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.
This is so typical. You guys go crazy if anyone challenges your status quo thinking.Why even quote scriptures if you can’t trust them to be true? What basis for belief do we even have without the scriptures? Might as well just throw out the Bible all together and believe what we think is best.
No argument there? Not true.Amen the apostles were definitely damnationists. No argument there, I’m so glad we can agree on something. So you know something they didn’t?
Matthew 25:46Daniel 12:1-2 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
12 “Daniel, at that time the great prince Michael will stand up. Michael is in charge of your people. There will be a time of much trouble, the worst time since nations have been on earth. But Daniel, at that time every one of your people whose name is found written in the book of life will be saved. 2 There are many who are dead and buried.[a] Some of them will wake up and live forever, but others will wake up to shame and disgrace forever.
Matthew 25:46 Good News Translation (GNT)
46 These, then, will be sent off to eternal punishment, but the righteous will go to eternal life.”
1 Corinthians 15:42 Good News Translation (GNT)
42 This is how it will be when the dead are raised to life. When the body is buried, it is mortal; when raised, it will be immortal.
I agree! When someone says something like this: "And no I have not eliminated "hell". I have redefined it; given it purpose." That sounds like they trying to play God, that even sounds a little spooky.Yup same here two days ago when he said the same to me. Why even quote scriptures if you can’t trust them to be true? What basis for belief do we even have without the scriptures? Might as well just throw out the Bible all together and believe what we think is best.
I agree! When someone says something like this: "And no I have not eliminated "hell".
Spooky?I agree! When someone says something like this: "And no I have not eliminated "hell". I have redefined it; given it purpose." That sounds like they trying to play God, that even sounds a little spooky.
"There are many persons of combative tendencies, who read for ammunition, and dig out of the Bible iron for balls. They read, and they find nitre and charcoal and sulphur for powder. They read, and they find cannon. They read, and they make portholes and embrasures. And if a man does not believe as they do, they look upon him as an enemy, and let fly the Bible at him to demolish him. So men turn the word of God into a vast arsenal, filled with all manner of weapons, offensive and defensive." -Henry Ward BeecherLook at all the fighting going on here at a Christian forum.
So many different views and everyone tearing each other apart over a book.
Yes, this is a very spooky statement: "And no I have not eliminated "hell". I have redefined it; given it purpose."Spooky?
This coming from the guys who claim our loving heavenly Father is planning to burn his own children. Spooky?
Malachi 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Skidder said: ↑
I agree! When someone says something like this: "And no I have not eliminated "hell". I have redefined it; given it purpose." That sounds like they trying to play God, that even sounds a little spooky.
I'm happy to share the spookiness with you, since you claimed I had eliminated hell.Yes, this is a very spooky statement "And no I have not eliminated "hell". I have redefined it; given it purpose."
It sounds like the statement of dictator or cult leader, read it again: "And no I have not eliminated "hell". I have redefined it; given it purpose."I'm happy to share the spookiness with you, since you claimed I had eliminated hell.
How else should I respond?
I suppose anyone who tries to take away your prized possession must be perceived as some sort of monster. Because Christianity wouldn't REALLY be Christianity without eternal conscious torment with no hope of escape. Feel the love. - lolIt sounds like the statement of dictator or cult leader, read it again: "And no I have not eliminated "hell". I have redefined it; given it purpose."
No matter how much you try to sugar it up, this statement is flat out creepy:I suppose anyone who tries to take away your prized possession must be perceived as some sort of monster. Because Christianity wouldn't REALLY be Christianity without eternal conscious torment with no hope of escape. Feel the love. - lol
So do you "redefine and give purpose" to other the scriptures you don't agree with? Not just hell?God loves his enemies. So should we.
Matthew 5:43-48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Gregory of Nyssa is not a majority. A woeful lack of credible, verifiable, historical evidence in this quote. Something written at or near the times in question by a participant or direct eyewitness. How does Thomas Allin know any of this stuff. Does he have a crystal ball?No argument there? Not true.
No, but I know quite a bit that you don't.
The Apostles and the Early Church Fathers of the Eastern/Greek church were what we now call Universalists.
The Western/Latin church gave us our Damnationist biased Bible which painted the Apostles as Damnationists.
Check this out.
"Taking a rapid survey of facts, I think we may thus arrange early eschatological teaching. There were at first, probably, three distinct currents. Some held the final annihilation of the wicked; some, especially in North Africa, held their endless punishment; some, perhaps even a majority, taught Universalism. By the days of GREGORY of Nyssa the latter view, aided doubtless by the unrivaled learning, genius and piety of ORIGEN had prevailed, and had succeeded in leavening, not the East alone, but much of the West (pp. 148-50). While the doctrine of annihilation has practically disappeared, Universalism has established itself, has become the prevailing opinion, even in quarters antagonistic to the school of Alexandria.
The waning fortunes of the dogma of endless penalty soon revived, however, and in their turn gained the ascendency. The Church of North Africa, in the person of AUGUSTINE, enters the field. The Greek tongue soon becomes unknown in the West and the Greek Fathers forgotten. A Latin Christianity, redolent of the soil, develops itself, assuming, in accordance with the Roman bent, a rigid forensic type. On the throne of Him whose name is Love, is now seated a stern Judge (a sort of magnified Roman Governor). The sense of sin practically dwarfs all else. The Father is lost in the Magistrate.
In the East the decay of the earlier belief was, if less rapid, nearly as complete. Strife within and without the Church, increasing ignorance and corruptions, bitter controversy (and other factors, p. 159) combined to form a soil in which the larger hope of earlier days at length dwindled and almost expired. Indeed, who can wonder that this was so, if he will but reflect how cruel was the age, how narrow is the natural heart of man, how slowly, even now, it responds to that which is most divine. The true wonder (to me, at least) is this, viz., the appearance in such an age as that of the later Roman empire of the very idea of Universalism - a phenomenon which can, I think, be alone accounted for by the fact that the early Fathers found it, as they tell us, in the New Testament, p. 84."
Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin chapter five
If Schaff-Herzog had actually researched this why did they not know whether it was 5 or 6 centuries. In the article this was quoted from is there anything like credible, verifiable, historical evidence, in addition to the unsupported opinions of the authors?? I just read the complete article @ CCEL there is none, There is a bibliography on p. 97 but it only includes other modern published works. You keep mentioning that "evil" Western/Latin church which gave us "our Damnationist biased Bible" do you happen to know how the Eastern Orthodox Bible translates the Greek word "Gehenna?""The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :
"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."
You won’t find the Trinity in the OT either. Just because something isn’t mentioned in the OT doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In the New Testament hell aka the lake of fire is mentioned several times.
You have crossed the line into personal attacks.No matter how much you try to sugar it up, this statement is flat out creepy:
"And no I have not eliminated "hell". I have redefined it; given it purpose."
Who do you think you are? God? Why does God need YOU to redefine hell and give it purpose? I think God can take care of Himself. Like I said... creepy and spooky, and sounds like something a dictator or cult leader would say. No surprise that FineLinen agreed with it.
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?