u/Rare-Improvement-462

I have recently heard the claim that the Greek text of Romans 5:12 reads “ἐφ ᾧ”, and that this carries the meaning of death spreading to all men because all have sinned (as per some translations). The other side of the claim is that the Latin Vulgate translated this verse badly - since is says “in quo”- meaning “in whom all have sinned (which would refer back to Adam)”. The claim is that while the vulgate places all having sinned in Adam, Paul originally meant no such thing.

Is this claim textually accurate on both Paul and The Vulgates part, or is there more to it?

Hopefully this will be the right sub to ask a question like this, but I am going to start reading the church fathers very soon, and I’m starting with Irenaeus’ material since I am already more familiar with him than most of anyone else. After him I will probably backtrack into the apostolic fathers.

But after that point, which fathers should I read primarily? What are the recommendations here?

I am not much familiar with Latin at all, so I am hoping this community can help. The Latin text of Against Heresies by Irenaeus of Lyons (book 2) uses the word “perseverantia”. Many online resources say that many times (in these old days) that had to do with holding fast during hard times, like persistence during affliction. But some others have also noted that “continued existence” is also in the semantic range of the word (and that is what Against Heresies is certainly talking about). So is it true that persistence during affliction and the continuation of existence are both in the semantic range of this word?

The Muratorian Fragment attributes The Shepherd of Hermas as being written by a man named Hermas, who was said to be the brother of Pope Pius I. Is there any way can be confident that a historical figure named Hermas wrote this work? Or is there more doubt presently about if Hermas actually wrote this?

ἀπώλεια (or apoleia) and ὄλεθρος (or olethros) both typically mean and are translated as “destruction” to English, or sometimes a few different terms depending on context (like “waste” for apoleia and “ruin” for olethors; as in a city being “in ruins”). Is there any actual difference between these words, or do they both just basically mean “destruction” most (though not necessarily all of) of the time?

I imagine this question may have come before in here, but does anyone know if Dexter Morgan (from the TV series, the original show, original sin, new blood, and resurrection; but NOT the character from the book series) can technically be called a psychopath or would his diagnosis be slightly different?

So far as I can tell, the vast majority of biologists are in agreement that life begins at conception with very few outliers, and there’s nothing up to date that contradicts that claim. That said, since an unborn and a born child are both classified as having life, then a certain argument, in my opinion, really breaks the pro-choice position down ethically (and I’m not including cases where the mothers life is in serious danger here).

Essentially, we can take the reasons people give for a particular action, and apply those same reason to a similar action. If the arguments fail, we can see that the reasons are bad, if they work, then the person might be on to something.

In this particular case, we can take various everyday reasons given for supporting abortions (I didn’t want to put it in foster care because of struggling in the system, I didn’t have much money; whatever the reason may be) and apply it to very young children who have already been born. With some imagination, we can picture: “hey where’s your son at, he turns 1 here in 3 weeks right”, “no not anymore”, “well what happened?”, “I had him killed”. If everyone can agree that it is morally wrong to hire an assassin to kill a 1 year old child because a person is struggling financially and doesn’t want him in foster care/adopted, then we should all recognize how it is morally wrong to have someone assassinate an unborn child. All of the same categories here apply: a 1 yo child is fully dependent on his parents for survival just like an unborn child is.

On another note, I personally find the statements of “well, it’s okay to abort an unborn child to prevent suffering in foster care” profoundly unpersuasive, for the same reasons just given. Why would it not be okay, according to people who say this, to not just have an assassin go and execute all the little children suffering in a type of foster system right now? If the same individuals hear that idea and think, “that is morally repulsive”, then that same standard should apply to those not born yet.

The passage in Revelation 14:9-11 is apart of the vision where an angel is giving a warning about upcoming judgement upon beast worshippers. The warning is:

“Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.””

Revelation‬ ‭14‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭

On the verb tenses: verse 9 has those bolded terms in the present tense, the warning is to people who are worshipping the beast at that moment. Then, verse 10 shifts to the future tense of “will be tormented” and “will drink”, but then, verse 11 shifts back to the present tense, the smoke rising forever “goes up” at that moment, the having no rest is in the present tense, and the “who worship” and “who receives” is all in the present tense. Is there any significance to this, and what’s the reason for the shift back to present tense in verse 11? It almost seems like even in the imagery, the smoke of their torment rising forever is disconnected from the actual torment warned of in verse 10 because of this shift.

Arnobius of Sicca was an early 4th century Christian apologist, having converted at the end of the 3rd after having spent his entire life thus far as a pagan. He is not as well known as many other early Christian Fathers. An online Catholic source (New Advent) claims that he believed that heathen deities were real beings but were subordinate to God, and that the human soul was the work of these intermediate beings and not by God.

That said, Arnobius’ 7 books Adversus Gentes (Against The Heathen) is written against rivals. Scholars speculate that he may have written it early on after he converted to show the genuineness of his conversion. Likewise, Arnobius as a pagan taught rhetoric (and then I believe he taught it from a Christian standpoint), so his books serve a main purpose of shooting down pagan ideas. He was very anti-platonic in his theological thinking, and it appears like he uses a lot of sarcasm against pagan ideas.

So, in this particular case, is it more likely that Arnobius actually believes that pagan deities created human souls, or is this more of a rhetorical and/or sarcastic thing he was saying?

I am hoping someone who has a deep understanding of Greek (or knows scholars / commentaries of like manner) can comment on this. Judith 16:17 reads:

“Woe to the nations that rise up against my kindred! the Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of judgment, in putting fire and worms in their flesh; and they shall feel them, and weep for ever”.

Most translations that I’ve seen translate the end as “for ever”. The Greek text here is “heos aionion”, with the “heos” appearing to carry a primary meaning of “until”. So, a literal translation would appear to read “until eternity / until the age”. Significantly, frequent New Testament passages that talk about “forever” use the phrase “eis ton aiona”, or “to the age / into eternity”. So, it would appear that Judith actually intended to communicate something temporal, as the action is described as happening until that age / eternity, which heavily suggests that action stops. Judith does not use eis ton to convey that it happens into eternity.

So, does the use of heos mean that translations of Judith are inaccurate, or does heos not imply “until” here?

This may be outside the normal questions this sub typically gets, so forgive me if this sounds like theology-promoting, I’m not promoting any theology here.

Universalism was one of the three views of hell that some early Christians held (the other two of course being eternal torment and annihilationism). Augustine is typically credited with setting eternal hell as the very dominant Christian view, since before him the other two views can be found fairly commonly. One of the most notable examples of universalism would be Origen of Alexandria from the 3rd century, who was condemned (anathematized) at The Second Council of Constantinople in 553. The council also includes “if anyone believes that the punishment of wicked men and demons is only temporary, and that one day a restoration (apokatastasis) will take place, let him be anathema” (paraphrasing). Some scholars have debated whether or not the condemnation of belief in universalism is original to the actual Council, or if it was slightly later added in, but what is agreed on is Origen was condemned (although again here, that’s debated whether or not his universalism had much to do with it or if it was more so with the preexisting souls idea). Regardless of the mechanics, some early Christians opposed universalism enough to anathematize it, whether authoritatively or not.

All that said, Gregory of Nyssa was another early universalist, but he doesn’t appear to have been controversial in any sense as he was a strong defender of Trinitarianism, and today is venerated as a saint by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches (also in Oriental Orth., Lutheranism, and Anglicanism). Combining these two, we appear to have a view which more Christians eventually became hostile towards, while simultaneously having a highly respected man never fall out of favor after his death.

So, is there any method by which we can measure the question as to why Gregory of Nyssa still remained highly respected after his death while universalism as a whole received very negative pushback towards The Church eventually? This seems either very inconsistent among early anti-universalists, or I’m just missing key historical points that would’ve already helped me find an answer.

Area of manuscript copies is something I’m very unfamiliar with. That said, I know the Septuagint was composed in roughly the 2nd century BC and the Masoretic text (which is the basis for some OT English translations today) is a document from (at the earliest) the 7th century AD. There are differences between the two - one example being Isaiah 53:10, where the Masoretic is much more aggressive than the Septuagint on that specific verse.

All that said, is there any way we can determine which of these is closer to the original OT texts, and which would be a more beneficial use for English Bible translations?

As I’m sure most everyone in here knows, most scholars agree that 7 of Paul’s epistles were definitely by his pen. The other 6, however, are disputed, with some considering them pseudonymous forgeries (these being 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians). I am looking to see if anyone has gathered resources on the reasons for some scholars claiming forgery on these 6, and also perhaps some pushback from the other side which considers all 13 of Paul’s letters authentic?

I have an automatic 2005 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 with 105k miles and the code for system too lean has been coming on (P0171 and P0174), the only noticeable thing is a check engine light and possibly a slightly weird idle at start up. This has been how it’s been since around December (or so), and I’ve cleaned out the gas tank by putting recommended products in it (by a mechanic) and also by changing the air filter. Last mechanic said the injectors themselves look good too.

This isn’t causing any major problems, but what else could possibly cause the system too lean code to be thrown?

I guess this question is more 2-part:

Do we have any idea of whether or not 1st century Jews accepted the apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books as part of The Canon of The Old Testament?

And although opinions were diverse in early Christianity, do we know whether or not a smaller/larger amount of Christians considered the apocrypha canon early on? (I know Athanasius rejected it, and Jerome did at first, but I haven’t gotten far past those two).

Ive seen all 3 sides of the views of hell claim Athanasius taught their view. From On The Incarnation 4:

“the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again”.

However, he then adds:

“It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself”.

That top quote is interpreted by some as Athanasius being a conditionalist, however On The Incarnation 9 makes that idea a challenge:

“through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all”.

This can sound universalist at a first glance since it uses almost positive-sounding language, but I find that there’s problems with this too. Because in his third festal letter he says:

“have the due reward of their folly, since their expectation will be vain through their ingratitude; for there is no hope for the ungrateful. The last fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, awaits those who have neglected divine light. Such then is the end of the unthankful”.

So it would seem that he thought of death as a universally bad thing for all mankind, yet didn’t affirm universal salvation. A (slightly) careful reading of him appears to place him in the eternal torment camp, but I’m wondering if anyone in this sub thinks a stronger case can be made for him being a universalist (or even less likely but still possible an Annihilationist).

How does the scholarly consensus look regarding annihilationism and eternal torment in respect to New Testament teachings? For the record (as a Christian) I personally think the NT is consistently Annihilationist, and there’s Christian scholars and theologians on both sides of this. But in regards to the overall, does it appear like a lot of scholars take Bart Ehrman’s view that annihilationism is consistently taught in the NT, or do more believe that eternal torment is the consistent view? Or a third option where some NT texts are Annihilationist and others indicate eternal suffering?