Why is scripture so fuzzy about heaven and hell?

[ozso]

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.

Is that the way it's viewed across the board, or is that just one of many views out there?

 

[Fervent]

Is that way it's viewed across the board, or is that just one of many views out there?

If any interpretation is valid, then it means nothing.

 

[ozso]

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.

You're adding words to the text that aren't there to modify (change or alter) what it says. Even the Amplified Bible doesn't do that, it just has: "For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive" as do most translations.

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English has: For just as by Adam all people die, in this way also by The Messiah they all live".

The Contemporary English Version has: "Adam brought death to all of us, and Christ will bring life to all of us".

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

The term itself isn't the issue.

 

[Hmm]

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.

Well, if the writers of the article can't even get a guy's age right, I'm not sure I can trust them on the eternal verities, thank you so much.

 

[ozso]

If any interpretation is valid, then it means nothing.

?

 

[Fervent]

You're adding words to the text that aren't there. Even the Amplified Bible doesn't do that, it just has: "For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive" as do most translations.

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English has: For just as by Adam all people die, in this way also by The Messiah they all live".

The Contemporary English Version has: "Adam brought death to all of us, and Christ will bring life to all of us".



The term itself isn't the issue.

I haven't added anything, simply arranged the order to eliminate an ambiguity that exists in the Englsih but not the Greek. "In Christ" and "in Adam" are part of the subject of the sentence, because the adjective alone is not sufficient to give a complete subject. Most translations leave it with the ambiguity because the "all in Christ" and "all in Adam" distinction is still present when Greek word order is preserved so there's not a direct reason to change the order. The aramaic has the entirely wrong preposition, I have no clue why the CEV translates it as they do because it doesn't really fit the Greek either.

"All" without a substantive is meaningless. All what?

 

[Fervent]

?

Your post equivocated based on the existence of multiple interpretations, as if every interpretation is valid.

 

[Hmm]

I haven't added anything, simply arranged the order to eliminate an ambiguity that exists in the Englsih but not the Greek.

You"d probably be better off not doing that and keeping to the word order the experts used. Do you also rearrange the order of Mozart's notes to correct it?

 

[ozso]

I haven't added anything, simply arranged the order to eliminate an ambiguity that exists in the Englsih but not the Greek. "In Christ" and "in Adam" are part of the subject of the sentence, because the adjective alone is not sufficient to give a complete subject. Most translations leave it with the ambiguity because the "all in Christ" and "all in Adam" distinction is still present when Greek word order is preserved so there's not a direct reason to change the order. The aramaic has the entirely wrong preposition, I have no clue why the CEV translates it as they do because it doesn't really fit the Greek either.

"All" without a substantive is meaningless. All what?

Obviously all people.

 

[ozso]

Your post equivocated based on the existence of multiple interpretations, as if every interpretation is valid.

I asked: Is that the way it's viewed across the board, or is that just one of many views out there?

The answer to the question is: no it's just one of many views, therefore it might not be the best one available.

 

[wendykvw]

if Jesus was teaching that even some believers will go to Hell, even those who say Lord Lord, what do you think will happen to the unbelievers? they don't have a chance, without Jesus that's it. this "everybody is saved" universal doctrine while it sounds nice, is not accurate. the Bible isn't confusing on Hell at all, people make it confusing by twisting what it says. pulling verses out of context to appear like it is saying everyone will be saved when that's not the context.

the problem is most churches today don't talk about the reality of Hell, sin, or other unpopular teachings that Jesus clearly said, they don't want to offend anybody. so when people on here talk about eternal torment some will get mad at that and talk about universal salvation. Honestly the only way to know the truth about Gods word is to put aside our personal views and biases and just believe what the text says. If we bring our own beliefs into it then we end up twisting the scriptures into saying what we want it to say, and not what is the truth of God.

I believe with all my heart in what the text says about Hell, I wasn't a big eternal torment fan either at first, but when I read the NT it just jumped out at me and Jesus was clear about Hell, I am 100% convinced that Hell is a real place of torment and Lake of Fire is also eternal punishment. I don't want to go there when I die Jesus is clear about that place, and it isn't fun. we know everybody isn't saved there are countless verses that refute universal salvation.

Jesus told the Pharisees in John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Matthew 12:31-32 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Jesus clearly refutes Universal salvation in Matthew 7:21-23 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.

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?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Jesus says not even all who say Lord Lord will enter Heaven, that doesn't sound like universal salvation to me!

The warnings about hell, the fire and punishment are all very real and restoration universalist have always taught the necessity of the atonement provided by Christ. We differ with the two mainstream teachings of Calvinism (God will chose to save only the elect) or Arminianism ( Only a few will chose God). Restoration teaches God has chosen everyone and at the appointed time all will chose God.

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 1 Timothy 2:3-6

You must keep in mind when Jesus was on earth He was dealing with the unbelief of the religious leaders. When He ascended to heaven the disciples Peter and Paul realized Jesus came to redeem not just the nation of Israel but also the gentiles nations. Modern Christianity make the same mistake by assuming God is only redeeming a few people. Restoration takes a higher view of the atonement believing the verses in scripture that the atonement of Christ will in due time bring salvation to all people of every nation , all mankind.

It is finished. We can not boast in ourselves. Christ is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This is God's will.

"To this end we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, and especially of those who believe."
1 Timothy 4:10



The two views of predestination ( calvinism) and free will (arminianism) need to answer why God would lose all He created to evil. Scriptures teaches God has infallible wisdom and Christ had victory over evil. If Satan is able to dam the majority of creation to eternal death, Christ did not have victory, satan did.

In universalism restoration theology, God chooses everyone, and everyone will choose Christ, (Ephesians 1:10 in the fullness of time). Salvation is secured by the Blood of Christ. God will complete restoration, from start to finish. Ultimate security is knowing Christ accomplished redemption for all people through His wisdom, not the wisdom of fallible men.


"And He has made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to bring all things in heaven and on earth together in Christ." -Ephesians 1:10

Scripture: Romans 7:13-25, Romans 9:16, Eph 2:8, Rom 11:32, Romans 5:19, John 12:32, 1 Tim 2:4-6, Heb 9:12, John 10:28, Eph 1:10, Matt 16:18.

 

[Hmm]

Obviously all people.

Imagine having to contort language in this obvious way in order to support a particular doctrine, in this case ECT. What is the point?

 

[Fervent]

Obviously all people.

I see that no where in the verse...who is adding words?

 

[Fervent]

I asked: Is that the way it's viewed across the board, or is that just one of many views out there?

The answer to the question is: no it's just one of many views, therefore it might not be the best one available.

As I said, you're equivocating based on the existence of multiple interpretations. Simply because an interpretation among others has no bearing on whether it is the best, so pointing out that other interpretations exist adds nothing of value.

 

[Fervent]

Imagine having to contort language in this obvious way in order to support a particular doctrine, in this case ECT. What is the point?

Irony of ironies considering your insistence on "correction lasting an age."

 

[Jamdoc]

Have you noticed that those Jesus is warning about an eternal fire are those who confessed Him as Lord?
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.’ And they will go away into the eternal fire. Matthew 25:44-46

There are ultimately 5 groups of people who call Jesus Lord that He rejects.

1. Those who try to use works to justify themselves (Matthew 7:21-23)
2. Those who grew weary of watching for His return and resort to persecuting their brethren; think during the Great Tribulation when they won't be able to buy or sell, so they rat out those they used to go to church with and take the mark of the beast in order to eat and drink with drunkards. (Matthew 24:48-51)
3. Those who do not watch for His return and are not ready when it happens (Matthew 25:1-13)
4. Those who waste or hide their talents, (Matthew 25:14-30).. this is the one I'm most scared of.. cause I feel unprofitable. I can't even convince my own family of the Gospel, they mock it. I don't have this great testimony of being saved out of sex drugs and rock n roll or homosexuality or anything like that because I was saved at a younger age. Instead I backslid in my early adulthood. I'm not a model Christian. I have no talents, or resources and I'm not good with people. So I hope I've at least deposited what I was given so He gets His with usury... metaphorically speaking. I hate being a useless cripple.
5. Those who were uncharitable to the unfortunate (Matthew 25:31-46) I don't even know what I'm supposed to do about this one... I'm poor.. give money I don't have to panhandlers?

 

[Hmm]

As I said, you're equivocating based on the existence of multiple interpretations. Simply because an interpretation among others has no bearing on whether it is the best, so pointing out that other interpretations exist adds nothing of value.

The value of being aware that other serious interpretations exist is that we learn not to assume that our own interpretation is automatically right.

 

[Hmm]

Irony of ironies considering your insistence on "correction lasting an age."

I'm not in a position to insist on anything because, like you, I am not a professional scholar. I merely listen to what they say. It's really not that difficult. 'Correction lasting an age', or something like it, are what the words mean.

 

[ozso]

I see that no where in the verse...who is adding words?

I see it in the verse and in the word.

In 1 Corinthians 15:22 Paul says:

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

In Romans 5:15 Paul says:

"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"

Put them together and there's: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"

 

[Fervent]

I'm not in a position to insist on anything because, like you, I am not a professional scholar. I merely listen to what they say. It's really not that difficult. 'Correction lasting an age', or something like it, are what the words mean.

Which scholars? I've only ever seen you quote one on the matter, how did you determine he was credible considering the regularity that translators translate it "eternal punishment?" How did you determine that's what the word means, and why are so many professional Greek scholars routinely mistranslating it(according to you?)