2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo how are they going to circumvent Matthew 25:46?
The Roman Catholic Church is preparing a document in which will be stated that we, as Christians, can live in the hope that hell is and will be empty.
"And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46).
In both cases, referring to both hell and heaven, Jesus uses the word, aionios. If hell will eventually be empty, as the RCC wants to be able to say, then aionios would have to be translated "temporary" rather than "everlasting." However, if aionios were translated "temporary," then the life which Jesus gives the faithful would also have to be considered "temporary" rather than "eternal." That is, if hell is temporary, then heaven would have to be temporary, too.
So what happens to those in hell after their time is up? Do they go to heaven? If they go to heaven, then where do they go after their time is up there? You see, attempting to prove an empty hell introduces irreconcilable absurdities.
The correct interpretation of aionios is "everlasting" and "eternal." Hell is everlasting, and life in heaven is eternal, just as Christ describes.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasDo you believe that Matthew 25:46 is correct?
So how are they going to circumvent Matthew 25:46?
"And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46).
In both cases, referring to both hell and heaven, Jesus uses the word, aionios. If hell will eventually be empty, as the RCC wants to be able to say, then aionios would have to be " Hell is everlasting, and life in heaven is eternal, just as Christ describes.
How can a loving god, the God of Good, be compatible with everlasting Hell. Who created Hell, God?
Originally posted by telerionWhat is so funny?
[b]If you are concerned about evidence, there is more than sufficient evidence of the reliability of the Bible if you'll just do your research. Read the book (or watch the documentary based on the book), The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.[/b]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!![/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe(Gives a pump of his arm: "Yes!" )
The Roman Catholic Church is preparing a document in which will be stated that we, as Christians, can live in the hope that hell is and will be empty.
Well, this view has never really been entirely absent from the RCC, has it? If I recall, both Rahner and von Balthazar held views similar to St. Gregory of Nyssa. (There’s a book by a professor of patristics at Oxford on Nyssa and Rahner that I’d like to read; but it’s has thus far been prohibitively expense. 🙁 )
It’s just that, if I recall from my discussions with lucifershammer, you guys like to have your doctrine on such matters a bit more nailed down than the Orthodox... 😉
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou are a tough client. I am sure you have read enough about Rhetoric and Argumentation.
[b]If only the time here on Earth matters for achieving Heaven, God is extremely cruel by letting some good people going to Hell just because they weren't willing to obey towards such few evidence. Either way, God would be a dictator, playing with us. "Join me or you will suffer for ever".
It's easy to understand your distaste for God's plan, your ...[text shortened]... watch the documentary based on the book), The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.[/b]
But I already see where the problem comes from. You actually believe the Bible to be true. (Maybe I should write "True"😉.
But OK... Let's assume for now the Bible is actually 100% correct.
1) God is holy... You must be obedient, or else be cast of his presence i.e, go to Hell.
So... we really don't have an option. Or we abide by God's will, or we go to the most horrific of places. Where's the free will here? That's an ultra-fascist regime with a sole dictator. Where's free thinking and free will here, I ask again?
Your salvation is to forget all our principles and follow god's will, by our own free will??? We have the free will to follow God's will or go to Hell?
Then God says, I love you all, so I let you have the free will to join me or as an alternative go to Hell? Is this love or coercion????
I think you'd be better to say the Bible isn't that right... but that is another thread. You say "most authenticated" ???? By whom? Don't tell me you are one of those who believe earth is 6k yrs old and dinosaurs walked with men. You'll lose all my respect.
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe correct interpretation of aionios is "everlasting" and "eternal." Hell is everlasting, and life in heaven is eternal, just as Christ describes.
So how are they going to circumvent Matthew 25:46?
"And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46).
In both cases, referring to both hell and heaven, Jesus uses the word, aionios. If hell will eventually be empty, as the RCC wants to be able to say, then aionios would have to be ...[text shortened]... " Hell is everlasting, and life in heaven is eternal, just as Christ describes.
That is not always the correct interpretation. (But I’ll have to refer back to our great debate, to see what we both said about this particular passage.)
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionAnalogy
[b]If you are concerned about evidence, there is more than sufficient evidence of the reliability of the Bible if you'll just do your research. Read the book (or watch the documentary based on the book), The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.[/b]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!![/b]
-----------------------
Lee Strobel : "Reliability" of the Bible :: Star Trek : Existence of Alien Life.
Originally posted by telerionThere can't be two truths. One of us must be wrong. (me or epiph). If he finds that guy convincing there must be a good reason. If it's not good, it must be unveiled. Until arguments are posed and debated one must assume the other side's opinion can be right. Even if they look ridiculous.
[b]You are a tough client. I am sure you have read enough about Rhetoric and Argumentation.
Don't give him too much credit. He finds Lee Strobel convincing.[/b]
Well, of course you know this. I simply woke up with lots of patience today and I'm trying to save someone.
And I found Star Trek convincing!! At least up to 9 yrs old.
Originally posted by serigadoStar Trek WAS convincing!! "Non sequitor! Non sequitor! Sterilize"---Nomad🙂
There can't be two truths. One of us must be wrong. (me or epiph). If he finds that guy convincing there must be a good reason. If it's not good, it must be unveiled. Until arguments are posed and debated one must assume the other side's opinion can be right. Even if they look ridiculous.
Well, of course you know this. I simply woke up with lots of patienc ...[text shortened]... nd I'm trying to save someone.
And I found Star Trek convincing!! At least up to 9 yrs old.
It is your prerogative to dismiss the God of the Bible, but you should at least do so based on an accurate reading. The Bible is the most authenticated, verified document out of antiquity in the entire world. If you are concerned about evidence, there is more than sufficient evidence of the reliability of the Bible if you'll just do your research. Read the book (or watch the documentary based on the book), The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.ok... saw some videos from the strobel guy (not the case for christ). The guy should be arrested for manipulating information that way. It does so in an intelligent way, and a normal guy who doesn't deeply understand the assumptions he's making is easily convinced by that line of argumentation. The guy is manipulative and is distorting what other people said to suit his line of argumentation. It's absolutely sick the way he convinces people.