Let's Talk About Hell (3)

[createdtoworship]

I don't have to go any further than the writings of Eusebius to demonstrate the fallaciousness of that comment. Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' 'and teaching', or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name.' This is a huge change, obviously reflecting a change to the scripture to reflect a change in church doctrine.

All of these arguments that you are giving me, I have made, and have been proven wrong. The simple facts are, that not even the new testament scriptures have remained inviolate, and some sciptures were added in the second century with cover stories (2Peter and the Pastorals) by the burgeoning catholic movement, which seemed to have absolutely no moral compunction against "bearing false witness".

Probably the most dramatic change has been the baptismal scene, which in some of the older copies of the Gospel, per Origen, originally read that God told Jesus "in thee I am well pleased, this day I have begotten thee", which reflects an adoptionist theology that is hinted at in the proem of John, and mentioned in "Hebrews".

I have to take issue with the "bible is God's word" statement. Who first said it, when, where and why?

thats not a major change

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:

Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.

Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.

Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.

Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.

This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.

By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.

Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.

We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.

 

[createdtoworship]

We must emphasize that torment cannot, by definition, be anything but conscious torment. One cannot torment a tree, a rock, or a house. By its very nature, being tormented requires consciousness. Bible scholar Alan Gomes correctly points out that "a punishment [such as torment] that is not felt is not a punishment. It is an odd use of language to speak of an insensate (i.e., unfeeling), inanimate object receiving punishment. To say, 'I punished my car for not starting by slowly plucking out its sparkplug wires, one by one,' would evoke laughter, not serious consideration." We repeat, then, that punishment entails consciousness!

from
Is Annihilationism Biblical?

 

[Soulgazer]

thats not a major change

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:

Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.

Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.

Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.

Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.

This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.

By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.

Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.

We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.

I am well aware of textual criticism. Are you aware of the various reconstruction projects possible because of Textual criticism and computers? Hopefully you know that Marcion (re)introduced Paul into the Christian world, but not without some resistance. Here is the reconstructed "Galatians" as it first hit the streets: http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/EGalatians.PDF

The Marcionite Christians, being gentile, did not accept any other Apostle other than Paul. Marcion's father knew Paul personally, something that the later church really hated. When Marcion is mentioned at all in later church history, he is talked of as a heretic, however, more recent scholarship has done a lot to clear his name.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am well aware of textual criticism. Are you aware of the various reconstruction projects possible because of Textual criticism and computers? Hopefully you know that Marcion (re)introduced Paul into the Christian world, but not without some resistance. Here is the reconstructed "Galatians" as it first hit the streets: http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/EGalatians.PDF

The Marcionite Christians, being gentile, did not accept any other Apostle other than Paul. Marcion's father knew Paul personally, something that the later church really hated. When Marcion is mentioned at all in later church history, he is talked of as a heretic, however, more recent scholarship has done a lot to clear his name.

president lincoln had his own translation too, doesn't mean the originals still aren't accurate.

 

[Soulgazer]

president lincoln had his own translation too, doesn't mean the originals still aren't accurate.

There aren't any originals. I thought we were on the same page with that. The earliest copies that we have are fourth century, and they reflect Imperial dogma. The "evil Jews" crucified Christ and not the good and innocent Romans.


President Lincoln had the "Gettysburg address" first. Marcion had "Galatians" first. The "Church" at first denied that Paul ever existed, and accused Marcion of forging the letters. Then they "discovered" that they knew of Paul all along, and they had the originals, and Marcion had corrupted them. I have some beachfront property in Arizona too.

 

[Ed Bana]

In the Greek, the words used here for "torment" and "tormented" are basanizo and basanismo which are both derived from the word basanos. Basanos is what is commonly known in English as the "touchstone." Its proper usage in olden times was to try the genuineness of gold. The pure gold rubbed on the stone would leave a peculiar mark, different to that of other metals or alloys. Therefore it acquired a symbolic significance: a test or criterion for determining the quality or the genuineness of a thing; to test for purity or truth. Therefore, you see, when we are "tormented" by the locusts, we are having our genuineness and quality tested — for if we are being tormented by the locusts it should clearly reveal to us that we are NOT WALKING IN THE TRUTH, NOR IN THE MIND OF CHRIST, NOR IN OUR TRUE IDENTITY AS SONS OF OUR HEAVENLY FATHER! That is the test, and the truth of what mind, word, and identity we are walking in is made manifest by the "sting" of the locusts! They cannot sting one who has the seal of God in his forehead!
</SPAN></SPAN>

We must emphasize that torment cannot, by definition, be anything but conscious torment. One cannot torment a tree, a rock, or a house. By its very nature, being tormented requires consciousness. Bible scholar Alan Gomes correctly points out that "a punishment [such as torment] that is not felt is not a punishment. It is an odd use of language to speak of an insensate (i.e., unfeeling), inanimate object receiving punishment. To say, 'I punished my car for not starting by slowly plucking out its sparkplug wires, one by one,' would evoke laughter, not serious consideration." We repeat, then, that punishment entails consciousness!

from
Is Annihilationism Biblical?

 

[eachallberg]

president lincoln had his own translation too, doesn't mean the originals still aren't accurate.

Where did this turn into politics?

Ed Bana: "In the Greek, the words used here for "torment" and "tormented" are basanizo and basanismo which are both derived from the word basanos."

You have a puzzle with extra pieces and mis-shapen pieces, wouldn't you alter them to get the picture you are trying to put together?

Peace be to all.

 

[Ed Bana]

God's Word is a hidden Puzzle. You did not know that. In other words it is a deep and hidden mystery. Hidden from carnal man be they religious or a non believer.

Where did this turn into politics?

Ed Bana: "In the Greek, the words used here for "torment" and "tormented" are basanizo and basanismo which are both derived from the word basanos."

You have a puzzle with extra pieces and mis-shapen pieces, wouldn't you alter them to get the picture you are trying to put together?

Peace be to all.

 

[eachallberg]

God's Word is a hidden Puzzle. You did not know that. In other words it is a deep and hidden mystery. Hidden from carnal man be they religious or a non believer.

You didn't answer the question.

I know nothing.

Maybe G_d's Word has been hidden from you.

Do you know that we have seen the Lord's Glory with are own eyes?

 

[Ed Bana]

So you are saying it is not hidden to you?

Great so please explain the Lord's glory you have seen with your own eyes.

You didn't answer the question.

I know nothing.

Maybe G_d's Word has been hidden from you.

Do you know that we have seen the Lord's Glory with are own eyes?

 

[eachallberg]

So you are saying it is not hidden to you?

Great so please explain the Lord's glory you have seen with your own eyes.

The Word is hidden from me, but it is evident to us.
You said that it is hidden.

Where should someone start when explaining the ineffable?

Can you please answer the question (post 288)?

 

[Ed Bana]

The Word is hidden from me, but it is evident to us.

Is this suppose to mean something?

You said that it is hidden.

God's Word says it is hidden.
The word Mystery is written over 20 times in the NT and means sacred secret.


Matthew 13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

13:14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;

13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

13:16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;

Can you please answer the question (post 288)?

My point is the word torment means something other then what is expressed by the English

 

[createdtoworship]

There aren't any originals. I thought we were on the same page with that. The earliest copies that we have are fourth century, and they reflect Imperial dogma. The "evil Jews" crucified Christ and not the good and innocent Romans.


President Lincoln had the "Gettysburg address" first. Marcion had "Galatians" first. The "Church" at first denied that Paul ever existed, and accused Marcion of forging the letters. Then they "discovered" that they knew of Paul all along, and they had the originals, and Marcion had corrupted them. I have some beachfront property in Arizona too.

I hardly believe that the jerusalem church or the apostolic churches denied the presence of the writer of most of the new testament. Sounds a little far fetched. Marcion was an early heretic and before the canon was completed so I would not put too much trust in people who didnt' know what the Bible was yet.

 

[Soulgazer]

I hardly believe that the jerusalem church or the apostolic churches denied the presence of the writer of most of the new testament. Sounds a little far fetched. You would like reading the davinci code I bet.

Well, they did. BTW, you know what the Davinci Code and 1st, 2nd Timothy, 2nd Peter and Titus have in common? They are all fictional works that the author hopes the reader will not believe is fiction.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, they did. BTW, you know what the Davinci Code and 1st, 2nd Timothy, 2nd Peter and Titus have in common? They are all fictional works that the author hopes the reader will not believe is fiction.

marcion had a secret agenda according to turtullian


turtullian said of marcion....regarding his short bible....

"one man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject matter." Prescription against Heretics 38

due to marcions rejection of the Old Testament as God's word I would say he was pretty anti semitic. Some of which pervaded the church during the holocaust.

thirdly,

It's interesting, though, that the gnostics inadvertently testify to the authenticity of the New Testament documents. They regular depend on the synoptic material in their writings, which at least shows that the New Testament material was in circulation far before gnosticism was. Also, the gnostic heretic Marcion included in his canon Luke's gospel and some of Paul's pastoral epistles. Even Marcion had to appeal to the New Testament!

 

[Soulgazer]

marcion had a secret agenda according to turtullian


turtullian said of marcion....regarding his short bible....

"one man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject matter." Prescription against Heretics 38

due to marcions rejection of the Old Testament as God's word I would say he was pretty anti semitic. Some of which pervaded the church during the holocaust.

thirdly,

It's interesting, though, that the gnostics inadvertently testify to the authenticity of the New Testament documents. They regular depend on the synoptic material in their writings, which at least shows that the New Testament material was in circulation far before gnosticism was. Also, the gnostic heretic Marcion included in his canon Luke's gospel and some of Paul's pastoral epistles. Even Marcion had to appeal to the New Testament!

First, there was nothing Gnostic about Marcion. Nor did he pervert the material, but presented it more or less exactly as he received it. His father knew Paul personally. I gave you a link to the restored copy of Galatians. This again proves Tertulian and Ireanus to be liars(surprise!) "Short bible"? Marcion's bible was the only one in existence until the proto-catholics hurriedly cobbled one together in their race for political dominance.

Turtulian definitely had a secret agenda. He wanted to see all women booted out of seats of religious authority.

Third, Ireanus referred to anyone who opposed him as a "Gnostic". There is only one self identified Gnostic group in that era, and that was the Sethians.

All of orthodox tradition is built on tissue. Remove the fabrications, and there is almost nothing underneath.

Ancient antisemitism can't be pinned on anybodies shoulders. The Jews were hated as troublemakers throughout the empire; the Jews were extreme racist, forbidden to marry outside of their own, and it was not a sin to cheat a gentile. Antisemitism was a backlash toward an unforgiving people in an unforgiving era. Jews were hated to the extent that almost not one stone was left standing in Jerusalem; A temple that covered an area of four modern city blocks, was meticulously dismantled, and the race itself was very nearly exterminated.

Modern antisemitism has even less excuse. Don't point to the character of Marcion as being any more anti semetic than the author of John, who called the Jews "children of the devil".

Lastly, rejection of the old testament was widespread throughout both Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Naassene and the Ophites rejected it. It was also rejected by the Johnites and the Thomasines, as well as by any school that traced their roots to Paul. It was only accepted by the two most historically unreliable groups, the Apocalyptics and the proto-catholic.

Again, I question the superstition that the Bible is "God's word". Who said so, when where, and why?

 

[createdtoworship]

First, there was nothing Gnostic about Marcion. Nor did he pervert the material, but presented it more or less exactly as he received it. His father knew Paul personally. I gave you a link to the restored copy of Galatians. This again proves Tertulian and Ireanus to be liars(surprise!) "Short bible"? Marcion's bible was the only one in existence until the proto-catholics hurriedly cobbled one together in their race for political dominance.

Turtulian definitely had a secret agenda. He wanted to see all women booted out of seats of religious authority.

Third, Ireanus referred to anyone who opposed him as a "Gnostic". There is only one self identified Gnostic group in that era, and that was the Sethians.

All of orthodox tradition is built on tissue. Remove the fabrications, and there is almost nothing underneath.

Ancient antisemitism can't be pinned on anybodies shoulders. The Jews were hated as troublemakers throughout the empire; the Jews were extreme racist, forbidden to marry outside of their own, and it was not a sin to cheat a gentile. Antisemitism was a backlash toward an unforgiving people in an unforgiving era. Jews were hated to the extent that almost not one stone was left standing in Jerusalem; A temple that covered an area of four modern city blocks, was meticulously dismantled, and the race itself was very nearly exterminated.

Modern antisemitism has even less excuse. Don't point to the character of Marcion as being any more anti semetic than the author of John, who called the Jews "children of the devil".

Lastly, rejection of the old testament was widespread throughout both Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Naassene and the Ophites rejected it. It was also rejected by the Johnites and the Thomasines, as well as by any school that traced their roots to Paul. It was only accepted by the two most historically unreliable groups, the Apocalyptics and the proto-catholic.

Again, I question the superstition that the Bible is "God's word". Who said so, when where, and why?

still anti semitic like a lot of heresy is. I disagree with you about the secret agenda of turtullian. He was a good guy and debated the trinity. You probably don't even believe in the trinity or the old testament so this discussion is over.

 

[Soulgazer]

still anti semitic like a lot of heresy is. I disagree with you about the secret agenda of turtullian. He was a good guy and debated the trinity. You probably don't even believe in the trinity or the old testament so this discussion is over.

People resort to calling other people heretics when they find out they themselves are on shaky ground. That's why most all the "heresy hunters" were proto catholic.

De Cultu Feminarum, book 1, chap. 1. &#8220;You (woman) destroyed so easily God's image, man.&#8221;
On the Veiling of Virgins, chap. 10. &#8220;How, then, would God have failed to make any such concession to men more (than to women), whether on the ground of nearer intimacy, as being "His own image," or on the ground of harder toil? But if nothing (has been thus conceded) to the male, much less to the female.&#8221;
The Prescription against Heretics, chap. 41
§5. The very women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures-it may be even to baptize.
On the Veiling of Virgins, chap. 9. &#8220;It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.&#8221;


If you love that nutjob Tertulian, you must hate women. Yeah, I'd rather not have any more discussion with a self admitted misogynist, so feel free to overturn the checkerboard.

 

[createdtoworship]

People resort to calling other people heretics when they find out they themselves are on shaky ground. That's why most all the "heresy hunters" were proto catholic.

De Cultu Feminarum, book 1, chap. 1. “You (woman) destroyed so easily God's image, man.”
On the Veiling of Virgins, chap. 10. “How, then, would God have failed to make any such concession to men more (than to women), whether on the ground of nearer intimacy, as being "His own image," or on the ground of harder toil? But if nothing (has been thus conceded) to the male, much less to the female.”
The Prescription against Heretics, chap. 41
§5. The very women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures-it may be even to baptize.
On the Veiling of Virgins, chap. 9. “It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.”


If you love that nutjob Tertulian, you must hate women. Yeah, I'd rather not have any more discussion with a self admitted misogynist, so feel free to overturn the checkerboard.

catholic was originally good you must define what catholic means to you. The church was originally the imperial catholic church.

 

[Soulgazer]

catholic was originally good you must define what catholic means to you. The church was originally the imperial catholic church.

I went to great pains to write a separate post defining the difference between catholicism with a small "c" and Catholic. However, since you missed it, catholicism is not large "C" Catholic, which is a specific faith or denomination. Small "c" catholicism is a movement that started in second century Christianity that sought to combine the myriad forms of developing Christianity under one flag and a self serving leadership. To do so, they had no qualms about forging new scriptures or altering others, and working extremely hard to ruin the reputations of people they disagreed with by exaggeration and falsehoods. They are a particularly unsavory lot that included Ireneus and Tertullian, until Tertullian jumped ship and joined the Montanist.

Among their dastardly deeds, they wrote Timothy in opposition to Marcion's "Antithesis" (O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and Contradictions [antithesis] of gnosis falsely so called.) and signed Paul's name to it, in the hope of converting some of the tens of thousands of Marcionites, who had a bible of Paul's real letters, over to their sect.

Worse, as I don't particularly care for Marcion either, was their flagrant violation of the teachings of Paul, who included many women preachers and ministers as his friends, by including with their lies "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.", something that Paul would have cursed them for.

By craftiness and guile, they managed to become politically situated to be the dominant Christian school when Constantine officially lifted the ban on Christianity in the fourth century.