Kimberlyann
New member
Nomad said:
Sorrowful, not sarcastic.
BRXII Battle talk
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
- Status
Sorrowful, not sarcastic.
PK,
Thanks for responding. I know you are busy. I didn't mean to sound curt.
That is a pretty dogmatic statement. You said physical death is[/B] temporary. Did you also mean to say it was temporary. It seems as if it were just as final as any death.
Ge 5:5
Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:8
Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:11
Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:14
Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:17
Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:20
Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:27
Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:31
Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
That seems pretty hopeless.
You say “spiritual death” as if it is just so simply synonymous with “burning in hell forever.”
Physical death not eternal.
Spiritual death = Burning in hell forever
Those two statements are so indicative of an unwavering theological paradigm.
Reading one thing and seeing another.
Thanks for responding. I know you are busy. I didn't mean to sound curt.
That is a pretty dogmatic statement. You said physical death is[/B] temporary. Did you also mean to say it was temporary. It seems as if it were just as final as any death.
Ge 5:5
Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:8
Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:11
Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:14
Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:17
Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:20
Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:27
Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
Ge 5:31
Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
That seems pretty hopeless.
You say “spiritual death” as if it is just so simply synonymous with “burning in hell forever.”
Physical death not eternal.
Spiritual death = Burning in hell forever
Those two statements are so indicative of an unwavering theological paradigm.
Reading one thing and seeing another.
Kimberlyann said:
Yes, Kimberlyann, that angel must indeed be completely wrong. :rain: We sing a little song in our gatherings, the Lord is good, all the time... Unfortunately that is also completely in error. He is good, but His goodness expires on (name the time). :rain: "The Lord does not retain His anger for ever, because He delights in mercy." Wrong, wrong, wrong, He retains His anger for ever and mercy also has an expiratory date. :rain:
In the final declarations of the Revelation, our Lord declares He makes all things new in the celestials and the terrestial. Unfortunately that is also incorrect. He only makes some things new, all does not mean all. :noway:
And Kimberleyann, the leaves of the Tree of Life are not really for the ultimate healing Clinic of our Father. The leaves of the Tree of Life are for the misery of the nations. And there shall be considerable curse upon nearly everything. :kook:
My goodness, Kimberlyann, I have worked up considerable depression within myself this morning. If only the Angel is correct......nah.
Ecumenicist
New member
I just read through PK's last rejoinder and Logos' response.
It occurs to me that both arguments rest on single words in the context of absolutes.
Logos makes an argument about "eternity" or "the ages" being absolute only in the context
of God's presence, i.e. eternal life. Conversely, Logos says that "all" actually pertains to
the absolute, complete "all," as in all humanity, all Creation.
Conversely, PK makes the argument that "eternity" is absolute in all contexts, and "all" is limited
by context. In other words, All applies to All believers, rather than All Creation.
I think that both are right in claiming that interpretation is contextual, and the meaning of any word
in any language can shift depending on context.
I also think that both are right in claiming that the only context in which "absolutes" make sense
is in the context of God. "Eternity" only makes sense in the context and presence of God, without
God there is no eternity, there is only death. Likewise "All" only makes sense in the context
of God, God Created "All" things, not just believers, not just Christians, not just life, but "All" things.
In the presence and context of God, "All" means the absolute, fulfilled, complete "All." In the
presence and context of God, "Eternity" means forever, i.e. always was and always will be.
Outside the presence of God, "all" applies to whatever group you want to define, all people, all
squirrels, all children, but however we as humans define all, our definition is limited outside the
context of God. Same applies to "Eternity" or "ages," we can understand the lifespan of a human,
the life of a tree, the decay rate of a plutonium atom, but outside the context of God, our ability
to understand and use the word "Eternity" is just inherently limited, subjective.
My point is that perhaps the debate may benefit if both parties can agree to the relevance of
context, in all words.
It occurs to me that both arguments rest on single words in the context of absolutes.
Logos makes an argument about "eternity" or "the ages" being absolute only in the context
of God's presence, i.e. eternal life. Conversely, Logos says that "all" actually pertains to
the absolute, complete "all," as in all humanity, all Creation.
Conversely, PK makes the argument that "eternity" is absolute in all contexts, and "all" is limited
by context. In other words, All applies to All believers, rather than All Creation.
I think that both are right in claiming that interpretation is contextual, and the meaning of any word
in any language can shift depending on context.
I also think that both are right in claiming that the only context in which "absolutes" make sense
is in the context of God. "Eternity" only makes sense in the context and presence of God, without
God there is no eternity, there is only death. Likewise "All" only makes sense in the context
of God, God Created "All" things, not just believers, not just Christians, not just life, but "All" things.
In the presence and context of God, "All" means the absolute, fulfilled, complete "All." In the
presence and context of God, "Eternity" means forever, i.e. always was and always will be.
Outside the presence of God, "all" applies to whatever group you want to define, all people, all
squirrels, all children, but however we as humans define all, our definition is limited outside the
context of God. Same applies to "Eternity" or "ages," we can understand the lifespan of a human,
the life of a tree, the decay rate of a plutonium atom, but outside the context of God, our ability
to understand and use the word "Eternity" is just inherently limited, subjective.
My point is that perhaps the debate may benefit if both parties can agree to the relevance of
context, in all words.
Logos_x said:
In Logos’ Round 3 opening post he made the above statement that contained a really big if. “If the punishment for sin was eternal torment” is an interesting thought. Was punishment for sin in the OT eternal? In fact, the OT is largely silent on the issue. There is nor reference to Hell as we understand its meaning today in the OT. The atonement for sin in the OT, after Moses at least, was either a sacrifice of animal or a crop or a stoning. There was never any meaningful description of an afterlife.
Was it ever Gods intention that the punishment for sin be eternal? I don’t think so because they could be atoned for under the law. The lake of fire is introduced in the NT by Jesus and for a very different reason. The lake of fire is not introduced as a punishment for sin. It is introduced as a place where workers of evil, active opposition of and rejection of God.
What do you think? Did God ever intend for eternal punishment of sin?
It is a direct quote from Jesus that the unrightous will be cast in to the lake of fire where their smoke will rise forever and ever.Zadok said:
Mathew 25: 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.
You are really good about throwing up quotes from lots of men that support your point of view but you seem to be able to support your point of view from the Gospel of Jesus. I've never seen one quote of Jesus offered by you as support for your interpretation.
CabinetMaker said:
Well, C.M. this is your mission for today. Demonstrate from the context of St. Matthew 25, our Saviours qualifications for everlasting zoe and everlasting kolasis. I accept without hestitation what the Saviour of the whole world declares in the only passage of Scripture speaking of "everlasting kolais/ kolazo."..... Without hesitation! Do you?:sheep:
In St. Matthew chapter 25 we have before us the words regarding "everlasting punishment." And, we have before us the context for aionios kovlasiß and the qualifying standards for the same. Let's take a brief look at what kolasis means in the Greek.
Punishment= kovlasiß =
Correction, punishment, penalty.
kovlasiß rooted in kolavzw
kolavzw =
To lop or prune, as trees and wings.
To curb, check, restrain.
To chastise, correct, punish.
To cause to be punished.
English: Correction =
1. alteration that corrects something: an alteration that removes an error
2. written comment on error: something written beside an error in a text to point out what should be there instead
3. removal of errors: the removal of errors from something, or the indication of errors in something
4. modification to calculation: an adjustment made to a calculation or measurement to compensate for an observed deviation from ideal conditions
5. punishment to reform somebody: punishment, especially when meant to improve or reform the person punished.
HERE
Questions:
1. Why is the Master speaking to two clean animals?
2. Are the clean animals of sheep and goats a continuation of the narrative of the servants of the Lord and the ten virgins? Why?
3. In the context for "everlasting punishment", what are the qualifications for the same. Is unbelief, failure to believe, failure to "accept Christ as your personal Saviour, rebellion, iniquity, etc., mentioned or inferred by the Lord Jesus Christ?
3. Does the correction of kovlasiß, rooted in kolavzw, ever come to completion?
The Gospel According to St. Matthew
Chapter 25 =
Punishment= kovlasiß =
Correction, punishment, penalty.
kovlasiß rooted in kolavzw
kolavzw =
To lop or prune, as trees and wings.
To curb, check, restrain.
To chastise, correct, punish.
To cause to be punished.
English: Correction =
1. alteration that corrects something: an alteration that removes an error
2. written comment on error: something written beside an error in a text to point out what should be there instead
3. removal of errors: the removal of errors from something, or the indication of errors in something
4. modification to calculation: an adjustment made to a calculation or measurement to compensate for an observed deviation from ideal conditions
5. punishment to reform somebody: punishment, especially when meant to improve or reform the person punished.
HERE
Questions:
1. Why is the Master speaking to two clean animals?
2. Are the clean animals of sheep and goats a continuation of the narrative of the servants of the Lord and the ten virgins? Why?
3. In the context for "everlasting punishment", what are the qualifications for the same. Is unbelief, failure to believe, failure to "accept Christ as your personal Saviour, rebellion, iniquity, etc., mentioned or inferred by the Lord Jesus Christ?
3. Does the correction of kovlasiß, rooted in kolavzw, ever come to completion?
The Gospel According to St. Matthew
Chapter 25 =
I've played this game with you before. The answer you want me to give is the following two verses: Mathew 25: 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I 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.'Zadok said:
Your view is that these are the ONLY things that can send a person to hell. That is poor biblical exegesis and reveals a deep miss-understanding of the scripture or a total willingness to distort scripture to serve your purpose.
The two verses refer not to THINGS/ACTIONS that will send you to hell. The verses teach about an ATTITUDE that will condemn you to hell. The actions that Jesus is referring to are some of the outward sings of the faith that lies within.
If you do these things because you feel you must to go to heaven and that is the only reason you do them then you are like the people that said, “Lord, didn’t we prophecy in your name?” Jesus said to them, “I never knew you.” In other words, Jesus was not their lord and savior.
If you don’t do these things and claim to love Jesus then you are exactly like the people in the verse. You do not know Jesus in your heart. He is not your Lord and savior.
If you do these things because of your faith in Jesus, you don’t even think about why you do them. You just do them when you see people in need. Your actions grow out of your love for and your faith in Christ. Jesus is truly your Lord and Savior.
Do you see the common theme? It is the lack in faith as Jesus as your savior that condemns you to the lake of fire. It is your faith in Jesus that redeems you to be with God and Jesus in heaven.
There, I have played your game once again. Again, I addressed the faulty interpretation of the Bible you use to prove a point you want the scripture to say.
By the way. The fact that this is the only place in scripture that Jesus address the lake of fire in now way minimizes its finality. Jesus, the Lord God incarnate, said it. All the men in the world can disagree with it as loudly and creativly as they wish. In no way do mens rantings change the meaning of what my Lord and Savior said.
Except you do not have a clear understanding of what the one single qualification is. I accept with zero reservation that faith in Jesus the Christ as your lord and savior is the only thing required to be made righteous and holy and welcomed to heaven! Lack of said faith is a condemning rejection of God.Zadok said:
CabinetMaker said:
There is absolutely no reference to "hell" or "things that can send a person to hell" in the passage under consideration. That is poor biblical exegesis and reveals a deep miss-understanding of the scripture or a total willingness to distort scripture to serve your purpose.
Again, "hell" is not mentioned in the passage under consideration, nor repentance, nor faith in Jesus, nor failure to believe in Jesus...none!
Singing is not recorded in the text, nor attitudes, nor anything else that will "condemn you to hell". Where are you finding your reference to "hell" in the passage?
By the way. The fact is the Lake of Theos/Pur does not appear in the Sacred text until the close of the Canon. St. Matt. 25 is the only passage of Scripture speaking of "everlasting kolasis/ kolazo. And yes, C.M.,"Jesus, the Lord God incarnate, said it. All the men in the world can disagree with it as loudly and creativly as they wish. In no way do mens rantings change the meaning of what my Lord and Savior said."
CabinetMaker said:
I appreciate you clarifying what the Saviour of the world, the Lord Lesous, declares in St. Matthew 25. :doh: And, for the record, C.M., before you were born the first or second time, I discovered by experience, that union into, and with the Christ, is the ONLY thing required to be accounted, and ultimately made the righteousness of God in Him.
I don't understand why this debate even continues! When you have a verse like...
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Timothy 4:10).
Then what is there left to be said?
Afew more thoughts on the topic... Universalists are not ONLY combatting the mistranslation(s) of the original Greek text, but they are also combatting THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and several generations of this school of thought.
Trying to show someone that there is no hell, is like attempting to convert a muslim or a Hindu... eternal torment is INGRAINED into their skulls.
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Timothy 4:10).
Then what is there left to be said?
Afew more thoughts on the topic... Universalists are not ONLY combatting the mistranslation(s) of the original Greek text, but they are also combatting THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and several generations of this school of thought.
Trying to show someone that there is no hell, is like attempting to convert a muslim or a Hindu... eternal torment is INGRAINED into their skulls.
Zadok said:
I understand you now. You are word smithing. Using various definitions of hell. I am using hell and the lake of fire as synonymous terms. Whether called the lake of fire, hell, eternal separation from God, it is a fate to be avoided. Call it what you will, it is eternal and it is not pleasant.
- Status