Is universal Salvation possible? Does it make sense?

[achilles12604]

I think that Universal Salvation is possible. However, I do not think it makes an ounce of sense. If someone is in open rebellion to God because he hates him, and his actions cause pain and suffering around him on earth, why should this person be given the opportunity to enter heaven with the same people he hurt on earth?

If a murderer is given the death penalty, and then goes to heaven to be next to his victim, what justice is there in that? Is this Just? If it is NOT just, like I believe it not to be, then what does this say about God who authored this situation? He is not just. If God is not just, then why should I follow him?

[achilles12604]

And this I agree with entirely. However what of the billions of people who die while still rupturing the relationship with God? I never said that people can not be reconciled to God by their own choice. However, once a person is dead, I think that the point of reconciliation is past. They died in their sins. They died still being rebellious.

If a person has the ability to choose, and their very last choice they EVER make is one of rebellion, I do not see how they can be reconciled.

So, you consider it a situation of timing...........if you're on your deathbed, approaching repentance and a change of heart, but....oops! You flat-line!! Too late ? It's all about being a breathing, living being? God can do nothing beyond the beating of one's heart?

I consider it to be a matter of the heart. This also negates death bed conversions. Perhaps you would be interested in knowing my personal views on salvation in depth.

Here

or Here



I have discussed my beliefs on salvation in great depth.

17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Yep, I can see this, but I took the verse to be referring to physical life now - nothing mentioned about the future in my understanding of it. (vs 17 last half)

If this is the case then Paul is a flat out liar. And if Jesus told him to tell us this he too is a liar and a hypocrite.

Do you have any reason to believe that Paul wasn't a liar? Was Muhamud? They received their "enlightenment" in much the same way.

LOL. Once again look Here

I am currently arguing a case against the authority of Paul's writings.

After all Jesus made it very clear to his followers that following him would result in trouble and pain in this life. Not goodness and reigning.

No, I am afraid I do not accept your understanding because it is incorrect (most Christians suffer, they don't reign) and because it contradicts previous teachings by both Paul and Jesus.

What then, if anything, was meant by " "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" ... John. If this was strictly concerning the afterlife, no differentiating of the two would have been necessary, right?
Was this not meant that we could achieve a higher quality of life with Him while we were alive and THEN the promise of more after this?

Having life more abundently is not equavalent in my opinion to having great wealth and reigning (to borrow Paul's word). I think that Mother Theresa had life more abundently despite her sufferings. This is because she, like many others, understands the value and worth of helping others and being a servant.

Realistically having great power or wealth actually makes it impossible to complete this goal and therefore very hard to have life more abundently. It is hard for the wealthy to serve. This should remind you of a parable Jesus said once.

"This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

I can understand how you would read this verse as such. I however read it differently. I accept that God has the ability to save all men. This allows for the verse to be true. However, I do not think that God forces salvation onto all men and this verse doesn't say anything either way about this. But you are entitled to read it however you like.

Can you explain to me how you would read it differently? Your previous thought didn't make it very clear. To me, this has only one sound way of interpretation.........please make clear to me yours. Sorry to be dense. I can only understand what I can. I can clearly see the difference between the two, but to me, the two are STILL there.

9This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

I read it as God can save all men. And some are even who have currently got it and are saved right now.

I would ask however that when you read, you consider 2 things.

1) Who the author is.

2) What else the author has said on the subject and what other authors have also said about it. For each verse you pull like this, many others can be pulled which indicate that hell is a real place of destruction. We haven't even started on my verses yet remember.

Are you speaking of Paul?? This I could agree with. However, I was trying to show how the idea of universal salvation was proven, biblically. If you are not concerned with biblical interpretation,let's move on from there.........

Oh by all means let's use scripture as the basis. However, even if we include the whole bible, which I seriously have reservations about, you must still consider Jesus words vs Pauls. You must consider Paul's words in one place against Paul's words in another. What you can not do is to pick a single verse and attribute it to one author and say "THAT IS HIS POSITION PERIOD" with out considering and accounting for what else the author wrote in other places which could further shape and explain the passage you choose.

One of the best "anti-hell" verses to me is this:
"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. 36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

If He is kind to the "unthankful and evil" (under the umbrella of enemies above) Does kind ever imply eternal suffering?
To me, Jesus is saying basically "look, God is kind to the enemy, so you need to be" and " be merciful to the unthankful and evil, just like God is" Do you understand something different from this verse?

I think that this is good advice for mankind. And I also do not accept eternal suffering so I hope that after this third time that concept is put to bed.

I didn't realize that you did not believe in eternal punishment........, but still, I think the issue is interesting to discuss. Please feel free to move on.....I know you have a lot of issues to comment on. Thanks for a good discussion.

Hmm? Are we done?

[justifyothers]

And this I agree with entirely. However what of the billions of people who die while still rupturing the relationship with God? I never said that people can not be reconciled to God by their own choice. However, once a person is dead, I think that the point of reconciliation is past. They died in their sins. They died still being rebellious.

If a person has the ability to choose, and their very last choice they EVER make is one of rebellion, I do not see how they can be reconciled.

So, you consider it a situation of timing...........if you're on your deathbed, approaching repentance and a change of heart, but....oops! You flat-line!! Too late ? It's all about being a breathing, living being? God can do nothing beyond the beating of one's heart?

I consider it to be a matter of the heart. This also negates death bed conversions. Perhaps you would be interested in knowing my personal views on salvation in depth.

Here

or Here



I have discussed my beliefs on salvation in great depth.

Well, totally my mistake, .........I thought you a slight bit more fundalistic than you are. My gravest apologies consue!!!!
OK - On to the details:

I think we may feel the same regarding "life after death" - it may be there - or it isn't. - but we have serious hope that it is!!

On the writings of Paul - what say you? Inspired ? Or Possibly: he thought he was inspired? His writings do much damage to consistency, no doubt! We've already shown this above in our quotes!


I read your post on this: no need to reply. I understand whre you are coming from.

]

If this is the case then Paul is a flat out liar. And if Jesus told him to tell us this he too is a liar and a hypocrite.

Yep - I guess we have to wonder............did Jesus/Or God, tell him to procede, or was this his own idea? I guess we could look at the like/gospels for that answer.


Do you have any reason to believe that Paul wasn't a liar? Was Muhamad? They received their "enlightenment" in much the same way.

After all Jesus made it very clear to his followers that following him would result in trouble and pain in this life. Not goodness and reigning.

No, I am afraid I do not accept your understanding because it is incorrect (most Christians suffer, they don't reign) and because it contradicts previous teachings by both Paul and Jesus.

What then, if anything, was meant by " "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" ... John. If this was strictly concerning the afterlife, no differentiating of the two would have been necessary, right?
Was this not meant that we could achieve a higher quality of life with Him while we were alive and THEN the promise of more after this?

Having life more abundently is not equavalent in my opinion to having great wealth and reigning (to borrow Paul's word). I think that Mother Theresa had life more abundently despite her sufferings. This is because she, like many others, understands the value and worth of helping others and being a servant.

Well, I never said that, nor insinuated that........to me, life more abundantly means, the life we have here, lived in a freer environment. And the 'more abundantly' part refers to afterlife, if any.

[quote='achilles"]
Realistically having great power or wealth actually makes it impossible to complete this goal and therefore very hard to have life more abundently. It is hard for the wealthy to serve. This should remind you of a parable Jesus said once.

I agree....... Never meant to imply that 'more abundantly' meant wealth: but a richer life in Him.

"This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

I can understand how you would read this verse as such. I however read it differently. I accept that God has the ability to save all men. This allows for the verse to be true. However, I do not think that God forces salvation onto all men and this verse doesn't say anything either way about this. But you are entitled to read it however you like.

Can you explain to me how you would read it differently? Your previous thought didn't make it very clear. To me, this has only one sound way of interpretation.........please make clear to me yours. Sorry to be dense. I can only understand what I can. I can clearly see the difference between the two, but to me, the two are STILL there.

9This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

I read it as God can save all men. And some are even who have currently got it and are saved right now.

I would ask however that when you read, you consider 2 things.

1) Who the author is.

2) What else the author has said on the subject and what other authors have also said about it. For each verse you pull like this, many others can be pulled which indicate that hell is a real place of destruction. We haven't even started on my verses yet remember.

Are you speaking of Paul?? This I could agree with. However, I was trying to show how the idea of universal salvation was proven, biblically. If you are not concerned with biblical interpretation,let's move on from there.........

Oh by all means let's use scripture as the basis. However, even if we include the whole bible, which I seriously have reservations about, you must still consider Jesus words fs Pauls. You must consider Paul's words in one place against Paul's words in another. What you can not do is to pick a single verse and attribute it to one author and say "THAT IS HIS POSITION PERIOD" with out considering and accounting for what else the author wrote in other places which could further shape and explain the passage you choose.

One of the best "anti-hell" verses to me is this:
"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. 36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

If He is kind to the "unthankful and evil" (under the umbrella of enemies above) Does kind ever imply eternal suffering?
To me, Jesus is saying basically "look, God is kind to the enemy, so you need to be" and " be merciful to the unthankful and evil, just like God is" Do you understand something different from this verse?

I think that this is good advice for mankind. And I also do not accept eternal suffering so I hope that after this third time that concept is put to bed.

I didn't realize that you did not believe in eternal punishment........, but still, I think the issue is interesting to discuss. Please feel free to move on.....I know you have a lot of issues to comment on. Thanks for a good discussion.

Agreed concerning Jesus' words VS. Paul's. No problem there. And I w ould like to begin to include OT scripture that seems to refute "everlasting punishment."

[achilles12604]

Agreed concerning Jesus' words VS. Paul's. No problem there. And I w ould like to begin to include OT scripture that seems to refute "everlasting punishment."

for the sake of excercise go for it.

[justifyothers]

Agreed concerning Jesus' words VS. Paul's. No problem there. And I w ould like to begin to include OT scripture that seems to refute "everlasting punishment."

for the sake of excercise go for it.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/149.htm

[achilles12604]

Agreed concerning Jesus' words VS. Paul's. No problem there. And I w ould like to begin to include OT scripture that seems to refute "everlasting punishment."

for the sake of excercise go for it.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/149.htm

What about Gehenna

[Goat]

Agreed concerning Jesus' words VS. Paul's. No problem there. And I w ould like to begin to include OT scripture that seems to refute "everlasting punishment."

for the sake of excercise go for it.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/149.htm

What about Gehenna

The concept that Gehenna is the Jewish hell/purgatory is 12th century, and comes from the Zohar. The majority (not all) think it will be no longer than 12 months (not eternity).

Biblically, it was a place that was considered an abomination because some Jewish people sacrificed their kids there (it was a real valley), and it later became a trash heap for Jerusalem . In other words, it was a real place, and did not refer to where the souls of the dead went for 'purification'. The association started around
the temple period, but it isn't 'biblical' per say, but more figurative.

[achilles12604]

Agreed concerning Jesus' words VS. Paul's. No problem there. And I w ould like to begin to include OT scripture that seems to refute "everlasting punishment."

for the sake of excercise go for it.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/149.htm

What about Gehenna

The concept that Gehenna is the Jewish hell/purgatory is 12th century, and comes from the Zohar. The majority (not all) think it will be no longer than 12 months (not eternity).

Biblically, it was a place that was considered an abomination because some Jewish people sacrificed their kids there (it was a real valley), and it later became a trash heap for Jerusalem . In other words, it was a real place, and did not refer to where the souls of the dead went for 'purification'. The association started around
the temple period, but it isn't 'biblical' per say, but more figurative.

What you said disagrees with the vast majority of the link I provided.

The concept that Gehenna is the Jewish hell/purgatory is 12th century, and comes from the Zohar.

Gehenna also appears in the New Testament and in early Christian writing to represent the place where evil will be destroyed. It lends its name to Islam's hell, Jahannam.

In other words, it was a real place, and did not refer to where the souls of the dead went for 'purification'

In Judaism hell is a place of purification[1] and fire for the wicked, most being punished there up to a year but some for eternity.[2]

Yes it was a trash pile in the literal sense, but the theological beliefs still existed. They can not be discounted as false simply because there was also a literal place which signified the theological place in the minds of the residents.

Both opinions are based upon Isa. lxvi. 23-24: "From one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another shall all flesh come to worship before Me, and they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched"; the former interpreting the words "from one new moon to another" to signify all the months of a year; the latter interpreting the words "from one Sabbath to another," in accordance with Lev. xxiii. 15-16, to signify seven weeks. During the twelve months, declares the baraita (Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 4-5; R. H. 16b), the souls of the wicked are judged, and after these twelve months are over they are consumed and transformed into ashes under the feet of the righteous (according to Mal. iii. 21 [A. V. iv. 3]), whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).

Of course this would indicate that the belief in a "hell" predates Jesus by several hundred years does it not?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... =purgatory


So Goat- how can you say that it was 12th century when the concept came from Isaiah?

How can you say most people think it is only for 12 months? I think you mixed up the grammer of the sentence. It should read ALL people think it is 12 months for most, and eternity for some. This would be more accurate considering the sources I linked to would it not?

[cnorman18]

We seem to be dealing with three issues: culpability, forgiveness, and salvation (which I shall define loosely as "going to Heaven"). I shall deal with each separately. In Judaism, they are not necessarily related.

First, on culpability (this is partly Judaic teaching, and partly my own take. Don't ask me where the line is): Judaism emphasizes personal responsibility in all things. There is little patience for excuses of any kind. No matter what ills, misfortune or abuse has befallen an individual, that person is still fully responsible for his actions. Fully. Your parents abused you? Then all the more should you know how much that hurts and how wrong it is.

Above all, God gave us the power to choose. More important than intelligence, the ability to learn, creativity, emotion or the opposable thumb, the power and the responsibility to choose between good and evil is what distinguishes us from animals. We are not to abandon or ignore that responsibility, no matter what happens to us.

It's not like it's all that hard in the instances we've been discussing here. How moral do you have to be not to commit unprovoked and unjustifiable murder?

The idea that all murderers are by definition insane--is insane. That defines "evil" out of existence, and there is no justification, Scriptural or otherwise, for that. That idea essentially says that humans are no longer responsible for their actions when they become evil enough, and that simply makes no sense. Humans can choose to murder in cold or hot blood, for reasons large or small, but if they know that the act is wrong they are responsible for it. Fully.

It ought to be noted that an effort to cover up, disguise, or otherwise evade prosecution for a murder is prima facie evidence that the killer knows it to be wrong. A truly insane killer does not attempt to avoid being caught. The legal definition is a good one, and hard to dispute as being on point and reasonable.

To deal further with that matter, genuine insanity--on the order of a man believing that he is a poached egg or Alexander the Great--of course relieves the individual from responsibility, and a murder committed by such a person is regarded as no more morally significant than an accidental death. In practical terms, though, such deaths are as rare in real life (as opposed to television) as death by lightning bolt. Most profoundly insane people are dangerous only to themselves.

On forgiveness: In Jewish belief, God Himself does not have the power or the right to forgive all sins. This is shocking to many Christians, but it is the Jewish position and has been since long before the time of Jesus. And it makes sense.

Suppose a man were to murder your child. I step forward at his trial and announce that I forgive him. Would you not be outraged? What gives me the standing or the right to forgive this criminal? The crime was against you and your child. What have I to do with it? What does it have to do with me?

In Jewish belief, that applies even to God. Only the person sinned against has the right or the power to forgive, and not even God has the power to overrule that right and supersede it. If I sin against you, there's no point in my asking God for forgiveness. I have to go to you for that.

God can only forgive sins committed against Him--broken vows, blasphemy, and the like--but for sins against our fellow humans, we have to go to them and ask forgiveness. And we do; every year, during the ten High Holy Days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we go to our family and friends and colleagues and ask forgiveness for anything we have done to offend, injure, or harm them in any way.

This makes sense to me. It explains the vague disgust that even many Christians feel when some vicious murderer on Death
Row piously and smugly proclaims that he has been "saved" and has the astonishing temerity to say to the families of his victims, "God has forgiven me. Why can't you?"

And of course, they can't either. In Jewish belief, murder is the gravest of sins precisely because there can be no forgiveness for it, ever. The only person with the power to forgive it is dead.

One more note: it is not widely known that this teaching is one very large reason that Jesus was rejected as Messiah by the Jews of his own time and still is by the Jews of today. By claiming the power to forgive ALL sins, as he unquestionably did, Jesus arrogated to himself a power greater than God's. If you ever wondered why some cried "Blasphemy!" when Jesus said things like "Your sins are forgiven, rise and walk," that's why. Healing on the Sabbath was hardly the issue, the NT to the contrary. Forgiving sins that were beyond the power of even God to forgive was.

Finally, on "salvation": It should not be assumed that unforgiven sins condemn anyone to Hell. Jews do not claim to have any information on that.

"Salvation" is not a concern of the Jewish religion. Though many, if not most, Jews believe in an afterlife, it is not a formal requirement of belief, and very many Jews do not believe that the individual soul survives death. To them, the very few references to life after death in the liturgy (there are none in the Torah) are speaking of one's earthly legacy--the good works one leaves behind, one's life remembered in the minds and hearts of others, and so on.

That there is some sort of justice, some reward and punishment, after death seems to be a common Jewish belief; but even that is disputed. Further, the range of beliefs about the "next life" is very broad. One may believe in a Christian-style Heaven, a return to some cosmic Universal Soul, some vague "higher plane" if existence, a Resurrection at the time Messiah comes, or even reincarnation as either a rare or common event. There is simply no dogma or "official" understanding of the subject, and much room is left for speculation and personal opinion.

Jewish belief in Hell is rather rare. It is more commonly believed that the unrighteous--and only God gets to decide who they are--are simply gone, like a candle flame after the candle is out. Gone. Nothing. But, again, there is no clear "doctrime" either way.

We don't claim to know the fate of any person, living or dead, in the next life--if there is one. We assume a murderer's sin remains unforgiven, but we have no warrant to decree that he will go to Hell. Nor can we proclaim that a great tzaddik (righteous person or saint) has gone to Heaven. We just don't know, not for sure.

The Jewish position basically boils down to this: our concern is for this life and how we are to live it. The next--if any--we trust to God. His justice is perfect, and He knows what is in every human heart. If he grants "Heaven" to one, "Hell" to another, and mere oblivion to a third, then that is how it ought to be.

A couple of additionwl points; St. Paul to the contrary, Jews have never taught that we must fulfill "the whole of the Law" to enter the next life (if any) or to be pleasing to God. He made us as we are and the Universe as it is--imperfect and incomplete--and expects us to do the best we can to complete and perfect it, and ourselves.

God has delegated the determination of the rules of how to do that to us; we are not to look to the Book for answers, but to figure them out for ourselves, with the help of the community and the tradition.

Second, it has been observed that the reason for the Jewish lack of interest in the question of life after death is that we were delivered from, or left, or were heavily influenced by, a nation and religion that were absolutely obsessed with it, namely Egypt. Much of the Egyptian consciousness, almost all of the Egyptian religion, and an unconscionable proportion of the Egyptian economy was taken up by a concern for the afterlife, to the point where there was little space left for concern with this one. The founders of the Jewish faith and the writers of the Torah, whether they were God, Moses, or some anonymous 5th-century CE scribes, seemed determined to prevent that kind of otherworldly obsession.

[Goat]

Agreed concerning Jesus' words VS. Paul's. No problem there. And I w ould like to begin to include OT scripture that seems to refute "everlasting punishment."

for the sake of excercise go for it.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/149.htm

What about Gehenna

The concept that Gehenna is the Jewish hell/purgatory is 12th century, and comes from the Zohar. The majority (not all) think it will be no longer than 12 months (not eternity).

Biblically, it was a place that was considered an abomination because some Jewish people sacrificed their kids there (it was a real valley), and it later became a trash heap for Jerusalem . In other words, it was a real place, and did not refer to where the souls of the dead went for 'purification'. The association started around
the temple period, but it isn't 'biblical' per say, but more figurative.

What you said disagrees with the vast majority of the link I provided.

The concept that Gehenna is the Jewish hell/purgatory is 12th century, and comes from the Zohar.

Gehenna also appears in the New Testament and in early Christian writing to represent the place where evil will be destroyed. It lends its name to Islam's hell, Jahannam.

In other words, it was a real place, and did not refer to where the souls of the dead went for 'purification'

In Judaism hell is a place of purification[1] and fire for the wicked, most being punished there up to a year but some for eternity.[2]

Yes it was a trash pile in the literal sense, but the theological beliefs still existed. They can not be discounted as false simply because there was also a literal place which signified the theological place in the minds of the residents.

Both opinions are based upon Isa. lxvi. 23-24: "From one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another shall all flesh come to worship before Me, and they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched"; the former interpreting the words "from one new moon to another" to signify all the months of a year; the latter interpreting the words "from one Sabbath to another," in accordance with Lev. xxiii. 15-16, to signify seven weeks. During the twelve months, declares the baraita (Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 4-5; R. H. 16b), the souls of the wicked are judged, and after these twelve months are over they are consumed and transformed into ashes under the feet of the righteous (according to Mal. iii. 21 [A. V. iv. 3]), whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).

Of course this would indicate that the belief in a "hell" predates Jesus by several hundred years does it not?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... =purgatory


So Goat- how can you say that it was 12th century when the concept came from Isaiah?

How can you say most people think it is only for 12 months? I think you mixed up the grammer of the sentence. It should read ALL people think it is 12 months for most, and eternity for some. This would be more accurate considering the sources I linked to would it not?

In Isaiah, it would also mean death. It was mentioned in 1 and 2 kings too, but the concept of it being part of the afterlife was a later development. I was looking further, and it was mentioned as a purgatory in enoch, which was around the time of the second temple. (40 bc to 70 ce). Remember, the concept of an afterlife developed around that time period in Judaism also. The Sadducee's rejected the idea of an afterlife, but the Pharisees believed in it.. and early christainity seems to have taken a lot from the Pharisees. I would say the concept was clarified in the Zohar.

If you look at the isaiah passages, it could very easily be considered 'the grave'.

[achilles12604]

Well I am certainly no expert. I only read what the Jewish source tells me.