How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Universal Reconciliation   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Universal Reconciliation

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Arnold M
Member
since 09-05-2004
Posts 128


25 posted 09-07-2004 07:27 PM       View Profile for Arnold M   Email Arnold M   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Arnold M

Hi Stephanos, concerning the rich man and Lazarus parable, as to what the "great gulf fixed" means figuratively, is any one's interpretation.  And I guess there might be some other views.  Personally, like I pointed out before, the key is verse is 31,
"If Moses and the prophets they do not hear, neither if one may rise out of the dead will they be persuaded" YLT.  Perhaps speaking prophetically of Christ's death and resurrection.

Stephanos, concerning the parable of the wheat and tares, may I comment: I see this account in Matt 13:36-43 parallel to Matt 25:31-46, and there is nothing to indicate those cast into the fire will later become believers.  The concilliation, justification, and vivification of all is revealed in other scriptures, primarily the epistles of Paul.  In both passages Christ has returned to earth in power and glory with His angels (messengers) at the end of the age (our present age). The angels are involved when all those who offend and do iniquity will be cast into the furnace of fire. In the second account it is the "goat"
nations (peoples) who treated Christ's brethren (the remnant of Jewish belivers) shamefully, during the 7 years tribulation, I believe, who will be cast into the furnace of fire, the lake of fire, to punishment age-during. YLT.
Arnold
Arnold M
Member
since 09-05-2004
Posts 128


26 posted 09-09-2004 01:16 AM       View Profile for Arnold M   Email Arnold M   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Arnold M

Hi Denise, Stephanos and others.  Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that The judgements of God could be investigated.  I will be pulling out a lot from a marvelous book: God's Eonian Purpose by Adlai Loudy, which can be purchased from Concordant Publishing Concern. 1. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CROSS, where all mankind are involved, and on the basis of Christ's death (and resurrection),
the results are Justification and Conciliation.  2. THE JUDGEMENT SEAT OF CHRIST, for the ecclesia, the body of Christ, where we will be gain award or loss (not loss of salvation) on the basis of our deeds as Christians.  3. THE GLORY THRONE JUDGEMENT, when Christ returns to the earth in power and great glory.  The subjects are:
the living nations ("sheep and goat")who will be judged on their treatment of Christ's brethren during the tribulation. Some nations wil be "saved", others chastened in the fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Nothing is said that they stay alive after being cast into the fire.
I also believe that the "tares" and the "bad fish" spoken of in the parables in Matt 13:37-50, will be judged by Christ at this time.  It doesn't say in the scriptures, but all humans will be rightly judged.  4.THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT, where "the rest of the dead" are resurrected and stand before Christ, seated on the great white throne with all his angels around him.  It is this that I believe Paul in Rom 2:2-16 is describing how these will be judged according to truth, according to their deeds
and according to the Paul's evangel.  There will be "indignation and fury, affliction and distress, on every human soul which is effecting evil, both of the Jew first and of the Greek, yet glory and honor and peace to every worker of good, both to the Jew first, and to the Greek." CLNT  Now, since all these will be judged fairly and completely, it follows, as we read in Rev 20:14,15, "if anyone was not found written in the scroll of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."
CLNT.  The lake of fire is the second death.
These people had lived once, died, and resurrected to be judged.  There is no continuing torment forever, or even eonian.
They are DEAD.  However, we do read in Rev 14:9-12 that those worshipping the beast and its image, and is receiving its mark, will be tormented in fire and sulfur, and the fumes of their torment are ascending for the eons of the eons.  Perhaps they are thrown alive into the lake of fire, just as described for the beast and the false prophet
(both humans) in Rev 19:20,21
Well, enough food for thought. Arnold
Arnold M
Member
since 09-05-2004
Posts 128


27 posted 09-09-2004 12:20 PM       View Profile for Arnold M   Email Arnold M   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Arnold M

Hello again. Some further thoughts on the adjudication at the Great White Throne.  It is my belief that all those being judged will
be converted right there, seeing Christ with all His angels, just as the apostle Paul,
"the chief of sinners" was on the road to Damascus.   As to the verse "the smoke of their torment ascends for the eons of the eons", there are at least two views: one: even though thrown alive into the lake of fire, they will still die, it is the smoke of their dieing torment that ascends.  The other view is that God will change their bodies into bodies that do not die during the time of their torment.  A verse to ponder on is Rom 6:23: "for the wages of sin is death.." YLT, not firey torment for ever, or for the eons.    Arnold
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


28 posted 09-09-2004 02:52 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
As to the verse "the smoke of their torment ascends for the eons of the eons", there are at least two views: one: even though thrown alive into the lake of fire, they will still die, it is the smoke of their dieing torment that ascends.  The other view is that God will change their bodies into bodies that do not die during the time of their torment.  A verse to ponder on is Rom 6:23: "for the wages of sin is death.." YLT, not firey torment for ever, or for the eons.



One of the basic principles of Biblical interpretation (or any literary interpretation for that matter) is keep interpretations as simple as possible, yet comprehensive enough to satisfy the demands of the text.  To avoid over-simplification, and yet stay away from the bolstering of a particular interpretation by elaborate extra-textual gymnastics.  When I read your possible interpretations, other than eternal punishment, "That's a stretch" is the phrase that comes to mind.


Parsing poetic terms such as "the smoke of their torment" into meanings more acceptable than what is obviously implied, is a real danger in Biblical interpretation.  I know what the passage obviously implies.  But if I were to try and grasp your explanations of it, I would have to ask what the writer could possibly mean by "smoke of their torment ascending", if they were really dead, or really delivered from torment?  Then if you could come up with an understandable answer, I would still have to ask myself if the text and context warrants me believing that the author likely intended that meaning.


Stephen
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


29 posted 09-09-2004 06:36 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Parsing poetic terms such as "the smoke of their torment" into meanings more acceptable than what is obviously implied, is a real danger in Biblical interpretation.

If an implication is obvious, Stephen, doesn't it stop being an implication?

If the writer wanted to avoid ambiguity and make everything obvious, why use poetic terms at all?
Arnold M
Member
since 09-05-2004
Posts 128


30 posted 09-10-2004 07:30 PM       View Profile for Arnold M   Email Arnold M   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Arnold M

Thank you, Stephen and Ron for your comments. How would each of you interpret "the smoke of their torments ascended for the eons of the eons"?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


31 posted 09-10-2004 10:26 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
If an implication is obvious, Stephen, doesn't it stop being an implication?



imply:  v.  1) to involve or suggest by logical necessity; entail.  2) To say or express indirectly; to hint; suggest;

implication n.  ... 3) That which is implied, especially a) An indirect indication.  b) an inference.  


Maybe sometimes, but most of the time I'd have to honestly say no.  The term "indirect indication" sums it up really nicely for me.  Indirect doesn't mean obscure, it just means indirect.  A kiss is an indirect way of saying "I love you", but not at all unclear (unless there's a less-than-sterling motive behind it).


quote:
If the writer wanted to avoid ambiguity and make everything obvious, why use poetic terms at all?


We're free to disagree on this, but I think the vehicle of poetry has been used at least as often for vivification and clarity, as it has for obscurity ... actually far more often in my opinion.  


And don't forget that the Bible speaks to prosaic minds as well as poetic hearts.  There's a plethora of verses which read more like doctrinal treatises (maybe ... because they are?     ) than imaginative poetics, which speak on the very same issues.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-11-2004 12:55 AM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


32 posted 09-11-2004 09:41 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

There are probably almost as many interpretations of bibilical passages as there are people. And I'm sure that most believe that they are using proper interpretive techniques.

If I believed that 'eternal' punishment was the only way to understand those passages in question, then I would accept that interpretation. But I find that the view of limited punishment, time-qualified, age-lasting, or age-enduring punishment is more plausible (and more readily seen in the literal translations) and true to my understanding of the whole of scripture and the nature of God.

When words like 'eternal', 'forever and ever', etc., are replaced with the actual words from the original languages, such as 'aionian', 'ages', 'eon', 'eons of the eons', etc., the same verses take on entirely different meanings, and even those verses that mention punishment without specifically stating duration are seen in a new light.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


33 posted 09-12-2004 12:11 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
There are probably almost as many interpretations of bibilical passages as there are people. And I'm sure that most believe that they are using proper interpretive techniques.

Denise,

First of all I'm not so sure that most even know what those techniques are.  And whether or not they believe they are using proper interpretive techniques, doesn't determine if they are acutally doing so.  Surely you're not arguing that just because there is disagreement and varying conclusions, that no one can be correct?


quote:
If I believed that 'eternal' punishment was the only way to understand those passages in question, then I would accept that interpretation. But I find that the view of limited punishment, time-qualified, age-lasting, or age-enduring punishment is more plausible (and more readily seen in the literal translations) and true to my understanding of the whole of scripture and the nature of God.
When words like 'eternal', 'forever and ever', etc., are replaced with the actual words from the original languages, such as 'aionian', 'ages', 'eon', 'eons of the eons', etc., the same verses take on entirely different meanings, and even those verses that mention punishment without specifically stating duration are seen in a new light.



But you seem to be basing your interpretation on the fact that the original language says "eon of the eons" etc ... rather than the "forever and ever" of modern English.  But where you're stopping short in your process, is in failing to ask what "eon of the eons" meant to those who used that language rather than our own.  Can you answer that?  If it wasn't referring to an eternal state, or an everlasting age transcending time, then what did it refer to exactly?


According to Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the NewTestament (which is insanely meticulous in the usage of the original Greek, citing numerous examples of usage in Ancient Literature for support)  the phrase "ages of the ages" means:  the (whole) age embracing the (shorter) ages..  It also says that the plurality of age(s) denotes the individual ages whose sum is eternity.


So there's a reason that ALL modern Bible translations (even the one you probably use and respect the most) use words akin to "forever" and "everlasting" in the translation of these passages.  You're opposing a great deal of scholarly weight in the rendering of languages.  If you're going to appeal to a more literal rendition of the language ... you still have to determine what it meant to the author and to the original audience in that original form.  


Stephen.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


34 posted 09-12-2004 02:34 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No, of course not, Stephen, I'm not saying that no one can be correct. I guess what I am suggesting is that perhaps none of us has "all of it" correct even when we think we do. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, or even to have my theology nailed down. My search and studies are ongoing and my beliefs tomorrow can be very different than my beliefs today.

Here is a link that discusses in detail the history and usages of the word aionian and its derivitives.
http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/hanson/Aion-Aionios.htm

And if I were at all concerned about going against a great deal of scholary weight in things linguistic or theological I'd probably still be a Roman Catholic.

Seriously though, check out the article. I think it's very well done and informative.

Arnold M
Member
since 09-05-2004
Posts 128


35 posted 09-13-2004 10:15 PM       View Profile for Arnold M   Email Arnold M   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Arnold M

Hi Denise and Stephan:  Interpreting scripture can certainly vary from person to person.  But I've seen too often that certain views that individuals have come up with  is because a text is taken out of its context, and because they didn't "rightly divide" the scripture, as we are encouraged to do in 2 Tim 2:15,16. The great scholar, John Wiclif put it this way: "It shall greatly helpe ye to understand Scripture, if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten, but of whom, and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth."
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


36 posted 09-13-2004 10:36 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Denise:
quote:
if I were at all concerned about going against a great deal of scholary weight in things linguistic or theological I'd probably still be a Roman Catholic.

But Denise, surely you would have to say (as a good protestant) that where you part ways with Roman Catholicism is precisely where they have ceased being scholarly and biblically theological.  I'm sure that you realize most of the doctrines rejected by the movement that Luther kicked off, involve only areas where the RCs departed from the principle of "sola scriptura" and made tradition and Papal authority of equal weight to scripture.  The assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, purgatory, etc ..., only have sketchy (at best) basis in the Bible.  Actually the first two have no scriptural basis whatsoever, other than Papal decree and later Church tradition.  


My point is, that the Reformation wasn't so much about bucking scholarship and the majority, (many of it's leaders were exemplary scholars) as it was about bucking tradition for tradition's sake, especially when it was unscriptural or supported only by the teachings of men.


You could argue that the doctrine of eternal punishment falls under the category of tradition, with little scriptural basis.  But that's exactly where I believe it stands the most prominently and surely, in the scriptures themselves as a whole.


Tertullian, Lactantius, Basil of Caesarea, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Whitfield, and Wesley all endorsed the doctrine of eternal punishment.


And I doubt that Luther simply aquiesced to the doctrine of eternal punishment just because the Roman Catholic church held it to be true.  Luther (Though I don't agree with him on everything) did not seem to take much at all for granted.  Nor was he afraid of being different, or of going against the grain.


I'll come back later and address that article and other aspects of this interesting debate soon ...

Arnold,

I absolutely agree.


Later,

Stephen.  
Arnold M
Member
since 09-05-2004
Posts 128


37 posted 09-14-2004 12:09 AM       View Profile for Arnold M   Email Arnold M   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Arnold M

Stephen, It's true that lexicons, bible commentaries, etc, will interpret those phrases in a similar way.  And practically all of them define the adjective AIONIOS, as eternal.  From Thayer's Lexicon, I'm not sure what is meant by "the (whole) age embracing the (shorter) ages."  But "ages" cannot denote "the individual ages whose sum is eternity" for a number of reasons, quoting from the Concordant Version: "..and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons.  And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation." Luke 1:33;  "..and He shall be reigning for the eons of the eons! Amen!" If "ages (eons)" means "eternity", then we should interpret these verses as "He shall be reigning for eternity."  But, we know this isn't true because 1 Cor 15:24-27 tells us that at the consummation (of the eons) Christ will be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father.  He reigns untill all enemies are placed under His feet, His reign being for the last two eons of all the eons in God's great plan.  There are many verses that use the phrase "ages of the ages", and if "ages" means eternity, should we read this "eternity of eternity"?  No, of course not.  In my opinion, the concept of "eternal" or "eternity" were unknown concepts for those living during bible times, for there are no words that mean "unending".   Arnold
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


38 posted 09-14-2004 01:38 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Arnold,

You are right.  Alone, the Greek term for "age" or "aeon" does not typically mean eternity.  I didn't say that it did, nor do the Linguistic scholars.  But when the particular phrase "ages of the ages" was used, it referred to an "age" which contained all other ages, something transcendent of time, or eternity.  It's almost like a description of an exponentially crazed multiplication, hence the almost unnatural usage of plurals.  Sort of like "days without number" or other similar phrases that we sometimes use, to describe infinite or indeterminate amounts of time, using the repitition of familiar finite measurements of time.  


Also, to use the scripture about Christ handing the Kingdom to his Father, as a proof text to support what you are saying has a significant problem.  Regardless of the apparant differences in these scriptures, there is only one Kingdom that will reign forever and ever ... The Kingdom of God.  Think Trinitarian for a moment here.  Regardless of whether it is the Son's or The Father's administration of this Kingdom, The Father and Son and Holy Spirit are ultimately one.  So using this as a proof text against ancient scriptures which indicate the everlasting nature of the Messiah's rule, fails to take into account the trinitarian revelation we now have.  It also fails to see that this revelation (of the distinction within the Godhead) is the very reason for the difference in descriptions.  These differences do not arise from any true difference between the respective durations of time.  


Stephen  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


39 posted 09-14-2004 02:20 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
But when the particular phrase "ages of the ages" was used, it referred to an "age" which contained all other ages, something transcendent of time, or eternity.

That's only true, Stephen, if there are an infinite number of ages. Something that contains a finite quantity is, itself, finite. I would also quibble that transcendent of time and eternity aren't necessarily interchangeable and, indeed, may be incompatible.
Arnold M
Member
since 09-05-2004
Posts 128


40 posted 09-14-2004 04:59 PM       View Profile for Arnold M   Email Arnold M   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Arnold M

What would the scholars do with "age of the age" Heb 1:8; or "age of the ages" Eph 3:21; or "from the ages" Eph 3:9 & Col 1:26; or "the on-coming ages" Eph 2:7?  As far as lumping Father, Son and Holy Spirit together in 1 Cor 15, to be consistent, when Christ died, then all three died;  when He prayed "our Father Who art in heaven" He was fooling everyone because He was the Father and the Holy Spirit as well. If we continue on this vain, words don't mean anything.

In Luke 1:32,33 in the CV we read "And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation."  It is the God and Father who is over all, who gives Christ as Messiah, the throne of David, His father (according to flesh). And, therefore, it is Christ, the son, who abdicates the throne given Him, and becomes subject to God the Father that God may be all in all, or everything to everyone.

If the ages continued for eternity, how could we read that they come to an end in Heb 9:26, "..yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudiation of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest." CV.  At the end of the ages, all enemies will be "put under Christ's feet", including death and sin. And God's purpose of the ages will come to pass, "Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaining that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father." CV. What a wonderful day tis will be.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


41 posted 09-14-2004 08:09 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
That's only true, Stephen, if there are an infinite number of ages. Something that contains a finite quantity is, itself, finite. I would also quibble that transcendent of time and eternity aren't necessarily interchangeable and, indeed, may be incompatible.

But remember Ron,  this phrase was not at all a technical term of metaphysical philosophers who might try to distinguish between transcendence of time, and eternity, and clarify other such philosophical intricacies.  It appeared to be one of the common man's terms for "forever and a day" (Gee there's another phrase which connects a finite time period, to the idea of infinity- and one that philosophers wouldn't even care to argue over, I might add).


My argument is much less ambitious than trying to prove anything particularly metaphysical from this one scripture ... rather it is to say that when the ancient Jew heard "ages of the ages", it was synonomous with our nontechnical english word "forever".  And this is supported by the fact that the same phraseology was used to describe Eternal Life in other scriptures.  But nobody's arguing for a finite, limited, or temporal salvation experience, are they?  


More later,

Stephen.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


42 posted 09-14-2004 08:25 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Arnold:
quote:
 As far as lumping Father, Son and Holy Spirit together in 1 Cor 15, to be consistent, when Christ died, then all three died;  when He prayed "our Father Who art in heaven" He was fooling everyone because He was the Father and the Holy Spirit as well. If we continue on this vain, words don't mean anything.



So which do you reject, a distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or the deity of Christ?  Is this your way of saying you are Unitarian also?  In addition to Universalism, the Arian heresy is another one we could discuss.  But my point was that the Trinitarian theme in scripture explains why the Kingdom is said to be given back to the Father, without making the Kingdom reign finite in duration.  The Rule of God doesn't change.  And when the Old Testament described the eternal rule of the Messiah, (just ask an orthodox Jew), they understood this to be the very reign of God.  That makes much more sense than foisting your view that the time period referred to must have been finite, since the Messiah is a man.  The Jew, far from being Trinitarian in his view of God, still didn't have a problem understanding that the rule of Messiah was forever.


Your case is weak, if you are trying to prove that the messiah's reign was actually described in limited terms in those particular passages.  Why do ALL Bible translations get this so wrong?  Are the philologists, and liguistic scholars, and theologians all wrong about this?


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


43 posted 09-14-2004 08:51 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

BTW,

I just wanted to say that in re-reading this thread, I noticed that upon every reply, Arnold begins with "Hello", and says multiple "thankyou"s.  I just wanted to commend him for his common courtesy even to those who disagree, which I think is easily forgotten (by me, as well) in such a debate-style forum as this.

where ruthless thinking and tireless chivalry can kiss each other ... (sigh.  I love this forum)


Stephen.
Arnold M
Member
since 09-05-2004
Posts 128


44 posted 09-15-2004 01:49 AM       View Profile for Arnold M   Email Arnold M   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Arnold M

Hi, Stephen. No, of course I'm not a Unitarian.  They ridicule the bible.  I don't reject the distinction between God, the Father, God, the Son, or God, the Holy Spirit, or the deity of Christ.  I was merely trying to understand your point that since the kingdom will continue under God, the Father, the phrase "ages of the ages" can mean eternity.  I thought your were lumping them, doing away with any distinction.  As for all the references in the O.T. to the everlasting rule of Messiah, please check Young's Concordance, or equivalent, and you'll find that everlasting has mostly been translated from olam, which means age-lasting.  In fact, if "forever" means eternity, how could there be "forever and ever", one eternity after another eternity?  My understanding of the Messianic hope for Israel, is it was to be for the age to come, the golden age as described in their prophetic writings.  Christ, during His earthly ministry preached that the kingdom was at hand.  He spoke of the age to come and to have age-lasting life.  I believe he was speaking of His millennial reign on earth.  He will also be reigning during the New Heavens and New Earth age, not as "the Lion fo the tribe of Judah", but as a "Lamb".  These are the two ages He will be reigning.  These are the two special ages of the five ages revealed in scripture.
Thank you, Arnold
Arnold M
Member
since 09-05-2004
Posts 128


45 posted 09-16-2004 06:27 PM       View Profile for Arnold M   Email Arnold M   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Arnold M

Hi Denise. I went to the link you recommended, and, boy, what a lot of reading to do.  Actually, I skimmed a lot of it. But it certainly was educational. Stephen, Ron, it will be worth reading.

Stephen, salvation for God's elect will be for the eons. while those He determined to be vessels of wrath will suffer chastening and death for the ages. Why? Paul tells us in Rom 9:23,24 "that He should also be making known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy," CV. But at the end of the ages, ater all the enemies of Christ are put uder His feet and all, including Christ. are subject to God, the Father, the last enemy being destroyed is death, all who are dead will be made alive with believing hearts, and God will be All in all, unending. Reading this in 1 Cor 15:20-28.  Arnold  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


46 posted 09-17-2004 12:15 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Arnold,

  My present opinion is that both annihilationism (the belief that the damned will be destroyed rather than tormented) and universalism (the belief that the damned will ultimately be converted) are not scripturally tenable.  

You're saying a lot without us having the benefit of going into the scriptures themselves.


I would actually like to give an apologetic defense of the traditional view that both Heaven and Hell are forever.  But it would be extensive in it's examination of scripture, and it would be very time consuming for me to organize my thoughts on the matter, and put them in writing.


Maybe in the next couple of weeks, I'll make sure this thread doesn't slip too far down in the archives before I kick it back up to the top.  


Feel free to post all you want.


But I'll probably not comment much more until I am able to give a fuller defense.  Without that (from you or me or Denise) it's just tit for tat.




Later,

Stephen.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


47 posted 09-17-2004 09:50 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Arnold:

If this is so, then what is the point of evangelism?

Jim
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


48 posted 09-17-2004 10:49 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If this is so, then what is the point of evangelism?

If we know our children are going to die some day, what is the point in feeding them today?
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


49 posted 09-17-2004 11:44 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Ron:

Am I misunderstanding universal reconciliation or does it not argue that faith is not necessary for ultimate salvation?  If we are all going to be saved anyway, again, what is the point of evangelization?

If we are to stick with the feeding analogy, the question would more correctly be whether to feed your child waffles or pancakes.  Either way, the child gets fed.

Jim

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Universal Reconciliation   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors