/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>Hanson

>>1121

Are you BO ?

Where did he get your adress from?

>>1123

oh I'm dumb. It's by amazon. I thought it was "fan mail" kek

>>1123

>>1124

Amazon is a sneaky bastard: it found my address, billed me a book I actually wanted to read! Sneaky and accurate.

>>1124

But I'm not BO though.

>>1125

I have no idea how I missed the amazon package in the background, I was only fixated on the note saying /christ/.

What is this book about exatly and how does it connect Universalism and the Early Church?

is it modernist ?

>>1127

I got the book because it discusses the original language used in the gospels, specifically the "aionos" stuff. Its thesis, I assume, is that the early Church's beliefs were different from those we currently have. it's a pretty old book, over a century, so I wouldn't call it modernist exactly, especially since its theory is about what the first Church of Christ believed. If this is correct, then current Church beliefs are modernism and universalism is the tradition. I know "universalism" is a bad word but I don't think the book is to be related to current definition of the word, with "Universalist Churches" and such.

For all I know, the thesis is that Hell isn't forever. I'll be sure to report back as I read. Unfortunately, it's one of those books with huge ass pages that are little more than facsimiles of the original edition, so it looks like somebody faxed that shit to me in an almost A4 format.

>>1128

That sounds like it was straight published by the 7th day adventists.What denomination is the author?

>>1130

I get that 7th Day Adventist often: what's the connection between them and the idea that Hell isn't forever?

The book is from 1899.

Wikipedia only lists him as a Universalist. So I guess he was a Protestant.

>>1131

>what's the connection between them and the idea that Hell isn't forever?

It is what they believe :^)

They also believe in stuff like soul sleep and sabbat is the day of the lord.

You shouldn't trust them and also not this universalist Author. Those protestants sect usually cherry pick a few verses and misinterpret them and then they feel like the first true church since 15 hundred years or something.

We had one here once but I think he left unfortunately

>>595

pls share with us though if you find something interesting/controversial in it

>>1133

Jehovahs also don't believe hell is forever, but that's because they think souls just die in hell, a sort of second, and permanent, death. Universalists believe all souls get purified in hell, or something.

>You shouldn't trust them and also not this universalist Author.

Just like I do with you and absolutely everyone everywhere, I give you a chance and choose later. This isn't about trust, I want to see his arguments. If the whole thing rests on translations, it will be easy enough to verify this for myself.

The aionos stuff is pretty convincing and foolproof; I can't wait to see an elaborate discussion on it. You can probably see the manuscripts somewhere on the Internet.

I'll report back when I know. There are known passages where current Churches prefer to use the translation's meaning rather than the original word's, for instance, so I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in other instances.

I'll report back as I go.

>>1136

>Just like I do with you and absolutely everyone everywhere, I give you a chance and choose later.

If you surround yourself with bad people this can harm you. It is better to be cautious and not everyone should be exposed to everything.

That's why stuff like the index exists

>>1138

I won't know who's bad before I give everyone a chance. I am very cautious, more than you imagine.

Had I not been this way, I would have remained an atheist. Never forget that my endless questions and testing and giving people a chance is what ultimately led me to Christ. I won't change my method of proceeding because it worked so far, and unlike many Christians on these boards, I have no priming and no religious education was given to me as a child. I build from scratch and I build as an adult only. I have more to gain than to lose from being exposed to everything. Besides, if a faith can be so easily endangered by exposure, then either that faith is on shaky grounds or the things this faith is in aren't worth it. For these reasons, I walk unafraid, for truth is my religion. Truth fears nothing and no inquiries and no doubts.

It may not be the beaten path, but I seldom walk these, since I come from a place where few end up with Christ.

>>1139

>I won't know who's bad before I give everyone a chance. I am very cautious, more than you imagine.

Ideas can be poisenous too.

> I have more to gain than to lose from being exposed to everything.

no

many things that are evil will appear righteous to those who don't know enough.

The devil himself is called morning-star and knows how to deceive and fraud people.

>>1140

>Ideas can be poisenous too.

If I had that attitude before I came to Christ, I wouldn't have come to Christ.

>no

Yuh uh.

>many things that are evil will appear righteous to those who don't know enough.

How will I know more unless I get exposed to more?

>The devil himself is called morning-star and knows how to deceive and fraud people.

Yes, that doesn't mean that everything you don't agree with is of the devil.

You gotta test everything to make sure it's not of the devil. Ever considered that maybe some of your beliefs are of the devil? How do you know if you don't test and get a perspective?

>>1142

>>1142

>If I had that attitude before I came to Christ, I wouldn't have come to Christ.

If you would have mistaken Christianity for wrong yes. But this would have been wrong.

>Yuh uh.

There is nothing to gain and everything to lose.

>How will I know more unless I get exposed to more?

more=yes

anything=no

>Yes, that doesn't mean that everything you don't agree with is of the devil.

If we now that god disagrees with it it is not good reagardless if from the devil or not

>You gotta test everything to make sure it's not of the devil

homosex when?

>Ever considered that maybe some of your beliefs are of the devil?

Most certainly are without me noticing it. Which doesn't mean that I have to expose myself to deceiving material

> How do you know if you don't test and get a perspective?

Trust in law and dogma and teaching

>>1128

>I know "universalism" is a bad word

Lol dont be brainwashed by the groupthink hivemind of the backwards /christian/ traditioncucks pls, they are truly lost.

>>1152

yes pls only truly progressive and universalist churches without apostolic succession and gay "marriage" and woman "priesthood" know the truth.

pls you, who are enlightened by your own intllect and no traditions, save us

kek

>>1153

>only truly progressive and universalist churches without apostolic succession and gay "marriage" and woman "priesthood" know the truth.

Actually thats pretty close to the truth, and you thought it was just edgy sarcasm.

>>1154

of course :^)

that's why their followers are so strong in faith and their churches thrive

>>1155

Muslims have very strong faith and their growth rate is higher than Christianity so by your logic their faith must be the most true.

#rekt

>>1156

that is a fallacy desu~

only because lack in faith and fading away is a sign of not holding the truth it is not said that there is a direct relation the other way round

so killing religion = you're a fraud

your religion thrives != necessarily not a fraud

>>1152

>>1153

>>1154

>>1155

>>1156

>visit /christ/ for the first time

>see this conversation on the front page

>NOPE

>back to /christian/

>>1158

Yes you'll be safe from the truth there, for a time, the traditionalistic circlejerking will give you the illusion of truth, but it just insulates you from opposing viewpoints and deepens ignorance.

>>1158

>isn't able to face opposite positions

back to your hugbox you go!

have a nice day :^)

>>1159

>traditionalistic circlejerking

You must be that faggot posting in the homo thread on /christian/ with the ID 27393c

I'll enjoy my hugbox, you enjoy your containment board. When you're ready you can come out and join us.

>>1148

>homosex when?

Religionwise! I tried it in thoughts and it grossed me out, so I know it's not for me.

>If we now that god disagrees with it it is not good reagardless if from the devil or not

I don't know this much about God.

>Most certainly are without me noticing it. Which doesn't mean that I have to expose myself to deceiving material

Man, your words make my brain explode. Are you saying you suspect your beliefs of being from the devil and you don't mind but God forbid you get exposed to more stuff that may not be of the devil?

>If you would have mistaken Christianity for wrong yes. But this would have been wrong.

This too, I honestly don't know what you're saying. My "try everything" attitude led me to try Christ. I trust my God-given tools to find truth, hence fearless of lies.

>Trust in law and dogma and teaching

The way Christ did? Christ broke laws and challenged dogma. Law-based faith isn't what Christ asked of us, nor what Paul insisted on either.

>>1152

If you are not trolling, please get a name. I'd like to hear you more often, for balance.

>>1158

>he isn't banned

>this means I agree with him

Ugh

>>1154

Please get a name. I want to pay attention when you're around.

>>1158

Sorry we scared ya.

>>1160

Discipulus? There's one guy using that emote all the time, and it's either Disci or the image guy.

>>1163

>I'll enjoy my hugbox, you enjoy your containment board. When you're ready you can come out and join us.

We came out of you. We aren't contained here, since we made it ourselves. We are free here. And most of us browse both boards.

>>1166

The /christian/ mentality. Makes us enjoy being here more.

>>1167

>Discipulus? There's one guy using that emote all the time, and it's either Disci or the image guy.

Thanks for telling me how you spott me :^) I will stop using it as an anon here then :^)

>>1174

>BTFO

It is real in your mind brother

>>1190

Bullshit. I make over 40 posts and I haven't brought up a single point? Can you read?

>>1186

I don't see the connection. I was giving you a compliment.

>>1193

>>1193

>I make over 40 posts

This thread only contains 37 posts

>and I haven't brought up a single point?

please show me the point you made

>>1196

I want to know which thread you were posting these in, too.

>>1207

>>>/christian/75231

and fwiw I'm not even homosex, I just agree more with the Episcopalian viewpoint on this matter

>>1227

I see. I don't check /christian/ sorry.

>>1227

I've read excellent arguments about this. I'm just not mentioning this because I'm already trying to let the dust settle about the other thing…

There is much to be argued.

I'd be willing to post a few arguments for universalism.

For starters there is a movie on netflix called "Hellbound", you guys might be interested in that.

Anyways here goes.

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

>not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If God is "not willing" that any should perish.

Then none will perish, for if they did, then God would be willing to allow it.

i.e. If God made us knowing full well that some would not make it, then He is willing to let them perish.

God wants to save everyone.

1 Timothy2:4

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

(it says "will have", as in this will be done)

1John 4:14

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

God can save everyone.

1 John 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Matthew 19:26

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

>with God all things are possible.

If God wants to save everyone, and God can save everyone, then He will save everyone.

1 Timothy 4:10

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

You can't be something you're not.

If God is "the Saviour of all men", then He must save all men, for if He doesn't then He is not the saviour of all men.

Notice also it says specially of those that believe.

It did not say only those who believe.

Furthermore it seems to me the only requirement for salvation is.

Romans 10:9

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

According to the bible everyone eventually will do this.

Romans 14:11

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Jesus also said

John 12:32

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Considering that He was lifted up from the earth, I expect Him to keep His word, and draw all men unto Himself.

I don't know for sure that everyone will be saved.

I would only say that it is possible, perhaps even likely.

I certainly hope, and pray that it's true.

>>1136

>Universalists believe all souls get purified in hell, or something.

It's based on the following.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

>Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

>If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Again I do not claim that this view is absolute truth, I do not know.

I just really hope that it is.

You can also get at it another way.

Matthew 5:43-45

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

In this passage you are told to

>"Love your enemies", "bless them that curse you", "do good to them that hate you".

And why should we do all these things?

>"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven"

It seems Jesus wants us to love our enemies, and do good to them so we can be more like God the Father.

Well if God sends His enemies to suffer for all eternity, how is us being nice to ours similar to that?

If God punishes His enemies for all eternity, then shouldn't we all have torture chambers in our basement, for the punishment of the wicked?

Wouldn't that make us more like the God who sends people to hell?

Besides all that, If we are commanded to love everyone, and some people don't make it, what a horrible thing.

Why would God want us to love people we know are forever suffering?

>>2325

>He is not willing that they shall perish

>but he is willing to allow it

>But most people don't want to be saved.

Neither did I.

God's will does not change, the will of man changes often.

Saul was happy to persecute Christians.

That's what he wanted to do.

Jesus changed his mind, by just showing up.

see Acts 9

>God wants a world free of sin, he can make a world free of sin ergo this world is free of sin.

God did make a world free of sin.

Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

>as by one man sin entered into the world

So He wanted to, He could, and He did.

Also God has already dealt with sin.

Surely you haven't forgot about Jesus.

John 1:29

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

>If he says all does it mean all?

Yes.

>He says get rid of your arm if it leads you to sin, do you recommend amputation to wankers?

He meant if something causes you to sin, you should remove it from your life.

Do you think that He did not mean anything He said?

You're saying that because this was not literal, then neither is the other.

Because that is obviously not the case.

Take that verse I was referring to, in context, and demonstrate how it is not literal.

Don't point me to a place where He was not literal, and think that refutes anything.

It doesn't.

You can't take the fact that He often spoke in parables, to mean that He did not mean anything He said.

>If God lets crime unpunished that is a just process on the other hand?

Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin.

>If God forces the people that hate him to love him that is "love"?

Compelling someone is not the same as forcing them.

My post compelled you to reply, it did not force you to.

>If nothing matters that is glory?

Who said nothing matters?

Also what do these questions have to do with mine?

>Universalism is a dead end, don't let death have the last laugh pls

2 Timothy 1:10

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

>Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death

>>2330

>>2330

>Neither did I.

But you are still alive, that's the difference.

>God did make a world free of sin.

But this world is not free of sin though God wants no sin and could abolish it.

>Also God has already dealt with sin.

>Surely you haven't forgot about Jesus.

That's a legal act. Sin itself however does still exist and defile the world.

>Yes.

No :^)

At least you can't know.

>You're saying that because this was not literal, then neither is the other.

yes

>Take that verse I was referring to, in context, and demonstrate how it is not literal.

All can also refer to very many/much. In many languages the superlative can also be translated with "very+adjective".

This is also a common practice still today, we often use superlative like that.

>You can't take the fact that He often spoke in parables, to mean that He did not mean anything He said.

No. but someone has to decide what was meant where and neither you nor I are really qualified for that.

>Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin.

For his Church, yes.

>Compelling someone is not the same as forcing them.

You cannot compell people to do something they simply do not want to.

>Who said nothing matters?

Universalism.

>>Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death

Yes, hell however will be the second death. Death is abolished now for the Church and the future Saints.

Also daily reminder that there is no reason to use KJV the early church also didn't use etruscan for their bible.

>>2331

>But you are still alive, that's the difference.

My point was that God compelled me before I died.

He could also do the same for others.

What makes you think that people have to repent before they die?

>God wants no sin and could abolish it.

Did you not read what I posted?

John 1:29

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

>Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

>Sin itself however does still exist and defile the world

And God will deal with that later.

Surely God wishes to allow this, for if He did not, He could stop it.

You're trying to say that because because God does not like sin, but He allows it, therefore He will allow people to perish even though He does not want this.

The problem is God obviously allows sin, therefore His will is to allow it.

>At least you can't know

Why not?

I can read.

>yes

So by that logic nothing he said was literal.

Including the passages about hell, therefore hell can not possibly be literal as per your logic.

>No. but someone has…

You just said that it does. see above.

Now you are contradicting your own statements.

>For his Church, yes.

My bible says for the whole world.

1 John 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 4:42

And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

1 John 4:14

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

>You cannot compell people to do something they simply do not want to.

Let me again refer you to Acts 9

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9&version=KJV

Saul did not want to help Christians, he wanted to persecute them.

God changed his mind.

>Universalism.

How do you figure?

>Also daily reminder that there is no reason to use KJV

Many of the other translations leave out important verses.

A good example would be with Acts 8:37

http://biblehub.com/acts/8-37.htm

Notice how many leave out this verse.

Notice also this is the verse where the man was saved.

See also embed related.

I'm fairly certain I have told you about this before. >>1626

>>2332

>What makes you think that people have to repent before they die?

Can they after they die?

Will they after the die?

Lucifer saw God in all his glory and knew him better than any of us, yet he still refused. Why should it be different with others?

>Did you not read what I posted?

This world is full of sin period.

Taking away the sin of the world is a legal act refering to the last judgement, as I said.

>The problem is God obviously allows sin, therefore His will is to allow it.

And God obviously allows people to go to hell, therefore his will allows it.

Matthew 7,22-23

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you.Depart from me, you evildoers.’

>Why not?

>I can read.

You cannot interpret the whole scripture correctly, you have no idea of the original texts, of the context of the text or of the style it is written in as I have no idea.

Only the magisterium is guided and knowledgable enough to do that.

>So by that logic nothing he said was literal.

No

>ou just said that it does

What did I say? I don't contradict myself.

>My bible says for the whole world.

As the whole world is offered the church, but they refuse.

>God changed his mind.

Nonono. Saul changed his mind himself. God appeared to him. Saul could also have said screw you.

>How do you figure?

If my deeds do not change the end result they are meaningless.

>KJV Verse

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-is-acts-837-omitted-from-many-bible-translations

>I'm fairly certain I have told you about this before

I-I can't watch all 2 hour embeds, I have a rl too, so I skip some.

>>2334

>I-I can't watch all 2 hour embeds, I have a rl too, so I skip some.

15 min in , it is silly how he even wants to turn the footnotes in a bad thing.

He's not really convincing me.

Also isn't he "kill the homos" dude?

>>2332

>video

>22:20

LEL

E

L

Remember my 13 gorillion

This stuff he says about the virgin birth, Jesus predating creation, Jesus not being cast out of heaven etcpp are all rooted in dogma, there can't be a valid new Catholic translation that denies any of this

30:20

>This is the book that launched the reformation

>the most important book ever written

Yes no thanks, I get an idea of the video after half an hour :^)

>>2334

>Can they after they die?

>Will they after the die?

According to you they can.

I quoted Romans 14:11, and you said "Not in this life. In the next world they will after their defeat."

>Lucifer saw God in all his glory and knew him better than any of us, yet he still refused.

And people refuse now, but that does not mean they can't change.

Do you believe that people can change?

Do you agree that God does not change?

>Matthew 7,22-23

It says many.

It does not say many men.

How do you know this verse is not talking about the fallen angels, or demons?

>You cannot interpret the whole scripture correctly

>Only the magisterium is guided and knowledgable enough to do that.

So you don't believe that God has sent His Holy Spirit to teach us?

John 14:26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

>he shall teach you all things

John 15:26

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

>even the Spirit of truth

My bible says I can know truth, and I believe it.

>What did I say? I don't contradict myself.

I said: "You're saying that because this was not literal, then neither is the other."

You replied with "Yes"

I said: "You can't take the fact that He often spoke in parables, to mean that He did not mean anything He said."

And you replied to that "No"

In the fist instance you are saying that because not everything Jesus said was literal, we can then conclude that this specific verse was not literal.

And in the second you are saying no we can't do that.

>As the whole world is offered the church, but they refuse.

Its whoever believes in Jesus.

see John 3:16

>Saul could also have said screw you.

But he didn't, as his mind was changed.

That's my point.

His free will was not violated, but his mind was changed.

Do you think that God is incapable of compelling men?

>If my deeds do not change the end result they are meaningless.

Your end result can be different.

Did you forget about the rewards?

People who do well get rewarded for that, but people that don't do not get rewarded.

So your each person's end result will be different.

Matthew 16:27

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Your salvation is not based on works, but your rewards are.

>http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-is-acts-837-omitted-from-many-bible-translations

Acts 8:37 is not included in many Bible translations because it is not found in the oldest and best translations of Acts

I thought it was the newer ones that did not contain these verses?

Even so, what does a date make one better than the other?

I would say whichever is more accurate to the truth is better regardless of when it was written.

>>2335

>>2336

>>2337

I appreciate your taking the time to view this video.

>Remember my 13 gorillion

Do you deny history?

People really died. How can you mock that?

>Yes no thanks

Fair enough.

>>2334

> did we not prophesy in your name?

You are an angel no

> Did we not drive out demons in your name?

nope angelus

> Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’

No fallen angels do not act in his name

>>2340

>You are an angel no

actually some angels did predict the future in his name, predicting Jesus birth for instance now that I think about it. But that was not "many", and I do not believe that they are fallen since they only could predict to humans and the fall occurred before we were cast out of the paradise.

So even the few angels predicting stuff are most certainly fine.

>>2339

>It is not repentance, they are forced to bow then.

Forced?

So much for free will.

>They can but rarely do.

>Yes

So we agree that people can change whereas God does not.

Therefore my previous claim is plausible.

i.e. God could convince people to accept Him.

Jude 1:14,15

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

>and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds

Perhaps they repent when God convinces them of their sins.

>That's just silly now. Do angels any of this? Why should this verse talk about them?

Maybe because that's why hell was made.

Matthew 25:41

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

>prepared for the devil and his angels

>He did and it was passed over by apostolic succession

Got any scripture to back that up?

It seems to me that was for believers in general.

>You want it to say that, in fact it doesn't

John 8:32

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Why don't you believe Jesus?

>Also why is the former verse not literal?

I was quoting you.

How about you tell me why its not.

Your previous argument was that "its not because Jesus often spoke in parables"

That was what I was trying to refute.

I was asking you to tell me why you think he did not mean all in the context of what was said.

>the magisterium determines "truths".

Matthew 15:9

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

>because it is made up.

Hitler was a lie.

Sure thing pal. Look the point they were trying to make was that these people were disarmed before this even took place.

That my friend is a fact. Do you deny that part as well?

They were trying to relate that with taking away from God's word, which is our weapon against the devil.

Hence I use it all the time.

>People really die, how can they mock that with making stuff up and demanding etenal victimhood?

So because some people exploited it, you are allowed to mock it?

Didn't anyone ever tell you two wrongs don't make a right?

>>2344

>Forced?

>So much for free will.

Yes, you have a choice here and when it is made it is made. If you side with the devil you will perish.

The enemys of the lord will be undone, many humans will side with him in the last days.

>Perhaps they repent when God convinces them of their sins.

Will they even be able to do so?

Can someone tainted even face God? How can anyone that does not accept Jesus as his

saviour come to heaven?

>Got any scripture to back that up?

Jesus himself installed the apostles and they believed that.

That's why all churches with apostolic succession teach that.

Also I do not need to back everything up by scripture.

First of all not even scripture demanded that.

Secondly the apostles didn't do that, they held councils and had Peter as their leader, again installed by Christ.

Thirdly I can cherrypick a lot from a book as long as the bible, I can claim anything.

That is why protestant sects are so numerous, yet all of them follow "their" bible.

>Why don't you believe Jesus?

I do. We know the truth, we made the bible, we asserted dogma, we evolved tradition, we held up apostolic succession all of that is us staying true to the truth.

>How about you tell me why its not.

Because the bible has to be interpreted and is not to be taken literally :^)

So what can be your argument ?

>Your previous argument was that "its not because Jesus often spoke in parables"

nope, my previous argument is above, the parable thing adds to tthat of course.

>That was what I was trying to refute.

That Jesus spoke in parables?

Originally I did not say that, but yes he did too.

He also used hyperbole and everything else that rethorics has to offer and did stuff according to the context of his time.

>But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Nono the commandment of the single man that appointed the apostles who made his church, that's what we follow.

>Hitler was a lie.

No. The holohoax is, however.

>Do you deny that part as well?

It is a misleading statement since more people than ever had contact to weapons then due to the high soldat:civilian ratio.

Also a complete disarmement would have been impossible due to local culture.

But I'm sure they tried.

>So because some people exploited it, you are allowed to mock it?

No. It does not exist, it is a product of their phantasy and propaganda.

I cannot mock it because it did not happen.

They are mocking actual victims of genocide however through making stuff up. For instance the Germans after 1945.

>>2345

Everything what happened to these two poor women after (!) their death was perfectly just.

That's all.

>>2346

>Yes, you have a choice here and when it is made it is made.

So God takes away our free will not in this life but in the next?

If He was going to take away our free will, why not do it when it could be used to save us?

>Will they even be able to do so?

Repent?

Sure. Why wouldn't they be able to?

>How can anyone that does not accept Jesus as his saviour come to heaven?

I was arguing that everyone eventually would.

>Jesus himself installed the apostles and they believed that.

Did they?

Care to cite a source?

>Also I do not need to back everything up by scripture.

Hence why I don't believe you.

>I do.

You just said that the bible does not tell us we can know the truth.

I proved you wrong, and now you wont even admit your mistake.

>Because the bible has to be interpreted and is not to be taken literally :^)

>So what can be your argument ?

I could argue that your wrong about your interpretation.

>Nono the commandment of the single man that appointed the apostles who made his church, that's what we follow.

You might try standing on His word instead of those of the Magisterium.

>Everything what happened to these two poor women after (!) their death was perfectly just.

That's all.

And what exactly happened to them?

I notice you did not answer any of the questions the guy was asking.

>>2347

>So God takes away our free will not in this life but in the next?

Yes the enemy will be defeated, this includes taking away his free will.

>If He was going to take away our free will, why not do it when it could be used to save us?

Because he created us in his image and not as robots.

>Sure. Why wouldn't they be able to?

because they are dead.

>Hence why I don't believe you.

Because you do not understand at all.

The bible has all of its authority from the church that made it and that is older than it. So as you deny the Church you deny the bible.

This is why you have so bad "versions" of it.

But I could even do that. The council is talked of there, the call of the apostles is, the appointment of Peter is, everything is and I have done it before.

>I was arguing that everyone eventually would.

You mistake wishfull thinking for arguing.

>You just said that the bible does not tell us we can know the truth.

No.

>I proved you wrong,

No

>and now you wont even admit your mistake.

I would if I had made one, is not the case.

>I could argue that your wrong about your interpretation.

You would have to argue with the magisterium and 200 years of scholars and apologetics and not me.

Have fun with that.

>And what exactly happened to them?

How would I even know that?

>I notice you did not answer any of the questions the guy was asking.

>>2345

>Why? Why?

Evil people doing evil stuff m8

> How could you let this happen?

How could everyone else? How could they themselve let themselve do that?

> Has your Jesus taken them to His heaven?

uhh…yeah I don't know but most likely not. Here take this purgatory leaflet and you should pray for hem.

> will I see them again?

Maybe but not too sure.

I hope you took some photos m80

> Are they in a better place?

Define "good". They are in a fitting situation for sure.

>>2348

> 2000 years

>>2345

>Hey, Mom, I just got a free book as an image attachment

>Nice get, son, but have you gotten trips yet?

doffs top-hat

niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

>>2477

This

>>2477

First image is wrong. God wouldn't be good if He forced everybody to be in Heaven. Having the freedom to go either place is better than good, it's also fair.

I'm talking of early Christians' universalism, not whatever New Age crap that came recently.

The only thing that made me look into universalism was the fact that it existed in the early Church, before it became Romanised and contaminated with pagan myths and customs (like monogamous marriage, which is not Biblical, only Romans and Greeks had monogamous marriage, the people of God always were polygamous).

>>3327

>I'm talking of early Christians' universalism, not whatever New Age crap that came recently.

The early Church was not Universalist though.

> before it became Romanised and contaminated with pagan myths and customs (like monogamous marriage

That old myth again. We were never contamined and monogamous marriage was always the best way to do it. Also the bible ues to talk about the way A man shall deal with HIS wife, not his wives. Allowing polygamous marriages was just like a compromise given to humanity, like the old sacrifices.