Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Prove it amigo. Quote me some official writings of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. I think I can safely say that you will not find any official writing which contradicts anything I have said about EO.Understanding ancient Orthodox theology and tradition goes much deeper and further than what a Protestant is going to find in just reading the EOB.
Except, of course, for the second ecumenical council at Constantinople. The anathema against Origen is definitely of the council and the 15 additional anathema's are legitamate whether they were produced by the council itself or a synod.Because it's the truth, as evinced by EO theologian David Bentley Hart:
"Orthodoxy’s entire dogmatic deposit resides in the canons of the seven ecumenical councils—everything else in Orthodox tradition, be it ever so venerable, beautiful, or spiritually nourishing, can possess at most the authority of accepted custom, licit conjecture, or fruitful practice—and the consensus of the most conscientious and historically literate Orthodox theologians and scholars over the past several decades (Evdokimov, Bulgakov, Clément, Turincev, Ware, Alfeyev, to name a few) is that universalism as such, as a permissible theologoumenon or plausible hope, has never been condemned by the Church. Doctrine is silent on the matter.”
Full article here Saint Origen | David Bentley Hart
Why doesn't that surprise me?
Ooops. I think he was hoping you didn't know about them.Except, of course, for the second ecumenical council at Constantinople. The anathema against Origen is definitely of the council and the 15 additional anathema's are legitamate whether they were produced by the council itself or a synod.
Longest thread, ever. Still, no answer.
The easy way: use a Bible from the list that has been presented in this very thread, one that does not contain the word "hell."
That says a lot. (in very few words) Thanks.Longest thread, ever. Still, no answer.
That's an interesting question.It's quite a sad What If to ask how many more people would be Christian today if the mistranlations "hell" (Hades, Gehenna etc), "eternal" (aiõnios) and "punishment" (kolasis) never made it into the English Bibles. Quite a few I'd guess because we're probably all looking for a God who's like the prodigal's father rather than a tormenting/torturing God. What's not to like?
We did have a thread a while back, I think @MMXX was the originator, it asked the question: "If there was no afterlife, would you still be a Christian?" (from memory)It's quite a sad What If to ask how many more people would be Christian today if the mistranlations "hell" (Hades, Gehenna etc), "eternal" (aiõnios) and "punishment" (kolasis) never made it into the English Bibles. Quite a few I'd guess because we're probably all looking for a God who's like the prodigal's father rather than a tormenting/torturing God. What's not to like?
That’s not entirely fair. The word Gehenna does appear, though normally in contexts involving hyperbole or hypotheticals. Just what its implications are is not clear because ideas varied. But it was often, maybe even normally, considered to be eternal. It’s just that people weren’t necessarily thought to stay there eternally. From the citations I’ve seen of the Talmud, it looks like views about it got harsher over time among Jews. Probably the same happened among Christians. Why? I don’t know, but I suspect religious conflict and persecution might be involved. It’s easy to think your enemies deserve to have bad things happen to them. It’s not an impulse Jesus approved of, but it’s easy to understand.That's an interesting question.
I think ECT is so bizarre, I can't imagine anyone having the idea out of thin air.
On the other hand, that is pretty much what happened with the biased translation work.
I agree. You've got to wonder whether the people saying no actually love God or are just afraid of what they think he is. Does that qualify as saving faith?We did have a thread a while back, I think @MMXX was the originator, it asked the question: "If there was no afterlife, would you still be a Christian?" (from memory)
I was SHOCKED at the responses. The vast majority said, "No!"
Thanks. Those are some good points.That’s not entirely fair. The word Gehenna does appear, though normally in contexts involving hyperbole or hypotheticals. Just what its implications are is not clear because ideas varied. But it was often, maybe even normally, considered to be eternal. It’s just that people weren’t necessarily thought to stay there eternally. From the citations I’ve seen of the Talmud, it looks like views about it got harsher over time among Jews. Probably the same happened among Christians. Why? I don’t know, but I suspect religious conflict and persecution might be involved. It’s easy to think your enemies deserve to have bad things happen to them. It’s not an impulse Jesus approved of, but it’s easy to understand.
My best source is "Hell and its Rivals" by Alan Bernstein. He makes a case that Christian developments were part of a general development in ideas about the afterlife, occurring throughout the region in all religions. Much of the development had already occurred by the 1st Cent, but it continued.
YES!I agree. You've got to wonder whether the people saying no actually love God or are just afraid of what they think he is. Does that qualify as saving faith?
I'm not convinced that translating Gehenna as hell is an error. People's ideas about hell have been influenced by later developments. They may read that into the NT. But that's true of just about every major concept in the NT. It's probably still the closest translation.Thanks. Those are some good points.
However, they illustrate how religious culture, much of it pagan, influenced the canon translation work. And the Bible we have today is a direct result.
And this is why we have three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR)
We did have a thread a while back, I think @MMXX was the originator, it asked the question: "If there was no afterlife, would you still be a Christian?" (from memory)
I was SHOCKED at the responses. The vast majority said, "No!"
I think it created a mess.I'm not convinced that translating Gehenna as hell is an error. People's ideas about hell have been influenced by later developments. They may read that into the NT. But that's true of just about every major concept in the NT. It's probably still the closest translation.
I can see why those who believe in ECT would be opposed to UR. Without the threat of ECT, they wouldn't even be "Christians". From their perspective, no one would respond if the threat was removed.I think it created a mess.
We were left with three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
The absolute worst of the three being the dominant view.
And the result is what we discovered on the aforementioned topic, Christians that would NOT even be Christians if not for the threat of ECT. They obviously see no value in a relationship with God in the here and now. Only the afterlife benefit. So sad.
Saint Steven said: ↑
And this is why we have three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR)
We were left with three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?