Universalism VS. Scripture

Lilly of the Valley said:

"He is the Savior of the world and the Savior of all people"

Yes, that's what I have been trying to say. Thank you!

Click to expand...

I'm glad you see that He will save the world and all people. At least you are not too proud to admit when you're wrong.

Keep growing in grace!

truegrace

truegrace said:

I'm glad you see that He will save the world and all people. At least you are not too proud to admit when you're wrong.

Keep growing in grace!

truegrace

Click to expand...

Wait, wait, wait..........................no, no, no. That's NOT what I was saying. He is savior over the world and savior for it all, but not of all man. Not all will be saved. Sorry, misunderstanding. I thought that was what you were saying, just worded better. Opps.

Mailman Dan said:

The rich man who found himself in hell (Luke 16:19–31)

Click to expand...

Dan, this passage, more than any other, seems to be the hingepin in the doctrine of hell. "See, Jesus taught a LITERAL hell with the rich man being in LITERAL flames. See? Anyone who denies a LITERAL hell is denying the teaching of Jesus!"

Let's go with your LITERAL interpretation, my friend, and see if Jesus' teaching on the rich man and Lazarus really falls in line with orthodox Christianity, okay?

Seeing as we want to be as LITERAL here as possible, I'll use the NASB which most conservatives consider to be the most literally accurate translation of the Bible in English.

19"Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.

What do we know about the rich man? He was rich, he dressed well, he lived joyously. Does he believe in Jesus? We don't know. Does he follow the Mosaic law? We don't know. Was he an unbeliever? We don't know. ALL we know, from Jesus' own words, is that he was rich.

20"And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.

What do we know about Lazarus? He was poor, he has a disease, he was hungry, the dogs thought he tasted good. Does he believe in Jesus? We don't know. Does he follow the Mosaic law? We don't know. Was he an unbeliever? We don't know. ALL we know, from Jesus' own words, is that he was poor and sick.

22"Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23"In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.

Both men die. Lazarus goes to Abraham's bosom. Gosh, we never hear Christians looking forward to going to Abraham's bosom when they die, do we? Why not? If hell is LITERAL and everlasting, then isn't Abraham's bosom LITERAL and everlasting? Compare apples to apples.

Jesus says that the rich man is in Hades (not even hell), but, granted, Jesus said he is in torment. Why? Is it because, according to orthodoxy, the rich man didn't accept Jesus? Is it because, according to popular teaching, the rich man never repented for his sins and asked Jesus to come into his heart? No. Jesus says that the rich man is in hell LITERALLY because he is rich. So if this passage is LITERAL, ALL rich people go to hell.

24"And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'

A LITERAL interpretation tells us the Abraham is the guardian over his bosom and hell. Where is God? I guess He is not there! Lazarus didn't go to God, he went to Abraham. Why don't Christians proclaim their great hope of dying and seeing Abraham as their father? Isn't this what Jesus LITERALLY taught?

The rich man doesn't beg God for relief, he prays to ABRAHAM! Do you pray to Abraham? Do you LITERALLY ask Abraham for mercy? Why not? This is what Jesus LITERALLY taught, isn't it?

25"But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'

So far in Jesus' story, neither God nor Jesus has shown up yet. Where are they? If Jesus' story is LITERAL about the future afterlife, where is God? Where is Jesus?

What does Abraham say that the rich man's great sin is? Is his sin not trusting Jesus as Savior, as evangelicals claim? Is it not repenting of his sins? Is it not inviting Jesus into his heart? Is it breaking the Mosaic law?

What is his sin? Abraham says that the rich man's sin is "receiving good things." He was rich. THAT is his crime. And for that, Dan, you suggest that he is in everlasting LITERAL torment, for having riches? I don't hear orthodox Christians preaching this as the worst sin, do you? Why not? That is what landed the rich man in hell, isn't it? LITERALLY.

27"And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- 28for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

Now, these verses, if taken LITERALLY, make no sense according to popular theology. Popular theology says that people in hell think only of themselves. What do they care about others? But the rich man is showing, of all things, compassion for his family. How can this be?

Plus, he is again praying to Abraham! Do you pray to Abraham? Do you plead with Abraham to save your family? Why not? This is what Jesus LITERALLY taught, is it not?

29"But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'

Now Jesus is going to reveal, in this story, the LITERAL way to keep from going to hell, After all, this is a LITERAL account, right?

What does Abraham say is necessary in order to avoid going to hell? Evangelicals say "accept Jesus!" They say, "ask Jesus into your heart!" They almost scream, "the Law can't save you from hell!" JESUS HIMSELF evidently disagrees, if we take this passage LITERALLY. Jesus says, through Abraham, that "Moses and the Prophets" (the Old Testament) is what people need to hear in order to keep from going to hell. No atonement theology. No accepting Jesus. No born again. No trusting Christ. How do you stay out of hell? FOLLOW MOSES AND THE PROPHETS. Why don't we hear this from our pulpits every Sunday morning? Isn't this what Jesus taught? IF Jesus taught that hell is LITERAL, then He also taught that the LITERAL way to avoid hell was following Moses and the Prophets, not trusting in Himself. (Actually, it is probably easier, as Lazarus was, to just be poor. It wouldn't hurt to have dogs licking some open sores also.)

30"But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' 31"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Here, Jesus teaches, through Abraham, that if someone does not avoid hell by following Moses and the Prophets, then speaking of someone rising from the dead (maybe HIMSELF?) is fruitless. In other words, don't mention the cross. Don't mention the resurrection. Just offer Moses and the Prophets. That is all that is necessary, IF we take this passage LITERALLY.

Dan, do you want to take the theology of hell LITERALLY in this passage? Then take all the rest of the theology in this passage LITERALLY too:

Salvation through Moses and the Prophets.
Rich people automatically go to hell.
Poor people automatically go to Abraham, not to God or Christ.
Abraham is the father.
Pray to Abraham.
Beg mercy from Abraham.

This is what Jesus said -- LITERALLY!!!

Sorry, bro, but I am NOT going to take this passage LITERALLY, as LITERAL theology of the afterlife. I may not be a Christian by this forum's standards, (Jesus doesn't judge me by a creed) but I sure don't believe the "theology" that Jesus taught above, IF we take this LITERALLY.

truegrace

Mailman Dan said:

The rich man who found himself in hell (Luke 16:19–31)

Click to expand...

Please see my prior post. If you are going to use Luke 16:19-31 (the rich man and Lazarus) as accurate eschatological theology (how things will literally play out in the afterlife), then you have alot more "heresies" to confront than my hope that God would save all through Jesus.

If, as you are suggesting, Jesus taught literal truth in this account, if Lazarus was literal, if the rich man was literal, if hell is literal, then the criterion for entering or avoiding that fate must also be literal.

My hope is that God will save all. I've stated my viewpoint. I've posted plenty of scriptures. I've tried to explain why I believe as I do. At this point, I'm dropping out of this discussion. It doesn't really seem to be a discussion anyway. It feels more like a trial.

Grace and peace to you, literally.

truegrace

Mailman Dan said:

You can see a clear conflict if you believe the bible is the Word of God. The only way around is to say the bible has errors. Are you going to do that?

Click to expand...

If there is a "clear conflict," then it behooves us to have an open and honest discussion about how to better understand ALL the passages having to do with this subject instead of constantly insulting and demeaning others who believe differently from ourselves.

For instance, Leviticus says "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Jesus says, "You have heard it said (in Leviticus), 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' but I tell you, do not return evil for evil..."

There is a "clear conflict" here between what the Law says and what Jesus taught. So it behooves us to look at all the passages in their context, to try to understand why Jesus seemed to go against the Law, and to see if God, through Christ, is trying to teach us something deeper than "the letter."

But many folks here don't seem to care about WHY some Christians believe differently from the way that they do, especially when it come to the idea that God could save the world in Christ. All they care about is screaming, "Heresy! Liar! Deceiver!" and trying to be the "Bible Answer Man" (or woman) for CF. That is not discussion. That is control. When someone writes something that they disagree with, they don't discuss, they get "offended" and immediately notify the moderators to remove the "offensive" post. That's not discussion, it's censorship.

There is great freedom in Christ. We should be free to discuss things. But I don't see that happening here. That is one of the problems with adhering to a strict set of theological beliefs, it allows us no room for growth as we get to know God and the Bible better, and it discourages us from ever saying, "I could be wrong" or (God forbid) "I learned something today!" It says, "I've finally arrived, God can teach me nothing more. If He wanted to, He would use someone who believes exactly as I do to do it!"

I love a good discussion, Dan, but I loath an argument. If you feel like you've won an argument, good for you. From my view, you haven't won an argument, just shut down what could have been a good conversation. Take care.

truegrace

Mailman Dan said:

Remember this is a message board, and it's hard to tell what a persons *tone* is, or weither or not they are seriously asking a question or baiting one. I, was in fact, asking weither or not you believe the bible contains errors, as many in the liberal theology threads do. This was not, nor anything else I said, ment to be taken as an insult.

I do see this discussion as more serious than you do though, for obvious reasons. If the numerous scriptures I posted about an eternal judgement are correct, then I do see it as very dangerous to say they do not exist. You do not agree with this idea because you don't agree with the concept. However, look at it from my point of view. If i'm wrong, no big deal. We'll be playing harps together joking about the meaningless arguements. (although i'll probably get an banjo or something)

If taking the scripture literally on this subject is true however, we should be warning others they must repent before they face a just and holy God. That is a big difference between "Fundies" and Universalist. We see reason to fear God, and we want everyone to put their faith in Christ as payment for sin on judgement day, and we should be moved to speak as such for the sake of the lost.

Dan~~~>does hope your belief is correct, but will listen to the warning in the bible as if they are true

Click to expand...

Universalism certainly does not say there will be no consequence for sin. That would be ludicrous. It only affirms the truth that God will not eternally burn His creation and torment them forever.

The Bible speaks harshly against the pagans who would throw their babies into the fire of their idol and said that God never even imagined such a thing. I believe this to be the absolute truth. If hell was true, I would have to say that these pagans were most merciful in this arena as at least those babies died. If hell was true, God would be like those pagans but worse, burning His forever and ever with no hope for reprieve.

The translations of the Bible are fallible. I do not question the original texts. Man, especially those who translated some of the english versions, placed errant words in there.

Eldy said:

The Bible speaks harshly against the pagans who would throw their babies into the fire of their idol and said that God never even imagined such a thing. I believe this to be the absolute truth. If hell was true, I would have to say that these pagans were most merciful in this arena as at least those babies died. If hell was true, God would be like those pagans but worse, burning His forever and ever with no hope for reprieve.

Click to expand...

Nice perspective, old bean.

FLANDIDLYANDERS said:

Nice perspective, old bean.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by this.

Mailman Dan said:

Remember this is a message board, and it's hard to tell what a persons *tone* is, or weither or not they are seriously asking a question or baiting one. I, was in fact, asking weither or not you believe the bible contains errors, as many in the liberal theology threads do. This was not, nor anything else I said, ment to be taken as an insult.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for others in LT, but I can tell you how I view biblical innerancy. I do not believe the bible contains errors. HOWEVER, I also understand that the KJV was the result of many MANY translations, and made by people trying to further their own agendas. I also understand that while the bible (in it's original languages) is God-inspired, the men who wrote it down still had the free will that God promised them, and they also were limited to the words they had and the cultural context they were in. All this must be taken into consideration.

I just ordered two bibles: An Old Testament that a group of Jewish scholars translated from the original Hebrew, and a New testament that a scholar translated from the original Greek. When I get the money, I am also going to get the companion text to the New testament, which is in Greek with the English translation underneath, so one can verify the translations on their own. When I get these, I will post what they say, for a new perspective.

I do see this discussion as more serious than you do though, for obvious reasons. If the numerous scriptures I posted about an eternal judgement are correct, then I do see it as very dangerous to say they do not exist. You do not agree with this idea because you don't agree with the concept. However, look at it from my point of view. If i'm wrong, no big deal. We'll be playing harps together joking about the meaningless arguements. (although i'll probably get an banjo or something)

If taking the scripture literally on this subject is true however, we should be warning others they must repent before they face a just and holy God. That is a big difference between "Fundies" and Universalist. We see reason to fear God, and we want everyone to put their faith in Christ as payment for sin on judgement day, and we should be moved to speak as such for the sake of the lost.

Dan~~~>does hope your belief is correct, but will listen to the warning in the bible as if they are true

Click to expand...

This sounds very much like Pascal's Wager, which is not a solid basis for any part of faith. Wouldn't an all-knowing God know if your belief was just because you were scared of being wrong, or if you were sincere?

Also, I can't speak for all universalists, but I still want everyone to put their faith in Christ. It's not to save them from any eternal torment. It's to share the wonderful joy I have in my relationship with him. Nothing compares to that joy, and I want everyone to be able to share in that.

flautist~~~>Hopes your belief is not correct, because I couldn't believe in a God who claims to be all loving yet sends people to never-ending torture. (That's part of the reason I left the faith for a while back in High School.)

truegrace said:

Dan, this passage, more than any other, seems to be the hingepin in the doctrine of hell. "See, Jesus taught a LITERAL hell with the rich man being in LITERAL flames. See? Anyone who denies a LITERAL hell is denying the teaching of Jesus!"

Let's go with your LITERAL interpretation, my friend, and see if Jesus' teaching on the rich man and Lazarus really falls in line with orthodox Christianity, okay?

Seeing as we want to be as LITERAL here as possible, I'll use the NASB which most conservatives consider to be the most literally accurate translation of the Bible in English.

19"Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.

What do we know about the rich man? He was rich, he dressed well, he lived joyously. Does he believe in Jesus? We don't know. Does he follow the Mosaic law? We don't know. Was he an unbeliever? We don't know. ALL we know, from Jesus' own words, is that he was rich.

20"And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.

What do we know about Lazarus? He was poor, he has a disease, he was hungry, the dogs thought he tasted good. Does he believe in Jesus? We don't know. Does he follow the Mosaic law? We don't know. Was he an unbeliever? We don't know. ALL we know, from Jesus' own words, is that he was poor and sick.

22"Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23"In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.

Both men die. Lazarus goes to Abraham's bosom. Gosh, we never hear Christians looking forward to going to Abraham's bosom when they die, do we? Why not? If hell is LITERAL and everlasting, then isn't Abraham's bosom LITERAL and everlasting? Compare apples to apples.

Jesus says that the rich man is in Hades (not even hell), but, granted, Jesus said he is in torment. Why? Is it because, according to orthodoxy, the rich man didn't accept Jesus? Is it because, according to popular teaching, the rich man never repented for his sins and asked Jesus to come into his heart? No. Jesus says that the rich man is in hell LITERALLY because he is rich. So if this passage is LITERAL, ALL rich people go to hell.

24"And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'

A LITERAL interpretation tells us the Abraham is the guardian over his bosom and hell. Where is God? I guess He is not there! Lazarus didn't go to God, he went to Abraham. Why don't Christians proclaim their great hope of dying and seeing Abraham as their father? Isn't this what Jesus LITERALLY taught?

The rich man doesn't beg God for relief, he prays to ABRAHAM! Do you pray to Abraham? Do you LITERALLY ask Abraham for mercy? Why not? This is what Jesus LITERALLY taught, isn't it?

25"But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'

So far in Jesus' story, neither God nor Jesus has shown up yet. Where are they? If Jesus' story is LITERAL about the future afterlife, where is God? Where is Jesus?

What does Abraham say that the rich man's great sin is? Is his sin not trusting Jesus as Savior, as evangelicals claim? Is it not repenting of his sins? Is it not inviting Jesus into his heart? Is it breaking the Mosaic law?

What is his sin? Abraham says that the rich man's sin is "receiving good things." He was rich. THAT is his crime. And for that, Dan, you suggest that he is in everlasting LITERAL torment, for having riches? I don't hear orthodox Christians preaching this as the worst sin, do you? Why not? That is what landed the rich man in hell, isn't it? LITERALLY.

27"And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- 28for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

Now, these verses, if taken LITERALLY, make no sense according to popular theology. Popular theology says that people in hell think only of themselves. What do they care about others? But the rich man is showing, of all things, compassion for his family. How can this be?

Plus, he is again praying to Abraham! Do you pray to Abraham? Do you plead with Abraham to save your family? Why not? This is what Jesus LITERALLY taught, is it not?

29"But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'

Now Jesus is going to reveal, in this story, the LITERAL way to keep from going to hell, After all, this is a LITERAL account, right?

What does Abraham say is necessary in order to avoid going to hell? Evangelicals say "accept Jesus!" They say, "ask Jesus into your heart!" They almost scream, "the Law can't save you from hell!" JESUS HIMSELF evidently disagrees, if we take this passage LITERALLY. Jesus says, through Abraham, that "Moses and the Prophets" (the Old Testament) is what people need to hear in order to keep from going to hell. No atonement theology. No accepting Jesus. No born again. No trusting Christ. How do you stay out of hell? FOLLOW MOSES AND THE PROPHETS. Why don't we hear this from our pulpits every Sunday morning? Isn't this what Jesus taught? IF Jesus taught that hell is LITERAL, then He also taught that the LITERAL way to avoid hell was following Moses and the Prophets, not trusting in Himself. (Actually, it is probably easier, as Lazarus was, to just be poor. It wouldn't hurt to have dogs licking some open sores also.)

30"But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' 31"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Here, Jesus teaches, through Abraham, that if someone does not avoid hell by following Moses and the Prophets, then speaking of someone rising from the dead (maybe HIMSELF?) is fruitless. In other words, don't mention the cross. Don't mention the resurrection. Just offer Moses and the Prophets. That is all that is necessary, IF we take this passage LITERALLY.

Dan, do you want to take the theology of hell LITERALLY in this passage? Then take all the rest of the theology in this passage LITERALLY too:

Salvation through Moses and the Prophets.
Rich people automatically go to hell.
Poor people automatically go to Abraham, not to God or Christ.
Abraham is the father.
Pray to Abraham.
Beg mercy from Abraham.

This is what Jesus said -- LITERALLY!!!

Sorry, bro, but I am NOT going to take this passage LITERALLY, as LITERAL theology of the afterlife. I may not be a Christian by this forum's standards, (Jesus doesn't judge me by a creed) but I sure don't believe the "theology" that Jesus taught above, IF we take this LITERALLY.

truegrace

Click to expand...

Wonderful, wonderful analysis truegrace.

If I may add one thing--

In no place anywhere in the parable was it suggested that the chasm between Abraham/Lazarus and the rich man was eternal.

Before mentioning the chasm, Abraham said:
25"But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.

This implies, if not expliciately stating, that the suffering the rich man would endure will be equal to that of Lazarus. During the rich man's life, he recieved good things and Lazarus bad. Now, Lazarus will recieve good things and the rich man bad. Equal justice. A balancing of the scales.

There's nothing anywhere in the passage suggesting or implying that the state of things at the end of the parable would remain exactly as they are at that moment, forever and ever, until the end of time.

Charlie

I changed my post, have started a thread in WWMC.

Charlie V said:

Since that's a debatable question, whether or not demons will be saved, or even are literal beings--and since nobody here brought up demons--let's stick to discussing people. Just for the heck of it.

Click to expand...

I brought up demons to draw a comparison between them and people.

Personally, I don't think there's any such thing as literal physical beings called "demons." You probably disagree with me, but that's a completely different debate.

Click to expand...

Do I? Even if I don't disagree with you, I probably come to my conclusion differently.

Even if they did exist--I know of no scripture that describes them physically and says that they have knees, so there's no reason to think that the scripture that states "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess" applies to them.

Click to expand...

It could very well apply to them (BTW, if demons do exist, do you think they can literally speak? If not, they are described with that anthropomorphism in the gospels, so I don't think it's outrageous to say that this verse is speaking figuratively, not "literal knees and tongues"). I think it's kind of funny that you take this verse literally but not others.

Of course it doesn't. It doesn't save a person any more than, say, a train ticket, or the reciept for a train ticket, brings you from New York to Boston.

The train brought you from New York to Boston. The ticket is the evidence that such a train ride occurred.

Click to expand...

James made it quite clear that faith does not save. The demons (if they exist) aren't saved that way; why should humans? On what basis is everyone "saved" at the "end"? Why do you think that everyone would want to be saved in the first place? I've seen atheists say that if they met God, hell existed, and he really did commit "genocide" in the Tanakh, then they would fight to stay out of hell. I suspect that some folks just plain don't want to be saved, or lose their misconceptions about God. Can you explain why should God interfere with their greatest wish?

I never said that saying Jesus is Lord saves you. Of course it doesn't. Grace saves--no works, no beliefs--just grace and grace alone.

Click to expand...

But you've taken it as proof that they are saved; when the demons themselves are recorded as stating that Jesus is the Holy One of God. That's my point.

truegrace said:

Salvation through Moses and the Prophets.
Rich people automatically go to hell.
Poor people automatically go to Abraham, not to God or Christ.
Abraham is the father.
Pray to Abraham.
Beg mercy from Abraham.

This is what Jesus said -- LITERALLY!!!

Click to expand...

I don't see why any of this is implied if this parable is "literal".

Jesus does not say that salvation is through the Prophets. He said "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead."

He is addressing his listeners' deafness to Moses and the Prophets; and notice the part about rising from the dead. We might well take that to mean that if they did not listen to Moses' and the Prophets', they would not recognize Christ's resurrection. Even if this is taken "literally" it does not point to "salvation" through Moses or the Prophets.

Rich people do not automatically go to hell and poor people don't automatically go to paradise. The idea here is that, as Jesus said in verses 9-13 of the same chapter, one cannot serve both God and money. Few people can use money wisely and generously, but I would not say that those who do are damned to hell from the outset.

Um, when it says "Father Abraham" it does not mean that Abraham is the Father, if that's what you're saying. Saying "Father Abraham" is like saying "Pope Benedict" or "Rabbi Gamaliel". It is a title of honor, but that's as far as it goes.

Nobody "prayed" to Abraham here. The rich man called out to Abraham. It's true that he begged mercy from Abraham in the parable, tho.

Then how about this verse:

Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." - Isaiah 45:22,23

Click to expand...

Let's not cherrypick verses, shall we? If verses 22 and 23 are to be taken literally, then they must be taken in light of their context; and I might well ask why parts like verse 16 are
not to be taken literally. See verses 14-17:
14 This is what the LORD says:
"The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush, [c]
and those tall Sabeans—
they will come over to you
and will be yours;
they will trudge behind you,
coming over to you in chains.
They will bow down before you
and plead with you, saying,
'Surely God is with you, and there is no other;
there is no other god.' "

15 Truly you are a God who hides himself,
O God and Savior of Israel.

16 All the makers of idols will be put to shame and disgraced;
they will go off into disgrace together.

17 But Israel will be saved by the LORD
with an everlasting salvation;
you will never be put to shame or disgraced,
to ages everlasting.

Isaiah seemed to think that such an event was the salvation of the ends of the earth.

Click to expand...

Not really.

The apostle Paul quotes Isaiah:

Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:9-11

All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him. - Psalms 22:27

All the nations you have made shall come and bow down before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name. - Psalms 86:9

Click to expand...

Odd, this seems to be about glorifying God, not the salvation of all sinners. Not everyone has turned to God and I don't see a reason to believe that they all will; if anything, this strikes me as similar to a criminal who shows no remorse for his crime until the day he is about to be thrown into jail by the judge, and then he lets his heart out and says, "Wait! I promise I'll be good! Don't punish me for my crime!"

Just my opinion, but I don't think that it is too far a stretch to say that this verse might come into play here. After all, Christians have been using this as a "formula for salvation" for hundreds of years:
Because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. - Romans 10:9

Click to expand...

As I mentioned, even the demons are recorded as saying that Jesus is Lord. But that doesn't mean they're saved.

Dan:

Does it bother you in the slightest that you can't substantiate an everlasting hell with Scripture from the Tanakh? (sincere question)

Question: how can "destruction" be everlasting? Something is "destructed" or it isn't.
I thought God's JUDGEMENT is eternal, but PUNISHMENT is not. ie. once the decision is made, the person's essense is destroyed, for ever. (if such judgements are made by God at all, that is.)

Mailman Dan said:

No..

Since I trust the bible to be God's word, and the first several books point to more of a history lesson, I have no problem. However, this only serves as a problem for those who don't believe anything past certain parts of the bible are false. Without Christ, there is no hope.

Click to expand...

And this is yet a second consideration without any support in the Tanakh.

Good day, Dan.