The resurrection - 1 Cor 15

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:07 pm

If you already believe that, it's easy to see it there. That's ceratinly what Eusebius believed. But I don't see it there.

Let's suspend our beliefs, whatever they are, for a moment, and look at the passage objectively. Irenaeus was discussing possibilities as to the name of Antichrist (which he considered to be an individual who would appear future to his time) and then made the following statement from his writing Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 30:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

What was it "that was seen...towards the end of Domitian's reign?
Was it not "the apocalyptic vision" from the previous sentence? And who was the one who had seen this vision? Irenaeus had been talking about the number of the Antichrist's name, namely "666", and speculating about a couple of names whose letters added up to that number. Only in the Apocalypse do we find any information about 666 being the number of The Beast (the personal Antichrist). Who, other than the author of the Apocalyse who wrote about his vision on Patmos, and about the number of the Beast being 666, could have "beheld the apocalyptic vision"?

So the bottom line seems to be that Irenaeus affirms that John received his "apocalyptic vision" toward the end of Domitian's reign.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:33 pm

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.
Paidion i've heard it said "For that was seen" could be interpreted as "he was seen" meaning John was seen.

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:35 pm

Here's something to think about.......

Jesus said,

Matt 5:43-48
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 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;
45 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.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Jesus gives us some understanding about the true character of God and how he wants us to be. He says to be Perfect as God is perfect. In this context, perfection is to only do good to everyone - both friends and enemies - and to have love for all. So then, at the judgment, we can be assured that God will only do good to everyone with a perfect love. Therefore, whatever it means to be "cast into the lake of fire," it is designed for the good of the person - it is NOT never-ending torture.

Todd

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:46 pm

Here's something else to think about.....

Jesus said,

Matt 5:38-39
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus points out that it is not in God's character to repay for wrongs; rather, we should "turn the other cheek." How will this be applied on judgment day?

Todd

Post by **_Sean** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:36 pm

Paidion wrote:
If you already believe that, it's easy to see it there. That's ceratinly what Eusebius believed. But I don't see it there.
Let's suspend our beliefs, whatever they are, for a moment, and look at the passage objectively. Irenaeus was discussing possibilities as to the name of Antichrist (which he considered to be an individual who would appear future to his time) and then made the following statement from his writing Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 30:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

What was it "that was seen...towards the end of Domitian's reign?
Was it not "the apocalyptic vision" from the previous sentence? And who was the one who had seen this vision? Irenaeus had been talking about the number of the Antichrist's name, namely "666", and speculating about a couple of names whose letters added up to that number. Only in the Apocalypse do we find any information about 666 being the number of The Beast (the personal Antichrist). Who, other than the author of the Apocalyse who wrote about his vision on Patmos, and about the number of the Beast being 666, could have "beheld the apocalyptic vision"?

So the bottom line seems to be that Irenaeus affirms that John received his "apocalyptic vision" toward the end of Domitian's reign.

I agree with what Steve7150 said. What was seen? John who wrote the vision? Or the vision itself? There are no extant original texts to compare to what we have passed down today. So to pin the dating of a book beyond what the content suggests because of an obscure text interpreted one way is as shaky as one can get, IMO.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:00 pm

Jesus points out that it is not in God's character to repay for wrongs; rather, we should "turn the other cheek." How will this be applied on judgment day?

Todd
IMHO when Jesus is applying the term "turn the other cheek" he is referring to human relations not how God will judge us. In the OT the govt was empowered by God to dole out justice by "an eye for an eye" and when we sin against God we are in fact commiting a crime against God so we s/b subject to the "eye for an eye" justice. In my view not a turning the other cheek but not eternal punishment either.

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:09 pm

STEVE7150 wrote:IMHO when Jesus is applying the term "turn the other cheek" he is referring to human relations not how God will judge us.

So, you are saying that God expects more of us than of himself? I do not know how this will be applied on Judgment Day but it is sure something to think about.

Todd

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:18 pm

So, you are saying that God expects more of us than of himself? I do not know how this will be applied on Judgment Day but it is sure something to think about.

Todd
Interesting way of putting it but i think it's a different type of relationship we have with each other then God has with us, would'nt you agree?

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:13 pm

My wife once said, "God has to be at least as righteous as I am." That was a wise word.

As George MacDonald pointed out, "justice" means "fairness" not "revenge" or "punishment" or "an eye for an eye".

God is not interested in punishing us for its own sake. What purpose would that serve? I believe that all of God's judgments are remedial.

Jesus concluded his parable of the sheep and the goats with these words:

Matthew 25:46 "These [the goats] will go away into correction that goes from age to age, but the righteous into life that goes from age to age."

The word "kolasis" used in this verse clearly means "correction" and not "punishment". Any good Greek lexicon will give "correction" as a meaning. The verbal form of the word is "kolaZO" which meant "to prune or lop". Pruning a plant may be "painful" as parts of the plant are removed. But it helps the plant to be stronger.

Now many translations render "aiOnios" as "eternal". But how could one receive "eternal correction"? When would the correctional purpose be acheived? There has to be an end of the correction, when the person has been reformed.

"AiOnios" comes from "aiOn" which means age. The adjective "aiOnios" means "going from age to age" or in some cases "permanent".
Even "permanent" does not mean "eternal" or "forever". You may possess a "permanent driver's license," but if you disobey the traffic laws, it can be taken away from you.

So God's correction of people in Gehanna is "tough love". We sometimes need to execise that also with our children, and with other people.

Jesus exemplified "turning the other cheek" when he was examined before being sentenced to crucifixion.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:19 pm

As George MacDonald pointed out, "justice" means "fairness" not "revenge" or "punishment" or "an eye for an eye".

God is not interested in punishing us for its own sake. What purpose would that serve? I believe that all of God's judgments are remedial. I agree so the "eye for eye" description i see as giving justice to fit the crime. Sinning is a crime against God but there are degrees and different types of intentions which only God really knows.