There was a church magisterium in those days, which ruled on heresy.
I don't know how you would move the goal posts around in parables and prophecy, or teaching.
Does "millennialism" include pre-millennial and post-millennial, which are new?But you said it's a fairly new concoction.
That's a great point actually. How careless of me. - lolYou 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...
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.
Perhaps you could show where I have taken from a book of prophecy and called it parable, or vice versa.
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?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.
Almost thou persuadest me to be a Universalist. And that may be another pint I owe you.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?
And once again we're in agreement. Peace bruv.I believe God will annihilate stupidity. That's what's causing the perishing.
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.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.
Or in the case to which I was responding, an unintelligible argument. Hence the hilarity.Nice try, but hilarity simply serves as refuge for a failed argument.
Amongst American Evangelicals, anyway. PreMil doesn't have much traction outside the States.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.
I have mostly stayed out of the immortality of the soul discussion. But...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.
That's quite a shameless gloss!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.
Refuge of a failed argument.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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Yes he did. You dismissed it as a shameless gloss. And a failed argument.
And neither were they annihilated, nor in oblivion.He didn't say they were immortal, they simply weren't dead when the conversation was going on.