The Bible: God's plan for the redemption of humankind? Or... ???

[Clare73]

You seem to move those goal posts around as to which is which.

I don't know how you would move the goal posts around in parables and prophecy, or teaching.

 

[Ceallaigh]

There was a church magisterium in those days, which ruled on heresy.

But you said it's a fairly new concoction.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I don't know how you would move the goal posts around in parables and prophecy, or teaching.

I don't know how you manage it either.

 

[Clare73]

I don't know how you manage it either.

Perhaps you could show where I have taken from a book of prophecy and called it parable, or vice versa.

 

[Clare73]

But you said it's a fairly new concoction.

Does "millennialism" include pre-millennial and post-millennial, which are new?

I don't spend time in prophecy, because interpretation of it is not certain.

 

[Saint Steven]

You are correct about the story of the Bible, as far as you go, but I see it as only mostly about the redemption of mankind. You see, God is going to redeem the entire created Cosmos. Talk about Heavy Lifting...

That's a great point actually. How careless of me. - lol

In total, the Bible is God's Plan for the Redemption of all Creation. (not just humankind)

Revelation 21:5 NIV
He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

 

[Ceallaigh]

Does "millennialism" include pre-millennial and post-millennial, which are new?

I don't spend time in prophecy, because interpretation of it is not certain.

Neither do I. I've just heard for over 50 years since sunday school, that there's a rapture a tribulation and then Christ comes back binds satan and sets up a thousand year reign on Earth. That's the standard teaching among Evangelicals. Which I'm sure you know perfectly well.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Perhaps you could show where I have taken from a book of prophecy and called it parable, or vice versa.

More like you seem to shift gears as to what's figurative and what's literal language in whatever format it's delivered. When I point this out as it happens, you seem to deflect and obfuscate in response. It's like discussing with you ends up being a game of cat and mouse.

 

[Jipsah]

And if you can find me any hint of a spinning waterball earth in near-infinite space cosmology in the Bible, do please dial those scriptures in. On my reading, a flat stationary enclosed earth is taught. Do try to accept it. God true, every man liar.

That's where we disagree mate. But if I'm wrong, when we both get home I'll look you up and apologize, shake your hand, and... wait, will we be able to buy each other a pint in the Kingdom?

If Jesus is the true begotten son of God, whose birth is good news for all mankind, whose mission is to save the world, and God wants all mankind saved, and God has promised that all will confess, and confession is all that is required for salvation, and salvation is a gift of God, and God will be all in all, and Salvation is the omega plan...then er, gee, um, der...dem mostly all die, boss?

Almost thou persuadest me to be a Universalist. And that may be another pint I owe you.

I believe God will annihilate stupidity. That's what's causing the perishing.

And once again we're in agreement. Peace bruv.

 

[Jipsah]

And speaking of hilarity, I note you conspicuously failed to address the issue, which is immortality in Jesus' parable of Luke 16:19-31, where Jesus presents immortality of both the redeemed and the damned.

He didn't say they were immortal, they simply weren't dead when the conversation was going on. You infer immortality because you believe in it a priori.

Nice try, but hilarity simply serves as refuge for a failed argument.

Or in the case to which I was responding, an unintelligible argument. Hence the hilarity.

 

[Jipsah]

You're obviously an amillennialist. But the most widely held view is premillennialism.

Amongst American Evangelicals, anyway. PreMil doesn't have much traction outside the States.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Amongst American Evangelicals, anyway. PreMil doesn't have much traction outside the States.

The most important lesson I learned is that "a thousand years" isn't literal, but "eternal" is. Especially when it's squared.

 

[Saint Steven]

He didn't say they were immortal, they simply weren't dead when the conversation was going on. You infer immortality because you believe in it a priori.

Or in the case to which I was responding, an unintelligible argument. Hence the hilarity.

I have mostly stayed out of the immortality of the soul discussion. But...

Doesn't a conscious afterlife indicate an immortal soul? It might depend on your definition of immortal, I suppose. In a sense, only God is immortal. (no beginning or end)

But it seems to me that at human reproductive conception a living soul (individual) is created that will have an afterlife. From that perspective, it seems to me that we are immortal beings.

Therefore, the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus would fit that model of immortality. Otherwise, why would Jesus tell such a misleading story?

 

[Clare73]

He didn't say they were immortal, they simply weren't dead when the conversation was going on. You infer immortality because you believe in it a priori.

That's quite a shameless gloss!

The rich man in torment in the agony of fire of the damned after death of the body = life of the damned spirit after death = immortality of the damned.

Or in the case to which I was responding, an unintelligible argument.
Hence the hilarity.

Refuge of a failed argument.
Nothing unintelligible about the parable.

You still have not addressed the issue of the spirit of the rich man damned in fire, still being alive after the death of his body; i.e., immortality of the damned.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I have mostly stayed out of the immortality of the soul discussion. But...

Doesn't a conscious afterlife indicate an immortal soul? It might depend on your definition of immortal, I suppose. In a sense, only God is immortal. (no beginning or end)

But it seems to me that at human reproductive conception a living soul (individual) is created that will have an afterlife. From that perspective, it seems to me that we are immortal beings.

Therefore, the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus would fit that model of immortality. Otherwise, why would Jesus tell such a misleading story?

What about age-during?

 

[Ceallaigh]

That's quite a shameless gloss!

The rich man in torment in the agony of fire of the damned after death of the body = life of the damned spirit after death = immortality of the damned.
Refuge of a failed argument.
Nothing unintelligible about the parable.

You still have not addressed the issue of the spirit of the rich man damned in fire, still being alive after the death of his body; i.e., immortality of the damned.

Yes he did. You dismissed it as a shameless gloss. And a failed argument.

 

[Saint Steven]

What about age-during?

One age precedes the next. Each one has a beginning and an end. But they continue one after another. When one age ends, the next age begins. As far as I know, the future never ends. Thus the immortality of the soul. Which has a beginning, but no end. Even Damnationism depends on it. That's my perspective.

Saint Steven said: ↑
I have mostly stayed out of the immortality of the soul discussion. But...

Doesn't a conscious afterlife indicate an immortal soul? It might depend on your definition of immortal, I suppose. In a sense, only God is immortal. (no beginning or end)

But it seems to me that at human reproductive conception a living soul (individual) is created that will have an afterlife. From that perspective, it seems to me that we are immortal beings.

Therefore, the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus would fit that model of immortality. Otherwise, why would Jesus tell such a misleading story?

 

[Ceallaigh]

One age precedes the next. Each one has a beginning and an end. But they continue one after another. When one age ends, the next age begins. As far as I know, the future never ends. Thus the immortality of the soul. Which has a beginning, but no end. Even Damnationism depends on it. That's my perspective.

I'm not saying the soul isn't immortal. But I don't see much to support the idea, outside of partaking in the immortality of God. Thus the everlasting life vs death, the Bible speaks so much about.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm not saying the soul isn't immortal. But I don't see much to support the idea, outside of partaking in the immortality of God. Thus the everlasting life vs death, the Bible speaks so much about.

It becomes somewhat a discussion about semantics. How do we define immortal? What does it mean that a soul is immortal? Even defining the word "soul". I think aspects can be determined that lead to reasonable conclusions, even when we can't know for sure.

We can mostly all agree that a human being has a spirit that lives on beyond this physical life. Although some stop the discussion there, claiming the spirit returns to God who gave it in the first place. But what becomes of that human spirit? Is it "absorbed" back into God? Or does it continue to live as an individual soul? (but now in direct communion with God)

So again, we can mostly all agree that a human being has a spirit that lives on beyond this physical life. All three views of the final judgment agree on this point. Even Annihilationism requires life after death before the judgment and final annihilation occur.

So, if a spiritual life is begun at conception, or birth, when does that spiritual life end? Even a spiritually dead person "lives" to face the judgment. And a Damnationist would claim that they "live" to face ECT. Unending spiritual death, if you will. I would even consider a "damned" soul to be immortal if it "lives" forever in torment. How is living/dying forever not immortality?

Therefore, if a human soul lives on in some form or another, wouldn't we call that immortality? If there is enough evidence for an afterlife, there is evidence of human immortality. Unless I am missing something here. Feel free to straighten me out. - lol

 

[Clare73]

Yes he did. You dismissed it as a shameless gloss. And a failed argument.

He didn't say they were immortal, they simply weren't dead when the conversation was going on.

And neither were they annihilated, nor in oblivion.
So where were they? There is a another state of the human spirit
which is neither being (life) nor non-being (annihilation)?

The parable states, "the beggar died. . .the rich man also died."
The spirit of the damned rich man was not annihilated, nor in oblivion, after his death.

He did not address the immortality (life of the spirit after death rather than oblivion) of the damned rich man.
He presented a glaring gloss. . .and you are defending it, as well as his failed argument.