Universal Reconciliation

[Lazarus Short]

That is certainly a long list of men talking about things with virtually no support from scripture at all.

Yes, it is a carefully selected list of ancient church fathers who happen to agree with Der Alter.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Be sure to bear in mind that I am not saying the verses in the original post "prove" universal reconciliation: I have not claimed such, I have claimed they very much support the doctrine. This was posted in light of the idea that "universal reconciliation has no scriptural support": so when you say "does not require everyone [be saved]" you are missing the entire point of support. You see, you have already entered the discussion with a severe bias pervading your mind; you have become rigid and unflexible: all that is in opposition to your belief is required; but your perception is askew; and an askew perception serves no good.

Now, to the verse in question: the verse I cited clearly states "all" without qualification. You mention a verse in which Jesus states "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" which verse is true, of course. But note Jesus doesn't say "All shall come to Me" in this verse, does He? So in one verse Jesus says "I will draw all to Me" and in the other "All that the Father gives Me will come to me": thus your appeal to John 6:37 does not in any way change the meaning of "all" in John 12:32 to mean "not all, but all that are given"

So, in the end, John 12:32 is clear support that "all" will be drawn to Him. John 6:37 is clear support that "All that the Father gives will come to Me". The latter doesn't suddenly alter the meaning of "all" in the former verse. I would ask you, what does the word "all" mean in "All that the Father gives"? Does the word "all" in that passages "require" the understanding of "everyone"? Why does "all" mean "all" at John 6:37, but not at John 12:32?



How do you understand the words "not imputing their trespasses to them" ("them" being "the world" which is "reconciled by His blood")? The verse states this is the "word of reconciliation": what does it mean for the world to have "no imputation of transgression"? Does a person go to heaven if their "transgressions are not imputed to them"? What keeps a person from going to heaven?



Could you provide any amount of support for your claims here: "it was too late" "not everyone confessing is going to heaven"? You seem here to be basing your answers completely on unsupported claims. Like, you are trying to use naked belief in an unstated doctrine for "imaginary support" of your words. The verses clearly state every knee will bow, every tongue will confess, all things being subdued to Him; and that no man can confess Christ is Lord but by the Holy Spirit, true?



Okay. Now if you could explain how "every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord" can be done with the Holy Spirit working in "every tongue" that makes such confession. In other words, why are you claiming (against scripture) that those confessing Christ are, not saved; since confession is made "unto salvation" by the Holy Spirit? Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Note: If you're wanting to reply "It's too late for them to be saved" please provide scriptural support, and not, empty words based on imaginary belief in an unstated doctrine.



What does "all" mean in the phrase "In Adam all die"? Just "some"? Or "all"? When does "all" actually mean what the word "all" means, as opposed to "all" meaning "not all"? Why would God use the word "all" to mean "not all"? Is God the author of confusion? Or someone else?



The title "Saviour of all" becomes untrue is "all" are not saved. This is how language works. If someone said "Here is the saviour of all the city" would you immediately understand that all the city was saved by the man? Or would you ask "How much of the city was not saved by him?"



I would grant you a point if the verse read "Able to be the Saviour of all": but it doesn't, does it?



It is when other passages cited make clear that "What God wills, happens"



Show me a passage supporting "not everyone will inherit the kingdom". Note, citing "no man who hates will inherit the kingdom" isn't good enough since this says nothing of whether or not people who hate (any cannot inherit the kingdom in their hate) will stop hating at some point in the future. Bear in mind, we've got a lot of future to come.

Also, if universal reconciliation is not true (even though it has clear support); what is the true doctrine, and, what is your support for it which you find greater than the support for universal reconciliation?

There is indeed a difference in the bias of our "talking". The bias on my side comes from casual reading of several millennium of people pondering these issues and noting in every instance where someone wants to suggest everyone is going to be OK eventually, the idea has been refuted with sound reason and Scriptural support. Like I said before posting last and is proven again in the response to that, there would be no acceptance here of any Scriptural rebuke of UR. So back to why UR is incompatible/destructive to our faith.

The Sermon on the Mount should be enough proof that not everyone will inherit the Kingdom of God because it is plainly and repeatedly said. Suggesting God would speak of the inability of a hater (or anyone) to inherit if He really meant, "you can be a hater, it will just delay your inheritance" makes the message duplicitous. Such an understanding is also incompatible with a message of our need to love and repentant DURING this life. The notion we can simply party on along whatever path we choose, because what we do in this life has no real ever lasting consequence, as we will eventually inherit the Kingdom anyway is not compatible with Scripture urging us to do otherwise.

Adam did not get just a timeout, the entire creation suffered because of what he did. He was also not given the option to just wait out the Father's forbearance in the afterlife. If enough time for everyone to come around was all that most of us needed, then there was no need for God to Act to "save" any of us. Saying we just need different amounts of time to come around, extending into the next life for some, conflicts completely with the repeated messages of urgency and focus on this life (like a good race for ex) from Scripture. Our final end and the Judgement getting us there is always phrased in terms hinging on what is done in this life, not on what we could do in the next life. There is no straight and narrow path spoken of to be used in the next life by those failing to do so in this life. Only one Way is mentioned to inherit the Kingdom and it is focused on this life, not the next. Which is odd that such a path gets no mention if an alternative existed to the one Way in this life.

The Return of our Lord is always depicted as a reconciliation of everything, every thing sin corrupted is made right. Everything is not made right if God is to be seen as still waiting for those in Hell/timeout to come around - also means they are still rebelling. Jesus Return is always pictured including Peace and Justice. There will be no more sin and so no more evil. None of that is possible if we say that the devil, his minions or those of us who die in rebellion are all still rebelling for a while in some timeout corner.

Talk of a Savior is not even necessary if all a "blind" person needs is more time to come around until they "see". Analogies about the next life with people being too late make no sense if it were true that it is never too late - making His Words duplicitous again.

The idea also suggests God needs everyone to love Him, rather than we need to love Him. After all, the underlying claim is that God cannot be seen as Loving or Merciful otherwise. Maybe even more basic the concept suggests that God needs everyone rather than everyone needing Him. God does not need anything or anyone.

So what am I "talking" about here? That all these concepts are Christian beliefs that can be eroded/undermined by the OPs concept of what some say God must do. Claim me to be "talking" out the wrong end to mention these things without posting Scripture in between "talking" points - fine. But the doubts being sowed about these fundamentals from holding such a belief cannot be denied. So as long as everyone is "talking" why not address how UR does not undermine these things?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Yes, it is a carefully selected list of ancient church fathers who happen to agree with Der Alter.

Just as those opposed would primarily appeal to Origen for support. The difference is we recognize not everything any particular ECF held as true is in fact true. They make mistakes like everyone else. It is also not always clear an ECF meant what some people today claim he meant. Der Alter would still be correct in saying the consistency of voices against UR through the ages stands in contrast to the occasional ones supporting it.

Even if we took the narrative about the most famous teachers from the ECFs that "all will be saved" there are actually some strong opinions and doubts about exactly what Origen was condemned for (posthumously BTW). He did apparently teach that all would eventually be saved, but unclear that is what earned him condemnation.

Not a few ECFs expressed a belief that all MAY be saved, but expressing that hope is not the same as saying we know all WILL be saved (Origen). The Church itself extends such hope in prayer - that all may be saved. People also make mistakes, so it is not like we hold up any ECFs because they made no errors.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . I spent (off and on) two years slogging through the KJV, to see which of the three theories fit the data (the text) better. Annihilation has little to support it.

The Heaven vs Hell theory is mostly supported by bad translation, and of course, "hell" is not in the original languages, but comes down to

us from the ancient languages of pagan northern Europe. My "gotcha!" moment was finding that the Norse

goddess of those not fit for Valhalla was Hel, and her realm was called Helheim. If memory serves, the 1611 KJV has two instances of "hel," so I'm not just blowing smoke...

This is a lexical fallacy known as the,

"Root fallacy: assigning the (supposed) original meaning of a word to its usages throughout history;" ​

What if any credible, verifiable, historical evidence can you provide supporting this assertion? That a word in one language sounds like a word in another language is largely irrelevant unless a positive nexus can be shown.
.....For example, my wife is oriental and I worked in her native country, for the U.S. government for 14.5 years. One day we were out driving and she said "Yahweh yonghwa gukjang." I asked her what she said she repeated it. So I asked her what it meant, she said "drive in theater." Although the first word sounds exactly like the accepted pronunciation for the tetragrammaton, it has nothing to do with god.

Properly translated and understood, the UR theory fits the data best - Hell and Annihilation are not even close.

And without graduate study in the Biblical languages how does one determine if something is "properly translated and understood?" The correct way is not determined by choosing an interpretation which lines up with one's assumptions/presuppositions. I am no expert but I have had graduate study in the Biblical languages.

 

[Der Alte]

That is certainly a long list of men talking about things with virtually no support from scripture at all.

I'm sorry you must have missed the scripture citations included.

One of the things I discovered in my two-year slog through the KJV, besides the non-existance of

Hell, was that all the punishments, cursings and destructions of the Bible are carried out in the real, here-and-now world.

That being said, Jesus' statement that He makes all things new says a LOT.

Wrong!
Compare Revelation 21:5 to Revelation 21:8

 

[sdowney717]

John 3:35-36New King James Version (NKJV)
35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.
36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

1 John 3:13-15New King James Version (NKJV)
13 Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Scripture always has the answer, and these two here speak not of universal reconciliation into eternal life.
Some people abide in death and remain dead in their sins.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, it is a carefully selected list of ancient church fathers who happen to agree with Der Alter.

Please feel free to do your own research and refute the ECF I quoted with some credible, verifiable, historical evidence vs. your unsupported opinion.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I'm sorry you must have missed the scripture citations included.

I did not miss them because there aren't any except one about "fire doesn't go out" which I already addressed. In fact your post contains a large string of citations supporting universal reconciliation; and your response is nothing but the words of a bunch of men with no support from scripture whatsoever.

 

[John Hyperspace]

So what am I "talking" about here?

No offense intended whatsoever; but as far as I'm concerned, without scriptural support for your talking; you're talking about a whole lot of nothing.

 

[John Hyperspace]

One of the things I discovered in my two-year slog through the KJV, besides the non-existance of Hell, was that all the punishments, cursings and destructions of the Bible are carried out in the real, here-and-now world. That being said, Jesus' statement that He makes all things new says a LOT.

There is certainly a lot of punishment, destruction and ruin going on the the present age, isn't there? Even throughout the bible we see this evidently clear. Rejection into destruction into ruin into repentance into reconciliation. Seems to be methodical; whether past, present, or, future.

 

[Der Alte]

I did not miss them (though feel free to cite the scriptures again), I had already addressed them in my previous posts.

The post is still there, since you apparently didn't read it the first time I see no point in posting parts of it again. If you did or do address the scripture in my previous post please explain why your interpretation of the scriptures is right and the ECF are wrong?

 

[John Hyperspace]

The post is still there, since you apparently didn't read it the first time I see no point in posting parts of it again. If you did or do address the scripture in my previous post please explain why your interpretation of the scriptures is right and the ECF are wrong?

There is nothing to explain since there are no proposition being made through scripture, and no scripture used for support of any kind. You've posted a long list of men making baseless claims, as though they are the words of scripture; but they're not.

 

[Der Alte]

There is nothing to explain since there are no proposition being made through scripture, and no scripture used for support of any kind. You've posted a long list of men making baseless claims, as though they are the words of scripture; but they're not.

Still wrong! That is a clever but misguided ploy. Remember there were no chapter, verse divisions at the time of the ECF. Actually there were five verses cited and several allusions to scripture, for example "which we call Abraham's bosom." There is only one place where that occurs. Want to take a guess? Then of course I posted short excerpts in the full writings are many scriptural references.
The people making baseless claims are right there in this thread quoting verses out-of-context etc.

 

[John Hyperspace]

quoting verses out-of-context etc.

That one is easy to refute. I just respond "You are the one taking verses out of context" and now we're back to universal reconciliation having the proverbial lion's share of scriptural support, while also addressing all other scripture in harmony with itself.

While you have one verse from a parable (unless you think people really go inside 'Abraham's bosom'?), and have ignored every cited verse supporting universal reconciliation. So your doctrine is based on one verse from a parable, and in conflict with every verse cited in support of universal reconciliation.

 

[Der Alte]

That one is easy to refute. I just respond "You are the one taking verses out of context" and now we're back to universal reconciliation having the proverbial lion's share of scriptural support, while also addressing all other scripture in harmony with itself.

I have not taken a single verse out-of-context. See my discussion of your assumed "lion's share" of proof texts in my previous post. Anybody can prove almost anything by taking a verse here and a verse there. But how many of those 20 or so verses did the formerly pagan Christians in e.g. Philippi have to base their understanding on when they read Paul's letter? Did they have the OT? Did they have the book of John, Corinthian letters etc?

While you have one verse from a parable (unless you think people really go inside 'Abraham's bosom'?),

I have a lot more than one verse and you well know it. Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable. It is not introduced as a parable, Jesus never explains it to His disciples and unless Abraham was in the place stated and said the words Jesus quoted Jesus was lying. In the bosom of does not mean inside someone's body, it refers to the place of honor at a banquet. In that day they did not sit in chairs at a table but reclined on the floor leaning on their left elbow with their feet extended away from the table. That how the woman was able to anoint Jesus' feet with her tears. Strange women didn't crawl around under a table where men were seated. "In the bosom" was the position to the host's front.

and have ignored every cited verse supporting universal reconciliation. So your doctrine is based on one verse from a parable, and in conflict with every verse cited in support of universal reconciliation.

As I said I have variously cited a lot more than one verse. See for example this which I posted before.
Among the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus was a belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom.

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a); [Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT the bias of Christian translators.]
n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).
… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link:Jewish Encyclopedia Online
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [follower of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link:Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

When Jesus taught about,

• “Then shall he say … Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24​

These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned the existing Jewish view of eternal hell. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Hebrews 10:28-31 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

Jesus used the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He wanted to say eternal death in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it had nothing to do with punishment and was permanent. When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” they would not have understood it as death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Jesus knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, when Jesus taught about man’s eternal fate, such as eternal punishment, He would have corrected them. Jesus did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell must have been correct.
<•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•>

The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1922-56], 4:2:1030). Also a more recent author holds a similar view (Lloyd R. Bailey, "Gehenna: The Topography of Hell," Biblical Archeologist 49 [1986]: 189.
Source, Bibliotheca Sacra / July–September 1992
Scharen: Gehenna in the Synoptics Pt. 1​

Note there is no “archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, [that Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump] in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources” If Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump there should be broken pottery, tools, utensils, bones, etc. but there is no such evidence.

“Gehenna is presented as diametrically opposed to ‘life’: it is better to enter life than to go to Gehenna. . .It is common practice, both in scholarly and less technical works, to associate the description of Gehenna with the supposedly contemporary garbage dump in the valley of Hinnom. This association often leads scholars to emphasize the destructive aspects of the judgment here depicted: fire burns until the object is completely consumed. Two particular problems may be noted in connection with this approach. First, there is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery rubbish dump in this location (in any case, a thorough investigation would be appreciated). Secondly, the significant background to this passage more probably lies in Jesus’ allusion to Isaiah 66:24.”
(“The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The Reader Must Understand edited by K. Brower and M. W. Ellion, p. 223, emphasis mine)
G. R. Beasley-Murray in Jesus and the Kingdom of God:
“Ge-Hinnom (Aramaic Ge-hinnam, hence the Greek Geenna), ‘The Valley of Hinnom,’ lay south of Jerusalem, immediately outside its walls. The notion, still referred to by some commentators, that the city’s rubbish was burned in this valley, has no further basis than a statement by the Jewish scholar Kimchi (sic) made about A.D. 1200; it is not attested in any ancient source.” (p. 376n.92)
The Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna is a myth - Archaeology, Biblical History & Textual Criticism ​

 

[John Hyperspace]

I have not taken a single verse out-of-context.

Then I'll go ahead and make the same claim of myself.

See my discussion of your assumed "lion's share" of proof texts in my previous post.

There was none; you didn't address any of the verses; you only cited words of men which aren't scripture.

I have a lot more than one verse and you well know it. Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable.

It's a parable. The scripture plainly states Jesus always spoke to the people in parables: Matthew 13:34. If you think it's not a parable, then you think that people will actually go into Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22). That would rupture a man's bosom with all those people. Unless you believe Lazarus is somehow special, and the only one to go into Abraham's bosom? A single man would still rupture the bosom. Also, if you propose (against scripture i.e. Matthew 13:14) that this is not a parable; then you admit that the "fire" was rather weak? Causing only thirst? And that you believe a man can be placed into fire and still have mundane discussions with others, and not be screaming in pain unable to speak rationally?

In the bosom of does not mean inside someone's body, it refers to the place of honor at a banquet.

I'm sorry, was this not a parable? But you're taking things figuratively? Why is Abraham's bosom figurative but the fiery place is literal? Just, arbitrarily deciding which is which, now? How does this passage support... what is it you think this supports again? How do you reconcile this passage with the passages cited in the original post concerning universal reconciliation? Do those verses not mean what they say, and this verse literally means what it says (except apparently "Abraham's bosom" which, doesn't mean what it says?): why doesn't this verse not mean what it says and the myriad reconciliation passages mean what they say?

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna

I'm looking for scriptural support; not Jewish Encyclopedia support. Are you unable to support from scripture?

Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.

Again, looking for scriptural support; not Talmudic support. Does it not seem odd that you're appealing to the teachings of people who reject Christ and His teachings, in order to support... what is it you're trying to support, again?

When Jesus taught about,

• “Then shall he say … Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24

Yes, universal reconciliation acknowledges these passages in harmony. How do you reconcile the passages in the original post with these, since now you are apparently creating a contradictory doctrine, and scripture is now being made by you to contradict itself?

Hebrews 10:28-31 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Okay and this supports, what again?

Jesus used the word death 17 times in the gospels

Right; death is acknowledged in universal reconciliation. In fact, it acknowledges all of the passages you're citing, and those passages are not problematic. But, I note you're not addressing the verses in the original post? Since they are problematic for your position? Which is, what again?

The Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna is a myth - Archaeology, Biblical History & Textual Criticism

You seem to be talking to figments of your imagination since no I've not said anything about Gehenna. I acknowledge it and it is in harmony with universal reconciliation, which has destruction as impetus of reconciliation.

1 Corinthians 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

So you see, citing things being burned up by fire doesn't actually support anything other than, things being burned up by fire. Even here, salvation is through this burning by fire. Naturally, the fire isn't literal; and never is.

But speaking of "Gehenna fire" James uses it here:

James 3:6 and the tongue is a fire, the world of the unrighteousness, so the tongue is set in our members, which is spotting our whole body, and is setting on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire by the gehenna.

Now, normally I would presume the reader understand that "Gehenna" isn't literally being used, and is figurative; neither the "tongue" actually being set literally on fire by literal Gehenna. But I suppose it's necessary to ask, do you think the tongue is literally fire, and that literal Gehenna really does send literal flame to light the tongue?

So, in the end, I acknowledge all of the passages from scripture that you cite: even having already addressed them: and they are completely in harmony with universal reconciliation as the impetus of said reconciliation.

You have support of, what again? Something? Annihilation? And a lot of appealing to Jews and the Talmud, and some archaeological paper? And by which you've with all of these created a doctrine which is now in conflict with the reconciliation passages, so have some work to do attempting to "untangle" the linguistic mess you've created. I presume you wave you magic wand and all of the reconciliation passages no longer exist? Or, no longer mean what they say? So you've given support for "annihilation" but in doing so have created a paradox in scripture which will now cause you to wrestle other scripture into meaning something they don't say; or, ignore them altogether.

 

[Shempster]

From the Looks of the material provided, it appears to come from Tentmaker.com
I am well familiar with it and agree with all of it. However, objections to the doctrine are numerous.

Rather than fighting over this scripture vs. that one, let's look at the real issue here. It is one of CHARACTER.

We all agree God is all knowing. He must have known ahead of creation that the vast majority of people will fail to become evangelical Christians with all the "correct" doctrine. If Jesus created hell (and he must have because nobody mentioned it before him) then why would God knowingly go ahead and create Lucifer and man anyways?
Did He not know that they would fail to understand and obey the law and die only to suffer in agony forever? Are the Calvanists correct when they assume God specifically created life with the intention that 95% of them would all suffer in life and then be tortured forever?

Any person with a bit of curiosity will wonder that. If it is tue, then what does that say about this creator in terms of character?

 

[Der Alte]

Then I'll go ahead and make the same claim of myself.
There was none; you didn't address any of the verses; you only cited words of men which aren't scripture.

You didn't address any of the verses in either of my posts. Everything I posted Jewish Encyclopedia, Talmud, ECF and scholars cited scripture. You're just repeating your previous denials without even reading my posts.

It's a parable. The scripture plainly states Jesus always spoke to the people in parables: Matthew 13:34. If you think it's not a parable, then you think that people will actually go into Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22). That would rupture a man's bosom with all those people.

This proves you didn't read my last post.

....

Also, if you propose (against scripture i.e. Matthew 13:14) that this is not a parable; then you admit that the "fire" was rather weak? Causing only thirst? And that you believe a man can be placed into fire and still have mundane discussions with others, and not be screaming in pain unable to speak rationally?

That one or more things are figurative in a passage does not make everything in the passage figurative.

I'm sorry, was this not a parable? But you're taking things figuratively? Why is Abraham's bosom figurative but the fiery place is literal? Just, arbitrarily deciding which is which, now? How does this passage support... what is it you think this supports again? How do you reconcile this passage with the passages cited in the original post concerning universal reconciliation? Do those verses not mean what they say, and this verse literally means what it says (except apparently "Abraham's bosom" which, doesn't mean what it says?): why doesn't this verse not mean what it says and the myriad reconciliation passages mean what they say?

Please show me one verse which clearly states that all mankind will be saved no matter what. I don't mean a verse from here and a verse for there that when jammed together out-of-context seems to support the doctrine. Why were all men not drawn to Jesus at the time He was lifted up as He said?

I'm looking for scriptural support; not Jewish Encyclopedia support. Are you unable to support from scripture?

More proof that you did not read my post. I even highlighted all the scripture in blue. When discussing OT scripture I want to know how the ancient Jews interpreted those scripture not how modern heterodox groups interpret them. The historical evidence in the sources I quoted provided that.

Again, looking for scriptural support; not Talmudic support. Does it not seem odd that you're appealing to the teachings of people who reject Christ and His teachings, in order to support... what is it you're trying to support, again?

Still proving that you did not read my post. Same comments as above.

Yes, universal reconciliation acknowledges these passages in harmony. How do you reconcile the passages in the original post with these, since now you are apparently creating a contradictory doctrine, and scripture is now being made by you to contradict itself?

No the UR proof texts do not harmonize with the verses I quoted, without reverting to "they're figurative" etc.

Right; death is acknowledged in universal reconciliation. In fact, it acknowledges all of the passages you're citing, and those passages are not problematic. But, I note you're not addressing the verses in the original post? Since they are problematic for your position? Which is, what again?

Same comments to you, you have not addressed any of the scripture I quoted.

You seem to be talking to figments of your imagination since no I've not said anything about Gehenna. I acknowledge it and it is in harmony with universal reconciliation, which has destruction as impetus of reconciliation.

Irrelevant objections.

1 Corinthians 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

This is one of those out-of-context proof texts which I have addressed before and which has been ignored. Let's put that one verse in context.

1 Corinthians 3:9-17
(9) For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
(10) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.​

Your proof text does not refer to all mankind only the labourers together with God, God's husbandry who build on the foundation which Paul has laid."vs. 9-10

(11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
(12) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
(13) Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
(14) If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
(15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.​

When read in context this no man, any man, every man, vss 11-15, does not refer to all mankind but only those who build on the foundation of Christ vss 9-10. And notice it is not the man who is tried by fire only his work and the man is not saved by fire but "so as by fire." i.e. similar to fire.

(16) Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
(17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

And notice these two verses do not say every man will be saved. In fact it says that some will be destroyed, those who defile the temple

So you see, citing things being burned up by fire doesn't actually support anything other than, things being burned up by fire. Even here, salvation is through this burning by fire. Naturally, the fire isn't literal; and never is.

Twisting the scripture, as I have shown it does not say what you are claiming here. This verse does NOT say that "salvation is through this burning by fire." This is a common ploy when scripture as written does not support one's assumptions/presuppositions simply dismiss it as figurative.

But speaking of "Gehenna fire" James uses it here:
James 3:6 and the tongue is a fire, the world of the unrighteousness, so the tongue is set in our members, which is spotting our whole body, and is setting on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire by the gehenna.

A figurative use one place does not make every use figurative. There is an old maxim "If the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to look for any other sense."

Now, normally I would presume the reader understand that "Gehenna" isn't literally being used, and is figurative; neither the "tongue" actually being set literally on fire by literal Gehenna. But I suppose it's necessary to ask, do you think the tongue is literally fire, and that literal Gehenna really does send literal flame to light the tongue?

I agree that there is figurative language in the Bible but that does not make everything figurative. To the Jews "Gehenna" was the equivalent to "hell," if I recall correctly Jesus, His disciples and virtually everybody He talked to were Jews. So what the Jews believed is very relevant to this discussion. And the beliefs of modern day heterodox groups is not so relevant.

So, in the end, I acknowledge all of the passages from scripture that you cite: even having already addressed them: and they are completely in harmony with universal reconciliation as the impetus of said reconciliation.

I refer you to your out-of-context proof text above 1 Corinthians 3:15

You have support of, what again? Something? Annihilation? And a lot of appealing to Jews and the Talmud, and some archaeological paper? And by which you've with all of these created a doctrine which is now in conflict with the reconciliation passages, so have some work to do attempting to "untangle" the linguistic mess you've created. I presume you wave you magic wand and all of the reconciliation passages no longer exist? Or, no longer mean what they say? So you've given support for "annihilation" but in doing so have created a paradox in scripture which will now cause you to wrestle other scripture into meaning something they don't say; or, ignore them altogether.

Once again show me one verse which clearly states that all mankind will be saved no matter what. You cannot do it. You have to make assumptions. On the other hand I can quote several passages which say exactly what I say they do, no assumptions, no figurative language etc. For example,

• “Then shall he say … Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24​

These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned the existing Jewish view of eternal hell. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

And OBTW these are verses I quoted in my post where you said I did not quote any scripture.

 

[Lazarus Short]

From the Looks of the material provided, it appears to come from Tentmaker.com
I am well familiar with it and agree with all of it. However, objections to the doctrine are numerous.

Rather than fighting over this scripture vs. that one, let's look at the real issue here. It is one of CHARACTER.

We all agree God is all knowing. He must have known ahead of creation that the vast majority of people will fail to become evangelical Christians with all the "correct" doctrine. If Jesus created hell (and he must have because nobody mentioned it before him) then why would God knowingly go ahead and create Lucifer and man anyways?
Did He not know that they would fail to understand and obey the law and die only to suffer in agony forever? Are the Calvanists correct when they assume God specifically created life with the intention that 95% of them would all suffer in life and then be tortured forever?

Any person with a bit of curiosity will wonder that. If it is tue, then what does that say about this creator in terms of character?

Nowhere does the Bible state that Hell was created - only the Heavens and the Earth. "Heaven and Earth" is a repeating phrase over and over in the text, and Hell is always left out. Always. Jesus never used the term, as it comes to us in translation.

 

[John Hyperspace]

You didn't address any of the verses in either of my posts.

Feel free to post scripture; so far you've posted the words of men, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the Talmud.

That one or more things are figurative in a passage does not make everything in the passage figurative.

And you tell how something is figurative and how something isn't, how exactly?

Please show me one verse which clearly states that all mankind will be saved no matter what.

I already did in the first post.

When discussing OT scripture I want to know how the ancient Jews interpreted those scripture

I realize your entire doctrine is based on how Jews who reject Christ and His teachings interpret the scripture. I only accept scripture.

No the UR proof texts do not harmonize with the verses I quoted, without reverting to "they're figurative" etc.

No one saud they were figurative; it's the scripture that says Jesus always spoke in parables: Matthew 13:34. But, apparently you don't believe scripture, and base all of you interpretation on the Jews and the Talmud.

Your proof text does not refer to all mankind

I didn't use it to support "all of mankind" anything; but that "destruction" and "fire" don't require the belief in "literal fire" neither the belief in annihilation. Thus everything you cite that contains "fire" or "destruction" gives no indication of the final end result. In other words pointing at a verse with the word "fire/destruction" doesn't allow you to then say "and so since I pointed at 'fire' then there is no reconciliation, and all of the passages supporting reconciliaiton don't exist"

Twisting the scripture

Oh that one is easy to refute. I simply claim you are the one twisting scripture.

There is an old maxim "If the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to look for any other sense."

More non-biblical words of men to guide you biblical "understanding"?

Once again show me one verse which clearly states that all mankind will be saved no matter what. You cannot do it.

1 Timothy 4:10. Is Jesus the Saviour of all men? What does a saviour do?

You have to make assumptions. On the other hand I can quote several passages which say exactly what I say they do, no assumptions, no figurative language etc. For example,

• “Then shall he say … Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24

All those verses I accept and are in harmony with reconciliation. Do you also accept the verses in the first post? Is Jesus the Saviour of all men? Or are most men not saved? Which is the end? All men are saved; or, most men are not saved?

Jewish view

Are you Jewish?