Everyone gets Saved, and there is no Hell:

[Christianbookworm]

Is it bad to insult one too foolish to insult?

[Bisto]

all mankindthe dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankindmale and female) and then it says "dead bodies" and dead bodies are not souls burning in any Hell or grave.

If you want to know my opinion (based on what I've read and some logic), "dead bodies" here is only a metaphor through the shame of defeat, lying unburied, decay and destruction. However, for the sake of argument I'll roll with you here and assume it isn't.

Okay, so you're saying those who rebelled against God end up as dead bodies in the context of this passage. You cannot be implying that these very same people are also among the "all mankind" looking upon, and abhorring, these people's carcasses.

The "dead bodies" mean dead and not living, and dead bodies means dead corpse or carcass.

The worms eat a dead carcass and that fire burns the dead carcass = and that is what this verse declares - which is the same thing as Gehenna too as Jesus was talking about for dead bodies being eaten by worms and burned in a physical fire in the garbage dump.

As I said, I won't argue that in this post. It's besides the point.

And more-so in the last 2 words on verse 24 it again declares "all mankind" see it as loathsome and again "all" means all, as when all people get saved through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross who paid the penalty for all of our sins.

Again: it is actual people who are the dead bodies in this passage, "those who rebelled against [God]". You cannot be saying these people are looking at their own carcasses (with what eyes??), or if I may go back to my actual interpretation of this for a minute, they cannot be standing around with everyone else looking at their own state of ultimate disgrace as third parties... UNLESS you held to a very weird view of the Resurrection of the Dead.

(Before you clarify that last point, let's be clear that, as far as I know, the orthodox position is to affirm our resurrection will be like that of Jesus: the body that died is the seed that is transformed (by the growth that God gives) into the body that rises, the flower that blossoms. The same applies to the wicked, except they rise to a state without glory, or honor, or peace, but everlasting contempt -- in their bodies too. No man is 'complete' without his body, in this life or the next.)

I can usually see through improper grammar and misspellings and linguistics as it is not so hard to do, and I will never nit-pick about mistakes or confusing comments.

Such things are very common with people in every form of writing and typing and in talking too.

The English language and especially the American English is really a very limited and barbaric language with lots of huge discrepancies.

I did not really know this about the English language until studying the scriptures as translated from other languages and then it became clear.

I like to point out that the English language has only one word for "Love" and even it is not well defined as most people do not know what Love means and virtually no one accept the dictionary definition of Love, but in English we have lots of various words for murder, as murder can be said in so many varieties, as like assassination or lethal injection or as collateral damages, and etc etc etc. So we have one uncertain word for Love but many words for murder = it is a barbaric language.

Thank you for understanding.

[Bisto]

(Bisto's point flying over James' head)

Hopefully this time it won't.

[37818]

It repeatedly says it over and over that "all men" to be saved.

Human beings might wish it or hope it but God commands it.

The will of God = will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

You are viewing it as if man (male and female) have a will which is strong against God, and that God's will is not going to be fulfilled, and the exact opposite is the truth.

God's will is for all (for all) to be saved - and it will be done = see the Bible text that you quote above.


I realize that orthodox Christianity tries to pretend that "death" and "dying" are synonymous with burning in Hell but that is not true.

The Bible says death and die then it does not mean go to any such place as Hell except that the Hell means the grave.

Death and die go together with the grave.

And as you quote = The soul dies, as in a dead body in the grave (sheol).

The death and the second death is explained by the Apostle Paul as death to sin, people die to sin, which is done in the lake of fire where the sins are burned yet the person is saved.

DEATH TO SIN - is the SECOND DEATH for every person.

So why are those who believe in Jesus Christ the Savior not subject to the second death? (John 11:26; 1 John 5:4-5; Revelation 2:11.)


". . . He that overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be to him God, and he shall be to me son. But to the fearful and unbelieving, and sinners , and those who make themselves abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone; which is the second death." -- Revelation 21:7-8.

[Sparko]

Hopefully this time it won't.

Yeah I am not sure if he just missed the obvious or was turning a blind eye to it in order to not have to address it.

[James Cusick]

Reply:

So why are those who believe in Jesus Christ the Savior not subject to the second death? (John 11:26; 1 John 5:4-5; Revelation 2:11.)


". . . He that overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be to him God, and he shall be to me son. But to the fearful and unbelieving, and sinners , and those who make themselves abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone; which is the second death." -- Revelation 21:7-8.

The second death is explained by the Apostle Paul as death to sin, people die to sin, which is done in the lake of fire where the sins are burned yet the person is saved.

The Apostle Paul explained that he experienced the "death to sin" in this lifetime, and later his body died.

People today and now can and do experience the second death (death to sin) here-n-now if and when we become repentant and make amends for our sins.

It says that in the text you quote that the righteous already have their reward, while the unrepentant sinners still need to be cleansed and purified in the fire of God where they too will die to sin.

And even if you or others want to claim the second death to be a literal second death then death does not mean eternal life in torment.

Death means death - except by the way the Apostle Paul explains that death means dying to sin.

See here 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:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
----

The simplicity of Christ is the salvation for all.

[Sparko]

The second death is explained by the Apostle Paul as death to sin, people die to sin, which is done in the lake of fire where the sins are burned yet the person is saved.

uh no. Paul never mentions the second death. He merely said he is dead to sin. It is a metaphor, clearly.

Revelations 21:8 explains the second death quite clearly:

This is the second death.

Read it. Believe it. It is plain and there is no twisting the meaning James.

[James Cusick]

Reply:

uh no. Paul never mentions the second death. He merely said he is dead to sin. It is a metaphor, clearly.

Revelations 21:8 explains the second death quite clearly:

This is the second death.

Read it. Believe it. It is plain and there is no twisting the meaning James.

It is a metaphor - yes.

[Sparko]

It is a metaphor - yes.

duh. DO you think Paul actually DIED? How would he write that if he did.

But you are just ignoring the obvious again. Revelation 21:8 explains "the second death" plainly. It has nothing to do with Paul's words. Except in your twisted imagination. It plainly says that it is what happens to all liars the UNBELIEVING, murderers, and so on. THEY (not their sins) will be consigned to the lake of fire.

The believers never taste of the second death.

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

So how can Paul be talking of experiencing the second death if 1. It doesn't occur until after the first resurrection and 2. doesn't happen to the believers only unbelievers?

[James Cusick]

Reply:

duh. DO you think Paul actually DIED? How would he write that if he did.

But you are just ignoring the obvious again. Revelation 21:8 explains "the second death" plainly. It has nothing to do with Paul's words. Except in your twisted imagination. It plainly says that it is what happens to all liars the UNBELIEVING, murderers, and so on. THEY (not their sins) will be consigned to the lake of fire.

The believers never taste of the second death.

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

So how can Paul be talking of experiencing the second death if 1. It doesn't occur until after the first resurrection and 2. doesn't happen to the believers only unbelievers?

Do not get angry - this is just a discussion.

If you insist on viewing the second death as literal instead of a metaphor then death means death.

Die once then die a second time.

If second death means second death then there is no eternal life in torment.

By studying the Apostle Paul we are told about death being a metaphor which means death to sin, otherwise the second death is just being double dead.

[Sparko]

Do not get angry - this is just a discussion.

If you insist on viewing the second death as literal instead of a metaphor then death means death.

Die once then die a second time.

If second death means second death then there is no eternal life in torment.

By studying the Apostle Paul we are told about death being a metaphor which means death to sin, otherwise the second death is just being double dead.

so yet again you merely ignore everything someone says and answer something they never even said. James, you said you use your real name to keep yourself honest. Well James, you are anything but honest. You refuse to even acknowledge the point the other person is making and instead either dismiss it out of hand, pretend you didn't get it, or just argue something completely different and pretend you are answering them.

Yet every claim you have brought up has been shown to be false regarding your idea of Universalism. You don't seem to be interested in the truth, or even finding out if you are wrong or not. You just want to blithely go on believing what you want to believe, cherry pick evidence out of the bible using quote mining, and disregard anything that proves you wrong.

Very dishonest of you. Not only towards us, but towards yourself. You are living in a delusion.

Or perhaps you are just a nutcase. We get them here from time to time. They are irrational and can't be reasoned with. Are you one of those? Do you find yourself being mocked or ridiculed or banned from various online forums a lot? Don't worry, around here we don't ban someone for being a kook. You are welcome. But you won't be take seriously if you don't actually respond to the actual arguments people give you.

[James Cusick]

Reply:

Very dishonest of you. Not only towards us, but towards yourself. You are living in a delusion.

I stand by everything that I said as accurate and true.

I just wish that you would comment on the topic instead of attacking me.

[Sparko]

I stand by everything that I said as accurate and true.

I just wish that you would comment on the topic instead of attacking me.

I have tried numerous times as have others, but each time you just ignore what we say and respond to something we did not say. So there is nothing left but to call you out on your dishonest tactics and your hypocrisy.

[James Cusick]

Reply:

I have tried numerous times as have others, but each time you just ignore what we say and respond to something we did not say. So there is nothing left but to call you out on your dishonest tactics and your hypocrisy.

Well I will try to ignore your ugly ignorant comments, but I doubt that is truly possible for me to accomplish.

If anyone else wants to talk about the topic in a respectful and Christian way then I would welcome that.

[Bisto]

Well I will try to ignore your ugly ignorant comments, but I doubt that is truly possible for me to accomplish.

If anyone else wants to talk about the topic in a respectful and Christian way then I would welcome that.

James,

Even though I have been myself sarcastic to you a few times now, I must say --in the most respectful and Christian way I can-- that Sparko's assessment rings true. You can drop the last part of his post, perhaps, if you don't want to read some impressions you MAY be conveying; nonetheless, it does seem as though you are not really addressing the actual (very on-topic) points raised by others here. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well go over this thread again and ask yourself through each post what everyone was REALLY trying to say and see whether you have successfully replied to that. Perhaps you have, but the rest does not seem to share that impression


I know this post does not address anything new on-topic. My reply is simply "check what has been said before", there's plenty to talk about if you want to.