• 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.

Hell is not permanent.

Status
Not open for further replies.

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,546
372
70
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Der Alter said:
And thus spaketh the Pharisees. Not because you want or expect an answer, but because you think, no matter what I answer I will be wrong.

Hey, dood, you tell me?

DOOD? Pharisees relied on doctrine, law and scripture instead of truth. Jesus taught truth trumps scripture...
I am definitely not a pharisee. Your reliance on outside man made sources betrays your true colors.

You are right that no matter what answer you give to those questions, you would be wrong. Not because you don't know scripture, but because you profess to know truth. There is no truthful answer to those questions except to say the god depicted in the scriptures is not God, but is man's idea of God.
In Jonah God changes his mind... literally.
God can do anything... but he can not learn... but he can watch us learn, just like a human parent. Maybe that's why he created us, to experience the things he can not eperience on his own...
God knows everything and is everywhere, but is surprised at the Tower of Babel and has to come down to see it... literally.

See there are answers... but they don't fit into your pharisetical theology.
 
Upvote 0

Havahope

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2005
507
16
✟23,247.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
KCDAD said:
An oxymoron... a phrase that contradicts itself... often in humorous context...Military Intelligence, or Civil War. Spiritual body seems to fit this definition... how can it be both? Flesh and Spirit?
Oh okay. Thanks., :D


But all bodies are not comprised of flesh. There are bodies of water, bodies of rock . . . . . Paul called the sun, stars, and the moon, bodies.

"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory."
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Der Alter said:
More "Neener, neener, neeer, you are one too-oo."

For a pastor you sure seem immature. The whole "neener neener boo boo" thing is just childish.

If all you know how to do is throw out the insult of "you're a Pharisee", then give it up already. It's old....and totally cliche'.

Only when someone asks a taunting question contrived to elicit a wrong or contradictory answer, and not because the questioner honestly wanted or expected a reasoned response.

And since you're God you can look into hearts and minds and know that is why they asked those questions huh? Judging someone's heart is a sin pastor.

The questions I have beeen addressing are all of the nature, "Here is one question that totally, absolutely, completely, utterly, destroys the doctrine of UT, and no traditional Christian can answer it."

No more than the questions you have been asking to them. Pot meet kettle.

As I said neither Jesus, nor any of the apostles, went to anyone taunting them with questions contrived to entrap them. They taught, they did not say "Here is one question that totally, absolutely, completely, utterly, destroys the doctrine of the Pharisees, and no Pharisee can answer it."

YOu have no idea what those guys were thinking when they asked those questions. And Jesus DID ask some hard, leading, confusing questions to His followers....and you don't know what was in His mind when He asked them either. You're just acting like a Pharisee yourself by judging what's in the heart of others.

Does the story of the mote and the log ring a bell with you?
 
Upvote 0

Merzbow

Active Member
Feb 28, 2006
106
6
✟15,266.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Republican
Der Alter said:
I was all set to compliment you on quoting some other source that tentmaker or helbusters, hereinafter called hellmakers. Until I took a close look at the link. Alas, it is just another blind cut/paste from hellmakers.

Let us all bow at the altar of hellmakers, yea verily. If it is posted at hellmakers then it must be the truth and anything that contradicts hellmakers is false.

Hellmakers is filled with lies and this is just another one. And yes I have proved it repeatedly altho no universlist will admit it.

Note, the Peshitta is a back translation from Greek NOT the earliest version of the NT! The oldest known ms. for the Peshitta is 442 AD, the oldest Greek mss. are 1st and 2d century.

See definitions for "olam." We do not need to discuss this Peshitta nonsense again.

I am obviously aware that the Peshitta was the first translation and not the original, which is why I said exactly that in my introduction to the quote. But once again you've posted a dictionary defintion and conveniently did not highlight the primary definition, which has nothing to do with 'everlasting'. Let's try again:

III [SIZE=+1]עלם[/SIZE][Olam] [SIZE=+1]עולם[/SIZE]. n.m. long duration, antiquity, futurity — 1. of past time: a. ancient time: ymy olam days of old; am olam, ancient people; hrbwt olam, old waste places; ptkhy olam, ancient gates; mn (m)olam, from of old, of the fathers, the prophets, the ancient bhm olam: nplym, long in them.
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Soul Searcher said:
fyi. This does not imply what the punishment for such may be however. If you owe me $10 and I forgive you then you need pay me nothing. If I do not forgive you then you must pay me $10. After the debt is paid there is nothing to be forgiven..

Of course it implies the punishment. It is NEVER forgiven. the word eternal has a time frame.

What do you interpret blasphemy against the HS to actually mean? Could you give an example or two?

It says what it says. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit.


As in the first part above never forgiveness does not equate to eternally ongoing punishment just that there is a debt to me paid that will not be forgiven and therefore must be paid.

Jesus said it is NEVER forgiven. A debt for which there is never payment.

Another thing to consider is did the offender know what he/she was doing. It would seem that only a believer could intentionally and knowingly commit blasphempy of the HS.

I would agree. However the Scribes saw the miracles and ascribed them to Jesus having a devil.

Jesus says the severant who knows the will of the master and does it not will be beaten with many stripes but the one who knoweth not and doeth not will be beaten with few stripes.

And they are both servants. But this has'nt much with the OP of the thread.
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
red77 said:
i'm sorry but its the truth as i've seen it.........its not a diatribe and never intended as such, i take no pleasure in saying it either, all posts i've seen by those who tout ET have had none of the empathy etc as those who dont.........:sigh:

Ixnay on the 8x10 glossies then. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Soul Searcher said:
Fair enough but let me ask you a question as I asked someone else.

If you one day find yourself in this eternal hell do you believe you will accept this fate willingly? Will you say praise God for his justice for I truly deserve to be here?


I've already stated I understand my sins before a Holy God and am deserving of hellfire. It is a righteous judgement.

I would have no defense, none, whatsoever. Neither did I have a defense when God came into my life.

But that's what the Light does, when in it shines in your darkness. There are no excuses.
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Havahope said:
And once again your old stand-by; the book of Revelation, which contains what the person saw in a VISION comes into play here. Nothing in a vision is real. If those things seen in a vision were real, then it would no longer be a VISION, but it would be a reality.


And also, where in the book of Revelation do we find about what happens with those who are "alive and remain" at His coming.
Rev. 20 is all about the dead being resurrected. i.e. ..... "Rev. 20: 11. "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

No, I don't think it is I who does the assuming here. And I am still looking for a scriptural explanation for the third kind of body; one that will withstand eternity under the duress of the eternal torment hell.

There is no Scripture for the third kind of body. There are earthly bodies as we have now, and there are spiritual bodies. The spiritual bodies are those in Christ. The dead are not described as to what kind of body they do have when they stand before God. (Rev. 20.12)

It was your assumption that they have the spiritual bodies, which is'nt found in Scripture. There is no description for the dead.

The "book of life" was NOT a literal book with names of those who are in Christ Jesus written in it. What do you suppose? that God's memory is so faulty that He has to write names down so that He will not forget who is saved, and who is not saved. LOL!

So now you're spiritualizing the book of life? Interesting, but I don't agree.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,144
EST
✟1,123,493.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Merzbow said:
[SIZE=-1]I am obviously aware that the Peshitta was the first translation and not the original, which is why I said exactly that in my introduction to the quote. But once again you've posted a dictionary defintion and conveniently did not highlight the primary definition, which has nothing to do with 'everlasting'. Let's try again:[/SIZE]
III [SIZE=+1]עלם[/SIZE][Olam] [SIZE=+1]עולם[/SIZE]. n.m. long duration, antiquity, futurity — 1. of past time: a. ancient time: ymy olam days of old; am olam, ancient people; hrbwt olam, old waste places; ptkhy olam, ancient gates; mn (m)olam, from of old, of the fathers, the prophets, the ancient bhm olam: nplym, long in them.

Unlike you I listed all the definitions. Your post falsely (deliberately?) gave the impression there was only one meaning for the word "olam." And not only did I list all the definitions of "olam," I also posted writings of the early church, from long before the Peshitta was written, supporting my view and refuting the view expressed in your cut/paste from hellmakers.

Some of those early church fathers were directly associated with John the apostle. Polycarp and Ignatius were disciples of John, and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Who did you say translated the Peshitta?

Still want to try again?
 
Upvote 0

Merzbow

Active Member
Feb 28, 2006
106
6
✟15,266.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Republican
daneel said:
While not an expert in greek, and not even a novice, I do understand that a word has a meaning in its context. In the passage I quoted I see a sin that is unforgiveable, and never forgiven. Neither in this age or the next.

Jesus seems clearly to say that it is the one unforgiveable sin, never to be forgiven.

I've read quite the opposite of what you state. Many do believe that the blasphemy of the HS means denying Gods forgiveness. Which has no forgiveness in this world or the next. There is much debate as to the meaning of the blasphemy.

I think of it just as it's written, a blasphemy against the HS.

Anyway, the penalty for this clearly shows there is never forgiveness, and it's shows the word aionion in it's context.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31,32; Mark 3:28,29; Luke 12:10) is regarded by some as a continued and obstinate rejection of the gospel, and hence is an unpardonable sin, simply because as long as a sinner remains in unbelief he voluntarily excludes himself from pardon.[/FONT]

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/EastonsBibleDictionary/ebd.cgi?number=T603

It makes no logical sense to take it any other way. It's parabolic speech, at most (you do remember Jesus spoke in parables?). The term 'eternal sin' clearly makes the most sense in the meaning that as long as one is sinning that sin, one can 'never' be forgiven. Even if one is not a universalist, the rest of the NT makes it crystal clear that all that is necessary to be saved is to:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ro 10:9 (ESV)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
..because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
[/FONT]


Again, you can't take it literally. If you do, then you deny that one must have faith in Jesus to be saved, for:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Lu 12:10 (ESV)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

[/FONT]
It says 'everyone'. So I can deny Jesus till the day I die and yet be saved according to this passage. Yet another example of how ECTers take only those passages literally which support their theology, yet reserve the right to interpret everything according to their fancy.

To go further, aionian is also used for everlasting torment. Just as aionian is used for everlasting life.

Didn't we go over this? Ainios != everlasting. Age-abiding, or eternal in the sense of being outside time or in regards to the nature of the divine. Here's how Plato used it:

"2. The Adjective.(30) Referring to certain souls in Hades, he describes them as in aiónion intoxication. But that he does not use the word in the sense of endless is evident from the Phædon, where he says, "It is a very ancient opinion that souls quitting this world, repair to the infernal regions, and return after that, to live in this world." After the aiónion intoxication is over, they return to earth, which demonstrates that the world was not used by him as meaning endless. Again,(31) he speaks of that which is indestructible, (anolethron) and not aiónion. He places the two words in contrast, whereas, had he intended to use aiónion as meaning endless, he would have said indestructible and aiónion."

http://bible-truths.com/aeonion.htm

There is no context in Scripture to show another age after the judgement and those not found in the Lambs book of life, and those not found in it, cast into the LOF.

Clearly wrong. Let's look at:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Mt 12:32 (ESV)
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

[/FONT]What is the Greek behind 'world'? Aion. Age. So 'neither in this age, neither in the age to come'. So there are multiple ages. So even if your view is correct and this is the unforgivable sin, it's only unforgivable in this age and the one right after it, not in the ages after that. More on this word:

Aristotle uses aión twelve times. He speaks of the existence or duration (aión) of the earth;(22) of an unlimited aiónos;(23) and elsewhere, he says: aión sunekes kai aidios, "an eternal aión" (or being) "pertaining to God." The fact that Aristotle found it necessary to add aidios to aión to ascribe eternity to God demonstrates that he found no sense of eternity in the word aión, and utterly discards the idea that he held the word to mean endless duration, even admitting that he derived it, or supposed the ancients did, from aei ón according to the opinion of some lexicographers.


http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html
 
Upvote 0

Merzbow

Active Member
Feb 28, 2006
106
6
✟15,266.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Republican
Der Alter said:
Alfred Edersheim was an Orthodox Jewish scholar, who became a Messianic in the 19th century. Making assertions and posting smilies is not evidence.
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim

Appendix Xix.
On Eternal Punishment, According To The Rabbis And The New Testament

(See vol. ii. Book V. ch. vi.)

Thus far the meaning of the Lord’s Words, which could only be impaired by any attempt at commentation. But they also raise questions of the deepest importance, in which not only the head, but perhaps much more the heart, is interested, as regards the precise meaning of the term ‘everlasting’ and ‘eternal’ in this and other connections, so far as those on the Left Hand of Christ are concerned. The subject has of late attracted renewed attention. The doctrine of the Eternity of Punishments, with the proper explanations and limitations given to it in the teaching of the Church, has been set forth by Dr. Pusey in his Treatise: ‘What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment?’ Before adverting, however briefly, to the New Testament teaching, it seems desirable with some fulness to set forth the Jewish views on this subject. For the views held at the time of Christ, whatever they were must have been those which the hearers of Christ entertained; and whatever views, Christ did not at least directly, contradict or, so far as we can infer, intend to correct them. 6491 And here we have happily sufficient materials for a history of Jewish opinions at different periods on the Eternity Punishment; and it seems the more desirable carefully to set it forth, as statements both inaccurate and incomplete have been put forward on the subject.

Leaving aside the teaching of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphic Writing (to which Dr. Pusey has sufficiently referred), the first Rabbinic utterances come to us from the time immediately before that of Christ, from the Schools of Shammai and Hillel (Rosh haSh. 16 b last four lines, and 17 a). 6492 The former arranged all mankind into three classes: the perfectly righteous, who are ‘immediately written and sealed to eternal life;’ the perfectly wicked, who are ‘immediately written and sealed to Gehenna;’ and an intermediate class. ‘who go down to Gehinnom, and moan, and come up again,’ according to Zech. xiii. 9, and which seemed also indicated in certain words in the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 6). The careful reader will notice that this statement implies belief in Eternal Punishment on the part of the School of Shammai. For (1) The perfectly wicked are spoken of as ‘written and sealed unto Gehenna;’ (2) The school of Shammai expressly quotes, in support of what it teaches about these wicked, Dan xii. 2, a passage which undoubtedly refers to the final judgment after the Resurrection; (3) The perfectly wicked, so punished, are expressly distinguished from the third, or intermediate class, who merely ‘go down to Gehinnom,’ but are not ‘written and sealed,’ and ‘come up again.’

Substantially the same, as regards Eternity of Punishment, is the view of the School of Hillel (u. s. 17 a). In regard to sinners of Israel and of the Gentiles it teaches, indeed, that they are tormented in Gehenna for twelve months, after which their bodies and souls are burnt up and scattered as dust under the feet of the righteous; but it significantly excepts from this number certain classes of transgressors ‘who go down to Gehinnom and are punished there to ages of ages.’ That the Niphal form of the verb used, {hebrew}; must mean ‘punished’ and not ‘judged,’ appears, not only from the context, but from the use of the same word and form in the same tractate (Rosh haSh. 12 a, lines 7 &c. from top), when it is said of the generation of the Flood that ‘they were punished’ surely not ‘judged’ - by ‘hot water.’ However, therefore the School of Hillel might accentuate the mercy of God, or limit the number of those who would suffer Eternal Punishment, it did teach Eternal Punishment in the case of some. And this is the point in question.

But, since the Schools of Shammai and Hillel represented the theological teaching in the time of Christ and His Apostles, it follows, that the doctrine of Eternal Punishment was that held in the days of our Lord, however it may afterwards have been modified. Here, so far as this book is concerned, we might rest the case. But for completeness’ sake it will be better to follow the historical development of Jewish theological teaching, at least a certain distance.

The doctrine of the Eternity of Punishments seems to have been held by the Synagogue throughout the whole first century of our era. This will appear from the sayings of the Teachers who flourished during its course. The Jewish Parable of the fate of those who had not kept their festive garments in readiness or appeared in such as were not clean (Shabb. 152 b, 153 a) has been already quoted in our exposition of the Parables of the Man without the Wedding-garment and of the TenVirgins. But we have more than this. We are told (Ber. 28 b) that, when that great Rabbinic authority of the first century, Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai - ‘the light of Israel, the right hand pillar, the mighty hammer’ - lay a dying and wept, he accounted for his tears by fear as to his fate in judgment, illustrating the danger by the contrast of punishment by an earthly king ‘whose bonds

fn. 6492 In view of the strange renderings and interpretations given of Rosh haSh. 16 b, 17 a, I must call special attention to this locus classicus.

are not eternal bonds nor his death eternal death,’ while as regarded God and His judgment: ‘if He is angry with me, His Wrath is an Eternal Wrath, if He binds me in fetters, His fetters are Eternal fetters, and if He kills me, His death is an Eternal Death.’ In the same direction is this saying of another great Rabbi of the first century, Elieser (Shabb, 152 b, about the middle), to the effect that ‘the souls of the righteous are hidden under the throne of glory,’ while those of the wicked were to be bound and in unrest ({hebrew}), one Angel hurling them to another from one end of the world to the other - of which latter strange idea he saw confirmation in 1 Sam. xxv. 29. To the fate of the righteous applied, among other beautiful passages, Is. lvii. 2, to that of the wicked Is. lvii. 21. Evidently, the views of the Rabbis of the first century were in strict accordance with those Shammai and Hillel.

Is lvii:21 There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

Tempting as the subject is, we must here break off this historial review, for want to space, not of material. Dr. Pusey has shown that the Targumim also teach the doctrine of Eternal Punishment - though their date is matter of discussion - and to the passage quoted by him in evidence others might be added. And if on the other side the saying of Rabbi Akiba should be quoted (Eduy. ii. 10) to the effect that the judgment of the wicked in Gehenna was one of the five things that lasted for twelve months, it must be remembered that, even if this be taken seriously (for it is really only a jeu d’ esprit), it does not necessarily imply more than the teaching of Hillel concerning that intermediate class of sinners who were in Gehenna for a year - while there was another class the duration of whose punishment would be for ages of ages. Even more palpably inapt is the quotation from Baba Mez. 58 b (lines 5, &c., from the bottom). For, if that passage declares that all are destined to come up again from Gehenna, it expressly excepts from this these three classes of persons: adulterers, those who put their fellow-men publicly to shame, and those who apply an evil name to their neighbors.

But there can at least be no question, that the passage which has been quoted at the outset of these remarks (Rosh haSh. 16 b, 17 a), proves beyond the possibility of gainsaying that both the Great Schools, in which Rabbinic teaching at the time of Christ was divided, held the doctrine of Eternal Punishments. This, of course, entirely apart from the question who - how many, or rather, how few - were to suffer this terrible fate. And here the cautions and limitations, with which Dr. Pusey has shown that the Church has surrounded her teaching, cannot be too often or earnestly repeated. It does, indeed, seem painfully strange that, if the meaning of it be all realized, some should seem so anxious to contend for the extension to so many of a misery from which our thoughts shrink in awe. Yet of this we are well assured, that the Judge of all the Earth will judge, not only righteously, but mercifully. He alone knows all the secrets of heart and life, and He alone can apportion to each the due need. And in this assured conviction may the mind trustfully rest as regards those who have been dear to us.​

All you've shown is that some Jews might have thought there there were a small subset of sinners destined to stay in Gehenna, but the vast majority were going to come up again. Think about that for a second, Der Alter. The ancient Jews thought that the vast majority of sinners would return from Gehenna. What does that do to your argument that Jesus and his disciples implicitly knew that their Jewish audience would interpret Gehenna to mean a place from which nobody can return? It destroys it.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,144
EST
✟1,123,493.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Only when someone asks a taunting question contrived to elicit a wrong or contradictory answer, and not because the questioner honestly wanted or expected a reasoned response.​
[SIZE=-1]And since you're God you can look into hearts and minds and know that is why they asked those questions huh? Judging someone's heart is a sin pastor.[/SIZE]

Then all you have to do is pick 1-2 of the taunting questions I addressed and show how it was a legitimate question and the legitmate answer expected.
The questions I have been addressing are all of the nature, "Here is one question that totally, absolutely, completely, utterly, destroys the doctrine of UT, and no traditional Christian can answer it."​
[SIZE=-1]No more than the questions you have been asking to them. Pot meet kettle.[/SIZE]

Such as? I won't hold my breath while you try to find one.
As I said neither Jesus, nor any of the apostles, went to anyone taunting them with questions contrived to entrap them. They taught, they did not say "Here is one question that totally, absolutely, completely, utterly, destroys the doctrine of the Pharisees, and no Pharisee can answer it."​
[SIZE=-1]YOu have no idea what those guys were thinking when they asked those questions. And Jesus DID ask some hard, leading, confusing questions to His followers....and you don't know what was in His mind when He asked them either. You're just acting like a Pharisee yourself by judging what's in the heart of others.

Does the story of the mote and the log ring a bell with you?[/SIZE]

Which guys? The taunting questions I have been referring to or Jesus and the disciples?

"Hard, leading, confusing" is a long, long, way from taunting questions contrived only to elicit a wrong or contradictory response. If the questions I have been referring to are legitimate, seeking a reasoned response, then explain one or two. Did Jesus ask the Pharisees the same kind of questions they asked him, only for the purpose of tempting them?

You might want to lease some construction equipment for that log.
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Der Alter said:
Only when someone asks a taunting question contrived to elicit a wrong or contradictory answer, and not because the questioner honestly wanted or expected a reasoned response.​


Then all you have to do is pick 1-2 of the taunting questions I addressed and show how it was a legitimate question and the legitmate answer expected.
The questions I have been addressing are all of the nature, "Here is one question that totally, absolutely, completely, utterly, destroys the doctrine of UT, and no traditional Christian can answer it."​


Such as? I won't hold my breath while you try to find one.
As I said neither Jesus, nor any of the apostles, went to anyone taunting them with questions contrived to entrap them. They taught, they did not say "Here is one question that totally, absolutely, completely, utterly, destroys the doctrine of the Pharisees, and no Pharisee can answer it."​

Which guys? The taunting questions I have been referring to or Jesus and the disciples?

"Hard, leading, confusing" is a long, long, way from taunting questions contrived only to elicit a wrong or contradictory response. If the questions I have been referring to are legitimate, seeking a reasoned response, then explain one or two. Did Jesus ask the Pharisees the same kind of questions they asked him, only for the purpose of tempting them?

You might want to lease some construction equipment for that log.

They asked you legitimate hard questions to try to TEACH YOU something....just like Jesus asked people hard questions for the same reason.

That you would take it like it's some kind of entrapment says more about you than them pastor. If these are truly "lost souls" like you think they are...then you calling them "blind", "pharisees", "satanic"....telling them you don't give a "tinkers dam" what they think, calling their website sources "hellmakers" in mockery is hardly the way to lead them to the love of Christ for salvation is it holy man?

Didn't Jesus say to LOVE your enemies? Exactly how are you showing these lost souls, who you perceive are your enemies, any love? Without love you are NOTHING you know....1 Cor 13.

Time to call the equipment company for that crane.....
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,144
EST
✟1,123,493.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Merzbow said:
[SIZE=-1]All you've shown is that some Jews might have thought there there were a small subset of sinners destined to stay in Gehenna, but the vast majority were going to come up again. Think about that for a second, Der Alter. The ancient Jews thought that the vast majority of sinners would return from Gehenna. What does that do to your argument that Jesus and his disciples implicitly knew that their Jewish audience would interpret Gehenna to mean a place from which nobody can return? It destroys it.[/SIZE]

ROTFLMHO! Hardly a day goes by that some universalist does not claim or imply that something they scribbled completely, totally, utterly, absolutely destroys the Biblical doctrine of UT.

"The ancient Jews thought that the vast majority of sinners would return from Gehenna." Back this up?

The vast majority of ancient Jews believed that the offspring of all gentiles was like that of a beast and that the best of Gentiles deserved hell.

Now show me from Luke 16:19 where Jesus indicated that anyone would ever be released from the fate of the rich man, whatever that was? Jesus said it was hell with tormenting fire. He did not say it was "like" anything.
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Merzbow quotes:

It makes no logical sense to take it any other way. It's parabolic speech, at most (you do remember Jesus spoke in parables?). The term 'eternal sin' clearly makes the most sense in the meaning that as long as one is sinning that sin, one can 'never' be forgiven. Even if one is not a universalist, the rest of the NT makes it crystal clear that all that is necessary to be saved is to:

Of course Jesus spoke in parables. But this one about the eternal sin for which there is never forgiveness id'nt one them.

And I'm aware that some do interpret it as an obstinate denial of Jesus. The key word is "some" interpret it this way. Yet Jesus is specific, saying this sin is NEVER forgiven. He did'nt say, " Obstinate denial of me is never forgiven". More could be said...

Didn't we go over this? Ainios != everlasting. Age-abiding, or eternal in the sense of being outside time or in regards to the nature of the divine. Here's how Plato used it:

Was Plato a christian or is he just espousing Greek knowledge that we need to impinge upon Christianity? Some universalists will impinge the greek understanding of sulphur as a cleansing agent to the Lake of Fire.

Clearly wrong. Let's look at:

Mt 12:32 (ESV)
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.What is the Greek behind 'world'? Aion. Age. So 'neither in this age, neither in the age to come'. So there are multiple ages. So even if your view is correct and this is the unforgivable sin, it's only unforgivable in this age and the one right after it, not in the ages after that. More on this word:

Yes, there are multiple ages, dependent on how one wants to divvy them up. Yet after the judgement, there is no other 'ages' shown to us. ( after Rev. 20.15)


Does Aristotle have validity as a Christian to put meaning to words and terms of a biblical nature or is he speaking of greek philosohy? prolly the latter.


Ro 10:9 (ESV)..because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.Again, you can't take it literally. If you do, then you deny that one must have faith in Jesus to be saved, for:

Lu 12:10 (ESV)And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.It says 'everyone'. So I can deny Jesus till the day I die and yet be saved according to this passage. Yet another example of how ECTers take only those passages literally which support their theology, yet reserve the right to interpret everything according to their fancy.

Now you're prooftexting to make an invalid point. I take the entirety of Scripture into context to arrive at a destination. And in the entirety of that Scripture, there is nothing that says the Lake of Fire either has an ending to it, is of a redemptive nature, or a place of chastisement to come to repentence.
 
Upvote 0

Merzbow

Active Member
Feb 28, 2006
106
6
✟15,266.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Republican
Der Alter said:
Unlike you I listed all the definitions. Your post falsely (deliberately?) gave the impression there was only one meaning for the word "olam." And not only did I list all the definitions of "olam," I also posted writings of the early church, from long before the Peshitta was written, supporting my view and refuting the view expressed in your cut/paste from hellmakers.

Some of those early church fathers were directly associated with John the apostle. Polycarp and Ignatius were disciples of John, and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Who did you say translated the Peshitta?

Still want to try again?

Unlike you, I highlighted the first definition. I can take any arbitrary text in any language on any topic, consult a dictionary for every word in the text, and pick one of the half-dozen or so possible definitions listed, and come out with a text that means something completely different. At least I'm picking the primary definitions. You, on the other hand, pick whichever definition supports your theology, even if it its 5th or 6th on the list.

You raise me a church father who believed in ECT, and I'll raise you one that didn't. We need to think for ourselves, Der Alter. Why else did Jesus speak in parables? If he wanted to make the theology absolutely clear, he would have given us a treatise, like God gave Moses all those neat little laws. You posting the 56th time Joe Blow said 'eternal punishment' (I'm guessing this was 'aionios' also) has no more effect than it did the 55th time you did. And if you so worship the 'orthodox' church fathers, then why aren't you a Catholic? Hmm? What do you think they would have thought about the Reformation? I'm taking the time to learn the Greek so I can speak intelligently about the original language of the NT and the etymology of words. It's clear you aren't willing to do this, and instead just want to spam quotations again and again.
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
daneel said:
Of course it implies the punishment. It is NEVER forgiven. the word eternal has a time frame.

Jesus said it is NEVER forgiven. A debt for which there is never payment.
.

Want to see what greek word is translated "never" in your passage? Here it is:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1143688749-8164.html

Strong's #3756 - "OU"

It's used a total of 1537 times in the NT
Translated "not" 1210 times
Translated ""no" 147 times
Translated "cannot" 57 times, but only when used with the word "dunamis"...which it isn't in that verse. So nix that.
Translated with misc other words 157 times.

Know how many times it's translated "never"?

Exactly FOUR. FOUR times out of 1537 times it is translated "never"....or rather MISTRANSLATED "never".

It's mistranslated because when the word "never" is really called for. Like in this verse:


John 6:35
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

IT is the word that is Strongs # 3364 which is "OU ME". Same word that is used when Jesus says:

"He who comes to me I will NEVER cast out". It's OU ME and not just "ou".

So in your verse the word "ou" should be translated "NOT".....the word "never" is totally incorrect. So it DOESN'T have an eternal connotation at all in the original greek.

Then if you look here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1143688731-4013.html#29

YOu will see that following "ou" (not) there are the words "eis aion". EIS means "into" and AION means "an age". AION is only translated "eternal" 2 times out of 128 in the NT.

So it literally says the person will not be forgiven into the age.

I think your understanding of what that scripture says falls apart under close scrutiny.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.