Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Lazarus Short said:

The exact same logic applies to damnationism.

Click to expand...

Only IF the number of adherents is the only evidence we use to determine the correctness of our position. **gravelly whisper ala Joe Biden** But it ain't.

Shrewd Manager said:

In that context it means 'worldly', 'otherworldly' or 'next-worldly'.
The sense is vernacular and hyperbolic, that 'you might wake up in a world of hurt'. The noun is kolasin, ie disciplinary/ corrective punishment - for the benefit of the punishee.
Who among us hasn't ignored a beggar or failed to do some act of corporal charity within our power? We've not sold all we own to join the Little Sisters of the Poor in the barrios of Sao Paulo. So to hell with us forever on your reading, is it? An uncompromising standard with an infinite penalty, combined with a hair trigger. Wow, what a comically sadistic deity.
If you think Jesus left the most terrifying false doctrine in Christianity to a handful of disparate scriptures that turn on the translation of a word or two and need to be read against the entire flow of the Gospel ('great joy for all mankind'), the gospels ('meek and lowly of heart') and the grace of God, I suggest you commit to some prayer and contemplation.

Click to expand...

I suggest you commit to some prayer and contemplation rather than relying on the "leaders'/"teachers" who have indoctrinated you with the unscriptural interpretations you have promoted here.
I have been active at this forum for more than a decade I think I have heard every argument and every out-of-context proof text there is. More than 2 decades ago on another forum I decided to research every occurrence of "aionios" to determine if scripture alone reveals the meaning. That complete study will be my next post.
As for the word "kolasis" I am going to show from one verse alone that "kolasis" does NOT mean "prune,""correction" etc. "Kolasis" occurs only 2 tmes in the N.T. The other occurrence is in 1 Joh 4:18
Note, the one who has kolasis is not made perfect i.e. is not corrected.
Two verses spoken by Jesus showing conclusively that "aionios," does in fact, mean "eternal,""everlasting,""unending" etc.. The complete list will be in my next post due to length.
In these two verses Jesus parallels "aionios" with "shall not perish" twice. By definition "aionios" means eternal not some silly "age during" nonsense. Was Jesus lying when He said that "aionios life" means "shall not perish?"

“aionios” occurs 72x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated world only 5 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is correctly translated eternal 42 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is correctly translated everlasting 25 times in the N.T.
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times, Jesus never used “aionios” to refer something ordinary/mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
= = = = = = = = = =
In twenty four [24] of the following verses aion and aionios are defined/described as eternal, everlasting, eternity etc, by paralleling or juxtaposition with other adjectives or adjectival phrases.
= = = = = = = = = =
…..Some people claim that “aion/aionios” never means eternity/eternal because they sometimes refer to things which are not eternal.
However, neither word is ever defined/described, by other adjectives or adjectival phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, in the New Testament, as in the following verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. He never used “aionios” to refer to anything ordinary or mundane that was not or could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten verses Jesus defines “aionios” as “eternal.”
In this verse the reign/basileusei, which is the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternal.
In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand”, “never perish.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’/never perish” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.
In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.
In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.
In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.
In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.


[Character Limit. Continued next post]

[Previous post continued]

Paul used the word “aionios” eighteen [18] times. It is translated “eternal/everlasting” 16 times and world only 2 times. In the following 12 verses Paul defines/describes “aionios” as eternal.
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios life” with death. “A finite period life” is not opposite death. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”
In this verse Paul parallels “tou aionios ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.
In Rom 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, refers to God as “aionios.” Paul has used “aidios” synonymous with “aionios.” In this verse by definition “aionios” means eternal, everlasting.
In this passage Paul juxtaposes “aionios” with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” an indeterminate finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary” “eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios house” with “earthly house which is destroyed.” Is God going to replace our destroyed earthly house with a house which only lasts a little longer and will be destroyed at the end of an age? The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus, “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse Paul paralleled “aionios” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios” with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”
In this verse Paul parallels “aionios” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, believers do not seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aionios life” here means “eternal life.”
In this verse Paul parallels “aion” with “immortal.” “Aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios life” with death. “A finite period life” is not opposite death. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”
In this verse Paul parallels “tou aionios ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.
In this verse “aion” is parallel with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue for only a “finite period” and simultaneously be “unchangeable.” Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”
In verse 23 Peter parallels “word of God” with “imperishable.” The same writer, Peter, in the same writing 1 Peter, in verse 25 writes the word of God “endures eis ton aiona/unto eternity. ” The word of God is not a finite age long but imperishable. Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity”
In this verse Peter contrasted “aionios” with “little while” Jesus does not give His followers a finite period of glory then they eventually die. Thus “aionios” here, by definition, means “eternal.”
In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paralleled with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”
= = = = = = =
Footnotes: ου μη/ou mé
●The double negative [ου μη] signifies in nowise, by no means. Θεωρήσῃ[theōrésé], denoting steady, protracted vision, is purposely used, because the promise contemplates the entire course of the believer's life in Christ. It is not, shall not die forever, but shall live eternally.[Vincent word studies]
● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.

2PhiloVoid said:

Oh. ok. Good to know. I guess I'll have to watch the movie, then, so I can get the full low-down on your ever so parsed referenece to "Otto."

Click to expand...

You do that, get the lowdown on an ever so parsed tongue-in-cheek reference which was already explained. And then get back to me on it to philosophically critique the flaws of my analysis

Der Alte said:

Rubbish! The fact that false prophets are mentioned in vs. 22 does not limit the entire passage. Note vs. 21

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matt 7:21​

The ONLY ones who enter the kingdom are those who do the will of the Father who is in heaven. The ones excluded are NOT limited to false prophets but anyone/everyone who does not do the will of the Father. Of these some may indeed be false prophets.
I don't understand your comment about "eternal."

Click to expand...

Seventh Day Adventists also use that same argument in regard to not obeying the 4th commandment. In other words, Matthew 7:22-23 can be and is taken out of context and incorrectly applied to all sorts of things.

Der Alte said:

Those of us who believe Jesus when He said "These will go away into eternal punishment." could well say the same about the "Hell No." folks.
I have shown, many times, from scripture alone that "aionios" does in fact mean "eternal.""everlasting,""unending" and that "kolasis" does NOT mean "correction."
And my discussions of Matt 25:46 have never been refuted.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt your discussions of Matt 25:46 have never been refuted. It's probably more like you feel it's never been refuted successfully, since you've described what you put out as being irrefutable.

Hmm said:

Well, no. The difference is that most Christian universalists were infernalists at one point but then moved away from it, often after a brief and unhappy flirtation with annihilationism. Whether you agree with universalism or not, I'm sure you will admit that this at least shows a mind that is receptive to critical thinking and to new ideas.

In contrast, I don't know and have never heard of anyone who has moved from universalism to infernalism and I doubt you have either. Why do you think that is?

Click to expand...

Der Alte said:

I remember in maybe the 6th grade getting the board of education applied to my seat of understanding. I joined in with some other students in some kind of classroom mayhem. My excuse was to no avail, "Well everybody else was doing it." To which the teacher replied, "If everybody else jumped off of a building would you do it.
The number of adherents of a certain belief or practice is not a reliable indication of the correctness of the belief or practice. See e.g. number of Mormons in the world 16.5 million. Number of Muslims in the word 2 billion.

Click to expand...

That doesn't really have anything to do with what Hmm said, and doesn't answer the question he asked.

Der Alte said:

Only IF the number of adherents is the only evidence we use to determine the correctness of our position. **gravelly whisper ala clueless Joe* But it ain't.

Click to expand...

Hmm wasn't using a strength in numbers argument though. Is that how you refute things, by turning something into something it's not?

MMXX said:

I seriously doubt your discussions of Matt 25:46 have never been refuted. It's probably more like you feel it's never been refuted successfully, since you've described what you put out as being irrefutable.

Click to expand...

Feel free to apply your best refutation to Matt 25:46 or any other verse I have addressed.
Most of the objections I have encountered are in the category of "Neener, neener, neener You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh." Merely offering a different interpretation does not prove my conclusions wrong. To refute anything I have said would take the form, "Point 'X' is wrong because <grammatical, lexical, historical etc. evidence.>"
Many uninformed people try to argue that "aionios" does not/cannot mean "eternal" because it sometimes refers to something that cannot be eternal.
While it is true that "aionios" sometimes does refer to something which cannot be "eternal" it is never defined/described as a period less than eternal as it is in the list of verses I posted above.
The word "Kosmos" means world but it s sometimes used to refer to something which is not "the world."
Can a person literally inherit the "whole world?"
Was "the whole world" literally under the control of the evil one?
Did Satan literally lead "the whole world" astray?
Did "the whole world" literally follow the beast?
Did "all the world" literally buy grain from Egypt?
Did the disciples literally cause trouble "all over the world?"
Did "all the world" literally know that Ephesus was the guardian of the pagan deity Artemis?
Was Paul literally stirring up riots "all over the world?"
Did Caesar literally tax "all the world?"
Did "all the world" literally worship the goddess Diana?
Was the faith of the Romans literally spoken of throughout "the whole world?"
Did the whole world literally go after Jesus?
Did the Paul’s companions literally turn “the world upside down?”
Did the “ends of the world” literally come upon the Israelite who disobeyed God at Sinai?
Is the tongue literally a world?
Let us use the fallacious aion/aionios argument on these verses. The word "world" cannot literally mean the entire planet earth because it refers to or describes things that are not literally "the whole world" and "all the world."


|

Der Alte said:

Feel free to apply your best refutation to Matt 25:46 or any other verse I have addressed.

Click to expand...

For starters I'd be refuting your take on Matt 25:46 or any other verse. And I'm sure we both know that your response to any such undertaking would be "rubbish!". Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

My point still stands that you saying no one has ever refuted you, is erroneous.

Shrewd Manager said:

Exegetical principles?
1. God is good = God is good = God is good.
2. Jesus = Yeshua = God's Salvation.
3. Jesus = the alpha and omega = God's salvation is the alpha and omega = God's salvation is the Omega Plan.

It's surely not the rocket surgery that got man to the firmament.

Click to expand...

I think what we have here is a situation where we're talking past each other since it's apparent that we've read different books that have informed us as to what 'exegesis' amounts to. Or maybe it's just that you've read...none.

And it shows.

You seem to want a complexified sophisticated explanation for everything, Mr Void. Sorry to disappoint, but the beauty of the Kingdom is in its simplicity. It's the humbling reality of the ineffable truth that's been in your face all these years that you never saw-type thing.

Click to expand...

It's anything BUT simple. But I leave you to your fairy tale land of adventure. I hope you'll be shrewd in your response so as not to embarass yourself; I on the other hand intend not to be shrewd.

So, would you be so kind as to falsify the following syllogism?
Major premise - God can save all.
Minor premise - God wants all saved.
Conclusion - God will save all.

Come, reason with me brother: though your sins are scarlet they shall be white as snow.

Click to expand...

We've also apparently read different books on Logic and Argument. Or again...maybe you've just read none, which would explain the "just so" statements you present as premises utilizing ambiguous terms (and you do it with such pomposity as well). Should I congratulate you?

2PhiloVoid said:

I think what we have here is a situation where we're talking past each other since it's apparent that we've read different books that have informed us as to what 'exegesis' amounts to. Or maybe it's just that you've read...none.

And it shows.

Click to expand...

I think you should dispense with your persistent assertion that you're the only one here who reads books and is educated.

2PhiloVoid said:

It's anything BUT simple. But I leave you to your fairy tale land of adventure. I hope you'll be shrewd in your response so as not to embarass yourself; I on the other hand intend not to be shrewd.

We've also apparently read different books on Logic and Argument. Or again...maybe you've just read none, which would explain the "just so" statements you present as premises utilizing ambiguous terms (and you do it with such pomposity as well). Should I congratulate you?

Click to expand...

That's very snappy, not to mention snarky, but it carries as much substance as what's found inside a hot air balloon.

Hmm said:

I think we'd all agree that God wills all to be saved (unless you're a five point Calvanist) and with the logic of the conclusion, so the only way to falsify this would be to debunk the major premise by saying that God can't save all. The only way I think you can argue this is to say that He needs our cooperation to save us and that this may be withheld.

Click to expand...

Beware the Calvinist/ Arminian disco mix from hell - God despises most ppl as loathsome spiders and absolutely disgusted with anyone who still rejects Jesus after they've been warned what will happen to them.

It's testament to the fallenness of man and the insidious works of the devil that anyone can hold to those kinds of notions imho.

Hmm said:

The universalist argument is that all will eventually freely accept Christ and so therefore God can save all. The reason it says this that this free accepting may take place after death. You then have an all powerful and infinity resourceful God who has as much time as He needs to bring everyone around.

Realistically, would anyone really hold out for.an eternity against God? Even in this life, the most stubborn and most evil people (Paul for instance) have been brought around and saved. So why would we think that God will not succeed in winning everyone over when He will have an infinite amount of time in which to do so? I think the only reason we would is if we want to think that He won't because it is not a rational proposition.

Click to expand...

It's just impossible to conceive of a little child lost in a crowd then reunited with his father, who won't immediately leap into his father's arms. We've all got the manufacturer's imprimatur on our hearts. Most ppl are just so lost they don't even have bearings anymore. But when the Spirit is poured out, the scales fall from the eyes...

Der Alte said:

Feel free to apply your best refutation to Matt 25:46 or any other verse I have addressed.
Most of the objections I have encountered are in the category of "Neener, neener, neener You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh."

Click to expand...

That's often a two way street.

Der Alte said:

Merely offering a different interpretation does not prove my conclusions wrong. To refute anything I have said would take the form, "Point 'X' is wrong because <grammatical, lexical, historical etc. evidence.>"

Click to expand...

Making up criteria like that is a great way to always win an argument in your own mind. But you're going to have to cite something official, like an equivalent to The Marquess of Queensberry Rules, for it to hold water outside of your head.

Der Alte said:

Many uninformed people try to argue that "aionios" does not/cannot mean "eternal" because it sometimes refers to something that cannot be eternal.
While it is true that "aionios" sometimes does refer to something which cannot be "eternal" it is never defined/described as a period less than eternal as it is in the list of verses I posted above.

Click to expand...

The problem with that summary is there are also very well informed people who have names and a string of credentials, who go on lecture tours and are called experts by many who buy their published books.

Der Alte said:

The word "Kosmos" means world but it s sometimes used to refer to something which is not "the world."

[1]Matthew 16:26
(26) What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? [Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25]​

Can a person literally inherit the "whole world?"

[2]1 John 5:19
(19) We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.​

Was "the whole world" literally under the control of the evil one?

[3]Revelation 12:9
(9) The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.​

Did Satan literally lead "the whole world" astray?

[4]Revelation 13:3
(3) One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.​

Did "the whole world" literally follow the beast?

[5]Genesis 41:57 And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere.​

Did "all the world" literally buy grain from Egypt?

[6]Acts 17:6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here,​

Did the disciples literally cause trouble "all over the world?"

[7]Acts 19:35 The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Fellow Ephesians, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven?​

Did "all the world" literally know that Ephesus was the guardian of the pagan deity Artemis?

[8]Acts 24:5 "We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.​

Was Paul literally stirring up riots "all over the world?"

[9]Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.​

Did Caesar literally tax "all the world?"

[10]Acts 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth​

Did "all the world" literally worship the goddess Diana?

[11]Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.​

Was the faith of the Romans literally spoken of throughout "the whole world?"

[12]John 12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.​

Did the whole world literally go after Jesus?

[13]Acts of the apostles 17:6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;​

Did the Paul’s companions literally turn “the world upside down?”

[14]1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.​

Did the “ends of the world” literally come upon the Israelite who disobeyed God at Sinai?

[15]James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.​

Is the tongue literally a world?
Let us use the fallacious aion/aionios argument on these verses. The word "world" cannot literally mean the entire planet earth because it refers to or describes things that are not literally "the whole world" and "all the world."

Click to expand...

It seems to me that suggests words like kosmos, aion/aionios aren't always used literally. Which is about the first UR type argument I heard. See I wouldn't bother so much with what the word means. Like this word can mean a brick, a wheelbarrow or a stomach ache. But rather if the word is being used literally or figuratively. And of course the Bible is loaded with figurative, symbolic and hyperbolic language.

Hmm said:

That's a great way to present the argument.

I think we'd all agree that God wills all to be saved (unless you're a five point Calvanist) and with the logic of the conclusion, so the only way to falsify this would be to debunk the major premise by saying that God can't save all. The only way I think you can argue this is to say that He needs our cooperation to save us and that this may be withheld.

The universalist argument is that all will eventually freely accept Christ and so therefore God can save all. The reason it says this that this free accepting may take place after death. You then have an all powerful and infinity resourceful God who has as much time as He needs to bring everyone around.

Realistically, would anyone really hold out for.an eternity against God? Even in this life, the most stubborn and most evil people (Paul for instance) have been brought around and saved. So why would we think that God will not succeed in winning everyone over when He will have an infinite amount of time in which to do so? I think the only reason we would is if we want to think that He won't because it is not a rational proposition.

Click to expand...

I think there's also the question of what makes people evil in the first place. No one started out as evil in their nature. Not even Satan. All became evil, rather than were created evil or created to become evil.

Hmm said:

Realistically, would anyone really hold out for.an eternity against God? Even in this life, the most stubborn and most evil people (Paul for instance) have been brought around and saved.

Click to expand...

Right.
The story of Saul on the road to Tarsus is a very potent example.

Self-identified as the chief of sinners, persecuting the church, letters in hand from the synagogue rulers to bring Christians back to Jerusalem in chains, meets Jesus on the road. What happens? Instant conversion.

I think the same thing will happen in the afterlife. Instant conversions. After that, it's just barnacle removal. (ouch)

Saint Steven said:

Right.
The story of Saul on the road to Tarsus is a very potent example.

Self-identified as the chief of sinners, persecuting the church, letters in hand from the synagogue rulers to bring Christians back to Jerusalem in chains, meets Jesus on the road. What happens? Instant conversion.

I think the same thing will happen in the afterlife. Instant conversions. After that, it's just barnacle removal. (ouch)

Click to expand...

Yes, and let's not forget how that meeting took place. It's not like Jesus strolled up and invited him to tea to discuss matters.