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.
So you believe in hell, but you don't know what the hell it is? How ironic.Whatever the biblical teachings actually mean, and whatever those eternal consequences actually are, I trust we will see that the fate of the unsaved is worthy of the God in whom we believe.
But I'll bow out because my position is admittedly completely intractable and I really have no interest in what universalists have to say because I'm pretty well steeped in the theological literature
No, no, no. The forum I just left, which wasn't predominantly even a Christian forum, got so tired of the universalist proselytizing that they relegated any and all discussion to a single thread. It had something like 20,000 posts last time I looked. The handful of universalists posted every day, day after day, saying the same things over and over and doing their best to shout down any disagreement. They weren't nasty, but they were one-dimensional fanatics.
Granted, CF may attract a higher level of universalist. Saint Steven, God bless him, isn't inspiring confidence. But I'll bow out because my position is admittedly completely intractable and I really have no interest in what universalists have to say because I'm pretty well steeped in the theological literature.
I so appreciate the fact that this forum has extended the grace for our side to survive.
Yep, the SPIRIT OF FEAR is palpable. Question is, who's really spiritual and who's just religiously indoctrinated? I, like Job, will trust in the work of "HIS HANDS".I didn't realise until the recent threads on Christian universalism just how much the idea of universal restoration is hated (by a vocal few) so I agree, all credit to this site for allowing the discussion to take place.
* * *
Hillsage said:Yep, the SPIRIT OF FEAR is palpable. Question is, who's really spiritual and who's just religiously indoctrinated? I, like Job, will trust in the work of "HIS HANDS".
JOB 14:14 If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my release should come. 15 Thou wouldest call, and I would answer thee; thou wouldest long for the work of thy hands.
And my bible says; ALL WILL CONFESS TO THE GLORY OF GOD THAT JESUS IS LORD.
Maybe that's why the church has a steeple.Ah yes, if your cup is already full then you may as well.
Yup. In heaven, on earth and under the earth. (in the realm of the dead) Philippians 2:10And my bible says; ALL WILL CONFESS TO THE GLORY OF GOD THAT JESUS IS LORD.AND AGAIN I SAY
That saw cuts both ways. Same thing could be said about Damnationists.The handful of universalists posted every day, day after day, saying the same things over and over and doing their best to shout down any disagreement. They weren't nasty, but they were one-dimensional fanatics.
You have definitely identified one of the Universal Reconciliation [UR] favorite gotcha verses.Come on, Saint Steven, I've been to a few rodeos before. Universalists are a breed of fanatic that Flat Earthers would envy for their zealotry. I know all the verses that universalists love to pull out of context and fling in my face, blithely ignoring not only the context but the vast number of other verses that are diametrically opposed, not to mention what 99.99% of all Christians have believed and taught for 2000 years. It's the universalists who must do the tap-dancing and explaining away, in spades.
You know as well I do how 1 Corinthians 15:22 is analyzed by mainstream NT scholars.
I'm going to disappoint you by declining to play your game because it's a bottomless rabbit hole of proof-texting nonsense. Believe and promote universalism if you like, but I believe you are doing a disservice to Christianity and skating on very dangerous ice.
Universalists are a breed of fanatic that Flat Earthers would envy for their zealotry.
That saw cuts both ways. Same thing could be said about Damnationists.
You truly are the king of fallacious arguments. No shame in employing such a blatant strawman coupled with an ad hominem, huh? No one said they imagined something
but that they had developed an interpretation that Jesus does not repudiate but instead heightened. Jesus actually had a great deal of theological agreement with the Pharisee's, so to try to highlight that Jesus corrected them at points is extraneous to the question at hand because he did not offer any sort of correction to their views on hell instead heightening them.
Not in the way you used it, which is why your distortion is a blatant strawman.You did. That's why I started using the term. Apparently that embarrassed you. Sorry.
Care to actually cite somewhere where he offered anything that hints at correction of their view of hell?The idea that Jesus was actually in a great deal of theological agreement with the Pharisee's regarding their unscriptural teachings, is news to me.
Not in the way you used it, which is why your distortion is a blatant strawman.
Care to actually cite somewhere where he offered anything that hints at correction of their view of hell?
Given your track record it seems more likely an intentional distortion, especially since the difference between them imagining what hell must be like is a far cry from them imagining the existence of hell to begin with. If you couldn't deduce that imagined was used to describe the first case, then it's a comprehension issue on your end. But as I said, given your track record intentional distortion seems more likely.Or it could just be more of you frequently being misread and misunderstood.
No, it is that when Jesus speaks in a way that seems to confirm the Pharisee's theological positions and even intensifies the conclusions it would take direct contradiction to say he was opposed to it. It's not simply that he is silent, but that he spoke on hell extensively and never once attempted to correct the most reasonable contextual interpretation given their theological deductions. Jesus wasn't simply silent on hell, which is why PH tried to find an out by saying Jesus was simply addressing a pre-existing context. So to now try to pretend Jesus was silent on the matter is either disingenuous on your part or completely ignoring the thread that opened this discussion.It seems that Der Alte's conclusion, which you're following, is that if Jesus didn't correct a view the Pharisees imagined or developed, outside of scripture, those views must have been correct. Basically silence equals consent or confirmation. Is that what you guys are asserting?
My understanding is that when Adam ate from the "Tree of the knowledge of Good & Evil", men were subject to that knowledge - which they are not equipped to handle without participating in evil. This initial and recurring sin subjects man to judgement (Spiritual death). Although Jesus paid the ransom (1 Timothy 2:6), it must be received by faith. Those receiving Jesus (i.e. termed by Paul the faithful in Christ Jesus below), are predetermined to receive the blessing of Ephesians 1:1-6.I'll ask again then, since you are dodging my questions.
Did Jesus die to save you from God?
No, it is that when Jesus speaks in a way that seems to confirm the Pharisee's theological positions and even intensifies the conclusions it would take direct contradiction to say he was opposed to it. It's not simply that he is silent, but that he spoke on hell extensively and never once attempted to correct the most reasonable contextual interpretation given their theological deductions. Jesus wasn't simply silent on hell, which is why PH tried to find an out by saying Jesus was simply addressing a pre-existing context. So to now try to pretend Jesus was silent on the matter is either disingenuous on your part or completely ignoring the thread that opened this discussion.
"telling people?" How many people? From my recollection it has only been you and Hmm that I've questioned your comprehension ability, and in both cases it is built on misunderstandings that are so far off th mark that they either have to be intentional or there is an underlying issue. And I'm not the only one that is routinely being strawmanned by the vocal UR crowd as I have seen at least 5 others have their arguments entirely distorted in order to be attacked by the regular contributors to this thread. Your sophistry is quite tiring.There's quite a long record of you either telling people things like they must have a reading comprehension problem, to you accusing them of distorting what you said, to people telling you they don't understand what you're saying.
The quote that I responded to was attempting to argue that Jesus' hell-language that confirms a pre-existing belief among the Jews that he was speaking with was merely Jesus addressing things in a contextually sensitive manner. So my response was that Jesus responding in a contextual way in which the indication is that the theological underpinnings about hell are correct implies that Jesus was affirming their beliefs, especially since there is no point at which He seems to attempt to correct potential misconception. The evidence of the belief is internal to the text, external confirmation isn't really necessary because Jesus' words don't make sense without a previous theological ground. So now trying to re-tread the argument misses the thread which my initial post responded to.No I'm not pretending or any of your several other conspiracy theory accusations. You, repeating Der Alte, asked why didn't Jusus correct them on their view of hell if it was incorrect. Meaning as I see it, since he didn't correct them on it, he must therefore be in agreement with it.
Although I'm not entirely sure what view the Pharasees held at that time. I know Der Alte has a difficult to deciper wall of text, I pointed out several problems with, that supposedly details what the Phaasees in around 30 AD believed. But do you yourself have any evidence of what they believed? And if so can you please present it in a clear concise comprehensive way?
The quote that I responded to was attempting to argue that Jesus' hell-language that confirms a pre-existing belief among the Jews that he was speaking with was merely Jesus addressing things in a contextually sensitive manner. So my response was that Jesus responding in a contextual way in which the indication is that the theological underpinnings about hell are correct implies that Jesus was affirming their beliefs, especially since there is no point at which He seems to attempt to correct potential misconception. The evidence of the belief is internal to the text, external confirmation isn't really necessary because Jesus' words don't make sense without a previous theological ground. So now trying to re-tread the argument misses the thread which my initial post responded to.
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?