems to be some kind of difference between MAN and God. I wonder who we should believe??????????

Major1 said:

Gregory MacDonald, author of The Evangelical Universalist (Cascade Books, 2006 & SPCK, 2008), does the odd bit of blogging and interacts with anyone who is interested in a chatting about issues surrounding universalism.

Monday, May 19, 2008
Universalism and the Salvation of Satan

But it has been pointed out that the logic of the arguments that I employ in chapter 1 of my book would entail a more radical conclusion - that God will redeem all fallen creatures, both human and angelic. Let's call this 'radical universalism'.

That is what MAN says which YOU accept.

Revelation 20:10 is what GOD SAYS which you have rejected...….
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

There seems to be some kind of difference between MAN and God. I wonder who we should believe??????????

Click to expand...

150 Reasons

150 Reasons For Believing In The Final Salvation Of All Mankind

Seven Large Myths

7 Myths About Universalism

A Summary Of The Divine Plan

SUMMARY OF

Major1 said:

Universalism says that ALL will be save LATER. Correct??/ YES IT IS!!!!

But again what do the Scriptures actually say ??????

2 Corth. 6:2........
“At the acceptable time I listened to you, And on the day of salvation I helped you”; behold, now is “the acceptable time,” behold, now is “the day of salvation".

The Bible says that NOW---TODAY is the time to be saved not later.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Dig deeper:

Darby Bible Translation
(for he says, I have listened to thee in an accepted time, and I have helped thee in a day of salvation: behold, now [is the] well-accepted time; behold, now [the] day of salvation

WYC
For he saith, In time well pleasing I have heard thee [In time accepted, or well pleasing, I have heard thee], and in the day of health I have helped thee. Lo! now a time acceptable, lo! now a day of health.
2Corinthians 6:2 - Bible Gateway

The word "the" does not appear in the Greek here:

2 Corinthians 6 δε And συνεργουντες Working Jointly παρακαλουμεν We Urge υμας You και Also μη Not δεξασθαι To Receive την Tha χαριν Grace του Of Tho θεου God εις In κενον Vain

For He is saying, "In a season acceptable I reply to you, And in a day of salvation I help you.Lo! Now is a most acceptable era! Lo! Now is a day of salvation!" (CLV)

Young's Literal Translation
for He saith, 'In an acceptable time I did hear thee, and in ***A*** day of salvation I did help thee, lo, now is a well-accepted time; lo, now, ***A*** day of salvation,' -- (2 Cor 6:2)

For he saith—In an approved season, have I hearkened unto thee, and, in a day of salvation, have succoured thee;—Lo! now, a well-approved season, Lo! now, a day of salvation: (Rotherham)

2 (he says for: In a season acceptable I listened to thee and in a day of salvation I helped thee. Lo, now a season well accepted, lo, now a day of salvation.) (Emphatic Diaglott NT)

2 Cor.6:2 For he says, "In an acceptable time i heard you, and on a day of salvation I helped you." Look: Now is an acceptable time. Now is a day of salvation."
(The New Testamtnt: A Translation, by EO scholar David Bentley Hart, 2017, p.358)
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300186096

In a time acceptable i heard you and in a day of salvation i helped you. Behold now [is] a time acceptable, behold now [is] a day of salvation. (The New Greek English Interlinear
New Testament, with UBS 4th edition, Nestle-Aland 27th edition, editor J.D. Douglas, PhD, 1990, p.634).

If it is "a" day of salvation that doesn't equate to "the only" day of salvation.

If today is "a" day of salvation, tomorrow may be another day.

To the Lord a day is as a thousand years (2 Pet.3:8).

Now is "a" day of salvation. The present moment is always "now", whether today or in a 1000 years after Paul wrote that or in 3000, 5000 or 10,000 years after he wrote it.

This passage, 2 Cor.6:1-2, makes no mention of God's love expiring, like the date on a milk carton, when this life ends.

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

Major1 said:

He is saying and you are accepting it as true THAT IN THE END EVEN SATAN WILL BE SAVED.

Click to expand...

""I am aware of 'this pastor'. The verse which hit him like a ton of bricks as he wrestled with a congregant challenging him with Ultimate Reconciliation was the following;

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.

As he went through the doorway the Spirit of Truth challenged him saying; "What needs to be reconciled 'IN HEAVEN'?" After all, nothing in the heavenly realm needs reconciling but demons. Like the song says; "There is power power in the blood of Jesus." More power and a better plan, than the nominal church can even believe. To have ears to hear, one must loosen the death grip on what they believe."

Major1 said:

But again, what does the Word of God actually say...…...Revelation 20:10-----
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

So my and YOUR choice is, who do I believe, Gregory McDonald and the Universalist theology, or the Word of God.

Click to expand...

How about Augustine, the champion of endless tortures, even for infants?

Or Scripture, unlike the twisted excuse for it you posted above:

and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night-to the ages of the ages. (Rev.20:10, YLT)

And the Adversary who is deceiving them was cast into the lake of fire and sulphur where the wild beast and where the false prophet are also. And they shall be tormented day and night for the eons of the eons. (Rev.20:10, Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983)

...and the Adversary that had been deceiving them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [were] both the wild-beast and the false-prophet; and they shall be tormented
day and night unto the ages of ages. (Rev.20:10, Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959

American Standard Version footnote: *Gr. unto the ages of the ages.
Revised Version, 1881 footnote: *Gr. unto the ages of the ages.

12 points re forever and ever being finite:
For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

Also, "forever and ever" is nonsense. No time can be added to "forever".

forever and ever: a poor translation:

Why Can't Aionas Ton Aionon Mean Eternity?

Bible Translations That Do Not Teach Eternal Torment

#4

Aeon - Wikipedia

AIN -- AINIOS

The Greek Words "aion" and "aionios," do these words mean "eternal" or "everlasting"?

Major1 said:

The inaccurate teaching that the word "all" in scripture, is "everything, all with no exceptions" is easily defeated in light of scripture.

Click to expand...

Not quite big guy: there are a few exceptions, they are what is known as a synecdoche.

Pas radically means “all.”

Used without the article it means “every,” every kind or variety. So the RV marg. in Eph. 2:21, “every building,” and the text in Eph. 3:15, “every family,” and the RV marg. of Acts 2:36, “every house;”

or, it may signify “the highest degree,” the maximum of what is referred to, as, “with all boldness” Acts 4:29.

Before proper names of countries, cities and nations, and before collective terms, like “Israel,” it signifies either “all” or “the whole,” e.g., Matt. 2:3; Acts 2:36.

Used with the article, it means the whole of one object.

In the plural it signifies “the totality of the persons or things referred to.”
Used without a noun it virtually becomes a pronoun, meaning “everyone” or “anyone.”

In the plural with a noun it means “all.”

One form of the neuter plural (panta) signifies “wholly, together, in all ways, in all things,” Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 9:25.

The neuter plural without the article signifies “all things severally,” e.g., John 1:3; 1 Cor. 2:10; preceded by the article it denotes “all things,” as constituting a whole, e.g., Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9.

Major1 said:

Butch, you have failed to understand something very important. Luke 16 IS NOT A PARABEL.

Luke 16:19 to 31 is another scripture that shows very plainly that the souls or spirits of people are alive after someone dies physically. They can talk, think, remember, and feel pain as it says, but if we take this scripture literally then it destroys the doctrine of 'soul-sleep'. For this reason there are many who would like to explain this scripture away as a parable, because then it enables them to ignore the literal interpretation. This is wrong, and if Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a parable like this which contradicts it very plainly. This bible study gives plenty of scriptural proof that the scripture about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 is not a parable.

There rae probably 100 web sites that support that fact and at least that many Bible scholars as well I will for you list just one and invite you to search the others...…...
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS (Luke 16) IS NOT A PARABLE

There are several valid reasons which show that it is certainly not a parable:
(1) People are never named in parables.
Do the search for yourself and see if you can find ONE. However in Luke
THREE (3) are named.
(2) Every parable has an earthly setting, which the people hearing could
relate to, but never a heavenly or spiritual one.
In this scripture however, Hades1 (Gtr. hades) (v23), and 'Abraham's
bosom' (v22), are not earthly settings, showing that this is not a parable.
(3) Because the settings of parables are always earthly they never include
spiritual beings either, although God may be mentioned. The
interpretation of a parable may include spiritual beings though, because a
parable is a simile, which has a spiritual comparison to it. For example:
'the reapers' in the parable of the wheat and tares, are 'angels' in the
explanation, and 'the enemy' in the parable is 'the Devil' in the
comparison (Matthew 13:39). So if spiritual beings such as angels only
appear in a comparison, but never in a parable, then this scripture about
the rich man in hell cannot be a parable, because angels are also
mentioned (v22). The conclusion to be drawn is that Jesus was relating a
true story here, either one that happened in the past or it was prophetic;
the rich man and Lazarus were people who had or would actually live and
die.

(4) If Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a
parable like this which plainly contradicts it. Doctrine should be based on
plain statements of scripture, and parables are an earthly story similar to
the spiritual truth, and are meant to illustrate it. They are laid alongside
spiritual truths as a comparison. Parables should NEVER contradict
spiritual truth, and Jesus would never tell one that did.

WHY???? Because it would make Him a liar and in that case NO ONE CAN BE SAVED because He would not be the sinless Son of God!!!

THINK ABOUT IT my dear brother. THINK!

Click to expand...

I've not failed to understand. I just gave you a list of correlations between the Rich Man and the priesthood and between Jesus and Lazarus. Its appears you'v just ignored that. How do you account for the similarities? Surely that is too much to be coincidence.

It's funny that you suggested that link because someone else posted the same link. It may have been you. However, the article contains a logical fallacy in the very first paragraph. Here is the statement.

"This is wrong, and if Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a parable like this which contradicts it very plainly."

The fallacy is that the author purports to know what Jesus would do. The author has no such knowledge. Also, the 4 points he makes are also erroneous. In point 1 he says people aren't named in any other parables. That may be the case, however, that doesn't prove that this isn't a parable. His argument is a non sequitur. It would make sense to include a name if the name was important to the parable. As I pointed out, the name Lazarus means 'God help'. It's important to the parable.

In his second point he's simply wrong. Hades is the grave and that is an earthly setting.

For his third point he starts off with a false premise. His premise is that Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man are spirits. And, he says that spirits aren't mentioned in parables. However, this is circular reasoning. His argument is to prove that Lazarus and the Rich Man are spirits, yet he assumes the very thing he's trying to prove. That's circular reasoning.

His 4th point is sentence listed above. However, as I stated, the author has no way to know what Jesus would or would not do. The author presumes to think for Jesus.

This article is full of fallacies. Thus the final conclusion is incorrect. As far as the 100 articles and scholars, well, that doesn't mean anything. Having a large number of people wrong about something doesn't make it correct.

I would be really interested if you would engage the correlations that I posted.

Butch5 said:

I've not failed to understand. I just gave you a list of correlations between the Rich Man and the priesthood and between Jesus and Lazarus. Its appears you'v just ignored that. How do you account for the similarities? Surely that is too much to be coincidence.

It's funny that you suggested that link because someone else posted the same link. It may have been you. However, the article contains a logical fallacy in the very first paragraph. Here is the statement.

"This is wrong, and if Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a parable like this which contradicts it very plainly."

The fallacy is that the author purports to know what Jesus would do. The author has no such knowledge. Also, the 4 points he makes are also erroneous. In point 1 he says people aren't named in any other parables. That may be the case, however, that doesn't prove that this isn't a parable. His argument is a non sequitur. It would make sense to include a name if the name was important to the parable. As I pointed out, the name Lazarus means 'God help'. It's important to the parable.

In his second point he's simply wrong. Hades is the grave and that is an earthly setting.

For his third point he starts off with a false premise. His premise is that Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man are spirits. And, he says that spirits aren't mentioned in parables. However, this is circular reasoning. His argument is to prove that Lazarus and the Rich Man are spirits, yet he assumes the very thing he's trying to prove. That's circular reasoning.

His 4th point is sentence listed above. However, as I stated, the author has no way to know what Jesus would or would not do. The author presumes to think for Jesus.

This article is full of fallacies. Thus the final conclusion is incorrect. As far as the 100 articles and scholars, well, that doesn't mean anything. Having a large number of people wrong about something doesn't make it correct.

I would be really interested if you would engage the correlations that I posted.

Click to expand...

I went back to post # 561 and did not see anything like you described.

What is the # of the post that you asked the question?

Major1 said:

NO SIR that is not the truth and I really think that you know that. It seems to me that you are being deceitful on purpose.

Now, do YOU think that is the proper way for a born again believer to act?????

Believers in Christ make up His church and in HIs Church were 12 Apostles.

But TODAY there are NO Apostles as one of the qualifications to be an Apostle was that they had to have witnessed the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ.

Acts 10:39-40.....
“We are witnesses of everything Jesus did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen”.

YES.....Peters confession was the fact upon which Jesus church was founded. YES.....Peter was the disciple, later an apostle who said that.
YES.....The 1st Church was made up of all Jews. Converted born again Jews.

I have in fact posted SEVERAL Scriptures that told you about the Rapture and how the church will not go through the Tribulation.

You can not say that I have not done so. YOU can reject those Scriptures if you choose to do so but you can not keep saying I have not posted them for you.

However.....again I post for you----

John speaking to the churches in Rev 3:10 said...….
"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."

1Thess 5:9......
" For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation."

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 ….
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our LORD Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."

1Thess 1:10 …..
" And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."

Click to expand...

Is it proper to imply that one is lying without proof? I've not been the least bit deceitful. I simply see things differently than you. Since you acknowledge that the apostles were part of the Church, on what grounds then do you claim that Jesus' words in Mathew 24 don't pertain to the Church?


Ok, looking at these 4 passages you've posted, which one says the church will be taken off the earth?
In the first one Jesus says He will keep them from the hour of temptation. He did that for the Jews too in the Passover. They never left the earth. The second one says they weren't appointed to wrath. It doesn't say anything about leaving the earth. The third one doesn't say anything about leaving the earth. In the fourth it says Jesus will deliver from the wrath to come. It doesn't say they will leave the earth.

I don't know where you see in these passages that the church is going to Heaven. The Hebrews in Egypt weren't appointed to wrath either, but they weren't taken off the earth, they were simply protected through the trial. The only place I see in Scripture where the church is taken off the earth is the return of Christ at His second coming, which is after the Tribulation.

FineLinen said:

Not quite big guy: there are a few exceptions, they are what is known as a synecdoche.

Pas radically means “all.”

Used without the article it means “every,” every kind or variety. So the RV marg. in Eph. 2:21, “every building,” and the text in Eph. 3:15, “every family,” and the RV marg. of Acts 2:36, “every house;”

or, it may signify “the highest degree,” the maximum of what is referred to, as, “with all boldness” Acts 4:29.

Before proper names of countries, cities and nations, and before collective terms, like “Israel,” it signifies either “all” or “the whole,” e.g., Matt. 2:3; Acts 2:36.

Used with the article, it means the whole of one object.

In the plural it signifies “the totality of the persons or things referred to.”
Used without a noun it virtually becomes a pronoun, meaning “everyone” or “anyone.”

In the plural with a noun it means “all.”

One form of the neuter plural (panta) signifies “wholly, together, in all ways, in all things,” Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 9:25.

The neuter plural without the article signifies “all things severally,” e.g., John 1:3; 1 Cor. 2:10; preceded by the article it denotes “all things,” as constituting a whole, e.g., Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9.

Click to expand...

"God so loved the world…" (John 3:16).

"Go ye into all the world…" (Mark 16:15).

Such verses are the basis of the thought that the go and preach the gospel to every creature of Mark 16:15 refers to going to every person of every race on earth. Let us consider some of the words in these verses.

Preach or kerusso means to proclaim, or to announce good news like a town crier. It does not mean “to make disciples” or “to evangelize”, as many teach. But where were they to make their proclamations? Was it to everyone of every race? Let us look at every creature. The Greek word ktisis is given by:

Strong's G2936-7 as “original formation, building, creature, and ordinance”.

Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words: “Ktizo is used among the Greeks to mean the foundation of a place, a city, or a colony...It is a significant confirmation of Rom 1:20,21 that in all non-Christian Greek literature these words (ktizo and its derivatives) are never used by Greeks to convey the idea of a Creator or of a creative act by any of their gods. The words are confined by them to the acts of human beings."

This is the creature (or rather, creation) of Mark 16:15. The word ktisis in the Greek is used to indicate the product of human building or formation. In this context it refers to a village, or place where people live. A ktisis is built by man, not YEHOVAH God. The disciples were to go specifically to the places or the villages or places where the Israelites lived.

"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, til the Son of Man be come" (Matthew 10:23).

We cannot make “the cities of Israel” to mean the cities of every race. Note here that the Messiah is speaking of the time of the end.

What is the area of proclamation? Is it not all the world of Israel?

What were they proclaiming? Was it not the Gospel of the Kingdom?

The Kingdom is what the Messiah and John the Baptist came proclaiming, "repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Who proclaims either of these today? It is impossible to believe and teach both the modern universal gospel to all races and the exclusive Kingdom of Heaven at the same time. The Messiah confines all the world to the cities of Israel! In other words, this is what is to be proclaimed in the dwellings or places where the Israelites live right up to the end of the age.
The Misuse of the Words, "All," "Every," "Whoseoever," Etc.

Butch5 said:

Is it proper to imply that one is lying without proof? I've not been the least bit deceitful. I simply see things differently than you. Since you acknowledge that the apostles were part of the Church, on what grounds then do you claim that Jesus' words in Mathew 24 don't pertain to the Church?


Ok, looking at these 4 passages you've posted, which one says the church will be taken off the earth?
In the first one Jesus says He will keep them from the hour of temptation. He did that for the Jews too in the Passover. They never left the earth. The second one says they weren't appointed to wrath. It doesn't say anything about leaving the earth. The third one doesn't say anything about leaving the earth. In the fourth it says Jesus will deliver from the wrath to come. It doesn't say they will leave the earth.

I don't know where you see in these passages that the church is going to Heaven. The Hebrews in Egypt weren't appointed to wrath either, but they weren't taken off the earth, they were simply protected through the trial. The only place I see in Scripture where the church is taken off the earth is the return of Christ at His second coming, which is after the Tribulation.

Click to expand...

I am very sorry that you can not grasp what has been given to you. There is no need for me to keep posting the same thing over and over.

Major1 said:

I went back to post # 561 and did not see anything like you described.

What is the # of the post that you asked the question?

Click to expand...

The correlations are in post 541

Butch5 said:

I Have read the parable and am quite familiar with it. I would submit that it's not about an afterlife but rather a judgement against the leadership of Israel. Consider the details of the parable. Below is something I've pasted from one of my other posts. Considering what you said above about context I think this makes a good point.

The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is also a judgment of the priesthood and their destruction. Who was Jesus talking to? The Pharisees. The Rich Man was a Jew. The priesthood was Jewish. The Rich Man had five brothers. Levi, the tribe of the priesthood, had five brothers. The Rich Man was dressed in purple and fine linen. The priesthood ruled over Israel as both king and priest and wore purple and fine linen. The Rich Man fared sumptuously. The priesthood fared sumptuously.

What about Lazarus? Lazarus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Eleazar which means, God help. God helped Jesus. Lazarus had come to the Rich Man. Jesus had come to the Jews. Lazarus was covered in sores. At the cross Jesus was covered in sores. The dogs licked Lazarus' sores. Lazarus was rejected by the Rich Man but accepted by the dogs. The Jews referred to the Gentiles as dogs. Jesus was rejected by the Jews but accepted by the Gentiles. Lazarus was carried away by angels. Jesus was carried away by angles. Lazarus was carried to his father Abraham. Jesus was carried to His father God. Lazarus was embraced by Abraham. Jesus was embraced by God. Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom. Is Abraham's bosom a place located down in the earth? There is nothing in Scripture to suggest any such thing. Abraham's bosom is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture though. Hagar was in Abraham's bosom, and she was alive, not dead.

And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. (Gen. 16:5 KJV)

Hagar was in an intimate relationship with Abram. From this we see that being in Abraham's bosom means to be in a close relationship with Abraham. Lazarus was in the bosom of his father. Jesus was in the bosom of His father.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (Jn. 1:18 KJV)

The Rich Man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers, that they would believe if one came from the dead. Abraham said no. He wouldn't send Lazarus back to the Jews. When Jesus resurrected He wouldn't show Himself to the Jews.

These are just the correlations in the details of the parable. I can go into much more depth if you'd like.
I think these details are too similar to be coincidence. I believe this, just like the parable of the vineyard, is a judgment against the leadership of Israel.

Click to expand...

I for one do not find any correlation at all, but that is just me. Me thinks that you have workd real hard at making the Scriptures say what you want them to say, but again, that is just me.

Major1 said:

I am very sorry that you can not grasp what has been given to you. There is no need for me to keep posting the same thing over and over.

Click to expand...

Grasping it isn't the problem. There's nothing there that says the church will leave the earth. This is the only passage that says Christians will leave the earth.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1 Thess. 4:16-17 KJV)

What we see here is that the dead will rise first and then those who are alive. That's a resurrection. He says when it happens the trumpet will sound. He's mentioned this elsewhere.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. (1 Cor. 15:52-54 KJV)

Again, at the last trumpet the dead in Christ will rise. Here we have Jesus' words.

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.1
(Matt. 24:21-31 KJV)

Here again we have the trumpet. This time we have the angles collecting God's elect from one end of the heavens to the other. This is the only time I see Christians leaving the earth but this after the Tribulation.