Why is scripture so fuzzy about heaven and hell?

[ozso]

You evidently don't even know what that means.

Of course I do. However it seems the problem is you keep confusing me with someone else, so your replies to me don't fit what I said.

You don't even have that right. Anybody can have their cake and eat it too. The saying is "Eat your cake and have it too.

That doesn't change the fact that you're trying to have it both ways. That the passage is figurative, except for the part at the end that you want to be literal.

Cop-Out! UR-ites want vs 46 to be symbolic because it blows UR not only out of the water but completely out of the universe. Before the argument was "aionios never means eternal it really means the silly expression "age [noun]during [verb]" Now saying it is symbolic when you meant figurative shows how completely bankrupt UR is.

"URites" mainly argue about translation. Whereas I pointed out that like with Matthew 18:9 et al, Matthew 25:31-46 is viewed as hyperbole, figurative, symbolic et al, except for the part damnationists want to be viewed as literal. Trying to eat their cake and have it too

I have an unrefuted argument. You certainly haven't refuted it as I have shown.

You have what you consider to be an unrefuted argument. Therefore it seems obvious you're not going to acknowledge any refutes, because you think that's impossible.

If Matt 25:46 is figurative, the correct term, not symbolic

Symbolic and figurative are synonymous. Look it up in a thesaurus.

it would be shown in the EOB but it is not.
EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church from its inception, 2000 years +/- ago. Who better than the team of; native Greek speaking scholars, who translated the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB] know the meaning of the Greek words in the N.T.?
And they would also know what is and is not figurative.
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., It does NOT mean "prune" or "correction" 1. Matt 25:46 and the second occurrence is 1 John 4:18.
EOB 1 John 4:18 here is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[ κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.
Note the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars who translated the EOB translated “aionios” as “eternal,” NOT age.
The Greek word translated “punishment” in Matt 25:46 is “kolasis.” Some folks argue “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction” but according to the EOB Greek scholars it means “punishment.” 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect.

As I have said before, I haven't said anything about the wording of Matthew 25:31-46, so you're trying to use an argument that doesn't apply to what I've said about the content of the entire passage. The applicable argument is that either the passage is literal or if it's figurative.

 

[Jamdoc]

just the everyday routine bible...and Yes page/chapter are not inspired...

Earthmover

No I mean not every bible has the same text on the same page numbers. just how it was printed/bound can be different. some have a vertical split down the pages and cover basically 2 pages on every page to make the book not as thick, etc, like I'm not going to go checklist page by page to make sure there's some illustration of Jesus on every single one.
I just know something about Jesus is ingrained in the meaning most of the book.
But there might be a portion here or there of a historical book where they're just covering something that happened that might not involve Jesus outside of the general "it's in the bible, and the bible is about Jesus so of course this text is about Jesus too" reach/stretch.

 

[Fervent]

Of course I do. However it seems the problem is you keep confusing me with someone else, so your replies to me don't fit what I said.



That doesn't change the fact that you're trying to have it both ways. That the passage is figurative, except for the part at the end that you want to be literal.



"URites" mainly argue about translation. Whereas I pointed out that like with Matthew 18:9 et al, Matthew 25:31-46 is viewed as hyperbole, figurative, symbolic et al, except for the part damnationists want to be viewed as literal. Trying to eat their cake and have it too



You have what you consider to be an unrefuted argument. Therefore it seems obvious you're not going to acknowledge any refutes, because you think that's impossible.



Symbolic and figurative are synonymous. Look it up in a thesaurus.



As I have said before, I haven't said anything about the wording of Matthew 25:31-46, so you're trying to use an argument that doesn't apply to what I've said about the content of the entire passage. The applicable argument is that either the passage is literal or it's figurative.

A pretty major issue you seem to be missing is 25:46 is the "punchline" to the figurative portion. Just as Aesop's fables are figurative stories, they contain a moral that is meant to be taken literally. In the same way Jesus' use of figurative language is to serve the literal "punchline" in 25:46. So the consistent read is to take 25:46 as literal being served by the figurative lead up, not to treat the whole thing as figurative.

 

[ozso]

A pretty major issue you seem to be missing is 25:46 is the "punchline" to the figurative portion. Just as Aesop's fables are figurative stories, they contain a moral that is meant to be taken literally. In the same way Jesus' use of figurative language is to serve the literal "punchline" in 25:46. So the consistent read is to take 25:46 as literal being served by the figurative lead up, not to treat the whole thing as figurative.

I don't think that works in the case of Matthew 25:31-46, because as I see it, the only way to interpret the punchline or moral of the story is, first part: those who render aid and comfort receive eternal life for doing so. Jesus isn't using the rendering of aid and comfort as an allegory for belief and faith. He's strictly talking about works. So if the punchline is taken literally, then it means if you give someone a cup of water, you are going to receive eternal life for it.

 

[Fervent]

I don't think that works in the case of Matthew 25:31-46, because as I see it, the only way to interpret the punchline or moral of the story is, first part: those who render aid and comfort receive eternal life for doing so. Jesus isn't using the rendering of aid and comfort as an allegory for belief and faith. He's strictly talking about works. So if the punchline is taken literally, then it means if you give someone a cup of water, you are going to receive eternal life for it.

That only really presents an issue under a post-Luther view of faith as being a one-dimensional affirmation and acceptance of promises. The Bible routinely affirms both the value and merit of works, and affirms that final judgment is on the basis of works. The types of works listed and the surprise of those who did them shows that this was not something they were doing to win favor but a part of their nature, so the issues of merit Paul addressed in speaking of justification by faith pose no issue. We must interpret the verse based on what is present and not force it to conform to our theological persuasions, regardless how strong we may think a particular theological doctrine may be.

 

[ozso]

That only really presents an issue under a post-Luther view of faith as being a one-dimensional affirmation and acceptance of promises. The Bible routinely affirms both the value and merit of works, and affirms that final judgment is on the basis of works. The types of works listed and the surprise of those who did them shows that this was not something they were doing to win favor but a part of their nature, so the issues of merit Paul addressed in speaking of justification by faith pose no issue. We must interpret the verse based on what is present and not force it to conform to our theological persuasions, regardless how strong we may think a particular theological doctrine may be.

This is one of those situations where each reply gets harder to follow. So getting down to brass tacks, is Jesus saying that giving someone a cup of water results in eternal life - yes or no?

 

[earthmover]

Relax. It was a joke. The "lol" means laugh out loud.
(in case you didn't know)

Saint Steven said: ↑
99 cents?
We won't fall for that again. - lol

my apologies, missed the LOL

Have a great fourth

Earthmover

 

[earthmover]

No I mean not every bible has the same text on the same page numbers. just how it was printed/bound can be different. some have a vertical split down the pages and cover basically 2 pages on every page to make the book not as thick, etc, like I'm not going to go checklist page by page to make sure there's some illustration of Jesus on every single one.
I just know something about Jesus is ingrained in the meaning most of the book.
ut
Yes, I understand what you are saying about the different page formats...Yet, even then, Jesus is on every page or should be if it is HIS WORDs.

blessings

earthmover

 

[Fervent]

This is one of those situations where each reply gets harder to follow. So getting down to brass tacks, is Jesus saying that giving someone a cup of water results in eternal life - yes or no?

I wouldn't frame it like that, as theres nothing in it that implies the judgment is a result of the actions as some kind of transaction. It is saying that those who are granted eternal life will have provided for the least among them, and there is no reason to impose on it any kind of transactional character.

 

[ozso]

I wouldn't frame it like that, as theres nothing in it that implies the judgment is a result of the actions as some kind of transaction. It is saying that those who are granted eternal life will have provided for the least among them, and there is no reason to impose on it any kind of transactional character.

I disagree. It seems pretty obvious the sheep receive eternal life because they rendered aid and comfort if 46 is to be taken literally.

 

[Fervent]

I disagree.

In any case, the figurative language serves to illuminate a point, which is most naturally what is said in 25:46. If it isn't meant to be taken literally, then what Christ was using figurative languag to illuminate remains obscure rendering the entire sermon moot. Trying to force 25:46 to be figurative puts any interpretation out of reach, as without a literal catch the figurative speech is completely open to any and all interpretations. Forcing a figurative reading doesn't fit the literary context and is little more than a straw grab.

 

[ozso]

.

 

[ozso]

In any case, the figurative language serves to illuminate a point, which is most naturally what is said in 25:46. If it isn't meant to be taken literally, then what Christ was using figurative languag to illuminate remains obscure rendering the entire sermon moot. Trying to force 25:46 to be figurative puts any interpretation out of reach, as without a literal catch the figurative speech is completely open to any and all interpretations. Forcing a figurative reading doesn't fit the literary context and is little more than a straw grab.

So, 41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ is figurative, but 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” is literal.

And really in all of: 41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” is what's pertinent.

 

[Fervent]

So, 41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ is figurative, but 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” is literal.

And really in all of: 41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” is what's pertinent.

Not quite. 45 is part of the lesson, and is a transitional statement. Calling it "figurative" is a disservice to it, as it is not merely symbolic.

 

[ozso]

Not quite. 45 is part of the lesson, and is a transitional statement. Calling it "figurative" is a disservice to it, as it is not merely symbolic.

To me this exchange has been a prefect example of the need for Occam's Razor to be applied: "When faced with two possible explanations, the simpler of the two is the one most likely to be true". Your version of this has gotten increasingly more complicated to me.

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes, I understand what you are saying about the different page formats...Yet, even then, Jesus is on every page or should be if it is HIS WORDs.

blessings

earthmover

I'm less of a stickler on the "every page" part cause I mean, I'm not going to make a claim I can't back up on that regards. The book is about Him, and most of it will be pictures pointing to Him somehow. That said there are 2 books in the bible where God is not mentioned at all, Esther, and Song of Solomon, but God's working can be said to be involved in both.
Esther in particular.. is kind of prophetic in a way.
an enemy of the Jews seeking to destroy them, the Jews themselves represented by Mordecai, the King, and the Bride of the King that intercedes on behalf of the Jewish people, realizing that her fate is tied with theirs.
There's certainly a message contained within that is more than what the book is about on the surface.

 

[wendykvw]

What's the points of the warnings if universalism is biblical?
We're encouraged through chastisement that heaven is worth it.

But we're warned about those not in Christ, that won't inherit the kingdom, and the smoke of their torment will rise up for ever and ever.

The warnings provided in scripture are to prevent anyone from entering the purifying fires. It is not a walk in the park. The fires of torment are not forever. Jeremiah 7:20 speaks of an unquenchable fire that will burn in Jerusalem but in Jeremiah 31:38-40 Jerusalem is rebuilt so it is clear this unquenchable fire was not "forever" in the literal sense.

"It is because of the LORD’S loving-kindnesses that we are not consumed, Because His [tender] compassions never fail." Lam 3:22

 

[Jamdoc]

The warnings provided in scripture are to prevent anyone from entering the purifying fires. It is not a walk in the park. The fires of torment are not forever. Jeremiah 7:20 speaks of an unquenchable fire that will burn in Jerusalem but in Jeremiah 31:38-40 Jerusalem is rebuilt so it is clear this unquenchable fire was not "forever" in the literal sense.

"It is because of the LORD’S loving-kindnesses that we are not consumed, Because His [tender] compassions never fail." Lam 3:22

Chastisement isn't a walk in the park either, neither is persecution, but we're encouraged through both of those. The author of Hebrews doesn't warn against doing things that warrant corrective chastisement from the Lord... in fact the author of Hebrews basically says if you're in Christ.. you are going to be chastised and scourged.

Hebrews 12

5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

It is treated as inevitable, something you deserve, that is for your own good, and is treated as a sign that God loves you and is dealing with you as a disobedient child, but HIS disobedient child.
That's encouragement.

The author is stating that yes, children of God sometimes sin, they backslide.. and God corrects them.
sometimes it's as simple as the feeling of shame, to get you to admit "I was wrong to do that, I'm sorry"

But for those outside of Christ?
They're warned.
It's not at all treated as something they endure and they still get to heaven on the other side of it.

Now persecution... Jesus and Paul both encouraged through that, giving promise of reward at the end of it.

No such encouragement is given at the end of "cleansing fire" or purgatory or whatever goofy doctrine it is that this is based on.

 

[Hmm]

No such encouragement is given at the end of "cleansing fire" or purgatory or whatever goofy doctrine it is that this is based on.

It's a pity you think scripture is goofy. Refining fire is used as a metaphor for salvation, e.g. in

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 - “For no one can lay another foundation beside the one laid down, which is Jesus the Anointed. Now, if on this foundation one erects gold, silver, precious stones, woods, hay, straw, Each one’s work will become manifest; for the Day will declare it, because it is revealed by fire, and the fire will prove what kind of work each person’s is. If the work that someone has built endures, he will receive a reward; If anyone’s work should be burned away, he will suffer loss, yet he shall be saved, though so as by fire.”

Jeremiah 9:7 “Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts: I will now refine and test them, for what else can I do with my sinful people?”

Malachi 3:2-3 2 “But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness,”

And many, many more places.

 

[ozso]

It's a pity you think scripture is goofy. Refining fire is used as a metaphor for salvation, e.g. in

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 - “For no one can lay another foundation beside the one laid down, which is Jesus the Anointed. Now, if on this foundation one erects gold, silver, precious stones, woods, hay, straw, Each one’s work will become manifest; for the Day will declare it, because it is revealed by fire, and the fire will prove what kind of work each person’s is. If the work that someone has built endures, he will receive a reward; If anyone’s work should be burned away, he will suffer loss, yet he shall be saved, though so as by fire.”

Jeremiah 9:7 “Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts: I will now refine and test them, for what else can I do with my sinful people?”

Malachi 3:2-3 2 “But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness,”

And many, many more places.

It's easier to just dismiss something as goofy, rather than put effort into understanding it. Like I said, that's why I stopped arguing with SDAs. Because I had only gone so far with, was only willing to put so much effort into understanding it, that I was getting to the point where I was just bashing for the sake of bashing.