Tell Me About Universalism (woman, Messiah, preaching, Kingdom)

[twin.spin]

Originally Posted by Dogknox
katiemygirl To be "Christian" you must believe in the "Trinity"!

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Boy, that really sucks for all of Jesus' followers who lived prior to 325 A.D.

Expecially the fact since it was revealed and recorded in scriptures that the Trinity appeared at Jesus' baptism.....

[Pleroo]

Originally Posted by twin.spin

Yes I did but honestly didn't want to point out again the obvious silence of the UR community to the athesist community.

What is it you feel URists should be saying to the "atheist community"?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by twin.spin

Expecially the fact since it was revealed and recorded in scriptures that the Trinity appeared at Jesus' baptism.....

No it wasn't. The Son came straightway out of the water. The Father's voice was heard speaking from Heaven. The Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove. There's nothing there about a "three-in-one substance." But let's not get off-topic. This thread is about universalism, not about what a person must believe in order to be a Christian.

[Miss Blue]

Moderator cut: cut #2

Good afternoon posters

Please reserve your trinity debates for another thread...



P.S.. Can't guarantee I will be as amicable on the next cut..Probably just hand out the rewards for going off topic as in derailments, denominational bashing ,etc..

[legoman]

Originally Posted by katiemygirl

So you believe in UR but you don't consider yourself universalist. How would you categorize yourself then?

I'm simply a truth-searcher. I'm searching for the truth.
I believe in universal reconciliation - that God will reconcile all things back to Himself, and He will do this through His son Jesus Christ.
So I am a follower of Christ. A Christian.

Others would call me a universalist. That is fine, it gets the general idea across that all will ultimately be saved, but it leaves out the important details. And there are a lot of details.

You said you believe the original scriptures are infallible, but all English translations are not. May I ask what is your authority then?

Truth is the authority. Contradiction tells me something is wrong.

I believe there is a universal equation:
God=Love=Jesus=Truth=Reason

That is why truth and reason are so important.
Scripture is an authority as well.
But the English translations are not infallible. I will demonstrate this.

We are to look for the fruits of the spirit: peace, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, self-control, faithfulness.
So examine the eternal hell doctrine in light of these fruits. Is an eternal hell peaceful? Joyful? Does it produce love, kindness, gentleness? Does it show self-control? Faithfulness? Forgiveness?

The eternal hell doctrine FAILS on all fronts. This should cause red flags for anyone who is searching the truth.

Do you believe in the trinity, the deity of Jesus? And what group do you worship with?

Right now I worship with a RC church. I actually play piano during the service.

I don't really understand the trinity doctrine.
I do believe Jesus is deity. I believe He was the son of God.
Jesus is not the Father, and the Father is not the son. So there are two distinct persons there. Also, Jesus is one with the Father. He is the image of the Father.
But where does the Holy spirit fit in? I don't see where scripture says the Holy Spirit is a 3rd person. God is spirit.
Anyway I just try to stick with what scripture says, and not use a label (ie. trinity doctrine) which I can't fully explain.

So let me give you that examine of one case where our English translations are fallible. It relates to the trinity doctrine.

KJV
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This is one of the verses often cited to prove the trinity doctrine. But there is a problem. Hang on to your hat. The words in bold are not scripture.

Here is a better translation.
NASB
1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Do you see the subtle difference? There are different meanings here. So which one of these translations is infallible? The KJV or the NASB? Truth and reason tells us they both cannot be infallible, because they contradict.

Sorry I don't want to derail into a trinity debate. But it is just an example about searching for the truth.

By exposing contradictions, we can come to see the truth a bit better. But you have to be willing to see the contradictions.

How about the simple fact that there have been hundreds of revisions done to the KJV. By definition it is not infallible, because they have already corrected hundreds of errors. Infallible means without error, so something with error cannot be infallible. Truth and reason win out again. So if the KJV is not infallible, how about the NIV? Or any other translation? What we have to do is read many versions, and compare them with each other and the greek translation, if possible. That will help us in our pursuit of the truth.

Not looking to debate. Just trying to learn how other people see things.
Thank you for trying to answer all my questions.

Katie

No problem. I enjoy the honest sincere questions! Anything we can do to help understand each other, brings all a little closer together.

[legoman]

Originally Posted by twin.spin

A: the insistent athesist ?

All atheists become believers when confronted with something that causes them to believe.
You & I were both atheists at one point, because we were both unbelievers at one point.

So don't count the atheists out too quickly!

Also don't count God out too quickly (which is what your statement seems to imply), He has ways of making things happen...

[twin.spin]

Originally Posted by Pleroo

What is it you feel URists should be saying to the "atheist community"?

They should be saying just as adamantly about the supposed "incorrect" postion of athesists of being there is no God, no afterlife.

UR should be standing on it perverbial head and confront anyone who is athesist persuasion that the athesist will:

• have to acknowledge an afterlife,
• a "God" (whatever that turns out to be for the UR)
• and whats more they will (not might) bow their knee in belief to this "God)

I find it that since they do not oppose the greater amount of what UR considers false from a community which disagrees with them, it is then selective intolerance on UR's part.

[MissKate12]

Originally Posted by .sparrow.

I have to run but will be back later.

So that things don't get confusing... you say that you already know I believe in UR. What is "UR" in your view? Just to be sure we are on the same page.

peace,
sparrow

Hi Sparrow,

UR ---Universal Reconciliation

Is that your definition also?

Katie

[twin.spin]

Originally Posted by legoman

All atheists become believers when confronted with something that causes them to believe.
You & I were both atheists at one point, because we were both unbelievers at one point.

So don't count the atheists out too quickly!

Also don't count God out too quickly (which is what your statement seems to imply), He has ways of making things happen...

Then it shouldn't be surprising when some counter with what the ramifications of UR in everyday life.

The fact still comes down to UR makes no distinction between whose beliefs are correct or one who claims no belief in anything at all will make a difference. My previous statement isn't implying counting out God, rather either the atheist is currently duped or the UR is.

But I do agree with you... I don't count the atheists out too quickly. There are many everyday all over the world who (at great costs to themselves) come to the knowledge of the truth and so be saved.

[MissKate12]

Originally Posted by trettep

It is the one that is void of contradiction.

I don't mean to sound controversial, but your answer is too vague. I'm not getting it.

For example: Jesus says the only ones who can get into heaven are those who do the will of the Father. That is truth IMHO. But someone else may say differently and believe it is truth. So who has the truth?

You say truth is void of contradiction. Again I ask, whose truth and where is the contradiction?

Can you be more specific or maybe someone else can weigh in what you are trying to say.

Kate