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.
No, your translation needs corrected. That is why you cannot see how God will save all mankind. Your translation covers it up. But I do believe what correctly translated Bibles tell me. It is you who don't believe them. I let the properly translated Bibles speak to me.
If you want to continue using a poor translation, that is up to you. Just don't come crying to me when you find out God really is saving all mankind.
If "aion" is translated as "ever" in your poor translation, and since the Bible says all the aions end,
we must therefore conclude no "ever" or "for ever" or "ever-lasting" is eternal. Sorry bud but that
is just how the cookie crumbles.
This is the same type answer I get from 5 point Calvinist, Catholics, Baptist, Church of Christ, Mormons, etc etc. All that can't believe what the Bible plainly says. None of the can see what the other is doing. They use the same methods but come to different conclusions. The Mormons went so far as to add whole other book because the Bible wasn't saying what they wanted it to say.
It's all got to be changed in some way. I would be a concerned with the translations of the Bible I used except for one thing...All those religions don't believe in the same things yet they use the same excuse and methods. 'The translation is bad.' Or 'Your not looking at it right'. Excuse after excuse. So I see no other choice but to dump universal salvation in with the stew of the hundreds of interpretive opinions that people have told me. One no more true than the other. If all those religious views were unified, It would mean that they might have some sort of divine backing. But they are all different, which tells me they are not divinely backed and neither is universal salvation. Just another opinion in the ocean of doctrines to mislead people into lawlessness because the Bible doesn't say what they want it to say.
I have a feeling a lot of Christians will be upset at finding out God really IS going to reconcile everyone back to itself as promised .
I'm surprised that Christianity has not debarred God and Christ and excommunicated them for telling us to charge and teach that God will have all mankind to be saved because Christ ransomed all mankind and that God is the Saviour of all mankind. He doesn't just offer salvation. A Saviour is One Who actually saves. God and Christ are both in collusion on this matter. I mean, what was God and Christ thinking by telling us that?
This is the same type answer I get from 5 point Calvinist, Catholics, Baptist, Church of Christ, Mormons, etc etc. All that can't believe what the Bible plainly says. None of the can see what the other is doing. They use the same methods but come to different conclusions. The Mormons went so far as to add whole other book because the Bible wasn't saying what they wanted it to say.
It's all got to be changed in some way. I would be a concerned with the translations of the Bible I used except for one thing...All those religions don't believe in the same things yet they use the same excuse and methods. 'The translation is bad.' Or 'Your not looking at it right'. Excuse after excuse. So I see no other choice but to dump universal salvation in with the stew of the hundreds of interpretive opinions that people have told me. One no more true than the other. If all those religious views were unified, It would mean that they might have some sort of divine backing. But they are all different, which tells me they are not divinely backed and neither is universal salvation. Just another opinion in the ocean of doctrines to mislead people into lawlessness because the Bible doesn't say what they want it to say.
No matter what you say, the Bible is clear that all the eons end. Therefore they cannot be eternal and therefore there is no such thing as "eternal torment" or even "eternal annihilation.
Funny, that's exactly what the Jews said about the New Testament.
The Hebrew and Greek scriptures are not separate from each other. Just like the writings of the prophets are not an added book to the Pentateuch. They are all part of the Bible.
The Jews, however are another good example of adding a whole other text of opinions or interpretations to the Bible in way of the Talmud. Thanks for reminding me.
Your ignorance of church history is astounding , but I have a feeling that trying to help you educate yourself about such would be a total wasted effort, so I won't bother . Wallow happily in your ignorance .
There were men claiming to be Christian in between When the apostles and followers were all killed off and the rise of the great apostasy--- they were in confusion--such as terrillius and those who call themselves the early church fathers. They lacked truth as well.
The Hebrew and Greek scriptures are not separate from each other. Just like the writings of the prophets are not an added book to the Pentateuch. They are all part of the Bible.
They are only part of the Bible if you want them to be. The Bible is a collection of a number of different books and not everyone who uses the Bible uses the same Bible. I mention this only because of your inaccurate comment, "The Mormons went so far as to add whole other book because the Bible wasn't saying what they wanted it to say." Mormons believe the Bible, study the Bible and learn from the Bible. The Book of Mormon did not come about because the Bible wasn't saying what we wanted it to say. That's absolute nonsense.
Now, about about getting back on topic of this thread, which is on universal salvation. I would suggest that you not further hijack it.
They are only part of the Bible if you want them to be. The Bible is a collection of a number of different books and not everyone who uses the Bible uses the same Bible. I mention this only because of your inaccurate comment, "The Mormons went so far as to add whole other book because the Bible wasn't saying what they wanted it to say." Mormons believe the Bible, study the Bible and learn from the Bible. The Book of Mormon did not come about because the Bible wasn't saying what we wanted it to say. That's absolute nonsense.
Now, about about getting back on topic of this thread, which is on universal salvation. I would suggest that you not further hijack it.
LOL I didn't make the statement about the Greek Scriptures.
And no, things are not part of the Bible because I want them to be. Only those that don't believe that the Bible is not authored by God say such things. I believe only God puts the books He wants in the Bible.
As far as the Mormons. Talk to a Mormon and they will tell you that the Bible is not the complete story of Jesus Christ. Apparently the founders of the Mormons needed more than what the Bible says.
And no, things are not part of the Bible because I want them to be. Only those that don't believe that the Bible is not authored by God say such things. I believe only God puts the books He wants in the Bible.
That's very well and good, but apparently you have little knowledge about how the biblical canon came to exist in the first place. The fact of the matter is that the biblical canon has changed considerably over the years and was absolutely NOT finalized 1800 years ago or anything close to that.
In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
The Bible as we know it did not just come to us signed, sealed and delivered. Apparently God changed His mind numerous times over the years with respect to the books He wanted to have included.
Quote:
As far as the Mormons. Talk to a Mormon and they will tell you that the Bible is not the complete story of Jesus Christ. Apparently the founders of the Mormons needed more than what the Bible says.
You're telling me to talk to a Mormon. I've been one for 67 years. I think my knowledge of Mormonism exceeds yours by just a bit. I'd suggest you stick to describing what you believe and let other people have the floor when it comes to describing what they believe. That way you'll make a lot fewer mistakes.
Of course, universal salvation is assured because WE have nothing to do with it. Jesus did what was needed. Why is this so hard to understand? It is the Churches that have added things that WE must do to be saved including being a member of their Church and believing what they do! How is that having faith in Jesus that He did what He said He did????
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.
.
Universal salvation assured
