Is God a do as I say not as I do God?

BeyondET said:

God created the author though He forced Himself to do so. For He knew the author would oppose thus become evil.

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

He definitely knew that His creation would rebel. He definitely knew He wouldn't abandon them.

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

Aionios describes the duration of something, like the word tall, it describes the height of something, depending on what is being described is how we know the duration, kolasis is for correction, it works till the correction is complete, timoria is punitive, it doesn't have a duration, its punishment for the sake of punishment, not for correction.
Annihilation is a step in the correct direction, but its still does not leave God as a loving Father, just a Father who will still create people he knows he will have to annihilate, people he says he loves, people who Jesus died for, paid the price for their sin, but then will annihilate in the end.
That to me doesn't match up with a loving Father.

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

continuing in correct doctrine saves you from remaining in darkness, not physical death, if you remain in darkness, you do not see the Work that Jesus accomplished on the cross and you have not , as Paul said, crossed over from death to life, to remain in darkness until you die, makes you a subject of the kingdom and not an heir of the kingdom.

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

I do not know exactly how its going to work out, but I do know that scripture says every knee and every tongue will, as Phil 2 says gladly confess that Jesus is Lord. Its true resentence not forced or fake, God does not honor false or fake statements of faith.
And again there is not eternal punishment, that is a Latin idea not from the Greek.

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

In Hebrews tomoria is used for those who have tasted and seen Gods truth and then go on to reject it and walk away, after death there is no more chance to get back what they have given up. Timoria is the punishment of them losing their inheritance and there bring part of the kingdom, they will now be subjects of the kingdom, that is their punishment, its not corrective because at that point they can't be brought back in, they gave up that gift. That is different from those who die in darkness and then are reconciled, they were never took hold of there inheritance to lose it.
The Greek word timoria (τιμωρία), often translated as "punishment" or "retribution," appears infrequently in the New Testament but carries significant theological weight when it does. Its usage reflects divine or human judgment, emphasizing retribution or correction. Here’s a concise breakdown of its use in the New Testament, based on its occurrences and context:

1. Hebrews 10:29: The only explicit use of timoria in the New Testament is found here. The verse states (in the NIV): "How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished (timoria) who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"
   • Context: The author of Hebrews is discussing the severity of apostasy—deliberately rejecting Christ after receiving knowledge of the truth. Timoria here refers to divine punishment, likely eternal in scope, for those who willfully reject God's grace. It underscores the seriousness of turning away from the new covenant, contrasting it with the lesser punishments under the Mosaic Law (e.g., for disobedience, which led to physical death). The term suggests a retributive, just consequence administered by God.
2. Related Usage and Distinction: While timoria itself appears only once, it’s worth noting its distinction from another Greek term, kolasis (κόλασις), also translated as "punishment" (e.g., Matthew 25:46). Scholars often note that timoria emphasizes retribution or vengeance, while kolasis can imply corrective or disciplinary punishment. In Hebrews 10:29, timoria aligns with the idea of divine retribution for rejecting Christ, not merely corrective discipline.
3. Theological Implications: The use of timoria in Hebrews reflects the New Testament’s broader theme of God’s justice. It highlights the gravity of sinning against the greater revelation of Christ, compared to the old covenant’s penalties. The term evokes a sense of finality, pointing to eschatological judgment for those who persistently reject God’s offer of salvation.
4. Other Potential Contexts: While timoria appears only in Hebrews 10:29, its concept resonates in passages discussing divine judgment (e.g., Romans 2:5-8, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9), where God’s righteous retribution is described, even if the specific word isn’t used. The idea of timoria aligns with warnings about the consequences of rejecting God’s grace.

Summary: In the New Testament, timoria is used explicitly in Hebrews 10:29 to describe severe divine punishment for apostasy, emphasizing retribution rather than correction. Its rarity underscores its weight, pointing to the seriousness of rejecting Christ’s sacrifice. If you’d like a deeper dive into related terms like kolasis or specific theological interpretations, let me know!

943ms

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

The teachers that I follow do not let their theology drive their scholarship, for some its the other way around, they used to believe in the wests way of theology that is definitely driven them in their understanding of the Greek. Its not cherry picking sources its following those who have looked back at the Greek of 2000 years ago and reading how it was used in other literature outside the scripture and how some of the early church fathers used the Greek of that day and show how it is not the same as the Greek of today in some cases.
Aion is a good example, one of the most important words for this discussion, aion in the Greek of 2000 years ago was age, not eternal or world as it is taught now.

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

Look at the book of Matthew, aion is translated world 7 times and kosmos is translated 6 times as world,(KJV) did Matthew not understand the Greek meaning of these words, if he meant world why would he use two different words that have two different meaning to say the same word? I believe that the translators let their theology drive their translation, if they used age as it should be, it undermines their theological bias of an eternal hell, thats why its translated eternal or forever also. The mistranslation of aion as world or for ever, undermines Gods use of the ages for his progressive revelation, and his plan for humanity. This then leads into the mistranslation of aionios, being the adjective of aion, we get the mistranslation of aionios as eternal from not using the correct definition of aion itself, it should be pertaining to the age or age enduring. This definition can't be used because it undermines their theological bias of an eternal hell.
Today the large majority of thinking comes out of the Augustine model and that is flawed, the first Lexicon, which most people point to the lexicon for their understanding was not written until 1607, continuing in the failed model. I wish we had a Lexicon from 2000 years ago but we don't, the idea of aion being eternal seems to come from plato, not scripture.

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

You have your opinion and I have mine. I would say the same thing to you, are those you listen to being true to what God intended or are they just upholding the tradition they ascribe to? I am glad that the disciples did not go by that logic, because the Pharisees has all kinds of reasons for Jesus not being the Messiah, and they were doing the same thing that is being done today, they are the authority and they have many more numbers than those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Fortunately the disciples did not give in, they knew the truth.

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

You're only speaking of imagined sentiments-not those of anyone on this thread. He suffered and died for all-and yet not all will care.

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

So you are saying from your studies you know more than men like David Bentley Hart ? The very thing that you say you have come to know from your studies is more scholarly and more linguistically correct than scholars like Hart . I have never claimed to be a linguistic scholar, but I am a student of those who are, and what they teach is more correct than Western Tradition. What those in the Western Tradition are doing is exacly what 2 Cor 10:12 says " they compare themselves by themselves" for the last 1500 years that is what has happened.
2 Pet 2:1-2 " Yet there arose false prophets among the people as well, just as there will also be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, EVEN DENYING THE MASTER WHO HAS PURCHASED THEM, bringing swift destruction upon themselves; And many will follow their licentious ways, by whom the path of truth will be blasphemed"
I have never heard of the path of truth being blasphemed for believing that when God said, its his will for all to come to know him, or that God is reconciling the the world to himself in Jesus, or that Jesus came to save the world not judge it, for none of these things have I ever heard a non believer blaspheme the word of truth. In my 45 years in christian ministry, I have seen the people, who will have nothing to do with a God who would create someone knowing that they would not hear the gospel or not understand it, and then torture them forever for not understanding, but I have never seen anyone who blasphemed God, when the true gospel was shared, that God loves all his creation and Jesus came down into our darkness and paid the price of liberation for all humanity, they just need to wake up to the reality of what Jesus did, they may still remain in their darkness but they do not blaspheme that message.
I have listened to some Orthodox teachings and in one the priest was saying, they do not try to define God, they just want to know him so well that they can discern when looking at something, that it is definitely not of God, and ECT is definitely not of God.
I do not care how many people are dragged out, with the worlds system of letters behind someones name, the truth is the truth and that will never change.
I know for now you see it differently and would say the same thing of what I believe, that's ok, I for one will not break fellowship over this and build walls of separation, each one will stand before God and give account and he will judge, If I am judged for overstating his infinite love, then I will gladly take whatever discipline he deems fit.

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

You assume that is the only one, why is that? I have books from others I didn't give a exhaustive list.

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

How many books on UR have you read? There are many and the list is growing.
How can you be so confident that we are wrong when you do not know what we believe and why we do.
I understand that if you believe God is going to torture you forever if you get things wrong, so out of fear you speak against anything that does not line up with the Tradition you have attached yourself to, but if you are going to argue against a belief do you not think it wise to know what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

Jeff Saunders said:

I do the same, the difference seems to be I know what the western tradition teaches and why, I grew up teaching much of it.
You seem to know very little about UR and the history of why we believe what we do.
That's ok, maybe you are not ready for it yet. There is a great saying - when the student is ready the teaching will come.

Click to expand...