Eternal Damnation, Conditional Immortality, or Universal Reconciliation: A CF poll

[sparow]

That's strange, considering that God chose this man to become an Apostle by commissioning Paul and giving him revelation directly. Actually, it was not Paul who originated that statement about the "remnant" of Israel being saved. That was from Isaiah the prophet who predicted that Israel would end up with only a small remnant that would be saved.

Your comment doesn't really address the point of what the greatest percentage of the harvest would be - whether wheat or tares.

Paul says God chose him; Paul is a prophet who testifies of himself; Christ needed a second witness.

I didn't realize your question was to do with percentage; but I did address what the percentage would be of; not mankind but of those who enter into the covenant. Tares are mentioned in Matt. 13:25-40, no indication of ratios are given. From the messages to the churches in Revelation I estimate about 50/50.

 

[3 Resurrections]

20:14-15 After the resurrection and the final judgment, death and hades and the unsaved are thrown in the LOF. The LOF is the second death.

This "Lake of Fire" was named "The Second Death" because It was the second time that Death and the Grave (Hades) had come to plague the city of Jerusalem. Back before the Babylonian invasion in 586 BC, the rulers in Jerusalem had boasted that they had made a covenant with Death and the Grave (Hades) that they would not be overtaken by these plagues (Isaiah 28:14-19). But God said their covenant with Death and the Grave (Hades) would be annulled. He said that these rulers in Jerusalem would be overcome by both of these plagues when the city was destroyed by the "flame of devouring fire" in a siege (Isaiah 28-29).

The second time that the plagues of Death and the Grave were thrown into the city of Jerusalem led to the city's "second death" by God's same flames of devouring fire by the close of the AD 66-70 period. These "Lake of Fire" conditions with Death and the Grave overcoming the inhabitants caused torment throughout the city until the city was finally taken and its buildings torn down to the last stone and laid level with the ground.

How are the Devil, the Beast, and the False Prophet destroyed in the Valley of Gehinnom?

Scripture foretold a time when Satan and his host of angelic "high ones" would be punished by being gathered together and imprisoned within the city of Jerusalem along with the high priest / "kings of the earth" (Isaiah 24:21-23). After many days of this imprisonment, all of these were to be "found wanting", which means gone from existence. Certainly after the AD 70 destruction of the temple and the priesthood, no high priest "kings of the earth" were ever appointed again. Since both the Satanic hosts as well as the high priest "kings of the earth" were to share the same destruction in the same location at the same time, that means the Satanic hosts were also destroyed at the same time during this period of imprisonment.

We also have the Revelation 18:2 text which says that every unclean spirit would be imprisoned within the city of Jerusalem. God used that city of first-century Jerusalem as Matthew 13:42's "furnace of fire" (the "Lake of Fire") which would destroy all of the OC decaying elements of temple and priesthood, as well as the Satanic realm at the same time. Other scriptures such as Zechariah 13:2 agree with this. After Jerusalem's AD 70 siege, God would cause these unclean spirits to "pass out of the land". The unclean spirits knew of this prophesied impending doom, which is why they begged Christ "torment us not before the time..."

The Judean Scarlet Beast of Revelation 17 was destroyed in this conflagration also. This Scarlet Beast was the independent kingdom of Israel which the Zealot uprising had re-established in Israel in AD 66, which only lasted until the close of AD 70. The various competing Zealot leaders tormented those inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem which were unfortunately imprisoned within its walls for the duration of that "Great Tribulation".

The False Prophet of Revelation 13 was the lying, two-horned, religious leadership of the Pharisees and Sadducees which had once compelled their own people to give homage to the Roman Sea Beast of Revelation 13. This False Prophet entity was also present in Jerusalem from AD 66 onward, in competition with those Zealot leaders as they all fought for control of Jerusalem. They all preyed upon one another to gain the supremacy, and between them, the inhabitants of Jerusalem were torn to pieces by this civil war, even before Rome arrived to finish them off. "Torment" is a perfectly appropriate term to use for this tragic AD 66-70 period which will never be replicated again on earth, since there is no longer a Satanic host in existence to prey upon mankind. Ever since then, any oppression of mankind is what we have done to each other, without the presence of any demonic or Satanic enemy.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Paul says God chose him; Paul is a prophet who testifies of himself; Christ needed a second witness.

Well, if you want additional witnesses that testify of Paul's standing, we have Luke saying that Ananias baptized Paul after God revealed to him that Paul was a "chosen vessel unto me..."; we have the "beloved Barnabas" who personally vouched for Paul; we have Peter who called Paul "our beloved brother Paul", and defended Paul's writings.

But even these testimonials concerning Paul have nothing to do with the majority percentage of all humanity who will finally be present before the throne as children of God. If, as you propose, it is truly a 50/50 split between the saved and the unsaved, then half of the "harvest" is "wheat", and half is "tares". That seems very unrealistic, even in the natural agrarian sense of things.

 

[Andrewn]

This "Lake of Fire" was named "The Second Death" because It was the second time that Death and the Grave (Hades) had come to plague the city of Jerusalem.

In Rev 2:11, the 2nd death is mentioned in a message to the church in Smyrna. What does Smyrna have to do w/ Jerusalem?

In Rev 14:9-11, Rev 19:19-21, and Rev 20:10, who are those who is the beast that is worshipped? The scarlet beast? Is this the same as the beast from the earth?

 

[Hmm]

Summary poll results: ECT leads but no majority.

Is this indicating a lack of faith in God as Torturer? Surely not!

 

[3 Resurrections]

In Rev 2:11, the 2nd death is mentioned in a message to the church in Smyrna. What does Smyrna have to do w/ Jerusalem?

Those faithful ones in Smyrna were warned that some of them were about to suffer and be imprisoned by the devil for a tribulation period of ten days (in actuality, for 10 years following that AD 59/60 year when John was writing Revelation). This persecution period against Christians in Asia was the fallout which came about after the Ephesian riot in AD 57 (the same "tribulation" which John in Rev. 1:9 said he was then sharing). Paul wrote of this period of tribulation in Asia, saying that he had "despaired even of life" because of it (2 Corinthians 1:8). If the Smyrna believers remained faithful to Christ under that Asian persecution, even until death by martyrdom during those 10 days / (years), they might very well lose their physical lives, but in exchange they would "overcome" by receiving a resurrection's "crown of life".

The major temptation in those days was for the new believers in Smyrna to give in to those Jews who were persecuting the Christians, and revert back to Judaism. If they returned to Judaism with its feast-day celebrations in order to save their physical lives or that of their families, they would only end up getting caught in the Great Tribulation that descended upon the city of Jerusalem in AD 66, and would suffer the tormenting conditions of that city's "second death" when they travelled to Jerusalem to observe the feast days. They would be trapped by the Zealot army leaders along with the other Jews in the city in AD 66, and would not be able to avoid the torments that then ensued.

In Rev 14:9-11, Rev 19:19-21, and Rev 20:10, who are those who is the beast that is worshipped? The scarlet beast? Is this the same as the beast from the earth?

There are actually THREE different Beasts in Revelation - the (Roman) Sea Beast of Rev. 13, and the two other "beasts of the earth", which were the (Judean) Land Beast of Rev. 13, and the (Judean) Scarlet Beast of Rev. 17 found in that wilderness setting. The confusion arises when one Beast's activities and identity are mistaken for one of the other two Beasts.

The (Judean) Land Beast with its lying, two-horned Pharisee / Sadducee power structure had compelled their own people to give homage to the (Roman) Sea Beast by means of the Land Beast's own minted copy of the Tyrian shekel with its abominable pagan images and inscriptions. (This was contrary to God's OC laws in Deuteronomy 8:25-26). The priesthood required this Tyrian shekel as the only acceptable currency that the temple would accept for any buying or selling of sacrificial items (sound familiar?).

Any time that a Jerusalem temple worshipper exchanged any other currency for this Tyrian shekel, he was holding in his right hand a tacit admission of his own homage given to Rome which had given permission and authorization to the priesthood for the minting of that very coin. Every Tyrian shekel coin minted in Jerusalem from 19 BC until the AD 66 Zealot rebellion against Rome had the initials "KP" stamped on the reverse side, standing for "Kratos Romaion", or "power of the Romans" - a reminder that the (Roman) Sea Beast was actually holding the reigns of government over Judea and Jerusalem's priesthood.

There is a very interesting story about how this abominable Tyrian shekel coin came to be required by the priests from the year 19 BC until AD 66. It was the reason behind the very lucrative fees charged by the moneychangers in the temple that earned Christ's wrath. By forcing their own people (and any worshipper in the temple coming from other nations) to use only this abominable Tyrian shekel for temple use, the (Judean) Land Beast with its oppressive Pharisee / Sadducee regulations could threaten to cast anyone out of the synagogue and put them under a "ban" who did not comply. This was the equivalent of a death sentence for a person and their livelihood, and caused that "fear of the Jews" that kept the people in check. But it kept a steady stream of wealth pouring into the pockets of the corrupt high priesthood. You only have to "follow the money" when one speaks about the mark of the Beast.

The (Judean) Scarlet Beast led by the Zealots' uprising which re-established the independent kingdom nation of Israel once again in AD 66 did away with this Tyrian shekel requirement, and started minting their OWN currency independent of Rome - the sign of a sovereign nation in operation.

 

[sparow]

Well, if you want additional witnesses that testify of Paul's standing, we have Luke saying that Ananias baptized Paul after God revealed to him that Paul was a "chosen vessel unto me..."; we have the "beloved Barnabas" who personally vouched for Paul; we have Peter who called Paul "our beloved brother Paul", and defended Paul's writings.

But even these testimonials concerning Paul have nothing to do with the majority percentage of all humanity who will finally be present before the throne as children of God. If, as you propose, it is truly a 50/50 split between the saved and the unsaved, then half of the "harvest" is "wheat", and half is "tares". That seems very unrealistic, even in the natural agrarian sense of things.

What is unrealistic depends on your perception of what is real; is your perception of real dependant on the teaching of men or the teaching of the Word who became Christ?


I doubt you will find a percentage implied or stated in scripture; if I recall your curiosity is spurned by scriptural indication that the harvest will be small. You seem to be ignoring my claim that the harvest will only be taken from those who have engaged with God through His covenant which most Christians have abrogated. The saved as usual will be a remnant.


Even though God would prefer all be saved, Jesus cried at the gates of Jerusalem, not because most of Jerusalem was saved but because most of Jerusalem was lost; so comes the new covenant for the lost sheep of Israel and as happened many times before, a remnant came out; at His death Jesus had a following of a bit over one hundred; the covenant is renewed with these and their descendants as always happens with remnants coming out. Coming out of Egypt, Sodom or Babylon is always an option (overcoming, entitlement to be called Israel), but there are covenantal and other prerequisites, Babylon cannot come out of Babylon.


Paul was 2000 years, he never rose from the dead, he proceeded to change the law, when Jesus said such was not possible.


The Jerusalem church had two enemies, the Pharisees and Rome; Paul was both. This does not mean he could not have been converted, but as a Pharisee he would know that to abandon circumcision would illegitimatise the new church.


Jesus said, “If you lift Me up, I'll draw all men to me”; some think lifting Paul up will help. I observe most Christians giving Paul the front seat in the Synagogue, and seat Jesus at the back, keeping Him around so that they can use his name; in this Paul is not at fault.


Jesus said, “If I testify of Myself it is not true, unless My Father also testifies of Me as a second witness”. Meaning Jesus confirms the covenant established in the OT, as He fulfills all the OT prophesies and promises concerning him. Now if God was intending to change the Law, that would need the same two witnesses. Instead we have as a sign, Changing the Law (abrogation) is an identifier of the anti-Christ.

 

[3 Resurrections]

What is unrealistic depends on your perception of what is real; is your perception of real dependant on the teaching of men or the teaching of the Word who became Christ?

Sparow, it was Christ Himself that compared the bodily resurrection to a "harvest" out of the ground. This is not my invention. God through James the brother of Christ compared the Lord's coming and a resurrection to a "husbandman" waiting with "long patience" for "the precious fruit of the earth". This comparison in James 5:7-8 of an earthly grain harvest with the resurrection gives us the authorization to compare the resulting percentage of saints in the resurrection to what an earthly wheat harvest looks like. An earthly grain harvest has only a small portion of weeds that appear among that harvest. The vast majority of a harvest is going to be composed of good grain like that which was originally planted. The minority will be composed of some weeds that are scattered here and there among the harvested grain.

So it is with the resurrection. The vast majority will be "wheat", and the small minority will be "tares".

You seem to be ignoring my claim that the harvest will only be taken from those who have engaged with God through His covenant which most Christians have abrogated.

I have not responded to this because I have no idea what "abrogation of the covenant" you are talking about. We are currently in the New Covenant of Christ's blood, and have been ever since His crucifixion and His resurrection-day ascension. It was concerning that time when Hebrews said that "there is made of necessity a change in the law" when there is a change in the priesthood (Hebrews 7:12). God authorized and executed that change in the law when He consecrated the newly-ascended Christ as a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, and not the Levites.

 

[Der Alte]

This "Lake of Fire" was named "The Second Death" because It was the second time that Death and the Grave (Hades) had come to plague the city of Jerusalem. Back before the Babylonian invasion in 586 BC, the rulers in Jerusalem had boasted that they had made a covenant with Death and the Grave (Hades) that they would not be overtaken by these plagues (Isaiah 28:14-19). But God said their covenant with Death and the Grave (Hades) would be annulled. He said that these rulers in Jerusalem would be overcome by both of these plagues when the city was destroyed by the "flame of devouring fire" in a siege (Isaiah 28-29).
The second time that the plagues of Death and the Grave were thrown into the city of Jerusalem led to the city's "second death" by God's same flames of devouring fire by the close of the AD 66-70 period. These "Lake of Fire" conditions with Death and the Grave overcoming the inhabitants caused torment throughout the city until the city was finally taken and its buildings torn down to the last stone and laid level with the ground.
Scripture foretold a time when Satan and his host of angelic "high ones" would be punished by being gathered together and imprisoned within the city of Jerusalem along with the high priest / "kings of the earth" (Isaiah 24:21-23). After many days of this imprisonment, all of these were to be "found wanting", which means gone from existence. Certainly after the AD 70 destruction of the temple and the priesthood, no high priest "kings of the earth" were ever appointed again. Since both the Satanic hosts as well as the high priest "kings of the earth" were to share the same destruction in the same location at the same time, that means the Satanic hosts were also destroyed at the same time during this period of imprisonment.
We also have the Revelation 18:2 text which says that every unclean spirit would be imprisoned within the city of Jerusalem. God used that city of first-century Jerusalem as Matthew 13:42's "furnace of fire" (the "Lake of Fire") which would destroy all of the OC decaying elements of temple and priesthood, as well as the Satanic realm at the same time. Other scriptures such as Zechariah 13:2 agree with this. After Jerusalem's AD 70 siege, God would cause these unclean spirits to "pass out of the land". The unclean spirits knew of this prophesied impending doom, which is why they begged Christ "torment us not before the time..."
The Judean Scarlet Beast of Revelation 17 was destroyed in this conflagration also. This Scarlet Beast was the independent kingdom of Israel which the Zealot uprising had re-established in Israel in AD 66, which only lasted until the close of AD 70. The various competing Zealot leaders tormented those inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem which were unfortunately imprisoned within its walls for the duration of that "Great Tribulation".
The False Prophet of Revelation 13 was the lying, two-horned, religious leadership of the Pharisees and Sadducees which had once compelled their own people to give homage to the Roman Sea Beast of Revelation 13. This False Prophet entity was also present in Jerusalem from AD 66 onward, in competition with those Zealot leaders as they all fought for control of Jerusalem. They all preyed upon one another to gain the supremacy, and between them, the inhabitants of Jerusalem were torn to pieces by this civil war, even before Rome arrived to finish them off. "Torment" is a perfectly appropriate term to use for this tragic AD 66-70 period which will never be replicated again on earth, since there is no longer a Satanic host in existence to prey upon mankind. Ever since then, any oppression of mankind is what we have done to each other, without the presence of any demonic or Satanic enemy.

How would former pagan Christians in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea in what is modern day Turkey understand all these symbolic references happenings in Israel?

 

[3 Resurrections]

How would former pagan Christians in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea in what is modern day Turkey understand all these symbolic references happenings in Israel?

Those Christians who had once been pagan Gentiles in Asia were not necessarily ignorant of the religion of the Jews. Jews had been scattered around the empire and had synagogues in many far-flung locations. Even Nero's wife Poppaea was a Jewish sympathizer according to Josephus, who received many gifts from her during his trip to Rome to secure the release of a group of priests in AD 63.

Besides, in the first-century churches, there was a blend of converted Jews and Gentiles who could "compare notes", so to speak. Those Gentiles would not have necessarily been ignorant of Jewish themes and symbolism. Particularly since "all they which dwelt in Asia, both Jews and Greeks" had once been exposed to the preaching of Paul (Acts 19:10), who had once called himself "a Pharisee of the Pharisees". Any questions about Jewish themes, symbolism, and religious matters Paul would have been perfectly capable of informing and explaining to the churches he visited in his travels.

 

[Andrewn]

Summary poll results: ECT leads but no majority.

Is this indicating a lack of faith in God as Torturer? Surely not!

The book of Revelation provides most of the support for ECT and annihilationism. But when I read Ilaria Ramelli's excellent review of historical Christian Universalism, I was surprised that there was no mention or interpretation of the LOF in the book of Revelation. So is it possible that early Christian Universalists interpreted Revelation in a Preterist manner similar to @3 Resurrections? If this interpretation of the LOF is accurate, it removes the main biblical hurdle against Universalism and the primary support for ECT and annihilationism.

What do you think of his views?

 

[sparow]

Sparow, it was Christ Himself that compared the bodily resurrection to a "harvest" out of the ground. This is not my invention. God through James the brother of Christ compared the Lord's coming and a resurrection to a "husbandman" waiting with "long patience" for "the precious fruit of the earth". This comparison in James 5:7-8 of an earthly grain harvest with the resurrection gives us the authorization to compare the resulting percentage of saints in the resurrection to what an earthly wheat harvest looks like. An earthly grain harvest has only a small portion of weeds that appear among that harvest. The vast majority of a harvest is going to be composed of good grain like that which was originally planted. The minority will be composed of some weeds that are scattered here and there among the harvested grain.

So it is with the resurrection. The vast majority will be "wheat", and the small minority will be "tares".


I have not responded to this because I have no idea what "abrogation of the covenant" you are talking about. We are currently in the New Covenant of Christ's blood, and have been ever since His crucifixion and His resurrection-day ascension. It was concerning that time when Hebrews said that "there is made of necessity a change in the law" when there is a change in the priesthood (Hebrews 7:12). God authorized and executed that change in the law when He consecrated the newly-ascended Christ as a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, and not the Levites.

Now I am bewildered, you have lost track of our deviation from the topic. James is great but he cannot authorise anything, he can tell it how it is. The first resurrection will be 100% grain and the second resurrection will be 100% tares; I would not guess the ratio between them only that the tares will number the sand of the sea; the righteous may number the sands of the sea also.


Your agricultural example regarding tares probably refers modern agriculture and misses the point; even in those days tares were normally removed, while the crop grows; the parable suggests the tares be let grow. Read Matt 13.


I am at odds with Christendom regarding what is the new covenant. But without agreeing you should be able to understand my position which is:

All things are established in the OT, that is the Law and the covenant. Even the new covenant as an OT prophesy. How the new covenant would be different is also covered and established in the OT.


Jesus's presence and work confirms the OT, the new covenant is a subset of that which is confirmed, and the confirming continues as prophesy continues to be fulfilled. When it is all over there will be one King, one Kingdom, one Law and one covenant.


Most Christian religions have a covenant that has not come from God, but instead is man made.

Most Christian religions, better than 90% begin their list of teachings with, “The Law is abrogated”, some may qualify that with, “The Law of Moses is abrogated. But the Law they abrogate is the Law of God; there is Law of Moses; that only Levites (Moses' family) can be Priests might be a Law of Moses and a decision made by Moses as administrator of the covenant and the Law. There is also a reason why Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land. Jesus as new administrator of the covenant can decide who can do what without changing the law or the terms of the covenant.


Jesus said not any part of “The Law and the Prophets may be changed,” “Fornicators and adulterers (unless they repent, implied) will not enter the Kingdom of God”. The writer of Hebrews likens Christ to Melchizedek in a manner that makes Melchizedek greater than Christ or even equal to God; I could be wrong, isn't Melchizedek the fornicator who had an adulterous affair with Abraham's wife?

 

[Der Alte]

Those Christians who had once been pagan Gentiles in Asia were not necessarily ignorant of the religion of the Jews. Jews had been scattered around the empire and had synagogues in many far-flung locations. Even Nero's wife Poppaea was a Jewish sympathizer according to Josephus, who received many gifts from her during his trip to Rome to secure the release of a group of priests in AD 63.
Besides, in the first-century churches, there was a blend of converted Jews and Gentiles who could "compare notes", so to speak. Those Gentiles would not have necessarily been ignorant of Jewish themes and symbolism. Particularly since "all they which dwelt in Asia, both Jews and Greeks" had once been exposed to the preaching of Paul (Acts 19:10), who had once called himself "a Pharisee of the Pharisees". Any questions about Jewish themes, symbolism, and religious matters Paul would have been perfectly capable of informing and explaining to the churches he visited in his travels.

A lot of fine sounding words with zero credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence. Now some historical Jewish evidence. From the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

GENTILE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

jewishencyclopedia.com

Here are a few quotes from the article.

Simon ben Yoḥai is preeminently the anti-Gentile teacher. In a collection of three sayings of his, beginning with the keyword​

טוב Tob (Yer. Ḳid. 66c; Massek. Soferim xv. 10; Mek., Beshal-laḥ, 27a; Tan., Wayera, ed. Buber, 20), is found the expression, often quoted by anti-Semites, "Ṭob shebe-goyyim harog" (="The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed").
On the basis of Hab. iii. 6, Simon b. Yoḥai argued that, of all the nations, Israel alone was worthy to receive the Law (Lev. R. xiii.). The Gentiles, according to him, would not observe the seven laws given to the Noachidæ (Tosef., Soṭah, viii. 7; Soṭah 35b), though the Law was written on the altar (Deut. xxvi. 8) in the seventy languages. Hence, while Israel is like the patient ass, the Gentiles resemble the easy-going, selfish dog (Lev. R. xiii.; Sifre, Deut., Wezot ha-Berakah, 343).
Judah ben 'Illai recommends the daily recital of the benediction. "Blessed be Thou . . . who hast not made me a goi" [gentile](Tosef., Ber. vii. 18: Men. 43b, sometimes ascribed to Meïr; see Weiss, "Dor," ii. 137). Judah is confident that the heathen (Gentiles) will ultimately come to shame (Isa. lxvi. 5; B. M. 33b).The Gentiles took copies of the Torah, and yet did not accept it (Soṭah 35b).
Hezekiah b. Ḥiyya deduces from II Kings xx. 18 that he who shows hospitality to a heathen brings the penalty of exile upon his own children (Sanh. 104a).
one of Johanan's sayings, though he is also the author of another which holds that, as the Torah was given as a heritage to Israel, a non-Israelite deserves death if he studies it (Sanh. 59a).
Assi is the author of the injunction not to instruct the Gentile in the Torah (Ḥag. 13a).
"The Torah outlawed the issue [child] of a Gentile as that of a beast" (Miḳ. viii. 4, referring to Ezek. l.c.)
Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4). R. Johanan says of one so teaching: "Such a person deserves death"
Resh Laḳish (d. 278) said, "A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death" (Sanh. 58b).​

Then we have the words of Jesus, Himself.

Matthew 10:17-18
(17) But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
(18) And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Matthew 23:34
(34) Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mark 13:9
(9) But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
Luke 21:12
(12) But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
John 16:2-3
(2) They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
(3) And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.​

 

[3 Resurrections]

A lot of fine sounding words with zero credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence. Now some historical Jewish evidence. From the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

Hey there, Der Alte,

Ease up a bit...some of us are not yet into retirement when we might have more time to footnote everything properly. If you yourself have the time, go for it. I don't. I'm in the middle of a long-term house renovation project as well as work orders for my business. Comments here don't necessarily have to be backed up every time by a dissertation format to be credible. Anyway, your information only seems to support the point I'm making about first-century conditions, and the warnings given the believers not to return to Judaism, or there would be disastrous results for them.

Paul was careful to instruct the churches (including those in Asia) in eschatological matters in all of his epistles, even though Peter admitted that there were some of those things that were "hard to be understood" (2 Peter 3:15-16).

 

[3 Resurrections]

Jesus's presence and work confirms the OT, the new covenant is a subset of that which is confirmed, and the confirming continues as prophesy continues to be fulfilled. When it is all over there will be one King, one Kingdom, one Law and one covenant.

Jesus came to fulfill the types found in the OT. The New Covenant is not a subset portion of the Old Covenant; it is the antitype fulfillment of all of it. The "weaknesses" under the Old Covenant were taken away so that the New Covenant could be established with its "better promises". There is presently only one "King", with Jesus as our Great High Priest filling that role. He Himself is the rock of Daniel's vision which has already struck the image back in AD 70 and turned all of that statue into dust in the wind. Since that time, the "rock" kingdom has continued its steady growth into a mountain that will eventually fill the whole earth, as promised in Daniel 2:35.

The "One New Man" was established back in AD 33. The Ephesians believers (coming from both Jew and Gentile backgrounds) were taught that there was one body, and one Spirit, and one hope of their calling. Also one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who was above all, and through all, and in them all. We are not waiting for this to be initiated; it is a present reality.

The first resurrection will be 100% grain and the second resurrection will be 100% tares; I would not guess the ratio between them only that the tares will number the sand of the sea; the righteous may number the sands of the sea also.

The "First resurrection" already occurred in AD 33. As you have said, it was 100% "grain", since it was nothing but the graves of many of the saints that were opened up that day (the Matthew 27:52-53 saints).

But the second resurrection was NOT going to be 100% "tares". We know that because 1 Corinthians 15:23 gives us the description of both the first and second resurrections. Christ (and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints) were called the "First-fruits". Then "AFTERWARD" they that were Christ's at His coming. That means saints were to be present in that second resurrection.

 

[sparow]

Jesus came to fulfill the types found in the OT. The New Covenant is not a subset portion of the Old Covenant; it is the antitype fulfillment of all of it. The "weaknesses" under the Old Covenant were taken away so that the New Covenant could be established with its "better promises". There is presently only one "King", with Jesus as our Great High Priest filling that role. He Himself is the rock of Daniel's vision which has already struck the image back in AD 70 and turned all of that statue into dust in the wind. Since that time, the "rock" kingdom has continued its steady growth into a mountain that will eventually fill the whole earth, as promised in Daniel 2:35.

The "One New Man" was established back in AD 33. The Ephesians believers (coming from both Jew and Gentile backgrounds) were taught that there was one body, and one Spirit, and one hope of their calling. Also one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who was above all, and through all, and in them all. We are not waiting for this to be initiated; it is a present reality.

The "First resurrection" already occurred in AD 33. As you have said, it was 100% "grain", since it was nothing but the graves of many of the saints that were opened up that day (the Matthew 27:52-53 saints).

But the second resurrection was NOT going to be 100% "tares". We know that because 1 Corinthians 15:23 gives us the description of both the first and second resurrections. Christ (and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints) were called the "First-fruits". Then "AFTERWARD" they that were Christ's at His coming. That means saints were to be present in that second resurrection.

I cannot put your views in any particular camp, yet I have heard them all before; seems to be little bits from all over the place. The type you should consider is Nebuchadnezzar who went insane and then regained his sanity; this is the story of the Beast he has been absent, but is present on the last day, The Rock has not destroyed the beast yet.

If the Ephesians were taught as you suggest, then they were taught wrong. John wrote of the first Resurrection around 70AD give or take a bit:

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them: and I saw the souls of those beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as worshiped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. Reading on it seems some of the second will be saved if their names are in the book of life.

Paul disagrees with you regarding the first Resurrection 2 Ti 14-18:

.....of whom is Hymenaus and Philetus who have deviated from the truth, saying that a resurrection is past already, ad overthrow the faith of some.....

You are saying the Kingdom of God is now, all I see is evil; doesn't Paul say Satan is the God of this world?

 

[3 Resurrections]

I cannot put your views in any particular camp, yet I have heard them all before; seems to be little bits from all over the place. The type you should consider is Nebuchadnezzar who went insane and then regained his sanity; this is the story of the Beast he has been absent, but is present on the last day, The Rock has not destroyed the beast yet.

I don't sit in any one camp, Sparow. Those "little bits from all over the place" are the fragments of truth that each of the camps has recognized. All I am attempting to do is to combine all these bits of truth from the various camps into one homogenous whole that will agree with scripture 100%. Everyone posting on this forum has at least something that I can be in unity about.

The reason why I can claim that Daniel's entire image was already destroyed and turned to dust back in AD 70 is that the five components that made up that image have disappeared: everything from the head of gold which composed Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian kingdom, down to the "clay" of the people of Israel blended with the "iron" of the Roman empire. All the elements composing this image were crushed to dust TOGETHER in one blow by Christ the "rock" back in AD 70, because this final, blended mixture of Israel and Rome ended during the AD 66-70 era.

Isaiah once labeled the people of Israel as "CLAY" in Isaiah 64:8. "But now, O Lord, thou art our father; WE ARE THE CLAY, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." This "CLAY" of the people of Israel was never supposed to align with the pagan religions and start collaborating with the pagan kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, or the Roman empire. But by the time the Roman Republic had developed into the (iron) Roman empire, Israel had turned into an "iron / clay" mixture with Rome that never really bonded together very well. It was an unstable unity that broke apart during the Jewish rebellion against Rome starting in AD 66.

But the vision of this broken image reduced to powder represents more than the governmental structure of these five kingdoms that was turned into dust in the AD 66-70 era. Behind those ancient pagan kingdoms, the Satanic realm had operated behind the scenes, trying its best to frustrate God's plans for the redemption of the nations. (Daniel recognized a couple of these wicked angels and called them "the Prince of Persia, and the "Prince of Greece" who were fighting against the angelic messenger who was giving visions to Daniel.)

God had plans to destroy those wicked "Princes" over the nations, as well as Satan himself. This destruction of the entire Satanic realm took place by the close of AD 70. God had once promised the "anointed cherub", Satan, that he would be burned up to ashes upon the earth, so that he would exist no more (Ezekiel 28:18-19). And that was fulfilled in the first century, as promised to the Roman believers in Romans 16:20. "And the God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet SHORTLY..."

You are saying the Kingdom of God is now, all I see is evil; doesn't Paul say Satan is the God of this world?

Evil has had more than once source, ever since the Fall in Eden. The evil that resides in the hearts of mankind before conversion is presently capable of creating mayhem and disaster for their fellow man, even without the presence of any demonic or Satanic assistance . You are correct that Paul once said that Satan was "the God of this world" who once held power over the kingdoms of this world, as Satan once boasted to Christ during the wilderness temptation.

But what was true at the time Paul wrote that statement is no longer true. Christ confiscated all the "many crowns" of those "kingdoms of the world" when He destroyed Satan to ashes in AD 70, and He is presently wearing all those "many crowns". He is ruling, even "in the midst of His enemies", because "the kingdom of God is within" us believers. We carry the kingdom power of the Holy Spirit within us everywhere we go among the unbelievers of this world. The kingdom of God is a mobile thing - not related to a physical temple on earth any longer.

Paul disagrees with you regarding the first Resurrection 2 Ti 14-18:

.....of whom is Hymenaus and Philetus who have deviated from the truth, saying that a resurrection is past already, ad overthrow the faith of some...

You aren't connecting this statement about "THE resurrection" with Paul's other writing about two different resurrection events in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, one of which Paul said had already happened. The error of Hymenaus and Philetus was in teaching that there was supposed to be ONE and ONLY ONE resurrection, and that the "First resurrection" of "Christ the First-fruits" and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised that same day was the only bodily resurrection event that the saints could ever expect to take place. Others like Hymenaus and Philetus (and the Sadducees) were teaching that there was NO resurrection of the dead to be expected in the future for the first-century believers.

In one sense, Hymenaus and Philetus were right that a resurrection was past already. That AD 33 "First resurrection" of Christ and the resurrected 144,000 "First-fruits" Matthew 27:52-53 saints was indeed "PAST ALREADY". But there was another, 2nd resurrection to come, which Paul had to explain at some length in the "rapture" text of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. That particular 2nd resurrection event had not yet happened when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 2:14-18, and was the one Paul was anticipating in those verses.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think it would be interesting to get a sense of where CFers stand on this issue.

Eternal Damnation - some (many) will suffer eternal torment/separation from God and some will be given everlasting life

Conditional Immortality - some ( many) will be annihilated and some will be given everlasting life

Universal Reconciliation - all will eventually be reconciled to God in Christ

Agnostic - not committed to any of the three options above

I am assuming any who are "hopeful universalists" are basically in the agnostic camp.

I was checking in to see how the poll was shaping up.
Interesting to see Conditional Immortality (Annihilationism) only a few percentage points ahead of Universal Reconciliation.
A real contender from that perspective.
Especially for those who share my theory that Annihilationism is the gateway drug to full-blown UR.

 

[Hmm]

Especially for those who share my theory that Annihilationism is the gateway drug to full-blown UR.

I agree with your theory. Personal testimony shows that Annihilationism is often used as a halfway house on the road to recovery:

Here's an extract from the testimony of a young worship leader. The full testimony is here: The Holocaust Called Hell

"So I started questioning the idea of Eternal Torment. After realizing that Eternal Torment did not seem like the heart of God at all, and that Scripture did not seem to teach it, I arrived at Annihilationism. This is the idea that God will simply obliterate the wicked and they will be completely destroyed. At this point, I really started discovering the power and sovereignty of God and believed that God would have His way, and would accomplish His will and purpose for all things. So I basically thought that Calvinism was right, but that God simply annihilated the lost, because there is much supposed evidence in the Scriptures to prove it. There are many verses that simply speak of the destruction of the wicked.

BUT, to believe that view, I had to ignore all the Scriptures that talk about God’s desire to save all mankind and His perfect ability to do whatever He desires, as well as the verses that simply and blatantly teach He will accomplish just that. From searching the Scriptures, I’ve found that the ultimate conclusion you can reach in Scripture, is not to stop at torment, and not to stop at Annihilationism, but to stop no less than Universal Salvation. Yet many do not reach that conclusion because they have already dismissed it in their mind as “heresy.” So they don’t even entertain such thoughts for fear of becoming a so-called “heretic.” But there it is, right there in the Bible!"

 

[IoanC]

God's own will is that all are saved. Damnation is a concept originally invented by fallen angels (such as lucifer), so that evil exists.