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.
You obviously haven't studied Clement of Alexandria, or Origen both of which were Native Greek speaking men. And origin was in fact a linguistic scholar among the greatest of his times. And they both wroth about the meaning of the Greek words aionios and kolasis and the meanings many other words wrongly translated in the Latin and English which are associated with Gods final judgment over sinners. In specific they wrote about how aionios does not mean everlasting or eternal, and kolasis means correction or remedial discipline ...
Go back over to my thread 'Jesus Christ is Eternal God', and look at Post #234.
But, back to this, how is it that the universalists claim that the early church didn't teach eternal condemnation? A little bit of research is all that is required to put the lie to that claim.
No one ever said that some of the Christians of the early church didn't teach it(eternal torment), we said that the vast majority of the early church seminaries and of the Greek church fathers in the first five centuries taught universal reconciliation/apocatastasis, while only a few of the early church fathers taught eternal damnation and only one theological seminary taught eternal torment and that was the seminary in Carthage Rome ... And I said that the doctrine of eternal torment was only made church orthodoxy in the sixth century, before which the prevailing doctrine amongst early Christians was universal Reconciliation/apocatastasis and have provided massive evidences to prove it in the posts above. While you have only presented mistranslation of certain church fathers and the views of a couple of the few that actually believed in eternal torment claiming that to be evidence the universal reconciliation was not taught in the early Church. Then you posted two links to very unscholarly web pages which support your claim and use bad English translations to prove their points. And one link to a website which says absolutely nothing about the doctrine of eternal torment and universal reconciliation at all. Shabby, very shabby ...
Origen was heavily influenced by pagan philosopher Plato and Gnostic thought; gnosticism, which the apostles warned of...get your facts straight Ironmaw please.
"We have therefore to state in answer, since we are manifestly so of opinion, that the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in the majority of instances" (De Prinicipiis, 4.19). "And if we come to the legislation of Moses, many of the laws manifest the irrationality, and others the impossibility, of their literal observance" (De Prinicipiis, 4.1.16-17).
I can go on and on about these guys.
"No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it." And "those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place? Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; for example, the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them" (De Prinicipiis, 4.1.16).
Origen was heavily influenced by pagan philosopher Plato and Gnostic thought; gnosticism, which the apostles warned of...get your facts straight Ironmaw please.
First of all, whatever you think about Origen has nothing to do with his scholarly abilities in linguistics. Second, what we know about Origen is tainted by accusation made against him by men centuries after his time who were not as well aware of his teachings as you suppose. Third, not once did his critics consider his belief in universal reconciliation as heretical except in that he believed Satan and the fallen angels would also be reconciled. Get your facts straight my friend. And what about Clement of Alexandira, and all the other church fathers i listed in my post above who were believers in Universal reconciliation? Many of whom wrote about the same things pertaining to the meanings of the language used in the bible pertaining to Gods final judgments ...
Come on Guys, lets deal with the facts. Dont just quote three or four men who believed in annihilation or eternal torment and say they represent the majority of the early church teachings on these things, especially noting that at least two of them quoted didnt even speak Greek for crying out loud.
You believe in eternal damnation which was taught by Augustine, who was its main champion and one of the first to really push the doctrine in the later part of the fourth century, and he was a self admitted pagan and Gnostic before he was a christian, and he also admitted he was one of the most vile of pagans/Gnostics(Manichean) of all ... Any wonder he believed in eternal torment?
Or didn't you realize most of the early Christians were pagans before they converted and were influenced by pagans? What does that have to do with Origen's expertise in the Greek language and its use in the classics and in the poets and in the writings of pre-christian philosophers? Eternal torment was the prevailing pagan doctrine in the times of the apostles and in the times of the early church. So the belief in universal reconciliation by early Christians was certainly not derived from pagan sources.
Origen was heavily influenced by pagan philosopher Plato and Gnostic thought; gnosticism, which the apostles warned of...get your facts straight Ironmaw please.
"We have therefore to state in answer, since we are manifestly so of opinion, that the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in the majority of instances" (De Prinicipiis, 4.19). "And if we come to the legislation of Moses, many of the laws manifest the irrationality, and others the impossibility, of their literal observance" (De Prinicipiis, 4.1.16-17).
I can go on and on about these guys.
"No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it." And "those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place? Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; for example, the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them" (De Prinicipiis, 4.1.16).
All i have to say about what you have quoted from Origen in regard the symbolism and figurative language used in the creation stories of Genesis is that he is exactly right. You think the tree of knowledge was really a tree? Or that the serpent was really a snake? If you do, then I question your rational abilities to understand much of the scripture which is figurative and symbolic.
And as far as the literal observances of the levitical laws and those laws given by Moses, it is obvious in the bible that not one man alive on earth throughout history has literally kept them all save Christ himself. Or is there another man who was without sin all his life long that you know of? Even the bible says that the law was given to convict man of sin and not to offer a means whereby man is able to save himself.
Also, i want to say this, and i mean no disrespect to you ... I consider you a brother in Christ regardless of your strange(to me and the majority of Christians early and late) doctrines and an intelligent person whom i have enjoyed debating with ... But for you, who does not believe in the literal second coming of Christ nor in the literal resurrection of the dead, yet who espouses the ancient pagan belief of eternal damnation, to say Origen was influenced by pagans and Gnostics it is in my mind like the pot calling the kettle black ...
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 11-16-2009 at 05:50 PM..
Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins......
Acts 16:30,31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved; And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb
The Book of Revelation NEVER shows anybody in Heaven not already washed with the blood of Christ.
What about the Old Testament...Moses and Egypt...the blood on the doors..this was a foreshadowing of what was to come....those that didn't have it...what happened?
The universalist implies that this process of passing through the blood is an experience repeatable in heaven. This is wishful thinking.
2 Cor 6:2 For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now [is] the accepted time; behold, now [is] the day of salvation.
Paul says that "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
There is no blood available in heaven to cleanse the unclean.
Those in heaven have already passed through the blood of the Lamb.
1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin
Romans 6:6,7 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
There is no cleansing for those who have died.
In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, it says that there is an uncrossable gulf between the condemned and those in Abraham's Bosom. Uncrossable means exactly that. No way across. End.
That gulf is NEVER bridged for anyone to cross.
John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
In case you didn't notice, none of this proves He believe in eternal torment, or eternal damnation for that matter ... And none of his writings, when seen in their original language, so much as mention eternal torment or even expound on hell as far as i remember. Remeber wrote in Greek, and any mention of the word eternal is the translation of the word aionios, and damnation is of Krisis and or krima, and punishment of Kolasis ... If you study Origen And Clement of Alexandria you will see that the early Greek speaking Christians did not see these words to mean what they have been translated as in the English and wrote specifically about what they actually meant.
Clement of Alexandria is not Clement of Rome. Read my post and see that Clement of Rome made it clear that you must believe in Christ before you die.
Further, Justin Martyr made it clear that eternal condemnation is eternal and not temporary as Plato had claimed. Read the post.
All i have to say about what you have quoted from Origen in regard the symbolism and figurative language used in the creation stories of Genesis is that he is exactly right. You think the tree of knowledge was really a tree? Or that the serpent was really a snake? If you do, then I question your rational abilities to understand much of the scripture which is figurative and symbolic.
Yes I do. I believe that the scripture is literal, figurative, symbolic and spriritual...all weaved together as one. This is the ONLY way to interpret it...no other way...what you are doing is gnostic and contrary to its premise. I believe in the 6 day creation and that Adam was the first man. Your view is a twist of Covenant creationism which is in error.
I am a young earther.
Quote:
And as far as the literal observances of the levitical laws and those laws given by Moses, it is obvious in the bible that not one man alive on earth throughout history has literally kept them all save Christ himself. Or is there another man who was without sin all his life long that you know of? Even the bible says that the law was given to convict man of sin and not to offer a means whereby man is able to save himself.
I never said that all that have lived aren't in Heaven. You must first hear the gospel, then deny it, to be damned. Paul expounded this.
But be careful about what you preach:
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Quote:
Also, i want to say this, and i mean no disrespect to you ... I consider you a brother in Christ regardless of your strange(to me and the majority of Christians early and late) doctrines and an intelligent person whom i have enjoyed debating with ... But for you, who does not believe in the literal second coming of Christ nor in the literal resurrection of the dead, yet who espouses the ancient pagan belief of eternal damnation, to say Origen was influenced by pagans and Gnostics it is in my mind like the pot calling the kettle black ...
No disrespect taken. I have felt stronger blows than anyone has given me here at this forum. The points made above, about the literal second coming of Christ, etc, are irrelevant to this thread. You can bring it up in the "Heavens and Earth" thread if you like. I would like to keep this one focused on UR. Thanks.
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.
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.
