This man has some interesting thoughts. He seems to be a universalist. https://creationconcept.info/VH/VH-index.html
In objecting to and challenging Wright’s prêterism Cox states the following…
Preterism was the preferred approach of rationalist German critics of the nineteenth century,…
Prêterism was also the preferred approach of many nineteenth century Universalists… something seemingly lost thereafter.
Cox goes onto say…
The notion that the sayings of Jesus about Gehenna were all fulfilled in the events of 70 AD naturally tends to support universalism, but such conclusions would be based upon flawed assumptions.
As for Cox’s disputation of Arthur Pink’s linking of Gehenna with the lake of fire also falls well short of the obvious connections Pink actually demonstrates.
@davo I haven’t read all his articles. Is he a purga U?
I haven’t read enough of him to know. He does with regards to gehenna however, and the assumption infernalists tie to it make this simple, succinct and brilliant argument with regards to…
Jer 7:31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart.
What kind of father subjects his own children to roasting in a fire? According to Jeremiah, the Jews did it. The idea of unending infernal torment of the wicked is similar, except for the duration of the victim’s suffering. In the latter case, according to the traditional view, it is the soul, rather than the body, that is subject to torment. And the suffering is prolonged, to be unending, or eternal. But the prophet Jeremiah said such a thing had “never come into God’s heart.”
@davo apparently he’s not a preterist. What are your thoughts on this?
edit: @maintenanceman what do you think of this guy’s argument?
whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.
This warning is part of the Sermon on the Mount, given to an audience consisting of his own chosen disciples, not the people of Jerusalem. Jesus also said:
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the fire of Gehenna.
IMO, Wright’s claim that when Jesus referred to Gehenna he meant the destruction of the city by the Romans in 70 AD does not hold up under scrutiny. How could the Jews as a nation pluck out their eye? Who was their brother? These warnings Jesus gave about Gehenna would make little sense, unless they applied to individuals. And Jesus indicated he was not telling people how to save their lives, when he said, “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” [Matthew 16:25]
Matthew 16:25 literally says:
For whoever may desire to save his soul will lose it. But whoever may lose his soul for My sake will find it. For what will a man be benefited if he should gain the whole world, but forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?
Soul might refer here to one’s comfortable lifestyle in line with Matthew 10:38 “And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
Jesus actually warned people to save their lives, in Matthew 24:16 “then let those who are in Judaea flee to the mountains;” however this might refer to the end times.
It could be considered metaphorical? You worry too much. Loosen up.