u/Deer_Hart

Hello, I don’t mean to cause offense by asking this question. I understand the message of the gospels is love and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.

But when it comes to the fate of those who are not saved, what is the general feeling? I’m sure there are possibly a range of views from universalism, purgatorial universalism, annihilationism, traditional ECT. But does the traditional doctrine of ECT prevail?

I myself seem to have come to the conclusion that annihilationism makes the most sense in light of what the Bible says about God being a loving Father and divine justice. In Matthew 10:28 Jesus says we can lose both body and soul in Gehenna. The Apostle Paul says the wages of sin is death in Romans 6:23

The wicked often described as being destroyed and ceasing to exist. Scripture speaks of “eternal life” for the believer. Not “eternal bliss compared to eternal torment” but “life vs death”.

God alone is immortal (1 Timothy 6:16) and eternal life is a gift to believers through Jesus (2 Timothy 1:10).

Perhaps the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 is explaining the temporary torment in Hades that happens before the second death Revelation 20:14 Hades is thrown into the Lake of Fire along with death.

The eternal fire Jesus references (Mark 9:48) is an old Hebrew reference of the literal corpses being completely consumed by fire and worms (Isaiah 66:24). Meaning the fire does its job until nothing is left. It’s still going because the world is continually producing more of the wicked.

But ultimately it’s the punishment of non-existence that is eternal not the experience of eternal conscious torment in hellfire. ECT seems incompatible with a loving God.

I’m curious what thoughts you all had on the topic?

Hello, I don’t mean to cause offense by asking this question. I understand the message of the gospels is love. But when it comes to the fate of those who are not saved, what is the general feeling? I’m sure there are possibly a range of views from universalism, purgatorial universalism, annihilationism, traditional ECT.

I myself seem to have come to the conclusion that annihilationism makes the most sense. Matthew 10:28 says we can lose both body and soul in Gehenna. The Apostle Paul says the wages of sin is death in Romans 6:23

The wicked often described as being destroyed and ceasing to exist. Scripture speaks of “eternal life” for the believer. Not “eternal bliss compared to eternal torment” but “life vs death”.

God alone is immortal (1 Timothy 6:16) and eternal life is a gift to believers through Jesus (2 Timothy 1:10).

Perhaps the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 is explaining the temporary torment in Hades that happens before the second death Revelatiom 20:14 is where Hades is thrown into the Lake of Fire.

The eternal fire Jesus references (Mark 9:48) is an old Hebrew reference of the literal corpses being completely consumed by fire and worms (Isaiah 66:24). Meaning the fire does its job until nothing is left. It’s still going because the world is continually producing more of the wicked.

But ultimately it’s the punishment of non existence that is eternal not the experience of eternal conscious torment in hellfire.

I’ve heard the Anglican Communion was potentially open to this view but I wanted to ask and see which views are most common.

Hello, I don’t mean to cause offense by asking this question. I understand the message of the gospels is love. But when it comes to the fate of those who are not saved, what is the general feeling? I’m sure there are possibly a range of views from universalism, purgatorial universalism, annihilationism, traditional ECT.

I myself seem to have come to the conclusion that annihilationism makes the most sense. Matthew 10:28 says we can lose both body and soul in Gehenna. The Apostle Paul says the wages of sin is death in Romans 6:23

The wicked often described as being destroyed and ceasing to exist. Scripture speaks of “eternal life” for the believer. Not “eternal bliss compared to eternal torment” but “life vs death”.

Perhaps the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 is explaining the temporary torment in Hades that happens before the second death Revelatiom 20:14 is where Hades is thrown into the Lake of Fire.

The eternal fire Jesus references (Mark 9:48) is an old Hebrew reference of the literal corpses being completely consumed by fire and worms (Isaiah 66:24). Meaning the fire does its job until nothing is left. It’s still going because the world is continually producing more of the wicked.

But ultimately it’s the punishment of non existence that is eternal not the experience of eternal conscious torment in hellfire. ECT just doesn’t seem compatible with a loving God.

I’ve heard the Anglican Communion was open to this view but I wanted to ask and see how the Episcopal Church answers this question.

The virgin birth narrative isn’t in the earliest we have (the Gospel of Mark) written around 70 CE. None of the seven genuine Pauline epistles mention the virgin birth (written around 50-6” CE).

In Mark’s gospel Jesus’s mother thinks he’s crazy (Mark 3:21; Mark 3:31-35) which seems unlikely if an angel had appeared and told Mary her son would be born while she was a virgin.

Many pagan religions of the era had stories of divine men whose human mothers had relations with a male deity (Hercules, etc) Many Christians of the time were ascetic and I think they felt it made Jesus seem more “pure” if his mother had been a virgin.

The writer of Matthew read Isaiah 7:14 in the mistranslated Greek (Hebrew says “young woman” while the Septuagint says “virgin”) and decided it was a prophecy about Jesus.

This virgin mother idea morphed into the perpetual virginity as Mary became an impossible and unattainable standard to be both maiden/virgin and mother simultaneously. The ultimate version of true womanhood to the Christian men of late antiquity.

Notably the only woman to be sinless was the “virgin” Mary as the “New Eve” unlike the “Old Eve” whose sinful nature would cause her to desire and lust after her husband (Genesis 3:16).

It’s been a way to narratively frame women’s sexuality as inherently sinful and shameful. The only way to be truly pure as a woman in this framework is to renounce all sexuality and sexual desires. The salvation of men could only come through a vessel of female asexuality.

Thoughts?

I’ve tried to reconstruct the beliefs of the early Jesus movement. I basically follow a 47 book canon. I accept the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible (which I believe Jesus accepted) but I don’t believe in the New Testament canon as established by the Church Councils.

Academically it appears seven of Paul’s epistles are genuinely written by him in the 50s CE (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon).

The Gospel of Mark is the earliest (65-75 CE) and was used as source material for Matthew and Luke who then added their own material. Most modern scholars believe much of the other letters in the New Testament are pseudepigrapha.

I don’t believe in the virgin birth. I believe Jesus had a human father. The virgin birth narrative isn’t in the earliest Gospel of Mark and none of the genuine Pauline epistles mention the virgin birth. I think theologically it’s a later invention.

Many pagan religions of the era had stories of divine men whose human mothers had relations with a male deity. Many early Christians were quite ascetic and I think they felt it made Jesus seem more “pure” if his mother had been a virgin. I think this morphed into perpetual virginity as Mary became an unattainable standard of both maiden/virgin and mother simultaneously. The ultimate version of womanhood to the Christian men of late antiquity. The Gospel of Matthew bases this on Isaiah 7:14 but the Hebrew word used was almah (young woman) not betulah (virgin). This verse was a political sign to King Ahaz not a messianic prophecy.

Jesus was God’s son [Mark 1:9-11]. Perhaps a preexisting angel if my understanding of Paul is right [Galatians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:16]. And I think Jesus’s resurrection was spiritual rather than physical [1 Corinthians 15:44 and 1 Corinthians 15:50].

There might be a soul that survives death (for believers only) as Paul does speak of being absent from the body [2 Corinthians 5:8] and Jesus does see Elijah and Moses [Mark 9:2–8].

However Paul also mentions death as sleep [1 Thessalonians 13-14] Overall there is a greater focus on the coming general resurrection [1 Corinthians 15:12-54; Daniel 12:2].

As far as eternal conscious torment in hell, this became a control mechanism for the Medieval Church. I believe the historical Jesus [Mark 9:43–48] and the Apostle Paul [Romans 6:23] taught annihilationism so that’s what I believe happens to the wicked. They are destroyed and cease to exist.

I also think if Adam and Eve were real people they couldn’t possibly have been the only people at the time because according to the story they only had two sons and Cain kill Abel. God puts a mark on Cain so no one will kill him. So clearly there were others around.

I certainly wouldn’t classify under historic or traditional Christianity. But I’m not sure about other groups, if any, I share similarities with or where I might find an accommodating church?

I’m listening to an audiobook on the New Testament. I found in fascinating how the earliest Christian texts like the genuine Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Mark never mention the virgin birth of even his father Joseph. Mary and Jesus’s brothers seem to think he’s crazy which would not make sense if an angel came and told Mary Jesus was special.

Yet from my understanding Matthew and Luke both get their virgin birth narratives from different sources because Matthew quotes the Septuagint’s version of Isaiah whereas Luke does not. In Matthew it’s wise men whereas in Luke it’s shepherds who visit the child Jesus.

Did the virgin birth narrative originate twice or did it come from the shared Q source?