Apostles of Ephesus

According to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Church, Mary Magdalene went to Ephesus along with the Mother of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple.  Gregory of Tours, the first historian of Medieval France, agreed with that tradition.  But later a tradition developed that Mary Magdalene (and eventually others with her) came to southern France.  And much later that would get tied into the modern Holy Grail Bloodline mythology.

Naturally I consider the older Eastern tradition more likely to be true.  But I'm curious about how these kinds of traditions develop.  Why would French mythographers choose Mary Magdalene over one of the 12?

With Britain I feel there is evidence that a Christian community popped up there in the first century.  But with Gaul a Christian community doesn't seem to show up till the second half of the second century.  And the oldest one was in Lyon, where it seems the first Christians of Lyon came from Ephesus.  Pothinus and Irenaus, the first two Bishops of Lyon were students of Polycarp, who was believed to have been a student of John.  And contemporary with them, the Bishop back in Ephesus was Polycrates, who is interesting for a few reasons.  Also the Bishopric of Vienne, another location in southern France, is said to go back to Crescens who Paul mentions in II Timothy 4:88-10 as being on a mission to Galatia.

So maybe the later tradition comes from this community of Christians seeing Mary Magdelene as a founder of theirs back in Ephesus?

There are debates about if the assumption that John son of Zebedee is the Beloved Disciple is true.  No one doubts the three Canonical Epistles attributed to John were written by the same authors as The Gospel, but the author of those Epistles doesn't name himself either.  Revelation is the only John book thought to be by a different author, and only it identifies it's author as being named John.

I've been thinking for awhile about what my position on that is.  I'm obviously not for any that say the text has been changed somewhere, so that rules out the Mary Magdalene theory.  And I think it is someone probably not mentioned by name in the Gospel According to John, so that rules out Lazarus.

The idea that it was a disciple in Jerusalem, usually not involved in what was going on in Galilee and thus not one of the 12, I think is viable.  If it's the person who owned the house they had the Last Supper in, then that would likely be the man holding the pitcher of water in Luke 22:10.

One thing I've considered is, John was a very common name back then, maybe it was a different person not in the Twelve but also named John?  And that explains why a different author would be confused with John.

John 18:15-16 implies the Beloved Disciple is known to the High Priests.  Acts 4:6 lists a John among the kindred of the High Priests.   Also interestingly the Samaritan High Priest during the time of Jesus was named Johnathon, but I doubt that is who it is.  Actually it's highly probably the John of Acts 4:6 is Johnathon son of Ananias who had two shorts administrations as the High Priest in 36-37 and 44 AD.

In a supplemental portion to a post on my Prophesy blog I suggest that it was a different John who came to Ephesus, John the Presbeter.

Polycrates is considered the oldest source on John being the Beloved Disciple.  Here is the letter he wrote as transcribed by Eusebius.

"We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumeneia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man'...I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."[Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter 24]

When referring to Philip he specifically said he was one of the Twelve.  But he doesn't say that for this John who did what the Beloved Disciple is described as doing in John 13:23-25.  Just calls him a  Witness and a Teacher.  The Beloved Disciple witnessed both the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Side note, some people may think Polycrates here is an early example of confusing Philip of the Twelve Disciples with Philip the Evangelist simply because daughters are mentioned.  Philip the Evangelist had four daughters (Acts 21:8-9), Polycrates only mentions three for this Philip.  And these three daughters are not specifically described as having been Prophetesses.  Paul said all of the Apostles but him were married (1 Corinthians 9:5), so it's perfectly plausible that both Philips had daughters.

On the other hand I myself am not entirety against a theory that both Biblical Philips were actually the same person.  No passage mentions both by name together.  I get why people assume Acts 6 allows no overlap between the Twelve and the Seven.  But remember in John chapter 12 the Philip who is of the Twelve serves as the contact between Greek Speaking Jews interested in Jesus message and the Twelve.  So Acts 6 could just be him still playing that role.  And Stephen is mentioned first even over one of the Twelve because he became the first Martyr, while when Acts was written Philip's Martyrdom may not have even happened yet.  In that context you may wonder why Polycrates only mentioned three daughters?  Well he was only mentioning people who died in Asia Minor (or the Roman Province of Asia), maybe the fourth died somewhere else?  And it is interesting that for both Philips the traditions about their careers post existing the book of Acts takes them to Asia, though different cities, yet Polycrates knew only one Asian Philip to reference.

Back to Mary Magdalene.  Every Gospel but Luke doesn't mention her till the Crucifixion account.  In Luke she's mentioned in Luke 8 briefly.  This lack of information is probably why it's so popular for writers to fuse her with other characters.  Maybe she was married to the Beloved Disciple?  And that's why she traveled to the same place that he and Mary the Mother of Jesus did?

You may wonder then why Polycrates didn't mention either Mary?  Maybe it was a little bit of Sexism, he didn't mention any women by name, and perhaps only mentioned daughters of Philip as they further back up the citing of Philip.  Or maybe given the agenda of this letter he didn't mention people who didn't keep the Passover on the 14th, or at least who he couldn't prove did.

Update August 17th 2017: Another interesting note is that the Tarasque, the monster Martha of Bethany tamed in France according to the Golden Legend, was said to be originally from Galatia, another region in Asia Minor.  If you think Fate/Grand Order has something to do with that popping into my head right now..... you're correct.

What does Lawlessness mean in the New Testament?

You know Gamaliel II (Not to be confused with the first who was Paul's mentor before his conversion) was the first person to use Matthew 5:17-18 to undermine the Christian message of Liberty from the Shackles of the Law.  Babyl. Talmud Sabbath, p. 116

 Imma Salom was the wife of the Rabbi Eliezer, the sister of Rabban Gamaliel. Among his acquaintances was a “philosopher” who had the reputation of being incorruptible. They wished to make him ridiculous. Therefore she [Imma] brought to him a golden candlestick, and said: “I desire a part of the family property.” He answered them: “Divide it.” Then he [B. Gamaliel] said: “It is written for us [Numbers 27:8] that, where there is a son, the daughter inherits nothing.”. He answered: “Since ye were driven from your land the law of Moses is abolished, and there is Avon-gillajon [Evangelium = the Gospel], in which it is written, ‘Son and daughter shall inherit together’.” On the following day he [E. Gamaliel] on his own part brought him a Libyan ass. Then he replied: “I have searched further in the Avon-gillajon, and it is written therein: ‘I, Avon-gillajon, have not come to do away with the Thora, but to add to the Thora of Moses have I come.’ And it is further written therein: ‘Where there is a son, the daughter shall not inherit’.” Then she said: “Thy light shineth like a candle.” And E. Gamaliel said: “The ass has come, and has attached the candle”

It's possible that by The Gospel the entire New Testament was meant, and the basis for this Christian's argument was where Paul said There is neither Mal nor Female.   So remember, every time you see a Hebrew Roots person using this part of Matthew with the intent of undermining the clear teaching that some things are different under The New Testament, that is an argument that originated with a Rabbi whom Rabbinic Judaism reveres to this day.

The context of what Jesus said here is clear.  Matthew 5:17-20.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

The set up for the Sermon on the Mount is about the impossibility of living by the Law.  All who try to be justified by it will fail.  Except for Jesus who was without Sin, He fulfilled The Law by living a perfectly Torah observant life for us, and then taking our punishment for us.

And also, that not one Yot or Tittle will pass away shows that God's Word will exist, will be preserved, as it has been in the Masoretic and Textus Receptus texts.

These individuals like to emphasize verses that use the word Amonia, commonly translated Iniquity in the KJV but more accurately should be Lawlessness.  But they want to treat it like it means Atimonia, against the Law.

Matthew 7:21-23.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

The people accused of Iniquity were those doing good works, they were doing the main good work Jesus commanded his Disciples to do, casting out Demons.  People want to to go to completely different books of The Bible to decide what the "Will of The Father" means here.  Many things are His will, we're told it's His will that none should Perish.  But His will here is perfectly explained in it's own context, we are to know Jesus, to have a personal relationship with Him.

What we see here is consistent with Matthew 5, the main people Jesus condemns for Lawlessness are those who are trying to justify themselves by The Law.  This is repeated in Matthew 23:28 "Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.".  And this is Paul's Point in Romans 2 an 3, rebuking those who agree with the rhetorical rant that ended Romans 1.

And yes, I think that applies even to Paul in II Thessalonians 2 saying the Son of Perdition will work Iniquity.  There is plenty of evidence that the Antichrist will actually create a Torah based system, as I talked about in The Antichrist may not be as Popular as we assume, and in one of my Babylon posts.

Some people will translate 2 Peter 3:17 in a way to make it seem like it uses the word Amonia or Lawless.  But this is a completely different word that I feel the KJV was correct in rendering Wickedness. So no, it doesn't help us determine what he meant by Paul being misunderstood in the prior verses.

Now again, I view keeping The Law as good.  What I am against is trying to make other Christians feel obligated.  We are to be lead by The Holy Spirit, not by Ink and Paper.

There were a variety of views in The Early Church

Back when I just believed in Eternal Security, I expressed annoyance at those who act like a view didn't exist in the Early Church if apparently no "Early Church Fathers" advocated for it.  When those same people refereed to lots of views existing besides their own.

There is no Biblical support for a notion that the majority will be right.  But even so who's to say the Church Fathers were the majority?  The warning against the Doctrine of the Nicolatians tells me that those who'd obtain that title should not be inherently more trusted.  But they were the only ones who could write and so their sides of the arguments are what were preserved.  We have no way of knowing how much the people in their own flocks even agreed with them.

I want to quote from a "Church Father" who I disagree with possibly the most of anyone, who's soterology certainly is not mine, being the prototype of Calvinism.

 St Augustine (c.354-43): "There are very many ('imo quam plurimi', which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29)

This is backed up by Basil.

St. Basil the Great: (c. 329-379): "The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." (De Asceticis)

Augustine of Hippo in his work City of God: Book 21 Chapters 17-22 describes six views on eternal punishment he disagrees with.  The first two are forms of what we would today call Universal Reconciliation.  The next three are forms of "Once Saved Always Saved".  The last one is something of a works salvation view.

Chapter 17.— Of Those Who Fancy that No Men Shall Be Punished Eternally.

I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man's sin. In respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent; for he believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered from their torments, and associated with the holy angels. But the Church, not without reason, condemned him for this and other errors, especially for his theory of the ceaseless alternation of happiness and misery, and the interminable transitions from the one state to the other at fixed periods of ages; for in this theory he lost even the credit of being merciful, by allotting to the saints real miseries for the expiation of their sins, and false happiness, which brought them no true and secure joy, that is, no fearless assurance of eternal blessedness. Very different, however, is the error we speak of, which is dictated by the tenderness of these Christians who suppose that the sufferings of those who are condemned in the judgment will be temporary, while the blessedness of all who are sooner or later set free will be eternal. Which opinion, if it is good and true because it is merciful, will be so much the better and truer in proportion as it becomes more merciful. Let, then, this fountain of mercy be extended, and flow forth even to the lost angels, and let them also be set free, at least after as many and long ages as seem fit! Why does this stream of mercy flow to all the human race, and dry up as soon as it reaches the angelic? And yet they dare not extend their pity further, and propose the deliverance of the devil himself. Or if any one is bold enough to do so, he does indeed put to shame their charity, but is himself convicted of error that is more unsightly, and a wresting of God's truth that is more perverse, in proportion as his clemency of sentiment seems to be greater.

He mentions Origen, but distinguishes Origen from most who hold views like this for reasons partly similar to what I expressed in the supplemental part of the post I made yesterday.

Now when I had long ago on forums dealt with enemies of Eternal Security on the subject of the parts I'll get to later, one who emphasized the "Pre-Nicean Fathers" said Augustine is post-Nicean.  In this case we see with Origen that who he speaks of existed before Nicea and Constantine.  And expressed things in a way where it seems like Origen's version didn't come first, since he went further with it.  If Origen came before the others he'd have said they didn't go as far.

There is no source outside Augustine for saying Origen was condemned for this.  He wasn't formally condemned at all till later then Augustine.  And Origen's earliest critics were far more concerned with his other more Platonic teachings.  It is in those areas that Augustine rather resembles Origen suspiciously enough.

Chapter 18.— Of Those Who Fancy That, on Account of the Saints' Intercession, Man Shall Be Damned in the Last Judgment.

There are others, again, with whose opinions I have become acquainted in conversation, who, though they seem to reverence the holy Scriptures, are yet of reprehensible life, and who accordingly, in their own interest, attribute to God a still greater compassion towards men. For they acknowledge that it is truly predicted in the divine word that the wicked and unbelieving are worthy of punishment, but they assert that, when the judgment comes, mercy will prevail. For, say they, God, having compassion on them, will give them up to the prayers and intercessions of His saints. For if the saints used to pray for them when they suffered from their cruel hatred, how much more will they do so when they see them prostrate and humble suppliants? For we cannot, they say, believe that the saints shall lose their bowels of compassion when they have attained the most perfect and complete holiness; so that they who, when still sinners, prayed for their enemies, should now, when they are freed from sin, withhold from interceding for their suppliants. Or shall God refuse to listen to so many of His beloved children, when their holiness has purged their prayers of all hindrance to His answering them? And the passage of the psalm which is cited by those who admit that wicked men and infidels shall be punished for a long time, though in the end delivered from all sufferings, is claimed also by the persons we are now speaking of as making much more for them. The verse runs: Shall God forget to be gracious? Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies? His anger, they say, would condemn all that are unworthy of everlasting happiness to endless punishment. But if He suffer them to be punished for a long time, or even at all, must He not shut up His tender mercies, which the Psalmist implies He will not do? For he does not say, Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies for a long period? But he implies that He will not shut them up at all.
And they deny that thus God's threat of judgment is proved to be false even though He condemn no man, any more than we can say that His threat to overthrow Nineveh was false, though the destruction which was absolutely predicted was not accomplished. For He did not say, Nineveh shall be overthrown if they do not repent and amend their ways, but without any such condition He foretold that the city should be overthrown. And this prediction, they maintain, was true because God predicted the punishment which they deserved, although He was not to inflict it. For though He spared them on their repentance yet He was certainly aware that they would repent, and, notwithstanding, absolutely and definitely predicted that the city should be overthrown. This was true, they say, in the truth of severity, because they were worthy of it; but in respect of the compassion which checked His anger, so that He spared the suppliants from the punishment with which He had threatened the rebellious, it was not true. If, then, He spared those whom His own holy prophet was provoked at His sparing, how much more shall He spare those more wretched suppliants for whom all His saints shall intercede? And they suppose that this conjecture of theirs is not hinted at in Scripture, for the sake of stimulating many to reformation of life through fear of very protracted or eternal sufferings, and of stimulating others to pray for those who have not reformed. However, they think that the divine oracles are not altogether silent on this point; for they ask to what purpose is it said, How great is Your goodness which You have hidden for them that fear You, if it be not to teach us that the great and hidden sweetness of God's mercy is concealed in order that men may fear? To the same purpose they think the apostle said, For God has concluded all men in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all, Romans 11:32 signifying that no one should be condemned by God. And yet they who hold this opinion do not extend it to the acquittal or liberation of the devil and his angels. Their human tenderness is moved only towards men, and they plead chiefly their own cause, holding out false hopes of impunity to their own depraved lives by means of this quasi compassion of God to the whole race. Consequently they who promise this impunity even to the prince of the devils and his satellites make a still fuller exhibition of the mercy of God.

This view seems to be based on saying no one even temporarily enters the Lake of Fire.  The logic of it I do like and understand and can play a role in my argument.  But I'm still more like the first group.

Augustine seems to be confused by the notion of allowing Universal Reconciliation to all humans but not including The Devil and Fallen Angels.  I'm not entirely sure what I think on that issue.  But the difference between them and Human Beings is Human Beings are Blood Relations of Jesus as children of Adam.

Chapter 19.— Of Those Who Promise Impunity from All Sins Even to Heretics, Through Virtue of Their Participation of the Body of Christ.

So, too, there are others who promise this deliverance from eternal punishment, not, indeed, to all men, but only to those who have been washed in Christian baptism, and who become partakers of the body of Christ, no matter how they have lived, or what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. They ground this opinion on the saying of Jesus, This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. John 6:50-51 Therefore, say they, it follows that these persons must be delivered from death eternal, and at one time or other be introduced to everlasting life.

Chapter 20.— Of Those Who Promise This Indulgence Not to All, But Only to Those Who Have Been Baptized as Catholics, Though Afterwards They Have Broken Out into Many Crimes and Heresies.

There are others still who make this promise not even to all who have received the sacraments of the baptism of Christ and of His body, but only to the Catholics, however badly they have lived. For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only sacramentally but really, being incorporated in His body, as the apostle says, We, being many, are one bread, one body; 1 Corinthians 10:17 so that, though they have afterwards lapsed into some heresy, or even into heathenism and idolatry, yet by virtue of this one thing, that they have received the baptism of Christ, and eaten the body of Christ, in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the Catholic Church, they shall not die eternally, but at one time or other obtain eternal life; and all that wickedness of theirs shall not avail to make their punishment eternal, but only proportionately long and severe.

Chapter 21.— Of Those Who Assert that All Catholics Who Continue in the Faith Even Though by the Depravity of Their Lives They Have Merited Hell Fire, Shall Be Saved on Account of the Foundation Of Their Faith.

There are some, too, who found upon the expression of Scripture, He that endures to the end shall be saved, Matthew 24:13 and who promise salvation only to those who continue in the Catholic Church; and though such persons have lived badly, yet, say they, they shall be saved as by fire through virtue of the foundation of which the apostle says, For other foundation has no man laid than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day of the Lord shall declare it, for it shall be revealed by fire; and each man's work shall be proved of what sort it is. If any man's work shall endure which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. But if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 They say, accordingly, that the Catholic Christian, no matter what his life be, has Christ as his foundation, while this foundation is not possessed by any heresy which is separated from the unity of His body.  And therefore, through virtue of this foundation, even though the Catholic Christian by the inconsistency of his life has been as one building up wood, hay, stubble, upon it, they believe that he shall be saved by fire, in other words, that he shall be delivered after tasting the pain of that fire to which the wicked shall be condemned at the last judgment.

Now to the people I alluded to before who say this doesn't prove Eternal Security existed before Nicea.  Well for one I have a quote of Origen I'd mentioned in an old post where he attacks people who seemed to believe in some form of Eternal Security.

But I'd also say that Augustine wasn't that long after Nicea, it's silly to suggest three different forms of this could develop entirely in that short a period of time and become significant enough for Augustine to find worth addressing.

Chapter 22.— Of Those Who Fancy that the Sins Which are Intermingled with Alms-Deeds Shall Not Be Charged at the Day of Judgment.

I have also met with some who are of opinion that such only as neglect to cover their sins with almsdeeds shall be punished in everlasting fire; and they cite the words of the Apostle James, He shall have judgment without mercy who has shown no mercy. James 2:13 Therefore, say they, he who has not amended his ways, but yet has intermingled his profligate and wicked actions with works of mercy, shall receive mercy in the judgment, so that he shall either quite escape condemnation, or shall be liberated from his doom after some time shorter or longer. They suppose that this was the reason why the Judge Himself of quick and dead declined to mention anything else than works of mercy done or omitted, when awarding to those on His right hand life eternal, and to those on His left everlasting punishment. Matthew 25:33 To the same purpose, they say, is the daily petition we make in the Lord's prayer, Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 6:12 For, no doubt, whoever pardons the person who has wronged him does a charitable action. And this has been so highly commended by the Lord Himself, that He says, For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15 And so it is to this kind of almsdeeds that the saying of the Apostle James refers, He shall have judgment without mercy that has shown no mercy. And our Lord, they say, made no distinction of great and small sins, but Your Father will forgive your sins, if you forgive men theirs. Consequently they conclude that, though a man has led an abandoned life up to the last day of it, yet whatsoever his sins have been, they are all remitted by virtue of this daily prayer, if only he has been mindful to attend to this one thing, that when they who have done him any injury ask his pardon, he forgive them from his heart.

And that last one is a works Salvation view basically.  Easy enough to refute.  But Augustine's objection to it is the opposite of mine.

Chapters 23-27 are Augustine giving his counter arguments to these.  I don't feel like addressing those here, maybe in a future follow up post.  Needless to say much of it comes down to Augustine not knowing Greek and going by flawed Latin translations of Aionion as Eternal.

My objective today is just to show that a variety of views existed.

KJV Only Universal Salvation!!!

I've already done a post on the Words Translated Eternal.  But that is obviously not going to matter to the most absolute KJV onlyists.  And this remains the top reason that KJV onlyists are among the most difficult to convince of a Universalsit argument.

This post isn't just for KJV only people however, but anyone who refuses to accept the specific Translation Error arguments that Universal Salvation proponents make.  These issues all have their roots in the Vulgate and were inherited by Luther's German Bible and all early English Bibles, and probably also French Bibles.  So I can understand refusing to accept that the True Gospel was inherently incompatible with the only Bibles the Western Church had for well over a Thousand years.

The KJV says "Endless" only twice, in neither does it refer to judgment or punishment or torment. 1 Timothy 1:4 is about genealogies and Hebrews 7:16 is about Endless Life.  And it is only things like Jesus' Kingdom that are described as being "without end".

It is still in the KJV that "Hell" is cast into the Lake of Fire and yet elsewhere the Lake of Fire seems to be what is called "Hell".   There is more then one Bethlehem in he KJV, and more then one Kadesh.  So likewise there can be more then one place called "Hell".

What we've overlooked is that there are different ways to define "Eternal" and Everlasting which is a synonym for Eternal in the KJV.  I've seen many non Universalist Christians (like Chuck Missler) define "Eternity" as being not unlimited or endless time but as being outside of time.  And so remembering how I showed back before I was a Unviersalsit that the fire of the Lake of Fire comes from God.  Perhaps there is room to define the Fire of Gehenna and the coming Judgment as Eternal because it comes from Eternity, and not as an indication of how long it lasts.

Which can again be backed up by how the KJV translates Jude 7.

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

That Fire is not still raging in the Dead Sea area today.  And again Ezekiel 16 assures us that Sodom will be restored.  And Jude 6 uses Everlasting of the angels' chains while also telling us that imprisonment will have an end.

If it's the Fire being described as Eternal or Everlasting, that's because the Fire is from God in Revelation 14, God is a Consuming Fire.  But Malachi 3 explains the fire is to purify and purge, same as 1 Corinthians 3.

And in some verses maybe the key to the Universal Salvation interpretation isn't even how Aionion is translated but how to understand other words in those passages.  Take the KJV of Matthew 25:46.

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

This verse doesn't even mention fire or Gehenna it just says the Punishment (for other verses remember Damnation meant judgment or punishment in 1611) is everlasting.  Well in the Ancient world a common Punishment was Exile or Banishment.  Which is consistent with my argument that "Outer Darkness" means outside New Jerusalem.  Now the fire is mentioned earlier in verse 41, but again sometimes exile or banishment was in addition to a more brief physical chastisement.

Other options for the Punishment or Judgment could be a loss of Citizenship or inheritance, or maybe losing a reward you'd previously earned.  Whatever it is it needs to be understood in the context of the KJV telling us in Habakkuk 1:12 that God's Judgment is for Correction, and Psalm 30 that his anger is for but a moment.

Even in the KJV no Torment or Torture is ever directly described as Eternal or Everlasting.

And the only place where "for ever and ever" is used in connection to the judgment of normal humans is Revelation 14:11 where it says the Smoke goes up forever, terminology also used of the Judgment on Babylon in Revelation 19:3 drawing on Isaiah 34:10 showing it can be used of a temporal judgment.   It is in Revelation 20:10 only used directly of the Devil's sentence to the Lake of Fire, though The Beast and False Prophet being there is mentioned.

And a lot of popular Universalist Proof texts I absolutely default to quoting in their KJV version, from Romans 5&11 to the things Jesus said. And as such my other posts on this blog tend to use the KJV when I quote them, or I had the KJV in mind if I only referenced them without directly quoting.  In fact with 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 the KJV version is the most explicitly Universalist version, other translations of those verses try to allow some wiggle room, but the KJV says God "Will have All Men to be Saved" and is "not willing that any should perish" no ifs ands or buts about it.

Luke 2:14 is also very Universalsit in the KJV in a way that's undermined by how others say it should be translated.

KJV onliers who oppose Universal Salvation arguably have a little hypocrisy on this issue.  Because most KJV onliers, especially if they're also Baptists, teach that we're not under The Law anymore, that it was done away with because it was Fulfilled by Jesus.   But the KJV of the Pentateuch and other parts of the Hebrew Bible tend to say The Law and the Aaronic Priesthood and the Feasts and the Sabbath will be "forever" or "perpetual".  The Hebrew uses Olam, the Hebrew equivalent of Aion which means Age, and so many of us point that out, but the KJV onliers can't do that.  But the KJV in the New Testament has Jesus say that the Law and the Prophets were until John, and Paul says that we're now in the age or dispensation of Grace not the Law, and that the Law was a curse and imperfect.

Maybe God's Judgment/Punishment/Damnation(Which meant Judgment in 1611) on Sinners is described as seemingly forever for the same reason The Law was?  A Judge can issue a Life sentence that is latter commuted, but that doesn't make it wrong to say the sentence was for life.

Or if you argue all those Torah Laws are still Forever because they are Fulfilled in Jesus, then the entire point of the Penal Substitutionary view of Atonement is that all the ordained Punishment for All Sin is fulfilled in full in what Jesus suffered on The Cross.

And I find it interesting in this context that the post Reformation revival of Unviersalsit thinking largley started in the English Speaking world, after the KJV was published.  With men like Gerrard Winstanley.  Many claim the Geneva Bible was still popular during this era, but being as that was a Calvinist production I highly doubt it translated Aionion/Aionos or the Hell verses differently then the KJV.

[Update December 2024: I've defended form a Universalist perspective the use of the word Lake.]

So, I think a Universalist interpretation of even specifically the KJV is perfectly viable.

Everything below this point is really not the main topic of this post and is really a giant Post Script.

Is Universal Salvation Pagan?

Naturally, enemies of Universal Salvation want to make it sound like a Pagan belief system.  But this is a manipulation of the facts.  I can say firmly that few if any Ancient Pagans believed in what I mean by Universal Salvation.

In Egyptian mythology the souls of the sinful were devoured by Ammit.

Greek mythology taught the opposite of Unviersalism, it taught that there was no hope of escape from Hades for anyone.  That is the ultimate moral of the story of Orpheus.  And my refutation of those Christ-Mythers who say the Christian doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell is just copying Orpheus, is to say that Orpheus failed to free his Bride from Hades, Jesus succeeded.

Now you can call that "Universalist" by looking at it as everyone has the same fate basically.  But The Gospel as I view it was originally a deliberate rejection of the philosophy that death is a natural part of life we just need to accept, which was also the moral of the Epic of Gilgamesh, or Izanami's fate in Japanese mythology.  The Gospel is the promise that ALL will be freed from Sheol.  Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 15 that Death had no Sting and Hades has no Victory.

And this is part of why I view Tolkien and Lewis as very Paganized Christians, both have death existing even among races supposedly not effected by The Fall.  In Tolkien's Arda mythology Death is Man's Gift not a punishment, which the Eldar seem to envy even though they can die, they just aren't guaranteed to.  And with Lewis, Out of The Silent Planet is supposed to present his view of what an unfallen world would be like, and depicts Death as a natural part of creation.

And people also want to link Universalism to Plato, even though the most openly Platonic Church Father, Augustine, was also the harshest enemy of Universalism.  Plato taught a form of post death punishment in Gorgias, but I've heard conflicting things on if it was endless.  But the key philosophical error either way is it ties into Socrates teaching of the Soul being separated from the Body at death, there was no Resurrection.

Platonic philosophy is tied to Gnosticism and any other belief that there is no Physical Bodily Resurrection, that the Resurrection merely refers to the liberation of our Spirit/Soul from the material world.  In counterpart to that Webster Tarpley, a Catholic and Plato fanboy, accuses Gerrard Winstanley of believing in "Dead Souls", what he leaves out is Gerrard Winstanley was a Universalist, he believed all will be Resurrected to Eternal Life.  I don't think one's view on how conscious the Soul is between death and resurrection is that important, it's one's view on the Resurrection that is vitally important.  Platonic philosophy allows no bodily resurrection, and Augustine as the first Amillenial laid the groundwork for a Christian version of that.  Plato (like Origen) may have been nicer then Augustine in not condemning some Souls to eternal torment, but he didn't allow any a true Resurrection.

The understanding of the After Life held by casual Christianity, which forgets that our ultimate goal is the restoration of this world, that simply sees it as the good go to heaven and the bad to hell.  Is actually Zoroastrian in origin.

Islam is totally incompatible with true Unviersalism.  The closest they can come is believing that Jews and Christians, the People of the Book, can achieve Salvation without becoming Muslims.  But they allow no such hope for people outside of the Abrahamic tradition.

The ability of modern Pagans (and I define modern here as starting with the Renaissance), including the modern understanding of Shintoism that we often see reflected in Anime, to be willing to be Universalist is something I view as possible only because of Christianity's influence on the world.  But even then the idea that Death is a natural intended part of how the world works often remains.

The Christian position on Walls

Ephesians 2:14

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us

Is Islam an inherently violent religion?

Lots of people cite the Koran and Hadiths to make a strong case that it is.  Others respond to them insisting the actions of Terrorists are not supported by Islamic doctrine at all.

I already talked a bit about Sura 9 in The Koran says the Land of Israel belongs to the Israelites.  Where I explained that the portion of that Sura cited to make Islam seem violent and Anti-Semitic is just about Arabia, which was all Muhammad intended to conquer.

David Wood is a Christian who posts a lot of videos on YouTube criticizing Islam.  He's studied the Islamic sources a lot so I find his videos very informative.  But he has a bias for wanting to interpret the evidence as negatively for Islam as possible.  And he seems to be a Trump supporter.  So it's important not to simply take his word for it on anything.

But sometimes even he acknowledges that the Koran verses used by Jihadis to support Terrorist attacks on Western Nations, state that they're justified because Western Nations are doing Mischief in Muslim lands.  Like in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfa7KkDQPvg

So in other words, completely agreeing with what Ron Paul was saying about Blow Back.

So that makes the Islamic teaching different from the Christian one, as we are supposed to turn the other Cheek.  But not seemingly too different from the Old Testament though, where how Samson went out is quite indistinguishable from a Suicide Bombing.

You can debate the above paragraph if you want.  But point is it's not that unreasonable for a religious text to encourage fighting back against an oppressor.  After all the Founding Fathers were Terrorists to the British.  As also the Maccabees were to the Greeks.

The thing is that regardless of how much their religious texts do or don't support it, the current situation the Islamic World is in encourages violent rebellion.  They spent centuries oppressed by the Ottoman Turks and then had their maps stupidly redrawn by the English and French after World War 1.

Under the Caliphs the Islamic World was pretty peaceful and prosperous and civilized compared to Europe at the same time.  The Islamic World is what it is now because of what Europe has done to it.