Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[ozso]

Are you paying attention? My response did not have to refer anything to do with English translations. This is the post I was replying to.

"I don't care what word is used, just as long as it conveys the correct description, meaning and image of what's behind [sic]talked about. Most people are going to see flames and pitchforks when the see the world hell or hades."​

According to my 3 ignored sources the words used by the Jewish Encyclopedia refer to a place of eternal fiery punishment which the Jews called "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom" written respectively in the 225 BC LXX and the NT as "hades" and "Gehenna."

The point I was making is that what gets translated as Hell and Hades often doesn't have anything to do with a place of fiery torment. What you posted wasn't germane to what I was talking about in that particular instance.

 

[ozso]

Au contraire mon frere. Patrick Swayze in "Road House" had a line I appropriated, "I always play nice until it is time to not play nice and the other party always decides when that is.

I already proved that you were rude to me from the very beginning in post #3480

 

[ozso]

His Jewish authorities don't have anything to do with what the JEWS believed millenia before either. The influence of the Scribes and Sadducces on his Jewish thinking sources were Hellenized long before. Correct Jewish thinking was being corrupted for 400 years since GOD QUIT SPEAKING through His prophets. Scribes and Sadducces weren't even mentioned in the OT.

This is my response to it: Der Alte's three sources

 

[John Mullally]

Thanks.
As the seeker in this discussion, I want to know what you mean when you say "separated from God"? Does that mean burning in hell?

(seems like you are soft-pedaling, or sugar-coating the issue)

Saint Steven said: ↑
Okay, that's a bit vague. (understandably)
Let's try a bit of role playing. (if you are game)
I'll be the seeker, you be the counselor.
What can you tell me about eternity, and my readiness to meet my maker?

Let's say I have no background in religion whatsoever. I was not raised in the church, but want to know about it. I have a friend that is a Christian, who invited me to church.

The word Hell is rarely used - an eternity separated from God is frightening enough. The emphasis is on making Jesus the Lord of your life & walking in that. When you see a rock obstacle while bicycling, your eyes tend to focus on the path around it. Focusing on the rock is counter-productive and neurotic.

Jesus primarily elaborated on Hell when talking to the self-righteous religious leaders (Sons of Hell) - there is a place for it.

 

[Hillsage]

This is my response to it: Der Alte's three sources

Much better than mine. Sorry I've missed so much of your input. My 'winner' star was added after reading.

 

[Der Alte]

Are these three references the only sources in existence regarding what Jews in Israel, before and during the time of Jesus, believed about hell?
All of the references here (except for the ones in blue) are not readily identifiable. So an extrabiblical hodgepodge of snippets from so far unknown sources wrapped around Isaiah 14:9-10, Isaiah 33:11 and the apocryphal Enoch and Judith.
If this hasn't been refuted, probably the main reason for that is because it's mostly jumbled snippets from several indefinable sources in a format that's difficult to read.
That's all well known by those familiar with the subject.
Okay, who came up with that part and when?
Since this refers to the followers of Jesus, it was obviously written either during the three years of Jesus' ministry or more likely after. So it wouldn't have been anything Jesus was referencing when he talked about Gehenna or anything the Jews would be all that familiar with when Jesus was teaching since it would have been so new.
So in conclusion:
Source 1 is pretty much indefinable.
Source 2 is the well known Biblical history of the valley of Hinnom with an attached conclusion from an undefined undated source.
Source 3 seems most likely a distorted view by Jews who rejected Jesus, written after his ministry.

I found nothing insulting in the post you are quoting.
I quoted ONLY 3 sources and I fully identified and linked to them.
What you decided "was likely distorted" was the Talmud fully identified in my quote. Your presumed opinion is wrong and irrelevant.
Your opinion of the 3 sources is irrelevant. They were all written/compiled by Jewish scholars.
Any references within the quotes can be fully identified in the full quotes at the provided link.
If you wish to challenge this post bring some credible scholarship to the forum your opinion is meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[ozso]

I found nothing insulting in the post you are quoting.

You were rude and insulting to me from the get go without provocation on my part as I showed in post #4722, not post #4723.

I quoted ONLY 3 sources and I fully identified and linked to them.
What you decided "was likely distorted" was the Talmud fully identified in my quote. Your presumed opinion is wrong and irrelevant.
Your opinion of the 3 sources is irrelevant. They were all written/compiled by Jewish scholars.
Any references within the quotes can be fully identified in the full quotes at the provided link.
If you wish to challenge this post bring some credible scholarship to the forum your opinion is meaningless and irrelevant.

That's a whole lot of denial, bro.

 

[Der Alte]

Okay, this time I went on a fishing expedition. I searched for the first time I wrote "universalism" which took me to this thread: David Bentley Hart on Hell
In that thread it appears we were both playing nice until post #264:
So there you have it. You drew first blood as they say. Perhaps I should save this for future events when you say something like "I virtually always play real nice until someone accuses me....". (post #3450 of this thread).

Wrong again. You tried to tell me what the scripture I quoted "really means" without providing any evidence to support your claim. IOW just "You're wrong and I'm right. Am too. Nuh huh." I said it was nonsense and you were twisting scripture. You were saying basically the same thing by trying to contradict me with zero evidence.

 

[ozso]

Wrong again. You tried to tell me what the scripture I quoted "really means" without providing any evidence to support your claim. IOW just "You're wrong and I'm right. Am too. Nuh huh." I said it was nonsense and you were twisting scripture. You were saying basically the same thing by trying to contradict me with zero evidence.

More denial and a lack of accountability on your part.

 

[Fervent]

More denial and a lack of accountability on your part.

What exactly do you think was rude or insulting on his part? That he gave an opinion of what you were doing?

 

[ozso]

What exactly do you think was rude or insulting on his part? That he gave an opinion of what you were doing?

It looked more like an accusation than an opinion to me. And I found the wording rude as in impolite and disrespectful. More specifically I don't see it as him playing nice, in accordance with a line from a movie he uses as his credo. And lest anyone accuse my of hypocrisy, I freely admit that I have been rude and impolite and disrespectful to him and others at times.

 

[Saint Steven]

The word Hell is rarely used - an eternity separated from God is frightening enough. The emphasis is on making Jesus the Lord of your life & walking in that. When you see a rock obstacle while bicycling, your eyes tend to focus on the path around it. Focusing on the rock is counter-productive and neurotic.

Jesus primarily elaborated on Hell when talking to the self-righteous religious leaders (Sons of Hell) - there is a place for it.

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response on this. I appreciate it.

I'm glad that your church is not terrifying people to get a decision. And frankly, I attend a church like that. There are no UR churches. And I was like the people I worship with for most of my life. They are fine folks, as are you. (as far as I can tell)

If you will allow me, I would like to press the issue a bit further. Then perhaps you will better understand where I am coming from and how I ended up here. If you become uncomfortable with the discussion, I will back off. No need to push it.

I have one question for you at the bottom of this post. But feel free to elaborate on any point.

You are probably very familiar with the terms "the Elect" and "predestined". A reference to those who were chosen by God. But it also infers the opposite. The remainder who were NOT chosen by God, those who were NOT predestined to life, but as you would put it, are separated from God for all eternity. And according to the basic definitions of the terms, by God's choice.

I imagine that you are quite happy to be among the Elect and to have been predestined for life. But you could have just as well NOT been chosen by God and been left to face eternity separated from him.

You are also no doubt familiar with the narrow way that leads to life and the broad way that leads to destruction.

This all boils down to a rather grim conclusion. God with malice and intent did purposely devise a plan for humanity whereby the vast majority of those created in his image would be destined to eternal torture of unthinkable horror with no hope of escape. Countless billions. Many of whom never heard the gospel or had an opportunity to respond.

Is my conclusion unjustified from your perspective?

 

[ozso]

IGNORE = peace.

Okay now I'm promising to utilize.

 

[Saint Steven]

Okay now I'm promising to utilize.

Yup. Enough is enough.

Don't forget to shake the dust off your sandals. -lol

 

[Lazarus Short]

Food laws aren't about nutrition.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that statement. Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Lazarus Short]

One of the major pushbacks on "hell" in the N.T. "It was copied from Dante's Inferno" and other such nonsense.

Well, I don't suffer from such chronological confusion. I only offer Dante an an example of how the doctrine of "hell" is supported by fiction. Our culture, such as it is, is saturated with it, even our language.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Even if true, which I doubt, that is the lexical etymological fallacy. What a word might have meant on another continent, 100s of years ago is largely irrelevant. The only people I have ever found who propagate this are members of certain religious groups on forums like this.
Even in English words have changed meaning over time. "Cool" and "heavy" come to mind. These words are often are used where they have nothing to do with temperature or weight.
When we see/hear the word "truck" nobody thinks about "vegetables" the original meaning.

Many words do not always lead to truth. My father told me about the practice, so it is NOT "100s of years ago," but almost within living memory, or some may still be alive who remember:

If you had a crop of apples, potatoes, beets, whatever, to put away for the winter - but you lacked a root cellar - there was another way. First, you would dig a trench to below the local frost line. Second, line the bottom of the trench with straw. Third, layer the veggies or fruits on the straw, with more straw on top. Lastly, you would cover the whole thing with the dirt you had dug out previously. It was called "helling" the potatoes, or whatever went down there. It is probably covered in one of the "Foxfire" books.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

I did not call you or call anyone else "Son of Hell." But I apologize to you on behalf of the person who did.

There has been a bug introduced in this thread of people flaunting their resumes, even though others with greater resumes have not done this. But putting people down and flaunting resumes is not appealing from a follower of Christ:

Mat 23:12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

I see that much of the fussing and feuding has been cleaned up by the moderators.

However, I disagree that credentials are irrelevant.

This does relate to a point I made earlier: On forums such as this, posters are anonymous and everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how uniformed or irrational it may be. When sophisticated and technical issues are discussed, this results in informed opinions being buried beneath nonsense and posing. There is a reason I don't stand in the middle of Walmart and scream "Hey, what does everyone think about the Kalam cosmological argument?"

If someone actually has academic credentials or at least can discuss scholarly authorities in an informed manner, I think it's helpful to know this. The woods are full of "Bible scholars" who are little more than self-educated internet cranks. They are certainly entitled to voice their opinions - that's how internet forums work - but it is helpful to know if someone actually knows what he or she is talking about.

By the same token, if someone affirmatively calls me "ignorant," I reserve the right to establish my credentials.

Resume flaunting? Lacking humility? Self-exaltation? It depends on the context. Any objective observer of this thread or forums such as this will have to admit: Those whom we characterize as flaunting their resumes, lacking in humility, exalting themselves, using highfalutin language, etc., always "just happen" to be those who disagree with us on the substance of the issue. The correlation is pretty much a perfect 1:1.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Here's a nice offering by Christian Philosopher, Keith DeRose, at Yale.

https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

Sorry that I just noticed this, but you have done exactly what I chose not to do in the post to which you were responding. What I posted were two sources that simply address universalism in its historical context and a balanced manner. You have responded - which is certainly your prerogative - with the website of a professor who is one of the leading modern apologists for universalism. In a "battle of biblical scholars," his position would be a distinctly minority one.

I will add this to the mix because it is short, scholarly but readable, and does mention DeRose: Crucis - Reshaping the Gospel? The Current Rise of Ultimate Reconciliation (ac.edu.au). The author touches upon what I believe are the real roots of modern universalism. I share his view that modern universalism is a "reshaping" of the actual Gospel.

How does one account for this ‘reshaping’ of the Gospel? Part of the answer can be found in the influence of a post-modern ethos, where a multitude of views are held as being equally valid, and where there is an ethic of civility so that it is impolite to offend anyone. Added to the mix is an increasing rejection of authority and the metaphysical. The transcendence of God is being slowly reduced as sin is redefined and accountability becomes ‘unfashionable’. Along with this theological revision comes a new hermeneutic which reinterprets the Bible with the lens of UR.​

 

[ozso]

I see that much of the fussing and feuding has been cleaned up by the moderators.

However, I disagree that credentials are irrelevant.

This does relate to a point I made earlier: On forums such as this, posters are anonymous and everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how uniformed or irrational it may be. When sophisticated and technical issues are discussed, this results in informed opinions being buried beneath nonsense and posing. There is a reason I don't stand in the middle of Walmart and scream "Hey, what does everyone think about the Kalam cosmological argument?"

If someone actually has academic credentials or at least can discuss scholarly authorities in an informed manner, I think it's helpful to know this. The woods are full of "Bible scholars" who are little more than self-educated internet cranks. They are certainly entitled to voice their opinions - that's how internet forums work - but it is helpful to know if someone actually knows what he or she is talking about.

By the same token, if someone affirmatively calls me "ignorant," I reserve the right to establish my credentials.

Resume flaunting? Lacking humility? Self-exaltation? It depends on the context. Any objective observer of this thread or forums such as this will have to admit: Those whom we characterize as flaunting their resumes, lacking in humility, exalting themselves, using highfalutin language, etc., always "just happen" to be those who disagree with us on the substance of the issue. The correlation is pretty much a perfect 1:1.

Sorry but no one can establish their credentials while being anonymous.