Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Fervent]

Based on what I'm looking at so far ἀπαρχὴ (aparchē) is a noun.

Ordinarily, yes. But it's being used as an adjective which is why both it and Christ are in the nominative.

 

[Hmm]

You might not make it into Valhalla to meet Thor with that attitude. Instead you might wind up in Hell with Loki.

And that would be Thorrible

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Ordinarily, yes. But it's being used as an adjective which is why both it and Christ are in the nominative.

I'm all for diligently parsing the word of God, but the Bible is not written for grammar esotericists. The letter kills, the spirit gives life. And that is the spirit of Yeshuah:

Strong's Hebrew: 3444. יְשׁוּעָה (yeshuah) -- salvation

See how it's also translated as 'victory'.

So why look for ways to deny the total victory of Christ?

 

[ozso]

I'm all for diligently parsing the word of God, but the Bible is not written for grammar esotericists. The letter kills, the spirit gives life. And that is the spirit of Yeshuah:

Strong's Hebrew: 3444. יְשׁוּעָה (yeshuah) -- salvation

See how it's also translated as 'victory'.

So why look for ways to deny the total victory of Christ?

In this case, victory is a noun.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

In this case, victory is a noun.

But noun can stand in the day of the Lord.

 

[Hmm]

But noun can stand in the day of the Lord.

As long as we don't start talking about double negatives. That's a big no-no.

 

[Andrewn]

The grammatical argument the UR position tried to make is that the "in" functions within the verbal predicate, so that the subject and verb are both taking place within it. Which has been thoroughly explained and refuted, and your confusion just confirms that when you accused me of overcomplicating things its because you didn't understand what was at issue nor what I was arguing.

This line of discussion between you and @MMXX has been going on for > 15 pages and it has been going in circles!!! Following is a quotation of the interpretation of 1Co 15:22 from Meyer's NT Commentary showing the real meaning of the verse:

ΠΆΝΤΕς ΖΩΟΠ.] which is to be understood not of the new principle of life introduced into the consciousness of humanity but, according to the context and on account of the future, in the eschatological sense, is by most interpreters held to refer only to believers. But ἕκαστος, 1 Corinthians 15:23, requires us to think of the resurrection of all; for otherwise we should have to seek the πάντες collectively in the second class ἜΠΕΙΤΑ ΟἹ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ, so that ΟἹ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ and the ΠΆΝΤΕς would cover each other, and there could be no mention at all of an ἝΚΑΣΤΟς ἘΝ Τῷ ἸΔΊῼ ΤΆΓΜΑΤΙ in reference to the ΠΆΝΤΕς. Accordingly we must not restrict ΖΩΟΠ. to blessed life, and perhaps explain its universality (πάντες) from the ἈΠΟΚΑΤΆΣΤΑΣΙς ΠΆΝΤΩΝ. Neither must we so change the literal meaning, as to understand it only of the destination of all to the blessed resurrection, or as even to add mentally the condition which holds universally for the partaking in salvation — which alteration of what is said categorically into a hypothetical statement is sheer arbitrariness. On the contrary, ζωοποιηθ. (see also 1 Corinthians 15:36), confronted with the quite universal assertion of the opponents that a resurrection of the dead is a non ens (1 Corinthians 15:12-16), is in and by itself indifferent (comp. Romans 4:17; 2 Kings 5:7; Nehemiah 9:6; Theod. Isaiah 26:14; Lucian, V. H. i. 22), the abstract opposite of θάνατος (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:36), in connection with which the concrete difference as regards the different subjects is left for the reader himself to infer. As early interpreters as Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, and Theodoret have rightly understood πάντες ζωοπ. not simply of the blessed resurrection, but generally of bodily revivification, and without limiting or attaching conditions to the πάντες. It denotes all without exception, as is necessary from 1 Corinthians 15:23, and in keeping with the quite universal πάντες of the first half of the verse. See, too, on 1 Corinthians 15:24.

 

[Saint Steven]

But noun can stand in the day of the Lord.

As long as we don't start talking about double negatives. That's a big no-no.

This is one of the great things about UR. We haven't lost our sense of humor.

My Dad used to point out that some Christians look/act as if they had been baptized in pickle juice. (it's that sour outlook)

"Are you okay? You look dill." - lol

 

[Lazarus Short]

What's the dill, pickle?

We're irrelevant, inerrant, impertinent, irrelevant and yet, reverent.

We're funny, so yeah, what's not to like??

 

[Saint Steven]

We're irrelevant, inerrant, impertinent, irrelevant and yet, reverent.

Speak for yourself. - lol
I'm guilty as charged.

Smart people run when they see me coming.

 

[Lazarus Short]

On the internet...no one sees you coming.

 

[Fervent]

I'm all for diligently parsing the word of God, but the Bible is not written for grammar esotericists. The letter kills, the spirit gives life. And that is the spirit of Yeshuah:

Strong's Hebrew: 3444. יְשׁוּעָה (yeshuah) -- salvation

See how it's also translated as 'victory'.

So why look for ways to deny the total victory of Christ?

There's nothing esoteric about case, it's about as simple as things can get. Using grammar is about the closest we can get to objective examination, simply because you do not like where the grammar leads is no reason to discard it.

 

[Fervent]

This line of discussion between you and @MMXX has been going on for > 15 pages and it has been going in circles!!! Following is a quotation of the interpretation of 1Co 15:22 from Meyer's NT Commentary showing the real meaning of the verse:

ΠΆΝΤΕς ΖΩΟΠ.] which is to be understood not of the new principle of life introduced into the consciousness of humanity but, according to the context and on account of the future, in the eschatological sense, is by most interpreters held to refer only to believers. But ἕκαστος, 1 Corinthians 15:23, requires us to think of the resurrection of all; for otherwise we should have to seek the πάντες collectively in the second class ἜΠΕΙΤΑ ΟἹ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ, so that ΟἹ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ and the ΠΆΝΤΕς would cover each other, and there could be no mention at all of an ἝΚΑΣΤΟς ἘΝ Τῷ ἸΔΊῼ ΤΆΓΜΑΤΙ in reference to the ΠΆΝΤΕς. Accordingly we must not restrict ΖΩΟΠ. to blessed life, and perhaps explain its universality (πάντες) from the ἈΠΟΚΑΤΆΣΤΑΣΙς ΠΆΝΤΩΝ. Neither must we so change the literal meaning, as to understand it only of the destination of all to the blessed resurrection, or as even to add mentally the condition which holds universally for the partaking in salvation — which alteration of what is said categorically into a hypothetical statement is sheer arbitrariness. On the contrary, ζωοποιηθ. (see also 1 Corinthians 15:36), confronted with the quite universal assertion of the opponents that a resurrection of the dead is a non ens (1 Corinthians 15:12-16), is in and by itself indifferent (comp. Romans 4:17; 2 Kings 5:7; Nehemiah 9:6; Theod. Isaiah 26:14; Lucian, V. H. i. 22), the abstract opposite of θάνατος (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:36), in connection with which the concrete difference as regards the different subjects is left for the reader himself to infer. As early interpreters as Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, and Theodoret have rightly understood πάντες ζωοπ. not simply of the blessed resurrection, but generally of bodily revivification, and without limiting or attaching conditions to the πάντες. It denotes all without exception, as is necessary from 1 Corinthians 15:23, and in keeping with the quite universal πάντες of the first half of the verse. See, too, on 1 Corinthians 15:24.

The relevant part paragraph is built on the faulty premise that πάντες is not limited, except it is limited by the prepositional phrase being in the subject due to carrying the article. The discussion on what is meant by life is secondary, and the only one that the paragraph you supplied gives any support for.

And the discussion, as it stands, has no counter from MMXX nor has anyone on the UR side provided any sort of counter except to try to stand on the incorrect inferring of an omitted subject.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The relevant part paragraph is built on the faulty premise that πάντες is not limited, except it is limited by the prepositional phrase being in the subject due to carrying the article. The discussion on what is meant by life is secondary, and the only one that the paragraph you supplied gives any support for.

And the discussion, as it stands, has no counter from MMXX nor has anyone on the UR side provided any sort of counter except to try to stand on the incorrect inferring of an omitted subject.

Now, now, brother Fervent! The UR side has countered with humor, and as you and I both know, humor counts for everything ...

 

[Andrewn]

The relevant part paragraph is built on the faulty premise that πάντες is not limited, except it is limited by the prepositional phrase being in the subject due to carrying the article. The discussion on what is meant by life is secondary, and the only one that the paragraph you supplied gives any support for.

And the discussion, as it stands, has no counter from MMXX nor has anyone on the UR side provided any sort of counter except to try to stand on the incorrect inferring of an omitted subject.

Wow, you have no respect for anyone. Not even for St John Chrysostom. I'm flabbergasted.

You acquire a unique status.

 

[Hmm]

Wow, you have no respect for anyone. Not even for St John Chrysostom. I'm flabbergasted.

You acquire a unique status.

It just goes to show the truth of Aristotle's remark (in ancient Greek no less) "The more you know, the more you realise you don't know."

 

[Fervent]

Wow, you have no respect for anyone. Not even for St John Chrysostom. I'm flabbergasted.

You acquire a unique status.

It's not that I don't have respect for Chrysostom, it is that what John Chrysostom said doesn't apply to the question at hand since he is addressing the question of what "life" applies to in that passage. The small snippet that makes it appear relevant isn't relevant because the aspect he is talking about doesn't apply, as the central idea isn't true due to "all" being limited by the preposition while Chrysostom is speaking of it being limited in the distributive("each" rather than "every").

 

[Der Alte]

Probably because they're scratching around for anything to latch on to in support of their a priori position on ECT.

Where would the early church fathers acquire "q priori" anything? They were the "a priori" for those who followed. OBTW where are all those "most ECF" who believed in UR that I have seen touted here. Origen wherefore art thou Origen? If most ECF were UR there should be tons of evidence. Where is it?

Really, Matt 21:46 and a handful of other ambiguous proof texts cobbled together a hell doctrine [Remaining meaningless rubbish omitted.]

I have several posts in this and other threads, please, please show me where anything I posted is ambiguous, out-of-context or anything else.
I, if anything go overboard, documenting everything I say. Some have complained that my posts are too long. My response, you can't prove the context unless you show the context, that sometimes takes long posts.
And FYI I have conclusively shown from scripture alone, more than once no scholars, ECF, Lexicons or grammars, only scripture that Matthew 25:46 does NOT say ""age during" or some other silly phrase or "correction." I can do that with only four verses which nobody has refuted.

 

[Saint Steven]

It just goes to show the truth of Aristotle's remark (in ancient Greek no less) "The more you know, the more you realise you don't know."

That explains why school was so counterproductive. Brilliant!

It takes years to discover how stupid you are, and decades to pay off the loan. (ouch) Talk about injury to insult... wow.

 

[Der Alte]

And the (former) rich men (all of us) will have been stripped of our purple and scarlet robes on the way through the eye of the needle.

And if we wind up being tormented in the flame, as the rich man did, Abraham said he, the rich man, and we cannot come from the place of fiery torment to Abraham's bosom. Which OBTW is not a place, it is a position. At their meals and banquets guests did not sit in chairs at a table. They reclined at low tables, on their left elbows with their feet away from the table. That is how the woman was able to wash Jesus' feet with her tears and dry them with her hair. A woman did not crawl around under a table among the feet of strange men. "In the bosom" referred to the position of honor immediately in front of, or to the right of the host.
When John placed his head on Jesus' bosom, he leaned back so he could look directly in Jesus' face.