Jesus would not have been considered a Pagan Gentile by his hearers, not only because the Jews had been writing books about Hades for some time (I can look up verses in Maccabees and Esdras if you want me to), but also because he literally does preach a Hades-fire sermon, in Matthew. Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his deeds of power had been done, because they did not repent. ‘Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, on the day of judgement it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that on the day of judgement it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you.' ~ Matthew 11.20-24 I also agree with you that he didn't mean what we often think of as Hell, at least in the literal sense, but I don't know I agree with your conclusions. Sure, Hades wasn't a very fiery place (Gehenna is probably the closest thing to modern hell we can use, with lots of pain and heat). Pop culture Hell is still somewhat of a modern conception of the afterlife (middle ages-ish), so you're right in that sense, but I think it conveys the mood of what Jesus wanted to convey - that it's not a nice place. Some say it's literal fire and brimstone. Some say it's the absence of God. Regardless, we can all agree it's not a good time, and so Jesus was a Something-Fire preacher, when he needed to be.
The opinions in this thread are perfectly consistent with Anglicanism. The opinions on both sides. One of the beautiful things about Anglicanism is that it gives a wide amount of scope on matters like this. The Anglican Church is a very broad church and is home to all sorts. For specific evidence though, the original position of the Church, as expressed in the 39 articles, is in favour of the majority opinion expressed in this thread. In specific: IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, φρονημα σαρκος, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin. XV. Of Christ alone without Sin. Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as Saint John saith) was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Yeah, no. I love how the 39 articles are wheeled out when convenient and ignored the rest of the time. Anglicanism did not begin with the 39 articles; it derives from Celtic Christian presence in Britain long before St Augustine of Canterbury arrived to insult our priests, which is the very reason we were able to dispense with control from Rome. Our faith is grounded in Christ, not the 39 articles.
This is a thoroughly pedantic response. Yes our faith is grounded in Christ, that's why everyone Silvan is arguing with has been quoting Christ. Silvan's question was on if the position he was arguing with was an Anglican one, and so naturally the 39 articles are a very appropriate tool to demonstrate that the arguments are indeed consistent with Anglicanism. You can say a position that is not consistent with the 39 Articles is also Anglican, obviously, but it would be absurd to say the 39 Articles are not Anglican.
Excellent. I was aiming for thoroughly pedantic. Result! It also happens to be thoroughly true, does it not? Try to say otherwise, I double dare you. Actually, Zach, I can say anything I like. However, I didn't say they aren't Anglican, only that they are relevant to pretty well nothing much at all.
How's that for pedantry? I said that the idea of original sin and that we need to seek salvation not avoid damnation is accepted Anglican thought. You decided to rebut my comment, apparently not to say I'm wrong but to instead say the 39 Articles are relevant to "pretty well nothing much at all". What is the value of that if you don't disagree with my conclusion? Surely by agreeing with my comment that is evidence that, even if they're not relevant to much, they're at least relevant for demonstrating the 39 statements in them are Anglican. Why bring it up in the first place? I don't know what offence I could have caused you in the less than 24 hours you've been a member of this forum, so I don't know what pleasure you could get from arguing with people you said you agree with.
Agreed: I had missed that one Matt. 11:20-24. What Jesus preached was certainly that his hearers had a choice to make, throughout life. Either Enter the Kingdom of God, if they were not already in it, OR remain outside it and fail to attain it, even though it had been available to them all the time while they were on earth. Further more, the choice involved their actual behaviour, towards HIM and their earthly neighbours, not necessarily just their religious beliefs or affiliations. .
Jesus is the one who said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16). Jesus is the one who said, He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already (John 3:18). If anyone disagrees, he is welcome to argue with Jesus at the judgment. (I can picture it now: "Jesus, I feel like you enjoy the idea of condemning people.") Good luck with that.
Pedantic? Excuse a little smile. That posting was anything but pedantic. I might tell you what I think pedantic.
You mean: "The Lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne!" >>> https://www.poetspress.org/Chaucer-Parliament.html <<<
I think you will find that all Christians talked like this for thousands of years, until maybe 80-70 years ago. Yes even in your Germany, in the early 1900s, you can still find people who talked about damnation and hell and repentance. This is one of the most central topics of Christianity, because if there is no hell, then there is no need for redemption, is there? If we are good already, then we don't really need Christ, do we? And thus with your 'humanistic' Christianity, you are effectively preaching a kind of atheism. Which is why people are becoming atheistic in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe). They are intelligent people, and have simply connected the dots: without the unpleasant topics, there is no need for Christianity.
To that I say: People talk a lot when the day is long. Btw: Germany does not belong to me. I might call it my home country, but not "my Germany".
Are you really saying that people need to be terrorised into believing or else? I am not sure that is the Gospel, tbh.
No, what I'm saying is that people believe something only if they have a reason to. For thousands of years, the reason that Christians gave for this belief, is that without Christian truths, there would be awful consequences. I don't know if that's terrorism in your view. If your room is on fire, is it terrorism for me to raise a ruckus to get you out, upsetting your morning tea in the process?
There are many things that were taught for thousands of years which are not now considered worth teaching any more. Love, mercy and compassion; these are the messages which can lead to Christian truth. There is simply no need for 'awful consequences' if not.