First of all, I can't be arsed to read the past 30 pages or so that have been written in this thread since last I was active, so I'm just throwing myself in here...
Second, hello, especially to fykusfire
Third: I think Pawnator pretty clearly stated what the actual point of Pericope Adulterae is, namely that Jesus was the only one who could throw the first stone, but chooses to forgive, partly because that was his mission on Earth, but also perhaps he saw her heart was repentant. The meaning of the law is to convict of sin, not ultimately to deal with it.
Actually the reason was detailed clearly in my post. It deals specifically with Jewish law.
Fourth, I'd like to see your sources, fykusfire. Most of us already know that the Roman Catholic Church has a pretty clear stance on this, although since the Second Vatican Council, they seem to try to depopulate their Hell as much as they can, theologically.
The Eastern Orthodox Churches have, as far as I know, a different view on Hell, but this view is neither annihilationism nor universal reconciliation. It is eternal conscious torment, but not from the abscence of God but from the prescence of God, who is described several times in the Bible as a consuming fire. (Deut 4:24, Heb 12:29).
It's only really the liberal protestant denominations, the JWs and a few other denominations who have corporately embraced either annihilationism or universal reconciliation. So please give figures and sources if you want to state the contrary.
But regardless, we all know that a majority believing in something doesn't make it more true. My personal view of Hades/Gehenna ranges from annihilationism to finite punishment to eternal torment in a non-firey way (See C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce"). But I personally prefer to emphasize what we saved INTO rather than what we are saved FROM.
Damnit Hruggles, making me all work n' stuffz. Alright, I'll go back over this. You yourself stated that some Protestant sects have some churches or figureheads that support annihilationism
. Some of these sects include Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and Seventh-day Adventist. John Wesley, John Wenham, John Stott, and Greg Boyd are some advocates of it. Christian Universalism
has adherents in Catholicism, Lutheran, Anabaptist
, Baptist, Pentecostal, Non-Denominational, and Messianic Hebrew sects. Three of the most famous that come to mind are Abraham Lincoln, Billy Graham, and after his stint dabbling in annihilationism funny enough, the very same John Wesley. The most famous Catholic Universalist was Titus of Bostra (I grew up a Catholic and personally knew many others who were). Many of the earliest church fathers
of which's church later became the Roman Catholic one, were also Universalists. I was not referring to Eastern Orthodox above however, for the record.
Also, while I actually hate the creationist/evolutionist debate, I can't resist to problematize the argument fykus is using by agreeing with Myth - where in the list of ages in Genesis/Chronicles do you stop counting people's ages symbolically? Should we continue counting the ages of people symbolically? There seems to be a gradual decline in ages - Noah lived 950 years, Abraham 175 years, Moses 120, and the text seems to indicate a gradual lifespan decrease during the generations between them. This is actually the real difficulty with reading the Creation symbolically, although I don't think it is impossible - personally I do, although I don't have a good answer to the age problem at the moment.
According to Arthur Earle, who wrote "The Bible Dates Itself," some of this is explained by the ages referring to counts in a base 7 numbering system. That would mean the ages are much less than what is actually stated in a base 10 system such as what we use in modern times. Really though, I wasn't arguing that so much as the time before humans arrived and recorded the things around them in detail. Those "days" of creation could have been billions of years in God's perspective.
As for Universalism, which to me pretty much means just "everyone goes to heaven, teehee", there are very FEW passages supporting that view, but there are quite many supporting annihilationism, and a few suggesting Universal Reconciliation, although that is really more wishful thinking and philosophical argumation than it is Biblical.
What about these:
Jesus' prophecy that he will "draw all men" to himself (John 12:32)
Jesus' teaching that God is "Our Father in heaven" (Matthew 6:9)
Jesus' teaching that all things will be renewed. (Matthew 19:28)
Jesus' teaching that the unforgiving servant will be turned "over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed." (Matthew 18:34)
Jesus' statement that human beings are "gods" (John 10:34, quoting Psalm 82:6)
Paul's teaching that human beings are God's "offspring" (Acts 17:28)
Paul's teaching that there is "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:6)
Paul's teaching that "from [God] and through him and to him are all things" (Romans 11:36)
Paul's prophecy that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22)
Paul's teaching that "just as the result of one trespass [by Adam] was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness [by Christ] was justification that brings life for all men. ... through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:18-19)
Paul's statement that God "is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)
Paul's teaching that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them" (2 Corinthians 5:19)
Paul's prophecy that "every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10-11)
Peter's teaching that Jesus "died for sins once for all" and "went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago" (1 Peter 3:18-20), so that they may "live according to God in regard to the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6)
John's teaching that "[Jesus Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2)
Old Testament teaching that men and women are created "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27)
Old Testament teaching that "[God's] anger lasts only a moment" (Psalm 30:5)
Old Testament teaching that "[God] is good; his love endures forever" (Psalm 106:1, 107:1)
Fifth, my view on the Bible is infallability, not inerrancy. As such, human error can sneak itself in there, but the spiritual implications of the stories are correct. As such, I believe Jesus died for our sins, was resurrected and brought eternal life for all those who believe in Him. But for one thing, the conflicting stories of the resurrection, witnesses by people who weren't even considered credible witnesses in those days (women), make the whole story seem more credible to me. If it was fabricated, they'd probably put Caesar himself there, and wouldn't even have 4 different conflicting accounts, some of which were written with full knowledge of the others' contents!
As for the whole "Our Bible is a corrupted mess of editors" argument, I doubt any serious scholar would agree with that. Yes, I believe some might claim quite a few books were pseudepigraphical, but I've very seldom seen anyone give good arguments that Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus, the 4th century Bibles of which the main body of modern New Testament translations are based, were heavily edited from their original form. The textual finds dating as far back as 125 AD
, also very seldom bear account to any major redactions. Yes, there are differences between the Byzantine and Alexandrian textual traditions, but 99% of them are spelling differences in the Greek, and only about 20 verses are added in the former tradition, and removing those changes no theology at all. As I said, none of this is a problem with the infallability view, which is the most common in the Church universally.
As for the Old Testament, we know from the Septuaginta and the Dead Sea Scrolls that it was more or less the same in 100 BC as the Masoretic Text that we base current translations primarily from, so those evil popes don't really make a difference here either. The only major fabrication that I know of that has snuck itself into the Textus Receptus is the Comma Johanneum, which is half a verse, which just tried to emphasize the Trinity doctrine in defence against the Arians. And while that verse is not really needed to establish some form of Trinity doctrine in the Bible, it is removed in almost all translations of the Bible since the late 19th century...
I can agree with most of what you are saying here. However, it is odd that you are referring to all of these codices are either in Latin or Greek, none of which the Hebrews spoke. In order for these to be confirmed without doubt as accurate when they were obviously written by Hebrews would be to have original copies in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek or Latin. I know a couple of them were translated from Hebrew or Aramaic texts, but not many. On top of this, the original Hebrew Nazarenes and Ebionites only used a gospel named "The Gospel of the Hebrews
," which really was in said languages, but of which no copy exists in the present. So there is a lot of margin for error, so I will agree again that the inspiration itself is valid, but the book we have now can neither be confirmed as infallible or inerrant.
Edited by fykusfire, 10 September 2009 - 01:38 PM.