Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[ozso]

Funny that you should do this and say this. You didn't look close enough. Cleenewerck was editor NOT one of the translators of the EOB

I'm aware of that. I pointed it out in response to you citing him:

"...ματθαιον 25:45 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.​

Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 25:45–46). Laurent A. Cleenewerck."

 

[ozso]

Nothing to suggest that anyone should prefer his "translation" of the Greek NT over BDAG the premier NT Greek lexicon currently available as he is being touted by the UR-ites in this forum.

You could say that about the EOB or KJV, NKJV, NSAB, NIV, NSRV, CLV etc.

 

[Der Alte]

You could say that about the EOB or KJV, NKJV, NSAB, NIV, NSRV, CLV etc.

Except for the EOB and the NIV I would say the others are a coin toss. The EOB is superior for the reasons already stated multiple times and the NIV because my first Greek prof, Dr. Roger Omanson, now deceased, was on the initial NIV translation committee. He told his students the struggles the committee experienced. E.g. Some of the old guard resisted changing some of the archaic wording of the venerable KJV. I usually use the NIV I serve in a Korean church and the KJV is almost unintelligible to people whose native language is not English.

I'm aware of that. I pointed it out in response to you citing him:

"...ματθαιον 25:45 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.​

Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 25:45–46). Laurent A. Cleenewerck."

I didn't quote Cleenwerck, per se, I quoted the EOB of which he was the editor not one of the translators. You might want to remember that in the future.

 

[Fervent]

Many people are multi-lingual but only qualified academics are competent to comment authoritatively on a piece of ancient text, clearly.

Whether DBH himself is a specialist in ancient Greek or not is irrelevant. As part of the academic community he has easy access to colleagues who are and furthermore his published works are peer-reviewed so any factual mistakes are picked up. Of course, his interpretation and conclusions are his own. What he says makes a lot of sense to me but may not to others but it's silly of anyone to feel they have to try to discredit the credentials of someone of his stature before they can disagree with him.

Universalism doesn't rely exclusively or even mainly on linguistic arguments like this anyway but it's interesting that this is the main form of attack on it that we've seen so far in this thread. Its ideas are seldom attacked and that's probably because it's very hard to attack the idea of universal restoration which so much of scripture attests to.

View attachment 309349

Who needs Biblical exegesis when you have cute cartoons and humor, right?

 

[ozso]

Except for the EOB and the NIV I would say the others are a coin toss. The EOB is superior for the reasons already stated multiple times and the NIV because my first Greek prof, Dr. Roger Omanson, now deceased, was on the initial NIV translation committee. He told his students the struggles the committee experienced. E.g. Some of the old guard resisted changing some of the archaic wording of the venerable KJV. I usually use the NIV I serve in a Korean church and the KJV is almost unintelligible to people whose native language is not English.

The point is that bibles and lexicons are two different kinds of works.

I didn't quote Cleenwerck, per se, I quoted the EOB of which he was the editor not one of the translators. You might want to remember that in the future.

What I remember is asking you to name some of the native Greek speaking translators of the EOB you've mentioned. So far that's been met with silence. At this time Cleanwreck seems to be the only person you know of associated with the creation of the 2011 EOB.

 

[ozso]

As I've said, the problem I see with dickering over a couple of Greek words, is that Yeshua never used them. Yahshuah did not say "aionios kolasis". He said something in Aramaic.

On top of that Matthew 25:46 is part of a parable where Yahshuah talks about what many interprete everlasting life and everlasting damnation being predicated upon giving someone a cup of water.

Now imagine someone preaching "Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-46 that if you just simply give someone a cup of water, you are guaranteed eternity in heaven".

If one is going to insist that one part of a parable is completely literal, then they're going to have to stick with all parts of it being completely literal.

 

[Fervent]

As I've said, the problem I see with dickering over a couple of Greek words, is that Yashua never used them. Yashua did not say "aionios kolasis". He said something in Aramaic.

On top of that Matthew 25:46 is part of a parable where Yashua talks about what many interprete everlasting life and everlasting damnation being predicated upon giving someone a cup of water.

Now imagine someone preaching "Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-46 that if you just simply give someone a cup of water, you are guaranteed eternity in heaven".

If one is going to insist that one part of a parable is completely literal, then they're going to have to stick with all parts of it being completely literal.

As soon as you have a source with Jesus' actual Aramaic words we'll discuss those, until then we're left with what God deemed sufficient. Without appeal to the Greek texts, what do you know of "Yashua?"

 

[ozso]

As soon as you have a source with Jesus' actual Aramaic words we'll discuss those, until then we're left with what God deemed sufficient. Without appeal to the Greek texts, what do you know of "Yashua?"

My bad. Was on my phone. Are you one of those who insists that the available copies of the Greek manuscripts are 100% infallible because God was hands on controlling each scribe? I think there's a difference between appealing to the overall message of the text and insisting every single word used is completely infallible. That's another mostly evangelical Protestant position.

 

[Fervent]

My bad. Was on my phone. Are you one of those who insists that the available copies of the Greek manuscripts are 100% infallible because God was hands on controlling each scribe? I think there's a difference between appealing to the overall message of the text and insisting every single word used is completely infallible. That's another mostly evangelical Protestant position.

Not quite, but we've got to work with what's available to us. Everything we know about Jesus comes from Greek manuscripts, speculation about what He may have said in Aramaic doesn't really give us anything to work with. It's naked speculation and nothing more.

 

[ozso]

Not quite, but we've got to work with what's available to us. Everything we know about Jesus comes from Greek manuscripts, speculation about what He may have said in Aramaic doesn't really give us anything to work with. It's naked speculation and nothing more.

What I'm questioning is how dogmatic one can reasonably be when it comes to every single word. And what about the entire parable? I'm sure there's people who gave someone a cup of water (or did something else on the list) to keep from going to hell. If someone declared, "I know for sure I have eternal life in heaven because I gave someone else a bottle of water, because that's what Jesus said", would that be an accurate declaration? Or would that be a case of them taking something figurative too literally?

 

[Hmm]

I think there's a difference between appealing to the overall message of the text and insisting every single word used is completely infallible. That's another mostly evangelical Protestant position.

That's been my experience. I'm Protestant and I've been told in every church I've been to to stick with whatever version of the Bible I feel most comfortable with - the particular translation doesn't really matter because if I read reflectively and pray for the Holy Spirit's assistance, the meaning of a passage will become clear to me.

This used to seem obviously true to me but it doesn't now. If it was true, we wouldn't get so much disagreement, not only about universalism, but also about women priests, LBTQ+ issues etc. But also, since reading up on Christian universalism, I've become aware of the fuzzy translation issues relating to long-dead dialects and the need to study the historical and cultural context of a passage in order to understand it. I don't think this is rejecting the Holy Spirit's ability to guide us into scriptural truth, it's just saying that our reading of the Bible needs to be accompanied by studying these things, not so much to find definite answers but more to be aware that's it's not all back and white and that there are widely held differences of opinions around many issues.

And, at the end of the day, no-one really takes the Bible literally anyway. It's always held at one’s convenience. The Bible is "plain" when it comes to one’s favourite doctrine such as ECT or Annihilationism but when Paul says that women should wear hats in church or Jesus says to hate your family, it's always understand in terms of cultural context.

 

[ozso]

I read an interesting statement from an Eastern Orthodox member in TAW.

"The Revelation was always a disputed book. It barely made it into the bible. Very little emphasis is placed on it in the Orthodox Church."

 

[Der Alte]

As soon as you have a source with Jesus' actual Aramaic words we'll discuss those, until then we're left with what God deemed sufficient. Without appeal to the Greek texts, what do you know of "Yashua?"

There is no such name as Yashua in Hebrew. Yeshua but not Yashua. Some folks think they know more than the native Hebrew speaking Jews.

Jewish Encyclopedia-Names of God.
...If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh (

) or Yahaweh (

). From this the contracted form Jah or Yah (

) is most readily explained, and also the forms Jeho or Yeho (

=

), and Jo or Yo (

, contracted from

), which the word assumes in combination in the first part of compound proper names, and Yahu or Yah (

) in the second part of such names....
NAMES OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

 

[Der Alte]

* * *
And, at the end of the day, no-one really takes the Bible literally anyway. It's always held at one’s convenience. The Bible is "plain" when it comes to one’s favourite doctrine such as ECT or Annihilationism but when Paul says that women should wear hats in church or Jesus says to hate your family, it's always understand in terms of cultural context.

That is a very convenient cop-out. This might be true in some instances e.g. for people who have "grown up" in a particular denomination. But there are many people who don't have that hindrance. I first went to Sunday school when FDR was president. Don't know the denomination all I remember is the great tasting red koolaid. Then only sporadically in different denominations until LBJ was president. So I didn't have any denominational baggage to unload. And I don't remember even one sermon or lesson which mentioned hell or anything associated with it.

 

[Der Alte]

* * *

As I've said, the problem I see with dickering over a couple of Greek words, is that Yeshua never used them. Yahshuah did not say "aionios kolasis". He said something in Aramaic.

And you know this how? This is another convenient cop-out. "I'll just interpret the Bible the way I think it should read [based on my assumptions/presuppositions.] Much of the NT is not based on 1-2 manuscripts. Check out a Greek NT with textual apparatus which shows the manuscripts which support passages.
https://greeknewtestament.net/
Also the writings of the ECF add to our understanding of the NT.

If one is going to insist that one part of a parable is completely literal, then they're going to have to stick with all parts of it being completely literal.

There is an adage about interpreting the Bible. "If the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to seek any other sense." But lots of folks conjure up figurative language where none exists to make scripture support their assumptions/presuppositions.

 

[ozso]

And you know this how? This is another convenient cop-out. "I'll just interpret the Bible the way I think it should read [based on my assumptions/presuppositions.] Much of the NT is not based on 1-2 manuscripts. Check out a Greek NT with textual apparatus which shows the manuscripts which support passages.
https://greeknewtestament.net/
Also the writings of the ECF add to our understanding of the NT.

There is an adage about interpreting the Bible. "If the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to seek any other sense." But lots of folks conjure up figurative language where none exists to make scripture support their assumptions/presuppositions.

I know that Jesus preched in Aramaic because I looked it up a long time ago. Unless you can produce a source that says otherwise you're just spouting hot air.

 

[Saint Steven]

On top of that Matthew 25:46 is part of a parable where Yahshuah talks about what many interprete everlasting life and everlasting damnation being predicated upon giving someone a cup of water.

Now imagine someone preaching "Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-46 that if you just simply give someone a cup of water, you are guaranteed eternity in heaven".

If one is going to insist that one part of a parable is completely literal, then they're going to have to stick with all parts of it being completely literal.

These are some great points.

Opponents of UR often cite "context" as a main complaint, yet they ignore it on their own "proof-texts", choosing rather to argue about word definitions.

In reality our views are most often driven by our own presuppositions. We see what we want to see.

 

[ozso]

There is no such name as Yashua in Hebrew. Yeshua but not Yashua. Some folks think they know more than the native Hebrew speaking Jews.

Jewish Encyclopedia-Names of God.
...If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh (

) or Yahaweh (

). From this the contracted form Jah or Yah (

) is most readily explained, and also the forms Jeho or Yeho (

=

), and Jo or Yo (

, contracted from

), which the word assumes in combination in the first part of compound proper names, and Yahu or Yah (

) in the second part of such names....
NAMES OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

Yada Yada. It was a typo. I was on my phone typing with one thumb while standing in the rain.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Not quite, but we've got to work with what's available to us. Everything we know about Jesus comes from Greek manuscripts, speculation about what He may have said in Aramaic doesn't really give us anything to work with. It's naked speculation and nothing more.

Proponents of the Syrian Pesh-itta version might disagree with you...no, they probably would do so.

 

[Hmm]

Yada Yada. It was a typo. I was on my phone typing with one thumb while standing in the rain.

I always type here on my phone and it's almost impossible not to make some typos as you've probably noticified bi noow.