The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Fact Checking--Ancient Christian Schools Taught Universalism

Evangelical Universalism
#43

Questorius,

I’ll share my idea of God’s purpose in all of this that should make more sense out of the arguments you just gave to Gabe.

Near-death experiences sometimes take the person back to the time before they were born. One man experienced being in heaven again and choosing from three lives. He chose the most difficult of the three lives and was then sucked into it. He said he saw himself travel at incredible speed down to earth and into his mother’s womb. He described what she and his father were wearing and the market place they were at, among other things. He told this to his parents (he was an adult at that time) and they said, “We know exactly the day you’re talking about.” They told him they remember it because it was a special day and event in India and their clothes and the location were the clues to that. They remembered it and he described it perfectly. They were amazed because they’d never told any of that to him. There are tons of stories like that from NDEers (Near-death experiencers). So the verse in Jeremiah where God says He intimately knew Jeremiah before He put him in his mother’s womb was likely talking about the time before Jeremiah chose the life he’d go into on this earth. When we choose our life, the people say they have a pretty good idea of what will happen in their life, but when they choose it and end up going into their mother’s womb, they forget their past life in heaven. But it’s interesting that the people who have the more typical NDEs where they end up in heaven often say, “I remember being here before and choosing to come to earth to learn.” So their past life in heaven begins to come back to them. There’s another verse that says, “Remember Him before the silver cord is severed.” In Eastern culture, the “silver cord” means the umbilical cord attaching us to God, because they believe we came from heaven (that’s in ancient belief…more modern Eastern belief is a bit different on this…they’d probably just say the cord connects to the spirit realm). And Jews actually believe that a person can choose to live multiple lives here in order to learn more each time. So the original concept of reincarnation isn’t anything like the more modern karmic reincarnation that keeps people in an endless cycle of reincarnating to clear karma.

So imagine we’re in heaven with everything provided for us. Psychologically speaking, if we have everything we need that completely fulfills us, then we have no need to sin. The whole reason we sin is because we want to feel better. Period. There is no other reason. But if we feel amazing all the time, completely content, then there is no need to feel better. That’s why everyone in heaven is without sin–there’s no need for it. God’s love, which provides all we need, literally burns out all sin by providing everything a person needs to be fulfilled. That’s likely what the divine fire of the Lake of Fire is symbolically talking about, and it’s how Satan and the demons are purified.

Now, if we’re in heaven and have everything we need, how will we learn? Sure, we can learn like we do in a classroom, but honestly, is learning in a classroom the same as hands-on experience? Go ask anyone who’s learned in a classroom and then had to go out and do the job their self for years–see if they tell you the incredible difference between the two. One is more theoretical and has no real interweaving with the heart and emotions, while the other has actual experience and emotional weaving to it. Intellect and information are cheap–it’s the physical action and real-world experience that really build lasting memories and wisdom. The reason we chose to come to earth to learn is because we wanted hands-on experiences so we could actually grow our hearts, not just our intellectual information set. Nothing is a substitute for real, hands-on experience. How can one truly know pain and suffering if one hasn’t truly experienced it himself? And how much more empathetic are those who have experienced those things directly as opposed to those who haven’t? Experiences like that direct people’s lives and hearts.

So what you’re calling evil in the world and judging as “bad,” would be called dysfunctional by the Ancient Hebrews and would not be judged at all. It would be a more practical term of classification for survival’s sake. There would be no good and evil in the world the way we think of those things in Western culture. Instead, there would be function and dysfunction, and the world would be our school to grow our hearts. The language of the heart is story and body language. What better way to affect the heart than to thrust it into the story directly?

That’s my belief on why we’ve been created and why there’s dysfunction in the world. We chose this. God’s controlling it, but we chose to come here. That’s a necessity of unconditional love. It never forces a person’s freewill. God gave us a choice and we agreed to it so we could learn. But if He hadn’t wiped our memory of our past life in heaven, we wouldn’t have learned much here because we would’ve known God would take care of everything while we’re here. We would’ve been connected with Him and completely content and perfect while here. So He memory wipes us and then we’re up s**t creek without a paddle. LOL People who have those NDEs say they chose to come here because when they were in heaven before, this life was like the blink of an eye for them and they had endless courage, as well. So why would we pass up a chance to grow our heart which would make us even more like our Father?

That’s why the Bible shows God as a balance of chaos and order, the Creator of peace and darkness, with perfect loving intention as He controls the world. We’re actors who signed on to do a movie but forgot, and so we think the movie is real…but the Director is controlling everything and we’re gonna be just fine–even Atheists. lol :wink:

Does that make more sense out of the suffering in the world and why God would do it this way? Does it squarely place the responsibility on our choice to come here rather than the Christian idea of God thrusting us into this existence against our will? In my opinion, it makes the Bible finally make perfect sense without contradiction (besides the petty things you mentioned before that are typical of human memory issues).

#44

I enjoyed reading your post, but honestly, it didn’t convince me. I can tell that there are many significant differences between our worldviews, and so I’d have to write a really in-depth response to allow you to understand where I’m coming from philosophically. Unfortunately, I won’t have time to comment here again until the beginning of July. But some things that you and others said in this thread did pique my interest and so you can be sure that I’ll be back some day :grinning:

There’s just one thing you said that I can’t help but highlight right now:

So you’re saying that if the most evil (i.e. dysfunctional :wink:) person is given everything they could ever want, they will become perfectly good? When I first read that, I started laughing. But… on second thought… maybe it’s true.

#45

Can you provide sources for these statements please?

1 Like
#46

What a discouraging thread. Despite all my mental torment throughout my life, for the past 23 years I have had an underlying hope that the early church did indeed hold universal salvation as true. But now I see cracks in this. My suspicion that I’ve held since childhood that all is bad may really be the truth. At least if Christianity is true.

Where is the “good news?”

#47

You stated long ago when this was a new thread that the schools of Christianity back in the first few centuries A.D. weren’t actual institutions of learning as much as schools of thought cultivated by clergy in certain areas. That’s actually incorrect, or more specifically misrepresented.

The four of the six schools of Christianity were in fact full institutions of learning with a building, materials, classes, etc. And every one of those taught universal salvation. The two that were more like you described–mere schools of thought taught by theologians–were the only two “schools” that didn’t teach universal restoration and didn’t have buildings or materials or classes. One taught eternal conscious torment and the other taught annihilation. Eternal conscious torment didn’t become popular until Augustine made it popular in the 5th Century. Before that, it wasn’t widely held. We have several 19th Century scholars attesting to that.

I agree that we have to figure out which schools had the most influence. Again, according to 19th Century scholars, universal restoration appeared to be what most believed. But let’s take a look at the real Christian Church as opposed to the Catholic Hijacked Christian Church that everyone seems to think was the main bastion of Christianity back then. Nestorius taught at one of the four schools mentioned, and he believed in universal restoration. Nestorian were eventually anathematized by the corrupt Catholic Church on account of a ridiculous disagreement on an aspect of Christ’s nature. It’s like the Catholics were trying to come up with something just to oust Nestorians. Read the difference between the early Greek Church Fathers and the later Latin Church Fathers. The Greek Church Fathers were amazing individuals while the Latin Church Fathers were degenerate scum. So no wonder they got rid of the Nestorians.

But here’s the thing…the Nestorian Church went on to spread all across Asia. Kublai Khan’s three grandsons married three Nestorian women. Nestorian Christianity spread so well that they massively dwarfed the Catholics. The Nestorians were so successful because they didn’t have the corrupt Catholic Church hindering them and their teachings. Nestorians spread until the end of the 14th Century when a Khan ascended the throne and that day announced that he was converting to Islam. That put a quick halt to the Nestorian growth and signed their death certificate.

What I find interesting is that God kept His true Church going through the Nestorians after the Catholics destroyed the old ways of the Church. And as soon as the Nestorians were on a major decline, God continues His Church in the newly-rising Protestant reformation. Only difference was that the Protestants were coming out of Catholicism, so they didn’t know Hell was temporary to get people back to Heaven.

So universal restoration was taught for well over 1400 years. All that remains of the Nestorians now is a single church in Syria, I believe.

In the 1800s, Dr. Edward Beecher proved conclusively that the word we translate as “eternal” doesn’t mean eternal. It means “of the world to come,” referring to the place a person goes after they die: the afterlife. So “eternal” judgment and punishment are in the location of eternity (the afterlife), not the duration of eternity.

Also, both in Hebrew and Greek, the words judgment and punishment are both corrective terms. Therefore, they cannot last forever.

I highly recommend Dr. Beecher’s book A History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution. Great book. He puts our modern scholars to shame.

#48

Read my post just below your post. I’ve learned a lot since I originally started this thread. One of the things I learned is that Questorius was wrong about the schools of Christianity all being just schools of thought. Read my response. You’ll be glad you did.

#49

Sources? Sure, look up Jeff Benner’s work on his website Ancient Hebrew Research Center:

https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-words/good-and-bad.htm

Benner is one of the only people in the states who disseminates the latest translation research findings from Israel, where they’re about 50 years ahead of us in translation research. Several Hebrew professors use Benner’s material to teach their classes. Tons of them thank him on his website. He’s well respected. I love his stuff.

#50

So are the histories and books posted at Tentmaker, Hanson’s, Beecher’s, etc., trustworthy? That’s where I came across CU so many years ago after a nightmarish experience with fundamentalism.

#51

Hey there, I have to admit I overstated my point a bit. There were actual schools of course. We could even speak of universities in places like Alexandria or Antioch. I didn’t deny that in my post, but I put emphasis on the schools of thought. Now, some writers dealing with the history of the church possibly put more emphasis on the literal schools, but I would argue that from the facts about those literal schools universalists jump to unjustified conclusions about the whole Christendom – e.g. 4 universalist schools, 2 non-universalist, therefore the majority of Christians were universalists.

The first thing is that these schools were primarily intended for catechumens, they were catechetical schools after all. Catechumens are those who want to become Christians, but haven’t received baptism because they first have to receive instruction in essential Christian doctrines and show that they want to lead a virtuous life. Catechumens are instructed by teachers called catechists. Origen was one such catechist. BUT do you think universal restoration was among the doctrines that he taught to the prospective Christians? It wasn’t. In his homilies for catechumens there can even appear expressions that hint at a hopeless punishment, but there are also purgatorial statements, although these are usually applied to the believers, or just to the baptized and not to sinners universally, and there’s certainly no hint of redemption of the demons. Origen apparently feared to proclaim universalism lest people would sin. Moreover, universalism was probably not considered an essential Christian doctrine. It’s not like the Alexandrian university had a statement of faith where universal salvation expressed.

My point here is that there probably were quite a few Christians who were taught by universalists but didn’t become universalists themselves because their teachers didn’t share their universalist beliefs with them. By the way, there had to be Christian schools of some sort in many places because converts everywhere would be instructed before baptism. Converts from France or Spain could have hardly all gone to Rome or even further east for instruction. They were taught by Latin clergy although their lessons did not take place in big universities. That’s why I think that listing catechetical schools with universalist teachers is no big proof that universalism was universal in the early church. I still believe that pointing out what Christian writers at the time wrote is the surest evidence of early Christian beliefs. After all, ALL those men were teachers in one way or another, directly or indirectly, of other Christians.

#52

As for the claim that eternal torment wasn’t widely held before Augustine in the 5th century, I have to ask how wide is wide? I mean, the doctrine can be clearly found in the works of: Tatian (Syrian), Tertullian, the author of this work (written in Greek), Minucius Felix, Cyprian of Carthage, Lactantius, Hilary, John Chrysostom (Greek). And this may not a comprehensive list; I just listed off the top of my head the men of whom there can be no doubt that they taught it (although I concede in the case of Chrysostom that perhaps he didn’t believe it in his heart of hearts). The upshot of this list is that eternal torment was quite popular among Latin writers before Augustine, and that the teaching was to some degree present among Syrians and Greeks as well. Now, this doesn’t mean that eternal perdition was the “prevailing teaching of the first 500 years”, but I think we can’t claim it was marginal before Augustine either.

Furthermore, let’s make a list of people whose works clearly teach universalism before the 5th century: Bardaisan, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the author of the Book 2 of Sybilline oracles, Gregory of Nyssa, Diodore of Tarsus, Dydimus the Blind, and Titus of Bostra. I could come up with 8 people just like when I listed clear supporters of eternal torment. I think that supports the idea that I have had for a long time – different views existed among early Christians for centuries without any of them clearly prevailing. As for the universalists, there were of course also the people close to Origen, like Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alexandria etc. who probably believed in restoration, but their works perished or do not show this conclusively.

P.S. I forgot to mention Eusebius of Caesarea and Evagrius Ponticus, other clear universalists.

1 Like
#53

I also have to say that to blame outsting of Nestorius on the Latin Fathers is incorrect. The Nestorian controversy took place predominantly in the East and the main opponent of Nestorius was Cyril of Alexandria. Moreover, I fear you’re painting with way too broad a brush when you say: “The Greek Church Fathers were amazing individuals while the Latin Church Fathers were degenerate scum.” It reminds me of the rhetoric of Hanson’s universalist book. I like to read Origen’s and Gregory of Nyssa’s works, but I also read a bit of Cyprian of Carthage and I wouldn’t call him degenerate scum. Nor would I say that of Augustine. I loathe his ideas of the inherited original sin, damnation of the unbaptized children, unconditional predestination, and eternal torment, but I don’t think he was evil, just misguided.

#54

Hey Andre -

This is one of he many compliations of a Forum like EU :frowning: For some people these matters are purely academic - and that’s fine. But for others here it’s a matter of maintaning their mental health. What to do?

Much sympathy with you. Hanson was a rather good historian - he bases his conclusions on dilligent reasearh into the primary sources that were available to him in the late nineteenth century. Some of this anlaysis has proved faulty in the light of later disoveries - for example his view that certain of teh Gnostic sets were universalists is certainly mostly wrong - but that’s always the case with history.

The issue in this thread seems to be about whether his contention that Universalism was the 'prevailing dotrine of the Church in the first five hunderd years was correct. I don’t think any historian today would phrase it quite like that. Ramelli - who is the leading historian of universalism today - is content to point out that key Universalists were enormoulsy important in the first fivee hundred years, it was a widespread and acepted form of the faith,. and it is wrong to think on universalism as a heresy. I’m a universalist and that’s plnty enough to give me any confidne I derive from history :-)…

Blessings to you and to those you love :slight_smile:

#55

Well, I’ve never found anything questionable at Tentmaker, but I haven’t spent a lot of time on the site.

I purchased both Beecher’s and Hansen’s books online. I have one of Beecher’s and one of Hansen’s on my phone, and I have another Hansen book in hardcover.

Beecher’s book lays out his case so thoroughly, I don’t see how anyone could refute it. It’s conslusive on regard to the fact that the word eternal doesn’t mean eternal as a durational adjective but as a locational adjective. I highly recommend it.

It’s important to point out that the words “punish” and “judgment” and “eternal” are all translated directly from the Hebrew into the Koine Greek of the Septuigent (Old Testament in Greek). This gives us a very good understanding of the Greek used in the New Testament as long as we understand the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

In Hebrew, the word “judgment” is a good thing. It means to find a problem hindering a person or society and remove it so that the person or society can grow, mature, and flourish. It’s basically the same as pruning. It might hurt, but it’s correctional, for a helpful purpose.

The root of the word “punishment” in Hebrew is “to prune.” So again, we see the same concept as judgment–correctional pruning.

The word “eternal” in Hebrew is owlam. It literally means “over the horizon.” They were nomads, so their language centers around that life. They didn’t know what was over the horizon until they got there, and they didn’t like to comment on things if they didn’t know them for sure. So if they wanted to express a future time and place, they’d use owlam. In the context of judgment, the word usually meant where you’d go (afterlife/spirit realm) after (time) you die; a future time and location.

Fire in the Bible is usually divine fire–God Himself–and is shown to purify. The burning bush was God and its fire didn’t consume the bush. The pillar of fire that led the Iraelites out of Egypt was divine, possibly God Himself. The fire on Mount Sinai was God. In Isaiah 6, during his vision, a seraph touches a burning ember/coal from beneath God’s throne to Zechariah’s lips an says that it purifies him complete. Jesus says everyone will be salted with fire. Fire has always meant purification in the Bible in the context of spiritual matters. The Lake of Fire passage is completely mistranslated. It should be the pond of fire, and it’s using a similar word picture to Solomon’s word picture of a pond of fire that purifies.

I highly recommend a YouTube channel by a pastor who puts together short videos on different aspects of Universal Restoration. He didn’t believe it a few years ago but while doing a video about it on his channel, he ends up coming to the conclusion that the belief could actually be true, and he didn’t expect that. So he delved into the evidence and found a lot of it and became completely convinced of it. He does a great job in his videos. I put them on 1.5x speed to get through them more quicker. The YouTube channel is called The Total Victory in Christ:

You can find a lot of the information above at Benner’s site. Beecher shows some of that information, as well, in A History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution. And that YouTube channel has a lot of it, as well.

So all of those words I mentioned above were used in the Septuigent from Hebrew to Greek. We take those meanings from the Hebrew and can apply them to the Greek New Testmant for some solid word meanings.

It’s also important to understand that there were two common terms that the Pagans and Pharisees used to speak of an eternal Hell of torment. Jesus didn’t use those terms. If He wanted to clearly convey eternal torment, He would’ve used the most common, clear statementa of the day. He didn’t. Instead, He uses corrective terms.

Also, God doesn’t warn anyone about an eternal Hell they need to avoid for thousands of years according to the Bible. If it were such an important thing to avoid and so horrible, God has to be the most irresponsible, unloving God. How wicked is it not to mention it to Adam and Eve so they can avoid it? The sheer lack of mention of it defscss God’s character horribly. And the sheer existence of it in a fiery and eternal form also would deface His character horribly. But a temporary, correctional place after you die that gets everyone back to Heaven fits God’s forgiveness and unconditional love displayed in the Bible perfectly.

And one last thing: did you choose to whom you were born? Where you would be born? What religion you’d be raised in? How you’d be raised? What would happen to you in life? No. You didn’t choose any of those things. And yet those are all of the things that shape who you are, how you make your choices, what religion you’re in or aren’t in, how you view Jesus, and whether you’ll accept Jesus or not. So whether you accept Him or not in this life is not your fault. If you’d grown up in Saudi Arabia or Buhhdist China, you’d have a very different view of Jesus and you’d never have accepted Him. So why would God torture you forever for something that’s not your fault? The Bible says He shapes us like clay, that He raised Pharoah for this purpose (the stuff he did) and that He hardened Pharaoh’s heart. King David said, “All of my days were written in Your book before I lived even one.” Not recorded but written, like an author. Solomon said in Proverbs, “A man plans in his heart but the Lord directs his steps,” and in another verse he says it’s not for a man to direct his steps and that the Lord does that.

When one really looks at the solid evidence, universal restoration becomes incredibly clear. I’m just sharing information, not trying to convince you. The information speaks for itself, but it’s not really my job to convince anyone of my beliefs because if I’m wrong, I’ve done them a disservice.

Good luck with your research!

#56

You are talking about the doctrine of ‘reserve’ here I think. Origen and many of the other early universalists thought that teh doctrine of Apokatastasis should only be shared with Christians who were already progressd somewhat in asetical self discipline. Yes the rationale that to discolose it to those lacking in uderstanding might lead then into antinomianism.

#57

I think you’re correct to a degree about the Latin Church Fathers. I did make that statement a bit too broad.

Augustine…well…there’s some information I have on him that really makes me question his motives. I don’t really want to discuss it here. It’s very possible he was misguided, but it’s hard to say. There was some incredible Paganism at work in the Catholic Heirarchy from its inception and the founders were fully aware of it and purposely complicit in it.

I apoligize–I did use the wrong wording for those who ousted Nestorius. What I should have said is that the Church in the time of the rise of the Latin Church Fathers was much more degerate. Times had changed quite a bit from Origen’s day. I’ll have to be more clear next time. Thanks for reminding me.

#58

Sobornost,

I’ve heard that before but I’m not convinced of it. It’s possible that was believed by some for only a time. And I don’t think Nestorius was that way, and my beliefs just happen to line up far better with Nestorius than Origen.

I could be wrong, though, of course. Hard to say with so many writings lost. It’s like we’re missing puzzle pieces and may not be seeing everything that’s there. Some pieces are important but missing.

#59

I don’t disagree with you, exactly. I don’t think the schools teaching Universal Restoration are proof. They’re just evidence.

I think the best evidence is the language used and the sheer lack of warning about Hell for thousands of years in the Bible.

Regarding Origen, we’re translating his statements from the Greek using the same lack of understanding of the words eternal, judgment, fire, and punishment. And Beecher gives excellent evidence that nearly all “punishments” spoken of in the Bible are for the temporal realm, not for the afterlife, and yet people incorrectly apply them as such. So when examining Origen’s statements, knowing the proper translations of their words, knowing their sayings back then, knowing their mindset, and knowing the applications of their words to their different concepts is key. I think that’s why scholars very possibly misunderstand Origen when he speaks of teaching new Christians about eternal torment. Wording and sayings are everything. We’re 1700+ years removed from their culture. It’s a very different world now. And we see evidence of the Catholics of the distant past altering and falsifying some of the historical documents when comparing them to other writers on the same subjects. It’s hard to know the truth exactly about those teachers’ writings. That’s why I think the psychology of God and humans and the consistent expressions of unconditional love and restoration are a very strong argument. I hadn’t seen anything on universal restoration before I figured out the psychology of it all and knew for certain God would never punish people forever. It’s not rocket science. But it’s so much harder for people to break out of old brainwashed beliefs as opposed to learning something new and fresh without having to overcoming brainwashing. (I don’t mean severe or purposeful brainwashing, of course. Just speaking of hearing the same thing over and over growing up–that’s what’s hardest for people to break out of.)

#60

Hi Brian - Origen actually states that this is his method/reason for reserve somewhere (I can’t find the reference at the moment but I know that he does). The pedagogy of reserve is one of the issues that we need to take into account when reading other Church Fathers according to Ramelli. Just because there are teachings by them for some audiences that seem to suggest they believed in eternal torment, you’d have to look at the whole scope of their writings to discern whether they were universalists.

Apart from the Book of the Bee - which is certinaly universalist - and the beutiful Chinese Nestorian Sutras - that seem

#61

If I may comment on the books about early universalists, I found Beecher’s book to be one of the most objective on this topic whereas Hanson’s misses the mark quite a few times, but Beecher’s seems pretty reliable.

But if I can advise you something, don’t trust books. Trust yourself above all. Don’t trust me either. Trust your reason and your feelings. I can just present my opinions and convinctions. Make of them what you will.

Regarding “the good news” of Christianity, I’m no longer a Christian, but as I understand it, the good news (the gospel) is that the kingdom of God is at hand: “Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”” (Mark 1:14-15) The kingdom of God is something that people enter (Matthew 21:31). But at the same time, it is already within you (Luke 17:21). Or as Gregory of Nyssa put it: “Divine good is not something apart from our nature, and is not removed far away from those who have the will to seek it; it is in fact within each of us, ignored indeed, and unnoticed.”

When it comes to the question of what was the original belief about future punishment, or which belief was the most widespread, I just don’t know, I really am not sure. Nevertheless, it is certain, as Brian pointed out, that the word translated as eternal really doesn’t mean eternal (or at least not always). That word is αἰώνιος (aionios). It was used in Romans 16:25 to say how long the mystery of Christ had been hidden: χρόνοις αἰωνίοις (=times aionios). This is usually mistranslated as “since the world began” because it’s clear that those times were not endless because Christ didn’t stay hidden forever. Now in the very next verse (Romans 16:26), we read of αἰωνίου θεοῦ (=aionios God). God is immortal, so translations render aionios as everlasting here. So on one hand we have finite aionios times, but on the other the infinite aionios God. It’s evident that aionios which is used in Matthew 25 with punishment and life doesn’t prove that both punishment and life have to last just as long. You can also take a look at this: in the ancient Greek translation of Habakkuk 3:6 and 3:7 you can see βουνοὶ αἰώνιοι (aionios hills) and πορείας αἰωνίας (aionios ways) next to each other. Now let’s look at the NKJV translation of Habakkuk 3:6: “He stood and measured the earth; He looked and startled the nations. And the everlasting mountains were scattered, The perpetual hills bowed. His ways are everlasting.” The aionios ways of God will have no end, but the aionios hills don’t exist absolutely forever.

So, I think there’s no proof Jesus taught endless torment. He may well have referred to finite punishment when speaking of a prison where people may be thrown till they pay “the very last mite” (Luke 12:59) or “the uttermost farthing” (Matthew 5:26) or “all that is due to them” (Matthew 18:34).

#62

Something else that’s important to note is that the Sophists say eternal conscious torment in fire was created by the priests on Ancient Egypt to control the masses. It’s a Pagan belief that wasn’t seen in Judaism before they began allowing false gods into their society under Solomon. That’s very telling. And the Pagan roots of Catholicism and their strong affinity of Pagan symbols, temples, and practices strongly suggest Pagan influence in their use of eternal conscious torment. But again, hard to know. Dr. Rivera’s testimony of being a Jesuit priest operative is quite amazing and revealing about certain aspects of the early Catholic Church. The Secret History of the Jesuits shows tons of the Catholic Church’s later activities. (Jesuits didn’t come into being until the 16th Century)