There is no hell. (2)

[koolaid]

Please go back and read my post where I quoted Schaff. I tried to summarize, in one sentence, what Schaff said in 2 paragraphs. Yes, some form of universalism predates both Christianity and Judaism but the articles said, and I summarized, "in Christianity the first universalists were Gnostics." The article named several such groups. The concluding paragraph said that of the ancient Christians which are now said to be universalists, by various people, many were not actually universalists. Once again that is a summary of the article, read the citation to understand everything, in context.



If you are going to make wild accusations like this, quote me exactly and ask me about what I actually said and I will discuss it. But I am getting more than a little tired of folks accusing me of saying things I did not say.



If you wish to discuss what was said, quote it in context, and I will discuss, but not half truth misrepresentations. I saw nothing about hell in anything quoted from Schaff.



If you want to discuss it, then quote it in context and I am more than willing to talk about it. But all I see here is one misrepresentation after another, of what the cited article said and what I said.

It also says that "The earliest system of Universalistic theology was by Clement of Alexandria (q.v.), who was the head of the theological school in that city until 202 A.D.". That is not talking about the gnostics so what difference does the first statment make to the context of the later one? Unless you want to claim that it doesn't matter what the earliest Christians believed or what the earliest Christian schools of theology taught because they agree with the gnostics, so we should just disregard ALL of them and the entire first 500 years of Christian history as it is presented here? And if you want to claim now that you never said it was inportant or relevant to know what the Jews in Jesus day believed then go right ahead. I'm not going to go run back over the last 1000 posts to find a quote to prove that that is what I understood you to be saying. And if so many are misrepresenting you then perhaps you ought to consider that maybe it's you and not them. So now I thank you, I no longer wish to discuss anything with you; you don't seem to know how to do that even though you claim its everyone else who has the problem.

 

[angelmom01]

Personally, I don't know that it proves anything to know what the Jews believed or what the earliest Christians believed. I only came across that entry about a year ago and it has nothing to do with why I believe what I do, anymore that my previous understand that the early church father condemned UR as heresy has anything to do with it.

I don't rely on either one to "prove" what the truth of the matter is; that has to come from scripture and what is revealed about hell (or any other subject) "there".

You can't find "the truth" in dictionaries, concordances, and lexicons... or even history.... as useful as ALL of those things are as study AIDS.

 

[Der Alte]

It also says that "The earliest system of Universalistic theology was by Clement of Alexandria (q.v.), who was the head of the theological school in that city until 202 A.D." That is not talking about the gnostics so what difference does the first statment make to the context of the later one?

Gnostic universalism among nominal Christians preceded ClementA<period> End of discussion!

Unless you want to claim that it doesn't matter what the earliest Christians believed or what the earliest schools of Christian theology taught because they agree with the gnostics, so we should just disregard ALL of them and the entire first 500 years of Christian history as it is presented here?

Feel free to show evidence for your claim "the entire first 500 years of Christian history" I'm sure you can figure out how to research the writings of the ECF during that period and present actual examples from the primary, not secondary sources? Schaff indicates that ClementA's universalism was derived from gnosticism.

And if you want to claim now that you never said it was inportant or relevant to know what the Jews in Jesus day believed then go right ahead. I'm not going to go run back over the last 1000 posts to find a quote to prove that that is what I understood you to be saying.

How do you know what I said about the beliefs of the Jews, when you don't even know where I supposedly said it? This thread is only 5 pages long that is not 1000 posts. But I see you continue to make false accusations and implications without even knowing what I actually said, where, or when.

And if so many are misrepresenting you then perhaps you ought to consider that maybe it's you and not them. So now I thank you, I no longer wish to discuss anything with you; you don't seem to know how to do that even though you claim its everyone else who has the problem.

It is certainly not me. I know what I said and where. You evidently don't. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who does not even know what they are talking about but continues to make false accusations .

 

[koolaid]

Well, I am just better off reading like I was and not talking about it because I don't know that much about either one. Sorry. I just know what I have been told is true and thought that what was posted was interesting. But not everyone has to think so, I guess.

 

[Der Alte]

Personally, I don't know that it proves anything to know what the Jews believed or what the earliest Christians believed. I only came across that entry about a year ago and it has nothing to do with why I believe what I do, anymore that my previous understand that the early church father condemned UR as heresy has anything to do with it.

I don't rely on either one to "prove" what the truth of the matter is; that has to come from scripture and what is revealed about hell (or any other subject) "there".

You can't find "the truth" in dictionaries, concordances, and lexicons... or even history.... as useful as ALL of those things are as study AIDS.

How can people who cannot read the original languages or perform basic grammatical tasks such as parsing verbs, find "the truth" see e.g.

&#964;&#959;&#964;&#949; &#946;&#959;&#951;&#963;&#951; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#953;&#963;&#945;&#954;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#949;&#964;&#945;&#953; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#949;&#964;&#953; &#955;&#945;&#955;&#959;&#965;&#957;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#949;&#961;&#949;&#953; &#953;&#948;&#959;&#965; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#949;&#953;&#956;&#953; &#949;&#945;&#957; &#945;&#966;&#949;&#955;&#951;&#962; &#945;&#960;&#959; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#963;&#965;&#957;&#948;&#949;&#963;&#956;&#959;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#967;&#949;&#953;&#961;&#959;&#964;&#959;&#957;&#953;&#945;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#961;&#951;&#956;&#945; &#947;&#959;&#947;&#947;&#965;&#963;&#956;&#959;&#965;​

How can the church that Jesus built on the rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail disappear from the earth only to appear 2000 years +/- later?

Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;

 

[angelmom01]

Are we saying that it is only OK for those on one side of the argument to use " secondary source" (like an encyclopedia ) when presenting their arguments?

But those types of resources are not suitable for anyone with an "opposing" view.

Those who oppose must go out and find as many "primary" sources as possible and quote "them" ?

(Though I am quite sure that even then there would, very likely, be at least "one" too few quotes to "prove" anything).

Is SCRIPTURE useful for much of anything in this discussion?

 

[angelmom01]

How can people who cannot read the original languages or perform basic grammatical tasks such as parsing verbs, find "the truth" see e.g.

&#964;&#959;&#964;&#949; &#946;&#959;&#951;&#963;&#951; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#953;&#963;&#945;&#954;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#949;&#964;&#945;&#953; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#949;&#964;&#953; &#955;&#945;&#955;&#959;&#965;&#957;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#949;&#961;&#949;&#953; &#953;&#948;&#959;&#965; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#949;&#953;&#956;&#953; &#949;&#945;&#957; &#945;&#966;&#949;&#955;&#951;&#962; &#945;&#960;&#959; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#963;&#965;&#957;&#948;&#949;&#963;&#956;&#959;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#967;&#949;&#953;&#961;&#959;&#964;&#959;&#957;&#953;&#945;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#961;&#951;&#956;&#945; &#947;&#959;&#947;&#947;&#965;&#963;&#956;&#959;&#965;​

How can the church that Jesus built on the rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail disappear from the earth only to appear 2000 years +/- later?

Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;

I see, so the only people who can know or understand either the bible or the truth are those who can read and write fluently in both Hebrew and Greek? And they best know how to "parse verbs".

So does that qualify or disqualify YOU?

As to the answer to your second question perhaps you can check with the LDS because I never claimed that the gates hell prevailed against anything.

And I'd be curious to know if you even know what "the gates of hell" are?

 

[Der Alte]

I see, so the only people who can know or understand either the bible or the truth are those who can read and write fluently in both Hebrew and Greek? And they best know how to "parse verbs".

Only when there is disagreement over what the Bible text "really means." Once upon a time I was driving with my wife in her home country. She read a road side sign and said "Yahweh yonghwa gukjahng." I asked her what she said. She repeated it. I laughed and said I heard that, what does it mean. She said "drive in theater." My point is the only way one can know what another language means is to ask someone who is as familiar with that language as a native speaker.

So does that qualify or disqualify YOU?

I started learning to speak Greek in Germany, the year that Elvis and I were there. I studied both Biblical languages, formally, at the graduate level about 2 decades later. I have TDNT, TWOT, BADG, BDB, Louw-Nida, and several other Hebrew and Greek resources in my personal library. I just D/L a free PDF copy of BDB today. I ain't no expert but I do know when I am being scammed as is often the case in these forums.

As to the answer to your second question perhaps you can check with the LDS because I never claimed that the gates hell prevailed against anything.

And I'd be curious to know if you even know what "the gates of hell" are?

See the context of my question.

 

[angelmom01]

Only when there is disagreement over what the Bible text "really means." Once upon a time I was driving with my wife in her home country. She read a road side sign and said "Yahweh yonghwa gukjahng." I asked her what she said. She repeated it. I laughed and said I heard that, what does it mean. She said "drive in theater." My point is the only way one can know what another language means is to ask someone who is as familiar with that language as a native speaker.

And of course anyone who disagrees with you, obviously, hasn't done that? And the fact that the Bible has been translated into other languages so that those of other languages, who might not have access to Hebrew and Greek speaking people, is of no consequence? And the fact that others may also use the same Lexicons and Concordances (etc) that you yourself use to aid them in their limited understanding of the "original" text is never going to quite measure up to your "expert" use of the same so long as they come to a different conclusion than you have? Is that it?

I started learning to speak Greek in Germany, the year that Elvis and I were there. I studied both Biblical languages, formally, at the graduate level about 2 decades later. I have TDNT, TWOT, BADG, BDB, Louw-Nida, and several other Hebrew and Greek resources in my personal library. I just D/L a free PDF copy of BDB today. I ain't no expert but I do know when I am being scammed as is often the case in these forums.

That's great!! Do you think that truth (when it comes to the truths of God, which have to be "spiritually discerned", according to the Bible) comes from the number of credential hanging on someone's wall or the number of reference books sitting on their book shelf?

See the context of my question.

The context of what? Isa 58:9? The gates of hell? The fact that you falsely accuse me of saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the church? Or your false assumption that the truth was lost just because most "churches" don't teach it?

Shall I assume by your non-answer to my question that you don't have one?

 

[Der Alte]

And of course anyone who disagrees with you, obviously, hasn't done that? And the fact that the Bible has been translated into other languages so that those of other languages, who might not have access to Hebrew and Greek speaking people, is of no consequence? And the fact that others may also use the same Lexicons and Concordances (etc) that you yourself use to aid them in their limited understanding of the "original" text is never going to quite measure up to your "expert" use of the same so long as they come to a different conclusion than you have? Is that it?

Guess you didn't read the part where I D/L one of the most highly renowned Hebrew lexicons free, today. Here are some of the resources available free online TDNT, TWOT, BAGD, BDB, Robertson's 1200 page grammar, Buttman's Grammar, LSJ classical Greek lexicon, Thayer's lexicon, to name only a few.

That's great!! Do you think that truth (when it comes to the truths of God, which have to be "spiritually discerned", according to the Bible) comes from the number of credential hanging on someone's wall or the number of reference books sitting on their book shelf?

Look around, how many religious groups which came into existence in, or after, the mid 1800s, e.g JW, LDS, OP, UU, WWCG, kristadelfian, OMJ, all claim that they have the only true, truth because they are guided by the spirit. And many of their teachings contradict the literal meaning of the original languages, because they are so "spiritual.".

The context of what? Isa 58:9? The gates of hell? The fact that you falsely accuse me of saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the church? Or your false assumption that the truth was lost just because most "churches" don't teach it?

It is not about "most churches" it is about virtually no churches teaching many of the beliefs being proposed here.

Shall I assume by your non-answer to my question that you don't have one?

Oh was there a question somewhere? All I saw was something along the lines of a school yard taunt.

 

[angelmom01]

Guess you didn't read the part where I D/L one of the most highly renowned Hebrew lexicons free, today. Here are some of the resources available free online TDNT, TWOT, BAGD, BDB, Robertson's 1200 page grammar, Buttman's Grammar, LSJ classical Greek lexicon, Thayer's lexicon, to name only a few.

Good grief, was I supposed to be impressed or were you just expecting me to list all of the ones that I own or have access to so I can try to "one-up" ya?

Look around, how many religious groups which came into existence in, or after, the mid 1800s, e.g JW, LDS, OP, UU, WWCG, kristadelfian, OMJ, all claim that they have the only true, truth because they are guided by the spirit. And many of their teachings contradict the literal meaning of the original languages, because they are so "spiritual.".

And universalism has it's roots in the 1800's does it?

It is not about "most churches" it is about virtually no churches teaching many of the beliefs being proposed here.

Must be why "many are called, but FEW are chosen". Or maybe it's just why God says: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

Oh was there a question somewhere? All I saw was something along the lines of a school yard taunt.

That's what I thought.

 

[Der Alte]

Good grief, was I supposed to be impressed or were you just expecting me to list all of the ones that I own or have access to so I can try to "one-up" ya?

Lets read that again and see if you are responding to or (deliberately) misrepresenting what I said?

[ . . . ]And the fact that the Bible has been translated into other languages so that those of other languages, who might not have access to Hebrew and Greek speaking people, is of no consequence? [ . . . ]

Guess you didn't read the part where I D/L one of the most highly renowned Hebrew lexicons free, today. Here are some of the resources available free online TDNT, TWOT, BAGD, BDB, Robertson's 1200 page grammar, Buttman's Grammar, LSJ classical Greek lexicon, Thayer's lexicon, to name only a few.

Yep, just as I thought.

And universalism has it's roots in the 1800's does it?

Can you show me credible, verifiable, historical evidence of any group, by any name, who believed essentially as you do between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and the mid-late 1800s?

Must be why "many are called, but FEW are chosen".
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

Meaningless throwing out scripture without showing any relevance.

 

[angelmom01]

Lets read that again and see if you are responding to or (deliberately) misrepresenting what I said?


Yep, just as I thought.

What did you want me to say in response to you, Der Alter? No one here seems to respond "appropriately" to you. Why is that? Because you're the only one here who knows how to properly communicate?

Why repeat what you already said just because I didn't acknowledge it the first time, in whatever way it was that you wanted or expected me to? You insisted I "missed" something. What? Your impressive list? The fact that you got those things for free? What?

Was I supposed to thank you for letting me know that you downloaded a free pdf file today?

Was I supposed to thank you for letting me know that there are free resources available on the internet?

Was I supposed to ask you for the links?

What??

Do you assume that I am not also aware of the MANY FREE resources available online?


You downloaded "one of the most highly renowned Hebrew lexicons free, today." AND? I have a copy myself. I also got it for free. What the heck did you want me to say or do with that information that I did not do?

Can you show me credible, verifiable, historical evidence of any group, by any name, who believed essentially as you do between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and the mid-late 1800s?

And who would be "credible" to you since I am quite sure you already know at least a few, if not all, of the "names" I could give you? Names that you would simply dismiss no matter whose they are, I have no doubt, even if they were sainted by the church.

Meaningless throwing out scripture without showing any relevance.

Absolutely relevant to your comment. This is not about "majority rules". Truth is not determined by numbers; and even if it was that number would be FEW, not many. Do you need that verse?

And none of this is getting us ANYWHERE. So perhaps it is time to just agree to disagree and dispense with the accusations and insults.

 

[heavensprings]

Personally, I don't know that it proves anything to know what the Jews believed or what the earliest Christians believed. I only came across that entry about a year ago and it has nothing to do with why I believe what I do, anymore that my previous understand that the early church father condemned UR as heresy has anything to do with it.

I don't rely on either one to "prove" what the truth of the matter is; that has to come from scripture and what is revealed about hell (or any other subject) "there".

You can't find "the truth" in dictionaries, concordances, and lexicons... or even history.... as useful as ALL of those things are as study AIDS.

Amen angelmom01!

Those things are no use unless the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Truth, is teaching you from 'within'.

(1Co 2:12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
(1Co 2:13) which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

(1Jn 2:27) As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

I doubt whether Peter and John had any lexicons or encyclopedias!..

Act 4:13 Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men,
they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

 

[Der Alte]

What did you want me to say in response to you, Der Alter? No one here seems to respond "appropriately" to you. Why is that? Because you're the only one here who knows how to properly communicate?

Why repeat what you already said just because I didn't acknowledge it the first time, in whatever way it was that you wanted or expected me to? You insisted I "missed" something. What? Your impressive list? The fact that you got those things for free? What?

Was I supposed to thank you for letting me know that you downloaded a free pdf file today?

Was I supposed to thank you for letting me know that there are free resources available on the internet?

Was I supposed to ask you for the links?

What??

Do you assume that I am not also aware of the MANY FREE resources available online?

You downloaded "one of the most highly renowned Hebrew lexicons free, today." AND? I have a copy myself. I also got it for free. What the heck did you want me to say or do with that information that I did not do?

You still don't get it. You implied that many people had to rely on various translations/versions because they did not have access to Greek and Hebrew resources. I showed that is not the case.

And who would be "credible" to you since I am quite sure you already know at least a few, if not all, of the "names" I could give you? Names that you would simply dismiss no matter whose they are, I have no doubt, even if they were sainted by the church.

Wait what was that you said to me? Oh yes.

That's what I thought.

Absolutely relevant to your comment. This is not about "majority rules". Truth is not determined by numbers; and even if it was that number would be FEW, not many. Do you need that verse?

Absolutely irrelevant to my comment which I repeat here. "It is not about "most churches" it is about virtually no churches teaching many of the beliefs being proposed here."

And none of this is getting us ANYWHERE. So perhaps it is time to just agree to disagree and dispense with the accusations and insults.

One should not start what they can't finish!

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]I doubt whether Peter and John had any lexicons or encyclopedias!..

Meaningless generality. They didn't need any since they spoke both Hebrew and Greek. Do you? When someone starts saying, "Well the original Greek (or Hebrew) for this word means 'such and such.'" Will you know the difference or will you just drink the koolaid?

 

[heavensprings]

Absolutely irrelevant to my comment which I repeat here. "It is not about "most churches" it is about virtually no churches teaching many of the beliefs being proposed here."

That's not true either. There are quite a few churches, especially in the States, that teach salvation for all, or what you call Universalism. I know one UR (universal reconciliation~it has a few names) even in CF who attends one such Church, and I don't mean Unitarian Universalism but Christian Universalism (there is a difference).

 

[heavensprings]

Meaningless generality. They didn't need any since they spoke both Hebrew and Greek. Do you? When someone starts saying, "Well the original Greek (or Hebrew) for this word means 'such and such.'" Will you know the difference or will you just drink the koolaid?

I wasn't replying to you. I'm not concerned with what you think Der Alter.

 

[Rajni]

Amen angelmom01!

Those things are no use unless the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Truth, is teaching you from 'within'.

(1Co 2:12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
(1Co 2:13) which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

(1Jn 2:27) As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

I doubt whether Peter and John had any lexicons or encyclopedias!..

Act 4:13 Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men,
they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Jesus said that the Kingdom of God belongs to little children and those who are as such. When did they get around to accumulating the credentials of a theology scholar?

1 Corinthians 1:20 ~ "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"​

.

 

[Der Alte]

That's not true either. There are quite a few churches, especially in the States, that teach salvation for all, or what you call Universalism. I know one UR (universal reconciliation~it has a few names) even in CF who attends one such Church, and I don't mean Unitarian Universalism but Christian Universalism (there is a difference).

Perhaps you should read the rest of the discussion. I was referring to my question "Can you show me any organized body of believers, by any name, who believed essentially as you do, between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and the mid/late 1800s when most such religious groups came in to being?"