Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[ozso]

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

So we should be poking out our eyes and cutting off limbs and salvation is gained by giving someone a drink.

 

[Fervent]

So we should be poking out our eyes and cutting off limbs and salvation is gained by giving someone a drink.

In the first, if we are trying to get into heaven on our own righteousness yes absolutely.

In the second, you're misunderstanding literally for literalistically. Jesus was teaching a literal lesson, that His true followers will do the works that He named without knowing it. The false followers, on the other hand, will not do the works. And so those who gave drink will find themselves among those Jesus invites to eternal life. So in a sense, yes salvation is "gained" by giving someone a drink.

 

[ozso]

In the first, if we are trying to get into heaven on our own righteousness yes absolutely.

In the second, you're misunderstanding literally for literalistically. Jesus was teaching a literal lesson, that His true followers will do the works that He named without knowing it. The false followers, on the other hand, will not do the works. And so those who gave drink will find themselves among those Jesus invites to eternal life. So in a sense, yes salvation is "gained" by giving someone a drink.

In both occasions upon which sacred Hell Yes verses hang, are instances of fugitive exaggeration used to make a point. Like Jesus telling the Pharisees they swallow camels.

 

[Fervent]

In both occasions upon which sacred Hell Yes verses hang, are instances of fugitive exaggeration used to make a point. Like Jesus telling the Pharisees they swallow camels.

Figurative language use does not preclude literal meaning. What was Jesus' literal point in saying that when two groups that look similar will be separated with divergent, symetrical destinies denies believing that the "eternal" of eternal life and the "eternal" of eternal punishment both, in fact, mean eternal?

 

[ozso]

Figurative language use does not preclude literal meaning. What was Jesus' literal point in saying that when two groups that look similar will be separated with divergent, symetrical destinies denies believing that the "eternal" of eternal life and the "eternal" of eternal punishment both, in fact, mean eternal?

One time when I was teenager I decided to hike up a steep foothill in the summer and overdid it. When I got back to street level I found a business that had a soda pop vending machine. I was a nickel short and asked a man for a nickel, which he gave me so I could get a much needed cold drink. Did that man go to heaven because of that?

Or if I stand in front of a convenience store and ask people to get me a $1 bottle of water, will those who give me one go to heaven based on that?

 

[Fervent]

One time when I was teenager I decided to hike up a steep foothill in the summer and overdid it. When I got back to street level I found a business that had a soda pop vending machine. I was a nickel short and asked a man for a nickel, which he gave me so I could get a much needed cold drink. Did that man go to heaven because of that?

Or if I stand in front of a convenience store and ask people to get me a $1 bottle of water, will those who give me one go to heaven based on that?

Classic diversion.

 

[ozso]

Classic diversion.

Writing "classic diversion" to deflect form answering the question is classic.

 

[Fervent]

Writing "classic diversion" to deflect form answering the question is classic.

Don't you know it's impolite to answer a question with a question?

 

[ozso]

Don't you know it's impolite to answer a question with a question?

Okay, lets start over.

Figurative language use does not preclude literal meaning. What was Jesus' literal point in saying that when two groups that look similar will be separated with divergent, symetrical destinies denies believing that the "eternal" of eternal life and the "eternal" of eternal punishment both, in fact, mean eternal?

It would help if you worded questions with plainer language that people normally use. You'd also avoid misspelling words like "symetrical" [sic]. I was talking about the first part of the parable, because the Hell Yes bunch seem to avoid it. And you went ahead and went right back to the last verse, apparently in order to prove that to be the case. Now I'd say determining how literally one should take the ending verse, should be based on how literal the rest of the parable is.

 

[Fervent]

Okay, lets start over.



It would help if you worded questions with plainer language that people normally use. You'd also avoid misspelling words like "symetrical" [sic]. I was talking about the first part of the parable, because the Hell Yes bunch seem to avoid it. And you went ahead and went right back to the last verse, apparently in order to prove that to be the case. Now I'd say determining how literally one should take the ending verse, should be based on how literal the rest of the parable is.

I speak how I speak, and misspellings like symetrical come from sticky keys. I agree the parable as a whole must be accounted for, as it functions as a unit and is equally literal in effect. My question has to do with the entire passage, not simply the final verse. It's simply that the end is effectively the main point of the parable. What is the parable, as a whole, teaching if it is not about final judgment?

 

[ozso]

I speak how I speak, and misspellings like symetrical come from sticky keys. I agree the parable as a whole must be accounted for, as it functions as a unit and is equally literal in effect. My question has to do with the entire passage, not simply the final verse. It's simply that the end is effectively the main point of the parable. What is the parable, as a whole, teaching if it is not about final judgment?

It seems to me that the parable is about charity. If it was about final judgement, then it seems Jesus would have separated the two groups based on those who believed the gospel and those who rejected it. If it's actually literally about final judgement, then Jesus is establishing what determines that judgement. Which would be doing what most people end up doing. I've done most or all of those acts of charity as just a matter of course throughout my life.

 

[Hmm]

The pursuit of truth certainly isn't skepticism, but asking questions just for the sake of asking them is.

That's the funny thing about about scholarship and research: you don't know always what the right questions are in advance so sometimes you have to just ask questions and see where the leads. Think Einstein and his thought experiment of what it would be like to ride on a light beam. According to what you've just said, he was asking the question just for the sake of it because Newtonian physics had got along just nicely up to then but it lead to the collapse of classical physics and the development of the special theory of relativity.

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

But, again, as you admit to, you have a basic understanding of the word, as you call it, and so you are not qualified to comment on whether a more advanced study is legitimate or not.

Do you have any views on the OT btw?

 

[Fervent]

It seems to me that the parable is about charity. If it was about final judgement, then it seems Jesus would have separated the two groups based on those who believed the gospel and those who rejected it. If it's actually literally about final judgement, then Jesus is establishing what determines that judgement. Which would be doing what most people end up doing. I've done most or all of them as just a matter of course throughout my life.

Then you're missing a lot of contextual details. There's a reason Jesus used the example of sheep and goats specifically, plus its placement within the Olivet discourse just before He goes to the cross, as well as the common theme of the parable of the 10 brides, the servants and the talents, and the sheep and the goats. The acts of charity are, essentially, superficial details. And Jesus is establishing what determines the judgment, but again that requires understanding the passage within the context of the narrative. It is only if it is isolated from the narrative that any possibility exists that its central focus is charity, and then the declaration of divergent fates for groups that are nearly indistinguishable doesn't really make sense at all.

 

[Hmm]

Considering Jesus primarily used parables to teach about spiritual realities I see no issue with taking them literally.

Wow

 

[Fervent]

That's the funny thing about about scholarship and research: you don't know always what the right questions are in advance so sometimes you have to just ask questions and see where the leads. Think Einstein and his thought experiment of what it would be like to ride on a light beam. According to what you've just said, he was asking the question just for the sake of it because Newtonian physics had got along just nicely up to then but it lead to the collapse of classical physics and the development of the special theory of relativity.

You're comparing apples and oranges, as we're not talking about investigating physical phenomena but semantics. If any question is valid in semantics then there is no sense talking about words having any meaning at all.

But, again, as you admit to, you have a basic understanding of the word, as you call it, and so you are not qualified to comment on whether a more advanced study is legitimate or not.

Considering I am professionally trained on when, and how, to conduct word studies and perform Biblical exegesis I'd say I am qualified to evaluate the question. But continue to cast aspersions from a position of ignorance.

Do you have any views on the OT btw?

I have lots of views on it, what do you mean regarding it?

 

[Hmm]

It seems to me that the parable is about charity

I agree, and this is why it's meaning is so often held up as being something more convenient.

 

[Hmm]

Considering I am professionally trained on when, and how, to conduct word studies and perform Biblical exegesis I'd say I am qualified to evaluate the question. But continue to cast aspersions from a position of ignorance.

? I quoted the very word, "basic", you used to describe your understanding of ancient Greek. Aionios is an ancient Greek word. Plato used it often. Are you now saying that's not the case and that you're a professional in the field? Just so I can tailor my comments accordingly.

 

[Fervent]

? I quoted the very word you used to describe your understanding of ancient Greek and aionios is an ancient Greek word. Plato used it often.

I was speaking of having a basic understanding of the grammar. I know what the case endings indicate, and can handle basic verbal constructs fairly well. I'm well aware aionios is an ancient Greek word, I'm also aware of the conditions that make a word suited for word study and how to set parameters to avoid false conclusions. Plato's usage of it is, essentially, noise when considering what it means in Matthew 25.

 

[Hmm]

I was speaking of having a basic understanding of the grammar. I know what the case endings indicate, and can handle basic verbal constructs fairly well. I'm well aware aionios is an ancient Greek word, I'm also aware of the conditions that make a word suited for word study and how to set parameters to avoid false conclusions. Plato's usage of it is, essentially, noise when considering what it means in Matthew 25.

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 the matter there.

 

[ozso]

Considering I am professionally trained on when, and how, to conduct word studies and perform Biblical exegesis I'd say I am qualified to evaluate the question. But continue to cast aspersions from a position of ignorance.

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