Ξ July 29th, 2008 | → 9 Comments | ∇ Life |
This is post #2 from The Hell Test, By Gary Amirault. Gary and I agree about some things, this is one of those things!
• If Hell was real, how is it that the most prominent universalists of the early church were born into Christian families and were most highly revered by their peers while those who advocated Hell came from paganism and confessed they were among the vilest? (Tertullian and Augustine)
• If Hell was real and found in the original Greek manuscripts of the Bible, why is it that it was primarily those church leaders who either couldn’t read Greek (Minucius Felix, Tertullian), or hated Greek as in the case of Augustine, that the doctrine of Hell was advocated? Those early church leaders familiar with the Greek and Hebrew (the original languages of the Bible) saw universal salvation in those texts. Those who advocated Hell got it from the Latin, NOT from the original Greek and Hebrew. Who would more likely be correct–those who could read the original languages of the Bible or those who read a Latin translation made by one man (Jerome)?
• If Hell was real why do most leading historians acknowledge that the early church was dominated by universalism?
• If Hell was real then why did four out of six theological schools from 170 AD to 430 AD teach universal salvation while the only one that taught Hell was in Carthage, Africa, again where Latin was the teaching language, not Greek?
• If Hell was real why didn’t Epiphanius (c. 315-403) the "hammer of heretics" who listed 80 heresies of his time not list universalism among those heresies?
• If Hell was real, since most historians would acknowledge today that Origen was perhaps the most outstanding example of early universalism in the church, when Methodius, Eusibius, Pamphilus, Marcellus, Eustathius, and Jerome made their lists of Origen’s heresies, why wasn’t universalism among them? Could it be perhaps that it wasn’t a heresy in the original church?
• If Hell was real and a serious heresy, why was it not until the sixth century when Justinian, a half-pagan emperor, tried to make universalism a heresy? Interestingly, most historians will acknowledge that Justinian’s reign was among the most cruel and ruthless.
• If Hell was real, since the early church was closest to the apostles and since they were closest to the original manuscripts of the Bible, why did the vast majority of the early Christian believers NOT believe in Hell as a place of everlasting burnings?
• If Hell was real and all died NOT because of their transgressions but because of Adam’s transgression (Rom 5:18), why do many Christians not see what is plainly written, that "even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to ALL MEN, resulting in JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE!" (Rom. 5:18) This Scripture declares the FACT that all are justified due to Christ’s righteous act. No one "decided" to die in Adam, it was "reckoned" to us. Equally no one "decided" to "receive eternal life," it is also "reckoned" to us. (A thorough understanding of Romans Chapter five carefully comparing several English translations would be a very good exercise. The omission of the definite article "the" in Rom. 5:15 before the word "many" in some translations has caused some great misunderstanding of this most important chapter of the Bible.)
• If Hell is real, in Romans 5:19, the "many" who were made sinners were actually "all" of the human race. Why is the "many" who were made "righteous" not equally be "all" of the human race? "For as by one man’s disobedience MANY were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience MANY will be made righteous."
• If Hell is real and everlasting, why does Psalm 30:5 say His anger is but for a moment?
• If Hell is real one would never know it by the actions of most Christians. They go through life pretty much like atheists, pagans, etc. If they really believed in Hell, they would spend their entire life trying to snatch their friends and relatives from the burning flames. If Hell is real, why don’t they do this?
• If Hell is a real place of merciless endless torture, since God knows the beginning from the end, why didn’t God just kill Adam and Eve and end the long terrible chain of misery that passed to their offspring before it began? After all, the Scriptures say that all died BECAUSE of Adam. (Rom. 5:18)
• If Hell is real, why is it not mentioned in most leading English Bible translations until Matthew? (Most Bible translations now acknowledge Sheol should NOT ever be translated Hell as the King James Bible incorrectly did.)
*from an article on Tentmaker. I don’t agree with everything, but it makes you think and hopefully do a little research.
To read the rest of this article, follow this link
On this and the next post, I will be taking information on a "very hot" subject today (sorry, I couldn’t resist the pun), taken from an article found at tentmaker.org, called The Hell Test , by Gary Amirault . Hope you enjoy them.
If Hell is real and describes a real place, why does the English word "Hell" come from a pagan source instead of the ancient Hebrew writings of the Bible? Why is the word "Hell" not found in the Jew’s Bible which is the Christian’s Old Testament? Furthermore, the word "Hell" has completely disappeared from the Old Testament Scriptures in most leading Bibles. Why? Because the best scholarship demands it. (The word "Hell" comes from the Teutonic "Hele" goddess of the underworld "Hell" of northern Europe . The description of this ancient mythological place has very little resemblance anymore to the modern Christian image of Hell. See any Encyclopedia or dictionary for the origin of the word.) Seeing that the Bible is supposed to be "Holy," why have pagan religious words been added to our modern English Bibles? Please understand, the English word "Hell" and its concepts are NOT in the Hebrew nor Greek. They come into the English through Northern European mythologies, NOT from the roots of Christianity.
• If Hell as a place of everlasting tortures was the real fate of all mankind unless they did something here on earth to prevent it, why didn’t God make that warning plain right at the beginning of the Bible? God said the penalty for eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was DEATH. He did NOT define death as eternal life being forever tortured in burning fire and brimstone.
• If Hell was real why didn’t Moses warn about this fate in the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Covenant consisting of over 600 laws, ordinances, and warnings? The Mosaic Law simply stated blessings and cursings IN THIS LIFETIME for failure to keep the Mosaic Law.
• If Hell is real and it is a place of eternally being separated from God, why does David say in the King James Bible, "Though I make my bed in Hell (Sheol) lo, Thou art there? (Again please note, most Christian Bibles NO LONGER have the word "Hell" in the Old Testament. The KJV written over 350 years ago is an exception. The Jews do NOT put the word "Hell" in their English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, that is, the Old Testament and the leading English Christian Bibles have removed it because it is NOT in the originals. Most Christian scholars now acknowledge it should never have been placed there in the first place.)
• If Hell is real and if good people go to heaven and bad people go to Hell, why does EVERYONE, good or bad, go to the same place in the Old Testament? They ALL go to Sheol which the King James Version translated "Hell" thirty-0ne times, "grave" thirty-one times and "pit" three times? Are we all destined to go to Hell or did the King’s translators make some gross translation errors?
• If Hell is real, why don’t the Jews, many who know the Old Testament better than most Christians, not believe in the modern Christian concept of Hell? They say they don’t believe it because it is not in their Scriptures. Most scholars today can not find Hell in the Old Testament. Most leading Bible translations no longer contain the word Hell in the entire Old Testament. (Genesis through Malachi.)
• If Hell doesn’t exist in the Old Testament, how could Jesus and his disciples teach that salvation was deliverance from a place that is not even found in their Scriptures? (There was only the Old Testament at that time.) Would that not make Him appear like a false teacher? Or could it be that Jesus never taught such a concept in the first place? Could it be that this concept has been added to the church and SOME Bibles through "traditions of men?"
• If Hell is real, since SOME English translations use the word Hell for the Greek word "Gehenna," in the New Testament, why didn’t this same place (Gehenna) get translated Hell in the many places where it appears in the Hebrew form "ga ben Hinnom" in the Old Testament? If the Jews did not understand this valley as a symbol of everlasting torture, why do SOME English translations give this word such a meaning? And who burned who in this valley? And what was God’s response for Israel doing such a horrible thing to their children? (Jer. 32:33-35) And how could God say "such a thing never entered His mind" if in fact He is going to do the very same thing to most of His own children?
• If Hell was real, why did the early church appoint an avowed universalist as the President of the second council of the church in Constantinople in the fourth century? (Gregory Nazianzen, 325-381)
• If Hell was real, why did Church leaders as late as the fourth century AD acknowledge that the majority of Christians believed in the salvation of all mankind?
• If Hell was real and a place of no escape, why did the early church teach Jesus went to Hell (Hades), preached to them and led captivity captive? (Eph. 4:8,9; Psalm 68:18; 1 Peter 3:18-20)
• If Hell was real and the grave settled the matter forever, why did the early Christians offer up prayers for the dead?
• If Hell was real, why did the first comparatively complete systematic statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 180, contain the tenet of universal salvation?
• If Hell was real, why did the first complete presentation of Christianity (Origen, 220 A.D.) contain the doctrine of universal salvation?
• If Hell was real, why didn’t the church teach it until AFTER the church departed from reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, substituting Latin in its stead several centuries after Christ’s death?
• If Hell was real, why did not a single Christian writer of the first 3 centuries declare universalism as a heresy?
• If Hell was real why didn’t a single one of the early creeds express any idea contrary to universal restoration, or in favor of everlasting punishment in Hell?
• If Hell was real why did not a single Church council for the first five hundred years condemn Universalism as heresy considering the fact that they made many declarations of heresy on other teachings?
• If Hell was real, why did most of the early church’s leading scholars and most revered saints advocate universal salvation?
*I don’t agree with everything found on Tentmaker, but it makes you think and hopefully do a little researchon your own.
I take a strong stand against the idea of biblical inerrancy, for several reasons. First, I simply don’t find any of the arguments for the doctrine convincing. Second, inerrancy places a needless burden on Christians, many thinking Christians struggle daily to try and square it with their own examinations. Third, it keeps some reflective, critical thinking minds from even considering a Christian spiritual path.
Here are some of the classic fallacies of inerrantists, with possible responses to them.
"So, you’re saying that the Bible is full of lies."
I never said the Bible contains "lies" (deliberate falsehoods) nor did I say that it is "full" of erroneous information. You’re adding the word "full" to discredit my argument. If your position is so solid, why must you parody my viewpoints?
"Why should we even consider your views on inerrancy? You also deny the Trinity, so you’re an apostate."
Of course, it’s possible that my denial of the Trinity is wrong and that my denial of inerrancy is right. How does being wrong about one thing guarantee my being wrong about everything?
"Once you deny inerrancy, you end up denying one thing after another until you abandon the faith altogether."
There’s no reason to assume that to be the case. In fact, there are many people who gave up inerrancy and still are followers of Jesus.
"Inerrancy is true. After all, creationists have good arguments for a young earth and a six-day creation."
Even if creationism could be fully proven, this still would not demonstrate inerrancy.
"The Bible is the inerrant Word because it says it is. God wrote or inspired every word of the Bible supernaturally, so any claims it makes about itself must be accurate."
Your argument depends on inerrancy being true, which is the very thing you’re trying to prove. How can that work?
"You either believe all of the Bible or none of it. You accept its authority completely or not at all."
Why are those the only options available to me? I find lots of things I accept there.
"The majority of Christians throughout church history would totally disagree with you."
Since when does majority vote determine whether something is true? Haven’t there been times in history when the majority — even the majority of Christians — was wrong about something?
"You’re trying to lead people astray with your false teaching."
The question of my motives, whether sinister or not, has no bearing on whether inerrancy is true. It’s possible that I could have the worst of motives and your view of inerrancy still be wrong.
"If inerrancy isn’t true, then we have no absolute, objective standard of faith and practice."
I don’t know. That could well be true. However, it makes no sense to assert that a thing must be true because it would be undesirable to have it not be.
"You’re a heretic, no doubt about it."
Whatever I am, it has no bearing on your argument. I could be all of those things and inerrancy could still be incorrect. Calling me a heretic doesn’t establish your doctrine.
"You deny inerrancy, just like the infidel and atheist."
That, too, doesn’t disprove my point. I might turn it around and say, "You believe in inerrancy, just like the FLDS." But that would be a false — not to mention idiotic — argument.
Ever had a similar experience?
*Thanks to Steve Jones for this post
Ξ July 23rd, 2008 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
As a retired educator in the field of history, I found myself wanting to know all I could about the subject to which I was drawn. I wanted a logical, well crafted answer. So, when I began this journey, some four years ago, that was the modus operandi as I sought answers to the various questions which had troubled me. As time passed, and I delved deeper into my sources, I found the formulaic answers to be good, but not completely satisfying. This was my "baptism" into the realm of the spiritual. Now, I knew what the spiritual realm was, I thought, but a door opened for me to learn so much more. I am the type of person who needs the classical model answer for everything (doesn’t say much for my spiritual side, up to then). I soon found that everything doesn’t follow the archetypical model. I had to change my way of thinking; change my way of thinking of just about everything. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t totally throwing out the classical model, just adding another dimension to it. The spiritual dimension. Sometimes, the classical model doesn’t fully satisfy me. I have given up the requirement of "a logical answer" when it comes to my journey. And, concerning my spiritual journey, the amazing thing has been that if I "calmly put the question to my higher self, and then let it go, at some point the answer will come to me in a clear and easily understood manner", to quote a wise lady.
Ξ July 22nd, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
There are things in all of our pasts that we cannot seem to "get past". Only the present can free you of the past. You must deal with the past on the level of the present. The more attention you give to the past, the more you energize it, and the more likely you are to make it a permanent part of yourself, rather than freeing yourself of it. By continually giving attention to the present, you will be dealing with the past, and dissolving it and all that goes with it that you find so unpleasant, through the power of being present (putting all your attention to what is happening in your life now).
Ξ July 21st, 2008 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
"I finally realized that the harder I try to grasp a concept, the more elusive it becomes. Yet, if I calmly put the question to my higher self, and then let it go, at some point the answer will come to me in a clear and easily understood manner."
-Denise Gibel Molini
Check out Denise’s excellent site here
Only in our reality, which is known as the Relative, does good and bad exist. Here, good cannot exist without bad. So we think that it must be the same "where God lives". But in that plane, the Realm of the Absolute, there is no "bad". There is no "evil". There is only the "All of Everything". The Oneness, Awareness, Experience, that is God. Since the Realm of the Absolute is not Relative, one thing does not exist in relationship to another, but is quite independent of anything. All there is is LOVE.
There is no hell as we who were and are Christians have been taught all our "religious" lives. There are consequences in this life of the Relative. Consequences are an element of relativity. They have no place in the Absolute, where the Source is. Consequences depend on linear "time" and sequential events. These do no exist in the Realm of the Absolute. In the Realm of the Absolute there is nothing but peace and joy and love. There we will find, at last, that the devil does not exist. And we will find that we really are what we hope we are – goodness and love.The idea that we are something else, flawed and "born in sin" has come from a misinformed outer world. Receiving that misinformation, causes us to act insanely when we believe what we’ve been told by the outer world. That outer world is a world of Judgment and Condemnation. Others have judged us, and from their judgments, we have judged ourselves.
Now we want God to judge us….HE WILL NOT DO IT!
And because we cannot understand a God who will not act as humans would, we are lost.
Our theology is our attempt to find ourselves again…
*This post is an attempt to expand on one I wrote some time ago….
Ξ July 15th, 2008 | → 6 Comments | ∇ Life |
"It makes no difference if your religion has a hundred requirements, a million requirements, or only one requirement. A requirement is a requirement, and requirements earmark religions. Religion is man standing on his head for God. The truth is that God is standing on His head for man. But people in religions are too busy doing their thing to even notice that God is doing His."
Ξ July 14th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
"As Americans become increasingly needful and dependent upon a growing entitlement society, the tendency to blame others for any lack takes us away from the responsibility that we all have for problems we have created. What have you done to your own self?"
from Ernie Fitzpatrick at LRC
Ξ July 10th, 2008 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
“Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love?”
Fr. Mychal Judge, NYC Fire Chaplain, who was killed on Sept. 11,2001
Next Page »
Stumble it!
