15 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipThis is the first time I have asked this question. I am absolutely sure this is the case as I have only just come across mention of the 1215 adoption of the doctrine of eternal torment. I had thought prior to this that eternal torment, damnation etc. was part of christian doctrine from the get go. Apparently not.
I will have to write something latter.
However, I have been participating on this Forum for about (I think) maybe six years.
It is a matter of coming round and round and round again to many of the same subjects. I know new people come aboard and see debates and explanations for the first time.
For me, this is maybe the third iteration of discussi ...[text shortened]... r, so I am more vigilant to address objections usually.
I'll respond latter for your sake.
I am interested to know on what you base your claim that eternal torment is scriptural. It seems the christian church took over one thousand years to come to the same conclusion. Why would that be so?
For clarity: I am not asking because I believe or because I wish to make some point for or against the christian faith. I have a historical interest in the matter and am wondering if this is similar to the catholic ban on priests marrying. The ban was backed up by scripture but was introduced to prevent church property passing to the heirs of priests.
15 May 13
2 edits
Originally posted by KeplerIf i may interlope,
This is the first time I have asked this question. I am absolutely sure this is the case as I have only just come across mention of the 1215 adoption of the doctrine of eternal torment. I had thought prior to this that eternal torment, damnation etc. was part of christian doctrine from the get go. Apparently not.
I am interested to know on what you base yo ...[text shortened]... d up by scripture but was introduced to prevent church property passing to the heirs of priests.
(Matthew 25:41-46) “Then he will say, in turn, to those on his left, ‘Be on your way from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. For I became hungry, but you gave me nothing to eat, and I got thirsty, but you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger, but you did not receive me hospitably; naked, but you did not clothe me; sick and in prison, but you did not look after me.’ Then they also will answer with the words, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them with the words, ‘Truly I say to you, To the extent that you did not do it to one of these least ones, you did not do it to me.’ And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.” NWT
please note how this last verse is translated , elsewhere.
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” - NIV
And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life. - ASV
And these shall go away into eternal punishment, and the righteous into life eternal. - Darby
Now the discerning reader must ask, why the difference? In verse 41 we read that the fire is prepared for the Devil and his cohorts. Is it possible to burn a spiritual entity like the devil in a literal fire? hardly, therefore , Christ was using the term fire, symbolically. As a symbol of destruction. Certainly the sheep and the goats that are mentioned in the same discourse are also not literally sheep and goats but represent types of people.
Although most translations use the word “punishment” at Matthew 25:46, the basic meaning of the Greek word kolasin is “checking the growth of trees,” or pruning, cutting off needless branches. So while the sheeplike ones receive everlasting life, the unrepentant goatlike ones suffer “eternal punishment,” being forever cut off from life.
This is why the superlative New World Translation of the Holy scriptures accurately renders the term, cutting off. This is in harmony with the context, the original language as well as the rest of the Bible.
15 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipIt seems you have thought deeply on this subject. One that has troubled me.
When Jesus was rejected by one of the cities in which he preached, two of His disciples asked Him to draw fire down from heaven and burn them up.
Jesus rebuked them.
[b]"And as the days were being fulfilled for Him to be taken up, He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem.
And He sent messengers before His face. And they went and entered into ...[text shortened]... ning it which is of the same spirit as that of Jesus, which calls for no rebuke from Him.
My thinking goes.
1. God is a god of love - a love more deep and powerful than any we can know.
2. I am a human being - with faults and sins.
3. I have daughters and I love them to the best of my (human) limited capacity.
4. If they *really* upset me (murdered their mother etc.) I still would not want them to have *eternal* punishment.
5. How, then can God want eternal punishment for us if we sin?
Go figure!
15 May 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobIn the extant Greek is correct, but that is not to say it was not there originally. You must of course realise that there are hundreds of direct and indirect quotations in the Greek scriptures taken directly for the Hebrew scriptures where the name does occur, we make no apology for restoring it!
A bit like the insertion of the word Jehovah into the NWT even though it doesn't appear in the extant Greek manuscripts? 🙂
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 May 13
3 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfie
no worries, totally understand. im just looking for anything mildly interesting so i can avoid doing a maths paper. im down to two options now. do the paper or hassle robbie about vagina's.......mmnnn decisions,decisions.
no worries, totally understand. im just looking for anything mildly interesting so i can avoid doing a maths paper. im down to two options now. do the paper or hassle robbie about vagina's.......mmnnn decisions,decisions.
What kind of person do you think I am that I want to hear you gossip in this way ?
I don't want to spend time tickling your ears with the word of God just because your little smutty conversation is on hold for the moment. Your best bet is to get to your math.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 May 13
4 edits
4. If they *really* upset me (murdered their mother etc.) I still would not want them to have *eternal* punishment.
5. How, then can God want eternal punishment for us if we sin?
I think the eternal punishment is due to the fact that the one rejecting Christ's salvation is fixed in a sinful character. He has refused Justification and forfeited Sanctification as a possibility therefore. That character will continue to sin in its blasphemies, curses, hatreds of God when they are judged.
It is not only the deeds which God judges but the character that has not undergone sanctification.
Here we see not only the fruit come under judgment but the tree which bore the fruit as well -
"And already the axe is laid at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not produce good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire." (Matt. 3:10)
As you can see the character which brought forth the deeds is under judgment - the tree along with its fruit. We really need to be saved then. Thank God for the Lord Jesus the Savior.
I repost the statement by Govette:
"There cannot be eternal suffering,' you say. Will there not be eternal sinning among the lost ? Is God obliged to stay the endless flow of sin from the lips and acts of the lost ? 'You admit then, that it would be unjust in God to inflict eternal suffering solely because of men's past acts on earth.' By no means ! I account sin infinite.
Revelation 21:8 - For without [the city of New Jerusalem] are the dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loves and makes a lie"
Thus the root of the lost sinner's misery is the opposition of nature between himself and God. Jehovah is holy, just and good. The lost is unholy, unjust, selfish. Now this holy character of God abides unchangeably. So does the sinner's own character of evil. He hates God even in this world, while surrounded by so many blessings. How much more will he, when the terrors of God's indignation are assailing him !
The heart of nature is an eternal source of sin:
Genesis 6:5, 8:21; Matthew 15:19; James 3:8-12
Without justification by faith and sanctification unto transformation we remain at enmity with God. And here then, is an everlasting reason for punishment.
In short, the lost are doubly condemned; for acts against the law of God and their own conscience; and because their characters are always full of sin. The wicked are condemned because of their acts and character jointly. They are punished for their evil nature as children of the devil, being tares and not wheat; and their acts as "doers of iniquity: " (Matthew 13:38,41).
So salvation is seriously needed both in justification - forgiveness of past offenses and sanctification to conform us to the image of Christ in eternity that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers (Rom. 8:28,29):
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
15 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipwhat gossip? what smut? does the word vagina offend you? if i had said i was going to bother robbie about feet would that be okay?no worries, totally understand. im just looking for anything mildly interesting so i can avoid doing a maths paper. im down to two options now. do the paper or hassle robbie about vagina's.......mmnnn decisions,decisions.
What kind of person do you think I am that I want to hear you gossip in this way ?
I don't want to spend time t ...[text shortened]... ur little smutty conversation is on hold for the moment. Your best bet is to get to your math.
15 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDon't you mean that you make no apology
In the extant Greek is correct, but that is not to say it was not there originally. You must of course realise that there are hundreds of direct and indirect quotations in the Greek scriptures taken directly for the Hebrew scriptures where the name does occur, we make no apology for restoring it!
for making it up in the first place?
The name of God has been written as YAHWEH
not Jehovah.
15 May 13
3 edits
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyNow Long Jonny, i have cut you not a little slack on this forum on account of our shared heritage, but this assertion amounts to amazing arrogance. The name Jehovah has been around for hundreds of years, its in the King James version of the Bible, compiled in the middle Ages.
Don't you mean that you make no apology
for making it up in the first place?
The name of God has been written as YAHWEH
not Jehovah.
In 1278 a spanish monk, Raymundo Martini, wrote the latin work PUGIO FIDEI (Dagger of faith). In it he used the name of God, spelling it Yohoua. Later printings of this work, dated some centuries later, used the spelling JEHOVA.
Soon after, in 1303, Porchetus de Salvaticis completed a work entitled VICTORIA PORCHETI AVERSUS IMPIOS HEBRAEOS (Porchetus' Victory Against the Ungodly Hebrews). He spells God's name IOHOUAH, IOHOUA and IHOUAH.
Then, in 1518, Petrus Galatinus, a Catholic priest born in the late 1400's, published a work entitled DE ARCANIS CATHOLICAE VERITATIS (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth) in which he spelled God's name IEHOUA.
Now, the direct answer to your question: the name "Jehovah" first appeared in an English BIBLE in 1530, when William Tyndale published a translation of the Chumash (the first five books of the Bible). In this, he included the name of God, usually spelled IEHOUAH, in several verses (Genesis 15:2; Exodus 6:3; 15:3; 17:6; 23:17; 33:19; 34:23; Deuteronomy 3:24. Tyndale also included God's name in Ezekiel 18:23 and 36:23 in his translations that were added at the end of THE NEW TESTAMENT, Antwerp, 1534), and in a note in this editon he wrote: "Iehovah is God's name... moreover as oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) is is in Hebrew Iehovah." (Please note as I told you previously, there was no "J" in English at this time; the J is a product of a stylized I; thus giving us the current Jehovah rather than the Old English Iehovah. The "u" used in the above names is also a reminder that there was no "v" in Old English, as you can read David in the original King James version was written "Dauid".)
In 1534 Martin Luther published his complete translation of the Bible in German, based on the original languages. While he used the German "Herr" (Lord or Sir) for the Tetragrammaton, in a sermon which he delivered in 1526 on Jeremiah 23:1-8, he said, "The name Jehovah, Lord, belongs exclusively to the true God."
Subsequently, Jehovah was used not only in the "Authorized" King James version of 1611, but the Spanish VALERA version of 1602, the Portugese ALMEIDA version of 1681, the German ELBERFELDER version of 1871, and the American Standard Version of 1901. It appears that the Jerusalem Bible was the first one to have used Yahweh instead of Lord and Jehovah.
http://www.yhwh.com/jehovah.htm
Forms of the divine name in different languages, indicating international acceptance of the form Jehovah
Awabakal - Yehóa
Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah
Danish - Jehova
Dutch - Jehovah
Efik - Jehovah
English - Jehovah
Fijian - Jiova
Finnish - Jehova
French - Jéhovah
Futuna - Ihova
German - Jehova
Hungarian - Jehova
Igbo - Jehova
Italian - Geova
Japanese - Ehoba
Maori - Ihowa
Motu - Iehova
Mwala-Malu - Jihova
Narrinyeri - Jehovah
Nembe - Jihova
Petats - Jihouva
Polish - Jehowa
Portuguese - Jeová
Romanian - Iehova
Samoan - Ieova
Sotho - Jehova
Spanish - Jehová
Swahili - Yehova
Swedish - Jehova
Tahitian - Iehova
Tagalog - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova
Venda - Yehova
Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah
Zulu - uJehova
No you will tell the forum where we, that is Jehovahs witnesses have made up this name? Or will you do as you have done elsewhere, completely ignore the empirical evidence and continue to issue forth insults, erroneous reasoning and unsubstantiated opinions masquerading as fact?
The fact of the matter is Long Johnny, the actual pronunciation has been lost and we have simply used the internationally accepted form, which we did not make up.
15 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow do you know it is not simply a corruption
Now Long Jonny, i have cut you not a little slack on this forum on account of our shared heritage, but this assertion amounts to amazing arrogance. The name Jehovah has been around for hundreds of years, its in the King James version of the Bible, compiled in the middle Ages.
In 1278 a spanish monk, Raymundo Martini, wrote the latin work PUGIO FID ...[text shortened]... , erroneous reasoning and unsubstantiated opinions masquerading as fact?
of the name YAHWEH?
15 May 13
2 edits
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyI have already told you no one knows how the divine name was originally pronounced. Modern English is not ancient Hebrew, different languages have different ways of expressing the exact same name.
How do you know it is not simply a corruption
of the name YAHWEH?