You don't have to be a Roman to pray for the dead. You'd have to consult a theologian about the harrowing of Hell but my feeling on the matter is your last suggestion is correct. At the very least your prayers would count retroactively or, in a more accurate way, God would hear all prayers past or future since all moments are alike to the present for Him. You never know what goes through a person's mind in their final moments. So even if there's no intermediary stage between Earth and Heaven, it's still worth praying for the dead. That said I think there probably is although it may not be exactly how it's imagined by Roman Catholics.

The harrowing of hell is a misnomer. The West conflates two concepts which ancient Christians distinguished. Hades and Gehenna are different places. Hades is where the Old Testament righteous and everyone else went, and it is into Hades that Christ entered after His death. Gehenna is the final hell state that the wicked will be delivered into in the end, and as far as I can tell, no one has been consigned to Gehenna yet. Revelation 20:13-15 demonstrate the point. >Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire in this passage is of course Gehenna. The dead are still contained with Hades. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) is also a parable about Hades, not Gehenna. Christ makes this explicit in Luke 16:23, saying that the Rich Man is ἐν ᾅδῃ, i.e. in Hades. The fact that people have not been thrown into the lake of fire and undergone the second death is why we should pray for their souls. Hades was changed by Christ entering into it as well—it was a cosmic event, not a one-time thing like it was taught in the West. His soul entered Hades, plundered it, liberated the righteous dead, preached to the people of Hades. Some Church Fathers speak of the ‘Sun of Righteousness’ (Malachi 4:2) entering Hades and illuminating it and transforming it from dark and joyless into Paradise for those who accepted Christ. It is this which the thief on the cross is promised by Christ. The righteous dead today are alive ‘in Christ’ until the resurrection. Even prior to Christ, of course, we know that it is good to pray for the dead, as seen in 2 Maccabees 12:44-46 >for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin. The dead encounter aerial toll-houses immediately after death as well. I think those genuinely ignorant of the Gospel today benefit from the Harrowing even today.

>>2829 I am still confused about this. Some denominations claim Christ was judged FOR you and therefore you have guaranteed salvation through the savior with faith.

>>2882 Christ was punished and killed in our place in the same way that the Israelites performed ritual animal sacrifices under the Old Covenant for the atonement of sins (Lev. 17:11, Heb. 9:22, etc). Christ's death on the cross is one-time sacrifice that will indeed blot out all sins if one puts their faith in Him and follows His commandments (a natural corollary of faith), repenting when needed. While salvation is in some sense guaranteed (if I am not too bold to say it) if one follows the path I indicated in this post, I think that no one should ever become complacent in their supposed salvation. Many saints are clear that one should be repenting and striving to be better until their last breath.

>>2884 >I think that no one should ever become complacent in their supposed salvation. Many saints are clear that one should be repenting and striving to be better until their last breath. That is essentially what I meant.

With everything that's said itt, would this chart be an accurate description of events?

>>2937 >Protestant soteriology

>>2829 ive thought about this before, what if when Christ went to Hades he preached to the souls there and those who repented were let go. thoughts?

>>2937 ITT what do you guys think the second death will be like? i imagine it as a endless black void where you are forced to contemplate your life choices forever

>>2953 See that's what I was thinking about. Jesus is the ultimate judge, and to pass judgement you need to declare the law and then the sentence. For those that never heard the word, I'm not sure if the gospel would be declared to them, since having died they can't go through baptism into grace. At the least though the declaration of the law is necessary with God fully knowing the conviction of their hearts and minds, whether they repent for their sins or not. The preaching of the word would be satisfaction for those that have lived lives of civil righteousness, that there is a just end, and dread and lament for those that have lived in malice. Jesus having power over life and death, He would have the power to deliver them accordingly, not on their own merit but under His sovereign power alone. The only outlet for this is during the three days He descended into the underworld, as from the Resurrection on He is glorified and forever in heaven, with the gospel accomplished and grace evident to all. The Last Judgment is the sentencing of all creation and the destruction is fully warranted for those that were given to the entertainment of sin. This isn't to say that those that were rescued from Hades / Sheol would be numbered among the Christians in heaven -- it's evident that there is a hierarchy in the afterlife and they would be assigned by the final justice of God. This answers the question of the fate of the unlearned and it ties up any loose ends about God being a tyrant over the universe. He gave every chance He would in respect of free will, however the final decision is His to divide good rightly from evil.

>>2964 I think you forgot to post anon. In any case I recognize that it's an unconventional proposal which was why I made the thread to see if more knowledgeable anons had any objection to it. So far it seems that the next step would be to ask it of even more learned authorities, at least of those that accept the doctrine of a triumphant descent into Hades (which certain wings of Protestantism deny in part or in whole).

>>2967 well i forgot what i was gonna say now, either way good thread, it made me think.

Just as God was destined to exist, so were the 144 000 souls that came from Him. These 144k were slowly lowered to Earth across our timeline. These souls are here to grow from a seed into a tree by learning how they should be. ALL souls go to Heaven. There is no hell. non-whites and women go into the dirt when they die. they don't have souls. Only certain European Men, with blond hair and blue eyes, have souls.

>>3095 Universalism AND ethno-idolatry. We're on a roll!

>god loves everyone >god allows untold millions of people to suffer in hell for all eternity Does anyone know of a way around this?

>>3254 Do you know the Parable of the mustard seed?

Squeeeeeel like a peeeeg!

>>3254 Those who consign themselves to hellfire are not put their by God. It is the natural result of cutting oneself off from that which is the source of all that is good, true, beautiful, etc. This is hell. Christ will be all-in-all, and it will feel like torments to those who have sinned against this and alienated themselves from it. God doesn’t wish for anyone to go to hell, but he’s not going to force them to be saved either. Scripture indicates that their fate will be eternal. I imagine that this is because they have chosen this fate. The doors to hell are locked from within. Will that be their fate forever and ever? Seemingly. But I think that God’s love will not leave them, and perhaps His designs will not end there. This is entirely speculative

This is the part of Christianity I just don't get. If God is just, then your soul's judgement depends on your choices in life, and baptism and prayer are an afterthought. No one is punished for not being baptised. It's ridiculous. As far as I know, the idea that Jesus went to Hades is based on an interpretation of two extremely vague Bible verses. It seems like bad interpretations are common, and even get accepted into mainstream belief. I reject this one.

>>3930 >if God is just Whose definition of justice are you using?

>>2825 The New Testament is a comic book. You're overthinking it.

>>3932 t. atheist

>>3933 Eh, idk. Maybe Jacob wrestled an alien and Jesus was a new age guru. I guess you're probably right though.

>>3254 I don't think we really know what God does with people. Even here in this world, there are so many mysteries we might never understand. For example, your body makes over 3.8 million new cells every second. In each new cell, enzymes walk up the dna strand and check for errors. As far as I know, nobody understands how these enzymes work, how they detect errors, or what mechanisms control them. The complexity and the scale of what's happening every second is staggering, beyond imagination. If we can't understand our own bodies, what makes us think we understand the purpose of Creation? Our concept of God is like a cat's concept of math. Everything we do is fallible, including scripture. However, scripture is the best thing we have to save us from ourselves. Like Jesus said, the kingdom of heaven is within you. If the word of man makes you doubt God, discard it. Your soul is immaterial, God is immaterial, but your mind is material and so is your knowledge. That's why Jesus spoke in parables. How else do you get material beings to understand immaterial concepts? What happens after death is probably too abstract to comprehend, so I don't see the point of trying. It's much simpler to just follow Jesus' path.

>>3940 >The human definition of justice. Which one? >And don't give me that crap about "don't pretend to understand God", because that's exactly what you're doing when you thump the bible, a book written by men And so are your human laws fallible.

>>3931 The human definition of justice. And don't give me that crap about "don't pretend to understand God", because that's exactly what you're doing

>>3944 There is no universally recognized definition of justice™. Systems of law are based on mutually incompatible axiomatic priniciples. Those principles were set forth as postulates by the authorities which decreed them to yield a certain mode of character, and a certain mode of society. They were decreed ex novo, without antecedent, to establish a framework around which social fairness could be argued. The framework of law is held on the good faith of those that operate within it, that the principles which have been laid out are virtuous. That God might have His own system of law is not unusual, in fact, it is natural, given in the absence of divine law earthly powers dictate their own: Him, being the greatest power, has the same right to create for His governed a system of law for their perfection by His architectural vision. The promise of that vision is held by the pious on faith, just as the secular hold to human law on faith, that it generates a just society and a just world. Anyone can choose to believe in whatever they want. That doesn't mean that what they believe will result in a outcome which is demonstratively beneficial. Are you a master of earthly law, are you a lawyer or a judge? Have you studied all the laws of all the cultures of the world to know what is meant by 'Justice'? And them that is only the present law: do you know of the law of the past? The law of the future, which is yet to arrive? Or do you simply have some vague concept in your head of a perfect world which you use to presumptively measure great and small alike? Law isn't a hammer -- tyranny is a hammer. Law requires specificity, terms and conditions, debate and evaluation. What system of justice is your own? I hold to system of justice, which is the result of a tradition passed down across countless generations, a thousand years in the making, codified in the books of the Old and New Testaments. A constitution of human life. Considerations of past, present, and future, of the immediate and the eternal, of living and of death. Of the individual, of the tribe, of the nation, of the world, and of  what lies beyond. No one man wrote it, no one school produced it. No one king or council decreed it. It is a living word. It has survived so long because it speaks true of the destiny of Mankind. Those that hold it, survive because of it, and pass it on. It is God's blueprint for eternal life. So, abide by your ephemeral 'human justice' if you will, but I rather choose to stand on the firm ground which has been secured by the striving and the passion, by the toil and blood, of the confessors, martyrs, doctors, and evangelists, of the saints triumphant in the manifestation of the one body of Christ, the church. You don't need to understand God, but you appear to scantly understand the creature of Man.

>>3947 By your own dogma, we were created in God's image, so it follows that the human sense of justice would be similar to God's. Second, "ephemeral human justice" isn't completely different between cultures. The peripherals change, but the foundations are always the same (stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, rape is wrong). >Those principles were set forth as postulates That's rich coming from a Christian >The framework of law is held on the good faith of those that operate within it, that the principles which have been laid out are virtuous. The same is true for Christian morality, except that it's held on good faith that it's the word of God >The promise of that vision is held by the pious on faith, just as the secular hold to human law on faith, that it generates a just society and a just world. Fair enough, except that there's no reason to believe this moral code came from God and not human beings >Or do you simply have some vague concept in your head of a perfect world which you use to presumptively measure great and small alike? Sure, just like you do. However what you said about an outcome being demonstrably beneficial rings true, because I think that's the right approach to deciding what system is right. >No one man wrote it, no one school produced it. That's true for every moral system. >So, abide by your ephemeral 'human justice' if you will You abide by human justice, too. Your insistence that it's the word of God is only convincing to people who are already part of your religion, or who are predisposed to circular logic (it's the word of God because it says so!)

What are you two arguing about? The original question was, as I understand it, asking why God, who we say is just, cares about anything other than the direct morality of our actions. What does baptism and prayer have to do with anything? Now you're talking about systems of law and whether morality is manmade. Can you explain for the rest of us who can't keep up? t. confused person

>>3957 >By your own dogma, we were created in God's image, so it follows that the human sense of justice would be similar to God's. But corrupted by original sin. Try as we might to achieve perfect justice we are unable to do so by our deficient natural reason alone. God's working in divine revelation is raise our standard of consciousness that we might more fully know what it means to be ethical. The culmination of all this is in Jesus Christ, the eternal man, sharing in the Godhood of the Trinity, who delivers through the Holy Spirit a share of the divine wisdom and clairvoyance, such that humanity despite its insufficiencies has a hope through faith to wholly refine its conduct and be restored to its pre-fallen state of glorification within all creation. >That's rich coming from a Christian I'm arguing on your ground. I could be a dogmatist and say God's will is God's will, but then we wouldn't have a discussion, would we? It's all the more opportunity to discover what I actually believe in. >That's true for every moral system. You admit that a systemic morality is superior to individual caprice, then? >Your insistence that it's the word of God is only convincing to people who are already part of your religion, or who are predisposed to circular logic (it's the word of God because it says so!) I wasn't raised Christian, and I questioned the dogmas of the faith for many years. I have the humility to admit that I cannot categorically prove that the Bible is the word of God. It is my conjecture, ultimately, after a critical look at the systemic moralities of the world and of the historical achievements they yielded thereof, coupled with personal reflection on the type of character and of the corresponding values that I consider to be worthwhile to embody in myself if not to see in others, that the modality of thought which is exercised in the schemes of the Christian theology is the optimum. I can't impose my life on you, nor do I have cause to do so. By the traditional doctrine of the church fathers, it's not my call whether you will believe, it is God who ultimately brings one into faith. >>3961 Now to degenerate into a total theological shitpost, OP asked why God would necessitate that certain actions need to be performed to achieve redemption rather than independently judging each life on its own. 1. Anyone can justify anything to their own benefit. 2. God maintains a single reality for all. 3. Given free will of the actors therein and point 1, this creates an anarchic space. 4. God has the omniscience to account for the sum of the conflicting interests of the actors present therein. 5. God in sovereignty authority prescribes a canonical methodology for life to effect a particular end. All religion posits some narrative underlying existence, that the universe is meant to tell a certain story, and that human beings operate a certain role within them. The story and its characters change from faith to faith. This gives meaning to life, which would otherwise be a random assortment of events. You could take life as it comes, but as we are driven through the years by the force of time and haunted by the ghost of memory, our experiences construct a story whether we enjoy it or not. Taking in account the multitude of sufferings which are inevitably encountered in a lifetime, the question of what is the meaning of it all, of existence, arises alongside. If we came into life by chance, and all our passions, our thoughts, and our being is an accident, would not our death also be just as meaningless, and ergo suicide is a valid option to escape suffering? Religion's answer is no: there are methodologies of living which incorporate what otherwise would be a passing material phenomenon in biological life into a greater whole. That faith in an objective transcending mortality bids suffering to be borne for what comes after will be even greater glory. The perseverance inspired in the articles of human religion enhance survival. I put forth all this to answer OP's incredulity: this is a secular and materialist justification of religion. However, to simply live, to dodge death, is not enough to argue for any one religion over another. "To be good, it is not enough to be better than the worst," as the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca put it. For religion to be objectively good it ought not only drive mankind to survive but also to thrive. Each religion exacts from its adherents a certain set of behaviours. Those behaviours may be constructive, or destructive, to achieving a well-functioning society. Each faith has a unique profile of drawback and benefit tradeoffs. It is my affirmation that Christianity asks the least in absurdities and yields the most in abundance of the religious systems of the world. The Christian faith deifies the intangible hopes of humanity for definitive and existential justice. "Human justice" may as well be another name for Jesus Christ, for 'Christ' is literally Greek for redeemer, for justifier, in addition to saviour.

>>3970 I would have put line breaks in the second half of the post, but I unintentionally cleared my cache so you'll all have to bear with the wall of text. Also: >>3957 >Sure, just like you do. >implying Nice projection, friend.

>>3970 Thanks for the explanation. For your part my confusion began with your first reply >>3931. I didn't understand why you would ask this instead of just explaining why baptism and prayer are important. Even more than that, I would say there is only one kind of justice and that worldly justice systems are only just inasmuch as they conform to it. I still don't understand what a multitude of ways of bringing about justice has to do with it. Are we talking about the contents of the law or the way law is done? Allow me to sum up what you've said as best I can. >God has proscribed the way the machine called "man" is to be run as part of creating man aka natural law (is this what you mean by methodology of living?) >This law's purpose is to ensure the correct working of man so that he doesn't break down but thrives (whatever that means) >A correct implementation of the law must then result in humans "thriving" >We have a flawed understanding of justice and so we may be surprised when God enacts it I may be retarded but I still don't understand why this answers his question. Are you arguing that baptism and prayer are a part of the natural law and, therefore, it would be part of justice to consider them? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you if so. Are you saying that the common understanding of morality (it's OK as long as it doesn't directly hurt someone else) is the "human understanding of justice?" I'm not so sure I agree with this.

>>3974 > I would say there is only one kind of justice and that worldly justice systems are only just inasmuch as they conform to it. Yes. >I still don't understand what a multitude of ways of bringing about justice has to do with it. Because OP just said human justice. However what is considered just is different by culture and by religion. There's no generic human justice out there, it's a meaningless word. If you believe in a superficial justice that can't be administered, what good is it? It isn't a realistic morality, it's just a sentiment. >aka natural law (is this what you mean by methodology of living?) I wouldn't use the term natural law for this case because it has other applications. It can also be used fallaciously by "appealing to nature," uncritically extrapolating animal behaviours as a guide for human ones. God isn't synonymous with nature as He is distinct from creation. I was referring to how God declares the Ten Commandments, for instance. They're the beginnings of ethical guidance for the Israelites intended to consecrate them as a people pursuant of honor in His name. Eventually that was misconstrued, but God then in the Incarnation as Jesus Christ demonstrated Himself the fulfillment of the aims of the Old Testament law. >Are you arguing that baptism and prayer are a part of the natural law and, therefore, it would be part of justice to consider them? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you if so. Yes, I am saying that in the practice of religious rites, specifically Christian ones, an intuitive understanding arises which is embedded within them that gives special insight into considerations of truth and justice. To external observation the sacraments are just pouring water, or sharing flatbread and wine. Their internal effect on the believer however, by the mystery of the Holy Spirit, works their comfort, remorse, transformation, and more, as the Bible illustrates: >The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him— the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and fear of the LORD. And He will delight in the fear of the LORD. Isaiah 11:2-3 >Are you saying that the common understanding of morality (it's OK as long as it doesn't directly hurt someone else) is the "human understanding of justice?" I'm not so sure I agree with this. No, I'm saying something along the lines of: >Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them Romans 2:14-15 OP said: >we were created in God's image, so it follows that the human sense of justice would be similar to God's However his position, I assume as a non-believer, is that humanity's sense of justice being similar is enough to be practically congruent to the divine one, when God's properties not only make Him an independent and distinct entity capable of omnibenevolence, but man is also by original sin rebelliously inclined against the self-discipline necessary to reach his full potential. Humanity contrives and administers its own systems of justice as is necessary to run the world, but they are follies in contrast to God's definitive Justice, the "one kind of justice" you mentioned, that is all-embracing and all-encompassing, insight into which is engendered by participation in sacred praxis.

>>3970 Well, damn. This is the best answer I've seen to my kind of pithy atheist talking points. You understand the materialist viewpoint, and you justified your beliefs reasonably. I cede, and no longer consider your stance to be irrational.

>>3977 I'm this guy (>>3930 >>3944 >>3957 >>3999). I'm not OP, I just hijacked his post (sorry OP). >the practice of religious rites ... gives special insight into considerations of truth and justice Now that's interesting. >Their internal effect ... by the Holy Spirit This is the part I have trouble with, because I see no reason that can't be explained as psychological. The rest of your post is also interesting. You still draw distinction between mankind's justice and God's justice, which I would say is unknowable to mankind, and you would probably say was revealed by divine revelation, something I can't believe in. Still, you gave me something to think about. I hope you stick around this website, because I'll probably be back to harass you people with more questions.

>>3977 Now I'm beginning to understand. It's becoming clear. There is still one thing. Your original opponent may be satisfied but there's something he said that I think he was completely right about. I want to take up this banner. In >>3957 at the very beginning he says that because we were created in God's image, we should have a similar sense of justice to His. He also says that human manifestations of justice are not that different between cultures. In a metaphorical sense, what he has done here is strike at you with a shard of glass when he could have shot you with the gun lying next to him. When God created us, he didn't just create us with rules for our correct operation. He also inscribed those rules into us. Your later quote from Romans shows this. I actually think that passage is saying rather the opposite of what you are. The problem is not that we don't know the law, it's that we don't obey the law. If we didn't know the law, how could we be transgressors of it? But in fact we do know it. Everyone except the mentally impaired is aware that we should be decent sorts of people and abide by fair play and all that. As far as those who believe the existence of the supernatural, it appears to be the universal opinion that we should endeavour to be on the right side of it. And there are so many more examples. Whether law is done by common law or civil law is completely irrelevant. What's really funny is the supposed existence of a multitude of moral codes was once used as an argument against the existence of an objective morality. Every right thinking person pointed out that these moral codes are really not so different after all and that it appears more like we all had a common understanding of morality that got distorted in different ways. Now we have someone who has used the similarity of moral systems in an argument against an objective morality. It's just another example of "heads I win; tails you lose" from atheists.

>>4013 I want to continue by going through the passage from Romans 2 since I will probably have to anyway. Starting from verse 12... >All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. >For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God but the doers of the law who will be justified. Paul is explaining why being born under the law is not sufficient. It is the doing of the law (justice) that is important. >When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. Paul is not saying that such Gentiles are lawless and unjust. Just the opposite! He is saying that by doing what is just, they have done the law and have become a law of their own. He is praising such Gentiles not criticising them. His criticism in this passage is towards the Jews. But how are Gentiles able to do the law without having heard it? >They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them >on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. And there you have it. Paul says that everyone is aware of what is right and that they will judged for it. He goes on to say that those who have received the law but don't don't do it are deceiving themselves and are really lawless.

>>4008 >harass Given that you've been a good sport in debate (that is, you want to know more and are willing to acknowledge a point), those here are unlikely to be offended by your questions. Do keep going.

>>4018 Thanks, but that's all I have for now. >>4013 >example of "heads I win; tails you lose" from atheists This whole discussion got started because I couldn't believe God would punish someone for not being baptised. I said it was unfair, someone said 'only by human logic', and I argued there's no way to construe it as being fair even by the tenets of your religion. Only after that did the conversation change, and I abandoned my original point, even though it was never disproven, because other interesting things came up. So it's unfair for you to say that, since I wasn't a stickler about moving goal posts.

>>4023 In no way am I accusing you in particular of arguing in bad faith like this. My point was only that we have to defend against contradictory arguments from atheists. Obviously its not from the same atheist each time. >changing the conversation This makes sense and explains why I was having trouble following along. >And who asked you to pipe up, anyway? Are you banning me from this conversation? Are you saying you don't want to talk to me? Even though anyone is free to join in a thread, I don't mind stopping if that's what you want. I do want to hear the other guy's answer to what I said. You want to know why I butted in? Because I saw two people arguing and I didn't think either of them were arguing in bad faith or shitposting. But I couldn't understand the flow of the argument so I asked you to explain yourselves more clearly. I didn't want this to turn into shitposting because of misunderstandings. That's all.

>>2954 Almost annihilationism. God's love, the same love which purifies and eternally elevates the saved in heaven, will eternally burn the damned, asymptotically whittling them down to almost but-not-quite nothing. This article gives a good rundown of what will occur: https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/11/17/almost-annihilationism/ >>3254 Those who suffer in Hell are those who reject Him and His love, to the point that feeling God's love causes the damned eternal suffering. See the tale of the prodigal son, the son became so consumed in his own sin that he began to hate also the love his father continued to have for him.

>>4032 Sorry, that last part I removed in hope that you didn't see it before I re-submitted the post. I meant it as ribbing, but it came off as way too obnoxious and aggressive.

>>4050 That's OK anon. I really did think well of the both of you. Too often I see arguments where one person obviously has no interest in trying to understand what the other side is saying. That's what I didn't think was happening here and I wanted to make sure you understood each other. Now that I think about it, I was being silly. If you didn't understand something, you would have asked for a clarification yourself. It was probably only I who wasn't able to keep up.

>>4054 No, you kept up. You even contributed. I came from 4chan, so I guess I'm not used to seeing people treat each other humanely online, which is why I was callous. I think I'm house trained now. Thanks for being so understanding.

Hell isn't eternal. https://www.truth-about-hell.com/ https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/how-when-the-idea-of-eternal-torment-invaded-church-doctrine-7610e6b70815

>>5253 How can hell be eternal when it doesn't exist in the first place? The truth is that "heaven" is combining with the oneness of god in death in order to achieve eternal life when heaven comes to earth, and "hell" is the torment the spirit feels from being separate from god but knowing he exists. When the end times come, the lord will create a "holy supernova" that will make spirits separate from god cease to exist to prepare the land for heaven on earth. Without reading the link I assume it's talking about this if it isn't protestant trash.

>>5253 I agree. I think Hell is the jail and the lake of fire is the prison. People in Hell will be held there until judgment day where they will be put into the lake of fire. I'm not certain that people in Hell can be redeemed though I think if you get Hell you might just be sent to the lake of fire afterward. In the Gospels I believe the only time Jesus mentions eternal punishment is Matthew 25 where he does not say Hell. He says Darkness and Everlasting punishment.

>>5257 The few times Jesus refers to hell as a place of fire and gnashing teeth, I believe he's being quite literal and referring to Gehenna which was an actual location that was pretty much a giant landfill/trash heap where people would throw things (such as the bodies of criminals) to be burned up and where poor lepers would go to scavenge for scraps.

A giant landfill/trash heap on fire*

>>5258 I think he is referring to a literal place, underground. In Numbers 16 people are swallowed alive by the Earth down to Hell. Luke 16 Jesus describes a man in Hell as having some kind of body, he wants water, so I think you'll be given a body in Hell. When Heaven and Earth pass away so will Hell, but not the lake of fire which exists purely as spiritual punishment. I think that's the literal reading. If it's not exactly the case I wouldn't be bothered too much. The truth will be revealed in time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaTSQzYIR3U Definitely I think people can be saved after death, I think after death you meet the Lord and if you have a good enough heart and aren't saved you can be saved and filled with the spirit when you see Jesus and you're touched by his love or you'll see him and you'll feel his judgment. So an upright Muslim or whatever can come to Christ when they meet him as sort of a final chance. This isn't based on anything in the Bible just what I think might be true and if you believe death experiences this seems to be the case.

>>5260 And Jesus gives a lot of parables and stories that aren't real but explain things. When he does this it's pretty clear. Like in Matthew 20 he says “The Kingdom of Heaven is like” so you know he's abut to tell a parable. Or Luke 15 “Then Jesus told them this parable:” It's true it doesn't always indicate this. But in the case of Luke 16 we even have a name for the rich man and the details of Hell seem strange to make up. Of course this was pre-salvation so everyone was in Hell however Hell was separated by a great chasm where on one side you have paradise which is where saved people were held until the crucifixion when Jesus brought those souls up to Heaven. The first time the word paradise is used is Jesus to the thief on the cross telling him that's where he'll directly be going. There's many people who have had experiences or visions of Hell in the Catholic church and others. It's described as you would expect. Fire and torture. And over the ancient world we find similar beliefs about the underworld. Often the fact people were going there regardless of what they did. King Pacal's coffin has a picture of him descending to the underworld. People have often had the idea the underworld is a physical place within the Earth I would say including the Hebrew scriptures. Does the New Testament say Hell is within the Earth?... technically no.

>>5256 By hell I was referring to the lake of fire, where all those who reject Christ will burn up and die.

>>5257 I believe in soul sleep, we are simply "in the grave" until the ressurection.

>>2825 > the Harrowing of Hell, that Jesus descended into Hell during His death to deliver the Old Testament righteous as they could not save themselves being under the weight of original sin The Old Testament righteous were not under the weight of original sin. The Harrowing of Hell was necessary because Heaven was barred before Jesus' death and resurrection, not because of ignorance of the Gospel or original sin or any of that. If you had heard the Gospel from our Lord Himself and had been baptized by Him, but died before Him, you would have still gone to Hell (to be harrowed shortly). >>2962 > Jesus is the ultimate judge, and to pass judgement you need to declare the law and then the sentence The Law of God is declared in every man that has reason, everyone has a God-given conscience that tells them what is right. This is evident and also taught by Saint Paul: "And when the nations, who have no law, naturally do the things that are of the law, they are a law to themselves: and they show the work of the law written in their heart, their conscience giving witness to them, thoughts accusing each other, or also defending each other, in the day when God will judge the hidden things of men, according to my Gospel through Jesus Christ." Nevertheless, we are saved by grace, not "civil righteousness": the law does not save, it only condemns. And it's not like anyone, without grace, has ever lived according to his conscience, without ever ignoring it out of convenience, without ever indulging in a pleasure or passion that's contrary to reason. So the law wouldn't save anyone even if it could, because God finds fault in angels, who will be found innocent? Only those who have received God's Spirit through Baptism, and made righteous, and have persevered in righteousness to their death.

>>5284 There is some reason to believe this. I think when you die you might be brought forward in time to judgment and resurrection. So to us that person is sleeping but to them, when you die you are instantly where you are going. "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." from 2nd Corinthians. And Paul himself might have went to Heaven after he was stoned to death. The Old Testament I think implies that people were instantly taken to Hell after death.

>>5308 Time-travel aside (there's no time travel though) Saint Paul was beheaded by the Romans, you might be thinking of Saint Stephen who was stoned by the Jews, with the young Paul present.

Paul was stoned in Acts 14. Most likely to death. And then he mentions an experience of Heaven in 2nd Corinthians 12. I wouldn't be sure if he's talking about himself or if he is was the time when he was stoned to death.

>Most likely to death. Is this a game theory? That he had a near death experience? Because he clearly didn't die then.

>>5318 >responding to bait

>>5318 I'm saying he died after being stoned to death and then was brought back to life, which is what most people think. Do you think he just played dead?

>>5436 Oh wait I forgot this was about soul sleep. Well yes Paul talking about an experience of Heaven I think came from him dying and being sent back. I've never head any other interpretation but if you have one, I'd like to hear it.

>>5436 >>5437 >Do you think he just played dead? >Paul talking about an experience of Heaven I think came from him dying and being sent back I assumed he simply passed out, and that the heavenly experience was unrelated. I don't find the connection completely unbelievable, but is there any evidence for it?

>>5440 It just seems most likely. There's no way to know if the Heaven experience is related to him being stoned. And I think the stoning was to death simply because people knew how to give a good stoning back then. I think they would know if they killed him. God either repaired his body and woke him up or sent him back to his body and repaired it. Paul simply gets back up and walks back into the city. If he was passed out I think he would be a bit more confused about where he is or something. It seems to imply he just got right up and went inside as if never lost consciousness but just came back into his body after God told him his mission isn't over. It's a possibility against soul sleep. I think there's many examples against soul sleep in the Old Testament, if soul sleep is something that was introduce in the New Covenant there's not too much to disprove it. The usual verses are: We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:8 Paul wrote this in the same letter with the Heaven experience and it might imply that death means being with the Lord right away. Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. 1 Thessalonians 5:10 This might be against soul sleep. I've never seen anything firmly disproving soul sleep. You might be taken to Heaven in spirit and resurrection day is when you receive your new body but I don't know, there's probably much more compelling thoughts around the internet. If soul sleep is real that would mean Heaven is currently without any New Covenant humans in it. All those apparitions of Mary are the devil, I'm so sorry Catholics.

>>5442 >It just seems most likely I see, it's a conjecture then. I imagine that one could check if at least the times match, since he says that the visit to Heaven happened a certain number of years before he wrote that letter.

>>5451 Well I did explain why Paul probably didn't just lose consciousness but if it was that easy it wouldn't be on the table to debate. Lots of people believe they're related, you can believe it if you want. The usual dates would have to be stretched since Corinthians is at the latest 60 AD and he might have been stoned 47 AD earliest. Really stretching, but I wouldn't know what the original dates for the letters are based on. But I asked what is the experience of Heaven, if it didn't come from him dying and being sent back. That's what I think it is if you have another reason then you can have that reason.

Bump so the posts number isn't 66

>>5298 >The Old Testament righteous were not under the weight of original sin. Did you have more on this? >and have persevered in righteousness to their death. Isn't this Pelagianism?

>>5257 >>5258 The English rendering of hell actually conflates two words in the Greek. There is an abode of the dead, Sheol in Hebrew and Hades in Greek, and a place of destruction, Gehenna in Hebrew and Tartarus in Greek. Hell was an appropriate translation to the translators of the KJV because the Anglo-Saxon word hell referred to a similar concept of an abode of the dead in pre-Christian times, while there was no equivalent to Gehenna/Tartarus and thus the same word was used for the place of destruction in Christian parlance. Modern English speakers have forgotten the archaic understanding and take the two as one and the same. The Early Modern English were intimately acquainted with their ancestral culture, while also being diligent inquirers into ancient Greek, Roman, and Hebrew affairs. Lest anyone argue that this means the KJV was culturally colored, the Anglican theologians of its day have been noted as being remarkably well-learned in the theology of the church fathers with the limited material they had available, and their writings reflecting an understanding of the faith surprisingly similar to the ancient church. So they knew what they were expressing, but our culture since has atrophied in its ability to comprehend it.

>>5496 >Did you have more on this? Not much, circumcision prefigured Baptism, and remitted the original sin, I have never looked deeper into this. >Isn't this Pelagianism? I really don't see how, which part sounds Pelagian to you?

>>5497 I want you to know I have no idea what you're saying. >our culture since has atrophied in its ability to comprehend it. Oooh I see.

>>5511 Culture changed and we read new meanings into the same words that were used in 1611.

>>5512 Well that doesn't really explain anything does it, I mean we all know that already. I thought maybe you were talking about Hades, Sheol, the pit, Hell and lake of fire referring to different things.

>>5504 >Not much, circumcision prefigured Baptism, and remitted the original sin, I have never looked deeper into this. Pre-figures =/= the same as, though. I've never heard it argued that circumcision remitted original sin, unless this is a New Age Prot thing. If that was the case, why did John the Baptist baptize circumcized Israelites before the ministry of Christ? Baptism seems obviously different in essence than circumcision in this. >I really don't see how, which part sounds Pelagian to you? The application of original sin permeates through the whole human race and was not addressed except in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. He is the only one who could make amends for it by being fully man, and therefore able to bear the guilt, and fully God, and therefore able to effect divine pardon. The doctrine of original sin reinforces this point of there being no salvation except through Christ, and the harrowing of hell is a corollary to this to exposit the fate of the Old Testament righteous. In the Orthodox icon in OP, Jesus delivers Adam and Eve grabbing them by the wrist and not by the hand as a symbol that they did not accomplish any part of their salvation under human effort but rather that their salvation is only through the application of the grace made good in Jesus Christ. Two applicable canons from the Second Council of Orange, 529: >CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12). >CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers. This applies after baptism as well. The perseverance of the individual believer towards holiness is a function of prevenient (or enabling) grace in Catholic, Orthodox, and Arminian theology and irresistable grace in Calvinist theology. The Lutheran and Anglican views lie in between. The difference being the interpretations being the place of human free will. In prevenient grace the Holy Spirit inspires the believer to pursue holiness and sanctification, but the possibility of backsliding is present raising questions about the sovereignty of God. Meanwhile Protestant Calvinists believe in hard ideas of predestination and the idea of "once saved always saved" emerges from the theological concept that after the Holy Spirit comes upon a believer they are compelled by the sovereign and irresistible power of God to lead holy lives. Those that backslide and refuse to repent were predestined to do so, such that their hypocrisy condemns them all the more in the final judgement. As you can see however, in all forms of traditional Christianity, it is God that initiates and works salvation. Even if circumcision somehow remitted original sin without acknowledging Christ, rather than simply being a distinguishing symbol for the flesh descendants of Abraham, it was only instituted at the commandment of God. The ambiguity at the end of your post made me wonder if you were some sort of Pelagian because in doctrinal soteriology the individual believer does not preserve himself towards righteousness, rather, it is the Holy Spirit that does so in amending their will towards righteousness. This is why blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin, as one who does so denies the immanent working of God in their lives which will bring about nothing but their own destruction.

>>5513 I was pointing out that Sheol/Hades and Gehenna/Tartarus are two different places. The understanding in popular culture is that when you die and are not saved you go the lake of fire instantly, rather than the grave awaiting the last judgement, either through the "intermediate state" of Orthodoxy and Protestantism, the Purgatory of Catholicism, or the "soul sleep" that Luther personally vouched for. In this state there is nothing you can avail for your ultimate fate though, so one could say that the person going to heaven or to (the fiery) hell is as good as done.

>>5524 Before replying to this post's contents, I'd like to know whether you are Catholic or not.

>>5528 What difference does that make if your beliefs are justified truths? I'm open to reason, and on an anonymous imageboard you should write for the edification of all the anons reading rather than any one in particular. For your sake, write as if I am not, since you don't know who will read the post other than myself. It's why I presented multiple perspectives on the matter.

>>5531 He needs to know if you're catholic so he can shun you and whip you in his synagogue.

>>5532 And I want him to sharpen his skills at being an apologist.

>>5533 Mostly the whipping though.

>>5531 >What difference does that make if your beliefs are justified truths? The thing is that I don't come here to discuss, but I try to answer questions if I can, and avoid quarrels. If I actually scandalized a fellow Catholic it would be different. >>5532 This is true as well. >>5524 >Pre-figures =/= the same "Prefigured" was probably the wrong word honestly, I suppose when one says prefiguration of Baptism you'd imagine the universal Flood or the crossing of the Jordan. >If that was the case, why did John the Baptist baptize circumcised Israelites I'm not sure of the nature of Saint John's baptism, since he said he was baptizing men "in water, for repentance" and not "in Holy Spirit and fire". I don't see the problem in any case, I'm sure Baptism is by far the greater sacrament of the two, not something that circumcision would have made unnecessary, since it does more than simply erasing the original sin. >Even if circumcision somehow remitted original sin without acknowledging Christ Not sure what you mean by "without acknowledging Christ." The true faith, the faith of the saints Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was the faith in God and His Christ to come. >rather than simply being a distinguishing symbol for the flesh descendants of Abraham "And God said to Abraham: And you therefore will keep my Covenant, and your Seed after you in His generations. This is my Covenant that you will observe between Me and you, and your Seed after you: every male will be circumcised among you, [...] as the slave born in the home so the bought one will be circumcised, and whoever is not of your lineage". I think this passage needs no comment in this regard. Then: "The male, the flesh of whose foreskin will not have been circumcised, his soul will be deleted from his people." And what sin does an infant of eight days have, that his soul is deleted from his people, if he's not circumcised? Only Adam's sin. Conversely, his soul is made part of his people, if he's circumcised, thus keeping God's Covenant. Personally I think that since "the Lord has blessed all those who fear the Lord, the little ones with the elders," it would be bizarre if the children of Israel dying before reason had not been saved. >unless this is a New Age Prot thing It's not a new teaching. >all the Pelagianism question I still don't understand what it was that I said that sounded Pelagian, so I can't respond to this beyond saying no, I'm not Pelagian, I confess the faith of the Church.

>>5536 >The male, the flesh of whose foreskin will not have been circumcised, his soul will be deleted from his people Which translation is this? https://biblehub.com/parallel/genesis/17-14.htm https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%2017:14 All English translations say something along the lines of cut off or excluded, after the Hebrew and the Greek: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3772.htm A verb which also used for the cutting off of the foreskin, and for the felling of trees, and the LXX: >1842 eksolothreúō (from 1537 /ek, "completely out from," intensifying 3645 /olothreúō, "destroy, slay") – properly, totally destroy, referring to a complete loss of inheritance (reward). https://biblehub.com/greek/1842.htm The context isn't about the soul being "deleted," but the loss of reward. It doesn't have a strong connection to soteriology, but its after the promise of Abraham, that his seed will yield a great people. In addition, soul mortality / annihilationism is something that's held by sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses, while Nicene Christians adhere to the immortality of the soul.

>>5542 In retrospect, it is obvious I got baited now.

>>5544 I'm not baiting you, I'm wondering what kind of bizarre theology you have. >>5536 >And what sin does an infant of eight days have, that his soul is deleted from his people, if he's not circumcised? Only Adam's sin. Conversely, his soul is made part of his people, if he's circumcised, thus keeping God's Covenant. >Personally I think that since "the Lord has blessed all those who fear the Lord, the little ones with the elders," it would be bizarre if the children of Israel dying before reason had not been saved The Catholic answer to this is Limbo, not that circumcision takes away original sin.

>>5545 >The Catholic answer to this is Limbo, not that circumcision takes away original sin. As a Catholic, I'm certain of the contrary. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but don't make up Catholic doctrine to fit the extent of your understanding.

>>5554 It's not what you believe, it's what doctrine states. You haven't provided anything to substantiate your claim (independent of the argument on Pelagianism) except for your own personal speculation, even if you are correct in a general sense. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm >It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ's visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were "in prison," as St. Peter says; but, as Christ's own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. >"It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished." - St. Gregory Nazianzus [Oration 40, no. 23] So it would have been better for you to state that unlike Protestant schemes of salvation, there is no culpability in the Catholic doctrine of original sin imparting condemnation unlike mortal personal sin, and therefore those under the Old Testament were able to achieve holiness by their obedience to God, or be cleared by Purgatorial discipline, though unable to reach heaven as you originally stated until Jesus opened the way. On children that die before the age of majority, their fate is left an open question, though it is hoped that by the mercy of God that they may be saved. > The Catechism asserts: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say, ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.  All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (#1261).  Therefore, while we hope and pray that God who is infinitely merciful would welcome into Heaven a child who dies without the benefit of Baptism, we must not neglect our duty to baptize– the only certain way for a child to attain salvation. https://catholicstraightanswers.com/whatever-happened-to-limbo/ However, it is a (valid) theological opinion and not a dogma. The question of whether circumcision saved in the Old Testament lies within the larger frame of whether children are saved without baptism in that they are not culpable, and if the latter is true -- the former is unnecessary.

>>2825 The Harrowing of Hell wasn't an exception; the righteous dead were not on the other side of the great chasm, where punishment is eternal, but in the Bosom of Abraham. It is possible for souls to cross over from the Bosom to Paradise before the last judgement, through God's mercy and the prayers of the living. This does not constitute deliverance after death because those who are eventually saved by prayer already know what their ultimate fate will be immediately upon death. This post has a little more detail: https://ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2020/11/28/praying-souls-out-of-hell/

>>5579 Thanks.

I had this thought last night and i dont know where else to put it so im going to put it here. Last night i thought to myself "Why didnt God just make it so that only people who would accept could be born" obviously this is a troubling question because the implications of it are that God is not perfect or Holy but i digress. After thinking about this question for some time i came to the conclusion that it wouldnt matter as long as no ones soul suffered eternally. what do i mean? Well in a world where God only allowed believers to be born no souls would ever have to suffer for their disbelief in God so therefore the only way for our current reality to make sense is if hell is NOT eternal. Otherwise it would imply that God is either not perfect or that He enjoys the suffering of humans and is therefore not Holy. I believe there is also some Biblical proof that backs up the assertation here that hell is not eternal and that proof comes from the fact that hell is described as a fire and as we know fire incinerates aka destroys. idk anons what do you think? This had been plaguing my mind all day but i think this is the answer

>>5442 >All those apparitions of Mary are the devil, I'm so sorry Catholics. Not necessarily, Christ did allow the apostles to see Moses and Elijah. Though most Mary encounters are different than that.

>>6367 These links cover it well, even if I don't agree with all of them I do agree that hell is temporary. The greatest proof is to read your own Bible and see rejecting Christ results in death, not eternal pain. https://www.truth-about-hell.com/ https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/how-when-the-idea-of-eternal-torment-invaded-church-doctrine-7610e6b70815 http://www.brazenchurch.com/hell-in-the-bible/ http://www.brazenchurch.com/hell-2-lake-of-fire-lazarus-gnashing-eternal-torment/ http://www.brazenchurch.com/how-hell-invaded-church-doctrine/ https://biblehub.com/greek/165.htm https://biblehub.com/greek/ton_3588.htm I should note I do not subscribe to universalism. It is a doctrine with little Biblical basis.

>>6369 But that's old covenant people. People in the old testament certainly didn't experience soul sleep, they were kept alive in Sheol/Paradise. It's possible that new covenant people do experience soul sleep before Heaven, but unlikely. Yes there's lots of talk about the resurrection day and sleeping but we know at the start of the new covenant the first thing Jesus did was bring people to Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

>>6374 >they were kept alive in Sheol That is soul sleep, the grave. >The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. In soul sleep theology that is the kingdom of Gid which was established here on earth, ie: The Church(es) and the millennium reign.

>>6371 wow thanks anon

>>6371 > I do agree that hell is temporary. Condemned by Scripture and three ecumenical Church councils.

>>6387 what Scripture? the only thing ive found that points toward it is a parable given by Jesus but parables arent literal

>>6375 What I'm saying is soul sleep isn't real, people are in the third Heaven right now

>>6388 Anywhere in the Bible that talks about unquenchable fire or people rising to everlasting contempt. >parables arent literal They convey spiritual truths, and of them is eternal punishment.

>>6396 >Anywhere in the Bible that talks about unquenchable fire or people rising to everlasting contempt. ill have to look into that >They convey spiritual truths, and of them is eternal punishment. i dont remember the rich mans punishment being eternal and once again we would have to consider the meaning of the parable. The purpose of the parable was to convey that if you disobeyed Gods orders that you would be punished

>>6401 Daniel 12:2 is one place to look, as is Matthew 25:46. There are many more as well. The one in Matthew is particularly worth noting, because many arguments surrounding the limited nature of hell are based on the term αἰώνιος which is used to qualify the nature of the punishment. The term means 'eternal', but supporters of limited hell will say that it means merely 'for an age'. Why the verse of Matthew 25:46 is interesting is because it uses αἰώνιος in two contexts, to talk of eternal life and eternal punishment. To say that one implies actual eternal life and the other just 'limited' hell is to equivocate on the meaning of the term used, and is a bad-reading of the text, needless to say. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is also a good one, which says that the damned will face 'the punishment of eternal destruction'. There is a very good reason why those who preach limited hell are heretics condemned at multiple ecumenical councils.

>>6402 all the verses with the exception of Daniel 12:2 refer to some kind of eternal (as in permanent) punishment or death. Daniel 12 is the only one that alludes to something else, the interesting thing about Daniel 12 tho is its context, its discussing the coming of Christ and Him dying for our sins. The righteous residing in Abrahams Bosom aswell as those who accept Christ while in sheoul presumably are granted eternal life/brought into Heaven whereas the unbelievers are left to regret their disbelief. The interesting thing to note is the meaning of the word "עוֹלָם" which can either mean antiquity, futurity, or long duration. Considering how seemingly misplaced this verse appears to be, it is my guess that the word "עוֹלָם" has two different meanings here.

>>6387 >Condemned by Scripture Nope. >three ecumenical Church councils Who rejected Jesus, was it the learned priests or the laymen?

>>6396 >Anywhere in the Bible that talks about unquenchable fire or people rising to everlasting contempt. Unquenchable fire as in you can't put it out. aeon ton aeon doesn't mean everlasting, it means for the ages of the ages.

>>6402 >Matthew 25:46 is interesting is because it uses αἰώνιος in two contexts, to talk of eternal life and eternal punishment. Also in Matthew Christ says let the dead bury the dead, the first is the figurative dead and the second literal. The Gospel According to Matthew is no stranger to using the same word to refer to different things in a sentance.

>>6423 people seem to forget the symbolism of fire. what does fire do? it destroys. When you throw a piece of paper into a flame it gets burnt to ashes, it doesnt just sit there and cook. if God really intended for humans to suffer in hell for eternity then you think He would have gave a better analogy or just said it outright.

>>6402 >'the punishment of eternal destruction' Reread the passage and tell me how you got eternal torture out of that. You are destroyed for eternity, also known as you are dead for eternity. It is saying God will not raise you again.

>>6424 aswell the word eternal means "forever" "infinite", ie infinite death and infinite life.

>>6425 Thank you, that is well put.

>>6421 Perhaps that is to harsh a comparison, but the point still stands not to put your tradition and the wisdom of men above the Word of God

>>6421 The Church never rejected Jesus. It merely reaffirmed what is clearly said in Scripture, that the torments of hell are eternal. Anything else is anathematized heresy. >aeon ton aeon doesn't mean everlasting, it means for the ages of the ages. Nigh blasphemous statement given how the phrase 'unto the ages of ages' is used in the Bible and in liturgical contexts today. >>6425 You're viewing the fires of hell too literally. This is not the Orthodox understanding of hell. >>6426 You're preaching more false doctrine now in saying that some people will not even be raised. This is literally the opposite of what Scripture says. The passage says what it says, it says that the damned will be eternally punished and have cut themselves off from the presence of God. >>6424 Scripture is to be read holistically. There are numerous other passages which say that the torments of hell are everlasting, and therefore we have no grounds to say that Jesus speaks equivocally in Matthew 25:46.

>>6476 >You're viewing the fires of hell too literally. This is not the Orthodox understanding of hell. the "fires of hell" are symbolic, if a torturous hell did exist it would likely just be a black void.

>>6491 People in hell will just be tormented by their own inability to participate in God. They bring it upon themselves.

bump

orthodox shill

Now that the dust has settled, has death been irrevocably btfo or can he still get back in the game?

>>3254 Because we love our children and our society, we throw child molesters and murderers in prison.

Mortal bump

Didn't find a suitable thread for this, but... Doesn't Old Testament sometimes imply that there is no afterlife (because after death you turn into dust). But some Old Testament passages imply that there is afterlife and hell. Pharisees believed in resurrection but Sadducees didn't believe in afterlife. The New Testament and all Christians do believe in heaven and hell.

>>11693 I think that under the Old Testament, everyone who died went to Hell without exception. And if Hell is your only possibility then there may as well be no afterlife at all since Hell is just the death of the soul. I think I know what your next question will be so to clarify, that doesn't mean that everyone who died before Jesus did is still burning in Hell, when Christ was crucified He freed all of the righteous souls from Hell so your ancient ancestors from thousands of years ago might be waiting to meet you in Heaven.

Deceased bump

bump

>>2825 It's a theological opinion but not doctrine in catholicism and orthodoxy that people can be redeemed after death (universalism), but since we don't know for sure we should live as if it wasn't true, that we don't have another hope except while on earth

The bible tells us that there is no other name by which we may be saved than Jesus, and that every knee should bend to the name of Jesus. You answered your own question when you noted that those whom He saved were the "Old Testament righteous", that is, those who believed. When the first man was cursed for his sin he was thereafter blessed because he believed the promise "He shall crush your head and you shall bruise His heel" and he was clothed in the freshly killed flesh of beasts to ward off the cold and save him from the consequences of his sin. The only means by which anyone has ever stood before God has been the righteousness of Jesus Christ because He is the way, the truth and the life, nobody comes to the Father except by Him. Under the old covenant they shared the same faith as us as they lived by the promise of He who was to come, they were not unbelievers who worshipped false gods (all who do so are cursed) and they did not dwell in a place of punishment, they were in to a part of hell which was without fire where they rescued and brought to paradise by the Lord in whom they had believed their whole lives. The unbelievers who are ignorant of His gospel are not absolved thereby, but are condemned because even though they know God they do not glorify Him as God nor are they thankful but they exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for images of corruptible men and beasts and birds and creeping things.

>>15813 >because even though they know God But they don't know God, that's the problem. They know sin but they don't know God and His salvation, because if they did know they would desire it. That's enough to condemn them, sure, but there are grounds for compassion for them because no one deserves salvation on their own merit. So they will be judged a harsh judgement unless there is divine intervention, and face a wrath that no person should wish to face.

>>15816 >But they don't know God They absolutely know God, of course they do. His eternal attributes have been clearly perceived from the foundation of the world in the things that have been made. They are without excuse for their denial of and rebellion against the obvious reality of the world that there is but one God who created all things. >if they did know they would desire it I'm sorry but that is flatly unbiblical. The gospel is not the power of God unto salvation to those who are perishing, to them it is foolishness, a stumbling block, and the stench of death. Children of wrath do not receive the truth of God with faith because they are consumed with hatred for Him, when He walked among them they did not desire the truth He spoke to them instead they plotted among themselves how they might kill Him. A man who has not been raised to spiritual life by the powerful grace of the Holy Spirit is so opposed to his creator that should he spend eons burning in the lake of fire and then be offered release by God for nothing more than a moment of repentance his response would be to spit in His face. >there are grounds for compassion The ground for compassion is that our Lord commanded us to preach His gospel to every nation.

>>15827 >You assert even though it defies living experience and the Bible. For Paul says that the Gentiles do not have the law, but yet have the law written in their hearts One who studies the scripture by reading it could not have missed my constant quotation as you have from the first chapter of the same epistle. What you have quoted here is a condemnation not of the gentiles but of the Jews, built on the foundation of the gentiles' condemnation in that "even though they knew God they glorified Him not as God". Subsequently after demonstrating the wickedness of the gentiles Paul turns on the Jews who would have been encouraging him, condemning them for their hypocrisy in doing the same things which they condemn, as when he reaches his conclusion he comments on the previous passages that "we have already alleged that all, both Jew and gentile, are under sin". The second chapter must therefore be read as a condemnation of the Jews and their presumption. Now the writing of the law upon the heart was a covenantal promise, in the Old Testament God promised that under the new covenant He would write His law upon the hearts of His people so that they no longer needed to be led by the written code but they would all be taught of God. Hence Paul is invoking that scripture and applying it not to the wicked pagans who worship false gods but to the Christian gentiles who are full partakers in the selfsame covenant as Abraham, since it is founded by the same Lord on the same terms. >If God chose to release that man he would have no capacity to defy Him, because God's doing it would be in accordance with His wisdom and desire which is the same across all time. It is vain to speculate outside of and loosed from the teachings of the scriptures (which are God speaking to us). In His word He has already declared "it is appointed to man but once to die and after this the judgement".

>>15818 >They absolutely know God, of course they do. After reviewing Romans 1, which you were citing, I concede this point as my fault. As I received your response in the middle of reconsidering my position, I will be reposting the relevant contents of the post deleted: (I attempted a grounding of my position on a misconception over the Gentile's knowledge of the law versus their knowledge of God on the basis of Romans 2:14-15, but it proved to be a folly that bypassed the exhortation of Paul in Romans 1) >A man who has not been raised to spiritual life by the powerful grace of the Holy Spirit is so opposed to his creator that should he spend eons burning in the lake of fire and then be offered release by God for nothing more than a moment of repentance his response would be to spit in His face. Yes and God does that raising. Are you saying that God's predestination overrides His own sovereign will? If God chose to release that man he would have no capacity to defy Him, because God's doing it would be in accordance with His wisdom and desire which is the same across all time. >Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. Luke 7:47 The one released would be utterly defeated by God's manifest mercy. *In addition to this, by the gospels and Acts we know that the Holy Spirit did not descend on the disciples until Pentecost, yet in Luke 23:43 Christ says to the penitent thief: >And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. The thief surely died before Pentecost as attested in the gospels, yet without the Spirit he was delivered by the mercy of Christ to salvation. >The ground for compassion is that our Lord commanded us to preach His gospel to every nation. No disagreement there. >>15829 >It is vain to speculate outside of and loosed from the teachings of the scriptures (which are God speaking to us). Yes, if we disregarded this we would be papists. There is no Purgatory. >In His word He has already declared "it is appointed to man but once to die and after this the judgement". And is it not a judgement? That divides the righteous from the wicked in accordance to His good pleasure? In judgement He both delivers and condemns as Lord, and it is His ultimate sentencing, which none may second-guess. Is this not a faithful testimony, and our hope in Christ Jesus?

>>15831 If you see fault in my closing statement please enlighten it in good faith. Note that I am not making the heretical argument that all will be saved, but that judgement towards life or towards damnation is God's prerogative.

>>15834 The error is that it is inconsistent with the testimony of the scriptures. We are told how men are saved and what happens after death. The statement in Hebrews clearly indicates that this judgement occurs immediately after death, there is no intermediary period in which they might repent but their soul is immediately carried to the throne of Christ with their fate already locked in. The many warnings to the unbeliever and promises to the believer throughout the bible are given with a clear intent that the reader understand that if they come before the throne without having already believed on His name they will be cast into the pit. To make a point about the text *not* saying that they won't repent after the fact has more in common with the speculative theology of the medieval scholastics than a proper treatment of the scriptures.

>>15838 I'm not making the OP argument about the soul repenting after death, because like you said that would be more medieval scholastic speculation than biblical theology. However to lay out what is valid: >an individual has to believe in Jesus as saviour and repent in order to be saved >someone who dies without having believed is incapable of doing so, and is delivered to judgement in the state in which they died >this soul is manifestly set towards destruction, it is impossible to redeem the one who is an unrepentant sinner nor would it be desirable as they are in categorical opposition to God >ergo, lake of fire >if they come before the throne without having already believed on His name they will be cast into the pit While I see the logic of the above, did you have the quotations that substantiate it as well?

>>15841 In connection to this, what do you hold to be the fate of infants who tragically die before the age of majority? Are they damned? Is there a difference between the children of believers and non-believers? Are the children of the non-believing damned in sin?

>>15846 And there's a third category I came across which is pertinent, the fate of the mentally retarded.

>>15838 I'd like to say in spite of the posts disputing your position I am coming around to it, but I would like to hear your reply before we come to terms.

>>15852 >>15847 >>15846 >>15841 >>15838 >>15834 >>15831 >>15829 >>15818 >>15816 >>15813 >>15810 >>15464 >>13850 >>11694 >>11693 >>10437 >>8706 >>etc THE ONLY WAY TO GET SAVED IS THROUGH ALLAH. CHRISTIANITY IS FAKE. COME TO https://anon.cafe/islam/ . BY THE WAY ANIME IS DEGENERATE AND MAKES TRANNIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!