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)
 
Old 10-21-2009, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Prattville, Alabama
4,883 posts, read 5,118,745 times
Reputation: 807

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
Childish...rants....not understanding grammar...you folks (Eusebius and James Rhoades) need a lesson in the teachings of Christ...once you can talk with me with those lessons in mind..I will converse with you and just may consider your point valid.
I have been nothing but civil to each of you, and used proper debating tactics, however, the both of you have used circular reasoning and name calling as you defense.

Ironmaw, katonjj, ChrystyGril and some others, I appreciate your discussions as I always do, as they are mature and Christ centered.
You're such a Sweetie!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2009, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,302 posts, read 5,287,428 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMRohde View Post
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (1Ti 4:10)
1 Tim 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

1 Tim 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Picking and choosing to satisfy your view! Context man!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 05:57 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,200,750 times
Reputation: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
DId Polycarp err on the message of UR, yet he was an disciple of John and of Paul:

Polycarp 5:3

In like manner also the younger men must be blameless in all things, caring for purity before everything and curbing themselves from every
evil. For it is a good thing to refrain from lusts in the world, for every lust warreth against the Spirit, and neither whoremongers nor effeminate persons nor defilers of themselves with men shall inherit the kingdom of God, neither they that do untoward things. Wherefore it is right to abstain from all these things, submittingyourselves to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ. The virgins must walk in a blameless and pure conscience.

Polycarp 6:2
If then we entreat the Lord that He would forgive us, we also ought to forgive: for we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and we must all stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and each man must give an account of himself.

And he confirms the Lord returned:

Polycarp 6:3
Let us therefore so serve Him with fear and all reverence, as He himself gave commandment and the Apostles who preached the Gospel to us and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of our Lord; being zealous as touching that which is good, abstaining from offenses and from the false brethren and from them that bear the name of the Lord in hypocrisy, who lead foolish men astray.

Polycarp 7:1
For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan.

Polycarp 8:1
Let us therefore without ceasing hold fast by our hope and by the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ who took up our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things, that we might live in Him.

Remind us of Jesus' words?

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 5:34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

What is used in the actual text is σωθῆτε and not σῴζω which denotes conditionality in the sense that the subject being saved must also live accordingly in this life. Scripture describes a fourfold salvation: saved from the penalty, power, presence and the pleasure of sin in the use of its text as follows:

σωθῆτε σῴζω σωτηρία σωθῶσιν

The church did not believe in UR, which was only a small part of the church in the first few hundred years. This concept is purely bias and focuses only on the proponents of the tenets, whom eventually was placed apart and outside of the church. Although I have odds with the early church fathers, Polycarp is more credible than any of them, for he was in direct contact with people who witnessed the life of Jesus Christ.
As far is Polycarp is concerned, i have not done ample enough study of his writings or teachings to debate his beliefs properly, though i can say i don't find any of what you posted from his writings in the above quotations to merit the idea that he believed in eternal damnation.

Also i must say that i don't believe the scriptures fully correlate with what you quoted above from him either ... For instance ...

Quote:
For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil
Now, the idea that whoever doesn't believe in Jesus is antichrist, I believe goes against the words of Christ himself.

Mat 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Here we see that people can speak against Christ and it will be forgiven them. So even a Muslim who blasphemes Christ or someone who doesn't necessarily blaspheme him but is of another faith and never converts to the faith of Christ, can be forgiven.


also ...

Mat 25:34-40
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.


Now Mat 25:34-40 is speaking of the judgment of nations ... Here we see people being not only told that they might enter Christs rest who are not his brethren as are those that believe, as we believing makes us adopted sons of God and co-heirs with Christ, but we also see that Christ refers to them as righteous nevertheless. And it is because they were generous to, and received one or more of Christs brethren. So being of another faith is not tantamount to being anti-Christ according to Christ himself in so many words.

So it seems obvious to me that in the very least Polycarp is contradicting Christ in this regard.

Also this seems a bit harsh ...
Quote:
and neither whoremongers nor effeminate persons nor defilers of themselves with men shall inherit the kingdom of God
"Effeminate persons" here seems to be differentiated between "defilers of themselves with men", either that or he is being redundant. I know quite a few men who are effeminate in their mannerisms who are not at all gay. So just because of the fact that they are not macho or overtly masculine they are not to inherit the kingdom? This is to me something of an extreme stance on what is taught in the bible.

Now what about this ...
Quote:
... submitting yourselves to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ ...
This among many other things he says, seems to be quite legalistic in my opinion. What if the presbyter is wrong, after all they are human, as we see many priests and pastor/teachers being exposed all the time for adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia etc ... I believe we should only submit ourselves to the authority of God as our conscience leads us in the spirit.

One more thing i will make not of concerning Polycarp ... He was not a Preterist for certain, and looked forward to a literal resurrection of the dead as well as a literal return of Christ at the beginning of the millennial reign. So according to Polycarp you are anti-Christ and whats more a firstborn of Satan. In that you do not believe in a literal resurrection or a literal return of Christ to reign a thousand years. Remember Polycarp wrote in the mid second century AD and was looking forward to the literal resurrection and the literal return of Christ to judge the world.


Now, as far as your assertion that Universal reconciliation was only a small part of the church in the first few centuries AD, this is where you are certainly misinformed.

Quote:
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 12, p. 96; Retrieved April 29, 2007. “In the West this doctrine had fewer adherents and was never accepted by the Church at large. In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”
* Seymour, Charles. A Theodicy of Hell. p. 25. Springer (2000). ISBN 0792363647.
* Ludlow, Morwenna. Universal Salvation: eschatology in the thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner. Pp. 1-2. Oxford University Press (2000). ISBN 0198270224.
Also Basil the Great (330-379), who opposed the doctrine of UR, wrote concerning apocatastasis (what the doctrine of UR was called back then) that the majority of Christians believed it.

So unless you can provide better evidences for your assertion that UR was not the majority held and taught doctrine of the church in the first 5 hundred years AD, you should at least concede this point.

Also the main point of Universal Reconciliation that you don't seem to understand is that it teaches that in the fullness of times all people who have ever lived will confess that Christ is lord(Isa 45:23,Rom 14:11,Psa 66:4,Psa 67:4), not because they are forced to and don't really mean it, but because either they where already believers of the household of faith in this world, or because they have been purified by the Fiery judgments of God(1 Cor 3:15) and have learned righteousness thereby(Isa 26:9). So the idea that salvation is conditional in that one must confess Christ is lord does not negate the teaching of UR itself. Only that they must confess Christ as lord before they die is contrary to the Ministry of Reconciliation.

Amen and Selah ...


(*Note ... You can click on the verses in blue to see the scriptures themselves, they are links.)

Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 10-21-2009 at 07:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 06:49 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,434,483 times
Reputation: 989
Notice, sciotamicks cannot learn even the most elemental grammar rules. And instead goes into name calling by saying my posts are "childish . . . rants."

Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
Childish...rants....not understanding grammar...you folks (Eusebius and James Rhoades) need a lesson in the teachings of Christ...once you can talk with me with those lessons in mind..I will converse with you and just may consider your point valid.
I have been nothing but civil to each of you, and used proper debating tactics, however, the both of you have used circular reasoning and name calling as your defense.
Here is what I wrote which elicited the above response. Notice I never used "name calling" as he lies in saying I do:

The problem I perceive sciotamicks has is that he does not understand the adjective-noun relationship in common grammar.

Let's step through a little grammar lesson:


Mandibular = adjective
Mandible = noun
The mandibular pain I experience is pertaining to the mandible (jaw).


Heavenly = adjective
Heaven = noun
The heavenly angel visited Mary. The realm of the angel pertains to heaven.


American = adjective
America = noun
Obama is the American president. His presidency pertains to America.


Eonian = adjective
Eon = noun
God is said to be "the eonian God" (Rom.16:26). He is the Placer or Subjector pertaining to the eons.

Mat 25:46 And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

Both the chastening and the life the NATIONS experience for giving Christ's brethren a cup of water is pertaining to the eon.


Whatever man may say AIONIOS and AION is derived from is a moot point. We can know exactly what it means by how God used it in the Scriptures.

The Bible states that all the eons end. When the eons end God will cease being the eonian God for there will no longer be eons to subject people to, but will be "God, All in all."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,302 posts, read 5,287,428 times
Reputation: 420
Eusebius...I wasn't calling you a child...I was reiterating what I was being called.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2009, 10:01 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,434,483 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
Eusebius...I wasn't calling you a child...I was reiterating what I was being called.
Who called you a child?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2009, 01:40 PM
 
34 posts, read 36,098 times
Reputation: 24
Default Conditional immortality

Conditional immortality understands this to be the place where the body and soul are destroyed (Matt 10:28). Turned to ashes...

Notice the Jewish apostle Peter draws this same conclusion... "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly" (2 Peter 2:6) If Sodom is an example (Peter's own words) to us of the fate of the ungodly, then their becoming ashes must be the same fate reserved for the lost - cremation. Sodomites became ashes, Peter tells us the unsaved will also become ashes not tormented forever as is erroneously taught.

Additionally, Malachi also tells us the wicked will be turned into ashes, just as Peter stated above... "And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet." Malachi 4:3

Isaiah, Peter and Malachi tell us the fate of unbelievers is for them to become ashes, cremated. Ashes that will be looked upon with contempt or disgust (Isaiah 66:24, Daniel 12:2). These are bodies and souls of men that are now destroyed (Matthew 10:28).

No doubt it will be terrible for the lost on Judgment day, but the traditional notion of eternal torture is not found in these verses. Dead bodies' turning into ashes is what is written by Isaiah and spoken by Jesus (Yeshua).




A good web site on this is at jewishnotgreek.com Why Conditional Immortality is true and biblical
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2009, 01:46 PM
 
3,067 posts, read 3,488,048 times
Reputation: 241
The old t is always read in the light of the NewT.

In the New T we dont have to just guess, Jesus told us what the fire is like for the ones in hell.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2009, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,389,248 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messianic Jew A Long Time View Post
Conditional immortality understands this to be the place where the body and soul are destroyed (Matt 10:28). Turned to ashes...
This verse you quote has nothing to do with ashes.. the body and spirit make the soul so the body is destroyed.. spirit is still going to heaven and the soul is life itself. A better verse is Luke 12:5.. and then in Luke 12:7 he reminds us not to be afraid for we are worth more than sparrows.. In other words, he CAN kill, has the power to but he won't because we are worth more than that.

Quote:
Notice the Jewish apostle Peter draws this same conclusion... "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly" (2 Peter 2:6) If Sodom is an example (Peter's own words) to us of the fate of the ungodly, then their becoming ashes must be the same fate reserved for the lost - cremation. Sodomites became ashes, Peter tells us the unsaved will also become ashes – not tormented forever as is erroneously taught.
I agree that noone will be tormented forever but I don't agree with your conclusion that turning something or someone to ashes means cremation. Ashes can also be translated as dust.. right? We all return to dust at death.
Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven,

Brimstone and fire were purifying things.. not merely destructive. However, it is more probable that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a landslide following an earthquake, which most geologists of the region agree is likely what happened. So the ungodly will be purified and destroyed. This pertains to this life not after death. It is common sense that if we continue in sin we condemn ourselves to an early death. Perhaps that is why they all died because they didn't heed the words of the prophet sent to warn them to leave the area. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient...orrah_01.shtml


Quote:
Additionally, Malachi also tells us the wicked will be turned into ashes, just as Peter stated above... "And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet." Malachi 4:3

Isaiah, Peter and Malachi tell us the fate of unbelievers is for them to become ashes, cremated. Ashes that will be looked upon with contempt or disgust (Isaiah 66:24, Daniel 12:2). These are bodies and souls of men that are now destroyed (Matthew 10:28).
Carcasses are looked upon with contempt by whom? It says all men yet there are men looking upon them... They are looking at their former selves with contempt. As we do when we have a change of heart. We look on our former selves with regret and contempt. This is the problem with literal interpretation of the Bible.. it gets all mixed up and strays from the original reason for writing it down.

Quote:
No doubt it will be terrible for the lost on Judgment day, but the traditional notion of eternal torture is not found in these verses. Dead bodies' turning into ashes is what is written by Isaiah and spoken by Jesus (Yeshua).




A good web site on this is at jewishnotgreek.com Why Conditional Immortality is true and biblical
I don't agree.. I think there is punishment here while we live that is brought on by sin. This judgment and punishment is corrective. Annihilation serves no corrective purpose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2009, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
702 posts, read 844,552 times
Reputation: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanMolstad View Post
The old t is always read in the light of the NewT.

In the New T we dont have to just guess, Jesus told us what the fire is like for the ones in hell.....
Nobody with even beginning knowledge of what is in Scripture concerning the English word "hell" would defer to you. For your own benefit, yield to Bible facts. "Hell" is pasted over a handfull of words the Holy Spirit chose to make His revelation known. God intended something by saying "hades" and in other places he meant something else by saying "geehena," or "tartarus," or He wouldn't have spelled them differently. Nothing in the original language says they are all the same thing as indicated in English. What is perhaps foremost in people's minds when they hear the word hell is the lake of fire which is never called hell in Scripture.

God has spoken. What we endure entirely too much of is men's interpretations of what God meant to say rather the actual words chosen by the Holy Spirit to convey God's revelation. If we would bow our hard heart and turn our stiff necks to what God says or does not say, limiting our expression of faith to the actual words of the Bible, verified by the original Scripture, we would make more rapid progress entering into the Divine nature. It is by the use of concordances to determine whether something is written or not we can implement the authority of Scripture to which there is at least widespread lip-service.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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
Similar Threads
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