Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Hmm said:

If you have a basic understanding of ancient Greek grammar then you have a basic understanding of ancient Greek. I'm not sure what you're saying.

That's more than I have anyway but I'd rather take the expert opinion I've cited so I'm going to leave this here.

Click to expand...

When conducting word studies relevant contexts have to be isolated. How "justify" is used in a court room is not the same as "justify" in a theology textbook, nor is it the same as "justify" in a high school English class. So when looking at what "aionios" we have to work outward in concentric circles. First Matthew, then the gospels, then the New Testament, then the LXX, then possibly religious literature from BDAG. Plato's usage is so far removed from Matthew's that it would only serve to confuse the matter. The chief determination of what is in mind is the closest context, which here is through looking at how it's used within this passage itself. If it is "eternal" in "eternal life" then it is almost certainly "eternal" in "eternal punishment."

MMXX said:

Bro, if you're going to go with that routine, there's no point in continuing discussing the matter with you.

Click to expand...

What routine? Hmm wants to make it about credentials, and while I don't like to flaunt my academic profile instead letting the arguments stand for themselves if it's going to be about "scholars" and academic credentials then so be it.

Fervent said:

What routine? Hmm wants to make it about credentials, and while I don't like to flaunt my academic profile instead letting the arguments stand for themselves if it's going to be about "scholars" and academic credentials then so be it.

Click to expand...

Alright, mea culpa, I read your statement wrong. However as far as I'm concerned, if you want to flaunt your academic profile you're going to have to add some substance to it. Otherwise you might end up looking like a poser.

Fervent said:

When conducting word studies relevant contexts have to be isolated. How "justify" is used in a court room is not the same as "justify" in a theology textbook, nor is it the same as "justify" in a high school English class. So when looking at what "aionios" we have to work outward in concentric circles. First Matthew, then the gospels, then the New Testament, then the LXX, then possibly religious literature from BDAG. Plato's usage is so far removed from Matthew's that it would only serve to confuse the matter. The chief determination of what is in mind is the closest context, which here is through looking at how it's used within this passage itself. If it is "eternal" in "eternal life" then it is almost certainly "eternal" in "eternal punishment."

Click to expand...

I think what we should keep in mind is that Jesus most likely never used the word "aionios" considering he was speaking in Aramaic. So what's being argued is a word used in a copy of a copy of a copy of a Greek rendering of what Jesus said in Aramaic. Which might have been "l'olam".

MMXX said:

Alright, mea culpa, I read your statement wrong. However as far as I'm concerned, if you want to flaunt your academic profile you're going to have to add some substance to it. Otherwise you might end up looking like a poser.

Click to expand...

I don't want to flaunt my academic profile, though if I did I'd probably look rather foolish since it's about as entry level as it gets as I'm a course from finishing a masters of divinity from a no name school. I'd rather keep it about the merits of the argument(s) presented than worry about degrees and accolades. My main point is if Hmm isn't in a position to determine what a good argument is, linguistically, he has no basis for determining who is and is not an expert on the matter. It'd be nice if academic achievement actually correlated with intellectual prowess and cogency of arguments, but I've met janitors who never graduated HS who were able to make better arguments than some of my seminary professors even in their field of expertise.

While expert testimony can be helpful, citing a scholars argument and then making it about the credentials of the scholar is a specious way to argue. Scholars add support, not stand-ins, for arguments because since if what is being argued is not understood and there are "experts" on both sides simply choosing the expert you agree with doesn't really lend credibility. Citing scholars works best if it works like "This is my argument, and it is in agreement with scholars Dr. A and Dr. B." It's quite obvious the only reason that the "expert" is being appealed to is because they agree with the position if there is not an understanding of what is being argued and what salient issues are. Which is why I cited 2 Tim 4:3.

MMXX said:

I think what we should keep in mind is that Jesus most likely never used the word "aionios" considering he was speaking in Aramaic. So what's being argued is a word used in a copy of a copy of a copy of a Greek rendering of what Jesus said in Aramaic. Which might have been "l'olam".

Click to expand...

While this may be an interesting thought to explore and consider the implications of, ultimately Scripture was inspired in Greek(or at least the hypothetical Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew was not preserved.) The only meaning that matters is the Greek as anything else is basically naked speculation.

Fervent said:

I don't want to flaunt my academic profile, though if I did I'd probably look rather foolish since it's about as entry level as it gets as I'm a course from finishing a masters of divinity from a no name school. I'd rather keep it about the merits of the argument(s) presented than worry about degrees and accolades. My main point is if Hmm isn't in a position to determine what a good argument is, linguistically, he has no basis for determining who is and is not an expert on the matter. It'd be nice if academic achievement actually correlated with intellectual prowess and cogency of arguments, but I've met janitors who never graduated HS who were able to make better arguments than some of my seminary professors even in their field of expertise.

Click to expand...

Lets stick with all of us here being anonymous armchair amateurs. If Hmm is talking about real life professional scholars, none of us are one.

Fervent said:

While this may be an interesting thought to explore and consider the implications of, ultimately Scripture was inspired in Greek(or at least the hypothetical Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew was not preserved.) The only meaning that matters is the Greek as anything else is basically naked speculation.

Click to expand...

Where do you get "Scripture was inspired in Greek" from?

MMXX said:

Lets stick with all of us here being anonymous armchair amateurs. If Hmm is talking about real life professional scholars, none of us are one.

Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine with that, but my point isn't about credentials at all but the fact that it's quite obvious the only thing Hmm is interested in in these 'expert' arguments is using academic credentials for credibility since he doesn't seem to understand the arguments that the experts are presenting and has denied being qualified to evaluate the arguments.

MMXX said:

Where do you get "Scripture was inspired in Greek" from?

Click to expand...

I suppose it's a bit circular, and of course I am limiting it to the New Testament since the OT was obviously Hebrew and Aramaic, but if Scripture is inspired then the relevant language to the inspiration of Matthew is Greek.

Fervent said:

I'm perfectly fine with that, but my point isn't about credentials at all but the fact that it's quite obvious the only thing Hmm is interested in in these 'expert' arguments is using academic credentials for credibility since he doesn't seem to understand the arguments that the experts are presenting and has denied being qualified to evaluate the arguments.

Click to expand...

When it comes to experts, one can verify their credibility.

Fervent said:

I suppose it's a bit circular, and of course I am limiting it to the New Testament since the OT was obviously Hebrew and Aramaic, but if Scripture is inspired then the relevant language to the inspiration of Matthew is Greek.

Click to expand...

Still I find myself wondering what actual word Jesus used that was rendered into "aionios" considering the word can have different meanings.

I hope universalism is true. The Bible says every knee will bow and tongue confess Jesus is Lord. Does that mean every unbeliever? If so doesn't that confession save them?

Hmm said:

Right, a healthy level of humility would be in order.

Click to expand...

I have a CBE in humility.

IWalkAlone said:

I hope universalism is true. The Bible says every knee will bow and tongue confess Jesus is Lord. Does that mean every unbeliever? If so doesn't that confession save them?

Click to expand...

The idea of UR as I understand it, is that eventually everyone will come to salvation through Christ.

MMXX said:

Something like that I suppose.

I found this interesting: When people speak of “the Talmud,” they are usually referring to the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud), composed in Babylonia.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/tale-of-two-talmuds/

I'm wondering of course how much Babylonian paganism carried over.

Click to expand...

That is I'd suggest precisely the text of the Synagogue of Satan, as Revelation proceeds to describe the fall of Babylon, complete with its sorceries/ drugs, to whom the kings of the earth are beholden.

Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. (Rev 3:9)

Major1 said:

That is exactly why I got saved. I believed what God said and did not want to burn in hell fire.

Click to expand...

That's funny, because that's just how Richie figured it. Imagine how surprised he was to find the table had been turned.

Major1 said:

The Rich man in torments right now...is experiencing the pain of reality and he has no possiblity of being purified.

Click to expand...

I hope by now he's come to his senses, confessed his sins from the heart and called on Jesus.

Major1 said:

I AM NOT THE RICH man because I have accepted the payment for my sin by Christ so that I would not be in torments.

Click to expand...

So you declined fries with that salvation.

Hmm said:

I guess that's right, our final destiny is predetermined, although we do have a choice in how we get there, the easy or the hard way.

Click to expand...

Last first, first last. Alpha before Omega except after Omega.

Hmm said:

You make an interesting observation. Universalism does seem a bit like Calvanism but a nice one where everyone's an Elect and no-one's a Reprobate. It also seems similar to Catholicism without the hell where everyone goes to heaven either directly or indirectly via purgatory.

Click to expand...

Purgatory for all, not just the Catholics!

You know 'Catholic' means universal? So what's with all the lockouts?