09 Nov 08
Originally posted by black beetleDon't you really see that your theology is discriminative?
Don't you really understand that your "God" is different than Allah and Krishna and Brachmin etc, but that still a Hindu or a Muslim can claim exactly what you claim although he is not a "truly born by God" Christian whilst still he is a human of righteousness according to his religion? Which logical and philosophical means can you use in order to prove ...[text shortened]... pure righteousness?
Don't you really see that your theology is discriminative?
--beetle-----
It depends what you mean by discrimination. If discrimination means that one believes X to be true and Y not to be true then yes I am being discriminative.
It's fairly clear that everyone sees the world in a certain way and we all have differing world views. We then take that world view and incoprporate others world views into our world view. A psychologist goes to a evangelical meeting and incorporates what he sees as not the activity of the Holy Spirit but as emotional hysteria of some kind. That's his world view and he's entitled to it. It's not discrimination unless he is offensive about it or denies the worshippers their right to believe.
Right now , you have a world view on my beliefs and you are incorporating what you are saying into your world view and saying I am being discriminative. I am not offended by this I just think you are mistaken. However, by your own logic you must be discriminating against me because you believe something different from me.
I believe in God and I believe he's active everywhere amongst atheist , hindu , jew etc. It would be silly of me not to believe this. If I didn't you might accuse me of being inconsistent.
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasno eternal punishment remains your fallacy, you really should do some research before belittling what you do not understand, ok, ill do it for you. 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 needles and branches, therefore while the sheep go off to receive everlasting life, the unrepentant goats suffer 'eternal punishment', in that they are simply cut off from life as indicated by the true meaning of the Greek word. you really should do your homework before coming to the forum with them Babylonian assertions!
Obviously, Jesus used Gehenna figuratively. Thanks for the history lesson, but it did nothing to bolster your claim.
Eternal punishment remains a biblical truth. Matthew 25:46: "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment." Rev. 14:11: "The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night."
I've studie ...[text shortened]... theological data weigh strongly on the side of eternal conscious punishment of the wicked.
09 Nov 08
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobert, the last time you and I debated this point, frankly, you left many points with no refutation. Then you left the forum for a time saying that you had no time to engage.
no eternal punishment remains your fallacy, you really should do some research before belittling what you do not understand, ok, ill do it for you. 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 needles and branches, ther ally should do your homework before coming to the forum with them Babylonian assertions!
Please don't think that I didn't notice or forgot. It might appear that you broke off the discussion in a huff because you could not refute what I wrote.
Now you may write these kinds of things to epi, but you really haven't impressed me that you were able to refute the biblical teaching of eternal perdition.
So my question is, are you here to stay and stick it out this time ?
Hint - If you think that some of us have not thoroughly studied the subject, you are wrong. My first friendly suggestion is that you not assume that no one else has really delved into the matter.
It matters to me too, to really believe what is right to believe, without preference.
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by jaywillok jaywill, at the time of our 'debate', i was playing games in the Scotland league on this site which are still ongoing, i have games on other sites, chessworld.net and chesshere.com where i am currently engaged in a tournament playing 22 boards at the one time, some against players rated 2100+, this takes time, effort and an immense amount of reading and preparation, looking at their games, seeing how they like to play, formulating opening plans and long term strategy etc etc. and now, did i not tell you that i was back on this forum and happy to see hear from you, so please, enough of these personal accusations of and insinuations of 'running way', love believes all things jaywill, the meaning of which is that we should impute good motives to others regardless of whether we believe what they say or otherwise, and let us get one thing quite clear, i do not post anything to impress you or anyone else, if you are in disagreement then where is the refutation for as far as i can discern everything i have stated is founded on research and an objective approach, looking at the immediate context and in the context of the entire biblical cannon, with reference to the original languages, with i may hasten to add, reasonable and logical assertions. where i am unsure i have the honesty to say so, where i believe there is gross error have i not the right to point it out? also i have a family to look after, i need to work, hard work jaywill, not inside but outside, against the elements of nature jaywill, Scotland, not a thousand miles from the arctic circle my friend, so please no more accusations of evasion or anything else, i am a human being not a machine! my main failing is that i can get personally involved when in fact the debate has little to do with me personally, but i cannot abide persons slandering the reputation of a loving, just and beneficent creator with ideas and teachings that are essentially alien to his revealed personality in the word of god, not to mention textually inaccurate, so if you disagree with the points i am making let these be heard, for there is nothing more potent than the truth!
Robert, the last time you and I debated this point, frankly, you left many points with no refutation. Then you left the forum for a time saying that you had [b]no time to engage.
Please don't think that I didn't notice or forgot. It might appear that you broke off the discussion in a huff because you could not refute what I wrote.
Now you may wr ...[text shortened]... er.
It matters to me too, to really believe what is right to believe, without preference.[/b]
09 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Greek word used in Matthew 25:46 isn't "kolasin", but kolasis. In fact, I'm not even sure "kolasin" is proper Koine Greek. Regardless, kolasis is not translated, "checking the growth of trees," as you claim. It's correct translation is unquestionably, "punishment." Every instance of its use in the NT is translated, "punishment," as well. Kolasis, unlike many Greek words, doesn't have a large set of possible meanings. The Strong's Concordance entry for kolasis is simply, "penal infliction." The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon definition is equally stark: "correction, punishment, penalty."
no eternal punishment remains your fallacy, you really should do some research before belittling what you do not understand, ok, ill do it for you. 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 needles and branches, ther ally should do your homework before coming to the forum with them Babylonian assertions!
Your purposeful mistranslation of kolasis is almost as audacious as Rajk999's claim that pisteuo ("to have faith" ) is properly translated, "obey."
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasis there no lenghths that you will go to to try to justify your babylonish teaching, for your information and education,
The Greek word used in Matthew 25:46 isn't "kolasin", but kolasis. In fact, I'm not even sure "kolasin" is proper Koine Greek. Regardless, kolasis is not translated, "checking the growth of trees," as you claim. It's correct translation is unquestionably, "punishment." Every instance of its use in the NT is translated, "punishment," as ...[text shortened]... m that pisteuo ("to have faith" ) is properly translated, "obey."
The Greek form for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is "kolasin aionion." Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bare more fruit." "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion," in the singular form and means "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time." (Note: the two words in many, not all translations become reversed changing the Greek into English.)
is it not amazing how you miss out this latter part of the meaning of the term, why, because it exposes the error of your indoctrination,
source http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/EternalPunishmentNotTrueToGreek.html
please you is gonna have to do better than hide behind an erroneous translation to prove that god, who is the very epitome of love, would have individuals tormented in burning fire, eternally, a thought that i have already shown, biblicaly was a practice of the apostate Jews and has never even entered into Gods heart, 0-1 - regards robbie.
09 Nov 08
if i may reproduce the whole article for your perusal and enlightenment
"Eternal" Punishment (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language.
By Tony Nungesser and Gary Amirault
The entire concept of eternal or everlasting punishment hinges primarily on a single verse of Scripture--Matthew 25:46. This is the only place in the entire Bible where we find these two words together AND only in some Bibles. There are over a dozen English translations which do NOT contain the concept of "eternal punishment" on ANY of their pages, NOR the pagan concept of Hell.
The Greek form for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is "kolasin aionion." Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bare more fruit." "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion," in the singular form and means "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time." (Note: the two words in many, not all translations become reversed changing the Greek into English.)
"Aionion," as shown above, is the singular form of the adjective of the Greek noun "aion." Many people unfamiliar with the Greek do not realize that the endings of the same word change (inflection) to indicate its mood, case, gender, etc. Therefore, "aionion" may appear with different endings. "Aionion, aioniou, aionios," for example, are all different inflections of the adjective form of the noun "aion."
The noun "aion" in Greek literature has always meant "an indeterminate period of time. It could be as short as the time Jonah spent in the belly of a fish (three days or nights), the length of a man's life, or as long as a very long age.
The Bible speaks of at least 5 "aions" and perhaps many more. If there were "aions" in the past. This must mean that each one of them have ended for they are now past! The New Testament writers spoke of "the present wicked aion" which ended during that very generation. Obviously, it was followed by another "aion"-- the "aion" in which we presently live. If there are "aions" to come, it must mean that this one we live in will also end.
There is a verse which says "the consummation of the aions" showing that each "aion" ends. So how can they be eternal?
There is "the coming eon" (Matt.10:30, Luke 18:30
There is "the present wicked eon" (Gal.1:4)
There is "the oncoming eons (future)(Eph.2:7)
There is "the conclusion of the eon (present) (Mt.13:39,40)
There is "the secret concealed from the eons (past) (Eph.3:9)
Plainly, the Greek word "aion" transliterated "eon" cannot mean "eternal." A study into the Greek of the Biblical period and before will bear this out.
"Aionion" is the adjective of the noun "aion."
Since grammar rules mandate an adjective CANNOT take on a greater force than its noun form, it is evident that "aionion" in any of its adjective forms (ios, ou, on) CANNOT possible mean "everlasting" or anything remotely indicating eternity or unending time.
For example, "hourly" cannot mean "pertaining to days, weeks, months, or years. The word MUST mean "pertaining to an hour." Therefore, "aionion," the adjective form of the noun "aion" which clearly means a period of indeterminate TIME, CANNOT mean, "forever and ever, eternal, everlasting, eternity, etc) or other words which connote timelessness or unending ages.
Therefore, those many Bibles which do NOT contain the teaching of everlasting punishment or Hell are true to the original languages of Greek and Hebrew and those which teach everlasting punishment or Hell are false. Scholars are just as easily subjected to the "traditions of the elders" as the rest of us. It's time to let the original Greek and Hebrew languages of the Bible break down the traditions of men. For a list of the many English translations of the Bible that do NOT contain these pagan concepts and for an article explaining why the punishment in Matthew 25:46 does NOT have to be the same length as the life spoken of in that verse, write to us (Tentmaker--118 Walnut--Hermann, MO 65041) and ask for:
Matthew 25:46 Commentary
No-Hell Bibles
you may wish to write to them and get yourself a no hell bible, lol - regards Robbie.
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by NemesioRelative to God, we are not merely children; we are infants. What anyone claims
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Thus sin is a human being saying, "God, go away and leave me alone," and hell is God finally saying, in effect, "All right, you shall have what you wish," and in the final analysis it is not God who sends individuals to hell, but those persons themselves.
Today, I was working in my wood shop with my nearly-5 ...[text shortened]... and attendant
torture?'
Do you not see the problem with this?
Nemesio[/b]
to know of God is an infinitesimal portion of what Revelation might exist.
I'm not sure I accept this argument. Relative to God, everything is insignificant. It does not necessarily follow that because we are insignificant in every way to God that we are also incapable of taking personal responsibility for our actions. We may be "infants" relative to God, but we do not have an infant's capacity for deliberation. A normal adult is capable of accepting or rejecting the overtures of God, which is evident throughout the Bible. God's love and mercy are poured out through Jesus Christ, and all who believe in Him receive God's love and mercy, but the Bible reveals that outside of Christ there is no love or mercy, only wrath. Our ways of interacting with our children and our children with us do not necessarily predict the way God deals with unrepentant sinners. If we could draw only correct inferences from human parent-child relationships, then what need would we have for the revelation of God's word?
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow I get it: you're a universalist. In that case, perhaps you will accept the words of the universalist, John A. T. Robinson, regarding the term aionios in Matthew 25:46:
is there no lenghths that you will go to to try to justify your babylonish teaching, for your information and education,
The Greek form for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is "kolasin aionion." Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in prunin ...[text shortened]... the apostate Jews and has never even entered into Gods heart, 0-1 - regards robbie.
"The genuine universalist will base nothing on the fact (which is a fact) that the New Testament word for eternal (aionios) does not necessarily mean everlasting, but enduring only for an indefinitely long period. For he can apply this signification to "eternal punishment" in Matt 25:46 only if he is willing to give exactly the same sense to "eternal life" in the same verse . As F. D. Maurice said many years ago now, writing to F. J. A. Hort: "I did not see how aionios could mean one thing when it was joined with kolasis and another when it was joined with zoe" (quoted, J. O. F. Murray, The Goodness and Severity of God, p. 195). To admit that the two phrases are not parallel is at once to treat them with unequal seriousness. And that a true universalism must refuse to do."
09 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasno, i am a human being and like to be regarded as such, for example if my son were to commit a mistake because he is imperfect and therefore prone to making mistakes, would i reach out and put his hand in burning fire every time that he made a mistake?, would you? even after correction because of his imperfect state would i say, oh, i gave you correction time and again, this time i am going to put not just your hand, but your whole body in the fire to burn, but i am imperfect he would cry, yes i know but don't you realize i am just, but where is the justice in that daddy, well ummm, er never mind, but wont i just burn up and be annihilated daddy, no because i am going to make sure that you stay alive every time you burn up, because you were imperfect and made lots of mistakes!
Now I get it: you're a universalist. In that case, perhaps you will accept the words of the universalist, John A. T. Robinson, regarding the term aionios in Matthew 25:46:
"The genuine universalist will base nothing on the fact (which is a fact) that the New Testament word for eternal (aionios) does not necessarily mean everlasting, but o treat them with unequal seriousness. And that a true universalism must refuse to do."
this is what you are saying, think about it, would you do it to your son, no, then why would god who has such loftier qualities and attributes than any mere human consider it?
as to your argument regarding universalism, its just duck season, rabbit season, duck season, rabbit season!
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOur ways of interacting with our children and our children with us do not necessarily predict the way God deals with unrepentant sinners. If we could draw only correct inferences from human parent-child relationships, then what need would we have for the revelation of God's word? Having failed substantiating your case with scripture, you appeal instead to emotion. Is this usually how you approach serious theological issues?
no, i am a human being and like to be regarded as such, for example if my son were to commit a mistake because he is imperfect and therefore prone to making mistakes, would i reach out and put his hand in burning fire every time that he made a mistake?, would you? even after correction because of his imperfect state would i say, oh, i gave you correc ...[text shortened]... gument regarding universalism, its just duck season, rabbit season, duck season, rabbit season!
09 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehason the contrary i have not failed, i simply tried to appeal to your human nature, it seems this was a mistake, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness are alien concepts, no matter life goes on, on the contrary it is you on the other hand who have failed quite miserably to produce any evidence for your erroneous assertions, and of the scant and quite clearly mistaken views you hold are evidence as to your lack of the aforementioned concepts, because it is generally held that a person reflects the god that they worship, and yours is obviously quite vindictive and cruel! is it any wonder that you are of the same ilk?
Our ways of interacting with our children and our children with us do not necessarily predict the way God deals with unrepentant sinners. If we could draw only correct inferences from human parent-child relationships, then what need would we have for the revelation of God's word? Having failed substantiating your case with scripture, you appeal instead to emotion. Is this usually how you approach serious theological issues?
09 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAlright, alight, I'm sorry.
ok jaywill, at the time of our 'debate', i was playing games in the Scotland league on this site which are still ongoing, i have games on other sites, chessworld.net and chesshere.com where i am currently engaged in a tournament playing 22 boards at the one time, some against players rated 2100+, this takes time, effort and an immense amount of readi the points i am making let these be heard, for there is nothing more potent than the truth!
I said it had the appearance of bailing out.
Only do me this favor, as you talk to others, for example Epi, remember your own advice about assuming motives. Fair enough ?
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by jaywillthanks jaywill, yes i will try to remember, although you know i can be very cutting and at worst blunt. i am working on this, believe me, but it takes time, so your patience really is much appreciated - regards Robert.
Alright, alight, I'm sorry.
I said it had the appearance of bailing out.
Only do me this favor, as you talk to others, for example Epi, remember your own advice about assuming motives. Fair enough ?
09 Nov 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasactually in retrospect this also is quite erroneous, because it is not the time period that quantifies or gives characteristics to the translation but the nouns which they accompany, thus the argument is fallacious on this basis.
Now I get it: you're a universalist. In that case, perhaps you will accept the words of the universalist, John A. T. Robinson, regarding the term aionios in Matthew 25:46:
"The genuine universalist will base nothing on the fact (which is a fact) that the New Testament word for eternal (aionios) does not necessarily mean everlasting, but ...[text shortened]... o treat them with unequal seriousness. And that a true universalism must refuse to do."
for example whether it refers to everlasting or for an indefinite period is neither here nor there in this context, the argument is not about time, its about the nature of the translation, and as we have clearly stated it is not punishment but cutting off, as the same with life. the noun is what qualifies the translation not the time period, therefore it is very plausible to maintain that everlasting LIFE, is not only possible but an acceptable translation, but also that eternal 'punishment,' or everlasting cutting off as we have clearly demonstrated is also very plausible, so the idea that to deny one is to deny the other is mince, pure and utter unadulterated mince!