Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The website does not provide any credible, verifiable, historical, scriptural evidence for any of the claims made. There might be something true in there I don't know.Did the except I posted say anything that's untrue?
The website does not provide any credible, verifiable, historical, scriptural evidence for any of the claims made. There might be something true in there I don't know.
It addressed a topic I am involved in. I have since changed it.
It addressed a topic I am involved in. I have since changed it.No evidence of that. You skimmed it trying to find a few things you thought you could refute. And FYI the fact that eternal punishment was not the only view of the after life in ancient Israel does not in any way disprove anything in my posts.
Men who study, know. Many have posted on this forum quoting many who used Enoch the prophet, the 7th from Adam, as legitimate. Jesus' womb brothers used it as legitimate.You say my source is in ignorance, so can you site a prominent source that says the book of Enoch is legitimate?
I like this explanation better. cc: @public hermitYes, eternal life is available to all who are in Christ.
But that is not everyone.
If they're not in Christ, they don't have eternal life, but they will be resurrected to the resurrection of damnation.
All mankind are in Adam, not all mankind are in Christ.
Jesus makes the distinction between those that are His, and those that are not His.
I like this explanation better. cc: @public hermit
1 Corinthians 15:22 explained by Public Hermit
This is essentially a conditional statement.
It is upon the basis that all die in Adam that all also are made alive in Christ. Or better, if all had not died in Adam, then there would have been no need to make all (or any) alive in Christ.
If all died in Adam, then all are made alive in Christ.
The same set of people are being referenced in both the antecedent and the consequent. So, if "all" doesn't mean all in the consequent, then it doesn't mean all in the antecedent.
Modus tollens: If all are not made alive in Christ, then all did not die in Adam.
But, of course, all did die in Adam (according to the fans of eternal torment).
Therefore, all means all in both instances.
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
No you did NOT read it thoroughly and dissect it. I pointed out your errors in the linked post. "I'm right and you're wrong. Am too! Nuh huh!" Is not dissecting anything.It was something I came across and I posted it because it relates to the topic of this thread.
I read it thoroughly and dissected it. A little while ago I read it thoroughly again, to see if I agree with the appraisal I made of it last year, and I do. It offers very little to prove the traditional view was one of eternal torment. The only thing really substantive in the material you posted of that is found in the book of Judith and the Book of Enoch. For example, "Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell". But that doesn't stipulate he believed in an eternal torment hell. Maybe he was crying because he didn't know if he was pious enough to escape the traditional Jewish view of hell being a purgatorial cleansing before going to paradise, and felt ashamed. Can you provide anything that says he believed in eternal torment?
Here's an updated 3 Sources Critique.
No you did NOT read it thoroughly and dissect it. I pointed out your errors in the linked post. "I'm right and you're wrong. Am too! Nuh huh!" Is not dissecting anything.
Your objection about Johanan b. Zakkai is a meaningless digression. I did NOT say everything I quoted supported eternal punishment. There is nothing I need to say about Zakkai. Where did you get "purgatorial cleansing?"
Rubbish. I have pointed it out to you twice I even bolded the relevant parts.I've gone over it thoroughly several times and there's nothing there that gives tangible evidence that the intertestamental period Jews taught or believed in everlasting torment.
They're not all that relevant. Even if there was anything solid there, It could just blamed on how messed up their theology got during the intertestamental period. But it's just not really there.Rubbish. I have pointed it out to you twice I even bolded the relevant parts.
Is this based on something or just naked speculation?Maybe he was crying because he didn't know if he was pious enough to escape the traditional Jewish view of hell being a purgatorial cleansing before going to paradise, and felt ashamed. .
Your flawed, irrelevant opinion is again noted.They're not all that relevant. Even if there was anything solid there, It could just blamed on how messed up their theology got during the intertestamental period. But it's just not really there.
Is this based on something or just naked speculation?
Ditto.Your flawed, irrelevant opinion is again noted.
Seems a rather circular objection. Is the entire thing speculation, or do you have some evidence of what you claim is the "traditional" view?Naked speculation because there's nothing specific as to what exactly he was crying over. Do you know if any evidence that he believed in eternal torment?
Seems a rather circular objection. Is the entire thing speculation, or do you have some evidence of what you claim is the "traditional" view?
I'm not sure what he believed, but speculating in that way makes it seem like your interest is not in seeking the truth but reasoning to preserve your conclusion.
I'm aware that this is a popular interpretation among modern jews, but saying "traditional Judaism" when discussing afterlife opinions(especially one that such as the purgatorial view of Gehinnom) is pretty far off from what I understand of the Jewish attitude towards the afterlife.According to traditional Judaism, sins that were not cleansed prior to death are removed after death in a place called Sheol or Gehinnom. Go ahead an look it up.
I'm aware that this is a popular interpretation among modern jews, but saying "traditional Judaism" when discussing afterlife opinions(especially one that such as the purgatorial view of Gehinnom) is pretty far off from what I understand of the Jewish attitude towards the afterlife.
Do you have any historic sources that speak of Gehinnom(which is a portion of She'ol not distinct from it) as being purifying rather than a means of punishing the wicked?
What is this knowledge based on? From my discussions with Jewish people there seems to be a distinct disinterest among most regarding the afterlife, with about all that can be said being that there is an immortal soul. So what's your source that that is the "traditional" view in Judaism today?I don't know at this time why they hold the view that sins that were not cleansed prior to death are removed after death in a place called Sheol or Gehinnom, I just know that's what traditional Judaism teaches.
Debateable.After all the Torah and Hebrew Bible doesn't teach about eternal torment, except perhaps maybe in Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 66:24.
Which Talmud? And to what extent have you read it to make such a determination?And there's no real indication the Talmud teaches it either.
It doesn't seem to me you're familiar enough with the material to make such a claim.It seems so far the only Jewish source that teaches eternal torment is the book of Judith written around 100 BC. And the book of Enoch, but that was written in the 2nd century so it didn't exist in Jesus' time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?