the fallacy of eternal torment and related issues

[john14_20]

Me thinks you assume too much in your statements.



<><

Hey Daneel


Can you explain what you meant then please?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Lightfoot:
Whoever believes this not to be a parable, but a true story, let him believe also those little friars, whose trade it is to shew the monuments at Jerusalem to pilgrims, and point exactly to the place where the house of the 'rich glutton' stood. Most accurate keepers of antiquity indeed![/SIZE]

Please explain to me how the fact that there were people in Jerusalem, in the 17th century, who, probably dishonestly, claimed to know the location of the rich man's house, proves anything about Luke 16:19-31? There are people who claim to sell splinters of the actual cross of Jesus, what does that prove about the crucifixion of Jesus? Absolutely nothing! But wait there is more.

III. In Abraham's bosom: which if you would know what it is, you need seek no further than the Rhemists, our countrymen (with grief be it spoken), if you will believe them; for they upon this place have this passage: "The bosom of Abraham is the resting-place of all them that died in perfect state of grace before Christ's time; heaven, before, being shut from men.

What do the beliefs of the Rhemists, evidently some Christian sect, that was contemporary with this Lightfoot, prove about Luke 16:19-31? Absolutely nothing!

[[SIZE=-1]He was carried by the angels.] The Rabbins have an invention that there are three bands of angels attend the death of wicked men, proclaiming, "There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked." But what conceptions they have of angels being present at the death of good men, let us judge from this following passage:[/SIZE]

What is the source for this? Even, assuming, there is some Jewish writing that had some story involving angels it proves absolutely nothing about Luke 16:19-31? NOTHING! NADA! ZILCH!

[SIZE=-1]If our Saviour had been the first author of this phrase, then might it have been tolerable to have looked for the meaning of it amongst Christian expositors; but seeing it is a scheme of speech so familiar amongst the Jews,[/SIZE]

I am still waiting for PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC. that the Jews had any kind of story involving a rich man and a poor beggar dying and going to hades, or even sheol, and Abraham's bosom. Do think I will ever see any? And how would a gentile Christian, Luke, know anything about ancient Jewish fables and include it in his gospel? Especially true since nobody has been able to produce any proof of such a story, which predates Jesus.

[SIZE=-1]and our Saviour spoke no other than in the known and vulgar dialect of that nation, the meaning must be fetched thence, not from any Greek or Roman lexicon.[/SIZE]

When Jesus spoke to Roman soldiers, Greek pilgrims, and Samaritans, etc. did He speak no other than, "in the known and vulgar dialect of that nation[i.e. Hebrew]?"

That which we are to inquire after is, how it was understood by the auditory then present: and I may lay any wager that the Jews, when they heard Abraham's bosom mentioned, did think of nothing less than that kind of limbo which we have here described.

This dood betting what the ancient Jews MIGHT have thought when they heard the term "Abraham's bosum," mentioned, is not PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC. So far NO PROOF of anything.

[SIZE=-1]We meet with a phrase amongst the Talmudists; Kiddushin, fol. 72: it is quoted also from Juchasin, fol. 75. 2. Let us borrow a little patience of the reader, to transcribe the whole passage:. . . .[/SIZE]

Here is a link to the Babylonian Talmud, online. Please find these two references for me, "Kiddushin" and "Juchasin?" And please do find me any reference, whatosever, to "Abraham's bosum," in the entire Talmud? It is searchable at the home page from this link.

You ain't going to find it. I have the Talmud on my computer and I have already searched. So what we have is ZERO credible, verifiable, PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC. that the Jews had any kind of story similar to Luke 16:19-31. NONE! NADA! All we have are knee-jerk Universalist cut/pastes, who will quote anything, from anybody, anywhere, as long as it seems to prop up their false doctrines, and they will not bother to check or verify anything.

http://come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html

Previous post:
Did Josephus cite or do you have any PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC?​

[SIZE=-1]No, he did not! And that is just the one big problem here. Neither he, nor any of the rest of his fellow countrymen, the Jews, had any PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC, for the fallacious belief that anyone went to Abraham's bosom when they died or that any one else went to hades when they died. It was a lie! And you are trying to tell me that Jesus endorsed it.[/SIZE]

As I said there are lies here, all right, but they are not in the Bible, and none of the words recorded in the Bible as spoken by Jesus are lies. Anyone who claims there are lies, fables, and legends recorded in the Bible and can't back it up is, in fact, a liar. My question again since you pretend not to understand it.

Josephus wrote AFTER Jesus was crucified and ascended. Josephus wrote a fanciful story about Abraham’s bosum, AFTER it was written in the N.T. Did Josephus provide any PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC, that the story he told, and you quoted, was actually a belief of the Jews, at any time, or just a story he concocted? And since you are harping on and on about it, do you have any PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC, that what you quoted from ONE (1) man was in fact a belief held by any other Jew beside Josephus?

And as for people going to hades that is Biblical! You have yet to produce one sliver of evidence otherwise. And OBTW "Abraham's bosum," was not a place, it was a position. That is clearly shown in the story!

I am still waiting for PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC, that anything recorded in the Bible is a lie, or a pagan legend or myth.

[SIZE=-1]And just what makes you think that the Jews who are anti-Christ, inasmuch as they reject Him as the true Messiah, are going to give up any of their little secrets like that? [/SIZE]

I am still waiting for PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, for your wild eyed claim that there is anything unscriptural in the Bible, or that the Jews had any story like Luke 16:19-31, EVER! And if you can’t prove it them it must be a base lie straight from the mouth of Satan.

What does the fact that Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah have to do with them not including something that you claim was a well known doctrine of Judaism, in their standard reference work, published for Jews research their faith and history? Remember your guy Lightfoot said, "seeing it is a scheme of speech so familiar amongst the Jews,"

The N.T. has been around for about 2000 years, in Greek and Latin, and almost 400 years in English and Luke 16:19-31 has been there all the time, so what is this “little secret” the Jews are supposed to be hiding? If it was supposed to be this well known story that all Jews knew, as you imply, why would it now be so secret, that they would not include it in an encyclopedia article on Eschatology? You do know what Eschatology means don’t you? That is the subject of Luke 16:19-31.

[SIZE=-1]Here's a little more food for thought. Can you think how pleased they would be to see that some of their unscriptural rubbish had somehow made its way into the Christian's Bible?[/SIZE]

Ridiculous beyond words. As if you think no Jewish scholar has ever read the N.T. and not one single Jew knows that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is in the Christian N.T.?

Jewish Encyclopedia? Yeah, sure thing.

Standard Biblical reference work, researched and published by teams of qualified scholars, referencing credible, verifiable, historical primary sources. Scoff all you like, you got nothing! Your Lightfoot is a joke. Josephus was not a Theologian and there is no documentary evidence for your Josephus cut/paste that you are so proud of, which proves absolutely NOTHING, except that Josephus said it.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Show me where in this definition we are told to ignore scripture because it talks about things we have decided are "NOT" good? Things such as eternal punishment, a "place" of torment that the person there cannot leave, gehenna where the fire is never quenched, etc..

Throw out the Bible because we have the one word "Kalos."

Did I say that I think I said ask yourself the question.

Here is a couple more questions you might ask yourself.

The bible tells us the wage of sin is death. If so then what is eternal punishment for? What purpose could it possibly serve?

 

[gort]

John quote:

Hey Daneel

Can you explain what you meant then please?

John quotes:

So, according to you, the reason we live good and moral lives is because we fear the consequences of not doing so?

Does not sound much like the life in abundance Jesus promised.

I thought we were supposed to treat people well because we are to love them, not because of fear of being toasted.

Sounds like a medieval method of controlling people, something the church at large has been doing for far too long.

Me thinks you have assumed me wrongly by these statements you make regarding....."according to you".....when it is quite the opposite.

<><

 

[john14_20]

Me thinks you have assumed me wrongly by these statements you make regarding....."according to you".....when it is quite the opposite.

<><

It appears I have to ask again.

If I have misinterpreted you, please tell me what it is you do mean.

Don't just tell me again that I got you all worng.

Tell me what you mean by your statement

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Since John Lightfoot was born in 1602 and died in 1675, I highly doubt that he could have been a 19th Century writer.

A little about John Lightfoot . . . .

Jewish Encyclpedia indeed. LOL! LOL![/SIZE]

Published Research Errors
______________________________________
The internet cannot be blamed for poor research, but it has certainly contributed to its proliferation. A case in point is references to Archbishop Ussher's chronology of creation.

In 1642, Dr. John Lightfoot wrote that man was created at 9:00 a.m., and in 1644, he wrote that the world was created on Sunday, September 12, 3928. In 1650, the Irish Archbishop, James Ussher, published his computations that the world was created on Sunday, October 23rd, 4004, beginning at sunset of the 22nd. Both these dates are widely misquoted.

Errors abound as can be seen on our Website Errors page. The errors written by Andrew Dickson White are noted on their own page. The following examples demonstrate both embellishment and simple error.

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/published_errors.html
​

John Lightfoot indeed. LOL! LOL! And tell me again exactly what you have proved about any source I have cited?

 

[Dottie]

Published Research Errors


______________________________________
The internet cannot be blamed for poor research, but it has certainly contributed to its proliferation. A case in point is references to Archbishop Ussher's chronology of creation.

In 1642, Dr. John Lightfoot wrote that man was created at 9:00 a.m., and in 1644, he wrote that the world was created on Sunday, September 12, 3928. In 1650, the Irish Archbishop, James Ussher, published his computations that the world was created on Sunday, October 23rd, 4004, beginning at sunset of the 22nd. Both these dates are widely misquoted.

Errors abound as can be seen on our Website Errors page. The errors written by Andrew Dickson White are noted on their own page. The following examples demonstrate both embellishment and simple error.

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/published_errors.html


​

John Lightfoot indeed. LOL! LOL! And tell me again exactly what you have proved about any source I have cited?

Misquotes and errors



Both Archbiship James Ussher and John Lightfoot, D.D. are regularly misquotedas having determined the hour of day that the world was created. One notable example was 's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in which he committed a number of errors.



These details may be considered trivial and unimportant in today's world, but the exposure of such errors is revealing. It tells us that the historical record is written and kept by the fallible. It reminds us how easily an error can become accepted as truth. And if it can happen in the unimportant details, with the passage of time it can happen anywhere.

 

[gort]

It appears I have to ask again.

If I have misinterpreted you, please tell me what it is you do mean.

Don't just tell me again that I got you all worng.

Tell me what you mean by your statement

This form of medium sucks sometimes. I'm not quite understanding what you're asking for. The Lord made me slow in some things. But, I'll answer these questions for ya.

So, according to you, the reason we live good and moral lives is because we fear the consequences of not doing so?

No, we try to live good and moral lives because we are new creatures in Christ Jesus. We have new hearts, inclined to God and His ways. It is our new nature.

Yet, fear is good. It is good to tremble at Gods word. Even though perfect love casts out fear, which is true, fear is good. It makes one small. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

I thought we were supposed to treat people well because we are to love them, not because of fear of being toasted.

Yes, we are to love our neighbors. But I will also fear for them.

Sounds like a medieval method of controlling people, something the church at large has been doing for far too long.

My pastor preaches God's love for man through His beloved Son. My pastor also preaches the consequences of not. He preaches as Jesus taught. I have no problem with that. It is always hand in hand with God's love for man.

I understand my sins in God's eyes. I understand that if not for God's love for man, I deserve hell.

Now if a churches preaches nothing but hellfire 100% of the time, then there is a problem.

If a church preaches an uncaring attitude to those who are going to hell, then we have another problem. The Spirit ain't in that church, because God desires all to come to repentance, and the knowledge of God.

Fear has its place.

Jesus tells us:

Luk 12:4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

Luk 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

If we are born twice, we will only die once.
If we are born once, we will die twice.

The first death, that we all must face, is separation of the body and soul.
The second death is separation from God forever.


<><

 

[Soul Searcher]

Just curious here, have you ever looked up the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words translated as fear?

In my Websters dictionary this defintion of fear comes in at number 9
9. Reverence; respect; due regard.

In both the Hebrew and Greek this meaning is indicated as a possible meaning of the word and in one of the proverbs the fear of God is even explained a bit.

Pro 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogance, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Could it be that this fear actually means reverence and or respect? and not just in this proverb but in others places as well?

Just something to think about.

 

[gort]

Just curious here, have you ever looked up the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words translated as fear?

In my Websters dictionary this defintion of fear comes in at number 9
9. Reverence; respect; due regard.

In both the Hebrew and Greek this meaning is indicated as a possible meaning of the word and in one of the proverbs the fear of God is even explained a bit.

Pro 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogance, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Could it be that this fear actually means reverence and or respect? and not just in this proverb but in others places as well?

Just something to think about.

Yes, it can mean both. To fear God in awe, reverence. Depends on the context.

In the context of what Jesus spoke of in the verses from Luke:

1) to put to flight by terrifying (to scare away)

a) to put to flight, to flee

b) to fear, be afraid

1) to be struck with fear, to be seized with alarm

a) of those startled by strange sights or occurrences

b) of those struck with amazement

2) to fear, be afraid of one

3) to fear (i.e. hesitate) to do something (for fear of harm)

c) to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience

Surrounding verses always give the context.



<><

 

[john14_20]

Thanks for answering my question daneel.

Miscommunications happen easily in a place like this.

Looks like we got it sorted out though!

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Misquotes and errors
Both Archbiship James Ussher and John Lightfoot, D.D. are regularly misquoted as having determined the hour of day that the world was created. . . .
These details may be considered trivial and unimportant in today's world, but the exposure of such errors is revealing. It tells us that the historical record is written and kept by the fallible. It reminds us how easily an error can become accepted as truth. And if it can happen in the unimportant details, with the passage of time it can happen.[/SIZE]

I knew I could depend on your knee jerk, piece meal, out-of-context reply. This is the way you try to prove everything, a piece of this, a piece of that and when the errors, ommissions, and blatant misrepresentations are pointed out to you, you ignore it and go on to something else.

Go read the rest of the page. I did before I posted.

The misquote
Perhaps the first of these was John Lightfoot [9], a distinguished Greek scholar and Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University, who in 1642, deduced that the moment of creation was "9.00 o'clock in the morning on September seventeenth." He did not at this time indicate the year of creation, but in a later chapter of the same work in 1644, he stated that it was 3928 B.C..

[size=-1]Historical Geology. Third Edition. Carl O. Dunbar, Karl M. Waage. John Wiley & Sons. Inc., New York: 1969. [p. 22][/size]

The correction. Note, second sentence!

September 17th was the date Lightfoot believed that man was created, not the world. He wrote the hour on page 4 of A Few, and New Observations Upon the Book of Genesis in 1642. He gave a year in Section VIII [unpaginated] of The Harmony of the Four Evangelists.... in 1644; two different book

The misquote

Ussher's calculations were refined by another 17th century divine, Dr. John Lightfoot, vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, who computed that "Man was created by the Trinity on 23rd October, 4004 A.M., at nine o'clock in the morning."

[size=-1]The Encyclopedia of Evolution. Richard Milner. Facts on File, New York: 1990 [Entry for Ussher/Lightfoot Chronology].[/size]

The correction

The actual quote: "Man was created by the Trinity about the third houre of the day, or nine of the clocke in the morning." No date is given.​

And OBTW whether it was the exact date and hour the world, or man, was created, the fallacy is the same. The credibility of anyone who makes these claims is highly suspect.

Der Alter NEVER says anything he can't back up. Maybe you should print this and tape it to your monitor.

 

[gort]

John quote:

Looks like we got it sorted out though!

I'm not so sure.

<><

 

[Soul Searcher]

earthbound misfit, I

Floyd fan?

 

[Dottie]

I knew I could depend on your knee jerk, piece meal, out-of-context reply. This is the way you try to prove everything, a piece of this, a piece of that and when the errors, ommissions, and blatant misrepresentations are pointed out to you, you ignore it and go on to something else.

Go read the rest of the page. I did before I posted.

The misquote



Perhaps the first of these was John Lightfoot [9], a distinguished Greek scholar and Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University, who in 1642, deduced that the moment of creation was "9.00 o'clock in the morning on September seventeenth." He did not at this time indicate the year of creation, but in a later chapter of the same work in 1644, he stated that it was 3928 B.C..

Historical Geology. Third Edition. Carl O. Dunbar, Karl M. Waage. John Wiley & Sons. Inc., New York: 1969. [p. 22]

The correction. Note, second sentence!

September 17th was the date Lightfoot believed that man was created, not the world. He wrote the hour on page 4 of A Few, and New Observations Upon the Book of Genesis in 1642. He gave a year in Section VIII [unpaginated] of The Harmony of the Four Evangelists.... in 1644; two different book

The misquote

Ussher's calculations were refined by another 17th century divine, Dr. John Lightfoot, vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, who computed that "Man was created by the Trinity on 23rd October, 4004 A.M., at nine o'clock in the morning."

The Encyclopedia of Evolution. Richard Milner. Facts on File, New York: 1990 [Entry for Ussher/Lightfoot Chronology].

The correction

The actual quote: "Man was created by the Trinity about the third houre of the day, or nine of the clocke in the morning." No date is given.


​

And OBTW whether it was the exact date and hour the world, or man, was created, the fallacy is the same. The credibility of anyone who makes these claims is highly suspect.

[The Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar is a 17th century chronology of the history of the world formulated from an interpretative reading of the Bible by James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (in what is now Northern Ireland). The chronology, first published in 1650, is famously the source of the citation by many modern Creationists that the universe was created by God in 4004 BC.

The chronology is named for Ussher, as well as John Lightfoot, who published a similar chronology in 1642-1644. The chronology is, however, arguably misnamed, as it based on Ussher's work, and not on that of Lightfoot, who was later the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University. Ussher's work, more properly known as the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti (Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world), was his contribution to the long-running theological debate on the age of the Earth. This was a major concern of many Christian scholars over the centuries. Ussher deduced that the first day of Creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC in the proleptic Julian calender, near the autumnal equinox, while Lightfoot similarly deduced that Creation began at nightfall near the autumnal equinox, but in the year 3929 BC.

Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC was not greatly different from the estimates of the Venerable Bede (3952 BC) or Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC). It was widely believed that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after) corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).

Lightfoot's Creation

The precise time often cited as Lightfoot's moment of Creation, 9 a.m., and the erroneous belief that he placed his Creation on the same date as Ussher are both due to a partially fabricated 'quote' given by Andrew Dixon White in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896):

n the seventeenth century, in his great work, Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time, declared, as the result of his most profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures, that "heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine of the clock in the morning." [page 9]

The phrases "this work took place" and "on October 23, 4004 B.C." were added by White. Lightfoot's actual words are on the first and third pages of A few and new Observations upon the Book of Genesis (1642). All of the following quotes are from The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, D. D. (13 vols., 1822-25), with the applicable volume and page enclosed in brackets.

Heaven and earth, center and circumference, were created together in the same instant; and clouds full of water … were created in the same instant with them, ver. 2 [of Genesis, chapter 1]. … Twelve hours did the heavens thus move in darkness; and then God commanded, and there appeared, light to this upper horizon,—namely, to that where Eden should be planted. [II:333] Ver. 26 [of Genesis, chapter 1].—Man created by the Trinity about the third hour of the day, or nine of the clock in the morning. [II:335]

Thus Lightfoot's instant of Creation was nightfall, the beginning of the first twelve hours of darkness of the first day of Creation. His "nine of the clock in the morning" referred to the creation of man.

That Lightfoot's day of Creation occurred during 3929 BC can be deduced from the last page of the "Prolegomena" of The Harmony of the Four Evangelists, among themselves, and with the Old Testament (1644). The quoted year of 1644 must be subtracted from 5573, not 5572, to obtain 3929 BC, during which year 1 of the world began at the (autumnal) equinox.

And now, he that desireth to know the year of the world, which is now passing over us,—this year, 1644,—will find it to be 5572 years just finished since the creation; and the year 5573 of the world's age, now newly begun, this September, at equinox. [IV:112]

The only date for the equinox given by Lightfoot was in a 'private' undated sermon entitled "The Sabbath Hallowed":

That the world was made at equinox, all grant,—but differ at which, whether about the eleventh of March, or twelfth of September; to me in September, without all doubt. [VII:372]

September 12 in the Julian calendar is only applicable near 1644, not 3929 BC. Apparently, Lightfoot did not realize that the excessive length of the average Julian year would substantially shift the date of the equinox in a year millennia earlier. If Lightfoot had attempted to calculate the autumnal equinox of 3929 BC, he, like Ussher, would have used the Rudolphine Tables, which placed the equinox on Wednesday October 25, versus October 22 using modern equations.]

Now all this proves to me is that one does not have to agree with Lightfoot's, (and I don't) or any other learned individual's application of thier knowledge, in order to take advantage of, and learn from, their expertise in the all over picture.

Der Alter NEVER says anything he can't back up. Maybe you should print this and tape it to your monitor.

I'll wait on that a bit, if you don't mind.

 

[Airdude]

It is my belief that the wicked will be consumed in the fire of hell but that fire is not eternal. Eternal torment is not compatible with a loving God. I will be back later with more on this topic.

 

[gort]

Floyd fan?

Grubby halo and all....

<><

 

[yashua]

My question to this would be where in the Bible does it say that unbelievers have life? Scripture after scripture seems to deny this, but to say that we are dead without salvation. So therefore I draw my conclusion on this point that “Life” is only given to believers.



The concept of Gods justice is biblical my question is the interpretation.[/QUOTE]

Hello I don't like arguments myself but do you think Paul or any other disciple wasn't confronted with opposistion every day?
This is why scripture says

2But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.


3For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds 5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Paul here is talking about those that hold to the teachings of the law of moses those people who lived according to the "flesh" an outward form of godliness but denying the power thereof the power of the spirit.
We are to contend for the faith "once delivered"

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

I hope this little bit of imformation can help with your last question
there is so much more to understand and so many things we have yet to percieve

After all of God's punishments and chastisements are meted out, all will be reconciled to God. Death will be abolished (I Cor. 15:26), and all will be vivified and given immortality never to be subject to pain, heartache, or death again. The Scriptures fully substantiate this grand truth.

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is One God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Who gave Himself a ransom for ALL to be testified in due time" (I Tim. 2:3-4).



"I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL [Gk. "the" all] men unto me" (John 12:32).

"That in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father" (Phil. 2:10-11).

Comment: It wouldn't be "to the glory of God" if it were a forced acclimation. Besides I Cor. 12:3 plainly says, " ... no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the holy spirit." To "acclaim" carries the connotation of an heartfelt, voluntary expression.

"For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified" (I Cor. 15:22).

Comment: "vivified" is from the Greek: Zoopoieo = LIVE-DO, "giving life beyond the reach of death, conferring immortality." The same "all" who are dying in Adam (which includes everyone) is the same "all" who are vivified in Christ (which of necessity includes everyone). Also notice that the "all" are vivified "in" Christ not "out" of Christ, and it's not, "all in Christ are vivified," but rather, "in Christ ... ALL are vivified." The order of words makes a giant difference.

"Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for life's justifying. For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just" (Rom. 5:19).

Comment: This is not a difficult verse to understand. One offense brought condemnation on all mankind and all are constituted sinners. In the same manner ("thus also") through the obedience of the One [Christ] the same "many" are constituted just!

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus who gave Himself a ransom for ALL to be testified in due time" (I Tim. 2:5-6).

"For in Him [Christ] the entire complement delights to dwell, and through Him to reconcile ALL to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens" (Col. 1:20).

"If anyone's work shall be burned up, he will forfeit it, yet he shall be saved, yet thus, as through fire" (I Cor. 3:15).

" ... we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially [but not exclusively] believers. These things be charging and teaching" (I Tim. 4:11).

"For God does not dispatch His Son into the world that He should be judging the world, but that the world may be saved through Him" (John 3:17).

" ... God, Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian [before the world began-Authorized]" (I Tim. 1:9).

Comment: Man's salvation was assured before God ever created him. He knew all men would sin. That's why He provided a Saviour. We are saved by "grace" not by anything we do.

"No one can come to Me if ever the Father Who sends Me should not be drawing him. And I shall be raising him in the last day" (John 6:44).

Comment: It is not up to us or anyone to come to Christ. God does the choosing, calling, drawing, etc. " ... the kindness of God is leading you to repentance" (Rom. 2:4).

" ... having this same confidence, that He Who undertakes a good work among you, will be performing it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6).

"Now to Him Who is ABLE to guard you from tripping, and to stand you flawless in sight of His glory ... " (Jude 24).

" ... if One died for the sake of all, consequently all died" (II Cor. 5:14).

Comment: God applies Christ's death and sacrifice to "all men." "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY man" (Heb. 2:9).

"And he [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" (I John 2:2).

Comment: Christ IS the propitiation for the sins of the whole world! How can you doubt it? How can you teach contrary to it? He isn't "potentially" the propitiation for the sins of the world. He IS the propitiation for the sins of the world.

"Yet all is of God, Who conciliates us to Himself through Christ, and is giving us the dispensation of the conciliation, how that God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself, not reckoning their offenses to them, and placing in us the word of the conciliation" (II Cor. 5:18-19).

Comment: This Scripture is clear. God through Christ's sacrifice (Christ's sacrifice carries a whole lot more weight than you ever give Him credit for) is conciliating the whole world to Himself. Do you know what that means? God is "at peace" with mankind. Yes, there are future chastisements and punishments, but the end result has already been accomplished. What the world must yet go through is for their good. But God already knows the end result. All will be saved! However, only "we" have been given this word of reconciliation (that is any of us "we" who believe it).



​

Notice that God is "not reckoning their offenses to them." Then who is God "reckoning offenses" to? It is to Jesus Christ His Son that He is reckoning the sins of the world. Ver. 21: "For He [God] hath made Him [Christ] to be SIN for us ... "



Pardon me for just a moment, but I want to share with you the emotion that I am feeling at this moment. I cannot believe that I am trying my best to explain the meaning of a verse of Scripture that is so simple, so clear, and so profound to two theologians with Doctors degrees who teach on international television and who do not understand it. This verse is in your Bibles. What do you think this Scripture means if it doesn't mean what it says? I feel like someone trying to convince an astronomer that there really are stars in the heavens and that he should stop denying it and start believing it or get another job.

Look at this again. This is the Word of God. God is "NOT reckoning their [the whole world] offenses to them" (Ver. 19)! He is not doing that. But He IS making His Son Jesus Christ "to BE sin for us." How could God consign the vast majority of humanity to the eternal flames of torture in Hell if He no longer reckons that they have any sins? Of what value is Christ's sacrifice FOR them if they still have to pay their own penalty for all eternity? This verse is talking about the WHOLE WORLD. The sins of the WHOLE WORLD.

But what if all these sinners of the world reject Christ? Of course most people do reject Christ, but they won't always do so. God has not given them belief yet. Remember "every knee will bow and every tongue will acclaim ... to the Glory of God." Of course most don't will to believe God now, but they all will later. " ... for it is GOD Who is operating in you to WILL as well as to work for the sake of His delight" (Phil. 2:13).

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the savior of all men" (I Tim. 4:10).



Comment: God is not the "potential" or "possible" saviour of all men. He is the saviour of all men! I believe Him. I think you should too.

Ver. 11, "These things command and teach."



​

 

[yashua]

WHAT???? Don't tell me you are a universalistic? This is a topic for another thread entirely I believe.

For reconciliation to take place, one party must be conciliated to a second party and the second party must be conciliated back to the first party. Then, and only then, is there reconciliation. God is now conciliated [Gk: katalla'sso = DOWN-CHANGE] to the world because of His Son's sacrifice, and the world will one day be reconciled [Gk: apokatalla'sso = FROM-DOWN-CHANGE] to God! Conciliation has to do with one side only in an estrangement, whereas reconciliation has to do with both sides of an estrangement. The Authorized Version does not make this vital distinction in the Greek Text!
Here is how God does it:
"Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for life's justifying For even as, through the disobedience of the one man [Adam], the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One [Christ], the many shall be constituted just" (Rom. 5:18-19).
That verse summarizes the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the Gospel.
Although God is now conciliated to mankind because of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary, will mankind ever be conciliated to God, thus bringing about full reconciliation? Absolutely:
"For He is our Peace, Who makes both one [Jews and Gentiles-that's all the people there are in the whole world], and razes the central wall of the barrier (the enmity in His flesh), nullifying the law of precepts in decrees, that He should be creating the two [both Jews and Gentiles], in Himself, into one new humanity, making peace; and should be reconciling both in one body to God, through the cross, killing the enmity in it" (Eph. 2:14-16).
Second witness: Christ
"Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, for in Him is all created, that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him, and He is before all, and all has it cohesion in Him. And He is the Head of the body, the ecclesia, Who is Sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first, for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross, through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens" (Col. 1:14-20).
Read it again! "makes both one," "creating the two," "killing the enmity," "every creature," "all created," "in the heaven," "on the earth," "the visible," "the invisible," "all is created," "before all," "all," "in all," "the entire," "to reconcile all," "on the earth," "in the heavens."
Where, pray tell, are the billion of people that you think are left out of this Scripture and are going to burn in Hell Fire for all eternity?
Christ created all and will reconcile all-not only on earth, but also the whole heavenly host!
Do you honesty doubt that Christ "created all"? How then can you doubt that He will reconcile the same "ALL?" " ... in Him is all created ... and through Him to reconcile all to Him ... "(Col. 1:16-20). The phrase "all things" is not in the original Greek Text. It should simply read: "all," not "all things.

Again May the Lord give you eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

[Dottie]

Now all this proves to me is that one does not have to agree with Lightfoot's, (and I don't) or any other learned individual's application of thier knowledge, in order to take advantage of, and learn from, their expertise in the all over picture.

And I will add, that whether you are able to wrap your brain around this fact or not, and accept that JOHN LIGHTFOOT WAS AN ACCOMPLISHED HEBRAIST, does not change the fact that he was.