The Argument for Universal Reconciliation from the Book of Romans

[Jeff Saunders]

So you think Jesus takes forced and not sincere confessions ? Not my Jesus he wins over his enemies with love and turns them into loyal followers. You know the whole love your enemies thing I read in a book somewhere.

You can read Greek and you know Exomologeo by definition is not a forced confession. You need to be honest with the text even when it goes against your presuppositions.

 

[Lukaris]

Have you actually looked up the early church fathers who believed in Christian Universal Redemption? There are more than just a few. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the framers of the Nicene creed and was given the title of father of the fathers. Christian Universal Redemption didn’t become frowned upon until Augustine with his Latin translation of scripture and that tradition has continued through the Catholic Church and then into the Protestant Church.

St. Basil, brother of St. Gregory, whose theology was more precise and core to Orthodox Christianity ( orthodox in general to Christianity in particular) preached salvation pertaining to everlasting life or condemnation:






For he shall come and shall not keep silence; when He shall come to judge the quick and dead, to render to every one according to his work; when that terrible trumpet with its mighty voice shall wake those that have slept through the ages, and they that have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evilunto the resurrection of damnation. Remember the vision of Daniel, and how he brings the judgment before us: I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool;...and His wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth before Him; thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened,Daniel 7:9-10 clearly disclosing in the hearing of all, angels and men, things good and evil, things done openly and in secret, deeds, words, and thoughts all at once. What then must those men be who have lived wicked lives? Where then shall that soul hide which in the sight of all these spectators shall suddenly be revealed in its fullness of shame? With what kind of body shall it sustain those endless and unbearable pangs in the place of fire unquenched, and of the worm that perishes and never dies, and of depth of Hades, dark and horrible; bitter wailings, loud lamenting, weeping and gnashing of teeth and anguish without end? From all these woes there is no release after death; no device, no means of coming forth from the chastisement of pain.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 46 (St. Basil)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[Jeff Saunders]

St. Basil, brother of St. Gregory, whose theology was more precise and core to Orthodox Christianity ( orthodox in general to Christianity in particular) preached salvation pertaining to everlasting life or condemnation:






For he shall come and shall not keep silence; when He shall come to judge the quick and dead, to render to every one according to his work; when that terrible trumpet with its mighty voice shall wake those that have slept through the ages, and they that have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evilunto the resurrection of damnation. Remember the vision of Daniel, and how he brings the judgment before us: I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool;...and His wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth before Him; thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened,Daniel 7:9-10 clearly disclosing in the hearing of all, angels and men, things good and evil, things done openly and in secret, deeds, words, and thoughts all at once. What then must those men be who have lived wicked lives? Where then shall that soul hide which in the sight of all these spectators shall suddenly be revealed in its fullness of shame? With what kind of body shall it sustain those endless and unbearable pangs in the place of fire unquenched, and of the worm that perishes and never dies, and of depth of Hades, dark and horrible; bitter wailings, loud lamenting, weeping and gnashing of teeth and anguish without end? From all these woes there is no release after death; no device, no means of coming forth from the chastisement of pain.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 46 (St. Basil)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

I would agree that not all were Universalists but some were and it was not considered a heresy they had debated this subject but didn’t break fellowship over it , not till Augustine.

 

[Der Alte]

It is just simply so sad how you approach what should be a give and take discussion founded on mutual respect. It is not.

blessings

How are my posts not mutual respect I tell you what I believe and explain why.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

It is just simply so sad how you approach what should be a give and take discussion founded on mutual respect. It is not.

blessings

Der Alte:
How are my posts not mutual respect I tell you what I believe and explain why.

My reply:
I will not, as I have done before, go back and list all the questions/comments I have asked that you simply ignored. Take the time to review, just our exchange in this thread alone. Do that, list the unanswered questions and comments and address them. Feel free to add any unanswered questions you have asked of me and I will do likewise. Otherwise, my comment stands …

blessings

 

[Der Alte]

So you think Jesus takes forced and not sincere confessions ? Not my Jesus he wins over his enemies with love and turns them into loyal followers. You know the whole love your enemies thing I read in a book somewhere.

Have you ever read Matt 7:21-23?

Matthew 7:21-23​

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many [NOT a few] will say to me in that day, [judgement day] Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

(23) And then will I [Jesus] profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

Note the words "this age" "the next age" etc. do NOT occur in this passage anywhere. When Jesus says never He does not mean some day by and by. Jesus did not take insincere confessions so He will NOT take them when many bow the knee and profess to love him.

 

[Der Alte]

How many times do I have to say it? I agree with each of these as plainly written. They are for this age except Jeremiah was for the last age. Not the age to come. Until you get caught up to speed on how God works using ages you will not understand.

Please show me the words "the age to come" in Matt 7:21-23. I can't find the word "age" anywhere in Matthew.

 

[Der Alte]

You can read Greek and you know Exomologeo by definition is not a forced confession. You need to be honest with the text even when it goes against your presuppositions.

You have NOT shown how you determined that "exomologeo" is not a forced confession. Does Jesus accept a forced or insincere confession?

Matthew 7:21-23​

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many [NOT a few] will say to me in that day,[judgement day] Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [I've seen some folks on TV doing this and getting exposed.]​

(23) And then will I [Jesus] profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

The "confession" vs. 21, certainly seems insincere to me and Jesus does not accept it. "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven." When responding to this please be sure and show me how this only applies to "this age" and not "the next" or a future age.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

You have NOT shown how you determined that "exomologeo" is not a forced confession. Does Jesus accept a forced or insincere confession?

Matthew 7:21-23​

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many [NOT a few] will say to me in that day,[judgement day] Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [I've seen some folks on TV doing this and getting exposed.]​

(23) And then will I [Jesus] profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

The "confession" vs. 21, certainly seems insincere to me and Jesus does not accept it. "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven." When responding to this please be sure and how me how this only applies to "this age" and not "the next" or a future age.

At the end of this age , when Jesus returns, there will be people who think that they are following Jesus, but they are following the dictates of man . To those God will say I didn’t know you, only God knows the dividing line we don’t, it’s his creation and he is a fair and loving judge, If you understand the concept of Gods ages you would understand this . In the next age God still pursuing his creation will have all that is not of God purged away, destroyed, gone , then they will see Jesus clearly for the first time. The love of God is so strong that no one of his creation will be able to resist, we were created to worship God , that’s our default setting, and at that point Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that’s Jesus is Lord. Then God will be all in all , not only in a few. So by you cutting and pasting all your proof text, unless you understand the ages and take the blinders off , because of tradition, you will never understand Gods plan , his telos for his creation.

 

[Der Alte]

At the end of this age , when Jesus returns, there will be people who think that they are following Jesus, but they are following the dictates of man . To those God will say I didn’t know you, only God knows the dividing line we don’t, it’s his creation and he is a fair and loving judge, If you understand the concept of Gods ages you would understand this . In the next age God still pursuing his creation will have all that is not of God purged away, destroyed, gone , then they will see Jesus clearly for the first time. The love of God is so strong that no one of his creation will be able to resist, we were created to worship God , that’s our default setting, and at that point Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that’s Jesus is Lord. Then God will be all in all , not only in a few. So by you cutting and pasting all your proof text, unless you understand the ages and take the blinders off , because of tradition, you will never understand Gods plan , his telos for his creation.

I pretty much stopped reading at the 6th word. That is the standard UR answer for every disputed point. Even if the word "age" or "ages" appears nowhere in a particular passage, insert it anyway to make any and every scripture appear to support UR.
In Jeremiah 13:11-14 If God had wanted His words to refer only to the then current age He would have said so.
In Matthew 7:21-23 If Jesus had wanted His words to refer only to the then current "age" He would have said so,

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I pretty much stopped reading at the 6th word. That is the standard UR answer for every disputed point. Even if the word "age" or "ages" appears nowhere in a particular passage, insert it anyway to make any and every scripture appear to support UR.
In Jeremiah 13:11-14 If God had wanted His words to refer only to the then current age He would have said so.
In Matthew 7:21-23 If Jesus had wanted His words to refer only to the then current "age" He would have said so,

If Jesus wanted His words to refer to the current “age “ He would have said so . If you understand ages you would understand how this statement is ignorant

 

[Der Alte]

If Jesus wanted His words to refer to the current “age “ He would have said so . If you understand ages you would understand how this statement is ignorant

My statement is strictly Biblical yours is not. Convince me from scripture only that it is correct to add age/ages into passages where it does not occur in the text.

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alte:
How are my posts not mutual respect I tell you what I believe and explain why.

My reply:
I will not, as I have done before, go back and list all the questions/comments I have asked that you simply ignored. Take the time to review, just our exchange in this thread alone. Do that, list the unanswered questions and comments and address them. Feel free to add any unanswered questions you have asked of me and I will do likewise. Otherwise, my comment stands …

blessings

If I have failed to answer any questions which you think are game changers that I should answer immediately right then and there is when you should remind me. Not wait several days. I might miss some I am a 100% disabled veteran. Since I have nothing on my plate I will go back and see if I can figure out which they are.

 

[Der Alte]

Remember when I spoke of the silence of Scripture concerning Gehenna/hell, of which NONE of the Apostles speak? Same here my friend. That is my point. These scholars draw out nothing from the text (exegesis) to quote for you. If you wish to learn their thoughts on the proper interpretation of this text … read it and learn. Otherwise, continue down the road of embarrassment you are traveling. Again, please just stop.

Did Jesus ever mention hell or eternal punishment? If He did, then what does it matter that none of the apostles did not?

Why don’t you pull out your Hebrew Lexicon and tell me? It is Interesting to me you have not yet done so. I wonder why? Here is a thought, you might try it some time. Drum roll please … I’m really not sure. You know what? It really wasn’t that hard for me.

Since you are criticizing me the burden of proof is on you. But I will answer this question. This word occurs 140 times in the O.T.

[שָׁחַת] vb. go to ruin (?) — Niph. be marred, spoiled, of wastecloth, vessel; be injured; or even (hyperb.) ruined, of land; be corrupted, corrupt, in morals and rel., of earth. Pi. 1. spoil, ruin, acc. of eye, vineyard (fig.), branches (fig.), also = destroy, acc. pers. (acc. om.), city, fortress, etc., ruin temple, nation, land, earth; c. ל obj. (ל 3 b), city, pers.; c. acc. רַחֲמָין, destroyed (stifled) his compassion. 2. pervert, corrupt, acc. wisdom, abs. = deal corruptly. Hiph. 1. spoil, ruin, acc. crop, trees (fig.), vessels, houses, palaces; דַּיָּם ˊהִשׁ‍ thieves damage as much as they want; acc. pers. = ruin, destroy, (+ מִן separ.), + (acc. pers. om.), acc. בֵּית דָּוִד, abs.; also ruin one (by words); acc. עַם; land; city wall; cities and nations, pride of Judah, earth; abs. c. adv. acc.; Pt. as adj., of lion, angel; = destroyer; sq. coll.; the destroying band (spoilers, ravagers); fig. for snare, trap. 2. pervert, corrupt, morally, acc. דֶּרֶךְ, (מִן comp.); (+ vb. of particular act); declar. = act corruptly; Pt. as subst. Hoph. spoiled, ruined, of a spring, מָקוֹר; as subst. sacrificing a spoiled thing.​

​

Richard Whitaker et al., The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, Based on the Lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius (Boston; New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1906).​

Now, I will say this, no original thought here, just the illustration. If I made a huge bonfire, set it ablaze, and once it was a raging hot inferno, I tossed in to it a canvas painting that was once beautiful but had become marred and disfigured from neglect. Left outside in the weather. Pretty much became useless as an object of beauty. Would you say, after the fire burned itself out, that the canvas painting was destroyed? Perhaps.

You are NOT God, next irrelevant question.

You could also argue the painting was merely transformed from one substance to another. The substance is no longer a painting but it is now ash. Destroyed in one sense, yet merely transformed in to another substance. Perhaps the ash could now be used in your garden. Perhaps it could be used under the eye to help reduce glare from the sun, or even used to make another canvass painting?

I conclude, in this scenario, it is in the eye of the beholder concerning its value or usefulness. In this case you see it as an end of the painting. Destroyed. The end. I may see it as a newly transformed substance waiting to be used for another purpose. Perhaps I might use the ash, using my fingers, to sketch another painting. Just thinking out loud here my friend …

Already answered above. Remember? I’ll give you a hint … they were silent on the matter.

Ok. This time I go a step further. I alady have a couple of times. You are acting childish here my brother and I expect better from you. Perhaps I shouldn’t …
Final reply on this matter. Your embarrassment continues because your pride is more important to you than your dignity or the integrity of the Scriptures.
Good night brother,
blessings

I am not and have not been embarrassed. When God said I will destroy, it was accompanied, emphasized by the words I will NOT pity, NOR spare, NOR have mercy, but destroy them. I do not know of any verse where God relented and decided to have pity, to spare, to have mercy, and not destroy the rebellious Judaeans and Israelites. Jer 13:11. FYI this vs. reads the same in the JPS, Jewish Publication Society translation.

 

[Aaron112]

p.s. Yahweh's Wrath is for now near time, yet being stored up for those who oppose Him, and for those who shed innocent blood. He is patient, letting the sins be piled up as they are, but patient for the one who might turn to Him and repent before His Vengeance is Delivered . Some persons are already condemned today, alive on earth, because of unbelief. The point of no return is fast approaching for all who are condemned.

 

[Der Alte]

My friend, why do you continue to promote this passage as defense against UR? Please stop … you are embarrassing yourself. Seriously. You state you are someone who values the necessity for scholarship, yet you yourself offer none surrounding this text. I asked you basic questions about how you arrive at your interpretation and your reply’s are remedial at best, and I’m being kind in my word choice.

I pointed out to you there is no mention of final judgement, last day, day of the Lord or anything of that nature in the entire chapter of Jeremiah 13. I pointed out no use of the word(s) eternal, everlasting, forever etc … Your reply’s? Again, I’ll stick with remedial at best. Even though there was no need, I consulted old testament Scholars Keil & Delitzsch, John Gill, and Biblical Illustrator. NONE OF THEM even alluded to, much less mention anything pertaining to future punishment. They all speak of this as temporal, pertaining to this life/age. Good grief … give it a rest already. You know, it’s a sign of maturity, not weakness, to admit you are in error.

What you are performing on this text as I stated before is called eisegesis. Any honest individual who has been trained in biblical studies, and actually cares about handling the Scriptures with honor and integrity, will tell you the same.
***
Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective.

Quote from your post #308:
“For those willing to hear I explain when I see something out-of-context. It often involves quoting only part of a passage which might appear to say something other than what the writer actually intended. Which OBTW includes all of the UR proof texts.”

Based on and processed through the eyes of the gospel of fear & death? No thanks. I choose to listen to the Spirit of Truth that abides in ME and YOU. I have given you more than enough to think about over the last week of discussions. Have you taken the time to consider them as I have taken the time to consider your often repeated out-of-context Scripture in Jeremiah 13? Sadly, I don’t have any reason to think you have …

blessings

While you seem capable of copy/pasting the definition of eisegesis you failed to show how anything I posted is eisegesis. Making an accusation is not proof.
Here it is again. Show me precisely where anything is "eisegeted."

Jeremiah 13:11-14​

(11) For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto Me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD, that they might be unto Me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory; but they would not hearken.​

(12) Moreover thou shalt speak unto them this word: Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: 'Every bottle is filled with wine'; and when they shall say unto thee: 'Do we not know that every bottle is filled with wine?'​

(13) Then shalt thou say unto them: Thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David's throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness.​

(14) And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD; I will not pity, nor spare, nor have compassion, that I should not destroy them.​

In order to conclusively show that anything I posted is "eisegesis" you must show 1 or more vss. where God relents and decides to have pity, to spare, have compassion, and restore specifically the Judaeans and Israelites who were destroyed.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

If I have failed to answer any questions which you think are game changers that I should answer immediately right then and there is when you should remind me.

No. It is not my responsibility to remind you to answer my question(s). I see, you have a protocol established by which you judge if a question should be answer immediately? Like. If it’s not a game changer it can wait … I have answered all your questions, usually within 24 hours of a post from you. Look back at the date on some of these. They go back to even earlier than 2/25.

Not wait several days. I might miss some I am a 100% disabled veteran.

I have the utmost respect for you and your sacrifice for our country. When I learned you flew choppers in the war it rang even louder as my Uncle served in a chopper division. Came back pretty messed up. So please don’t diminish the respect you have earned with a comment like the one above. Your mind and abilities to utilize the reference tools in your possession seem sharp enough to me to answer when it suits your position, but at times you are lazy in your reply(s) or conveniently forgetful. Neither of which are acceptable.

Since I have nothing on my plate I will go back and see if I can figure out which they are.

The past is past just do better in the future. I am still waiting for your reply on your interpretation of what Paul meant by God shall be All in All. Stick to the context in which it was used by Paul in the entire chapter of 1st Corinthians 15. Respect the text first. Then attempt to harmonize the contextual significance as it relates to your overall interpretation of Gods plan for mankind.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

Remember when I spoke of the silence of Scripture concerning Gehenna/hell, of which NONE of the Apostles speak? Same here my friend. That is my point. These scholars draw out nothing from the text (exegesis) to quote for you. If you wish to learn their thoughts on the proper interpretation of this text … read it and learn. Otherwise, continue down the road of embarrassment you are traveling. Again, please just stop.

Der Alte:
Did Jesus ever mention hell or eternal punishment? If He did, then what does it matter that none of the apostles did not?

My reply:
Well, let’s see … Do you recall the Great Commission?

”Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.“
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28‬:‭19‬-‭20‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Matthew 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and l | New King James Version (NKJV)

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and l

bible.com

It should matter to you and anyone else who holds to the fabricated demonic doctrine of hell. I find most believers who hold to this wicked, God dishonoring view, are those who teach OBEDIENCE … OBEDIENCE … OBEDIENCE … to the commands of Christ. And I affirm we should. They cry, we follow the teachings of Christ and His church! Really. Why? His own disciples either forgot to mention hell. Disregarded His command to teach what He taught them. Or, did not teach it because they understood it was not part of the proclamation of the Gospel.

P.S. Paul stated the following:
”“And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.“
‭‭Acts‬ ‭20‬:‭25‬-‭27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Acts 20:25-27 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For | New King James Version (NKJV) | D

“And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For

bible.com

Not a single instance of Paul using Hades or Gehenna in ALL of his epistles, warning of this contrived doctrine. So. In your view was Paul telling the truth? Did he lie? Or did he understand it was not a part of the Gospel Christ Himself taught him. Do you recall Paul’s confrontation with the philosophers at Mars Hill? Head to head with those philosophers in a real time interaction and he somehow failed to mention Hades/Gehenna? Perhaps he was intimidated by their knowledge and said just enough to get himself out of there before they gave him a theological whipping. I THINK NOT. Paul backed down from no one. Not the Gentiles philosophers. Not his brother Peter. Not the church leadership he put in place. Nobody!

If you, or anybody else, doesn’t think this is reason enough to stop and reconsider your stance on the myth of hell; then you go ahead and continue to remain in your denial and chose to be blind to the truth … That’s what blind allegiance to man made orthodoxy will provide you. Or, you can turn to Jesus and ask Him yourself. Listen. See if “THE TRUTH” will set you free!

Why don’t you pull out your Hebrew Lexicon and tell me? It is Interesting to me you have not yet done so. I wonder why? Here is a thought, you might try it some time. Drum roll please … I’m really not sure. You know what? It really wasn’t that hard for me.

Since you are criticizing me the burden of proof is on you. But I will answer this question. This word occurs 140 times in the O.T.
[שָׁחַת] vb. go to ruin (?) — Niph. be marred, spoiled, of wastecloth, vessel; be injured; or even (hyperb.) ruined, of land; be corrupted, corrupt, in morals and rel., of earth. Pi. 1. spoil, ruin, acc. of eye, vineyard (fig.), branches (fig.), also = destroy, acc. pers. (acc. om.), city, fortress, etc., ruin temple, nation, land, earth; c. ל obj. (ל 3 b), city, pers.; c. acc. רַחֲמָין, destroyed (stifled) his compassion. 2. pervert, corrupt, acc. wisdom, abs. = deal corruptly. Hiph. 1. spoil, ruin, acc. crop, trees (fig.), vessels, houses, palaces; דַּיָּם ˊהִשׁ‍ thieves damage as much as they want; acc. pers. = ruin, destroy, (+ מִן separ.), + (acc. pers. om.), acc. בֵּית דָּוִד, abs.; also ruin one (by words); acc. עַם; land; city wall; cities and nations, pride of Judah, earth; abs. c. adv. acc.; Pt. as adj., of lion, angel; = destroyer; sq. coll.; the destroying band (spoilers, ravagers); fig. for snare, trap. 2. pervert, corrupt, morally, acc. דֶּרֶךְ, (מִן comp.); (+ vb. of particular act); declar. = act corruptly; Pt. as subst. Hoph. spoiled, ruined, of a spring, מָקוֹר; as subst. sacrificing a spoiled thing.
Richard Whitaker et al., The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, Based on the Lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius (Boston; New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1906).

Now, I will say this, no original thought here, just the illustration. If I made a huge bonfire, set it ablaze, and once it was a raging hot inferno, I tossed in to it a canvas painting that was once beautiful but had become marred and disfigured from neglect. Left outside in the weather. Pretty much became useless as an object of beauty. Would you say, after the fire burned itself out, that the canvas painting was destroyed? Perhaps.

Der Alte:
You are NOT God, next irrelevant question.

My reply:
No argument from me my friend.

You could also argue the painting was merely transformed from one substance to another. The substance is no longer a painting but it is now ash. Destroyed in one sense, yet merely transformed in to another substance. Perhaps the ash could now be used in your garden. Perhaps it could be used under the eye to help reduce glare from the sun, or even used to make another canvass painting?

I conclude, in this scenario, it is in the eye of the beholder concerning its value or usefulness. In this case you see it as an end of the painting. Destroyed. The end. I may see it as a newly transformed substance waiting to be used for another purpose. Perhaps I might use the ash, using my fingers, to sketch another painting. Just thinking out loud here my friend …

Already answered above. Remember? I’ll give you a hint … they were silent on the matter.

Ok. This time I go a step further. I alady have a couple of times. You are acting childish here my brother and I expect better from you. Perhaps I shouldn’t …
Final reply on this matter. Your embarrassment continues because your pride is more important to you than your dignity or the integrity of the Scriptures.
Good night brother,
blessings
Click to expand...

Der Alte:
I am not and have not been embarrassed. When God said I will destroy, it was accompanied, emphasized by the words I will NOT pity, NOR spare, NOR have mercy, but destroy them. I do not know of any verse where God relented and decided to have pity, to spare, to have mercy, and not destroy the rebellious Judaeans and Israelites. Jer 13:11. FYI this vs. reads the same in the JPS, Jewish Publication Society translation.

My reply:
Fine. So all these rebellious Jews are completely destroyed correct? Do you mean just those during the time of Jeremiah? Or ALL Jews of ALL time who were, are, or going to be rebellious? I’m thinking you mean those in the time of Jeremiah. Correct? So these rebellious Jews are completely destroyed, “to no longer exist (your words).” Therefore, based on your interpretation and application of the context of Jeremiah, what exactly does await them? Are they heading for future judgement? Nope! Hey they no longer exist. Right? Can’t resurrect what doesn’t exist to be judged in the future.

Man, do you not see the absurdity of your interpretation of this text? Fact is, they were judged by God. Killed/Destroyed. And await future judgement like everyone else apart from faith. Anything else you chose to impose on his passage is well … eisegesis.

blessings

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

While you seem capable of copy/pasting the definition of eisegesis you failed to show how anything I posted is eisegesis. Making an accusation is not proof.
Here it is again. Show me precisely where anything is "eisegeted."

Jeremiah 13:11-14​

(11) For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto Me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD, that they might be unto Me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory; but they would not hearken.​

(12) Moreover thou shalt speak unto them this word: Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: 'Every bottle is filled with wine'; and when they shall say unto thee: 'Do we not know that every bottle is filled with wine?'​

(13) Then shalt thou say unto them: Thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David's throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness.​

(14) And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD; I will not pity, nor spare, nor have compassion, that I should not destroy them.​

In order to conclusively show that anything I posted is "eisegesis" you must show 1 or more vss. where God relents and decides to have pity, to spare, have compassion, and restore specifically the Judaeans and Israelites who were destroyed.

Already answered. Several times.

 

[Der Alte]

Already answered. Several times.

No, you did not. You may have posted a jumble of words but you did not credibly show anything I said was eisegesis. Here is what UR eisegesis looks like, Matt 7:21-23
Matthew 7:21-23

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many [not a few] will say to me in that day, [judgement] Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

(23) And then will I [Jesus] profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

The words "This age, the next age etc." do not occur anywhere in this passage but when UR folks comment on this passage this passage say something like "Matt 7:21-23 is only for thjs age not the next age." The same thing with Jeremiah 13:11-14