U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-05-2009, 11:53 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,224,453 times
Reputation: 892

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifesigns64 View Post
Many people here make statements regarding the "Early Church Fathers". From my research on this: The Church Fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honoured Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, prayed for the dead, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days of Christianity and that is the Catholic Church of today.

So . . . many of the doctrine that everyone says regarding Early Church Fathers . . . including ETers and URers . . . . must recognize that the Early Church Fathers are the founding/rock of Catholicism.

The word catholic is not a bad word. The church used the term in the first few centuries to denote the message of the gospel of salvation through Christ which was a universal message. Catholic means universal. It wasn't until Rome made Christianity the state religion that the church began being infiltrated by pagans and gnostics. Even then the church didn't fall away from the true gospel completely until the sixth century.

If you want to know what the apostles taught their disciples , you have to study the earliest church fathers.

The tradition of venerating Mary stared in the 3rd century ... The claim that Ireneus venerated Mary is in misunderstanding what he said about how she gave Birth to Christ who saved her and the hole human race. Again you must be careful about the translations from Greek into Latin and English of the early church fathers as well as the gospels themselves ...

Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 10-06-2009 at 12:06 AM..

 
Old 10-06-2009, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Germany
1,662 posts, read 1,720,397 times
Reputation: 848
if you try to stronger a word suppose to mean infinity you actually weaken it, there is no need to stronger a word like infinity or endlessness.

the author has no evidence for his claim that this expression means infinity, you can claim anything, however to be trustworthy you need a proof.

Quote:


The Greek phrase is aionas ton aionos. The word ton means "of the" - it never means "and". Young's Literal Translation puts it this way:
  • "And to the King of the Ages, the incorruptible, the only wise God (Elohim), is honour and glory - to the ages of the ages! Amen".
The English phrase, "for ever and ever", actually makes no sense when you pause to think about it. 'For ever' is, by definition, eternal. So how can there be more than 'eternal'? Some translators do a song-and-dance routine, attempting to show that the phrase is an idiom meaning "forever and ever". They say it signifies ages tumbling upon ages. If that were the case, then the Holy of Holies ought to be idiomatic of "Holy and Holies" which is nonsense. The Song of Songs should then be idiomatic for "Song and Songs". Or perhaps they want us to believe that the Holy of Holies is a Holy Place tumbling upon countless other holy places. Then the Song of Songs would be a Song with an infinite number of stanzas which is just as absurd.
No, we have to dismiss this foolishness and call the translators to repent for trying to twist scripture to fit in with their traditions and preconceived doctrines. The Word of Yahweh must be allowed to speak itself through its own Hebraic lenses. Let's also stick to the principle of Occam's Razor which says that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. So, the Bible talks about the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies) and the greatest Song and the greatest of the Ages. If we accept the plain truth, then everything harmonises, confusion vanishes, and we arrive at a state of echad - oneness. So how did this confusion arise in the first place?
from a Jewish writer:

Olam, Aeons and Eternity

Quote:
[For the ages of ages,] this literal translation from the Greek corresponds with the Latin “in saecula saeculorum” [into ages of ages]. Thereby is not meant the “Eternity” (aidiotęs, aeternitas) as infinite, unfading time, that only applies to the triune God Himself; but the sum of all finite and fading periods of time. The translation “from Eternity to Eternity” [the English “forever and ever”] or in “all Eternity” is at least misleading. Theologically more of relevance is, that by this use of “Eternity”, it’s no longer possible to see that God’s “Eternity” is of different kind than the “fullness of times”, given as gift to the creatures.



from an Orthodox German book


http://books.google.de/books?id=3E3UfjByMiMC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=aidiot es+ewigkeit&source=bl&ots=As_ZrEx0oK&sig=oexGA97Dm mwgIffOOafQyGWkaF0&hl=de&ei=vEVbStv4MZvumgPSsLVB&s a=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
 
Old 10-06-2009, 10:11 AM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,430,037 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by svenM View Post
The Greek phrase is aionas ton aionos. The word ton means "of the" - it never means "and". Young's Literal Translation puts it this way:
  • "And to the King of the Ages, the incorruptible, the only wise God (Elohim), is honour and glory - to the ages of the ages! Amen".
The English phrase, "for ever and ever", actually makes no sense when you pause to think about it. 'For ever' is, by definition, eternal. So how can there be more than 'eternal'? Some translators do a song-and-dance routine, attempting to show that the phrase is an idiom meaning "forever and ever". They say it signifies ages tumbling upon ages. If that were the case, then the Holy of Holies ought to be idiomatic of "Holy and Holies" which is nonsense. The Song of Songs should then be idiomatic for "Song and Songs". Or perhaps they want us to believe that the Holy of Holies is a Holy Place tumbling upon countless other holy places. Then the Song of Songs would be a Song with an infinite number of stanzas which is just as absurd.

No, we have to dismiss this foolishness and call the translators to repent for trying to twist scripture to fit in with their traditions and preconceived doctrines. The Word of Yahweh must be allowed to speak itself through its own Hebraic lenses. Let's also stick to the principle of Occam's Razor which says that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. So, the Bible talks about the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies) and the greatest Song and the greatest of the Ages. If we accept the plain truth, then everything harmonises, confusion vanishes, and we arrive at a state of echad - oneness. So how did this confusion arise in the first place?


Exactly. "For ever and ever" is foolishness and nonsensical. It is nonsense to say that "forever" needs another "ever" to make it eternal, and simply shows the bias of the translators and their poor translation.
 
Old 10-06-2009, 10:44 AM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,224,453 times
Reputation: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post

Exactly. "For ever and ever" is foolishness and nonsensical. It is nonsense to say that "forever" needs another "ever" to make it eternal, and simply shows the bias of the translators and their poor translation.
Yes for ever and ever makes no sense, what is worse is the , as someone has already mentioned, aion is in its plural for in those verse so if aion mean ever, than it should have been translated for evers of evers ... Which makes even less sense.
 
Old 10-06-2009, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Germany
1,662 posts, read 1,720,397 times
Reputation: 848
Default a similar idiom in Hebrew

interestingly I came upon a similar idiom in the Old Testament, le'netzach netzachim in Isaiah 34:10 which literally means something like duration of durations - so basically the same idom as eon of eons.

the common translation:

it shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever [le'netzach netzachim].

the LXX renders it:

νυκτος και ημερας και ου σβεσθησεται εις τον αιωνα χρονον και αναβησεται ο καπνος αυτης ανω εις γενεας ερημωθησεται και εις χρονον πολυν

the LXX renders duration of durations with eis chronon polun - much time, obviously they didn't understood this idom as meaning eternity.

it's interesting to have a look in the Vulgate also:

nocte et die non extinguetur in sempiternum ascendet fumus eius a generatione in generationem desolabitur in saeculum saeculorum non erit transiens per eam

the Vulgate translates duration of durations with saeculum saeculorum - age of ages, as it translates the Greek expression eis aionos aionon

a further look in Wycliffe's translation is also interesting:

It schal not be quenchid withouten ende, the smoke therof schal stie fro generacioun in to generacioun, and it schal be desolat in to worldis of worldis; noon schal passe therbi.

in to worldis of worldis for saeculum saeculorum

none of this idioms imply endlessness and the context does not support that either the Hebrew bible or the translators wanted to express endlessness, the LXX has also a interesting expression eis ton aiona chronon, if eis ton aiona would mean in eternity, that would mean in eternity of time, which is absurd.
 
Old 10-06-2009, 01:02 PM
 
10 posts, read 12,119 times
Reputation: 20
Default Jesus Did NOT Believe in Hell

Regardless of what later Christian leaders came to believe, what ought to be important to Christians is the fact that Jesus did NOT believe and teach that God intended to torture people for all eternity. I've actually written an entire book on this topic--"Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell," (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website: Your Page Title Goes Here), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it to show why. If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it. So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY! True, there are a few statements that made their way into the gospels which place Hell on Jesus lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.

Read more: Eternal Punishment Means Exactly That. ''To the Ages of the Ages''
 
Old 10-06-2009, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3,147 posts, read 2,753,209 times
Reputation: 245
Default The true meaning of “FOREVER AND EVER” Rev. 14:11

The true meaning of “FOREVER AND EVER” Revelation 14:11

Greek: tormented for “the eons of the eons," a limited period of time referring to the last two ages before God consummates His plan for the ages of time to become All in all 1Cor. 15:28

"THE EONS OF THE EONS" (plural/plural) COMPARED WITH "THE HOLIES OF THE HOLIES" (plural/plural)

There are several analogous expressions in the Scriptures which should show the meaning of the words under discussion. In Ex. 26:33, tou hagiou ton hagion, "in the holy of the holies." This is similar to the "eon of the eons" of Eph. 3:21. In II Kings 8:6 we see, eis ta hagia ton hagion, "for the holies of the holies"-similar to "eons of the eons." The "holy of the holies" and "holies of the holies" refer to the tabernacle. Psalm 44:7 says, ho thronos sou ho theos, eis ton aiona tou aionos, "Thy throne, O God, is for the eon of eon"-similar to Heb. 1:8. Daniel 7:18: "until eon of the eons" and similar to that of Eph. 3:21, where a singular is followed by a plural, "eon of the eons." In these expressions we see the eons corresponding to the holies in the tabernacle.

While there are many different teachings on the types in the Tabernacle of Moses, it should not be too difficult to see that there were at least five divisions: (1) without the camp; (2) in the camp; (3) in the court; (4) in the holy place; and (5) in the holy of holies. These may be likened to the five eons we find in the Scriptures (past eons, present eon, future eons). The last eon is called the "eon of the eons," because it, like the "holy of holies," is the climax of the others. In Hebrews chapter 9, the Greek text of Nestle reads (margin v. 25), eis ta hagia ton hagion, "into the holies of the holies," and (v. 3), hagia hagion, "holies of holies."

Just as the two holy places in the tabernacle are called the holies of holies, so the last two eons are often called the eons of the eons. As the tabernacle illustrated man's approach to God, it corresponds closely with the eonian times, which also brings man to God. The "holy of holies" was a single holy place. The "eon of eons," a single eon. It was the pre-eminence of the "holy of holies," in relation to the other holy places, which caused it to be so designated. So the pre-eminence of the "eon of the eons" lies in its being the fruitage and harvest of previous eons. The same is true of the "holies of the holies" of Heb. 9:25. They may be likened to the "eons of the eons" of Rev. 11:15; 22:5. Luke 1:33 says of Christ's "kingdom there shall be no end." While the kingdom itself will not end, the reign of Christ for the eons of the eons will end when He delivers up the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-26).

MY GREEK SCHOLARS – Louis Abbott and the other Greek scholars he quotes in chapters 3 and 12 of
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF WORDS
An Analytical Study of Words

The argument about “eternal hell” nearly always ends with the words, “My Greek scholars are more reliable than your Greek scholars,” and the result is nearly always a stalemate.

If you think it glorifies God more to let some of His creatures suffer forever, then you keep believing that.

But if you think it glorifies God more to eventually meet everyone on the level of their greatest and deepest need which is a change in their stubborn will, then know that there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that that is exactly what God is like.
 
Old 10-06-2009, 03:29 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,430,037 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickLannoye View Post
Regardless of what later Christian leaders came to believe, what ought to be important to Christians is the fact that Jesus did NOT believe and teach that God intended to torture people for all eternity. I've actually written an entire book on this topic--"Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell," (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website: Your Page Title Goes Here), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it to show why. If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it. So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY! True, there are a few statements that made their way into the gospels which place Hell on Jesus lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.

Read more: Eternal Punishment Means Exactly That. ''To the Ages of the Ages''

Hi Rick,

I read through your paper quickly (skimming, but I got the jist). You make many logical arguments as to why hell could not exist and why a loving God would not create people solely to be tormented for eternity. "Mass lobotomy view" of heaven - yeah no kidding.

It sounds like this caused you to leave Christianity all together and you now no longer believe in God... is that correct?

You should check out biblical universal salvation - this is the view that the scriptures say God will save all people.


Here is a good intro article:
Merciful Truth - Eternity

But much more info can be found here:
Merciful Truth
Tentmaker Scholar's Corner
Tentmaker.org
 
Old 10-06-2009, 04:02 PM
 
2,945 posts, read 4,786,203 times
Reputation: 1603
Jesus`s plea to the Father...FORGIVE them,they know not what they do. Who has committed a bigger sin? These men nailed THE SON OF GOD ALMIGHTY himself to a cross! They beat and mocked Jesus Christ himself. They stripped him naked and drove spikes through his body and jammed a sword through his side! Yet, this same man that you say will send people to be tortured,not for a day,not for a week,not for a month, not for a year, not for a thousand years,not for a MILLION years but forever and ever and ever, asked God the Father to forgive them. Why can`t you forgive people, ET`ers? Why is it so hard for you to understand and comprehend that the same Jesus that asked for the forgiveness of the people who beat and nailed his body to a cross,will forgive the people that didn`t say a sinner`s prayer or believe the right thing in this lifetime? These same people that you teach will be tortured every second of eternity may not have beaten anyone or tortured anyone like the ones who tortured Jesus. Most were probably caring people but you don`t believe it is within God`s power to save them! Because in their EXTREMELY SHORT LIFE they didn`t say or believe the right thing!! Unbelievable. Thank God, Jesus is the savior. Thank God, he is the judge. Thank God, he is the one that makes the decision and not some of you. Why can`t some of you have a spirit and mind like Christ? Father forgive them, they know not what they do!!
 
Old 10-07-2009, 03:31 AM
 
Location: Canada
589 posts, read 1,320,523 times
Reputation: 251
Nowhere in the Bible can you find that unsaved humans will be tortured for eternity. God said the penalty for sin is DEATH in the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:12-15). Eternal death means they will no longer be resurrected AGAIN, they will be gone forever like they have never existed. The eternal torment in the Lake of Fire is a fate reserved only for the fallen angels only because they are IMMORTAL. Our merciful Father created humans mortal so the unsaved will NOT suffer the same fate of the fallen angels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top