Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Getting some background on early Church Father's writings doesn't support the thesis that Theology of hell as everlasting is a corruption of later teaching or corrupted texts.
That may be a good point. But we do have Hebrew and Greek scholars who graduate Seminary (as you do) who look to the scholarship and not drive by 'theology' blog sites. For example, we do have a member here at CF who has on many occasion put together an excellent exegesis of the very use of the words in contention.English is not the only language in the world. The Greek Church doesn't use a translation.
For example, we do have a member here at CF who has on many occasion put together an excellent exegesis of the very use of the words in contention.
This is the work of @Der Alter
In an attempt to refute his exegesis you refer to dozens of different sources, out of context looking for one grape on a stripped vine. But you have to. Eisegesis is difficult to defend against exegesis. You started with a presupposition in everyone of your OPs and then attempted to stuff the bag full of irrelevant sources or cherry picked.That has been addressed by several posters & many times, e.g.:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...os-based-on-aion.8040292/page-2#post-72110302
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...torture-in-fire.8041369/page-25#post-72149978
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...k-a-universalism.8070242/page-8#post-72862899
OTOH here we see many examples where αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described as being of a finite duration:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2931562-does-aionios-always-mean-eternal-ancient.html
http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/
12 points re forever and ever being a deceptive translation & being finite:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-not-cast-off-for-ever.8041512/#post-72126038
Jesus didn't use the best words & expressions to describe endlessness in regards to punishment, because He didn't believe in endless punishment:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-a-universalism.8070242/page-14#post-72882151
In an attempt to refute his exegesis you refer to dozens of different sources, out of context looking for one grape on a stripped vine. But you have to. Eisegesis is difficult to defend against exegesis. You started with a presupposition in everyone of your OPs and then attempted to stuff the bag full of irrelevant sources or cherry picked.
English is not the only language in the world. The Greek Church doesn't use a translation.
You misunderstand how damning this knockdown argument is to your conspiracy claim.It's not the - opinions - of "Theology" that are the subject of the OP, but translation. As for early church fathers, that's already been addressed here:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...niversalism-since-early-church-times.8042013/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfund...017/04/indeed-many-universalism-early-church/
Can is the operative word. Context of the text or passage is crucial. One size does not fit all.
Your challenge is the majority of English translations we have are inaccurate. Translations conducted by committees of over 50 Koine Greek scholars (for each translation). Yet you want us to believe a few hyper-dispensationalists in the 19th century who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ and held to a similar view as Jehovah's Witnesses on soul sleep are more accurate because they confirm your personal beliefs on annihilation of the soul.If you think you can refute my refutation of Der Alter's lame post, give it a try. Your above comment fails in that regard.
All three of them?It's not only the CV scholars that agree the original language words of the Scriptures often rendered
Which ones were those again? Please cite the homily name or commentary of the church father.but early church fathers & scholars of the past 2000 years.
This last point suggests dictation ...a method no one supports. Further because a word has a lexical range that is occasionally not eternal THE CONTEXT, NOT THE WORD SETS THE INTERPRETATION.That has been addressed by several posters & many times, e.g.:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...os-based-on-aion.8040292/page-2#post-72110302
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...torture-in-fire.8041369/page-25#post-72149978
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...k-a-universalism.8070242/page-8#post-72862899
OTOH here we see many examples where αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described as being of a finite duration:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2931562-does-aionios-always-mean-eternal-ancient.html
http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/
12 points re forever and ever being a deceptive translation & being finite:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-not-cast-off-for-ever.8041512/#post-72126038
Jesus didn't use the best words & expressions to describe endlessness in regards to punishment, because He didn't believe in endless punishment:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-a-universalism.8070242/page-14#post-72882151
So the vast majority of Christian scholarship, creeds and commentaries for the past 2000 years just got it wrong. Along come some 19th century hyper dispensationalists who personally translate the Bible and say "hey we got it right and all those committees got it wrong!"So what legitimate basis do pro endless hell biased folks have to deceptively translate Scripture according to their own theologically driven biases?
scholars? Very debatable. Never heard of the sources from modern and post-modern sources you use. And your sources which refer to church fathers for your view never cite the original works. Note, Patheos is not a source!It's not only the CV scholars that agree the original language words of the Scriptures often rendered "eternal" & "forever" can refer to a finite age, but early church fathers & scholars of the past 2000 years.
You misunderstand how damning this knockdown argument is to your conspiracy claim.
The authors who were closest to the original text and the disciples and the early church thought that Jesus taught eternal torment view of hell.
There it is...You are trying to present what you think is the Mind of God. Using human sentimentalities and applying them to Almighty God.Wouldn't Satan love to throw mud on the character of the true God by making many of those who profess His name (Jesus Christ) to portay Him as a monster who pointlessly tortures most of his created human race for all eternity?
A false premise to begin with. Again using human sentimentalities and trying to apply them to Almighty God the uncreated Creator. A bit more reading in the Old Testament should clear the air on this a bit.And He is helpless, impotent, to do anything about it, or He doesn't want to do anything about it, since His love quickly expired like a carton of milk?
This was the only church father quoted in your patheos link:It's not the - opinions - of "Theology" that are the subject of the OP, but translation. As for early church fathers, that's already been addressed here:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...niversalism-since-early-church-times.8042013/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfund...017/04/indeed-many-universalism-early-church/
This last point suggests dictation ...a method no one supports. Further because a word has a lexical range that is occasionally not eternal THE CONTEXT, NOT THE WORD SETS THE INTERPRETATION.
You continue to argue the word study fallacy.
Al languages have a lexical range where the context of the sentence and juxtaposition to other words and paragraphs are studies. There are scholars that argue for a universal salvation view but not based on reading in a possible word meaning giving a minority definition that is out of context and renders the rest of the passages and surrounding passages meaningless.
That may be...The topic is translation
Which is what you present.not interpretation
So the vast majority of Christian scholarship, creeds and commentaries for the past 2000 years just got it wrong.
Along come some 19th century hyper dispensationalists who personally translate the Bible and say "hey we got it right and all those committees got it wrong!"
And your sources which refer to church fathers for your view never cite the original works.
There it is...You are trying to present what you think is the Mind of God. Using human sentimentalities and applying them to Almighty God.
You misunderstand how damning this knockdown argument is to your conspiracy claim.
A bit more reading in the Old Testament should clear the air on this a bit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?