Annihilationism verses UR.

[jabcat]

LS, it's a fine answer, nothing to apologize for  :bigGrin:.

Here's more to consider.

Some definitions for reconcile;

To reestablish a close relationship between.
To settle or resolve.
To reestablish a close relationship
no longer opposed
to become friendly with (someone) after estrangement or to re-establish friendly relations
to settle (a quarrel or difference)
to make (two apparently conflicting things) compatible or consistent with each other

As far as the IF YOU CONTINUE and NOT BE MOVED AWAY references - I would suggest that still doesn't imply a permanent condition, as in "eternal separation" or death.  I think it probably does imply some type of judgment/consequences, possibly as in "few stripes/many stripes", loss of rewards, position of service, etc.  However, IMO, there are many scriptures that indicate once a person has become a son of God, they are never "de"-sonned  (:laughing7:).  Some scrips that come to mind include a) sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise, b) He Who has started a good work in you will complete it, and c) Jesus, the Author (Beginner) and Finisher (Completer) of our faith...

My understanding.  

[Beloved Servant]

Ahhh...translations.

Here is the CLV:

23 since surely you are persisting in the faith, grounded and settled and are not being removed from the expectation of the evangel which you hear which is being heralded in the entire creation which is under heaven of which I, Paul, became the dispenser.
www.concordant.org/version/index.html

[jabcat]

 :boogie:  Thank you David!

I thought about translations, good show!

I believe this translation fits perfectly with the three scripture references a,b,c, I provided above.  Jesus is our Savior, Finisher, Completer, and the Holy Spirit is our Sealer (Guaranteer?).   Also, the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.  

He is able to keep that which I have committed to Him against that day.

So as in the CLV, and I believe, He ensures it.  So all the other stuff I mentioned as in possible consequences may only secondarily apply (if at all).  Thanks for the translational clarification.   :thumbsup:

[jabcat]

I also checked the Greek Interlinear, and the most literal "word-for-word" translation is apparently since surely persisting.  However,  :sigh: even they end up translating in the full english sentence as something like "if then you are persisting".  Why do they do that?    :doh:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Because they're translating from the Greek, which, if the original languages were colors, the Greek would be brown as mud, and Hebrew would be a rainbow.....oh wait, it IS...... :grin:  Blessings...

[LS]

I also checked the Greek Interlinear, and the most literal "word-for-word" translation is apparently since surely persisting.  However,  :sigh: even they end up translating in the full english sentence as something like "if then you are persisting".  Why do they do that?    :doh:

Well see ... I think they do because it means something. I think we always have to be careful to seek the Truth of what scripture says first ... and our beliefs come from that second.  And those "little details" really hang me up sometimes ... there are a lot of things I remain open on.   :mblush:

Thank you for being so great in a give & take discussion - I really appreciate it!  You've caused me to search more and think through some new things and I always think that is very cool   :cool:

[Beloved Servant]

It reads to me more as — if they were truly united to him, what needed they more?
Depends where the emphasis is applied.

[Beloved Servant]

Remember who he was writing to and why he wrote the letter!

[jabcat]

I also checked the Greek Interlinear, and the most literal "word-for-word" translation is apparently since surely persisting.  However,  :sigh: even they end up translating in the full english sentence as something like "if then you are persisting".  Why do they do that?    :doh:

Well see ... I think they do because it means something. I think we always have to be careful to seek the Truth of what scripture says first ... and our beliefs come from that second.  And those "little details" really hang me up sometimes ... there are a lot of things I remain open on.   :mblush:

Thank you for being so great in a give & take discussion - I really appreciate it!  You've caused me to search more and think through some new things and I always think that is very cool   :cool:

You're welcome on the good discussion, same here.

However, let's look at what you just said about the scriptures and that they translate a certain way because they mean something, and that we should get our beliefs from those scriptures.  I agree on 'we should get what we believe from the scriptures'.  I question "they translate the way they do because it means something".  If the original word-for-word (as I noted) says a specific thing, but the translators change the meaning (as is apparently the case, again as noted) I believe that means something alright.  At least in some cases, I believe it means they're translating to fit an already preconceived idea/belief, rather than taking the Word at face value.  

Since we're both checking things out  :bigGrin:, please check it for yourself and let me know if you find something to the contrary, but again, the original word-for-word is apparently since surely persisting, NOT if you persist.  SINCE SURELY PERSISTING - Now that means something!   :dsunny:    

[jabcat]

ooohhh, good point well worth considering David.  I'm all about who was primarily being addressed and about what, but I OFTEN miss it/forget it's there.  I'll think on that some more.  :thumbsup:

[jabcat]

:cloud9: Because they're translating from the Greek, which, if the original languages were colors, the Greek would be brown as mud, and Hebrew would be a rainbow.....oh wait, it IS...... :grin:  Blessings...

I don't know enough about it to know Card, but gee, even the Greek seems very clear on this one to me - yet they still (most translators) changed it  :sigh:.

IMO, there's a huge difference between "Since you surely are" and "if you do".   :mshock:

[thinktank]

Is greek the original language?

Maybe the apostles wrote the originals in their language, aramic, but subsequent versions translated them to greek as the apostle Paul made his way over to Greece with the manuscripts  :dontknow:

[LS]

Since we're both checking things out  :bigGrin:, please check it for yourself and let me know if you find something to the contrary, but again, the original word-for-word is apparently since surely persisting, NOT if you persist.  SINCE SURELY PERSISTING - Now that means something!   :dsunny:    

I'm not sure what you are saying - both the interlinear Greek I am using and Strong's indicate that "if" is there.

Strong's: If^G1489 ye continue^G1961 ... and^G2532 be not^G3361 moved ...
G1489
εἴγε
eige
i'-gheh
From G1487 and G1065; if indeed, seeing that, unless, (with negative) otherwise: - if (so be that, yet).

Greek Interlinear:
eige
eige
G1489
Cond
IF-SURELY
since-surely

Also, I may view the Bible a little differently than ya'll.  I know today we have the luxury of having our own written Bibles and concordances and translations and translators ... but for most of Christian history, few people were literate and even fewer had their own printed copy of scripture. 

I sincerely believe God preserved His written word AND the translations well enough that people who could only hear what was read to them, could know Truth, and believe. 

I am not as suspicious of early translators as many of you are. I think in some ways they had a better grasp of customs and word usage than we can 2,000 years later; there is a lot more to translating than word-for-word knowledge.  We all know languages have little idiosyncrasies that can be lost - gay used to mean something different than it does now, and imagine someone from another culture trying to make sense of a phrase like, "His face fell."

Just filling in my thoughts so you know where I'm coming from   :bigGrin:

[LS]

Remember who he was writing to and why he wrote the letter!

Agreed ...

"To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

I think we sometimes think of Paul's words as being directed to the entire world. While the entire world can benefit from them, we have to remember that at the time, he was writing a letter to fellow believers who already had a foundation of shared beliefs with Paul, and he was addressing issues important to believers moreso than to the world.

[LS]

Is greek the original language?

Maybe the apostles wrote the originals in their language, aramic, but subsequent versions translated them to greek as the apostle Paul made his way over to Greece with the manuscripts  :dontknow:

:mshock:

I've been looking ... there definitely seems to be a question over whether the originals were written in Greek or in Hebrew ... interesting point thinktank.   :dontknow:

[jabcat]

I'm basing what I'm saying on the very bottom line of the Greek Interlinear, which leaves out the IF and says "since surely".  I looked to see if there was a key to indicate whether the bottom line is the absolute most literal rendering, but didn't find it.  However, the CLV concordant method as David noted, also uses a more definite language rather than "if".

As far as translations, I hear your point, and I agree there's something to it.  However, I also have some problems with it.  For instance, I certainly do believe God preserved His Word, especially to the extent of "Jesus, Son of God, believe on Him for salvation", etc.  But I also believe He allowed (and allows) deceptions, that work according to His overall ultimate purposes.  (Only He knows all about that.)  So, my point being, if everything was as "clear" through the ages, then they would have (and did) believe in Hell - which is not even a scriptural word.  It's a made up term as far as scripture goes, and is "randomly" misapplied to other actual scriptural terms.  It apparently originally meant to cover over, as in "to hel potatoes in the winter".  So that's just one example of what I believe for something to not be as clear as we would like.  God has His reasons.   :dontknow:   :2c:

[Beloved Servant]

http://versebyversecommentary.com/1996/06/02/colossians-123/

[LS]

I'm basing what I'm saying on the very bottom line of the Greek Interlinear, which leaves out the IF and says "since surely".  I looked to see if there was a key to indicate whether the bottom line is the absolute most literal rendering, but didn't find it.  However, the CLV concordant method as David noted, also uses a more definite language rather than "if".

As far as translations, I hear your point, and I agree there's something to it.  However, I also have some problems with it.  For instance, I certainly do believe God preserved His Word, especially to the extent of "Jesus, Son of God, believe on Him for salvation", etc.  But I also believe He allowed (and allows) deceptions, that work according to His overall ultimate purposes.  (Only He knows all about that.)  So, my point being, if everything was as "clear" through the ages, then they would have (and did) believe in Hell - which is not even a scriptural word.  It's a made up term as far as scripture goes, and is "randomly" misapplied to other actual scriptural terms.  It apparently originally meant to cover over, as in "to hel potatoes in the winter".  So that's just one example of what I believe for something to not be as clear as we would like.  God has His reasons.   :dontknow:   :2c:

Thank you for explaining further, I appreciate that!  And I don't entirely disagree with you; lots to think about   :thumbsup:  

[LS]

http://versebyversecommentary.com/1996/06/02/colossians-123/

Hi Beloved Servant - as soon as I clicked on your link I had a problem with what I saw:

"Does this "if" indicate that our salvation depends upon us?"

This passage isn't speaking of "salvation" - it's speaking of being reconciled! Again, I don't think they are the same thing and I think it's a mistake to try to use them interchangeably   :mblush:

(although ... Paul is the king  :icon_king: of run-on sentences, so sometimes it's hard to pare it down to the bones to see what he's saying  :grin: )

[jabcat]

Good link Dave, even/especially the comments.  Check out the last one especially.  (Reminds me of "..Savior of ALL men, ESPECIALLY of those believing"...not 'exclusively', but especially.  :bigGrin:.  Well, that's been another big discussion.  LOL.)

Well, anyway, LS, Paul specifically references the faith.  If you don't think that ties into salvation, i.e., "reconciliation is not synonymous with salvation" [even though the def's I provided earlier seem to fit] what do you believe it is referencing?  Thanks.

[Cardinal]

Is greek the original language?

Maybe the apostles wrote the originals in their language, aramic, but subsequent versions translated them to greek as the apostle Paul made his way over to Greece with the manuscripts  :dontknow:

:mshock:

I've been looking ... there definitely seems to be a question over whether the originals were written in Greek or in Hebrew ... interesting point thinktank.   :dontknow:

:cloud9: They've got at least an extant copy of Matthew written in Hebrew. I knew they were ALL written in Hebrew decades before I ever read anybody's thoughts on that, just by the precepts I was finding, some of which are simply not "catchable" by looking at the Greek translation discussing the same precept, unless you know the Hebrew precept that thought came from. Blessings....

[shawn]

What do you guys think of Collossians 1:20?  The word 'all' has been discussed here many times, and there's been evidence presented that it's a totally encompassing word in the originals.  Do you think God reconciling all through Jesus could mean really some were still to be lost?

Hi jabcat - here is Colossians 1:20:
Col 1:20  And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

I completely believe in universal reconciliation, but I do not believe in universal salvation.  "Reconciliation" and "salvation" are often used interchangeably and I don't think they should be - they are two different things.

Keep reading that passage in Colossians:
Col 1:20  And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Col 1:21  And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
Col 1:22  In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
Col 1:23  If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away  from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister

I don't have it all settled in my mind and I am still studying, so I'm sorry if this isn't a very complete answer. But I completely believe Col. 1:20 is true, and in my mind it doesn't equal universal salvation. 

I agree that is interesting.  I mean why would Paul expound upon reconciliation of all with "if ye continue the faith grounded and settled and not be moved away...".  At first glance it can seem almost contradictory.  How can he restore all yet put a stipulation on the word all?  I really need to study the greek on the word reconcile.  Any assistance with that would be helpful.  But, the only way I can see this passage making sense is if you can be reconciled without being saved.  And it seems like a stipulation is being placed on salvation as well if we follow that train of thought.  Unless the stipulation wasn't being placed on reconciliation or salvation at all.  Is it possible that it was placed on being presented as unreproveable, unblameable and holy? 

[shawn]

I also checked the Greek Interlinear, and the most literal "word-for-word" translation is apparently since surely persisting.  However,  :sigh: even they end up translating in the full english sentence as something like "if then you are persisting".  Why do they do that?    :doh:

Well see ... I think they do because it means something. I think we always have to be careful to seek the Truth of what scripture says first ... and our beliefs come from that second.  And those "little details" really hang me up sometimes ... there are a lot of things I remain open on.   :mblush:

Thank you for being so great in a give & take discussion - I really appreciate it!  You've caused me to search more and think through some new things and I always think that is very cool   :cool:

Good post.  I think it's all too easy to have a belief and fit scripture to support that belief.  I'm certainly not suggesting that is what is being done.  It's merely a reminder to myself.  I wasn't exposed to UR until about a little over a year ago.  I devoured the material.  I believed it.  I did so because I needed to at the time.  But, recently I have decided to delve in depth to search out truth not just want I want to hear.  I am doing my best to keep an open mind and study accordingly.  As of now I think the strongest argument is for ED but I am certainly willing to change that view.  I just pray that the Holy Spirit guides and blesses my study.

[Molly]

Strong's: IfG1489 ye continueG1961 ... andG2532 be notG3361 moved ...
G1489

Isn't the same thought contained in this?


Matthew 10:22
All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.





"he who stands firm"
G5278
υπομένω
hupomenō
hoop-om-en'-o
From G5259 and G3306; to stay under (behind), that is, remain; figuratively to undergo, that is, bear (trials), have fortitude, persevere: - abide, endure, (take) patient (-ly), suffer, tarry behind.


We are able to stand firm in our faith because we are grounded and steadfast and not able to be removed from the hope of the gospel.

But, the only way I can see this passage making sense is if you can be reconciled without being saved.

Seems to me that is possible.  The reconciliation of the cross is one way--God has reconciled man to himself.  But, man must still reconcile himself to God.  It's a two way street.


2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

[willieH]

Again... If you believe SIN abounded to a greater degree, wheresoever GRACE abounded, you then indicate "who" you are "for" and "who" you are against"... I am for GRACE which is far more prevalent and POWERFUL than ANY DEGREE of AMOUNT of SIN... which TOOK it AWAY from the WORLD -- John 1:29

Me too, that's why I'm on a forum that teaches Universal salvation, the only difference between me and you is that I belive as scripture regularly implies that the road to life is narrow and it is only by Gods love that we can hope to survive, whereas you think that there is zero danger in life and all is well. That is fine if you want to believe that, but to me the word teaches us to be "carefull" not carefree and that there is a "real danger" that God's grace is not be to taken causually. For did he not say

Fear him that is able to destroy both soul and body and hell.

FIRST -- I am not in the LEAST, ..."carefree" about my approach to the WORD of GOD... On the contrary... I deem it SACRED and spend time DAILY informing others that it is dangerous to tamper with its contents... by adding or subtracting from it.

SECOND -- Neither have I suggested that there is "ZERO danger in life and all is well"!  Those are YOUR WORDS, not mine...  which is WHY you did not QUOTE me, for such was not STATED by me...

I maintain that living in RIGHTEOUSNESS will bring the FRUITS of righteousness into ones experience... against which there is NO LAW... but in the disobedience of the COMMAND of GOD as found in His WORD, there are great and DIRE consequences which have and WILL, befall men... The examples plentifully abound and are growing... DISEASES which are becoming MULTIPLIED and incurable, and tensions which try ALL RELATIONSHIPS, and POVERTIES which extend to ALL POINTS on the earth... are but the BEGINNING of these TRIBULATIONS...

THIRD --- The keyword in the text you refer to is actually "ABLE"... God is "ABLE" to do anything.  That He is ABLE, does not indicate that He shall do so... Why would HE create things a certain way... to have certain weaknesses and then only via HIS STRENGTH given on HIS TERMS, "destroy" them for being WEAK and without STRENGTH?  UNREASONABLE.

As an adult, because you are ABLE to kill another... that you do not KILL another has nothing to do with the "ABILITY" to do so... Just because you have the "ABILITY".

Rather your abstination from killing has to do with the LOVE and respect you hold for LIFE which is given by GOD... and though you are ABLE to KILL, you do not because you ESTEEM LIFE to be a GOD GIVEN commodity, and in obedience to the HIS COMMAND against KILLING (MURDER), you abstain... And the FRUIT gained of that abstaining, is LIFE...

What would make you think GOD esteems life LESS than yourself, when it is HE which brought it forth?

This is why we must incorporate REASON within our observations of the Scriptures... my new friend...  :friendstu:

There is a sin unto death

There sure is... :nod:

He that taketh the words from this book will not take part from the tree of life

Who has taken words from any of the BOOKS?  Certainly "ANNHILATION" is a word (for MURDER) which is certainly ADDED unto it!   :dontknow:

Please don't bother responding to these verses with various explanation, for I am aware of them. I am highlighting the fact that life is not a game, and we cannot go around and just kill everyone and think that everything will be hunkydorry with God, for that is naivity, not grace.

FIRST --- Now why would you post something then instruct me not to respond to it, T-tank?  :dontknow:

SECOND --- You have misconstrued my words... The PRINCIPAL of SOWING and REAPING is a REALITY to living outside of the commands of GOD --  -- and no one has suggested that living wrecklessly will produce "hunkydorry" results! 

GRACE is the JUSTICE which GOD provided for ALL before the FOUNDATION of the WORLD -- Rev 13:8 -- and it is FAR MORE prevalent than ANY degree or amount of SIN that any FINITE can produce -- Rom 5:20

Every soul is precious to God and does not delight in the cruelty to the little ones.

I agree that EVERY SOUL is precious to GOD... and that He does not delight in cruelty to the little ones... but how can you APPROVE of ANNHILATION and then think in the next moment that those SOULS which you see as headed for and SHALL be ANNHILATED are STILL held PRECIOUS by GOD?  That is an internally contradictory position...

"GOD loves you, but even though HE has the power to save you, He shall DESTROY you instead"... even though He still loves you. :rolleye:  "Hey, I loveya with all my heart, but you need KILLIN'..." :mnah:

Maybe your like one of these wise men who just sit's back and grin as the world unfolds and Gods plan unfolds, but as for me I would rather be carefull of danger and I think this is how most people react.

I have studied the doctrines of orthodoxy, not only OUTSIDE them, ...but INSIDE them!... Having spent extended periods of time within the spectrum of the Church that teaches these 2 despicable teachings in the name of the GOSPEL of PEACE... neither of which contain PEACE at all.

There is no such "being" as "antichrist", and therefore no "his judgment" exists...

I have many scriptures which prove he does exist. The term "antichrist" is the popular way in which people know him as.

FIRST --- You say you have "MANY", ...why did you not name EVEN ONE of them?  Is this one of those "gun that is a finger in your jacket pocket" -- type holdups?  :laughing7:  The TRUTH is that there are only 5 total mentions of "ANTICHRIST" in the entire WORD... which does NOT constitute "MANY", and 3 of the 5 of them are in the 2nd chapter of 1 John... 1 mention in the 4th chapter of 1 John, and 1 in 2 John...  :dontknow:

SECOND --- The Scriptures -- (1) note "ANTICHRIST" as a SPIRIT -- 1 John 4:3 -- (2) that there are MANY in which this spirit is present -- 1 John 2:18  -- anyone which denies CHRIST is come in the flesh -- 2 John 7 -- is "ANTICHRIST"... which is MOST of the population of this world.

There are NONE that note "ANTICHRIST" to be a single/particular BEING which shall be manifest... therefore "antichrist" is NOT a "he" --- The false teachings of orthodoxy promote "antichrist" to be a "singular" person... yet the Scriptures do NOT support this lame teaching...

Show me the verses which support that "antichrist" is ONE MAN.

The original name for him is "the man of sin" and "The abomination of desolation" and "the beast".

Now you are just gathering unfounded opinion together... Upon what are you basing these things T-tank?

The MAN of SIN... is MAN within his UNCONVERTED, UNSUBMITTED and UNSPIRITUAL "will" -- which IS a BEAST [carnal] -- Ecc 3:18

They call him antichrist for he goes against Christians

FIRST --- This is NOT what the Scriptures say about "antichrist"... the Scriptures note that DENIAL of His coming in the FLESH is that which exposes this spirit in men -- 2 John 7

SECOND --- CHRIST is even set against "christians" brother T-tank! -- Matt 7:22-23 -- These ...MANY... "BELIEVERS" --- have just CALLED CHRIST "Lord" (which can only be done via the power of the HS -- 1 Cor 12:2) -- and yet CHRIST calls their "coming" and "works" which they claim as DONE in HIS NAME... as INIQUITY!

and even opposes Christ himself at the battle of armageddon

What Scripture places "ANTICHRIST" as "opposing CHRIST" at the "Battle of armegeddon"?  There is only 1 verse which mentions ARMAGEDDON -- Rev 16:16 -- the term "ANTICHRIST" is absent from this context.

therefore the term "antichrist" is a fitting term for him, even though its not mentioned in the bible, other than the spirit of antichrist, which is a very different topic.

:omg:  First you give me warning not to TAKE AWAY from the WORD, here: 

He that taketh the words from this book will not take part from the tree of life

which is good counsel, and I do not do so... but then, ...here you are WILLINGLY ADDING to the WORD what is NOT WRITTEN, ...IN IT!  ...and which we are also ADVISED to abstain from this practice as well! -- Rev 22:18 -- Pro 30:6

It is the SPIRIT which is in OPPOSITION to TRUTH, for CHRIST is the TRUTH -- John 14:6 -- and in OPPOSITION to LIFE for CHRIST is LIFE [annhilation]

Anyone which poses opposition to these stated in the WORD about the WORD, is of the spirit of antichrist ["ANTI-TRUTH"]... MANY (not few) "believers" which call CHRIST "Lord" and COME in His NAME... shall bear INIQUITY -- Matt 7:22-23 -- falsely coming IN, and "doing" works, ...IN that NAME!

From the way I've read that, it indicates that if there are doctrines or teachings which are incorrect, then that means that person who teaches those incorrect doctrines has the spirit of the antichrist, am I correct?

NO... I have not stated this, don't "put words in my mouth"... Scripture plainly points out that "antichrist" is a spirit of deception concerning that CHRIST came in the FLESH...

This is not scriptural,

If the teaching is not founded in and upon the WORD of TRUTH, then it is NOT TRUTH. 

That MANY shall come DECIEVING MANY... is the prophecy which CHRIST repeated... Matt 7:22-23 -- Matt 24:5 -- The CONFUSED and DISHARMONIC state of Christianity is exemplary of BABLYLON and the variant teachings for the most part... are LIES which are not founded in the WORD, rather are erected from and of TRADITION which is that which renders the WORD inert -- Matt 15:6 -- Mark 7:13

Such descrepancies as the Rapture, the Trinity, tongues, annhilation, ET, impartations and more are found in the differing versions of the Christian religion... often based in LITERAL observations of SPIRITUAL TEXTS... which bring forth CARNAL outgoings, and ceremony... rather than journey into the HEART together, knowing that each INDIVIDUAL knows and communes with GOD INDIVIDUALLY... and outward signs and wonders are not evidence of INWARD presence.

and also a dangerous way to make enemies of friends.

I need ONE FRIEND T-tank... as long as CHRIST remains my friend because I am true to HIM... then number of friends I have, do not matter... CHRIST noted that many "friends", "loved ones", even wives and husbands, mothers & fathers, would become ENEMIES via devotions to HIM... I am not willing to compromise HIM for YOU... even though I would like it just fine if we were friends...

For by your own words you condemn yourself, for [5] you are one who does not belive in Satan the devil, even though Christ teaches about that being and also the old testament does. Also a lot of people here on UR forum belives he exists. [5] By not beliving in Satan your are going against the word and by your own words means that you have the spirit of the antichrist, in fact you could even say from your point that every single Christian on the planet has the spirit of the antichrist for no one holds all the truth, even you. God looketh upon the heart not on outward appearances.

FIRST --- It does not matter to me the composite beliefs of this or any other forum... One thing prevalent on this forum is SEEKERS of TRUTH... that we all are on different positions upon the pathway to TRUTH, means that we shall find disagreement on this or that accordingly.

SECOND -- I challenge you to prove with the SCRIPTURES that "satan" is a SENTIENT BEING with an AGENDA...

THIRD -- CHRIST never taught "satan" was a being... and even SPECIFICALLY named his CHOSEN Apostle Peter addressing him as "SATAN"...

FOURTH -- I am not going against my own words... Please note where I have done so.  I say you are a FALSE ACCUSER.

FIFTH -- [5] Believing in CHRIST is that which FAITH is about, not placing  "belief" in --- "satan" or "hell" or the "trinity" or the "rapture" or "UFO's" for that matter ...CHRIST

SIXTH -- I have not called Christianity "antichrist"... for most believe CHRIST has come in the FLESH... YOU have labeled me with this, I have not stated it... just another false accusation forthcoming from you.

If you look at history it started with a movement called gnocistism, which teachings then spread into other religions such as Islam, who deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh or to be more blunt those who deny that God has come in the flesh.

This is an inaccurate deduction of CHRIST's WORDS which state that those who REPRESENT His name are those which bring INIQUITOUS teachings to the WORLD -- Matt 7:22-23 -- IN HIS NAME... Islam does no such thing.  They deny CHRIST has come in the FLESH as Savior but are NOT teaching this IN HIS NAME...

The people who did many works in his name are not people like annhilationists, or even ET preachers, even though they might teach these things, but those pastors who come in as wolves among the sheep. Notice that Christ says to them 'depart from me, I never knew you'

You continue to fail to reference your words... which are paraphrased and incomplete. Relating WORDS from CHRIST which are not about ISLAMICS or other religions, rather are about CHRISTIANITY and those who claim to REPRESENT Him and His name...

Not once did Christ know these people, therefore they must be those people who have come into the church with other motives, the biggest one probably to make money, or to become popular, a spirit of pride or the lust of the flesh, these be their motivations, not Christ.

More paraphrase and assumption... trying to deflect the truth with inaccurate and incomplete quotations which do not appear stated as you promote.

Matt 7:22-23 and Matt 24:4-15 are prophetic projections of CHRIST, speaking of "the END" -- T-tank... This was stating that the TRUTH and the "doings of these people" did NOT COINCIDE... therefore their doings were not KNOWN BY the TRUTH, ...as the TRUTH...  :dontknow:

In order to cast out devils you don't even need to know Jesus, you just need to have faith in his name and these people do that, but Christ does not know them and never knew them.

The Apostles "cast out devils" and did "wonderful works"... Did CHRIST not "know" them? 

These texts are speaking of FALSE PROPHETS which in the END, "arise" in the coldness of INDIFFERENCE -- Matt 24:11 -- which IS the ABOMINATION of DESOLATION...  Which is a message that is preached in the "name" of LOVE, MERCY and GRACE, and does not even CONTAIN these elements!

Btw... the word AIONIOS -- which appears in -- 1 John 3:15 -- is not valid as has been translated in this verse and elsewhere, into the English word "ETERNAL"... rather is a derivitive of AION (which in its appearances, has several instances of containing beginning and end), and like its parent word, AIONIOS is also concerned with TIME...

I think you missing the point here  that what Jesus said is true.

Lets change that verse and see if it makes sound scripture

No sinner has eternal life in him , sayeth Jesus
Isn't this truth?

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through christ.

As I have already proven, AION and AIONIOS do not mean ETERNAL as in without Beginning or End... They are both TIME related and TIME limited terminology.

We, as FINITES do not even have the comprehension of the ETERNAL -- so usage of that term other than attaching it in FAITH to GOD alone... is invalid. 

I do believe that ALL sin was PAID for and thereby removed at the cross and is due NO FURTHER PAYMENT by ANYONE... 

Irregardless of the insistence of translators to use words [eternal, forever], carelessly attaching them to FINITE entities, which they themselves, do not comprehend.

:Peace:

...willieH  :cloud9: