TPS_Report said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

In Matthew 12:32 Jesus speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will NOT be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Now, there are typically 2 schools of thought about what Jesus meant, and many interpret that to mean when the Holy Spirit is calling one to be saved, and one essentially rejects Christ and their heart hardens to the point where they refuse to consider accepting Him. (The other thought was that he was only talking to the Pharisees at the moment)...............but either way....Jesus specifically says " will not be forgiven in this life or the next".....so, if we are to believe Jesus, then I can't see anyone who blasphemy's the Holy Spirit ever being allowed to be "reconciled to heaven", which would essentially make the case for Universalism obsolete. It's in Mark 2 as well....." but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin."

---

*hand claps*

---

Eternal sin does not mean eternal punishment. The words are not there. Scripture says the wages of sin are death. Not hell. Yet the latter is taught widely. It is an clear error.

---

Jesus says it will not be forgiven…in this age or the age to come. If so, then that would mean they cannot be reconciled…therefore how can that not be eternal?

---

What do you think the unforgivable sin is? Can you show me any Scripture that says Jesus came to save us from Hell? I was taught this frequently
And how many verses link the word eternal and punishment?.

---

As far as Jesus coming to save us from Hell…1 Thessalonians 1:10 "Jesus who rescues us from the coming wrath!" And John 3:36…"for whoever rejects the Son will not see life, but God's wrath REMAINS on them."

As far as linking the word eternal and punishment …How about Matthew 25:46…."then they will go away to the eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life!"

The thing about Universalism (Ultimate Reconciliation) is that if that's true, then many (dare I say most) would one day get to Heaven without the cross! Jesus says no one comes to the Father but by me!! If God planned to save everyone in the end, especially those that rejected Christ in this life, then what was the point of letting his son suffer and die a brutal death on the cross? There is only ONE way…through Jesus. The Bible never mentions there will be a temporary "punishment" for those that rejected Jesus in life, then get to go ahead and come to the Father anyway.

Derm…I know without a doubt you are a believer and have accepted Christ and will spend eternity in Heaven with Him. That's the thing, the Bible 100% assures us that IF we believe and confess Him as our Lord and Savior we will have eternal life! Ultimate Reconciliation (Universalism) at best…is only a guess…there is zero % assurance of it!! It's a maybe…perhaps….possibly…kind of doctrine. Let's say someone stumbles upon this or the other topics about Universalism and decides because of the discussion that they can live a life of sin and that Universalism will one day get them eternal life anyway on the "broken road" so to speak. And if, (and I wholeheartedly believe) that this is a false doctrine, then that person would miss out on eternal life and the relationship with Jesus! Personally, i wouldn't want to answer for causing that person to stumble because i pushed a false doctrine….easiest thing to do….preach the cross that we are 100% assured of…peace!

---

Been doing this a long time. It doesn't work like that.
There is only one verse that links eternal and punishment. And that is Matthew 25 46. Which is a terrible translation.
Teaching anything other than the wages of sin are not hell but death is apostasy in my opinion.

---

How many translation errors are in the English Bible?

---

Depends on which translation. Young's Literal Translation is usually considered very accurate as per the original Greek. King James is considered not very good. Lots of bias. Did you know that the King James translators translated the same word "Sheol" in the OT half the time accurately as the grave and half the time inaccurately as hell?
What even makes it more ridiculous is that the Jews had no concept of "hell" so would never have used that word or entertained that concept. Completely invented by the translators. And it was biased to reinforce the ECT theology.

---

Was the original Greek a translation of oral Aramaic and Hebrew?

---

Great question. Jesus probably spoke primarily in Aramaic. His words were translated into Koine Greek by numerous individuals and probably relied heavily on oral tradition.

---

So we cannot eliminate the possibility of translation errors from oral Aramaic to written Greek.

---

The Banned said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

Was the original Greek a translation of oral Aramaic and Hebrew?

---

Great question. Jesus probably spoke primarily in Aramaic. His words were translated into Koine Greek by numerous individuals and probably relied heavily on oral tradition.

---

So we cannot eliminate the possibility of translation errors from oral Aramaic to written Greek.

---

This is why the infallible teaching authority of the Church is necessary. Not because the men in the Church are perfect, but because, when it specifically comes to teachings on morals and doctrines, it is the Holy Spirit keeping the Church from error. If that charism isn't protected by the Holy Spirit, you're question is a serious concern.

---

The Banned said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

Was the original Greek a translation of oral Aramaic and Hebrew?

---

Great question. Jesus probably spoke primarily in Aramaic. His words were translated into Koine Greek by numerous individuals and probably relied heavily on oral tradition.

---

So we cannot eliminate the possibility of translation errors from oral Aramaic to written Greek.

---

This is why the infallible teaching authority of the Church is necessary. Not because the men in the Church are perfect, but because, when it specifically comes to teachings on morals and doctrines, it is the Holy Spirit keeping the Church from error. If that charism isn't protected by the Holy Spirit, you're question is a serious concern.

---

The Banned said:

---

I would encourage read Erasmus vs Luther on free will. He was told exactly what his new theology would do and he refused to acknowledge it. He destroyed the teaching on man's free will. Calvin just said what Luther didn't want to concede. There is a reason later Lutherans rejected Arminianism. And yes, he knew he was changing it. If you read his writings on Galatians you can see where he admits his view on justification is not known by the church fathers.

I appreciate what Luther did in his spotlight on indulgence abuse, but the theology he entered into the public discourse is terrible. Most non-Calvinists have no idea how much they would disagree with him. And they don't realize just how radical of a change to theology that he was making.

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

I would encourage read Erasmus vs Luther on free will. He was told exactly what his new theology would do and he refused to acknowledge it. He destroyed the teaching on man's free will. Calvin just said what Luther didn't want to concede. There is a reason later Lutherans rejected Arminianism. And yes, he knew he was changing it. If you read his writings on Galatians you can see where he admits his view on justification is not known by the church fathers.

I appreciate what Luther did in his spotlight on indulgence abuse, but the theology he entered into the public discourse is terrible. Most non-Calvinists have no idea how much they would disagree with him. And they don't realize just how radical of a change to theology that he was making.

---

I defer to your greater knowledge of this than me.

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

I would encourage read Erasmus vs Luther on free will. He was told exactly what his new theology would do and he refused to acknowledge it. He destroyed the teaching on man's free will. Calvin just said what Luther didn't want to concede. There is a reason later Lutherans rejected Arminianism. And yes, he knew he was changing it. If you read his writings on Galatians you can see where he admits his view on justification is not known by the church fathers.

I appreciate what Luther did in his spotlight on indulgence abuse, but the theology he entered into the public discourse is terrible. Most non-Calvinists have no idea how much they would disagree with him. And they don't realize just how radical of a change to theology that he was making.

---

I defer to your greater knowledge of this than me.

---

Sorry if it came across that way. I genuinely encourage people to read up on that debate. If you aren't Calvinist or Lutheran, Luther's theology will be troubling.

---

The Banned said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is why the infallible teaching authority of the Church is necessary. Not because the men in the Church are perfect, but because, when it specifically comes to teachings on morals and doctrines, it is the Holy Spirit keeping the Church from error. If that charism isn't protected by the Holy Spirit, you're question is a serious concern.

---

What does this mean in layman's terms?

---

It means that Jesus's promise to send the Spirit to lead His Church (then just His apostles) into all truth is true or not.. If that promise was true, the Church He founded is true because it is protected by the Spirit. If it wasn't true, then we may as well toss it all out. The evidence of His promise being true is seen in fulfilling His promise to be resurrected after death and the Spirit descending at Pentecost.

That's the simple explanation at least.

---

• The Bible says Jesus promised he would be resurrected.
• The Bible says Jesus was resurrected.
• The Bible's account of Jesus' resurrection is proof that Jesus fulfills his promises.
• The Bible says Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would protect the divine doctrine of the church.
• The Holy Spirit actively protects the divine doctrine of the church.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is why the infallible teaching authority of the Church is necessary. Not because the men in the Church are perfect, but because, when it specifically comes to teachings on morals and doctrines, it is the Holy Spirit keeping the Church from error. If that charism isn't protected by the Holy Spirit, you're question is a serious concern.

---

What does this mean in layman's terms?

---

The evidence of His promise being true is seen in fulfilling His promise to be resurrected after death and the Spirit descending at Pentecost.

---

A big piece of evidence is the fact that MANY followers adamantly affirmed the resurrection to the point of death.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is why the infallible teaching authority of the Church is necessary. Not because the men in the Church are perfect, but because, when it specifically comes to teachings on morals and doctrines, it is the Holy Spirit keeping the Church from error. If that charism isn't protected by the Holy Spirit, you're question is a serious concern.

---

What does this mean in layman's terms?

---

The evidence of His promise being true is seen in fulfilling His promise to be resurrected after death and the Spirit descending at Pentecost.

---

A big piece of evidence is the fact that MANY followers adamantly affirmed the resurrection to the point of death.

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is why the infallible teaching authority of the Church is necessary. Not because the men in the Church are perfect, but because, when it specifically comes to teachings on morals and doctrines, it is the Holy Spirit keeping the Church from error. If that charism isn't protected by the Holy Spirit, you're question is a serious concern.

---

What does this mean in layman's terms?

---

The evidence of His promise being true is seen in fulfilling His promise to be resurrected after death and the Spirit descending at Pentecost.

---

A big piece of evidence is the fact that MANY followers adamantly affirmed the resurrection to the point of death.

---

To me that has always been a key piece of the Gospel Story.......Jesus' close followers witnessed it first hand. Most were persecuted and put to death. You aren't going to go to that extreme for a lie....they saw it first hand and were willing to go out and share, knowing what might happen to them.

---

The Banned said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

So if I'm understanding...

• The Bible says Jesus promised he would be resurrected.
• The Bible says Jesus was resurrected.
• The Bible's account of Jesus' resurrection is proof that Jesus fulfills his promises.
• The Bible says Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would protect the divine doctrine of the church.
• The Holy Spirit actively protects the divine doctrine of the church.

---

Not a bad summation. I have more time for detail now, so if you'll indulge me:

- Jesus said He was God. His miracles were His proof. Especially His prophecy and miracle of His resurrection
- The day before His death, He promised the apostles He would send the Spirit to lead them into all truth. The same apostles, chiefly Peter, that He used to found His Church.
- At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descends upon the apostles and those with them, as Jesus said would happen
- The Holy Spirit divinely protected the inspired teaching of the apostles. For the first 20 years or so, this was all oral. Later, the apostles began writing letters to churches they had established far and wide to remind those churches of what they had been previously taught, clarify their errors, etc. They also wrote the 4 gospels and Acts to serve as more of a historical/biographical role. The Holy Spirit, leading them into all truth, protected the oral AND written teachings of the apostles.
- The apostles hand picked successors to continue the mission. This we can see from non-biblical Christian writings from the 1st and 2nd century, as well as NT books like 1&2 Timothy and Titus showing that the apostles were selecting certain individuals to lead certain areas.
- The Holy Spirit continues to protect the church through this apostolic succession, and lead it into all truth to this day.

I would say this is what happened/is happening. I am specifically trying to avoid "the Bible proves" because I don't think the Bible alone works. Why should we think it isn't just another religious text? Why should we choose one interpretation over another? The whole exercise is so subjective, and as I've said before, leads to deconstruction of the faith.

But the Church and the Bible were intended to go together. It was never supposed to be one or the other. The Church existed for 20 ish years before the first letter was ever written, 70 years before the last, and several hundred years before non-canonical texts were weeded out. We can still see the Church Jesus founded with apostolic lineage of the Bishop of Rome going all the way back to Peter,. The Bible goes with that Church and the Church cannot depart from it. The two are one. And we can find both still with us nearly 2000 years later.

Admittedly the resurrection is the cornerstone to all of this. I believe there is good reason to believe in it, but I realize others may disagree.

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is why the infallible teaching authority of the Church is necessary. Not because the men in the Church are perfect, but because, when it specifically comes to teachings on morals and doctrines, it is the Holy Spirit keeping the Church from error. If that charism isn't protected by the Holy Spirit, you're question is a serious concern.

---

What does this mean in layman's terms?

---

The evidence of His promise being true is seen in fulfilling His promise to be resurrected after death and the Spirit descending at Pentecost.

---

A big piece of evidence is the fact that MANY followers adamantly affirmed the resurrection to the point of death.

---

To me that has always been a key piece of the Gospel Story.......Jesus' close followers witnessed it first hand. Most were persecuted and put to death. You aren't going to go to that extreme for a lie....they saw it first hand and were willing to go out and share, knowing what might happen to them.

---

But what does that prove? That people were willing to die for what they believed to be true, doesn't make it factually true. Setting aside the issue of reliability presented in the gospel stories (written at best decades after Jesus' death), how is that proof of Jesus' resurrection? Sincerely asking.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This is why the infallible teaching authority of the Church is necessary. Not because the men in the Church are perfect, but because, when it specifically comes to teachings on morals and doctrines, it is the Holy Spirit keeping the Church from error. If that charism isn't protected by the Holy Spirit, you're question is a serious concern.

---

What does this mean in layman's terms?

---

The evidence of His promise being true is seen in fulfilling His promise to be resurrected after death and the Spirit descending at Pentecost.

---

A big piece of evidence is the fact that MANY followers adamantly affirmed the resurrection to the point of death.

---

To me that has always been a key piece of the Gospel Story.......Jesus' close followers witnessed it first hand. Most were persecuted and put to death. You aren't going to go to that extreme for a lie....they saw it first hand and were willing to go out and share, knowing what might happen to them.

---

But what does that prove? That people were willing to die for what they believed to be true, doesn't make it factually true. Setting aside the issue of reliability presented in the gospel stories (written at best decades after Jesus' death), how is that proof of Jesus' resurrection? Sincerely asking.

---

Obviously part of the equation here is the faith aspect. Just as with really anything that goes back to antiquity, you have to have some measure of faith that whatever documented event actually did happen as we are presented with. I would argue that believing an earth that is 4.5 billion years old, perfectly placed in our universe to allow for life, and began out of nothing takes a lot more faith. So whether you are the staunchest atheist or dedicated Christian, you have to have faith in something which cannot be materially proven without a shadow of a doubt.

Based on the actions of the first followers of Christ who encountered him after the resurrection which were documented in the earliest writings and passed down through generations by the church, it seems quite reasonable that this in fact did happen. Given the political and social climate that existed in the Roman Empire back then, it would be truly mind blowing that a supposed crazy man who was crucified would find the support that it did after he died.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Accepting something like the age of the Earth isn't the same kind of "faith" as belief in a specific supernatural event. The 4.5 billion year estimate comes from multiple independent, testable lines of evidence (radiometric dating, astrophysics, geology, etc) that converge on the same answer. It's based on reproducible methods, not just trust in a tradition. By contrast, the resurrection claim rests almost entirely on textual accounts decades removed the event and translated through multiple languages. And we don't even know the authors of the Gospels. Claiming 'eyewitness testimony' assumes the identity of the authors of the Gospels are also without doubt.

---

Rex Racer said:

---

I believe that God exists outside of time. So from our perspective, the dead are asleep. I believe from the dead person's perspective, they awaken immediately. Think about when you go to sleep at night. The next thing you know, you awaken and hours have gone by without you realizing it.

---