D
DaveBj
Guest
Gunner said:
However, John in the Revelation talks of a multitude so vast it cannot be numbered.
DaveBj
- Status
However, John in the Revelation talks of a multitude so vast it cannot be numbered.
DaveBj
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The church teaches #1
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Church Militant:
“While St. Gregory was a prolific writer, he was sometimes subject to mistakes, notably in his erroneous teaching concerning “universal salvation.” This, however, did not prevent him from being accepted as a father and teacher of the Orthodox Church.”
wirnowski.com/Orthodoxy/B_ChFathers.html
Yes, it does. I’m interested in your thoughts and ideas, though. Surely you have something to add. And, as I’ve already noted, Origen of Alexandria taught universal salvation and he was Catholic. Saint Gregory of Nyssa also taught universal salvation.
“While St. Gregory was a prolific writer, he was sometimes subject to mistakes, notably in his erroneous teaching concerning “universal salvation.” This, however, did not prevent him from being accepted as a father and teacher of the Orthodox Church.”
wirnowski.com/Orthodoxy/B_ChFathers.html
A
AndyF
Guest
Some thoughts…
It is interesting that the sole focus of redemption is on the individual, as free will and action can also be done by collectives, and for the most part have the largest evil effect. An individual can action his concupiscient thought and if applicable can be damned, however if that same individual joins a collective that collectively decides on the same action, it would fair only temporal punishment collectively. A collective has the provision to magnify the effect of the sin, and can document decrees to ensure mortal sins are written and have had time for proper reflection.
Biblical evidence shows numbers plays in God’s reasoning, when one would think the reverse should be true, ie: the closer to the individual proper, the more worthy of grace. There is much effort to ensure the individual realizes this, and the individual is made aware he is #1 with God with the provision of redemption. The facts do not bear this out however, as OT does not provide evidence for damnation of collectives.
The worse sins are committed by the larger groupings of individuals, in fact some could not even be duplicated by the individual unless agreed to by a collective. The collective sins are temporally punished, so we know they are known by God.
It is also of interest that the characteristics of hell are individual oriented, so the bias toward the individual was in place long before
he was created, proving there was intent to favor the worst sinning entity long before the creation of man.
I’ll end on a lighter note, a cute story on redemption of demons,
*…With the Sign of the Cross, the old monk Abba Joseph trapped in his cell a dark and miserable demon who had come to tempt him. “Release me, Father, and let me go,” pleaded the demon, “I will not come to tempt you again”. “I will gladly do that, but on one condition,” replied the monk. “You must sing for me the song that you sang before God’s Throne on high, before your fall.” The demon responded, “You know I cannot do that; it will cause me cruel torture and suffering. And besides, Father, no human ear can hear its ineffable sweetness and live, for you will surely die.” “Then you will have to remain here in my cell,” said the monk, “and bear with me the full struggle of repentance.” “Let me go, do not force me to suffer,” pleaded the demon." “Ah, but then you must sing to me the song you sang on high before your fall with Satan.” *So the dark and miserable demon, seeing that there was no way out, began to sing, haltingly, barely audible at first, groping for words long forgotten. As he sang, the darkness which penetrated and surrounded him began slowly to dissipate. The song grew ever louder and increasingly stronger, and soon the demon was caught up in its sweetness, his voice fully lifted up in worship and praise. Boldly he sang of the power and the honour and the glory of the Triune God on High, Creator of the Universe, Master of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible. As the song sung on high before all ages resounded in the fullness of its might, a wondrous and glorious light penetrated the venerable Abba’s humble cell, and the walls which had enclosed it were no more. Ineffable love and joy surged into the very depths of the being of the radiant and glorious angel, as he ever so gently stooped down and covered with his wings the lifeless body of the old hermit who had liberated him from the abyss of hell.
Andy
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
You push the analogy too far.
It had to do with wills being thwarted, not rooms and punishments.
And no matter what I may think of the terms, they’re the terms, more than fallen humanity deserves, and we’ve been warned. And, we’ve been given all the help we will need by God Himself IF we accept the terms and the help, and don’t try for other terms, or to make it on our own.
Remember what God replied to Job when he questioned Him: "Where were YOU when … "
Blessings,
Gerry
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
I stand behind what I said. If you believe in the reality of a fiery hell, you must agree that a person will burn and be tormented for eternity. That’s the reality of the hell and everlasting punishment doctrine.
Is there anything that God can’t do? No. He is omnipotent. He has all power.
Isaiah 64:8
Peace…
Gerry, thank you for the post.
I stand behind what I said. If you believe in the reality of a fiery hell, you must agree that a person will burn and be tormented for eternity. That’s the reality of the hell and everlasting punishment doctrine.
Is there anything that God can’t do? No. He is omnipotent. He has all power.
Isaiah 64:8
- But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
- And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
- Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
- O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Thank you for your thoughts, Andy. This was very insightful.
Time and time again, Yahweh condemned Israel and its neighbors for their wickedness. But He had compassion upon His people even after they had denied Him. They committed adultery with other gods and practiced abominations that their heathen neighbors practiced. But He made a promise to Abraham. He promised descendants innumerable. He promised that all people would be blessed through Abraham.
In Genesis 12 and 13, God promised that out of Abram would come a great nation. “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing.” (12:2)
Genesis 12:3 states, “…and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”
There are many, many instances of God’s dealings with the nations throughout the OT. In the NT, the focus is there also, as can be seen in Romans - “For all have sinned and fall short…” Rom. 3:23
I disagree about damnation of collectives. But I think it is because of different understandings of damnation, maybe?
If there were any time in history that damnation could be applied, it could first be applied in the instance of the Great Flood. Look at this first instance of judgement (damnation) in Genesis 6:7
- And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
- And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Nowhere in the OT, throughout Moses and the prophets, do you find the doctrine of fiery eternal punishment.
M
mercygate
Guest
There are things God cannot do. For example, can God not be God?
I am not sure how this question and the potter/clay image relate to hell. Are you saying that we can leave this life unrepentant and still make it to Heaven?
ahimsaman72, your vision of Hell is much like the Catholic position on Purgatory – except that Purgatory is not a place where you get a second chance. One’s decision for God must be made this side of the tomb. (Hm. I’m sounding more like a Baptist than you do!) Purgatory is where the last of the dross is purified before we can be admitted into the presence of God.
I find it wry that you posit a view of Hell that looks like Purgatory while rejecting Catholic teaching on Purgatory. Your reasoning has led you straight to the doctrine of Purgatory. :yup: O dear.
I remember when that happened to me. First there was the crawling sick feeling. I tried to deny it. Then, as the sweat trickled down my side, I realized that this was something I had to come to terms with. But of course, I just stuffed it into a closet of my mind and ignored it for about a hundred years. I don’t recommend that; it was exhausting and pointless.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Well, my reasoning in the potter/clay analogy was relevant to my reply to another poster concerning damnation/judgement.
Based on the evidence I have seen - from Origen to present-day authors - the wicked and unrepentant will be purged from their sins - purified, if you will, till they are able to bow their knee and confess Jesus Christ humbly in service to Him. The idea is already present in the *idea *of purgatory. The concept (in my mind) is the same. The exception is that the Catholic idea of purgatory is not wide enough in scope. The concept of purification is what I would accept, not the place and details itself as is believed by the Catholic Church.
E
edwinG
Guest
Hi ahimsaman,
I dont believe in your purgatory, but to me it is called hell.
When we die, here on earth, we go to one of two places. Paradise or hell. Jesus on the cross.
Then there are a group of people, the first resurrection, who are killed for their belief during the tribulation. These people are resurrected and live and reign with Christ for a 1000 +years and these people do not face the 2nd death.
then the 2nd coming. which means that **all ( **except the first resurrected) are caught up to Christ while the heavens and earth are melted and new heavens and a new earth are created. Then judgement, eternal lake of fire or the kingdom of God on earth, the Holy Jerusalem on earth. Hades itself is thrown into the lake of fire, along with death.
I dont understand yet if any one is actually thrown into the lake of fire. There are so many seemingly conflicting statements that it is a matter to wait until this is a major issue for me and then, in His time, I will find out.
Certainly there is a judgment and also a judgement of the sheep because judgement will also be between the fat and the lean sheep. We are to be given positions in the kindgom of God and I guess this sorting according to works decides on our future employment.
A very interesting subject and great posts.
Christ be with you
walk in lovehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Thank you for your post!
I understand what you have posted here. I would refer you to one of my other posts about the word “hell” itself. You won’t find that word in many translations of Scripture, including the New American Bible. It’s not there. The actual Greek or Hebrew words are used, because those words are proper names and should not be used as a general term such as “hell”. For example, Mt. 5, the Greek word Gehenna (in the NAB) is used instead of “hell” as used in the King James, New King James, NIV and others.
The translators did a great disservice in many translations (NIV, KJV) - as can be seen by the many other translations (including the NAB used by Catholics) that do not use the word “hell”. The reason I went out and bought a Catholic Bible a year ago was because it was one that seemed to translate the Hebrew and Greek words accurately - as concordances like Strong’s Concordance clearly show they should be used.
I’m no scholar - but anyone can take a Greek and Hebrew lexicon and see the same things I have seen along with the translators of the NAB which saw the same thing.
So, inevitably, we have to agree on a defintion of “hell” before we can come to an understanding of the implications.
Peace…
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Notice the teaching of the Church quoted in this post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=316428&postcount=2
“Eternal fire” is an image of the punishment of hell, which is why the term is in quotes in the Catechism. The Church teaches, authoritatively, what is primarily behind that image of punishment, that being eternal separation from God. So no matter what we think, that’s the way it is.
Blessings,
Gerry
J
john_doran
Guest
i guess it depends on what you consider to be a “doctrine”; Isaiah 66:24 seems pretty suggestive to me:
“And they shall go forth and look on the dead bodies of the men that have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
- this language is mirrored by jesus in mark 9:47-48:
48] where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.
“Gehenna”, as you note in one of your original posts, is an anglicization of the hebrew ge-hinnom, or *ge ben-hinnom, *“Valley of Hinnom” and “Valley of the son of Hinnom” respectively, which was the center of an idolatrous cult in which children were offered in sacrifice.
you also suggest that christ was using the reference to gehenna figuratively, with which i agree, only in precisely the opposite way: it’s a figurative reference precisely because as an actual place, it couldn’t be eternally burning; but christ’s use of the reference along with his subsequent embellishment of the endlessness of the flame seems to be a pretty unequivocal use of familiar imagery to drive the lesson home: “you think being burned on a trash-heap or burned in sacrifice to a false god is bad, well howabout going through something like that forever…”.
- paul also speaks of certain people not inheriting the kingdom of god, which seems straightforwardly incompatible with the suggestion that they will inherit it eventually:
20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Cor 6:9-10 - “9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
- and why would it have been better for Judas not to have been born were he eventually to be released into the eternal bliss of heaven?
S
space_ghost
Guest
i guess the “rest of the story” will be discovered at the end of time, and i too would like to think there would be some sort of last chance after death… but scripturally speaking, traditionally speaking and most likely logically speaking it doesn’t bode to well for those hoping to sneak into purgatory… 
or lets put it this way… why on earth would you want to take a chance on eternal damnation if you didn’t have too…
or lets put it this way… why on earth would you want to take a chance on eternal damnation if you didn’t have too…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
As I have said before also, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and other Catholic Church theologians taught the restoration of all mankind. These men obviously saw something in the doctrine that had some weight to it.
I don’t accept the “so no matter what we think, that’s the way it is”. Neither should you or anyone else. I’m not telling you to leave your faith or question your faith in the Church. I question the validity of the doctrine of hell and everlasting punishment when it is not found in the Bible in the original manuscripts or in great translations like the NAB, which is sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Something is amiss here. Either it is a tradition of men or we should throw away our Scriptures, because they are false.
We must continue to look deeper into things - else we are mindless, wandering souls always looking to others for the answers that we can find and justify for ourselves. (My opinion).
Gerry, I appreciate your post. I must repeat that I realize the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Baptist church and every other church (except Unitarians). Yes, the eternal separation concept is in the Baptist faith also.
As I have said before also, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and other Catholic Church theologians taught the restoration of all mankind. These men obviously saw something in the doctrine that had some weight to it.
I don’t accept the “so no matter what we think, that’s the way it is”. Neither should you or anyone else. I’m not telling you to leave your faith or question your faith in the Church. I question the validity of the doctrine of hell and everlasting punishment when it is not found in the Bible in the original manuscripts or in great translations like the NAB, which is sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Something is amiss here. Either it is a tradition of men or we should throw away our Scriptures, because they are false.
We must continue to look deeper into things - else we are mindless, wandering souls always looking to others for the answers that we can find and justify for ourselves. (My opinion).
J
john_doran
Guest
and this is the crux of the matter: you note an ambiguity in the word *aionios *and its cognates: that sometimes it is used to denote eternality, and at other times merely (enormously) long but finite duration.
so how do you tell which meaning is intended? the passage you quote indicates that it is to be “determined by the subject treated”. but what does that mean? and what if you and i differ in our opinions on what, exactly, the “subject matter” determines?
i mean, you think it obvious that the “aionian God” of Romans 16:26 means “eternal”, but that the “aionian destruction” of sinners in 2 Thess 1:9 means “age-enduring”. i, however, do not - it strikes me as equally obvious that the use of *aionian *in the latter verse means “everlasting”, just as in the first.
so how do we decide?
J
john_doran
Guest
but surely you don’t believe that this is true without exception. do you? i mean, you presumably don’t think that it’s mindless no longer to question whether or not jesus is the son of god. or whether it is through his sacrificial death on the cross that we are saved. or…
so if it’s not mindless to rest assured in those beliefs, why should it be mindless to rest equally assured in the eternality of hell?
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
john doran:
God is above, we are below. We cannot be on that same level as God. Would you say that God is not eternal? Of course not. You must look at the subject. There are only two instances in all Scripture where aionios is used in referring to the Godhead. That’s only two instances among all the times aionios is used.
In order to get a true grasp, you need to insert the true word into the verse where the word eternal, everlasting or for ever are used. Here’s an example:
2 Tim. 1:9
Galatians 1:4
Look at something else too.
The story of Jonah
Jonah 2
Jonah was not really in the belly of the whale “for ever” eternally.
There’s no ambiguity. When the word “aionios” is referring to the Godhead, the word must mean eternal. God is the only “eternal”.
God is above, we are below. We cannot be on that same level as God. Would you say that God is not eternal? Of course not. You must look at the subject. There are only two instances in all Scripture where aionios is used in referring to the Godhead. That’s only two instances among all the times aionios is used.
In order to get a true grasp, you need to insert the true word into the verse where the word eternal, everlasting or for ever are used. Here’s an example:
2 Tim. 1:9
- Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Galatians 1:4
- Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
Look at something else too.
The story of Jonah
Jonah 2
- Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish’s belly,
- And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.
- For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.
- Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.
- The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.
- I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.
- For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jonah was not really in the belly of the whale “for ever” eternally.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
john doran:
NOUN:
**doc·trine **us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/reference/dictionary/audio_key2.gif (dhttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/obreve.gifkhttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.giftrhttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ibreve.gifn) KEY
NOUN:
*]A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
*]A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
*]A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
*]Archaic Something taught; a teaching.
Some very good observations here.
I’ve already stated that Gehenna (the Valley of Hinnom) was used in Matthew 5 in which Jesus is speaking of purification, not eternal punishing. The Valley of Hinnom outside of Jerusalem is not burning today as can be readily seen. Trash was continously burned. Jesus was speaking of the actual place. He used the actual place in front of him to explain to others the point He was trying to make.
I would also add that in James 3:6- And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
In Jeremiah 17:27, Jerusalem was supposed to be burned with a fire that “shall not be quenched”. This was written about 601 BC. But, in Nehemiah 2:11-17 (written in about 445 BC) Nehemiah rode on his beast into the burned city. (Of course later the city was rebuilt). That fire went out, yet it was supposed to be a fire that shall not be quenched. The fire was quenched when there was nothing left to burn. The same holds true for our sinful bodies, they will be purified till nothing sinful is left and returned to God the Father.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
john doran:
It is mindless to follow a belief or person or body or organization which says one thing when there is evidence to the contrary. That’s my point.
There is a ton of evidence in the divinity of Christ, the Sonship of Christ, etc. The doctrine of the divinity of Christ is correct. On the other hand, if you have a doctrine in which there is not evidence, yet you push it anyway and simply say, “well, so and so said it was true” (contrary to evidence), then I would say that line of logic is mindless following. The “blind leading the blind” scenario.
I’m not trying to denounce any person or church body. I’m saying that if the doctrine doesn’t hold up to the evidence supporting it, why continue to believe it and accept it?
Example: if my kid was caught stealing a toy and the security guard caught him in the act (and it’s on videotape) and has the evidence of the stolen toy itself, it would be ridiculous for me to say, “No, my kid didn’t do that - you have the wrong kid” when they have the evidence and videotape to back it up which I can readily see.
That is mindlessly following a belief that in reality is untrue.
Peace…
Friend, out of all I posted, this is what you are replying about?
It is mindless to follow a belief or person or body or organization which says one thing when there is evidence to the contrary. That’s my point.
There is a ton of evidence in the divinity of Christ, the Sonship of Christ, etc. The doctrine of the divinity of Christ is correct. On the other hand, if you have a doctrine in which there is not evidence, yet you push it anyway and simply say, “well, so and so said it was true” (contrary to evidence), then I would say that line of logic is mindless following. The “blind leading the blind” scenario.
I’m not trying to denounce any person or church body. I’m saying that if the doctrine doesn’t hold up to the evidence supporting it, why continue to believe it and accept it?
Example: if my kid was caught stealing a toy and the security guard caught him in the act (and it’s on videotape) and has the evidence of the stolen toy itself, it would be ridiculous for me to say, “No, my kid didn’t do that - you have the wrong kid” when they have the evidence and videotape to back it up which I can readily see.
That is mindlessly following a belief that in reality is untrue.
Peace…
- Status