Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Lazarus Short]

Possibly, but the hermeneutical question remains: is this intrepretive notion of yours one that reflects 1st century Jewish idiomatic expressions? OR is this interpretive notion of yours one that fits an anachronistically applied 21st century Western Nation's sensibility regarding laundry detergents?

I see that the side-stepping and truth-avoidance is getting more sophisticated.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see that the side-stepping and truth-avoidance is getting more sophisticated.

Wait! What? How is an academic appeal to hermeneutical study a "side-stepping and truth-avoidance"? If anything, it's a call for better exegesis when reading the Bible.

Y'know, I asked you a question and, instead, I get a smart-mouth remark in return. How does that represent a 'discussion' on your part?

Please, do us both a favor and avoid Ad Hominems going forward. I don't do that to you, so don't do it to me. Thanks!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Idk to what extent Kierkegaard suffered from phariseeism. As in the hypocrisy, the leaven. If we can't remove the log from our own eye, we might never get to help out our pals from the northern climes.

Jesus expends quite some effort in characterising and rebuking the pharisee mentality. It's best we try to understand what it is and how we might avoid the snares by which they are taken. Matt 23 is perhaps the prime example, when our Lord unloads on the pharisees and law teachers shortly before he is glorified. Devouring widow's houses, making new recruits worse infernalists, loading burdens on others, acting like whited sepulchres - a day in the life of the man robed in purple.

As per the King's Manifesto: 'Verily I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.'

Well, by all means, let's not be hypocrites then!

 

[Der Alte]

Commenting on Gregory Nazianzen, ILE Ramelli wrote"

"Postmortem punishments are not retributive, but healing. The 'extreme baptism' in fire removes evil from the soul: in the other world, sinners 'will be baptized in fire, in an extreme baptism, more painful and longer, which devours matters chaff and consumes the lightness of every sin' This suffering will be long, but not eternal; it purifies the soul and once achieved this task it will come to an end. Gregory is reminiscent of 1Co 3:14-15, with the mention of chaff and straw and the declaration that people will be saved either at once or through fire."​

For full treatment of Mar 9:49 see:
Mark 9 Meyer's NT Commentary

Ramelli is quoted as the end all, be all authority on UR so much I refer to her as the "High Priestess" of UR.
Except for an afterthought reference to 1Co 3;14-15 none of what Ramelli said is supported by scripture.
""Postmortem punishments are not retributive, but healing." I would like to see some scripture supporting that.
Here is what one ECF, Justin Martyr, said about punishment.

“Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4​

I can't seem to find "baptism by fire" in any of my versions.
"This suffering will be long, but not eternal; it purifies the soul and once achieved this task it will come to an end." And once this lengthy suffering has ended the recipients will somehow magically be overcome wth gratitude and love for the one who subjected them to it. Just like they do in this life when they are punished for their misdeeds.
"the declaration that people will be saved either at once or through fire." Rubbish. There is no, zero, none scripture which says the unrighteous will saved through fire. That is a patently false idea concocted by twisting scripture which refers only to those who are "labourers together with God,""God's husbandry,""God's building" who build on the foundation of Jesus Christ." 1 Cor 3:9-12, 14. NOT all mankind. There is not one single verse in the entire Bible which says the unrighteous are saved by having their ordinary, mundane labors destroyed by fire and that same fire somehow saves them.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Wait! What? How is an academic appeal to hermeneutical study a "side-stepping and truth-avoidance"? If anything, it's a call for better exegesis when reading the Bible.

Y'know, I asked you a question and, instead, I get a smart-mouth remark in return. How does that represent a 'discussion' on your part?

Please, do us both a favor and avoid Ad Hominems going forward. I don't do that to you, so don't do it to me. Thanks!

OK, sorry about that...

 

[Der Alte]

On the contrary - Mark 9:49 has everything to do with UR. I see fire/Godfire as an agent to purify and save the "lost." OTOH, you see it as a means to punish and torment the lost...forever. In the end, the ECT position is very sad, but we do not serve a God of sadness.

What you "see fire/Godfire as" unfortunately is not spelled out in Mk 9:49. And it certainly has nothing to do with purifying anything. Only acceptable sacrifices are salted. c.f. Lev 2:13. The salt does NOT make that which is unacceptable an acceptable sacrifice c.f. "holy things" and "salt" Num 18:19

Leviticus 2:13
13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
Numbers 18:19
19 All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer unto the LORD, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy daughters with thee, by a statute for ever: it is a covenant of salt for ever before the LORD unto thee and to thy seed with thee.​

It's easy to argue against fire as a purifier, but soap? Soap can be nothing but a purifier, and if fire is closely associated with soap, as it is here, how there be any more doubt?

Huh? Where does Mk 9:49 say anything about soap?

 

[Saint Steven]

Possibly, but the hermeneutical question remains: is this intrepretive notion of yours one that reflects 1st century Jewish idiomatic expressions? OR is this interpretive notion of yours one that fits an anachronistically applied 21st century Western Nation's sensibility regarding laundry detergents?

What part of "All" don't you understand?
cc: @Lazarus Short

 

[Hmm]

What part of "All" don't you understand?
cc: @Lazarus Short

Rubbish! If you read it in context you'll see that "all" refers to only 99% of the top allergens thus proving that 1% of the top allergens plus up to 100% of the middle and bottom allergens will not have their stains lifted and the Glorious Stain Remover will continue to be tough on those stains for ever and ever (or at least 24 washes)

 

[Saint Steven]

Rubbish! If you read it in context you'll see that "all" refers to only 99% of the top allergens thus proving that 1% of the top allergens plus up to 100% of the middle and bottom allergens will not have their stains lifted and the Glorious Stain Remover will continue to be tough on those stains for ever and ever (or at least 24 washes)

Hmm... there must be a better solution. lol
(although even 99% is pretty darn good)
Stains are so stubborn!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What part of "All" don't you understand?
cc: @Lazarus Short

I admit, this is a dash of bona-fide humor. However, Steven, the upshot here is that this comeback of yours would have been even more hilarious if the exegetical questions I posed above had had something to do with the nature of "all."

But being that they didn't, I guess we'll just have to call it a wash between us.

 

[Hmm]

What you "see fire/Godfire as" unfortunately is not spelled out in Mk 9:49. And it certainly has nothing to do with purifying anything

The early church believed that God's fire is "wise" in purifying us however much we may have messed up during our lives. It burns our delusions away until we see and receive the light and love of Christ. God's fire is "wise" in that it cleanses us from all the false identities we may have accumulated in our lifetimes. The "wood, hay and stubble" of these false identities are burned off but we ourselves "will be saved, but only as through fire."

the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.
1 Corinthians 3:13-15.​

Here's Clement of Alexandria on the subject of God's fire being "wise" which I'm confident will convince you:

“Fire is conceived of as a beneficent and strong power, destroying what is base, preserving what is good; therefore this fire is called 'wise' by the Prophets … We say that the fire purifies not the flesh but sinful souls, not an all-devouring vulgar [earthly, natural] fire, but the 'wise fire' as we call it, the fire that 'pierceth the soul' which passes through it.” - Stromata VII, 2:5-12, Clement of Alexandria.

Hell, then, was seen as a tough but redemptive journey to repentance and restoration. It was still seen as unimaginably painful, just not eternal.

 

[Saint Steven]

I admit, this is a dash of bona-fide humor. However, Steven, the upshot here is that this comeback of yours would have been even more hilarious if the exegetical questions I posed above had had something to do with the nature of "all."

But being that they didn't, I guess we'll just have to call it a wash between us.

I'm pretty sure you would not have been satisfied with a serious response. Humor seemed the best reply.

I could try to field a few direct questions. I don't actually know the rules to the game you are playing. (no way to win, or even compete)

I don't think any of us understand how scripture is supposed to be used. Here's an example. (gave gifts, or received gifts?)

Ephesians 4:8 NIV
This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.” (Psalm 68:18) see below

COMPARE:

Psalm 68:18 NIV
When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from the rebellious—
that you, Lord God, might dwell there.

 

[Hmm]

I could try to field a few direct questions. I don't actually know the rules to the game you are playing. (no way to win, or even compete)

I felt the same. I had to ask myself Is the game worth the candle?

Here's an example. (gave gifts, or received gifts?)

Interesting!

 

[Saint Steven]

Possibly, but the hermeneutical question remains: is this intrepretive notion of yours one that reflects 1st century Jewish idiomatic expressions? OR is this interpretive notion of yours one that fits an anachronistically applied 21st century Western Nation's sensibility regarding laundry detergents?

Why do you complain about "smart-mouth remarks", when you use snarky phrases like, "interpretive notion of yours"? (as if it was a thoughtless response) Not the case. (I assure you) Besides, I thought I was in charge of smart-mouth remarks around here. - lol (I could be wrong)

Lazarus Short said: ↑
It's easy to argue against fire as a purifier, but soap? Soap can be nothing but a purifier, and if fire is closely associated with soap, as it is here, how there be any more doubt? @Lazarus Short

 

[Saint Steven]

I felt the same. I had to ask myself Is the game worth the candle?

Wow. That's such a great British idiom. Thanks.
(and the fire reference was brilliant - at least one candle's worth - lol)

 

[Saint Steven]

Interesting!

I started a topic on the subject some time ago. It died a pretty quick death. No one around here seems to want to discuss the errors in the Bible. (taboo)
I remember several instances in the NT where the author was misquoting the OT. A curious thing. Some cited issues in the translation process. Which is what we have been claiming all along. HELLO?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Here's an example. (gave gifts, or received gifts?)

 

[Hmm]

I started a topic on the subject some time ago. It died a pretty quick death. No one around here seems to want to discuss the errors in the Bible. (taboo)
I remember several instances in the NT where the author was misquoting the OT. A curious thing. Some cited issues in the translation process. Which is what we have been claiming all along. HELLO?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Here's an example. (gave gifts, or received gifts?)

That sounds like an interesting thread. I like Archbishop Desmond Tutu's line that the Bible is the word of God written in the words of man. The Bible is the story of God's complex and often frustrating relationship with Israel and then then the wider world and it's full of accounts where we misunderstood Him, like the OT stories where people believed He dashed their enemy's children to the ground - just because they believed that and wrote it down does not mean that He actually did. It was probably wishful thinking. It's why we need to read scripture through the lens of Christ.

 

[Saint Steven]

... I like Archbishop Desmond Tutu's line that the Bible is the word of God written in the words of man. ...

But doesn't that seem like a workaround to avoid saying the obvious? (more taboo)

 

[Hmm]

But doesn't that seem like a workaround to avoid saying the obvious? (more taboo)

It would often seem so because the obvious to many/most is to take everything literally, but as you demonstrated in #1592, that is actually impossible to do. We are all selective to some extent in what we choose to believe.

 

[ozso]

Huh? Where does Mk 9:49 say anything about soap?

It doesn't. However Malachi 3:2 says "But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap."