Heresay In The Cathedral

[And Such Were Some Of You]

krazeeboi said:

This may sound a little harsh, but personally, I find it despicable when we attempt to impose our post-modern definition of "love" on a holy, unchangeable God Who is not at all swayed by the changing ideologies and philosophies of men. Let me tell y'all something: God is just and holy in banishing every person who has ever lived to an eternity void of His presence. If God chooses to save just ONE undeserving sinner from His wrath, He is infinitely merciful. God makes the rules, and it is US who have to play by them. God doesn't succumb to our distorted views on His unchangeable characteristics. Whoever God saves is His priority and His alone.

Let's stop acting as if we deserve to be saved just by virtue of being His creation, because that is not Truth.

amen!

[livinganewlife]

krazeeboi said:

Let's stop acting as if we deserve to be saved just by virtue of being His creation, because that is not Truth.

That statement alone will Preach all by itself!!!

[ybrown]

[quote author=andsuchweresomeofu board=controversy

thread=1153607901 post=1154349016]ybrown

Can you tell me what John 3:16 would mean in light of the nobody goes to hell/everyone is going to be saved theory? I do know what the scripture is saying but how does it fit in with what you believe.

[thanks, Jasmine, I knew what it meant but I was hoping that ybrown could break it down for me. So I just decided to ask her outright, since she used John 3:17 earlier but skipped the verse right before it)

[/quote]

I didn't skip John 3:16. John 3:17 was what I wanted to post.

The original Greek word used in John 3:16 is apollumi, which is interpreted, not translated in English, as perish. In Strong’s Concordance, apollumi is #622. The word doesn’t necessarily mean to die, be destroyed, pass from existence. In our bible it also means to lose, be lost, and rendered useless; otherwise, that means the prodigal son died and passed from existence, and the lost sheep that were later found actually died and they too also ceased to exist.

Apollumi is the exact word that is used to describe the prodigal son and the lost sheep. Did they die or were they lost?

After the prodigal son repented, he was forgiven by the father and welcomed back into his father’s house. The shepards lost sheep, well, they were found.

Luke 19:10 says that the "Son of Man came to seek and to save that which is lost (destroyed)." This passage is really the key to the meaning of apollumi, as it refers specifically to Zacchaeus, who was lost (destroyed) because he was a cheating tax collector. Because he was lost (destroyed), he was ready to be found. Zacchaeus repented and Jesus forgave him.

Look at John 10:10. It says that the thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. Again, the inspired word for destroy here, is apollumi. So what does the thief come to do: 1) steal, 2) kill, 3) destroy. The word translated "kill" is the Greek word "thuo" (#2380) which means to slay or slaughter, as in slaughtering sacrifices.

Obviously the word "kill" (thuo) cannot have the same meaning as "destroy" (apollumi) for two reasons: 1) each word is a different word in the Greek 2) it would be redundant if the word "destroy" meant to kill, because if it did, the passage would read, "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to kill." God is not redundant.

The bottom line is in order to understand exactly what the Lord is trying to teach, the exact INSPIRED words need to take precedence over everything else. I don’t want the words that were decided upon by committee.

The Bible wasn’t written in English, it was written in Hebrew and Greek, so when you look to the original language, the original words that God inspired, the Bible actually interprets itself. And God could care less about our square box "isms" in which we try to force His word into.

So, I'll tell you how I see John 3:14-16:

14 `And as Moses did lift up the serpent in the wilderness, so it behoveth the Son of Man to be lifted up, 15 that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during, 16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. 17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;

Verse 14 says the Son of Man must be lifted up. Today, He remains lifted up on high. John 12:32 then says what this mean:

31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

He will draw all men and He doesn’t lose any. Not a one. And how do we know that? Because scripture tells us that too.

But don't take my word on any of this. Look it up for yourself. And I’m not surprised that it was suggested that this thread be closed.

[ybrown]

Christian universalism was the prevailing creed and teaching of the church for the first 500 years, and not a single creed during that time expressed any idea contrary to it, or in favor of endless punishment.

Universal salvation was one of the tenets contained within the very first statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world in 180 A.D. by Clement. Eternal torment was not.

The first definite statement about human destiny by any Christian writer after the days of the Apostles, includes universal restoration, and that doctrine was advocated for centuries by almost ALL of the greatest and best of the Christian Fathers.

Certainly, there were many heresies, and universal restoration as NEVER one of them BECAUSE IT WAS THE PRIMARY TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.

In all of Christendom, from the 1st to past the 6th centuries, there were six Christian schools and schools of theology throughout the world. Of the six, four were strictly Christian theological, and EVERY ONE of them taught Christian universalism. Greek was the native tongue of EVERY ONE of them, the language in which God inspired the New Testament to be written.

Only one school of theology taught eternal torment and that school was the Church of Rome. Yes, the church that later became what we know today as the Catholic Church. Surprise, surprise.

Leaders of the Church of Rome hated Greek, and it was Latin, not Greek, that was their native tongue. This is the same church that later on as it became the dominant face of Christianity, banned the bible from being printed in any language other than Latin Vulgate, so that only the church leaders could read it! They told the people what the word of God said. No one would challenge them for 1000 years.

Christian universalism was the dominate teaching and doctrine of the Church for centuries prior to the takeover of the early Catholic church. Eternal torment, eternal d**nation wasn’t widely taught to the masses or an official church doctrine until the 6th century. That was at the height of what we call the Dark Ages. I think the doctrine came about at a telling time.

So I ask, did we not know what the Bible said prior to the Catholic Church? When did they become beacons of light?

[keita]

TEACH!!!

[krazeeboi]

Oh how we love to lean on church history when it supports our doctrines. It's a well known fact that Arianism was once official church doctrine. Trinitarianism, as we know it today, did NOT arise from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Baptismal regeneration can be found all throughout early church writings.

BIG FRIGGIN' DEAL.[/size][/color]

What matters is what the Bible actually teaches. When studied IN CONTEXT, there is ample evidence in the Bible proving that there is a such thing as eternal punishment, and that those who are consigned to it are consigned for eternity.

As far as Clement goes (I assume you are speaking of Clement of Alexandria and not Clement of Rome), scholars generally agree it is hard to pin down his exact doctrinal beliefs. He was more concerned with the framework in which we interpret Christian theology, specifically in regard to philosophy. The closest I can find anything even remotely suggesting that the guy believed in universalism is that he believed that all belief systems contained a fragment of truth, but only that the whole truth could be found in Christ alone. Any clear references to universalism I could not find. Sources are welcome.

But I wish to challenge this statement:

The first definite statement about human destiny by any Christian writer after the days of the Apostles, includes universal restoration, and that doctrine was advocated for centuries by almost ALL of the greatest and best of the Christian Fathers.

Let's see about this:

"The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father 'to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess' to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send 'spiritual wickednesses,' and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire

[/color]; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,1,10,10(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:330[/blockquote]

Now I could actually stop right here. The above quote is by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. The date of the quote is 180 AD, the same year it is claimed Clement drafted a document espousing universalism. Irenaeus actually had ecclesiastical authority as a bishop, and he is actually called the greatest theologian of the second century (source). As far as I know, this was not the case with Clement; the highest he ever ascended was head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt for a mere three years (source).

I said I could stop right there, but I won't; more prominent names come up.

"But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and they will make your way plainer for escaping the eternal punishments, and obtaining the eternal prizes of God."
Theophilus of Antioch,To Autolycus,1:14(A.D. 181),in ANF,II:93

"[T]hese have further set before us the proofs He has given of His majesty in judgments by floods and fires, the rules appointed by Him for securing His favour, as well as the retribution in store for the ignoring, forsaking and keeping them, as being about at the end of all to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the doom of fire at once without ending and without break

[/color], raising up again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them with the object of awarding either recompense."
Tertullian,Apology,18:3(A.D. 197),in ANF,III:32

"Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still unchanged--the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment of everlasting fire--that fire which, from its very nature indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility."
Tertullian,Apology,48:12(A.D. 197),in ANF,III:54
[/blockquote]

Now Ybrown, I know you know who Tertullian is. And guess what? He did NOT espouse universalism. For anyone unfamiliar with Tertullian's role in church history (which was VERY significant), read more here.

More quotes:

"[T]he world when thou shall know what it is to live truly in heaven, when thou shalt despise that which is here esteemed to be death, when thou shalt fear what is truly death, which is reserved for those who shall be condemned to the eternal fire, which shall afflict those even to the end that are committed to it."
Letter to Diognetus 10:7(A.D. 200),in ANF,I:29

"Of which voice the justification will be seen in the awarding to each that which is just; since to those who have done well shall be assigned righteously eternal bliss, and to the lovers of iniquity shall be given eternal punishment."
Hippolytus,Against the Greeks,3(ante A.D. 225),in ANF,V:222

"Oh,what and how great will that day be at its coming, beloved brethren, when the Lord shall begin to count up His people, and to recognize the deservings of each one by the inspection of His divine knowledge, to send the guilty to Gehenna, and to set on fire our persecutors with the perpetual burning of a penal fire, but to pay to us the reward of our faith and devotion!"
Cyprian,To Thibaris,Epistle 55(58):10(A.D. 253),in ANF,V:346

"When you hear the word fire, you have been taught to think of a fire other than the fire we see, owing to something being added to that fire which in this there is not; for that fire is never quenched, whereas experience has discovered many ways of quenching this; and there is a great difference between a fire which can be extinguished, and one that does not admit of extinction. That fire, therefore, is something other than this. If, again, a person hears the word 'worm,' let not his thoughts, from the similarity of the term, be carried to the creature here that crawls upon the ground; for the addition that it 'dieth not' suggests the thought of another reptile than that known here. Since, then, these things are set before us as to be expected in the life that follows this, being the natural outgrowth according to the righteous judgment of God, in the life of each, of his particular disposition, it must be the part of the wise not to regard the present, but that which follows after, and to lay down the foundations for that unspeakable blessedness during this short and fleeting life, and by a good choice to wean themselves from all experience of evil, now in their lifetime here, hereafter in their eternal recompense."
Gregory of Nyssa,Great Catechism,40(A.D. 383),in NPFN2,V:509

And my boy Augustine probably said it best:

But because this is absurd, they who desire to be rid of eternal punishment ought to abstain from arguing against God, and rather, while yet there is opportunity, obey the divine commands. Then what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence, 'These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal!' If both destinies are "eternal," then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative,--on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end."
Augustine,City of God,21:23(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:469

More quotes can be found here.

Since you wanted to go the church history route Ybrown, I just thought I'd beat you at your own game. Furthermore, it's interesting that you ask when did the Roman Catholic Church become beacons of light, yet you appeal to church history to substantiate your doctrine just as the RCC does. Stop spreading falsehoods, Ybrown, and repent of your error.

Keita, I wouldn't ecourage the promulgation of false doctrine if I were you. Blood will be on your hands as well. There comes a time to separate truth from error, and this is it.

[MsKayLander]

I'm glad I don't understand what most of this is about... I'm with ASWSOY... preach the gospel only.... I pray those that are lost will find their way back to the ark of safety....

[MsKayLander]

BIG FRIGGIN' DEAL.


Krazeeboi... that is considered pre-cursing....

[ybrown]

krazeeboi said:

Oh how we love to lean on church history when it supports our doctrines. It's a well known fact that Arianism was once official church doctrine. Trinitarianism, as we know it today, did NOT arise from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Baptismal regeneration can be found all
throughout early church writings.

BIG FRIGGIN' DEAL.

[/size][/color]

What matters is what the Bible actually teaches. When studied IN CONTEXT, there is ample evidence in the Bible proving that there is a such thing as eternal punishment, and that those who are consigned to it are consigned for eternity.

As far as Clement goes (I assume you are speaking of Clement of Alexandria and not Clement of Rome), scholars generally agree it is hard to pin down his exact doctrinal beliefs. He was more concerned with the framework in which we interpret Christian theology, specifically in regard to philosophy. The closest I can find anything even remotely suggesting that the guy believed in universalism is that he believed that all belief systems contained a fragment of truth, but only that the whole truth could be found in Christ alone. Any clear references to universalism I could not find. Sources are welcome.

But I wish to challenge this statement:

The first definite statement about human destiny by any Christian writer after the days of the Apostles, includes universal restoration, and that doctrine was advocated for centuries by almost ALL of the greatest and best of the Christian Fathers.

Let's see about this:

"The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father 'to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess' to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send 'spiritual wickednesses,' and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire

[/color]; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,1,10,10(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:330[/blockquote]

Now I could actually stop right here. The above quote is by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. The date of the quote is 180 AD, the same year it is claimed Clement drafted a document espousing universalism. Irenaeus actually had ecclesiastical authority as a bishop, and he is actually called the greatest theologian of the second century (source). As far as I know, this was not the case with Clement; the highest he ever ascended was head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt for a mere three years (source).

I said I could stop right there, but I won't; more prominent names come up.

"But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and they will make your way plainer for escaping the eternal punishments, and obtaining the eternal prizes of God."
Theophilus of Antioch,To Autolycus,1:14(A.D. 181),in ANF,II:93

"[T]hese have further set before us the proofs He has given of His majesty in judgments by floods and fires, the rules appointed by Him for securing His favour, as well as the retribution in store for the ignoring, forsaking and keeping them, as being about at the end of all to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the doom of fire at once without ending and without break

[/color], raising up again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them with the object of awarding either recompense."
Tertullian,Apology,18:3(A.D. 197),in ANF,III:32

"Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still unchanged--the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment of everlasting fire--that fire which, from its very nature indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility."
Tertullian,Apology,48:12(A.D. 197),in ANF,III:54
[/blockquote]

Now Ybrown, I know you know who Tertullian is. And guess what? He did NOT espouse universalism. For anyone unfamiliar with Tertullian's role in church history (which was VERY significant), read more here.

More quotes:

"[T]he world when thou shall know what it is to live truly in heaven, when thou shalt despise that which is here esteemed to be death, when thou shalt fear what is truly death, which is reserved for those who shall be condemned to the eternal fire, which shall afflict those even to the end that are committed to it."
Letter to Diognetus 10:7(A.D. 200),in ANF,I:29

"Of which voice the justification will be seen in the awarding to each that which is just; since to those who have done well shall be assigned righteously eternal bliss, and to the lovers of iniquity shall be given eternal punishment."
Hippolytus,Against the Greeks,3(ante A.D. 225),in ANF,V:222

"Oh,what and how great will that day be at its coming, beloved brethren, when the Lord shall begin to count up His people, and to recognize the deservings of each one by the inspection of His divine knowledge, to send the guilty to Gehenna, and to set on fire our persecutors with the perpetual burning of a penal fire, but to pay to us the reward of our faith and devotion!"
Cyprian,To Thibaris,Epistle 55(58):10(A.D. 253),in ANF,V:346

"When you hear the word fire, you have been taught to think of a fire other than the fire we see, owing to something being added to that fire which in this there is not; for that fire is never quenched, whereas experience has discovered many ways of quenching this; and there is a great difference between a fire which can be extinguished, and one that does not admit of extinction. That fire, therefore, is something other than this. If, again, a person hears the word 'worm,' let not his thoughts, from the similarity of the term, be carried to the creature here that crawls upon the ground; for the addition that it 'dieth not' suggests the thought of another reptile than that known here. Since, then, these things are set before us as to be expected in the life that follows this, being the natural outgrowth according to the righteous judgment of God, in the life of each, of his particular disposition, it must be the part of the wise not to regard the present, but that which follows after, and to lay down the foundations for that unspeakable blessedness during this short and fleeting life, and by a good choice to wean themselves from all experience of evil, now in their lifetime here, hereafter in their eternal recompense."
Gregory of Nyssa,Great Catechism,40(A.D. 383),in NPFN2,V:509

And my boy Augustine probably said it best:

But because this is absurd, they who desire to be rid of eternal punishment ought to abstain from arguing against God, and rather, while yet there is opportunity, obey the divine commands. Then what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence, 'These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal!' If both destinies are "eternal," then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative,--on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end."
Augustine,City of God,21:23(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:469

More quotes can be found here.

Since you wanted to go the church history route Ybrown, I just thought I'd beat you at your own game. Furthermore, it's interesting that you ask when did the Roman Catholic Church become beacons of light, yet you appeal to church history to substantiate your doctrine just as the RCC does. Stop spreading falsehoods, Ybrown, and repent of your error.

Keita, I wouldn't ecourage the promulgation of false doctrine if I were you. Blood will be on your hands as well. There comes a time to separate truth from error, and this is it. [/quote]

Such hostiliy can be bourne out of fear. I'm not saying that yours is, but why the tone? If what you believe is true, there is no need for shouting and hostility. Your tone overpowers anything you say and you don't want that. You want people to judge your words, not your attitude in which you speak them.

I began studying church history even when I believed in eternal torment, so what you've stated is not true. ET was never something I questioned. If truth be told, it wasn't even something I had a problem with EVER. I know plenty of unsaved folk so I had already assigned them to the Christian eternal hell.

I don't see that I've presented any error here. If anyone thinks so they are certainly free to discuss how they see things. Anyone is free to read the inspired texts. I have shown in scripture, my position. That's why I didn't see a need to post quotes; most people don't care about that. I was asked where my hope in this doctrine was and I posted scripture, as you yourself said to me:

krazeeboi said:

It's nice to play on people's emotions, but citing scripture would help.

You accused me of playing emotional games, which again, was not true. So, what does ybrown do? She posts over a hundred scriptures and then she's falsely accused of trying to trick people with posting too much scripture and twisting scripture. I just can't satisfy you guys. It's a good thing I'm not trying to.

I believe that it is God's will to save all men and anyone He sends to the Son will not be lost. I belive that because Jesus is lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself, exactly as He said He will. I believe that when He draws all men, He won't lose not a one.

Like the Apostles, I preached the tree of crucifixtion and Him died and raised.

There are several reason why, after a time, certain church fathers did not want to teach Christian universalism to the masses. Just like today, they assumed the flocks were not mature enough for such teachings, even though they knew it to be true themselves. There are also several other quotes from church fathers that are very biting toward the laity's intelligence in understanding this doctrine, but that would have served no purpose other than to make people defensive, which would not have served a higher purpose.

I have actually read hundreds of diferent quotes by the Church Fathers, and that is what further supports the same christian universalism that the early Church taught.

I have no desire to argue with you and I won't. I'm no longer driven to appeal to anyone on that level. It doesn't glorify God. What a change for me! I've matured. I needed to.

I believe His blood to be that efficacious. Saying that I am in error does not make it so. No matter how many times you say it. Some will be swayed by your condemnation of this view and then they will not study for themselves, which would be the wrong thing to do. If that happens, what I said is not for them to hear and I am more than fine with that because I am not harmed by it.

Don't condemn anyone. That is not your job. If the HS is speaking to someone and causing them to change their hearts and minds about anything, you are not the judge of them. You are not the judge of anyone.

If God is calling someone to study for themselves and if He is showing them the things I say to contain truth, why would you discourage that? Are you trying to scare folks with a threat that if they do, they too will be in error?

You have accepted a doctrine of different wills for God (BTW I see no scriptural support for that) in order to support your views. That is fine for you. I don't agree with it and I don't have to, but you're my brother in Christ. God has given me a heart not to condemn and threaten people anymore. The church does enough of that.

You hold to a Calvinist view and I no longer say that you're in error. There are some truths in it, but not enough for me. That is merely the lens God gave you in which to see His word. You don't have to see what I see, but you can respect that I do see it and we can go from there.

I extend an olive branch of fellowship to you, brother. The hostile thing, not my thing anymore. Your tone, not cool.

[MsKayLander]

YBrown... I appreciate your response... you came correct and understanding that sometimes and in some things we will not always agree, but we have a right to an opinion... right, wrong or indifferent... I like how you handled that...

[ybrown]

misskaylander said:

YBrown... I appreciate your response... you came correct and understanding that sometimes and in some things we will not always agree, but we have a right to an opinion... right, wrong or indifferent... I like how you handled that...

Thank you, Misskay.

[Nikkol]

I remember when I use to take spanish classes in school. The way words were put together in sentences was different than what I was use to in English. Depending on where the word was in the sentence, it could have totally different meanings. This is one of the issues that can occur even when looking up the Greek/Hebrew words in the scriptures. I know that even when I look up words in the original language, there will be many definitions and honestly, I can't always tell/assume what the definition is. esp. in context.

The Bible as we know it has been that way for centuries based on some blood, sweat and tears to be able to even translate the scriptures. My concern is that in trying to look at it from each individual Greek/Hebrew word without really knowing the language can end up causing us to miss more than we actually find.

[ybrown]

electladynb said:

I remember when I use to take spanish classes in school. The way words were put together in sentences was different than what I was use to in English. Depending on where the word was in the sentence, it could have totally different meanings. This is one of the issues that can occur even when looking up the Greek/Hebrew words in the scriptures. I know that even when I look up words in the original language, there will be many definitions and honestly, I can't always tell/assume what the definition is. esp. in context.

The Bible as we know it has been that way for centuries based on some blood, sweat and tears to be able to even translate the scriptures. My concern is that in trying to look at it from each individual Greek/Hebrew word without really knowing the language can end up causing us to miss more than we actually find.

In translating any language, the order of the words may change, but the meaning should never change. Otherwise, how would we be able to translate anything from one language to another without changing the original texts?

That is the purpose of the concordance – so that we can understand definitions, context and overall meaning.

I’ve said this several times and it bears repeating. God did not inspire the NT in English. The English language is corrupt from a language perspective, which is why I think God didn’t inspire His Word in that language.

There are hundreds of identically-spelled words in English that have different meanings. However, God’s chosen inspired languages, Greek and Hebrew are another story. Yet even in these languages we must distinguish between meaning and usage. Each Greek word in the divine vocabulary has only one meaning, though the usage may vary.

That is why I posted various scriptures to show how perish and destroy were used in various contexts. Eternal torment is not the meaning that we are to come away with. Actually it is just the opposite. According to scripture people and things are destroyed, yet they are found, forgiven, and sanctified.

That is what I am saying about John 3:16. He came to save the world in order to draw all men unto himself so that none are lost.

In scripture, God says that He has blinded ALL so that He may have mercy on ALL.

The Bible was in Latin for 1000 years until one man came along. Still, Bibles are changing as we speak and "hell" is disappearing because of greater scholarship. Now that we know better, we can do better and I applaud them for that. That is why more and more bibles are distnguishing sheol, hades, tartarus, etc. instead of the catch-all phrase of hell.

[Jasmine]

Yet and still the bible is still clear that many will be lost.

Also mercy has been given to all, because if at anytime God feels like..He could strike any man dead. Its by his mercy & grace that we are STILL here. this include those who do not know him.

[And Such Were Some Of You]

Everyone,

Since it was me who started this thread with the initial post regarding Carlton Pearson then I must ask all of you for forgiveness. As I look over the thread and all that has been said and how the Word has been used so "loosly" (for lack of a better word) has caused my heart to grieve. God did not intend for His "sons" to be this way. Love should always prevail.

On yesterday, every part of me wanted to see that this thread was going to flow in a right direction. I stepped back and even looked via "new eyes". I affirmed my love for my fellow sister in Christ as I was led to do. Some have come on here and voiced how they had become "confused", some didn't know what was really going on, and some PM'd and asked for the thread to be locked. It is my belief that where there is confusion, God is not there. Where my brothers and sisters are being offended, we must take action out of love.

Again, I will say that the bible was not to be used to prove our right over our brother/sister. The bible is an instruction manual in how to live out our every day lives, how to become more Christlike, and what is God's will concerning His Son, His people and the future of the Church. If we take the time to actually take an inventory of ourselves - we will see where or if we have missed the mark.

I am not attempting to be controlling, I am not acting out of fear, or any other negative, unclean spirit that one wishes to label it as but as the person who initially started this thread, after asking for forgiveness I am also asking for the thread to be locked. If it cannot be locked then I am letting everyone know that my interaction in this thread has ceased. I have asked the Lord for forgiveness for posting something that I knew would only cause division and offense. Did I do it with this intent - no, however it has come to that and therefore I bow out. Just because a thread is listed in a controversial section does not mean that it should be a "free for all".

My prayer is that all will continue to study and allow the Holy Spirit to reveal truth for He will be sure to do so.