I give up.

[dnich163]

Today at 02:02 PM Pericles said this in Post #20

How does the Bible deem it?

Hi Pericles,

I know that there are various opposing views in the Bible.

The Bible is such a long book, with at times contradictory statements that aetheists and anit-christian people have latched onto for years when in debate with christians.

Even Bible scholars don't agree after centuries of study and work.

I was approaching the issue from a Theological perspective, not a Biblical one. The idea of whether God exists, what kind of God is he/she, is this God all powerful, all knowing etc.

David

 

[Rize]

What is dishonest is your approach to the original language, not the Bible translation. Any normal person that would hear a phrase like "tormented day and night" would understand a continuous action, and by adding "into ages and ages" to this, it's very plain and clear that the tormenting will not have an end.

I strongly disagree.  What I see is something with no forseeable end.  That is quite different from something with no end.  The idea is obscurity not eternity (though obscurity does not exclude eternity which is why aionios can be used of eternal things (God) and non-eternal things (punishment) and not mean eternal both times).

I just finished reading a (free) book on the concept of eternity and time in the Bible.  Why not check it out?

The idea that aionios is not translated correctly as eternity is not at all ludicrous.  The original word is aionios every time.  Not eternity sometimes, before times of the age enother etc.  The Greeks would see the word and inherently be able to ascribe the appropriate meaning from the context.  What our translators have done is chosen the meaning for us, and in some cases incorrectly.  Aionios and aion get their force from the context.  So while we know that God is eternal and it is correct to derive eternal from aionios when it is applied to Him, it is technically wrong to translate it into eternity.  To say that Yahweh is the God of the ages.  Or the God of this age, or God into the ages, is not to say that He is less of a God.  Those phrases are not exclusive in other words.

By the way, your link isn't working.

Finally, a note on the Lake of Fire.  It is not necessary to assume that everything thrown into the Lake of Fire will get the same treatment as "the Devil the Beast and the False Prophet".  In support of this, I point to Death and Hades, two inanimate things being thrown in (to be annihilated I suppose) and the statements referring to it as "the second death" in regard to people.  Also, concerning the Great Prostitute and the followers of the Beast for whom the smoke of their torment rises "into the ages and ages", I would point out that the author seems to have gone out of his way to talk about the smoke rather than the torment itself.

 

[Rize]

EveOfGrace:

Regarding the misinterpretation of the Bible, I suspect that it was God's intention to let that happen.  If it were the opposite way (that is, if US was the orthodox view and I was uncovering eternal torment) you would be right to be suspicious though.

As for mans decsion towards God, have you ever heard of Calvinism?  Not even all non-universalists believe in free-will.  Apparently, many southern Baptists are still Calvinists today.  Personally, I am leaning toward free-will myself.  Even so, US isn't about taking man's choice away, it's about God not taking their choice away.  How exactly does "join me before you die or suffer forever" play into free-will?  

Yes the author of the Tentmaker site does not believe in free-will (that is, he believes we only have the freedom to choose in the direction of the strongest influence--and the influences are ultimately under God's control).  Even so, that does not change the universalist position at all.  The author of the first article in my signature, for example, still believes in free-will.  To be a universalist, it is only necessary to believe that all will eventually be saved.  It doesn't matter if we believe that we or God are ultimately responsible for choosing when.

Also, in regard to the Tentmaker site, if you haven't noticed, it is a compilation of the works of many different authors.  Don't worry, I do not believe everything that I read.

As for God's Holiness, do you think that it works with or against His love?  To the universalist, God's Holiness is a part of His love for God is love.  The holiness trip is something that eternal tormentors dreamt up to explain away the inherint sadism in the idea (imo).

Jesus is the savior of all men, especially of those who believe!

 

[Pericles]

Today at 09:20 AM dnich163 said this in Post #21
I know that there are various opposing views in the Bible.

No there aren't...

 

[Pericles]

Rize,

I am sorry, but I know enough greek to know that "forever and ever" is a proper translation of eis tous aionas ton aionon. Could it be translated differently? Sure, the same thing can be said in many other ways, but the idea of eternity is what is important here, and the idea is communicated to the reader just fine. On top of that, I will not, and cannot disagree with the other hundreds if not thousands of scholars involved in the modern Bible translaltions today.

You are using eisogesis to twist botched passages of greek into the text. Instead of exegetically reasoning the language, you are eisogetically making it mean what you want it to mean to support your already pre-established paradigm.

To address one point that is relevant to this discussion, I would like to point out that the Jews and the New Testament writers did teach the existance of TWO AGES. They believed that their times, the time of the Law were "this age", and then there was "an age to come", which I believe we are in now. The age to come was to be an age without end.

Isaiah says the following about this "There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore."

Luke 1:33 says "and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."

Your position is just another example of how dispensationalism or futurism can distort one's understanding of the scripture, to the point that it leads to universalism, annihilationism, and other unbiblical doctrines.

Do you have any other arguments besides the "translation is wrong" one?

 

[Rize]

And so do all the people who are responsible for those Bible translations unless they are liars.  That doesn't mean I agree with them.  Just as the translators of the less popular Bible's without those words translated in that way do not agree with them.  And who said every Bible scholar on a translation committee agrees among themselves, much less with you.

So, what are your credentials concerning your knowledge of Greek?  Or have you just done some home-study and read a few books like me?  Or have you not even done that?

Concerning Luke 1:33, in my Greek/English NT, it says literally: "and he will be king on the house Jacob into the ages and the kingdom of him not will be completion. (each Greek word is represented by a group of underlined english words).

There's those ages again.  Sorry if you're not convincing me yet.  In the context, a kingdom that will not end suggests that the "ages" will encompass "forever".  That does not mean that "aionas" should always mean forever in every context.  I've already encountered the argument you are expressing and found it lacking.  If you can strengthen it somehow, that would be good.  Maybe you can present evidence?

And how do you account for the majority of the early church believing in universal salvation (assuming that is true)?  Were they misreading their own culture and first language?

Concerning 1 Corinthians 15:22

This passage says:  For as in Adam, all die (or died), so in Christ, all will be made alive.

The phrases, "in Adam" and "in Christ" are adverbial phrases.  They do not modify the all's, they modify the "die/died" and the "will be made alive".  They only say how the all's die/died/will be made alive.  To see exactly what the all's mean, we must look at the context.  In the context, the all in Adam clearly refers to all people who were ever or will ever be born (with the obvious exceptions of Jesus/Adam).  Is there any reason why we shouldn't take the second all to be the exact same thing?  Not in the context.  And as far as I know, not out of the context either.

If Paul had meant "for in Adam all die, so all who are in Christ will be made alive" then he should have said so.

Your only recourse, imo, is to challenge the meaning of "made alive", but I don't think that is a good idea.

In John 5:21 "made alive" is used in conjunction with "raises the dead" which demonstrates that it has a different meaning than "raise the dead".  It seems to be used in other passages with regard to bringing people to life spiritually.  Just as all die(d) spiritually because of Adam.

And as I wrote above (if that wasn't a different post I'm thinking of), the next verses bear out what I am saying by listing the order that the all will be made alive in.  Christ the firstfruits, then those who are his at his coming (presence), then the "completion" which, from on universalist source and from one eternal tormenter I've heard means "the rest" in this case.  I find that very believable considering I am already convinced of who the all is.

So, you can see why I don't exactly agree with you.  If you are right about aionios and aion, then as far as I'm concerned, the Bible is in contradiction.

You are using eisogesis to twist botched passages of greek into the text. Instead of exegetically reasoning the language, you are eisogetically making it mean what you want it to mean to support your already pre-established paradigm.

You mean, that is what you think I'm doing.  Or is that what has been going on for centuries in the majority circles.  All I've got is a few weeks worth of study into the topic to defend.  Others have years and years of ingrained dogma/doctrine to defend.  If you want to talk about a pre-established paradigm being defended, you'd better look in the mirror as well.

Now, would you like to provide some evidence rather than assertions?

 

[Pericles]

Rize, you are not addressing my points. Are all and every one of these passages that I quoted translated wrong? If so, how should they be rendered in readable enligsh?

 

[dnich163]

Yesterday at 07:51 PM Pericles said this in Post #24

No there aren't...

Ok then, I take the bait, what are they?

David

 

[EveOfGrace]

Regarding the misinterpretation of the Bible, I suspect that it was God's intention to let that happen. If it were the opposite way (that is, if US was the orthodox view and I was uncovering eternal torment) you would be right to be suspicious though.

We are talking about the inspired Word of God here, arent we?  I do not, nor will not suspect that God would intend to allow His pure, tried, purified Word, that endures through all generations to become faulty.  It is always the READER who finds fault in his 'own eyes'.  I guess in modern terms, it serves as an inkblot.  "what do you see when i hold this up'.  In one breath you say: God is omnipotent, sovereign, and merciful and in another breath you now say: His word is tainted by His own intent and DOES pass away.

Gee, that sounds like the serpents language to Eve. "did not God say?' followed by: 'He lied to you.' And an entire doctrinal belief then is given from one greek word? 

Rize have you forgotten the forrest for the trees?  In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, and all the host of THEM.  "Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the FIRST heaven and FIRST earth had passed away"...Rev.21:1.  Being a universalist you then must show me and everyone just when is it that ALL are saved?  It HAS to be before the earth passes away.  And there are NO SCRIPTURES that show everyone being saved. 

1Corinthians 15:22 mentions NOTHING about salvation to all. Resurrection yes, but to salvation? No. 

Back up one verse Rize:For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. (no salvation yet mentioned).For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.(future tense 'shall be' is NOT spiritual life, Paul is talking about a future event here, and Paul is ALREADY spiritually alive). Still no mention of salvation.

Next is the order in which all SHALL BE resurrected, or made alive as just stated by Paul. But each one in his order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christs at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 

This passage says: For as in Adam, all die (or died), so in Christ, all will be made alive.

 You added "or died" when it does not say that. It sais all die, present tense, like me, and you and ALL. But in Christ all WILL BE.

The order IS significant just as you stated, but it isnt an order of being saved. Christ is the firstfruits(He IS risen now) and then it sais AFTERWARD, at His coming. We all know at His coming is the first resurrection or rapture if you want to call it that. It cannot possibly mean spiritual life because we have that NOW. Then comes the end(comma) WHEN He delivers the kingdom and WHEN He puts all things under Him. Under Him. Under Him.

  

If Paul had meant "for in Adam all die, so all who are in Christ will be made alive" then he should have said so.

Indeed. He said what he meant. Everyone dies. Everyone is resurrected. A litte further on in verse 32 Paul then sais...If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" No one can say that as if dying is the end. Dying is NOT the end. The end, is mentioned above...when He delivers the kingdom, and when He puts all things under Him. No man escapes Christs judgement by simply dying. Death is not the END.

 

Your only recourse, imo, is to challenge the meaning of "made alive", but I don't think that is a good idea.

I do. The truth is ALWAYS a good idea. There is not need to 'challenge' the meaning, i just gave the meaning and it was certainly no challenge, but simply stated by Paul. 

Lets look at your reference to John 5:21:For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.  What is your beef here? The Father doesnt judge the quick and the dead, but the Son, who is the resurrection AND the life(john11:25). If you read the next verse in chapter 5 it sais so. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgement to the Son. You are correct in the Father raising the dead and Jesus giving life. verse 28 sais: Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth-those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. There is your ALL word.  All ARE made alive, resurrected, but not ALL are saved.

 

Christ the firstfruits, then those who are his at his coming (presence), then the "completion" which, from on universalist source and from one eternal tormenter I've heard means "the rest" in this case.

Correct. The rest of the dead are raised, not saved. Some are delivered to God, some are put UNDER HIM.

Rize the ONLY thing you are going on here is the 'age' interpretation and even that, if used correctly means 'perpetual'. You keep using the root word where the adjective form is. So instead of simply saying: age, what you should be saying is perpetual age. Perpetual goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on....

Like my post, lol.

Nevertheless:  

As for God's Holiness, do you think that it works with or against His love? To the universalist, God's Holiness is a part of His love for God is love. The holiness trip is something that eternal tormentors dreamt up to explain away the inherint sadism in the idea (imo).

You are treading on very thin ice here Rize. God is first and foremost a SPIRIT. A HOLY Spirit!  He does not posess Holiness, He IS Holy. There is no evil found in Him nor can He look upon it.  Holiness is not a part of Him, or else He is not a Holy Spirit, but merely a Spirit partly Holy. There is a sin that is unforgevable Rize, do not, i implore you, believe that holiness is a 'trip' dreamt up by anyone.  Eternal death(which means 'separation' btw) is not a sadistic act of God. It is however a masochistic act of MAN.

      

How exactly does "join me before you die or suffer forever" play into free-will?

 A better statement would be: Join Me before you die or KEEP suffering, even forever. The unsaved ALREADY suffer. Some, my brother, enjoy it.

EveOfGrace

 

[Pericles]

Today at 02:51 AM dnich163 said this in Post #28

Ok then, I take the bait, what are they?

David

They aren't.  I am not aware of any "opposing views in the Bible".  You want to share some of these alleged opposing views?

 

[Pericles]

EveOfGrace,

To be fair to Rize, your exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:22 is not entirely accurate.  Paul is indeed talking about spiritual life (resurrection), and when you say that Paul is already spiritually alive, that is also incorrect.  The "resurrection from the dead" described by New Testament writers, is by no means a physical bodily resurrection, but a restoration of one individual to God's presence. That resurrection could not take place until the parousia of Christ (described in 1 Cor. 15:23), and at the time Paul was writing 1 Cor., he indeed was NOT spiritually alive.

I don't mean to get started on another topic here, but Paul talked in other places about death and life.  These are spiritual elements...he is not talking about physical death and physical life.  They are irellevant.  Here are several examples:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam..." - Romans 5:14 - If Paul is talking about physical death here, then this passage makes absolutely no sense.  Does this mean that after Moses people did not experience physical death? 

Just a couple of verses earlier Paul also says "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread fo all men, BECAUSE THEY ALL SINNED"

This has nothign to do with physical death.  People were spiritually dead because of their sins, and Christ came to resolve that problem.  The issue at hand is that as discussed in 1 Cor. 15:22-26, spiritual death cannot be abolished until Christ comes back!  This throws the futurist agenda in an uncontrollable spin.  What it all comes down to is that nobody can have life (salvation, restoration to God, be in God's presence), until Christ's return.  If that did not take place, then you have a big problem!

 

[Rize]

Yesterday at 08:05 PM Pericles said this in Post #27

Rize, you are not addressing my points. Are all and every one of these passages that I quoted translated wrong? If so, how should they be rendered in readable enlighs?

I did answer you, though perhaps in an earlier post.  From what I've read, the expression "into the ages of ages" is contextual.  To me, it speaks of something with no forseeable end (and perhaps also carries the impression of a generic "long" time).  Thus, it can be used when speaking of things that are everlasting, and it can also be used of things with which there is no end in sight.

Was it mistranslated?  Yes and no.  If my understanding of it's meaning is correct, then it's not something that can be properly translated through language and cultural boundaries without explanations.  I certainly don't believe that it has the precise meaning of "for ever and ever".

Do you know of instances of its use outside of New Testament Greek?  It seems to be an expression pulled from the pages of the Old Testament by 1st century Hebrews.  In the Old Testament the phrase has the meaning I ascribe to it.  It is used in some cases where it cannot properly mean "everlasting", and so "everlasting" can only be taken from the context.

If we say that God will reign for ages and ages, does that imply that He won't reign even beyond that?  Whatever that is?  The nature of God extends the meaning of the expression.  And the nature of God's punishments limits the meaning of the expression.

The God I know is not sadistic.  He's not going to torture people for ever based on a finite life-time of disobedience.  At worst, He'll annihilate the wicked at some point.  If He does what you think He will do, I do not see how He can be worthy of praise.  What purpose would it serve for God to do such a thing?

I also don't see the point in God annihilating people any more.  If God's "holiness" is such that it forces him to do things that His love would rather not do, then God's on desire is in contradiction with His "holiness" or "justice".  If God's attributes are in contradiction, then God is imperfect.  For God to be perfect, all of his attributes must co-exist with no conflict.  In this idea of God, His justice would be an expression of His love, and thus, the ultimate purpose of His justice would be redemptive (no matter how much it might seem to hurt at the time, and no matter how wrathful it may appear to the judged).

The Psalmists sang about how God's love endures "forever".  I've never seen anything about his wrath enduring "forever". 

Do you want to know why God's wrath does not endure?  Because His wrath is meted out as a means of discipline (see my signature).  If His wrath continues for ever, then He has failed.  God is not forced to destroy anyone, nor is He forced to torture people for ever.  He is the one who can kill and make alive again.  His judgments cause the people of earth to learn righteousness.  And someday, everyone will know righteousness.

 

[Rize]

Pericles,

Thanks.  I am investigating the Preterist position right now, and I think they have at least a few valid points.

EveOfGrace,

If we have mistranslated the Bible, how Has God let his word become faulty?  We have 100's of translations and none of them are perfect.  Additionally, the manuscripts that we are translating from are not perfect either.  So, is there some degree of imperfection in God's "word" that is ok?  Why not a little more?  Or a little more than that?  Where's the cut-off point?  What about all of the ages (the dark-ages) when most couldn't read, and those who could found it illegal to own a Bible?  What about before the Bible was completed?  God's word is not a collection of words on paper.  Jesus Himself is the living word of God.  God's word is something that He speaks to get things done (Isaiah 55:11).  The only promise of that sort concerning scripture is that it is "unbreakable".  Based on history, I think the only thing that can mean is that, in their original form, the scripturers are 100% truthful, and thus non-negotiable (unbreakable).  To call our faulty translations of the Bible (even if they are "mostly" right), "God's word" is disgraceful imo.  When preachers hold up the KJV (even ones who don't believe in it's inerrency) and say (add funky preacher accent) "this is the word of GOD right here!", it really disheartens me.  To call such a poor translation of the Bible "God's word" is beyond silly.

Concerning heaven and earth passing away:

Why does everyone have to be saved before the first heavens and earth pass away?  I don't follow your logic.

Concerning spiritual verses physical resurrection:

I think Pericles covered that.  You need to look into the usage of the Greek behind "made alive".

Concerning (or died):

I did not add it.  The Greek tense is present, but it also includes the historical past tense, so in English, it could be translated die or died depending on the context (check BlueLetterBible.org).  Those who are not born yet have not "died" in Adam yet, but they will the moment they are born, so perhaps die is the better translation.  Even so, the death is still spiritual.

Concerning Christ's "coming":

The word parousia really means "presence" (though I believe it is future tense which would make "coming presence" the most accurate translation).

Concerning John 5:21:

Notice that the dead are raised and made alive.  Did Jesus mean that God raises the dead and raises the dead?  No, he raises the dead (from physical death) AND makes them alive (spiritually).

Those who rise to the resurrection of condemnation must pass through the Lake of Fire and experience the second death (whatever that is) before the third "making alive" of 1 Corinthians 15:22-24.  Since they did not judge themselves on Earth and submit themselves to the Fire of God's Holy Spirit on Earth, they will rise to condemnation.  This does not mean that they will be eternally tormented or even thrown away (annihilated).

Concerning my undestanding of aionios

Since when do adjectives carry more force than the noun they are derived from?

Concerning God's Holiness:

So you are suggesting that God is so powerless in the face of evil (which sprang from His own creation) that he must annihilate it or torment it forever?  Look at Revelation 14:10.  Is God not in the presence of evil there?  Is God's presence not everywhere?  Was it ok for Jesus to abide the presence of evil on earth?  I think what you have there (God cannot look upon evil) is an expression. 

If not, then why doesn't God annihilated evil the moment it crops up?  Why did He even create the possibility of evil?  If God can wait a little while, He can wait forever.  And given forever, maybe you'll find that He can stop tormenting people at some point because they will eventually repent.

I did not say that God isn't Holy, I was saying that man's appeal to God's holiness is a poor way to explain the sadistic doctrine of eternal torment.

Concerning "join me before you die or suffer forever playing into free-will:

Why does God put an expiration date on the blood of Jesus?  Is it only potent enough to work until we die on earth?  It would be one thing if God did not desire that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; often translated will rather than desire).

 

[Rize]

EveOfGrace (reply to post number 69 of this thread)

Well, Jesus could have been referring to the disgrace of being thrown into Gehenna (the valley of Hinnom) where the corpses of criminals were buried/disposed of.  While a man could technically murder a pharisee and drag his body to Gehenna and toss it in, his friends and relatives may very well have gotten it out for a proper burial, and of course, the world would be largely unchanged by this.  Yet God, was brewing up a national judgment upon Israel (70 AD) where the OT Law system and the Jews who failed so miserably in following it would be destroyed.  The most sure way to escape this was to find life in Jesus.  Thus perhaps a person's body and "psuche" could be destroyed in Gehenna when the Roman armies came in and destroyed everything, killed people and tossed all the corpses in Gehenna.  Where as an ordinary man could merely kill the body.  I grant that this stretches things a bit   But it's fun to consider since it really doesn't matter to the universalist position whether or not Jesus meant "the Lake of Fire" or "Hades" when He said Gehenna.  Also, note (again) that he switched from "kill" to "destroy". 

I dont think the Rich Man is in Sheol/Hades anymore. He did realize after he had gotten there that he had done wrong and wanted his brothers warned. Therefore, when Jesus descended and preached to them, the Rich Man surely accepted Him with gladness. You think?

Wait, so you think that people can accept salvation after death?  Why should that opportunity ever end then?

 

[Rize]

Pericles:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter5.html

This is a more in depth look than any other I've seen on the specific phrase "for ever and ever".  It addresses the fact that it actually appears in three forms:  into (lit. to the extent of) the age of the age; into the age of the ages, into the ages of the ages.

...among other things. 

I think people have a tendency to speak far to soon in regard the translation of verses that make God into a monster.

[edit]

Mmm, I won't forget this one.  Hebrews 1:8 in modern translations says that "the son" will reign "for ever and ever", but 1 Corinthians 15:25 speaks of an end to Jesus' reign when He hands the kingdom over to his Father.

So much for "for ever and ever".

Revelation 11:15 seems to concur with Hebrews 1:8 that Jesus will rule "for ever and ever" which cannot be true if the verses in 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 are also true.  Perhaps the antecedent of the pronoun is God rather than Jesus.  But no such escape route is presented in Hebrews 1:8.

Maybe "into the ages of ages" actually does present an explicitly finite period of time (rather than a time with an "unforseeable end" as I suggested above).  After all, the Bible often describes God as the God of X (where X is some finite or limited thing such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).  That does not mean that He is not also the God of everything else.

If God is said to rule into the ages of the ages (sort of like King of Kings; a specific set of ages), does that mean that he would not also reign in every other age as well?  I think not.  But that means that the eternity comes squarely from God, not from the expression "unto the ages of the ages".

It's good to have critics to bump heads with since it always results in the refining of one's views (especially if the critics on both sides are especially hard-headed). 

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another  -God (Proverbs 27:17)

 

[Pericles]

Rize, I will make it a point to read the exposition on "forever and ever".

Concerning Heb. 1:8 and 1 Cor. 15:21, you are comparing apples and oranges which is apparently as a result again, of mistaken eschatology. 

In Heb. 1:8, the author quotes Psalm 45:6, which is a general statement about God reigning forever (with Christ if you will). 

By contrast 1 Cor. 15:21 is a direct reference to the "millennium" reign of Christ.  I put quotes around millennium because it is not a biblical term.  This one thousand year reign of Christ, which is a symbol of the 40 years period between A.D. 30 and A.D. 70 is the antitype of David's 40 year reign over Israel.  In the same manner, Christ reigned for "one thousand years" (with the believers killed for their faith), in which the gospel was preached all over the world, the holy spirit was freely given to believers, satan and evil spirits were bound...etc etc.  At his parousia (at the fall of the jewish temple) death, which was a result of the Law, was finally defeated, thus Christ's thousand year reign was over, the kingdom was turned over to the father...afterall Christ IS God, thus he is now reigning forever and ever, IN THE AGE OF AGES, in the New Jerusalem, with his servants FOREVER AND EVER (Rev. 20:5).  Just because the word "until" appears in a passage, that doesn't imply cessation by any means.  The nature of Christ's reigning has changed, not the length of his reign.

The two passages are not contradictory and they don't support your universalism/annihilationism arguments.

 

[EveOfGrace]

Let me take these replies one by one here beginning at the beginning. (good place to start?)  

 

To be fair to Rize, your exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:22 is not entirely accurate. Paul is indeed talking about spiritual life (resurrection), and when you say that Paul is already spiritually alive, that is also incorrect. The "resurrection from the dead" described by New Testament writers, is by no means a physical bodily resurrection, but a restoration of one individual to God's presence. That resurrection could not take place until the parousia of Christ (described in 1 Cor. 15:23), and at the time Paul was writing 1 Cor., he indeed was NOT spiritually alive.

Pericles are you not spiritually alive? Are not ALL Christians spiritually alive to God? You cannot possibly still be spiritually dead and be a Christian. The unsaved are the spiritually dead. What is dead? Death means separation. Physical death is the separation of body and soul. Spiritual death is the separation of the life force or power (God) that unites man with that force(God).

Eph 2:1 sais:And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;

And verses 4-5:Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:

13-14:But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];

18-19:For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

I dont think i have to post the entire chapter. Or do i?  This quickening, breaking of the middle wall, giving us access, making us sit together with Him, is SPIRITUAL LIFE. 

You, I, and Rize, ARE spritually alive!  Paul after his conversion was spiritually alive.

 

You said :The "resurrection of the dead" as written by NT writers is by no means physical rizing of the dead but a spiritual one to Gods presence. Can you not approach the throne of grace boldy?  Do you not have access into His presence as stated above?  Can you not hear the voice of the Holy Spirit? Maybe you should repent and ask to be saved if you cannot. 

I quoted John 5 that definately does speak of physical resurrection of the dead.  

The word 'death' as used there in 1Cor.15:21 is the greek thanotos which is most definately physical death.

What you referred to in Romans IS spiritual death and spiritual life to those who have been set free from the law of sin and death.

But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by one mans offense many died, much more the Grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. Rom.5:15

Likewise you also reckon yourselves to me dead indeed to sin, but ALIVE to God in Chirst Jesus our Lord. Rom.6:11

 

People were spiritually dead because of their sins, and Christ came to resolve that problem.

Yes exactly!! He DID resolve it at the Cross. He said as He died upon it "it is finished".

 

spiritual death cannot be abolished until Christ comes back! This throws the futurist agenda in an uncontrollable spin. What it all comes down to is that nobody can have life (salvation, restoration to God, be in God's presence), until Christ's return.

Spiriutal death was abolished at the Cross. We HAVE salvation, we ARE restored to God as Ephesians told us, and we CAN be in Gods presence: For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God DID by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according  to the flesh but according the the Spirit.

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your MORTAL bodies(now, mortality is now) through His Spirit who dwells IN you.! Rom.8:3,4,8

Pericles Jesus IS the resurrection and the life, if we believe on Him, we ARE alive to God. We dont have to wait any longer, the cross accomplished the reconciliation.

EveOfGrace   

 

[EveOfGrace]

If we have mistranslated the Bible, how Has God let his word become faulty? We have 100's of translations and none of them are perfect. Additionally, the manuscripts that we are translating from are not perfect either. So, is there some degree of imperfection in God's "word" that is ok? Why not a little more? Or a little more than that? Where's the cut-off point? What about all of the ages (the dark-ages) when most couldn't read, and those who could found it illegal to own a Bible? What about before the Bible was completed? God's word is not a collection of words on paper. Jesus Himself is the living word of God. God's word is something that He speaks to get things done (Isaiah 55:11).

Yes it is. And no, i dont think God let His word become faulty. What we are really talking about here is changing the truth. Example: If you step there, you will get wet. An original statement by me. If it is changed grammatically, or punctually like this: If you step there you will, get wet. Or If you happen to step upon that place, you will get wet. The meaning is the same. You could even really altar it like:Step in that place over there and surely wetness will befall you. Still the meaning, stepping and getting wet, remains. Now if someone wanted to really find the orginal statement, there would be steps involved to retrace the alterations.  Which in our day and age, with our bible tools, libraries, computers etc....it is possbile to get to the original language.  The KJV, NKJV, Amplified, New English, and plenty more, all still do give the truth according to God though the interpreter chose different ways to say it.  The truth WITHIN still remains as solid and true as the day it was written because i believe Gods preserves it.  The ifs, nors, thees, haths, commas, periods, chapters and verses arent enough to overcome the written Word any more than the spoken. I have seen the power of God fall just by raising the book itself into the air. Funky preacher accent not required.

 

Why does everyone have to be saved before the first heavens and earth pass away? I don't follow your logic.

You dont have to follow logic, just the plan of God. He makes a habitation for living creatures to dwell and know Him. One very unique creature(in His image) He gives dominion to over the entire habitation and its other inhabitants. A literal paradise.  This creature has complete control and responsibilty(to dominate) over it.  Another creature(Lucifer)defies this act(prideful jealousy?) and decieves the man into doing the one thing that ends his domination.  The man brings death(separation from the creator) and a curse upon all his descendants. God, knowing this is a possibility, being that the man is never forced to obey, provides a redeemer of the habitation, to in turn defy death and end the curse. So He carries out the entire plan.  The habitation passes away, vanishes, ends when all is finished, thus its inhabitants must be reconciled before its gone. Perfect really. From the beginning, He knew His precious man could leave His gift to them behind and turn away from Love.  But even so, He refused to live without them.  So He gives Himself to die instead.

sniff sniff

more later..........

EveOfGrace

 

 

   

 

[EveOfGrace]

Ok, recovered now. Just when i think about how could God still love a creature who would defy and turn his back into all manner of disgustingness and die for them after the fact, well, its amazing. I do deserve the lake of fire, hell, eternal death(separation from His glorious presence) but He paid the price anyway.

 

Concerning spiritual verses physical resurrection:

I think Pericles covered that.  You need to look into the usage of the Greek behind "made alive".

 There is but one single usage of ' be made alive' in the KJV. In my strongs "Alive" as in made alive, make alive, or quicken is the greek zoopoieo meaning to revitalize; make alive, give life, quicken.  Of course it comes from zoon: a live thing, ie an animal.  At blueletterbible, it even refers to physical life as well as spiritual. Jesus judges the quick and the dead. In that order. Which He said: First, Christ the firstfruits, afterward(1st resurrection)the quick and then comes the end, the dead are raised(made alive).    

Pericles referred to the 'resurrection of the dead' as a spiritaul resurrection of everyone . Exuse me but i am quickened by the blood of Christ NOW(see my post above on Eph.2).  At my physical death i will still be spiritually alive and my soul will sleep in Jesus with my fellow saints until the 1st resurrection of life. A 'resurrection of the dead' is most certainly then referring to an end of the age event, when all physically earthly departed(dust returns to dust) shall be raised.  If a saint of God is spiritually dead, what makes them different than an ungodly man?  Would we not ALL go to hell at physical death?

 

Those who are not born yet have not "died" in Adam yet, but they will the moment they are born, so perhaps die is the better translation. Even so, the death is still spiritual.

Spiritual death happened in Eden. Adams seed is from whence we come and we are dead already before birth.  We are conceived in sin. Spiritual death is not an individual, one at a time event, its a positional state of man(apart from God) since Adams fall.  Physical death however IS a one at a time, individual event that ALL men(in Adam) must encounter.  It is appointed unto men once to die and then the judgement.

 

The word parousia really means "presence" (though I believe it is future tense which would make "coming presence" the most accurate translation

I agree. It is a PHYSICAL coming presence. His spiritual presence is with us NOW.

 

Notice that the dead are raised and made alive. Did Jesus mean that God raises the dead and raises the dead? No, he raises the dead (from physical death) AND makes them alive (spiritually).

 I also agree. In the previous verses it sais whatever the the Father does, the Son also does in like manner. The Father raises the dead(out of the grave) and Jesus gives life(spiritually)to WHOM HE WILL.  It doesnt say Jesus gives life to ALL. Just as i previously posted, some raise to life, some to condemnation and Jesus is the judge of both.

 

Those who rise to the resurrection of condemnation must pass through the Lake of Fire and experience the second death (whatever that is) before the third "making alive" of 1 Corinthians 15:22-24. Since they did not judge themselves on Earth and submit themselves to the Fire of God's Holy Spirit on Earth, they will rise to condemnation. This does not mean that they will be eternally tormented or even thrown away (annihilated).

That is actually the most sensible thing i have heard anyone say. Can i break this up a little?  The resurrection of condemnation must pass through the Lake of Fire. I am not so sure about passing through but Rev.21:8 sais that they have their part in the lake of fire. It doesnt really say they will be tormented as the beast and false prophet are. But they will have part, and be separated from God permanently(second death) and not inherit all things as those in verse 7. And you are right about the smoke of their torment, the smoke ascends forever, but it doesnt say exactly the torment is forever.

The third making alive of Cor 15:22?  Wait a minute. Christ is the firstfruits, He is alive now, so you must then be considerring His resurrection as the 1st making alive?  So afterward, we at His coming, which is the 1st resurrection spoken of in Revelations, is the second making alive?  And the last resurrection, of the dead after the thousand years, is the third making alive?  So i think i get what you are saying.  Except the third making alive is the lake of fire. Which is certainly not spiritual life in Christ, but condemnation.  But of course if you have the view that the lake of fire is merely something passed through, then that will be HOW they are saved. Is that what your are saying? I do agree that they will not be annihilated. Death is being without the life force or power(God), not ceasing to be entirely. But the Lake of Fire is where Hell and Death and Satan are, so it cannot be a place to save. We are saved by grace, through FAITH.  Once Jesus returns(parousa) faith is no more, but physical presence.  Faith is believing WITHOUT seeing. Not believing BECAUSE we see. Any fool can do that. Including demons, which do believe and tremble, they have not faith because they SEE.

 

 

Since when do adjectives carry more force than the noun they are derived from?

Since there are describing words for nouns. They give force TO the noun. Not take its place. Like a bitter pool vs a sweet. Or a rotten piece of fruit vs a fresh piece.  Or an evil angel vs a holy one.  All of the former nouns there describe something you may not want to take part of. Without the force of the adjective, you could get hurt. Likewise a covenantial age is finite. A perpetual age is not.

 

 

So you are suggesting that God is so powerless in the face of evil (which sprang from His own creation) that he must annihilate it or torment it forever?

No i am suggesting that God is so powerFUL the He CAN torment it forever. 

Was it ok for Jesus to abide the presence of evil on earth? I think what you have there (God cannot look upon evil) is an expression.

My God, My God why hast thou forsaken Me?

 

If not, then why doesn't God annihilated evil the moment it crops up? Why did He even create the possibility of evil? If God can wait a little while, He can wait forever. And given forever, maybe you'll find that He can stop tormenting people at some point because they will eventually repent

Why doesnt He annihilate evil the moment it crops up? ...written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

If God can wait a little while, He can wait forever? I think i already said this one: It is appointed unto men once to die and then the judgement.  .....the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets. My Spirit will not strive with man forever,... Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. The seventh day is coming soon Rize. He will NOT strive with man forever. On His Day, the seventh, He rests.

He can stop tormenting the wicked at some point because they will eventually repent?  Hmm, 6000 years is not long enough?  Is His death on a cruel cross something that should be mocked and rejected without regard to His faithfulness? 

I was saying that man's appeal to God's holiness is a poor way to explain the sadistic doctrine of eternal torment.

So a less sadistic doctrine is to let the wicked mockers and rejecters above, and the armies of the anitchrist who torture His faithful servants, to join them in His Holy City. Is that better?  All we have to do is pass them through the fire and all is well.  We can just FORCE them to repent.  Oh what Love that would be. Brothers and sisters who were tortured into salvation.  I dont see the Love in that.  I am your sister, but only cuz i got burned alive, not cuz i really love you.

 

 

Why does God put an expiration date on the blood of Jesus? Is it only potent enough to work until we die on earth?

Hasnt Jesus suffered enough already?  O wretched man that we are.

EveOfGrace 

 

 

[dnich163]

Yesterday at 03:07 PM Pericles said this in Post #30

They aren't.  I am not aware of any "opposing views in the Bible".  You want to share some of these alleged opposing views?

If we take a critical analysis of the Bible we see in the OT  a God that is sometimes portrayed as being retributive,destructive and murdering.

This contrasts with the perceived God of the NT as a loving, compassionate and forgiving God.

This is the kind of literal opposite I was referring to.

David