Salvation for the Dead

[Basil the Great]

I think it is a mistake to try and link Universalism to the practice of praying for the dead. The two could go hand in hand, but they are by no means necessarily linked. It is still quite possible to believe that the vast majority of those now in Hell or "destined for Hell and now receiving a foretaste of Hell", as in EO thinking, will never go to Heaven, while still allowing the possibility that God might allow a handful of souls to be freed or that at least our prayers can give a measure of relief to those in bondage, even if none of them will never make it to Heaven.

 

[PeaceB]

It makes no difference that some "modern scholars" may doubt this. The fact that the Jewish scholars do. Don't be such a fool! Just because I refer to the Jews about their Old Testament Books, does not mean that I accept what they say about Jesus Christ.

Interesting that you have remained silent on the testimony of Josephus? You guys play games when it comes to the evidence and not honest with the FACTS. Counter Josephus if you can!

1) If you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell.

2) The opinion of a 1st Century Pharisee who rejects Jesus as Lord and God, and who rejects at least 27 books of the inspired word of God, is irrelevant to the Christian concerning the matter. Who are you going to cite next in support of your opinions, the Prophet Muhammad?

3) There is no rhyme or reason as to your use of authority whatsoever. If someone agrees with you, then he is an authority to be trusted with respect to that point. If the same exact person disagrees with you, then he is not to be trusted with respect to that point. For example, you cite St. Athanasius with respect to the NT Canon, yet you reject him with respect to the OT canon, and you reject him with respect to various other Christian doctrines such as the Mass. You accept Josephus with respect to the OT Canon, yet you reject his interpretation of the OT canon, and you reject him concerning Jesus.

You are simply picking and choosing to suit yourself. You have no principle, and this is why you are not to be taken seriously.

4) In Against Apion Josephus lists 22 books, and it is unclear whether the 22 books he lists correspond to the 24/39 books in the modern Jewish/Protestant canon, because Josephus does not list out the specific 22 books that he considered to be the inspired word of God. You have no proof whatsoever that the canon he referred to corresponds to the incomplete “Bible” on your shelf.

5) At the end of Antiquities of the Jews Josephus indicates that he considers several of the Deuterocanonical books to be Scripture, because he wrote that his work was based only on Scripture, and he cites the Deuterocanonical books throughout the Antiquites. In Against Apion, he lists 22 books only because he sought only to defend the books that were written before Artaxerxes’ reign, and the Deuterocanonical books were written after Artaxerxes.

6) The bible and the early church fathers make it clear that the Jewish canon was not closed during the 1st century. For example, the Saducees only accepted the Torah, which is why they did not believe in the resurrection of the body.

ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This sect had its stronghold especially in the region around Samaria. And these also adhere to the customs of the law, saying that one ought so to live, that he may conduct himself virtuously, and leave children behind him on earth. They do not, however, devote attention to prophets, but neither do they to any other sages, except to the law of Moses only, in regard of which, however, they frame no interpretations. These, then, are the opinions which also the Sadducees choose to teach.

ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

But although the Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the prophecy uttered.​

7) The bible that Jesus, the apostles, and all of the other early Christians used contains the books that you reject today.

8) The so-called council of Jamnia did not exist. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? They are both myths, mate. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, Volume 1, pp. 105-106​

“Council” of Jamnia Myth. Yet recent scholarship has been most at odds with the three-stage theory in its rejection of a canonical “council” in Jamnia circa 90 C.E. First suggested by Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891), the Jamnia hypothesis became a crucial lynchpin for the older approach, which viewed it as not only providing the historical context for the official inclusion of the Writings within the Hebrew canon but also the date of the finalization of the Hebrew Bible as a whole (thus Ryle 1895, pp. 182-183). However, the references to any such gathering are meager; only a single rabbinic text relates that discussions took place, and then only about Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (m. Yad. 3.5). But there are other rabbinic mentions of such discussions regarding various books even later. Moreover, the presenting question regarding Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes in m. Yadayim 3.5 is not whether they are to be made canonical, but whether their traditional scriptural standing is still to be affirmed. There appears to have been an academy or school rather than a council in Jamnia, but the idea that this academy fixed the Jewish canon in formal proceedings cannot be sustained. There is in fact no evidence that Judaism has ever made an official, binding decision on the scope and order of its biblical canon.​

9) Even if there was a so-called council of Jamnia in A.D. 90 in which Jews closed the canon without the Deuterocanonical books, which there was not, the matter would be completely irrelevant to the Christian, because they reject Jesus as Lord and God and would have been keen to reject any books that preach Christ, such as the prophecy in Wisdom 2. What do you think Wisdom 2 is about, Eliza on Ice?

10) Inserting numerous exclamation points into your posts does not make them more persuasive.

The first century the Jewish historian, Josephus, lists ONLY the 22 Books (corresponding to the 39 in the KJV) as being the Inspired, Infallible Word of God forming the entire Old Testament. This can be seen in his, Contra Apion 1:7-8, Josephus: Against Apion I

We also have the Council of Jamnia, (which some deny), which again establishes that there are ONLY 22 (39) Books in the Old Testament that are God-Inspired!, http://jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com/jamnia/
How can the Old Testament that the Jews have used before Jesus was born, be "a later version"? You, like the other Roman Catholics on here say what you do, with zero evidence, because the Truth destroys what you believe in!

1) What you wrote is rank nonsense. The so-called “Council of Jamnia” is based on a single paragraph of the Mishnah that mentions only two books. You can read the paragraph online:

Mishnah Yadayim 4 | Sefaria

A book [i.e. a Torah scroll] which was erased leaving only eighty-five letters in it, like the portion of (Numbers 10:35-36), "And it was when the Ark was raised...,"‏ renders the hands impure. A scroll on which are written eighty-five letters, like the portion of, "And it was when the Ark was raised...,"‏ renders the hands impure. All sacred scriptures render the hands impure. The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands impure. Rabbi Yehudah says: The Song of Songs renders the hands impure, but there is a dispute regarding Ecclesiastes. Rabbi Yose says: Ecclesiastes does not render the hands impure, and there is a dispute regarding The Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: Ecclesiastes is among the [relative] leniencies of Beit Shammai, and the [relative] stringencies of Beit Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said, "I have a recieved tradition from the mouths of seventy-two elders, on the day they inducted Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria into his seat [as head] at the Academy, that The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands impure." Rabbi Akiva said, "Mercy forbid! No one in Israel ever disputed that The Song of Songs renders the hands impure, since nothing in the entire world is worthy but for that day on which The Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but The Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies! And if they did dispute, there was only a dispute regarding Ecclesiastes." Rabbi Yochanan ben Yehoshua, the son of Rabbi Akiva's father-in-law, said, "In accordance with words of Ben Azzai, thus did they dispute, and thus did they conclude."​

It says absolutely nothing concerning 39 books of the OT Canon being selected. The myth you believe in has as much support for it as Sola Scriptura – none.

2) You do not even appear to have read the article you seem so keen on reciting. If you did, you would realize that it flatly refutes your very own assertions. The article states:

The Jamnia sages, for example, explored the merits of Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, Proverbs and Ezekiel. However, their inquiries into selected teachings, contained within those books, should not be seen as attempt to settle the status of those books. Whether the sages held a special council or if their discussions about the holy books were ongoing, the enduring significance of Jamnia lies not in the closing of the Jewish canon, but in ensuring the cultural and religious survival of the Jewish people.
​

3) One of the "modern scholars" whom you dismissed for rejecting the myth of the council is a renown Jewish professor of Jewish history:

Department of Judaic Studies

 

[PeaceB]

You cannot support a concept, such as the one you propose, on one string of 14 words.

I cannot, but St. James can, and he did. Deal with it.

 

[Christodoulos]

I've posted this before in reply to a similar comment:

"This popular assertion, however, is fallacious. The fact that such a claim should so long endure and conquer, is proof of the power of deception."

Your lexicon is "The Complete Word Study Dictionary" (Spiros Zhodiates). Even it says the word aionion is "from aion, age" and includes the meanings of "perpetual, belonging to the aion, to time in its duration, constant, abiding". So like the vast majority of learned sources, it also agrees the word, & its noun, may refer to a duration which is of a limited time period that has an end. The real issue here, then, is whether or not the word means a limited time period in the context of Matthew 25:31-46 in regards to punishment. That is something that should be a matter of serious study rather than assumptions based on what my pastor or bible study group assumes to be the case.

Considering the Greek word kolasis ("punishment", Mt.25:46, KJV) can refer to a corrective punishment, that should tell the reader of Matthew 25:46 what the possible duration of aionios ("everlasting", KJV) is & that it may refer to a finite punishment. Why? Because since it is corrective, it is with the purpose of bringing the person corrected to salvation. Oncce saved the person no longer has need of such a punishment & it ends. So it isn't "everlasting". [Or if it "everlasting", it is only everlasting in its positive effect]. Therefore this passage could just as easily support universalism as anything else.

From a review of a book by Ilaria Ramelli, namely The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp):

"...in a passage in Origen in which he speaks of “life after aionios life” (160). As a native speaker of Greek he does not see a contradiction in such phrasing; that is because aionios life does not mean “unending, eternal life,” but rather “life of the next age.” Likewise the Bible uses the word kolasis to describe the punishment of the age to come. Aristotle distinguished kolasis from timoria, the latter referring to punishment inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” On the other hand, kolasis refers to correction, it “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer” (quoted at 32). Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament, since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology


"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases.5 However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers. For example, when aionios referred to the duration of Jonah’s entrapment in the fish, it was limited to three days. To a slave, aionios referred to his life span. To the Aaronic priesthood, it referred to the generation preceding the Melchizedek priesthood. To Solomon’s temple, it referred to 400 years. To God it encompasses and transcends time altogether."

"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated. It is similar to what “tall” is to height. The size of a tall building can be 300 feet, a tall man six feet, and a tall dog three feet. Black Beauty was a great horse, Abraham Lincoln a great man, and Yahweh the GREAT God. Though God is called “great,” the word “great” is neither eternal nor divine. The horse is still a horse. An adjective relates to the noun it modifies. In relation to God, “great” becomes GREAT only because of who and what God is. This silences the contention that aion must always mean forever because it modifies God. God is described as the God of Israel and the God of Abraham. This does not mean He is not the God of Gentiles, or the God of you and me. Though He is called the God of the “ages,” He nonetheless remains the God who transcends the ages."

"In addition, Augustine’s reasoning does not hold up in light of Ro. 16:25, 26 and Hab. 3:6. Here, in both cases, the same word is used twice—with God and with something temporal. “In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God” (Ro. 16:25, 26 CLT). An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God eternal, but God makes eonian eternal. “And the everlasting mountains were scattered.…His ways are everlasting” (Hab. 3:6). Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God’s ways however, are eternal, because He is eternal."
Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever?

Philo was contemporary with Christ & we have this translation of his words which use the same words Christ used at Mt.25:46:

"It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment [kolasis aiónios] from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of conduct." Philo: Appendix 2: Fragments

In the year 544 A.D. the emperor Justinian wrote a letter:

"It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does not merely say, "We believe in aionion kolasin," for that was just what Origen himself taught. Nor does he say "the word aionion has been misunderstood; it denotes endless duration," as he would have said, had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that abundant language from which to choose, he says: "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked." If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration.
Chapter 21 - Unsuccessful Attempts to Suppress Universalism

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

Early Church Father universalists who were Greek scholars & many others of the time did not see Mt.25:46 contradicting their belief:

"The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in the æonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "æonian life," to "the life of the coming æon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself (an Early Church Father universalist) declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?"
Another Aionios Thread - These Things Go On Forever


"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" "

Chapter Nine

As regards the fate of the Jewish people, early in the gospel of Saint Matthew Jesus' word does correct them re the false teachings of endless torments and annihilation, as follows:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.

"Isn't it ironic that the passage most often used to support everlasting punishment is in fact one strongly opposing it when accurately understood?" (Tom Talbott, author of "The Inescapable Love of God").

Thomas Talbott - Wikipedia
Thomas Talbott- The Inescapable Love of God - 2nd Edition

I will take one example of what you have said.

"Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever?"

The full verse reads: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

In the Greek, "ὑπέχουσαι" (suffering), is in the "present, continuance tense". Jude writing some thousands of years later, says that the inhabitants of "Sodom and Gomorrha", were STILL suffering at the time that he was writing! This is not something that simply happened historically, but was a present fact centuries later! Why did Jude write using the "present" tense, if their "suffering" was ended in the past?

Those who hold to annihilation have to deal with this fact, that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, were NOT destroyed, as in "wiped out" when this happened, but are STILL very much suffering in the PRESENT.

 

[Christodoulos]

1) If you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell.

2) The opinion of a 1st Century Pharisee who rejects Jesus as Lord and God, and who rejects at least 27 books of the inspired word of God, is irrelevant to the Christian concerning the matter. Who are you going to cite next in support of your opinions, the Prophet Muhammad?

3) There is no rhyme or reason as to your use of authority whatsoever. If someone agrees with you, then he is an authority to be trusted with respect to that point. If the same exact person disagrees with you, then he is not to be trusted with respect to that point. For example, you cite St. Athanasius with respect to the NT Canon, yet you reject him with respect to the OT canon, and you reject him with respect to various other Christian doctrines such as the Mass. You accept Josephus with respect to the OT Canon, yet you reject his interpretation of the OT canon, and you reject him concerning Jesus.

You are simply picking and choosing to suit yourself. You have no principle, and this is why you are not to be taken seriously.

4) In Against Apion Josephus lists 22 books, and it is unclear whether the 22 books he lists correspond to the 24/39 books in the modern Jewish/Protestant canon, because Josephus does not list out the specific 22 books that he considered to be the inspired word of God. You have no proof whatsoever that the canon he referred to corresponds to the incomplete “Bible” on your shelf.

5) At the end of Antiquities of the Jews Josephus indicates that he considers several of the Deuterocanonical books to be Scripture, because he wrote that his work was based only on Scripture, and he cites the Deuterocanonical books throughout the Antiquites. In Against Apion, he lists 22 books only because he sought only to defend the books that were written before Artaxerxes’ reign, and the Deuterocanonical books were written after Artaxerxes.

6) The bible and the early church fathers make it clear that the Jewish canon was not closed during the 1st century. For example, the Saducees only accepted the Torah, which is why they did not believe in the resurrection of the body.

ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This sect had its stronghold especially in the region around Samaria. And these also adhere to the customs of the law, saying that one ought so to live, that he may conduct himself virtuously, and leave children behind him on earth. They do not, however, devote attention to prophets, but neither do they to any other sages, except to the law of Moses only, in regard of which, however, they frame no interpretations. These, then, are the opinions which also the Sadducees choose to teach.

ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

But although the Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the prophecy uttered.​

7) The bible that Jesus, the apostles, and all of the other early Christians used contains the books that you reject today.

8) The so-called council of Jamnia did not exist. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? They are both myths, mate. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, Volume 1, pp. 105-106​

“Council” of Jamnia Myth. Yet recent scholarship has been most at odds with the three-stage theory in its rejection of a canonical “council” in Jamnia circa 90 C.E. First suggested by Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891), the Jamnia hypothesis became a crucial lynchpin for the older approach, which viewed it as not only providing the historical context for the official inclusion of the Writings within the Hebrew canon but also the date of the finalization of the Hebrew Bible as a whole (thus Ryle 1895, pp. 182-183). However, the references to any such gathering are meager; only a single rabbinic text relates that discussions took place, and then only about Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (m. Yad. 3.5). But there are other rabbinic mentions of such discussions regarding various books even later. Moreover, the presenting question regarding Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes in m. Yadayim 3.5 is not whether they are to be made canonical, but whether their traditional scriptural standing is still to be affirmed. There appears to have been an academy or school rather than a council in Jamnia, but the idea that this academy fixed the Jewish canon in formal proceedings cannot be sustained. There is in fact no evidence that Judaism has ever made an official, binding decision on the scope and order of its biblical canon.​

9) Even if there was a so-called council of Jamnia in A.D. 90 in which Jews closed the canon without the Deuterocanonical books, which there was not, the matter would be completely irrelevant to the Christian, because they reject Jesus as Lord and God and would have been keen to reject any books that preach Christ, such as the prophecy in Wisdom 2. What do you think Wisdom 2 is about, Eliza on Ice?

10) Inserting numerous exclamation points into your posts does not make them more persuasive.



1) What you wrote is rank nonsense. The so-called “Council of Jamnia” is based on a single paragraph of the Mishnah that mentions only two books. You can read the paragraph online:

Mishnah Yadayim 4 | Sefaria

A book [i.e. a Torah scroll] which was erased leaving only eighty-five letters in it, like the portion of (Numbers 10:35-36), "And it was when the Ark was raised...,"‏ renders the hands impure. A scroll on which are written eighty-five letters, like the portion of, "And it was when the Ark was raised...,"‏ renders the hands impure. All sacred scriptures render the hands impure. The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands impure. Rabbi Yehudah says: The Song of Songs renders the hands impure, but there is a dispute regarding Ecclesiastes. Rabbi Yose says: Ecclesiastes does not render the hands impure, and there is a dispute regarding The Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: Ecclesiastes is among the [relative] leniencies of Beit Shammai, and the [relative] stringencies of Beit Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said, "I have a recieved tradition from the mouths of seventy-two elders, on the day they inducted Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria into his seat [as head] at the Academy, that The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands impure." Rabbi Akiva said, "Mercy forbid! No one in Israel ever disputed that The Song of Songs renders the hands impure, since nothing in the entire world is worthy but for that day on which The Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but The Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies! And if they did dispute, there was only a dispute regarding Ecclesiastes." Rabbi Yochanan ben Yehoshua, the son of Rabbi Akiva's father-in-law, said, "In accordance with words of Ben Azzai, thus did they dispute, and thus did they conclude."​

It says absolutely nothing concerning 39 books of the OT Canon being selected. The myth you believe in has as much support for it as Sola Scriptura – none.

2) You do not even appear to have read the article you seem so keen on reciting. If you did, you would realize that it flatly refutes your very own assertions. The article states:

The Jamnia sages, for example, explored the merits of Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, Proverbs and Ezekiel. However, their inquiries into selected teachings, contained within those books, should not be seen as attempt to settle the status of those books. Whether the sages held a special council or if their discussions about the holy books were ongoing, the enduring significance of Jamnia lies not in the closing of the Jewish canon, but in ensuring the cultural and religious survival of the Jewish people.
​

3) One of the "modern scholars" whom you dismissed for rejecting the myth of the council is a renown Jewish professor of Jewish history:

Department of Judaic Studies

The Orthodox Jews have remained faithful to their faith at all times, and protected their Bible from any corruption. You will see that they NEVER once include any other than the 22 (39) Books of the Old Testament. Why? If ANY of these extra books were Scripture, then you can be sure that they would have been included. Check their received Books, Jewish Religious Texts - A Brief Description

The Latin Vulgate of the 4th century was the work of the scholar Jerome. The Roman Catholic bible supposes to have come from this version. It is very interesting then, that Jerome, writing in his Prologus Galeatus, says there are ONLY 22 (39) Books in the Old Testament that are part of the Canon. All the other book he rejected as being part of the Old Testament, though he said they could be beneficial for reading. There is a HUGE difference in what he considered as "Scripture", and what he considered as "Apocryphal". No Roman Catholic here refers to Jerome, whose Bible is supposed to be the basis for their own bible?

 

[ClementofA]

I will take one example of what you have said.

"Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever?"

The full verse reads: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

In the Greek, "ὑπέχουσαι" (suffering), is in the "present, continuance tense". Jude writing some thousands of years later, says that the inhabitants of "Sodom and Gomorrha", were STILL suffering at the time that he was writing! This is not something that simply happened historically, but was a present fact centuries later! Why did Jude write using the "present" tense, if their "suffering" was ended in the past?

Those who hold to annihilation have to deal with this fact, that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, were NOT destroyed, as in "wiped out" when this happened, but are STILL very much suffering in the PRESENT.

The proper translation is important. Compare the "Interlinear" for Jude 7 via this site:

Jude 1 Interlinear Bible

The Interlinear there says it is not "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire", as your version says, but the cities are "set forth as an example", "undergoing the penalty of fire aionion".

Similarly, a literal version reads:

7 As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner to these committing ultra-prostitution, and coming away after other flesh, are lying before us, a specimen, experiencing the justice of fire eonian." (Jude 7, CLNT)

"7 The destruction of Sodom and the surrounding cities is still apparent to all who visit the region. In this way these cities are experiencing the justice of eonian fire. The fire has long ceased but its effects will remain and testify to God's judgment until the close of this eon, after which Sodom shall return to her former estate (Ezek.16:53-56)" (Concordant Commentary of the New Testament, p.376)
Concordant Commentary on the New Testament

"We likewise subscribe to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, who "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7). This occurred many centuries ago. How poor a passage to apply to that which is thousands of years hence!"

"The word "set forth" is, literally, "lying before." The term "example" or specimen, is from the word show. These are readily comprehended if we apply them to the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah today. Their destruction was so complete that their exact location is in dispute. Now the preponderance of opinion places them under the shallow end of the Dead Sea. No one can visit this terrible desolation without fully appreciating the force of these words."

"But we are asked to forget this solemn and forceful scene for an "example" which no one can see, and which is not at all "set forth" or "lying before" us. We are asked to forget the fire (Gen.19:24) which destroyed these cities so that the smoke of the plain went up like the smoke of a furnace. The justice or "vengeance" of this fire is all too evident to this very day. It is a powerful reminder of God's judgment which should deter those who are tempted to follow a similar path. This fire is called "eternal." Just now the plain is covered by water, not fire. It was an eonian fire, as is witnessed by its effect for the eon."

"Speaking of Jerusalem, Ezekiel gives us God's thoughts concerning Sodom. "As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters." And again, "When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters...then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them...when thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate" (Ezek.16:48,53,55)."

"2 Peter 2:6 gives a parallel passage, where we read that God condemns the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to cinders by an overthrow, having placed them for an example. This is perfectly plain, unless we try to distinguish between the cities and the people, and make conscious cinders suffer from flames beneath the waters of the Dead Sea."

"If the Sodomites were on public exhibition where all could see them suffering in the flames of a medieval hell, we might consider them as set forth as an example, but as no one has ever seen them, and no one can see them, they are no example at all. The cities, however, are lying before us as a specimen of God's eonian justice. The effects of the fire endure for the eon. When Jerusalem is restored, they will be restored."

A Reply To “Universalism Refuted” Part Seven

 

[ClementofA]

can you quote Jesus or Paul or John or Matthew, etc, etc, who ONCE taught that there is ANY hope after death? I am NOT interested in any other testimonies! ONLY THE HOLY BIBLE - 66 Books

1 Corinthians 15:22-28...

"AS in Adam ALL die
SO ALSO in Christ shall ALL be made alive.
BUT each in his own order:

1. Christ the Firstfruit;

2. Then they that are Christ's, at His coming;

3. Then cometh the end [order], WHEN He shall deliver
up the kingdom to God, even the Father; WHEN He shall
have abolished ALL rule and ALL authority and power.
For He must reign. TILL He hath put all His enemies
under His feet. THE LAST ENEMY THAT SHALL BE ABOLISHED
IS DEATH. (1 Cor. 15:22-26, R.V.)."

"...But each in his own order. Not a "but" of exception,
rather a "but" of order. ALL are to be made alive but at
different times. "Each in his own order." Three orders
are enumerated and located in relation to other events:

1. Christ the Firstfruit — Three days alter His death.

2. Then those who are Christ's — At His coming.

3. Then the end [order] — WHEN He shall deliver up the
kingdom."

"It is the third or "end" order that many overlook. A
thoughtful reading of this passage will enable most be-
lievers to see clearly that the words "then cometh the
end" refer to this end order to be made alive. The sub-
ject the apostle is elucidating is: The order in which
all who die in Adam will be made alive in Christ (vs. 22-
24). Christ the firstfruit (order one) and those who
are Christ's at His coming (order two) comprise only
a small part of the all who die in Adam. A third order
is necessary to make all alive. To refer the "end" to
anything else is to ignore the context and to introduce
something foreign to the subject. It cannot possibly
refer to an end of the kingdom, for though the kingdom
will be "delivered up" to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24), it
will never end (Luke 1:33)."

"Four statements in this passage indicate that the
words "then cometh the end" refer to the making alive
of an end order.

1. "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made
alive. But each in his own order" (vs. 22. 23).

2. "The last enemy that shall be abolished is death" (vs. 26).
It is the making alive of ALL that will abolish death. As long
as any remain dead, death has not been abolished.

3. "When all things have been subjected unto the Son" (vs.
27, 28). The dead must ALL be made alive if all are to be sub-
jected unto the Son. The only exception in this subjection is
God the Father.

4. "That God may be All in all" (vs. 28). This requires that
all be made alive. As long as any remain dead God cannot be
ALL in ALL, for He is not the God of the dead (Luke 20:37, 38)."

As in Adam all die

 

[ClementofA]

Nine language sources cited. Fourteen total references!

Which disagree with one another in a number of points.

Your "qualified" men following the Douay & KJV traditions of men of "the church" of the Inquisitions, Crusades & dark ages have been caught in a deception (Jer.8:8-9):

Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context. What biased scholars after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
9 "The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD..."

"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."

Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

"The Third Law of Theology: For every theologian there is an equal and opposite theologian."

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[ClementofA]

Which first century pastors are you talking about? Every early church father who quoted or referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual.

​

In any case, the duration, nature & purpose of the torments the rich man was suffering are not revealed in this story. His torments there could have lasted less than 5 minutes.

"If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in the nether-world (Sheol/Hades/hell), behold, Thou art there." (Psalm 139:8)

We are told the rich man requested water. He seemed to think a few drops of water would ease his sufferings. Apparently this isn't served in "hell" (Hades), but whether or not alcohol & morphine is on the menu is not revealed. After all, God is omnipresent.

Luke 16:27-28 seems to show the rich man's concern for others. Perhaps he was beginning to have a change of heart. Supposedly that is the purpose of those in Hades recieving the word of the Lord, in this case via Abraham.

So does this story do more harm than good for the endless tormenting god position, even if taken literally?

Your version quoted speaks of a great gulf fixed stopping the transfer of persons from one place to the other place. It does not say this gulf will remain in place forever. Only that at that moment in time it was so. Possibly the chasm barrier refers to the unrepentant state of those in Hades, & that once they repent the barrier stopping any individual from leaving is removed. Nor does the passage deny the possibility of salvation to the rich man in Hades while he remains there.

According to the Jews (Pharisees) you love to quote thinking it supports your views, many of the wicked who descend to Gehenna/hell will come up again. Does this passage disprove what the Jews said? Or do you still say that Jesus never contradicted their beliefs?

Any proof that the story of the rich man & Lazarus disproves universalism is absent from your post.

They get out of "hell" (Luke 16:19-31) in Revelation 20:11-15, if not sooner.

Fear not, said the angel who announced it, for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. Luke 2:10.

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. Luke 2:14.

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Luke 6:35

Luke 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying, 4What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
Luke 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[ClementofA]

Also thomas was already a disciple and saved.

Jesus didnt say "you have seen and are now saved"
He said.
“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Again, i stand by my previous scripture cited

Being a disciple/following Jesus around does not equal salvation.

Peter was a disciple too yet denied the Lord 3 times.

Judas was a disciple.

Thomas refused to believe the Lord was risen.

That's a requirement for salvation (1 Cor. 15).

 

[ClementofA]

Hello, in the first place, there is NO hope for any person after they die. This is very clearly seen from Hebrews 9:27, "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment". In the Greek, "ἅπαξ" (once), is literally, "once and for all, one time), which rules out "reincarnation". After this time, when they have died, the only thing awaiting these, is "judgement", which is "κρίσις", noting, "punishment", and not "a second chance".

What does the word "once" mean? Does "once" actually mean "possibly more than once?"

Heb.9:27 says it is appointed to men once to die. Does that deny men can die twice? No. Does it say "only" once? No. If New England is appointed to play the Buffalo Bills twice, does that deny they won't meet again in the playoffs? No. How many times did those raised before the general resurrections die?

I think, in light of the Rapture theory, many Christians would disagree with your statement that "100%, of mankind will die and face judgment". Not only that, but Hebrews 9:27 does not say men are "only" going to die once. Lazarus, for one, is a Biblical example of one who died twice & the book of Revelation speaks of the "second death".

Show me a verse that says God Omnipotent is not love, but the type of sadist that Satan can only dream of being.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf


Hebrews speaks of those who reject Christ as deserving a "sorer" punishment than death by Moses' law, i.e. stoning:

10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would suffer endless torments in fire, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is a sadist for all eternity.

 

[JacksBratt]

I cannot, but St. James can, and he did. Deal with it.

I like you..........you're funny

 

[notforgotten]

Really? Look closely at this short conversation between a sinner and his Savior.

But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come intok]">[k] your kingdom.”


1/ “Do you not fear God
Proverbs 9:10King James Version (KJV)
10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

2/ we indeed have been condemned justly,
Admitting his sins and accepting his punishment as just.

3/ but this man has done nothing wrong.
Professing before men that Christ is sinless.

4/ Jesus, remember me when you come into
Seems that this could be accepted as repentance. One could say that the thief would have had to of known that be accepted into Christs kingdom would require a change in behavior.

I think it's safe to say that this man, if he were to of lived after this, would have followed Christ as a devoted disciple and repentance can be assumed.

Either way, it was sufficient for Christ to accept his plea for salvation.

What would this thief have had to do for you to consider him repentant.

Repentance also requires a change in behavior which requires time. The thief on the cross had no time to completely repent. Thus, complete repentance is required only of those who are able to so.

 

[notforgotten]

Psalms chapter 49 verse 7
No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them

This refers to people in this life and not the dead who have no life.

 

[notforgotten]

The complete fulfillment of the mission of Jesus Christ is to save those who would accept the salvation offered. Those who rejected it are not forced. Your scheme is that everyone, even those who reject God, will be saved, even if those who reject God are dragged to heaven kicking and screaming. How does THAT complete anything?

No. My claim is that we can offer up atonement for even the unfaithful in hell. Christ's work is to be preached to all people in all places. And this completes the redemptive work of Christ.

 

[notforgotten]

Can you provide ONE Scripture to support you THEORY that hell is not eternal? I can give you one that shows you completely wrong.

Matthew 25:46, Spoken by Jesus Christ Himself, Whose Authority is second to none!

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

You will note that the SAME Greek word, "αἰώνιος" is used for the English, "eternal". The one is for the "unrighteous", and the other, for the "righteous". BOTH must have the same force and therefore the same duration. There is NO reason, except for one's theological bias, to suppose that the meaning of "αἰώνιος" is different in both places. To say that hell is not "eternal", you must also say that neither is heaven, for the righteous!

This is redundant. We have already gone over this. Do you honestly believe that those in hell, who have fallen asleep in Christ, including, Adam and Eve, before the redemptive work of Christ was complete, was not saved?

The Resurrection of the Dead

1 Corinthians 15:12-19. 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

And,

Zechariah 9:11. As for you, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will free your prisoners from the waterless pit.

Your work is like that of a devil who would have us believe that there is no hope for the dead.

 

[notforgotten]

In this vs. Paul is addressing Christians at Corinth. He did not say "Why then are you baptized for the dead?" He is talking about "they" some other group not the Corinthian Christians. Other than this one verse is there any credible, verifiable, historical evidence that Christians practiced baptism for the dead? A doctrine should not be based on one ambiguous verse.

I beg to differ. A doctrine can be based on one verse, if it truly is the infallible work of God.

 

[Christodoulos]

This is redundant. We have already gone over this. Do you honestly believe that those in hell, who have fallen asleep in Christ, including, Adam and Eve, before the redemptive work of Christ was complete, was not saved?

The Resurrection of the Dead

1 Corinthians 15:12-19. 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

And,

Zechariah 9:11. As for you, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will free your prisoners from the waterless pit.

Your work is like that of a devil who would have us believe that there is no hope for the dead.

You are very much mistaken in your understanding of this passage in 1 Corinthians. Paul is here stressing the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and says, that because of this, we who believe in Jesus and are saved, when we die will also be resurrected from the dead and by with the Lord forevermore. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is shown to be our hope, for our own resurrection. No where does Paul say that this is about those who have died, who are not saved (born-again), who have a post-death opportunity to be saved and go to heaven. You are trying to force the Bible to say something that it clearly does NOT.

 

[Christodoulos]

No. My claim is that we can offer up atonement for even the unfaithful in hell. Christ's work is to be preached to all people in all places. And this completes the redemptive work of Christ.

This is RANK HERESY! to believe this will damn lost souls to eternal damnation as it gives them a FALSE hope!

 

[notforgotten]

Here's one problem with those who think there is no chance for mercy after death. They do not believe in the ontological reality of God.

God is love. Love is mercy.

They think God is a Person like us who chooses to love and have mercy. That is an essential misunderstanding of the Person of God. God cannot not love because HE IS LOVE! This is an ontological reality for Him.

My dog cannot fly. She might wish to fly, she might want to fly, but she cannot fly because that is not what she is. She is a dog, and dogs do not fly.

God is LOVE. Instead of jumping to the keyboard to refute me, take some time to ponder what it means that God IS love. He can only act according to His ontology, just as Daisy cannot fly because she is ontologically not a bird.

There will never be a time that God is not love, and therefore does not have mercy, for mercy is the great component of love. Those who do not have mercy do not understand love.

The only real question then is this: can a soul repent after death? The mercy and love will always flow like a river from the throne of God. That is who He is. And you who deny mercy after death have no proof at all that souls cannot change after death. Not only this, but any Catholic or Orthodox who denies this SHOULD NEVER PRAY AGAIN FOR ANY SOUL THAT HAS PASSED FROM THIS LIFE! The very fact of your prayers for the dead shows a belief that change is possible.

I liked your post. But repentance is not required for those who cannot repent. The dead cannot repent. It is by the divine power of Christ that their souls are saved (restored).

Although, repentance is required of us because we can repent and it's God's will. It is by the same power of God that we are saved.

1 Corinthians 1:18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Romans 1:16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth;...