Universal Reconciliation

[John Hyperspace]

Words

Let me attempt to clear some things. My position doesn't reject the verses you're citing, and it doesn't reject the verses I'm citing. It accepts both, placing the verses you cite as prior to the verses I cite. In other words, placing the destruction/loss/ruin, prior to, the reconciliation. I personally would propose that the "destruction/loss/ruin" passages are meant to be understood as spiritual destruction/loss/ruin and not literal (and I have scriptural reasons for that): BUT if you absolutely insist on understanding everything literally, that's not a problem for my position.

Now, your position is citing "destruction" and then either completely ignoring the reconciliation passages, or proposing "none of them mean what they say, and I reject the plain reading (which then causes you to violate your own 'plain sense maxim' of interpretation)". So you see, what you are doing is citing a bunch of scripture and looking at me as if to say 'aha!' while I am looking at you saying 'yes, I know the verses and accept them; how do you say 'aha!' when all you are doing is citing verses I've already discussed and accept?

In other words, I am accepting all of the passages about fire and destruction, loss and ruin; as well as all of the passages about salvation and reconciliation of both all men and the world. You are accepting the passages about fire and destruction, then either ignoring the passages about universal reconciliation, or trying to make them mean some rather than the 'plain sense reading'. I'm not having to "wrestle scripture"; you are. In doing so, you are contradicting both scripture, and your own words.

 

[Der Alte]

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.

Jesus did use a word, Gehenna, which was the equivalent of the English word "hell." I have proved this several times from Jewish sources i.e. the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud. See my post # 35, above. But alas this evidence is always rejected because it destroys some people's view of hell. See post#40 immediately above.

 

[Der Alte]

Let me attempt to clear some things. My position doesn't reject the verses you're citing, and it doesn't reject the verses I'm citing. It accepts both, placing the verses you cite as prior to the verses I cite. In other words, placing the destruction/loss/ruin, prior to, the reconciliation.

I personally would propose that the "destruction/loss/ruin" passages are meant to be understood as spiritual destruction/loss/ruin and not literal (and I have scriptural reasons for that):

Here is how I see this response whenever scripture as written contradicts something you believe you dismiss it as figurative. Whereas I only consider something figurative when it is clearly identified as figurative or the context requires it. For example the seven headed beast in Revelation.

BUT if you absolutely

insist on understanding everything literally, that's not a problem for my position.

This is a patently false statement I clearly stated my position in a previous post "If the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." "Makes good sense" does not mean "If it agrees with something I believe."

Now, your position is citing "destruction" and then either completely ignoring the reconciliation passages, or proposing "none of them

mean what they say, and I reject the plain reading (which then causes you to violate your own 'plain sense maxim' of

interpretation)". So you see, what you are doing is citing a bunch of scripture and looking at me as if to say 'aha!' while I am looking at you

saying 'yes, I know the verses and accept them; how do you say 'aha!' when all you are doing is citing verses I've already discussed and accept?

More misrepresentation!

In other words, I am accepting all of the passages about fire and destruction, loss and ruin; as well as all of the passages about salvation and reconciliation of both all men and the world. You are accepting the passages about fire and destruction, then either ignoring the passages about universal reconciliation, or trying to make them mean some rather than the 'plain sense reading'. I'm not having to "wrestle scripture"; you are. In doing so, you are contradicting both scripture, and your own words.

Revelation 21:4-8
(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
(5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.​

Jesus said "there shall be no more death" and "Behold, I make all things new" but a few verses later several groups of people are still being thrown in the LoF. Where is the reconciliation after Rev 21:8?

(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.​

 

[John Hyperspace]

Here is how I see this response whenever scripture as written contradicts something you believe you dismiss it as figurative.

I've not dismissed anything as figurative. I even said I'd accept everything as literal, if you insisted. Figurative or literal, it makes no difference: destruction is destruction, lost is lost, perished is perished, reconciled is reconciled, saved is saved.

However, what I did do is cite scripture plainly saying Jesus always spoke in parables to the people. I take this at 'plain sense reading' and so can conclude when Jesus is speaking to the people about the rich man and Lazarus, it must be a parable. You, however, ignore scripture, propose it is not a parable, but literal; then flip coins to determine what in the "literal" account is figurative and literal. In your proposition, the place of Lazarus is figurative, but the place of the rich man is literal (even though the rich man doesn't act like a man would act if actually literally being burned alive: he speaks fluently, as if no physical harm is being done to him at all)

Whereas I only consider something figurative when it is clearly identified as figurative or the context requires it. For example the seven headed beast in Revelation.

More "magical context": you have to love the word "context" is can make anything be whatever anyone wants it to be, eh? So, how does context require figurative understand of the abode of Lazarus, but not the abode of the rich man?

This is a patently false statement I clearly stated my position in a previous post "If the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." "Makes good sense" does not mean "If it agrees with something I believe."

Okay then you must consider Jesus the "Saviour of all men"? Or, no?

More misrepresentation!

Oh that's easy to refute. I just say "You are the one misinterpreting!"

Jesus said "there shall be no more death" and "Behold, I make all things new" but a few verses later several groups of people are still being thrown in the LoF. Where is the reconciliation after Rev 21:8?

The same place it has always been. After the destruction.

You seem to want to point at a passage showing "fire" and "destruction" and say "since I can point at a passage showing fire and destruction; then all of the verses about reconciliation don't exist": my question isn't "can you point at "fire" and "death" in the scripture? It is, what are you going to do with all of the passages teaching Christ "the Saviour of the world" and "Saviour of all men" and "reconciling the world unto Him" etc. etc.? Ignore them, or, say "I reject the plain reading, and none of these mean what they say"?

This is such as citing this passage: Jer 12:10 Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness. Then saying "therefore there is no reconciliation because I have cited a passage showing destruction": it's nonsensical.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Why would it matter to other Christians what one thinks Scriptures says when the belief corrupts other Christian fundamentals?
And further, why refuse to "talk" about that corruption in defense of holding such beliefs?

 

[Der Alte]

I've not dismissed anything as figurative. I even said I'd accept everything as literal, if you insisted. Figurative or literal, it makes no difference: destruction is destruction, lost is lost, perished is perished, reconciled is reconciled, saved is saved.

"[D]estruction is destruction" is true except when the word translated "destruction" in the NT,
ἀπόλλυμι/Apollumi occurs 90 times in the NT, of this 68 times, 76%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here is a list of those meanings.
(1) ruin, (2) do not bring about his ruin, (3) put to death, the wicked tenants, (4) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death, (5) destroy the wisdom of the wise, (6) destroy the understanding, (7) lose, (8) lose the reward, (9) lose what we have worked for, (10) lose one’s life, (11) lose oneself, (12) The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’), (13) ruined, (14) die, the man dies, (15) As a cry of anguish, we are perishing!, (16) of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer, (17) die by the sword, (18) die of hunger, (19) be corrupted, (20) killed by the snakes, (21) those who are lost, (22) of things be lost, (23) pass away, (24) be ruined, (26) of bursting wineskins, (25) fading beauty, (26) transitory beauty of gold, (27) passing splendor, (28) Of earthly food, (29) spoiled honey, (30) Of falling hair, (31) a member or organ of the body, (32) remnants of food, (33) of wine that has lost its flavor, (34) of sheep gone astray, (35) Of a lost son [that returned].

However, what I did do is cite scripture plainly saying Jesus always spoke in parables to the people. I take this at 'plain sense reading' and so can conclude when Jesus is speaking to the people about the rich man and Lazarus, it must be a parable.

The primary audience for Luke chapter 16 and 17 are Jesus' disciples. See vs. 1 each chapter.

You, however, ignore scripture, propose it is not a parable, but literal; then flip coins to determine what in the "literal" account is figurative and literal. In your proposition, the place of Lazarus is figurative, but the place of the rich man is literal

(even though the rich man doesn't act like a man would act if actually literally being burned alive: he speaks fluently, as if no physical harm is being done to him at all)

Everything in red is a total misrepresentation of what I have said. I clearly explained why I consider Luke 16:19-31 factual, which you have not refuted. And since you apparently cannot reply to my posts without misrepresenting what I say this will be my final response to you. Also all the early church fathers who quote or refer to the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual, not a parable. Prove them wrong!

More "magical context": you have to love the word "context" is can make anything be whatever anyone wants it to be, eh? So, how does context require figurative understand of the abode of Lazarus, but not the abode of the rich man?

Something you do not seem to be familiar with "historical context." The Jews considered "Abraham's bosom" the position where all the righteous would celebrate the feast in paradise, as I explained earlier and you ignored. But that is Jewish history something you evidently don't know, and don't want to know, anything about But here are several verses which use similar language.
Genesis 16:5 Numbers 11:12 Ruth 4:16 2 Samuel 12:3 1 Kings 1:2 1 Kings 3:20 Job 31:33 Psalms 89:50 Proverbs 6:27 Proverbs 19:24 Proverbs 21:14 Proverbs 26:15 Isaiah 40:11 Lamentations 2:12 Micah 7:5 John 1:18

Okay then you must consider Jesus the "Saviour of all men"? Or, no?

Yes in the same way God is the God of the whole world but I don't see that happening.

The same place it has always been. After the destruction.

Wrong! Show me where John says in Rev. where everyone will be saved after Rev 21:4-5, when 3 verses later, Rev 21:8 says there are still several groups of people who will be thrown into the LoF?

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
...
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. ​

Show me where the seven churches Rev. is addressed to had any thought at all that everyone would be saved no matter what after reading Rev?

Oh that's easy to refute. I just say "You are the one misinterpreting!"

You seem to want to point at a passage showing "fire" and "destruction" and say "since I can point at a passage showing fire and destruction; then all of the verses about reconciliation don't exist": my question isn't "can you point at "fire" and "death" in the scripture? It is, what are you going to do with all of the passages teaching Christ "the Saviour of the world" and "Saviour of all men" and "reconciling the world unto Him" etc. etc.? Ignore them, or, say "I reject the plain reading, and none of these mean what they say"?

More intentional misrepresentation I have never said anything like "since I can point at a passage showing fire and destruction; then all of the verses about reconciliation don't exist" I have always explained my reasoning just as I did with your one out-of-context proof text 1 Cor 3:15.

This is such as citing this passage: Jer 12:10 Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness. Then saying "therefore there is no reconciliation because I have cited a passage showing destruction": it's nonsensical.

As you have quoted the one verse out-of-context it is nonsensical but you did not read or quote the rest of the passage i.e. Jeremiah 12:16-17. God stipulated a condition for the reconciliation of the men of Anathoth who have misled Israel, Jeremiah 11:21. And nowhere do I read that God would still place them in the midst of His people if they did not meet that stipulation.

 

[John Hyperspace]

"[D]estruction is destruction" is true except when the word translated "destruction" in the NT,
ἀπόλλυμι/Apollumi occurs 90 times in the NT, of this 68 times, 76%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here is a list of those meanings.
(1) ruin, (2) do not bring about his ruin, (3) put to death, the wicked tenants, (4) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death, (5) destroy the wisdom of the wise, (6) destroy the understanding, (7) lose, (8) lose the reward, (9) lose what we have worked for, (10) lose one’s life, (11) lose oneself, (12) The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’), (13) ruined, (14) die, the man dies, (15) As a cry of anguish, we are perishing!, (16) of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer, (17) die by the sword, (18) die of hunger, (19) be corrupted, (20) killed by the snakes, (21) those who are lost, (22) of things be lost, (23) pass away, (24) be ruined, (26) of bursting wineskins, (25) fading beauty, (26) transitory beauty of gold, (27) passing splendor, (28) Of earthly food, (29) spoiled honey, (30) Of falling hair, (31) a member or organ of the body, (32) remnants of food, (33) of wine that has lost its flavor, (34) of sheep gone astray, (35) Of a lost son [that returned].

I guess fortunately I'm not arguing "annihilation" so why bother posting this since it's completely irrelevant, and actually supports my case that "destruction" is not a "full end/annihilation"?

Also you're still dodging the reconciliation passages that you need to reconcile with your doctrine which denies reconciliation passages.

The primary audience for Luke chapter 16 and 17 are Jesus' disciples. See vs. 1 each chapter.

And? The only time Jesus didn't speak in parables was when He was alone with His disciples: Mark 4:34. He is not alone with them in these passages, and He is speaking to them so that the Pharisees would overhear 14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

Everything in red is a total misrepresentation of what I have said. I clearly explained why I consider Luke 16:19-31 factual

But it isn't factual; you yourself stated Abraham's bosom isn't factual. Apparently the "factual" story is only "partly" factual; and only the parts you say are "factual" are "factual" and the parts you say aren't "factual" aren't "factual": but, then again, you haven't explained how a man can "factually" be in fire and act as though he's not being injured in the slightest, aside from being a bit thirsty. The reason you haven't done this is clear to me: you can't make nonsense make sense.

Also all the early church fathers who quote or refer to the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual, not a parable. Prove them wrong!

I just did.

Something you do not seem to be familiar with "historical context."

Oh there's the magic word again. Need something in a factual account not be factual? Magical context poof! Not factual. Let me see that magic wand, I'll wave it on the abode of the rich man: "Presto changeo!" poof! Not factual.

The Jews

Couldn't care less about what people who can't understand the old testament have to say.

Genesis 16:5 Numbers 11:12 Ruth 4:16 2 Samuel 12:3 1 Kings 1:2 1 Kings 3:20 Job 31:33 Psalms 89:50 Proverbs 6:27 Proverbs 19:24 Proverbs 21:14 Proverbs 26:15 Isaiah 40:11 Lamentations 2:12 Micah 7:5 John 1:18

I don't recall saying there was no figurative language in scripture. The question was, how do you arbitraily decide what is figurative and what is not? First you insist everything be taken literally, now you backpedal to pick-and-choose figurative interpretation. You're like a ping-pong ball.

Yes in the same way God is the God of the whole world but I don't see that happening.

So you're saying that God isn't the God of the whole world; and Jesus isn't the Savious of all men. So basically you're saying scripture doesn't mean what it says, but what you mean it doesn't say. In the Timothy verse the word "Saviour" applies both to "all men" and "we who believe": if you're saying Jesus isn't the Saviour of all men, you're also saying Jesus isn't the Saviour of we who believe. Everything you're saying is contradictory to both the scripture, and, language, and, reason.

Wrong! Show me where John says in Rev. where everyone will be saved after Rev 21:4-5

Show me at the end of Malachi were the lost sheep of Israel are searched out. Can't? Then by your logic it must've never happened.

when 3 verses later, Rev 21:8 says there are still several groups of people who will be thrown into the LoF?

Yes, and? So you think being thrown into the lake of fire means never coming out, destruction is final, and Christ is not the Saviour of all men. Care to support any of this at all?

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

I guess it's a good thing death is destroyed: 1 Corinthians 15:26 and that Christ has the keys of both hell and death: Revelation 1:18, and that death is not the end: Luke 15:24. Or, now you say, death is the end, God cannot overturn death, Christ doesn't have the keys of death, death is not detroyed, and Christ isn't the Saviour of all men? Any more scripture you're wishing to flat-out deny?

out-of-context

Oh the magic wand again? Is that all you have? A magic wand to make verses not mean what they say?

God stipulated a condition for the reconciliation

Right the stipulation is, confession of Christ as Lord; which every tongue will confess:

Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Oh wait, let me guess; all of that is out of context and doesn't mean what it says?

 

[Der Alte]

Abstract
Miqweh of Second Temple Period. ......Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period, ZDPV, 119/1 (2003),
The chance discovery of an Early Roman city dump (1st century CE) in Jerusalem has yielded for the first time ever quantitative data on garbage components that introduce us to the mundane daily life Jerusalemites led and the kind of animals that were featured in their diet. Most of the garbage consists of pottery shards, all common tableware, while prestige objects are entirely absent. Other significant garbage components include numerous fragments of cooking ovens, wall plaster, animal bones and plant remains. Of the pottery vessels, cooking pots are the most abundant type. Most of the refuse turns out to be “household garbage” originating in the domestic areas of the city, while large numbers of cooking pots may point to the presence of pilgrims. Significantly, the faunal assemblage, which is dominated by kosher species and the clear absence of pigs, set Jerusalem during its peak historical period apart from all other contemporaneous Roman urban centers.
...
Excavations near the Temple Mount and within the residential areas have already shown that no waste had accumulated there (Reich and Billig 2000), and thus waste must have been removed, most likely in an organized manner. Recently, the contemporaneous city-dump was identified on the eastern slope of the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem in the form of a thick mantle (up to 10 m, 200,000 m3 ) (Reich and Shukron 2003). The dump is located roughly 100 m outside and south-east of the Temple Mount on the eastern slope of he Kidron Valley (fig. 1), and extends at least 400 m and is 50–70 m wide. Large amounts of pottery and coins date the dump to the Early Roman period (the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE up to the destruction of the city by the Romans in 70 CE). A preliminary study of the garbage (Bouchnik, Bar-Oz and Reich 2004; Bouchnik et al. 2005) showed the presence of animal bones, and a detailed multidisciplinary joint study of the debris was carried out.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...udy_of_the_City-Dump_of_Early_Roman_Jerusalem

 

[Jon Goode]

It's so funny how the people supporting UR in this thread, such as John, are always so respectful and well mannered, using reason to support their claims, whereas those who oppose this thinking and believe in Hell and Heaven (in my opinion, an invention made by men to divide the people on earth) always reply in an arrogant and self-centered way, and give absolutely no argument that makes any sense at all.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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.

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:"

I guess we could dispute what one wants to call it but I think "prepared for" satisfies for[the] idea for me of a "created place". And one unnecessary to create if it is empty, even if it is just my hope that it will be.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:"

I guess we could dispute what one wants to call it but I think "prepared for" satisfies for idea for me of created place. And one unnecessary to create if it is empty, even if it is just my hope that it will be.

"What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?".

How can we have vessels prepared for destruction to demonstrate in Glory(that would be the next life since it is not evident in this one) His Wrath and Power if there are no such vessels?

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Original Happy Camper]

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?

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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.

No offense whatsoever, but talking about the Sermon on the Mount is NOT talking about Scripture support for the idea that everyone inherits the Kingdom of God. The idea everyone will be saved is not only completely lacking in that Sermon, but it[the Sermon also] goes directly against the idea that everyone will inherit eventually.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[John Hyperspace]

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Okay, why are you posting that verse?