Why is scripture so fuzzy about heaven and hell?

[ozso]

I have yet to see a verse that I would consider such direct and clear support. Here we have, from Christ's own mouth, the declaration that people go to eternal punishment. UR verses are , essentially universally, squishy out of context snippets that kind of sort of maybe support UR if you look at them from the right angle.

What you have is one word out of a parable which may not mean what you want it to. That's about as straw grasping and slim pickings as it gets.

 

[Der Alte]

I have yet to see a verse that I would consider such direct and clear support. Here we have, from Christ's own mouth, the declaration that people go to eternal punishment. UR verses are , essentially universally, squishy out of context snippets that kind of sort of maybe support UR if you look at them from the right angle.

One would think if universal restoration was the central message of the Bible there would be verses spoken by the Father, Himself, and Jesus, Himself, stating that all mankind will be saved even after death but I have not been able to find even one verse.
UR contradicts the very words of Jesus, Himself.

Matthew 7:21-23
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

 

[Fervent]

What you have is one word out of a parable which may not mean what you want it to. That's about as straw grasping and slim pickings as it gets.

So now you move to the argument you denied making when Der Alte accused you of it? The muddying of the waters by motivated reasoners is little more than a desperate attempt to create doubt where there need be none. It's been overwhelmingly translated in the same way across time, across languages, and across theological positions until recent motivated scholars have tried to find any way to undermine it.

 

[Fervent]

One would think if universal restoration was the central message of the Bible there would be verses spoken by the Father, Himself, and Jesus, Himself, stating that all mankind will be saved even after death but I have not been able to find even one verse.
UR contradicts the very words of Jesus, Himself.

Matthew 7:21-23
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

Yes, but you see Jesus didn't mean what he said literally and didn't know the father's heart like champions of UR.

 

[Der Alte]

He was 120? I think I may have refuted your irrefutable sources.

Even if you could prove this is incorrect, OBTW "Neener, neener, neener I'm right and you're wrong" does not prove anything. That does not prove anything about the rest of the article.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, but you see Jesus didn't mean what he said literally and didn't know the father's heart like champions of UR.

Right! Anything that supports Eternal Punishment is SPAM-fig. symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor or figurative.

 

[ozso]

So now you move to the argument you denied making when Der Alte accused you of it? The muddying of the waters by motivated reasoners is little more than a desperate attempt to create doubt where there need be none. It's been overwhelmingly translated in the same way across time, across languages, and across theological positions until recent motivated scholars have tried to find any way to undermine it.

I denied having made it in this thread because I hadn't at that time. At that time doesn't mean forever. You write paragraphs about how "all" doesn't mean "all" etc, and then complain about others muddying the waters. It's not my fault that a doctrine hangs on one word that's only used twice, could mean various things, and even it's preferred rendering is vague.

 

[Der Alte]

What you have is one word out of a parable which may not mean what you want it to. That's about as straw grasping and slim pickings as it gets.

According to the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible, quoted here numerous times, "aionios" means "eternal" and "kolasis" means "punishment." And it ain't no parable. A parable compares something unknown, not understood, with something known and understood. You will have to come up with another figure of speech. According to E.W. Bullinger in the 19th century there are more than 200 figures of speech used in the Bible. He published a book by that title.

 

[Fervent]

I denied having made it in this thread because I hadn't at that time. At that time doesn't mean forever. You write paragraphs about how "all" doesn't mean "all" etc, and then complain about others muddying the waters. It's not my fault that a doctrine hangs on one word that's only used twice, could mean various things, and even it's preferred rendering is vague.

I've never argued "all" doesn't mean "all." What I've pointed out is "all" is an adjective, not a noun. It needs a substantive to know what it's modifying.

 

[Der Alte]

I denied having made it in this thread because I hadn't at that time. At that time doesn't mean forever. You write paragraphs about how "all" doesn't mean "all" etc, and then complain about others muddying the waters. It's not my fault that a doctrine hangs on one word that's only used twice, could mean various things, and even it's preferred rendering is vague.

Nonsense. it does NOT mean various things. See the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible,
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Lukaris]

The hymns are unabashedly universalist. The hymnody leads the way and is primary theology: “Let Every Mortal Leap for Joy”: Apocatastatic Hymnody in Orthodox Worship

We should pray and hope for the salvation of all which is the Lord’s will, who is the one mediator ( & still God) between us and God, Who is our ransom. ( for ex. 1 Timothy 2:1-8). It is matters like this the hymns are meant to inspire us.

We believe the Lord is merciful and will bring many into His kingdom in ways we cannot fully grasp ( which I think part of Romans 2 is about). However, the warnings to humanity in Romans 1 & Romans 3 are the context in which the 2nd chapter occurs.

 

[ozso]

Yes, but you see Jesus didn't mean what he said literally and didn't know the father's heart like champions of UR.

Or Jesus was speaking figuratively in a parable and the Father's heart isn't like it's portrayed by the champions of the Father planning to torture most everyone for eternity.

 

[Fervent]

Or Jesus was speaking figuratively in a parable and the Father's heart isn't like it's portrayed by the champions of the Father planning to torture most everyone for eternity.

Parables take the familiar and explain the unfamiliar through them. Trying to obscure a direct statement by saying it's a "parable" is a transparent tactic of trying to create doubt where none should exist.

 

[ozso]

We should pray and hope for the salvation of all which is the Lord’s will, who is the one mediator ( & still God) between us and God, Who is our ransom. ( for ex. 1 Timothy 2:1-8). It is matters like this the hymns are meant to inspire us.

We believe the Lord is merciful and will bring many into His kingdom in ways we cannot fully grasp ( which I think part of Romans 2 is about). However, the warnings to humanity in Romans 1 & Romans 3 are the context in which the 2nd chapter occurs.

Yes, however we're talking with Protestants who believe God's plan of salvation is for 99 out of 100 to be damned to eternal conscious torment in literal flames.

 

[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.

keep searching, you will get there yet. the last part about Esther proves that.

have a great and safe weekend

earthmover

 

[ozso]

Parables take the familiar and explain the unfamiliar through them. Trying to obscure a direct statement by saying it's a "parable" is a transparent tactic of trying to create doubt where none should exist.

From what I've seen you obscure direct statements on a regular basis. You're objecting to others doing what you do, and do a greater extent. If you do it then it justified, if they do it then it's unjustified. You're very knowledgeable and we probably agree on most things. But in this case I see you up to your neck in double standards.

 

[ozso]

If we want to be objective not only is Matthew 25:31-46 a parable, it's a really controversial one. There's been a lot of debate over how the context of the entire parable should be interpreted, outside of the type of debate going on in this thread. There are arguments over who it's addressed to and who it's about. Some believe far more symbolism is used than sheep and goats. That feeding others means giving them the Bread of Life. That giving them water means Living Waters and so on. So while some say it's about literal deeds of giving physical aid and comfort, others say it's about meeting spiritual needs by giving the Good News. Some say "the least of these" are the Jews, some say they're the disciples, some say they're anyone/everyone. And that's just the tip of the ice berg.

 

[ozso]

I've never argued "all" doesn't mean "all." What I've pointed out is "all" is an adjective, not a noun.

It is an adjective that means all, every, the whole, every kind of. But the argument you go with seems to be that while the first time "all" is used it means just that, the second time its concurrently used it's limited to some, only, the partial, certain kind of.

It needs a substantive to know what it's modifying.

I'm sure most people don't know what that's supposed to mean. And that explaining it makes it even more difficult to fathom. Which again is what you call muddying the waters when someone else dissects a word you want to be taken literally at face value.

 

[Fervent]

If we want to be objective not only is Matthew 25:31-46 a parable, it's a really controversial one. There's been a lot of debate over how the context of the entire parable should be interpreted, outside of the type of debate going on in this thread. There are arguments over who it's addressed to and who it's about. Some believe far more symbolism is used than sheep and goats. That feeding others means giving them the Bread of Life. That giving them water means Living Waters and so on. So while some say it's about literal deeds of giving physical aid and comfort, others say it's about meeting spiritual needs by giving the Good News. Some say "the least of these" are the Jews, some say they're the disciples, some say they're anyone/everyone. And that's just the tip of the ice berg.

It's not a parable, the closest category of figurative speech is probably synechdoche but its not a parable. There are definitely aspects that can be discussed/debated especially regarding the scope of who "the least of these" are and other tangential issues, but the central point of it is that there will be a final judgment which is clear from the opening metaphor to the closing declaration. Calling it a parable about charity completely misses what a parable is meant to do, as it would be entirely backwards to describe something common like charity with something that stretches the imagination like eternal punishment.

 

[Fervent]

It is an adjective that means all, every, the whole, every kind of. But the argument you go with seems to be that while the first time "all" is used it means just that, the second time its concurrently used it's limited to some, only, the partial, certain kind of.

That's not my argument at all, as my argument is that it is not just "all" but "all in Adam" and "all in Christ" which is two different groups. We are born into Adam, but we must be born again to be in Christ.

I'm sure most people don't what that's supposed to mean. And that explaining it makes it even more difficult to fathom. Which again is what you call muddying the waters when someone else dissects a word you want to be taken literally at face value.

If an individual cannot understand a basic grammatical item they are not equipped to interpret so anything they say can be cursorily dismissed.